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.
If you as an owner can't afford sick days for your employee's, you need to re-evaluate where you are spending your cash flow. I have stood infront of 30 people and told them they are not getting raises this year, it sucked and I felt like ****. I could never imagine standing in front of them and say, "If you are sick, you're SOL. No sick days, no paid sick days, it will be viewed as a no show and risk termination."
Who would want to force a sick worker, to come work for them, around their other workers; It's counter productive on just about every level. Not to mention it's uncompassionate on a level I obviously can't fully comprehend. I'm really sick of 'business' having absolutley zero moral obligation, and it being 'ok', because their only purpose is to churn out $$ regardless of the human cost. It's sad.
If you as an owner can't afford sick days for your employee's, you need to re-evaluate where you are spending your cash flow. I have stood infront of 30 people and told them they are not getting raises this year, it sucked and I felt like ****. I could never imagine standing in front of them and say, "If you are sick, you're SOL. No sick days, no paid sick days, it will be viewed as a no show and risk termination."
Who would want to force a sick worker, to come work for them, around their other workers; It's counter productive on just about every level. Not to mention it's uncompassionate on a level I obviously can't fully comprehend. I'm really sick of 'business' having absolutley zero moral obligation, and it being 'ok', because their only purpose is to churn out $$ regardless of the human cost. It's sad.
I completely agree, and that's why I specifically asked if any business owners or economists can comment. Otherwise, it's really just a bunch of hand-waving and whining about things that hardly affect us. We're talking about the equivalent of a 2.5% raise. As a business owner, shouldn't you be able to absorb and adapt to changes?
I'm a Chinese immigrant. Look at what the Chinese people put up with over the years. Japanese occupation. Communist revolution. Cultural revolution. Industrialization. Do you think we were paralyzed with complaining? No. We try not to worry about things we can't change, and work our asses off accomplishing things within our reach.
Also, I think that Americans tend to think that they created all of their success by themselves. They forget the education system that prepared them, the government services provided to them and their employees, the roads and infrastructure which allow their businesses to thrive, the courts, police, and military which protect their interests, the regulations which prevent abuse and safety risks, and yes, even the healthcare and other social nets which ensure a basic level of living. If you pay your employees a low wage to save money, for example, Medicare steps in to make that possible.
Being part of a society has certain obligations. If you think a low-regulation place like Cambodia will provide you with a better business environment, go ahead and move there. You can get away with working your employees 12 hours a day, 365 days a week! It will be heaven! But don't be surprised when you are stymied by an uneducated populace, lack of legal protections, corruption, and poor infrastructure.
I'm not saying that everything the government does is benevolent and great. I especially hate the lobbying system which basically has banks and other big business running the country. But I can't STAND people who constantly whine about the government. There are things we can't change, so enjoy your life and deal with the occasional hiccups.
4 in 5 offer personal days NOW. For the 1 in 5 that don't this bill may mean laying off employees, as too much cost pressure already exists on small businesses operating in high-cost regions. Do you wish to risk layoffs over this? Will you accept the responsibility of funding the needs of those laid off over this? Its easy to play the caring role, when the costs of unintended consequences are borne by others. Now should you be willing to bear said consequences, that changes the equation.
Yes, I would. Your argument is like saying if we lower the minimum wage by $2/hour, we'd have a 20% increase in jobs (I'm simply being arbitrary here to keep the example reasonable and use the "1 in 5" argument elsewhere). But those 20% are probably going to still need gov't assistance to get by EVEN WHILE WORKING and will probably have to "double up" in dangerous (and often illegal) living situations. Like I said earlier, there comes a point where the jobs gained (in my example) or lost (in your example above) aren't ones we should be proud to have as a society anyway. Put another way, you're virtually talking about "sweatshop layoffs" because as you said, 80% of employers offer it anyway so it's not really affecting them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
My view would be the 5 day bill should only be considered by states that rank high (as in 1-10) already for business-friendliness, with unemployment rates in the lowest fifth of the nation. Adding it in Ct's situation is like bringing in ones worst relief pitcher for game 7 of a world series, bottom of the ninth, tie game.
OK now we're getting somewhere (I saw your other post above first). I can kind of see that, like it would be GOOD to have this law, but if no other state is doing it and it's a state where unemployment is high......since you sounded "absolute" I gave a counter-point.......but I can kind of see that point, it's kind of like how unemployment insurance is 26 weeks in "good" times and 99 weeks in our current "bad" times (though with a somewhat improving economy, it's slowly eroding in that when states improve to a certain level they offer less.....like NY is down to 93 weeks and I think the really low UE states like North Dakota are down to 60 weeks or even less).
7wishes, There is no societal pride in jobs, nor should there be. That's why it comes down to priorities. Malloy said "Ct Open for Business", well show it, create a better business environment, evidenced by adding the same percentage of jobs as nation from 1990-2011 in Ct, on top of what is normally needed to offset job losses, that would mean the business climate improved dramatically. Then, and only than, should one even not snicker at a potential job-killing bill like this one.
Given Ct's record on jobs, this is like pouring fuel on a fire. DM never ran a business, as most in gov't failed to do also, and it shows-in an unfavorable way.
So i guess you're saying that Malloy never sought and obtained tax abatements and other incentives from the state to lure companies out of NY and into Stamford while he was mayor? In my world they call that "corporate welfare".
Abatements don't do squat when you raise taxes 51 new ways to the tune of 1.6 billion, and than add luny bills like this one to the list. Luring from NY is stupid, it usually is within a reverse commute of their new Stamford location, and that means few Ct residents get new jobs. Smart states lure corps from far, far away, so almost all jobs are filled by locals. Malloy was only helping his grand list, not his citizens.
Abatements don't do squat when you raise taxes 51 new ways to the tune of 1.6 billion, and than add luny bills like this one to the list. Luring from NY is stupid, it usually is within a reverse commute of their new Stamford location, and that means few Ct residents get new jobs. Smart states lure corps from far, far away, so almost all jobs are filled by locals. Malloy was only helping his grand list, not his citizens.
I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation here, but you keep obfuscating the issue with random prattlings.
The CBIA was in lock-step with Malloy, patting him on the back and telling him he was a good boy when he was bringing in new companies as mayor of Stamford. Perhaps now they've changed their opinion about how great that was?
The CBIA abhors this bill (WEB site has good discussion boards) , and DM's approval rating as Stamford mayor is 100% off-topic. They did not matter the minute he was elected governor.
Whats wrong with this bill , they do this in Europe and Asia and seem to be just fine. Infact there better , there workforce is more stronger and happier then ours....
Have you checked the unemployment rates in the Eur-ozone counties lately? Ditto their financial stability?
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.
