Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure you are! All of your post lead one to believe you are a social liberal!
No, I would NOT have to pay additional fees to a plumber. I might miss a half-day of work before he calls me to say he won't make it to my house, but that's all. AND I will still get paid for being off that half-day.
I don't know, whose fault do YOU think it is? The employee's fault for having a low-paying job? The employer's fault for not paying a better wage or providing sick days?
How do you think employers will change their hiring practices in order to be extremely cautious about whom they hire? You mentioned that several times, but have not explained how employers will be more cautious. Will they be asking for a potential employee's medical history? The name of their doctor? Receive access to their medical records? Will they interview family members, friends, and neighbors?
???
All my posts are not about social issues. They are fiscal issues.
You never got the plumber example. You are the employer of the plumber for the sake of that project. What are you talking about staying home for the day? The plumber is working for you. So if he misses a day, do you pay him for his sick day?
Employers would just employ fewer people. And they may also just not expand their business all that much if there is too much strings attached. Businesses have already become much more cautious. They will probably use more automation.
Well you really can't because it's the slow creep..ACA, family leave, and now paid sick days.
Add them all up and it becomes such a burden on employers that they turn to illegals who will work for NO BENEFITS at all.
And then unions complain that immigrants "took our jobs". Our labor cost is high and the people keep making it higher.
If not for immigration, we would have already become a dysfunctional socialist society.
Yes, there can be. And there can be even paid. The point here is to not tell employers what to do at a detailed level. If Google doesn't offer lavish benefits, they will not get the best employees. Some corporations will give out "progressive" packages, and I support their decision if it's good for their business.
I think to a certain extent, there should be sick days where employees won't fear being fired simply because they are sick for just a day. This applies primarily to low skill workers, as most middle class workers do already have accumulateable vacation days.
Getting paid for it is a different thing. I would leave that up to each business to decide. and don't mistakenly assume that employers would then all refuse to pay sick days. The market does have an effect. The more attractive your policies are, the more likely you will get the best, the most loyal, and the happiest workers. That is good for business. If I am a manager, I would offer sick days. I won't Fire someone just because they are truly sick for a day, unless its some sort of emergency situation.
I agree, getting paid for it is a different thing. I'm not sold on the idea that an employee should get paid if they take a sick day, just that they should be protected from being fired for it.
I don't know, whose fault do YOU think it is? The employee's fault for having a low-paying job? The employer's fault for not paying a better wage or providing sick days?
Now you're wading in to far deeper waters than just the sick-day issue. You can't blame the employer for offering a low paying job. People making low wages agree to work for those wages, and if they don't think they make enough, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. If they are not qualified enough to obtain a higher paying job, then that is their fault, and it is up to them to learn a skill that will increase their earning potential. Employers are not responsible for paying their employees a "livable wage", and no one is "owed" or "entitled to" a livable wage for getting the minimum amount of education and putting in the minimum amount of effort.
I have no idea where this notion that everyone is "entitled" to a livable wage came from. It's called "earning a living" for a reason. If you get the minimum amount of education, do the minimum amount of work, put in the minimum amount of effort, etc. then you'll get the minimum amount of payoff. Tat's what's fair.
I work in the food and beverage industry. And yes, I've seen managers send home workers when they were too sick to continue working. But I've also seen co-workers use their sick days as spontaneous personal days, and every year use up every single sick day allotted to them... as personal time off... as if it were owed to them. I don't like liars.
There will always be people who try and take advantage of the system. Why do the people who have a legit reason for calling off of work have to suffer because there are knuckleheads who abuse the system?
Are you honestly saying you've never called off for a bogus reason?
Well you really can't because it's the slow creep..ACA, family leave, and now paid sick days.
Add them all up and it becomes such a burden on employers that they turn to illegals who will work for NO BENEFITS at all.
Why not try addressing the real problem by holding those employers who hire illegals feet to the fire?
There should be a mandatory minimum of a $10,000 fine per illegal for a first offense for companies caught with an illegal in their employ, and $100,000 fine for subsequent offenses.
Pass that law and watch how fast employers get rid of illegals.
First off, how is giving additional sick leave for mothers and mandating sick leave for private companies a "Nanny State" proposal? Remember the nanny state is defined as...
Quote:
Nanny state is a term of British origin that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice. The term "nanny state" likens government to the role that a nanny has in child rearing. An early usage of the term comes from Conservative British MP Iain Macleod who referred to "what I like to call the nanny state" in his column "Quoodle" in the December 3, 1965, edition of The Spectator.
NOTHING in the law is nanny state. It is giving employees PTO who might not have had it or giving more to expecting and recent mothers who need more (high risk pregnancy, recovery, sick kid, etc.)
The same wikipedia definition of "Nanny State" goes to say for the US...
Quote:
United States
Although the term is undefined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it has entered use in the United States over the past decade by some political commentators. For example, in 2006 Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research think tank used the term to describe conservative policies that protect the income of the rich; conversely, the term is also used in an at-large sense against the perceived legislative tendencies of Liberal political ideology, with examples such as progressive banishment of tobacco smoking and the enactment of mandatory bicycle helmet laws. David Harsanyi used the term to describe food labeling regulations, the legal drinking age and socially conservative government policies. Another example of criticism was the response to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's May 2012 proposal to restrict the sale of soft drinks in venues, restaurants and sidewalk carts to 16 ounces.
The soda ban I disagree with but smoking bans, helmet and food labeling laws are for public good and individual good. My uncle died of lung cancer after smoking for thirty or so years (starting sometime before the risks were known.) Luckily he didn't have a long battle as he died three months after diagnosis) so he wasn't too much of a healthcare drag as oppose to others who live for several years. Those who live end up tying resources. As for helmet laws, they are meant to further reduce healthcare costs as by me not wearing a helmet should I get into an accident, I can have a more serious injury (and need PTO if I was hurt.) As for food labeling, you don't have to read them, it's not mandated that you have to read calorie counts at McDonalds or on a Coke bottle, just that it is widely available for those that want it. The soda ban I disagree with because of the slippery slope of 16 ounces (similar to a sales taxes that it may be raised down the road from 16 ounces to Dixie cup sized.) Also compared to a smoking ban and a helmet ban, there's no direct exernality that comes from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
And what will employers do..."Well Hello Mr. Illegal. Would you like a job with us ?"
Yeah until they get busted like Danny's Family Car Wash get busted for falsifying documents of illegal immigrants and face federal charges. Federal agents raid Phoenix-area Danny
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
That won't happen and you know it.
Our government turns a blind eye to those that employ illegals off the books.
Really, then why did the aforementioned Danny's Family Car Wash get busted in pro-business Arizona? IMO they get busted, they should lose their business license because as of right now there is no true punishment for a crime that victimizes the economy by taking jobs and giving them to people who are illegally in the country AND help them skirt federal laws to get them real work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
LOL..in the case of school teachers and other school, city, county and state workers YOU are the job creator so YOU will be paying more to cover the additional 2 days.
Yes but it's also the issue of do you want your kid getting sick because the teacher can't call in sick because they fear losing out on that day's pay when they need it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
You realize though that you will pay for it for the public sector.
You will also now pay for 12 weeks paid leave instead 6 weeks.
The burden does not just fall on the private sector employer but also on the American taxpayer for the public sector and all levels from the city up to the Fed.
True, but as I mentioned before there's negative externalities that can be a problem. For example, my kid is in your class and has chicken pox while you haven't and you don't need the chicken pox vaccine, I send my kid in because I believe you only don't go to school if you are bed ridden and you get sick, technically me a tax payer is at fault for raising school costs. Then again schools aren't the smartest with sickness because for the longest time Strep Throat got you 5 sick days when in reality you were not contagious after a day with medication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
School budgets in Texas are done per district paid for by local property taxes.
Arizona isn't like that, it goes off of state budget alone while New York was both local school taxes and state education budgets. Not all states have a single method.
I don't want sick people working. Do you want someone with the flu making the food you eat, or the utensils used to eat it with, etc.? Do you think a sick worker is productive?
BTW...
Quote:
On average, the flu will last five to 10 days.
People are contagious up to two days before symptoms appear and five to seven days after onset.
Medical professionals recommend people stay home from work or school as long as you have a fever, cough or sore throat.
So even if a person who is showing flu systems stays home from you, you're still exposed to their flu germs.
So even if a person who is showing flu systems stays home from you, you're still exposed to their flu germs.
For two whole days that someone would have no idea before trying to work through it due to lack of PTO. And people wonder whether this is a good idea or not...
Your posts reek of the type of elitism that I've come to expect from a person who's long since lost the sense of what it's like to be on the bottom rung of the ladder. You probably hold an upper management position, maybe you even own your own company or are some big shot executive.....
What people in those positions soon forget though, is that for every CEO, for every CFO, for every company president or vice president, there are 100 others on the bottom that make their cushy little office job possible. Maybe you have a job that makes you feel "valuable" to society, but you OWE your job to those who make it possible. Those you callously brush off as being "not valuable enough to society" to be worthy of the benefit of a day off when they get ill. ( seriously??? ) Sure, your success only happened because of your own ambition and drive to accomplish something, and because you probably worked hard to get where you are, but that doesn't change the fact that if not for the people who break their backs on the bottom every day you wouldn't have had a ladder to climb. If not for the Janitors, the cashiers, the stock boys, the maintenance men, and the otherwise hard working, hourly, blue collar workers, the pencil pushers of this country wouldn't have a pot to %^&& in. THOSE are the people who are the MOST "valuable" to this country, to this economy. THOSE are the people behind the scenes who keep things going, and THOSE are the people we're talking about here, and THOSE are the people who consistently get the least amount of credit and recognition.......
"Your system" doesn't "honor" anyone. In fact, it is decidedly devoid of any "honor" whatsoever.
Hey, Whipper, thanks much for recognizing me as a big shot, company-owner type. Your powers of observation are keen.
I disagree, however, that I am out of touch.
The muscles I built working at one of the most strenuous jobs in the country while a high school and college student, nearly four decades ago, recently had a physical therapist ask me just how I got that way--where did those muscles come from? I have NOT forgotten where I came from--the bottom rung of the ladder. I see it every time I look in the mirror, every time I see those scars I got on that job.
My system honors everyone, with the almighty dollar, the one true measure of worth to society. (Except for those rent-seekers who have carved out positions via government power to collect more than they are worth.) The maintenance men and the stock boys earn their pay, the cardiologist and the finance professional and the plumber earn their pay as well. We each seek the best deal when selling our labor, and we sell it to the highest bidder and devote our hours to their highest and best use. If that highest and best use is not a heck of a lot of money or benefits, then guess what? If you want better, you are going to have to improve your value proposition.
There are millions of people working at modest jobs, happy enough with their modest lifestyles, not wishing for more duties or more skills or more income. They do not need the government butting in, mandating wages and benefits that would render them unemployable. Those millions are going to be the victims of your good intentions. Why don't you do them the honor of leaving them the hell alone?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And people wonder whether this is a good idea or not...
