US law to require vacation

[Fraulein Hilda]

Liberals believe if you dumb down prosperity far enough, everyone can be prosperous.

In Seraega's world, if people only worked 20 hours a week, we could double the number of people employed full time. It's a brilliant economic policy if you are a retard.

Way to take an idea to a ridiculous extreme that I did not suggest. Many companies are running skeleton crews right now because it's cheaper to pay OT than to pay an extra worker full time benefits. This is a problem that needs to be corrected. A simple way to correct the problem is to make OT kick in earlier. This will lead to fuller employment in the long term, AND higher wages for employees in the short term since they'll be getting more hours paid in at 150% wages. Companies aren't just going to snap their fingers and have more fully trained staff, there would probably be a few years while staffing levels adjust.

That's asinine. They are running skeleton crews because the government regulations are less onerous the fewer employees they have. You want to pile more regulations on and fool yourself into believing companies won't push back even more if you make employment cost them more.

Obama is going to have a jobless recovery, and he is going try and snooker people into thinking it's not his fault, or it's the corporations' fault, and people should be happy with healthcare even if they don't have jobs.

If Obama wanted more employment he would burden companies with FEWER hiring regulations.

 

[Sarah G]

Alan Grayson to introduce Paid Vacation Act - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com
Snip.

Rep. Alan Grayson was standing in the middle of Disney World when it hit him: What Americans really need is a week of paid vacation.

So on Thursday, the Florida Democrat will introduce the Paid Vacation Act — legislation that would be the first to make paid vacation time a requirement under federal law.

The bill would require companies with more than 100 employees to offer a week of paid vacation for both full-time and part-time employees after they’ve put in a year on the job. Three years after the effective date of the law, those same companies would be required to provide two weeks of paid vacation, and companies with 50 or more employees would have to provide one week.

Would you agree with a US law to require employers to give vacation time?

Discuss.

I wouldn't accept a job that didn't give you one week's vacation after 6 months and 2 weeks after the first year. I work full time and after 5 years I got 3 weeks. It goes up in increments after that.

Part time employees are entitled to vacation, one week is not over the top, imo.

 

[Seraega]

In Seraega's world, if people only worked 20 hours a week, we could double the number of people employed full time. It's a brilliant economic policy if you are a retard.

Way to take an idea to a ridiculous extreme that I did not suggest. Many companies are running skeleton crews right now because it's cheaper to pay OT than to pay an extra worker full time benefits. This is a problem that needs to be corrected. A simple way to correct the problem is to make OT kick in earlier. This will lead to fuller employment in the long term, AND higher wages for employees in the short term since they'll be getting more hours paid in at 150% wages. Companies aren't just going to snap their fingers and have more fully trained staff, there would probably be a few years while staffing levels adjust.

That's asinine. They are running skeleton crews because the government regulations are less onerous the fewer employees they have. You want to pile more regulations on and fool yourself into believing companies won't push back even more if you make employment cost them more.

Obama is going to have a jobless recovery, and he is going try and snooker people into thinking it's not his fault, or it's the corporations' fault, and people should be happy with healthcare even if they don't have jobs.

If Obama wanted more employment he would burden companies with FEWER hiring regulations.

Bullshit. The cutoff for what regulation applies or does not apply is about 100 employees. Less than that and rules like FMLA don't apply, more and they do. A mega company does not get less regulation by going from 50k employees to 30k. Please try again.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Way to take an idea to a ridiculous extreme that I did not suggest. Many companies are running skeleton crews right now because it's cheaper to pay OT than to pay an extra worker full time benefits. This is a problem that needs to be corrected. A simple way to correct the problem is to make OT kick in earlier. This will lead to fuller employment in the long term, AND higher wages for employees in the short term since they'll be getting more hours paid in at 150% wages. Companies aren't just going to snap their fingers and have more fully trained staff, there would probably be a few years while staffing levels adjust.

That's asinine. They are running skeleton crews because the government regulations are less onerous the fewer employees they have. You want to pile more regulations on and fool yourself into believing companies won't push back even more if you make employment cost them more.

Obama is going to have a jobless recovery, and he is going try and snooker people into thinking it's not his fault, or it's the corporations' fault, and people should be happy with healthcare even if they don't have jobs.

If Obama wanted more employment he would burden companies with FEWER hiring regulations.

Bullshit. The cutoff for what regulation applies or does not apply is about 100 employees. Less than that and rules like FMLA don't apply, more and they do. A mega company does not get less regulation by going from 50k employees to 30k. Please try again.

A mega company would go from 30k employees to 50k if they did not think government was hostile to their profitability.

Because that's the only reason you go from 30k to 50k employees, to make more profit.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Resources have nothing to do with nothing. Profit is a reason to stay in business.

Resources have to do with everything. If you're profitable, however, then you're not wasting resources. But if you're being propped up by the government then you are wasting resources and should be allowed to go out of business.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Resources have nothing to do with nothing. Profit is a reason to stay in business.

Resources have to do with everything. If you're profitable, however, then you're not wasting resources. But if you're being propped up by the government then you are wasting resources and should be allowed to go out of business.

Who is propped up by the government, besides the autmakers and banks?

I think I know where this is headed...

 

[Care4all]

That's asinine. They are running skeleton crews because the government regulations are less onerous the fewer employees they have. You want to pile more regulations on and fool yourself into believing companies won't push back even more if you make employment cost them more.

Obama is going to have a jobless recovery, and he is going try and snooker people into thinking it's not his fault, or it's the corporations' fault, and people should be happy with healthcare even if they don't have jobs.

If Obama wanted more employment he would burden companies with FEWER hiring regulations.

Bullshit. The cutoff for what regulation applies or does not apply is about 100 employees. Less than that and rules like FMLA don't apply, more and they do. A mega company does not get less regulation by going from 50k employees to 30k. Please try again.

A mega company would go from 30k employees to 50k if they did not think government was hostile to their profitability.

Because that's the only reason you go from 30k to 50k employees, to make more profit.

the only reason to go to 50k employees from 30k is because the SALES or projected sales would cover the cost of these employees...otherwise they would not be hired....has nothing to do with regulation?

you don't add employees to make more profit, in many cases you cut non productive employees to make more profit?

I guess I am saying, I don't think I understand what you meant?

care

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Bullshit. The cutoff for what regulation applies or does not apply is about 100 employees. Less than that and rules like FMLA don't apply, more and they do. A mega company does not get less regulation by going from 50k employees to 30k. Please try again.

A mega company would go from 30k employees to 50k if they did not think government was hostile to their profitability.

Because that's the only reason you go from 30k to 50k employees, to make more profit.

the only reason to go to 50k employees from 30k is because the SALES or projected sales would cover the cost of these employees...otherwise they would not be hired....has nothing to do with regulation?

you don't add employees to make more profit, in many cases you cut non productive employees to make more profit?

I guess I am saying, I don't think I understand what you meant?

care

It has everything to do with regulation, because regulation strangles profit.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Resources have nothing to do with nothing. Profit is a reason to stay in business.

Resources have to do with everything. If you're profitable, however, then you're not wasting resources. But if you're being propped up by the government then you are wasting resources and should be allowed to go out of business.

Who is propped up by the government, besides the autmakers and banks?

I think I know where this is headed...

Farmers receive subsidies as well, but I was speaking about the banks and automakers in particular.

 

[DiveCon]

gee, and i thought the dems cared about the unemployed

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Why not pay for the vacation? It's not fair some people have time off and no disposable income to go someplace exciting.

And some spending money?

You libs call yourself compassionate? Two weeks paid vacation does not go far enough!

 

[Neser Boha]

They could take money from the stim package and give each family $5,000/individual $2,000 to go on vacation. That way companies wouldn't be out anything and the families would be able to spend their own money while on vacation, thus giving the economy a boost.

How long until they tell you were to vacation? I was 35 years old before I had a vacation , I saved for 5 years .Why can't other people take care of themselves?

that's sad...

no wonder you're bitter about it...

I'd be too...

 

[Seraega]

Why not pay for the vacation? It's not fair some people have time off and no disposable income to go someplace exciting.

And some spending money?

You libs call yourself compassionate? Two weeks paid vacation does not go far enough!

If only corporations were smart enough to understand that workers who receive regular vacations are more productive we wouldn't be having this discussion. Oh look another flaw of unfettered capitalism.....

 

[Care4all]

A mega company would go from 30k employees to 50k if they did not think government was hostile to their profitability.

Because that's the only reason you go from 30k to 50k employees, to make more profit.

the only reason to go to 50k employees from 30k is because the SALES or projected sales would cover the cost of these employees...otherwise they would not be hired....has nothing to do with regulation?

you don't add employees to make more profit, in many cases you cut non productive employees to make more profit?

I guess I am saying, I don't think I understand what you meant?

care

It has everything to do with regulation, because regulation strangles profit.

how about a realistic example of how...? HOW have regulations kept them from hiring another 20k in people?

i can assure you that if a business has enough in sales to require 50000 people working for them, they will have 50000 people working for them....regardless of some minutia regulation.

 

[alan1]

Why not pay for the vacation? It's not fair some people have time off and no disposable income to go someplace exciting.

And some spending money?

You libs call yourself compassionate? Two weeks paid vacation does not go far enough!

If only corporations were smart enough to understand that workers who receive regular vacations are more productive we wouldn't be having this discussion. Oh look another flaw of unfettered capitalism.....

Why don't you point out in the constitution where it says the government can mandate that an employer give paid vacation.
If only you and Alan Grayson were smart enough to understand the constitution we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Seraega]

Why not pay for the vacation? It's not fair some people have time off and no disposable income to go someplace exciting.

And some spending money?

You libs call yourself compassionate? Two weeks paid vacation does not go far enough!

If only corporations were smart enough to understand that workers who receive regular vacations are more productive we wouldn't be having this discussion. Oh look another flaw of unfettered capitalism.....

Why don't you point out in the constitution where it says the government can mandate that an employer give paid vacation.
If only you and Alan Grayson were smart enough to understand the constitution we wouldn't be having this conversation.

g e n e r a l w e l f a r e c l a u s e

Gives them the power to do anything so long as it's in the best interest of the people. I know you guys love to overlook it, but it's there in black and white.

 

[alan1]

If only corporations were smart enough to understand that workers who receive regular vacations are more productive we wouldn't be having this discussion. Oh look another flaw of unfettered capitalism.....

Why don't you point out in the constitution where it says the government can mandate that an employer give paid vacation.
If only you and Alan Grayson were smart enough to understand the constitution we wouldn't be having this conversation.

g e n e r a l w e l f a r e c l a u s e

Gives them the power to do anything so long as it's in the best interest of the people. I know you guys love to overlook it, but it's there in black and white.

Oh, you are one of those idiots. I can see I'm wasting my time.

 

[Seraega]

Why don't you point out in the constitution where it says the government can mandate that an employer give paid vacation.
If only you and Alan Grayson were smart enough to understand the constitution we wouldn't be having this conversation.

g e n e r a l w e l f a r e c l a u s e

Gives them the power to do anything so long as it's in the best interest of the people. I know you guys love to overlook it, but it's there in black and white.

Oh, you are one of those idiots. I can see I'm wasting my time.

Yep one of those idiots that doesn't cherry pick which parts of the constitution I like....

 

[Care4all]

Why not pay for the vacation? It's not fair some people have time off and no disposable income to go someplace exciting.

And some spending money?

You libs call yourself compassionate? Two weeks paid vacation does not go far enough!

If only corporations were smart enough to understand that workers who receive regular vacations are more productive we wouldn't be having this discussion. Oh look another flaw of unfettered capitalism.....

Why don't you point out in the constitution where it says the government can mandate that an employer give paid vacation.
If only you and Alan Grayson were smart enough to understand the constitution we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Where in the constitution does it give us a 40 hour work week? Where in the constitution does it give us child labor laws which limit the hours children can work? Where in the constitution does it give us a paid leave of absence for pregnancy, where in the constitution does it give us disability or workman's comp? Where in our constitution did it give us paid holidays? Where in our constitution did it give us unemployment benefits? these are just a few of the workman's laws out there...

and on other things, where in the constitution does it give us our police, our firemen, our schools, our parks, our roads, our VA hospitals and clinics, our Space program and even our standing army is not permitted longer than 2 years at a time....?

I am not trying to be a "pill" here mm, but it seems all the other labor laws we have here would fall in to the same category as vacation pay...and it appears, since they were never shot down by the Supreme court on the other things, that this would not be either???

Care

 

[Seraega]

If only corporations were smart enough to understand that workers who receive regular vacations are more productive we wouldn't be having this discussion. Oh look another flaw of unfettered capitalism.....

Why don't you point out in the constitution where it says the government can mandate that an employer give paid vacation.
If only you and Alan Grayson were smart enough to understand the constitution we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Where in the constitution does it give us a 40 hour work week? Where in the constitution does it give us child labor laws which limit the hours children can work? Where in the constitution does it give us a paid leave of absence for pregnancy, where in the constitution does it give us disability or workman's comp? Where in our constitution did it give us paid holidays? Where in our constitution did it give us unemployment benefits? these are just a few of the workman's laws out there...

and on other things, where in the constitution does it give us our police, our firemen, our schools, our parks, our roads, our VA hospitals and clinics, our Space program and even our standing army is not permitted longer than 2 years at a time....?

I am not trying to be a "pill" here mm, but it seems all the other labor laws we have here would fall in to the same category as vacation pay...and it appears, since they were never shot down by the Supreme court on the other things, that this would not be either???

Care

Bingo!