Posted on 07/17/2015 2:36:05 PM PDT by PROCON
Count the strawmen. This presumes a) her hours could be cancelled, b) she has to put her child in day care and c) she has to drive halfway across town.
a) The only jobs I know when your work shift could be cancelled is in food service or possibly some sales. I don't know of many professions this happens and certainly whether it happens often enough to be a problem. The correct solution is "find a better job".
b) This presumes there are no parents, grandparents, neighbors or boyfriends who can take the child for the day. I know plenty of mothers who don't put their children in day care because they don't feel they are safe or well-administered. You'll almost always get better results with a caring family member.
In additions, may jobs now have on-site child care facilities so the correct solution should be "find a better job."
c) Who told you to take a job on the other side of town adding hours of commute time that could be better spent with your children? Particularly if the work is as common as food service or sales (see a) then there's a job on her own side of town that pays just as well and would reduce her commute time before going in. The correct solution is "find a better job".
But then, finally, she's probably a single mom because she didn't think carefully enough before having sex or not a good enough mate to hold onto the man who knocked her up. The correct solution for that is "find a better man".
So, seriously, why should the employer be hindered by this woman's poor choices? I'm afraid the employer's most like solution is "don't hire single moms". Thanks, Senator Warren, for putting up more roadblocks for working women.
We need more laws I tell you.
The major constitutional problem with this proposed legislation is the following. Regardless what FDR’s activist justices wanted people to think about the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3) when it wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress’s favor in 1942 imo, it remains that the states have ever delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate either intrastate commerce or intrastate employment issues. This is evidenced by the following excerpt.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824."Nearly 80 lawmakers out of the House and Senate [emphasis added] introduced the measure."
The fact that senators are supporting this legislation is a good example why the ill-conceived 17th Amendment should never have been ratified. Senators should not be willing to pass such a bill for the simple reason that it wrongly steals unique, 10th Amendment-protected power to regulate intrastate employment issues.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear and corrupt senators along with it.
Be a valuable enough employee that your employer wouldn’t even consider doing that to you......quit whining if you’re not.
...Don’t make any more laws...
You do realize that this is liberal democrats you are talking about?
They get a high from control. Passing laws controlling us in every facet of life from cradle to grave is their goal.
Ah yes, the Democrat busy-body know-it-alls sticking their noses where they do not belong concerning things they nothing about.
Government has done such a marvelous job that people are paralyzed with indecision because so many good jobs are available and pulling them in competing directions.
Unfortunately, if they are so stupid as to admit it, a whole bunch of new legislation will be generated so as to outlaw the practice.
They well have to find one of the more accepted vague excuses such as:
Amerikan Fascism.
Social activists + power of government = totalitarian state
They always start out with something that sounds reasonable but once it becomes law, then they drop the hammer. I wonder what kind of monster this becomes?
Uh, dude, being a rotten employer is not a crime....but having government meddling in this arena is damned sure un-Constitutional. Are you saying that government should be so involved as to make sure no employer ever inconveniences an employee? How big of a gummint do you want?
I am a member of our local fire police. We are volunteers just like the firemen (firepersons?) and we are on call 24/7. And we don’t get paid. All we do is protect/help these friggen spongers when they have problems. I wonder what they would do if we all stopped volunteering. There would be chaos cause they could not help themselves.
Yep, in a liberty market system, the choice to be a good employee or bad employee is yours. The choice to be an employee or an employer is yours. The choice to be an employee somewhere ELSE is yours. Non the gummints bidness..
Let me translate for you bob: "I've never run a business in my damned life and I don't know WTF I'm talking about...."
there...
They care so much. They way they spend other people’s money proves it.
I, in no way, want the government involved. But I’m saying businesses need to get ahead of the curve on this one to AVOID sh*tty heavy handed regulations and work this out between them and the employees. As far as un-Constitutional, give me a break. When has that stopped this admin?
Then the employee will get laid off, and maybe the small business will fold entirely.
Then there won't be any scheduling problems anymore.
Problem solved, morons!
Okay. That fixed it.
Just to be clear, you’re the one who’s never hired or fired a staff and don’t know WTF you’re talking about....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.