Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Worthless law since it exempts small business, just like FMLA. Sure looks great on paper, but when the vast majority of American workers don't qualify - why bother?!
A more productive bill would be to lower the OT threshold to 35 hours. It'll get more people back to work and that's what the economy needs most.
Worthless law since it exempts small business, just like FMLA. Sure looks great on paper, but when the vast majority of American workers don't qualify - why bother?!
A more productive bill would be to lower the OT threshold to 35 hours. It'll get more people back to work and that's what the economy needs most.
So you would advocate that everybody that is currently employed full time should take a 12.5% pay cut? How is that going to stimulate the economy?
Of course not, there is already a law for a 40 hour work week, and anything after that is overtime.
US CODE: Title 29,207. Maximum hours
That is your choice to go work for a company that doesn't offer paid vacation, it shouldn't be a law to require a company to do it.
Worthless law since it exempts small business, just like FMLA. Sure looks great on paper, but when the vast majority of American workers don't qualify - why bother?!
A more productive bill would be to lower the OT threshold to 35 hours. It'll get more people back to work and that's what the economy needs most.
So you would advocate that everybody that is currently employed full time should take a 12.5% pay cut? How is that going to stimulate the economy?
Worthless law since it exempts small business, just like FMLA. Sure looks great on paper, but when the vast majority of American workers don't qualify - why bother?!
A more productive bill would be to lower the OT threshold to 35 hours. It'll get more people back to work and that's what the economy needs most.
So you would advocate that everybody that is currently employed full time should take a 12.5% pay cut? How is that going to stimulate the economy?
Not everyone would need to take a pay cut if we were doing the right thing in "battling" this recession. Some would need to take a pay cut, or lose their jobs. But it would even out if the government wasn't subsidizing and bailing out so many industries to keep prices high.
Worthless law since it exempts small business, just like FMLA. Sure looks great on paper, but when the vast majority of American workers don't qualify - why bother?!
A more productive bill would be to lower the OT threshold to 35 hours. It'll get more people back to work and that's what the economy needs most.
So you would advocate that everybody that is currently employed full time should take a 12.5% pay cut? How is that going to stimulate the economy?
Liberals believe if you dumb down prosperity far enough, everyone can be prosperous.
So you would advocate that everybody that is currently employed full time should take a 12.5% pay cut? How is that going to stimulate the economy?
Not everyone would need to take a pay cut if we were doing the right thing in "battling" this recession. Some would need to take a pay cut, or lose their jobs. But it would even out if the government wasn't subsidizing and bailing out so many industries to keep prices high.
Pay cuts and job losses are worthwhile prices to pay in battling recessions? I thought they were symptoms of recessions? Which is it?
Just make sure nobody goes camping or anything. They have to stay in a hotel and tip the bellhop.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?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.
Not everyone would need to take a pay cut if we were doing the right thing in "battling" this recession. Some would need to take a pay cut, or lose their jobs. But it would even out if the government wasn't subsidizing and bailing out so many industries to keep prices high.
Pay cuts and job losses are worthwhile prices to pay in battling recessions? I thought they were symptoms of recessions? Which is it?
Well job losses are never really a good thing, though they are necessary at times. If a company is destroying resources then you want that company to go out of business, which means that some people are going to lose their jobs. As for pay cuts, sometimes a pay cut would be necessary just to keep your job. And if the alternative is having to have no income for a while and having to search for a new job then a pay cut may be the best alternative. The term I used, "battling," wasn't necessarily a good choice, which is why I put it in quotations. What I meant was allowing the recession to run it's course, because it is during the recession that the market attempts to correct itself. However, by propping up failed businesses we simply prolong the agony and ultimately make things worse.
Pay cuts and job losses are worthwhile prices to pay in battling recessions? I thought they were symptoms of recessions? Which is it?
Well job losses are never really a good thing, though they are necessary at times. If a company is destroying resources then you want that company to go out of business, which means that some people are going to lose their jobs. As for pay cuts, sometimes a pay cut would be necessary just to keep your job. And if the alternative is having to have no income for a while and having to search for a new job then a pay cut may be the best alternative. The term I used, "battling," wasn't necessarily a good choice, which is why I put it in quotations. What I meant was allowing the recession to run it's course, because it is during the recession that the market attempts to correct itself. However, by propping up failed businesses we simply prolong the agony and ultimately make things worse.
You're joking, right? You're not talking about letting a rececession run its course, you''re talking about government deciding who the winners and losers are in a recession.
All companies need "resources" to run. You want a government board to decide which ones are using up to too many?
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.
So you would advocate that everybody that is currently employed full time should take a 12.5% pay cut? How is that going to stimulate the economy?
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.
