though it might be weak...
my argument is that if it were unconstitutional, then the states would not be able to do it.
Nothing in the constitution prohibits the States from doing this....
and every state does it, with their own rules....
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
US law to require vacation
- Thread starter alan1
- Start date
my argument is that if it were unconstitutional, then the states would not be able to do it.
Nothing in the constitution prohibits the States from doing this....
and every state does it, with their own rules....
wrongthough it might be weak...that doesnt support your claim that it was a federal lawMm, I'm not really in to this argue at all costs kind of thing, and never have been and just don't feel good when i get in to these kind of discussions with people I like....
mandatory overtime pay, for over the 40 hours is what costs the employer....surely you can recognize such, when before the 40 hour work week it did not cost employers the overtime pay. And if they don't want to pay overtime yet the hours still needed and they hire an additional employee to cover the hours they need at regular pay, it still costs the employer money to hire the additional worker, training hours alone costs them, plus an additional person to pay unemployment insurance on, an additional person to pay health insurance for, etc....the 40 hour work week cost employers a bundle when it came in to effect.
and please don't even suggest that I have not been in the working world and am clueless as you did...I am a business person, primarily retail and whole sale and know quite a bit about it....not everything, but quite a bit with my 25 years of experience in it...
so, after I post this and give you a link you requested for one of the States that I lived in as proof of what I have said regarding holiday pay, I'm not going to go any farther on this than I have and you will just have to do your own research on it if you really want to learn more.
thats a Mass STATE law
my argument is that if it were unconstitutional, then the states would not be able to do it.
Nothing in the constitution prohibits the States from doing this....
and every state does it, with their own rules....
powers not given to the federal goverment were reserved to the states and the people
it would be fully within a states right to set such laws
wrongthough it might be weak...that doesnt support your claim that it was a federal law
thats a Mass STATE law
my argument is that if it were unconstitutional, then the states would not be able to do it.
Nothing in the constitution prohibits the States from doing this....
and every state does it, with their own rules....
powers not given to the federal goverment were reserved to the states and the people
it would be fully within a states right to set such laws
true enough, it was but a small part of the argument....but still, it is not prohibited by the constitution.... like it would be for the gvt prohibiting the free exercise of religion or speech...which then would carry through to the states being prohibited from such as well...
it would be for the feds to do itwrongthough it might be weak...
my argument is that if it were unconstitutional, then the states would not be able to do it.
Nothing in the constitution prohibits the States from doing this....
and every state does it, with their own rules....
powers not given to the federal goverment were reserved to the states and the people
it would be fully within a states right to set such laws
true enough, it was but a small part of the argument....but still, it is not prohibited by the constitution.... like it would be for the gvt prohibiting the free exercise of religion or speech...which then would carry through to the states being prohibited from such as well...
- Aug 27, 2008
- 18,450
- 1,823
- 205
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.
Well since everything the government does is supposedly in our best interests that would mean the government could do whatever it wanted, and we wouldn't need a Constitution at all. The general welfare clause doesn't give any powers to the federal government at all. Only those powers that are explicitly stated are legitimate constitutional powers of the federal government.
employers pay half of the employee Social security as well....
Or is that just 7.5% less pay that the employee doesn't get? Put on your thinking cap for a moment and ponder it.
Employees actually pay ALL the social security, since the contribution by the employer is entirely dependent on the profits made from the labor of the workers.
Employees whose labors don't create enough profits to pay their salary and benefits (including things like social security) simply get fired.
And that is as it should, be too.
But my point here is that they employers really pay nothing except from the profits made for the business by the employees
Last edited:
auditor0007
Gold Member
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 theyve 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.
no.
No, they have no constitutional authority to do this.
They have every right to do it. Stop making constitutional pronouncements when you don't understand the constitution. Seriously.
As for whether they SHOULD...I think it's a humane thing to do, particularly if it applies to companies with more than 50 employees like many other employment laws.
We understand you think government should do nothing and we should be living in some Upton Sinclair nightmare.
employers pay half of the employee Social security as well....
Or is that just 7.5% less pay that the employee doesn't get? Put on your thinking cap for a moment and ponder it.
Employees actually pay ALL the social security, since the contribution by the employer is entirely dependent on the profits made from the labor of the workers.
Employees whose labors don't create enough profits to pay their salary and benefits (including things like social security) simply get fired.
And that is as it should, be too.
But my point here is that they employers really pay nothing except from the profits made for the business by the employees
tis true or seems logical and true, but would that also mean that if employers do not offer health insurance as a benefit or vacation as a benefit, this is because there is NOT enough profit made from the employees hard work to pay for it?
or are there other things involved?
care
Last edited:
- Aug 27, 2008
- 18,450
- 1,823
- 205
No, they have no constitutional authority to do this.
They have every right to do it. Stop making constitutional pronouncements when you don't understand the constitution. Seriously.
As for whether they SHOULD...I think it's a humane thing to do, particularly if it applies to companies with more than 50 employees like many other employment laws.
We understand you think government should do nothing and we should be living in some Upton Sinclair nightmare.
I think I understand the Constitution quite clearly, actually. All one has to do is simply read it. No where in the Constitution does it say the federal government may require private enterprises to give vacations to their employees. That's a private matter between the employer and the employee.
- Thread starter
- #71
Mm, I'm not really in to this argue at all costs kind of thing, and never have been and just don't feel good when i get in to these kind of discussions with people I like....
mandatory overtime pay, for over the 40 hours is what costs the employer....surely you can recognize such, when before the 40 hour work week it did not cost employers the overtime pay. And if they don't want to pay overtime yet the hours still needed and they hire an additional employee to cover the hours they need at regular pay, it still costs the employer money to hire the additional worker, training hours alone costs them, plus an additional person to pay unemployment insurance on, an additional person to pay health insurance for, etc....the 40 hour work week cost employers a bundle when it came in to effect.
and please don't even suggest that I have not been in the working world and am clueless as you did...I am a business person, primarily retail and whole sale and know quite a bit about it....not everything, but quite a bit with my 25 years of experience in it...
so, after I post this and give you a link you requested for one of the States that I lived in as proof of what I have said regarding holiday pay, I'm not going to go any farther on this than I have and you will just have to do your own research on it if you really want to learn more.
Overview
The Massachusetts Blue Laws
(Revised 7/21/05)
The guide below is provided for general informational purposes to help both employees and employers understand the law in this area. The Massachusetts Blue Laws are enforced by the Office of the Attorney General. If you have questions about possible violations of these laws, please contact the Attorney General's Fair Labor Division at 617-727-3465.
If you have questions about statewide approval of local permits for holiday openings, please contact the Division of Occupational Safety's Minimum Wage Program at 617-626-6952.
SUNDAYS
A. RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS
Due to a change in the laws that was made in 1994, retailers are no longer restricted to opening at 12:00 noon and may open at any time on Sundays without the need for approval by the Department of Labor, and without the need for a local police permit. M.G.L. c. 136, §16.
M.G.L. Chapter 136, §6 contains exemptions from Blue Law restrictions for certain retail and non-retail businesses. If a business falls within one of these exemptions, the following restrictions do not apply. Otherwise, any retail establishment which operates on Sundays is subject to the following two restrictions:
1. Time and One-Half Pay
Retailers that employ more than seven (7) persons, including the owner, are required to compensate employees who work on Sundays, except for bona fide executive, administrative and professional employees, at a rate of pay not less than one and one-half times their regular rate.
2. Voluntariness of Employment
Regardless of the number of employees, retailers cannot require employees to work on Sunday, and an employee's refusal to work may not be grounds for discrimination, dismissal, discharge, reduction in hours, or any other penalty.
B. NON-RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS
Unless a non-retail business falls within one of the exemptions in M.G.L. Chapter 136, §6 it is not allowed to operate on Sundays. However, for all businesses, a permit for work on Sundays may be issued by the police chief of the city or town where the business is located. A permit may be issued only for "necessary work or labor which could not be performed on any other day without serious suffering, loss, damage or public inconvenience, or which could not be performed on any other day without delay to military defense work." M.G.L. c. 136, §7. Additionally, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149, §51A, manufacturers may petition the Attorney General for a temporary exemption from the Sunday work restriction.
HOLIDAYS
If a retail or non-retail business falls within one of the exemptions in Chapter 136, it may operate on holidays. However, if the non-retail business is a factory or mill, employees may not be required to work on legal holidays pursuant to M.G.L. 149, § 45 unless the work is "absolutely necessary and can be legally performed on Sunday." (*See manufacturers note below under non-retail) Therefore, manufacturing employees must voluntarily agree to work . Otherwise, the following rules apply:
A. RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS
Unrestricted Holidays:
Work may be performed without a permit. Time and one-half pay and voluntariness of employment requirements do not apply.
Martin Luther King Day
President's Day
Evacuation Day
Patriots' Day
Bunker Hill Day
Partially Restricted Holidays:
Work may be performed without a permit. Time and one-half pay and voluntariness of employment requirements do apply.
New Year's Day
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Columbus Day after 12:00 noon
Veterans' Day after 1:00 p.m.
Restricted Holidays:
Work may be performed only with a local police permit and approval by the State's Division of Occupational Safety.
Columbus Day before 12:00 noon*
Veterans' Day before 1:00 p.m.*
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Day
* If a permit is granted, time and one-half pay and voluntariness of employment requirements do apply.
continued at:
Overview
It's interesting that you cite "Blue Laws", since most blue laws are not actively enforced. And, again, that is state law, not federal law.
You can argue the overtime pay all you want. It is still paying people to work, as opposed to paying people to not work.
Here is the difference between federal laws and state laws,
with state laws, one still has the mobility to avoid laws they disagree with, with federal law, they don't. If my state institutes laws I disagree with, I can always move to another state that has laws that better fit what I agree with. If the federal government institutes law that I disagree with, I can't avoid them without giving up my citizenship. Our founding fathers didn't want a central government, they created a federalist system intentionally. Every time something (like mandatory vacation pay) is forced by the federal government, it is a move toward a central government and away from a federalist system.
- Thread starter
- #72
Oh, and I am not necessarily arguing that paid vacation should be made mandatory, my argument was with you regarding whether it was constitutional or not...and I felt that since all of the other labor laws that have been instituted over the years were not unconstitutional, then this more than likely would not be either.
I don't think the constitutional argument to stop something like this will work...
there are other valid arguments against this as there are some for it....being unconstitutional, doesn't hold water though, imo.
Other unconstitutional laws is not an excuse to make more unconstitutional law.
Let me remind you of Amendment 10,
That's a pretty important sentence.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
thats it exactlyOr is that just 7.5% less pay that the employee doesn't get? Put on your thinking cap for a moment and ponder it.
Employees actually pay ALL the social security, since the contribution by the employer is entirely dependent on the profits made from the labor of the workers.
Employees whose labors don't create enough profits to pay their salary and benefits (including things like social security) simply get fired.
And that is as it should, be too.
But my point here is that they employers really pay nothing except from the profits made for the business by the employees
tis true or seems logical and true, but would that also mean that if employers do not offer health insurance as a benefit or vacation as a benefit, this is because there is NOT enough profit made from the employees hard work to pay for it?
or are there other things involved?
care
mandating this as yet another federal unfunded mandate would be a disaster and likely drive some of those business out of business
thats it exactlyEmployees actually pay ALL the social security, since the contribution by the employer is entirely dependent on the profits made from the labor of the workers.
Employees whose labors don't create enough profits to pay their salary and benefits (including things like social security) simply get fired.
And that is as it should, be too.
But my point here is that they employers really pay nothing except from the profits made for the business by the employees
tis true or seems logical and true, but would that also mean that if employers do not offer health insurance as a benefit or vacation as a benefit, this is because there is NOT enough profit made from the employees hard work to pay for it?
or are there other things involved?
care
mandating this as yet another federal unfunded mandate would be a disaster and likely drive some of those business out of business
Concur. The FED has no business dictating these things. Seems people would do their homework when aquiring employment. This measure is nothing more than another Federally Mandated entitlement.
Oh, and I am not necessarily arguing that paid vacation should be made mandatory, my argument was with you regarding whether it was constitutional or not...and I felt that since all of the other labor laws that have been instituted over the years were not unconstitutional, then this more than likely would not be either.
I don't think the constitutional argument to stop something like this will work...
there are other valid arguments against this as there are some for it....being unconstitutional, doesn't hold water though, imo.
Other unconstitutional laws is not an excuse to make more unconstitutional law.
Let me remind you of Amendment 10,
That's a pretty important sentence.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Indeed, it is, and the most ignored Amendment in my view, when it comes to Laws coming out of the District Of Criminals. (Your last statement emboldened by be for effect).
I think I understand the Constitution quite clearly, actually. All one has to do is simply read it. No where in the Constitution does it say the federal government may require private enterprises to give vacations to their employees. That's a private matter between the employer and the employee.
Well, allow me to tell you that you DON'T understand the Constitution, clearly or otherwise. Do you pull your own teeth? Or do you go to a dentist? Every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks they are a Constitutional scholar because people driven by political agenda TELL you that you are. Bogus....
There is a reason people STUDY... for YEARS... and still don't presume the expertise that you do.
Stop it. It's offensive.
As for the "private matter"... BS... general welfare... commerce clase. Read them. They are your friends.
yeah, sure Jillian, the constitution was written so only specialized people could read and understand itI think I understand the Constitution quite clearly, actually. All one has to do is simply read it. No where in the Constitution does it say the federal government may require private enterprises to give vacations to their employees. That's a private matter between the employer and the employee.
Well, allow me to tell you that you DON'T understand the Constitution, clearly or otherwise. Do you pull your own teeth? Or do you go to a dentist? Every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks they are a Constitutional scholar because people driven by political agenda TELL you that you are. Bogus....
There is a reason people STUDY... for YEARS... and still don't presume the expertise that you do.
Stop it. It's offensive.
As for the "private matter"... BS... general welfare... commerce clase. Read them. They are your friends.
- Aug 27, 2008
- 18,450
- 1,823
- 205
I think I understand the Constitution quite clearly, actually. All one has to do is simply read it. No where in the Constitution does it say the federal government may require private enterprises to give vacations to their employees. That's a private matter between the employer and the employee.
Well, allow me to tell you that you DON'T understand the Constitution, clearly or otherwise. Do you pull your own teeth? Or do you go to a dentist? Every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks they are a Constitutional scholar because people driven by political agenda TELL you that you are. Bogus....
There is a reason people STUDY... for YEARS... and still don't presume the expertise that you do.
Stop it. It's offensive.
As for the "private matter"... BS... general welfare... commerce clase. Read them. They are your friends.
I don't think I'm a Constitutional scholar, and have never claimed anything of the sort. If my belief in a strict adherence to what the Constitution actually says and not what you can squeeze out of it offends you then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that. I'm certainly not going to apologize for it.
Mandatory vacation time falling under the commerce clause is quite a stretch, and, as I said before, the general welfare clause gives no actual power to the federal government.
brewerboy
Active Member
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?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.
Handouts are more fun, didnt you know?
brewerboy
Active Member
Personally, I'm a first time father of a one month year old.
I could go on vacation and it would still be a full time job.
I could go on vacation and it would still be a full time job.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 44
- Views
- 445
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 88
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 531
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 113
- Replies
- 23
- Views
- 615
- Poll
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 49
- Replies
- 74
- Views
- 343
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8093
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-