President wants mandated paid sick leave because why?

[bendog]

I'm just not seeing an econ or social argument against mandating a x number of paid sick leave days.

Then you need to read my posts in the first page.

I found them curiously lacking and what was there unconvincing. The argument against is really that people will take them even if they aren't sick. There are several answers to that. One, is pay them for not taking them. The negative is that costs the employer. But, we could make that a tax credit or deductible expense.

But now your advocating tax-cuts for the rich.

How dare you.....

you're not cute, or even clever. Employers get deductions for providing hc insurance.

 

[SwimExpert]

I worked as an hourly tech in the Aerospace industry where the Union had negotiated 6 paid sick days a year. You were paid if you missed work and got paid once a year for the days you didn't take. I took a salaried position after about a year and got 12 days a year PTO. It was take 'em or lose 'em and when I left the company for another position they got 64 of my days back that I didn't use. I called that PPP, or 'piss poor planning' on my part.

I actually got pretty lucky with the job I just left. No sick pay, but double PTO for both sick and vacation time. Catch is, they don't usually pay out unused time if you leave, but when I left they agreed to pay out my unused time.

 

[SwimExpert]

I found them curiously lacking and what was there unconvincing. The argument against is really that people will take them even if they aren't sick. There are several answers to that. One, is pay them for not taking them. The negative is that costs the employer. But, we could make that a tax credit or deductible expense.

Actually, my argument is that the government does not need to be involved because most companies already have some kind of provision, and many companies are moving beyond "sick time" in ways that are more beneficial to employees. If the government starts mandating sick time, then that will force companies to restructure their PTO options, and prevent them from offering superior options.

Why in the world you would have a problem with that, I cannot understand.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm just not seeing an econ or social argument against mandating a x number of paid sick leave days.

Then you need to read my posts in the first page.

I found them curiously lacking and what was there unconvincing. The argument against is really that people will take them even if they aren't sick. There are several answers to that. One, is pay them for not taking them. The negative is that costs the employer. But, we could make that a tax credit or deductible expense.

But now your advocating tax-cuts for the rich.

How dare you.....

you're not cute, or even clever. Employers get deductions for providing hc insurance.

Pelosi calls it tax-cuts for the rich.

 

[bendog]

I'm just not seeing an econ or social argument against mandating a x number of paid sick leave days.

Then you need to read my posts in the first page.

I found them curiously lacking and what was there unconvincing. The argument against is really that people will take them even if they aren't sick. There are several answers to that. One, is pay them for not taking them. The negative is that costs the employer. But, we could make that a tax credit or deductible expense.

But now your advocating tax-cuts for the rich.

How dare you.....

you're not cute, or even clever. Employers get deductions for providing hc insurance.

Pelosi calls it tax-cuts for the rich.

Well, that certainly makes it so .... not.

 

[bendog]

I found them curiously lacking and what was there unconvincing. The argument against is really that people will take them even if they aren't sick. There are several answers to that. One, is pay them for not taking them. The negative is that costs the employer. But, we could make that a tax credit or deductible expense.

Actually, my argument is that the government does not need to be involved because most companies already have some kind of provision, and many companies are moving beyond "sick time" in ways that are more beneficial to employees. If the government starts mandating sick time, then that will force companies to restructure their PTO options, and prevent them from offering superior options.

Why in the world you would have a problem with that, I cannot understand.

I don't see your links to alternatives app

I found them curiously lacking and what was there unconvincing. The argument against is really that people will take them even if they aren't sick. There are several answers to that. One, is pay them for not taking them. The negative is that costs the employer. But, we could make that a tax credit or deductible expense.

Actually, my argument is that the government does not need to be involved because most companies already have some kind of provision, and many companies are moving beyond "sick time" in ways that are more beneficial to employees. If the government starts mandating sick time, then that will force companies to restructure their PTO options, and prevent them from offering superior options.

Why in the world you would have a problem with that, I cannot understand.

I didn't see your links to alternatives. Perhaps I missed them, but I did read the op more than once.

The one I've seen is basically letting them work from home (and I assume paying them) or letting them make up the hours later. For the former, I only see a very few employers allowing that, and for the latter it's really disengenouse .... like a guy is going to volunteer for a double shift with no OT. LOL

 

[Conservative65]

**** Obama & his communist ideas. I do not offer paid sick leave & never will. I pay for production. They don't work they don't get paid. Period

Well, that's your choice, but I've always wondered about the wisdom of such a position. Workers who don't have paid time off available when they are sick tend to come to work when they are sick, which leads to illness spreading at the workplace and loss of productivity as sick workers have reduced production.

But, like I said, it's your choice. And it's their choice if they want to work for you.

Sadly you've posted a link to the willfully, and some not willfully ignorant. It takes a modicum of intelligence and the ability to think outside the tiny box of callous conservatism to understand your post.

Consider those who prepare your food before you wonder about making it the choice of the business owner.

So I should worry about the cook doing something to my food?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I will be 50 in 6 weeks, reason I say that is to say I have been employed full time for over 25 years. A lot has changed in those years.
When I started in the 1980's:
1) Typically health insurance was either totally paid by the employer or it was nominal. If I remember right I believe I paid $42 a week. Today, it is like a second house payment.
2) A pension was a part of your compensation. Nearly every employer provided pensions. Today, pensions are nearly extinct.
3) Sick time was on top of your vacation pay. Anything else was unheard of.
4) Many employers, including mine, matched 401k contributions from 25% to 100% depending on who you worked for. On top of a pension.
5) Time off for most was 5 paid holidays, some also received their birthday, so really 6 holidays. Started their jobs with one week vacation. Average 2 weeks after 2 years, 3 weeks after 5 years, 4 weeks after 10 years and maxed at 5 weeks after 20 years.
6) Sick time accumulated. Any unused sick time could be used for serious illnesses up to so many days. At my former corporate job, before they nixed everything five years ago - I had over 600 available sick hours. That's 15 weeks.

I could go on.
So is every employer just evil now?
Do we need the government to step in?
You decide for yourself, what I can say - is average profits for small-medium non corporate businesses have plummeted in the past 30 years. Universal.
Whose fault is that?
Why is that?
High cost of a low price might have something to do with it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Then you need to read my posts in the first page.

I found them curiously lacking and what was there unconvincing. The argument against is really that people will take them even if they aren't sick. There are several answers to that. One, is pay them for not taking them. The negative is that costs the employer. But, we could make that a tax credit or deductible expense.

But now your advocating tax-cuts for the rich.

How dare you.....

you're not cute, or even clever. Employers get deductions for providing hc insurance.

Pelosi calls it tax-cuts for the rich.

Well, that certainly makes it so .... not.

So which is a lie?

You Democrats buy their bs hook line and sinker.....then argue against It when your liberal fantasies are applied to the real world.

Oh, I know. It all depends on who is proposing it. Bush calls it a deduction. You call it a tax-cut for the rich. Obama proposes it, it all of the sudden becomes a good thing.

 

[hortysir]

I'm just not seeing an econ or social argument against mandating a x number of paid sick leave days. A employer does not have an unfettered right to unsafe working conditions, he may not racially or gender discriminate in hiring, and the gop is not going to make headway in eliminating a minimum wage ... and even advocating such is stupid, both economically and politically.

Next let's mandate vacation time, regardless of hours worked, free lunch (we do it for the children), also how about fuel allowance for driving to work.
**** it. Don't even come to work. We'll pay you anyway.
No....wait......that last one IS the government's place

 

[bendog]

I found them curiously lacking and what was there unconvincing. The argument against is really that people will take them even if they aren't sick. There are several answers to that. One, is pay them for not taking them. The negative is that costs the employer. But, we could make that a tax credit or deductible expense.

But now your advocating tax-cuts for the rich.

How dare you.....

you're not cute, or even clever. Employers get deductions for providing hc insurance.

Pelosi calls it tax-cuts for the rich.

Well, that certainly makes it so .... not.

So which is a lie?

You Democrats buy their bs hook line and sinker.....then argue against It when your liberal fantasies are applied to the real world.

Oh, I know. It all depends on who is proposing it. Bush calls it a deduction. You call it a tax-cut for the rich. Obama proposes it, it all of the sudden becomes a good thing.

I'm not a dem, and blow Pelosi out your arse.

 

[bendog]

I'm just not seeing an econ or social argument against mandating a x number of paid sick leave days. A employer does not have an unfettered right to unsafe working conditions, he may not racially or gender discriminate in hiring, and the gop is not going to make headway in eliminating a minimum wage ... and even advocating such is stupid, both economically and politically.

Next let's mandate vacation time, regardless of hours worked, free lunch (we do it for the children), also how about fuel allowance for driving to work.
**** it. Don't even come to work. We'll pay you anyway.
No....wait......that last one IS the government's place

That's exactly the point. Your examples all require some expense to the employer, while the expense of sick leave is either nonexistent or easily compensated with tax deduction/exemption. So, you're argument is simply "the slippery slope." But, you do not point out the social or econ negative to sick leave.

 

[Conservative65]

I understand you think there are better options but I dont hear why you're against this option other than you believe people like it better.

Are you even paying attention? The government should not be making the decision. If Acme Explosives wants to do away with paid sick time and offer double the PTO, why should the government stop them from doing it?

Why should companies be the judge, jury and executioner? I dont get it...

The only thing you're saying is govt shouldnt be involved. They arent involved now and very few have paid sick leave or paid maternaity leave. Doesnt that show you what the companies are going to do about it in the future? Or has the companies been super busy and they'll get around to one day?

The companies are the ones doing the paying. If you don't get that someone not owning a business has no say in what the business offers in benefits, you never will. The government has no place telling a business what they should pay or provide in benefits to a private business.

 

[mudwhistle]

But now your advocating tax-cuts for the rich.

How dare you.....

you're not cute, or even clever. Employers get deductions for providing hc insurance.

Pelosi calls it tax-cuts for the rich.

Well, that certainly makes it so .... not.

So which is a lie?

You Democrats buy their bs hook line and sinker.....then argue against It when your liberal fantasies are applied to the real world.

Oh, I know. It all depends on who is proposing it. Bush calls it a deduction. You call it a tax-cut for the rich. Obama proposes it, it all of the sudden becomes a good thing.

I'm not a dem, and blow Pelosi out your arse.

That's what they all say.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm just not seeing an econ or social argument against mandating a x number of paid sick leave days. A employer does not have an unfettered right to unsafe working conditions, he may not racially or gender discriminate in hiring, and the gop is not going to make headway in eliminating a minimum wage ... and even advocating such is stupid, both economically and politically.

Next let's mandate vacation time, regardless of hours worked, free lunch (we do it for the children), also how about fuel allowance for driving to work.
**** it. Don't even come to work. We'll pay you anyway.
No....wait......that last one IS the government's place

Yet these liars blame the GOP for outsourcing.....

 

[bendog]

I'm just not seeing an econ or social argument against mandating a x number of paid sick leave days. A employer does not have an unfettered right to unsafe working conditions, he may not racially or gender discriminate in hiring, and the gop is not going to make headway in eliminating a minimum wage ... and even advocating such is stupid, both economically and politically.

Next let's mandate vacation time, regardless of hours worked, free lunch (we do it for the children), also how about fuel allowance for driving to work.
**** it. Don't even come to work. We'll pay you anyway.
No....wait......that last one IS the government's place

Yet these liars blame the GOP for outsourcing.....

**** you muddy.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I understand you think there are better options but I dont hear why you're against this option other than you believe people like it better.

Are you even paying attention? The government should not be making the decision. If Acme Explosives wants to do away with paid sick time and offer double the PTO, why should the government stop them from doing it?

Why should companies be the judge, jury and executioner? I dont get it...

The only thing you're saying is govt shouldnt be involved. They arent involved now and very few have paid sick leave or paid maternaity leave. Doesnt that show you what the companies are going to do about it in the future? Or has the companies been super busy and they'll get around to one day?

The companies are the ones doing the paying.

Thats how employment works, yep.

If you don't get that someone not owning a business has no say in what the business offers in benefits, you never will.

Typically speaking people who dont own something most times dont have say so. So yeah, you've nailed the concept of ownership AND employment like a big boy

The government has no place telling a business what they should pay or provide in benefits to a private business.

Why not?

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm just not seeing an econ or social argument against mandating a x number of paid sick leave days. A employer does not have an unfettered right to unsafe working conditions, he may not racially or gender discriminate in hiring, and the gop is not going to make headway in eliminating a minimum wage ... and even advocating such is stupid, both economically and politically.

Next let's mandate vacation time, regardless of hours worked, free lunch (we do it for the children), also how about fuel allowance for driving to work.
**** it. Don't even come to work. We'll pay you anyway.
No....wait......that last one IS the government's place

Yet these liars blame the GOP for outsourcing.....

**** you muddy.

Nothing personal.
Sorry if throwing liberal talking-points out there in normal conversation upsets you.

I'm trying to make a point. Their constant campaign rhetoric doesn't work in reality.

 

[BluesLegend]

Liberals have to lie because the issues they ran in 1970 no longer exist. Sick leave, maternity leave, good grief.

They just got ***** slapped in Nov running on these outdated issues. Corporations and CEO's are evil, greedy, they pollute the planet, they screw over their workers, well it doesn't fly because its not 1970 and its not true. Hell workers now own all or part of the very corporations liberals tell us we should hate. Either directly or via retirement funds. Some of the biggest Wall Street hating lying low life scum Democrats in congress have millions of their own money invested in the stock market.

 

[Conservative65]

I understand you think there are better options but I dont hear why you're against this option other than you believe people like it better.

Are you even paying attention? The government should not be making the decision. If Acme Explosives wants to do away with paid sick time and offer double the PTO, why should the government stop them from doing it?

Why should companies be the judge, jury and executioner? I dont get it...

The only thing you're saying is govt shouldnt be involved. They arent involved now and very few have paid sick leave or paid maternaity leave. Doesnt that show you what the companies are going to do about it in the future? Or has the companies been super busy and they'll get around to one day?

The companies are the ones doing the paying.

Thats how employment works, yep.

If you don't get that someone not owning a business has no say in what the business offers in benefits, you never will.

Typically speaking people who dont own something most times dont have say so. So yeah, you've nailed the concept of ownership AND employment like a big boy

The government has no place telling a business what they should pay or provide in benefits to a private business.

Why not?

As you said, people who don't own a business have no say. You even understand the concept of ownership yet ask why the government, an entity that doesn't own a private business, has no say.