"Just as it is not illegal or unconstitutional for companies to have employment policies that you think are foolish, stupid, or inane, it is not unconstitutional for legislatures to pass foolish, stupid, inane, and even unduly burdensome laws. "
Govm'ts only justification is to protect rights. Where it protects rights, it's acts are justified. Where it deviates from that, it's acts are repugnant.
"Would this "right" to miss work exist without this specific law or something like it? Nope. "
The rights involved are the employer's and the mom's to care for her child. There is no right to miss work. The govm't recognizes that the employer's world isn't going to fall apart, because the mom's day care disappeared temporarily. They note and acknowledge the priority of rights. Just as they should note and state the correct boundaries in the present case.
Dear spunkets,
"Recognition of wrongful discharge from public policy violation existed prior to the FLA."
That's true, but before the FMLA, dismissing someone for these reasons wasn't considered wrongful discharge. That's why they passed a law.
"The concept is one of the motivations for it's creation."
Yes, a bunch of folks decided they knew better the details of the operation of individual businesses in this regard than the managers of the businesses themselves.
"Govm'ts only justification is to protect rights. Where it protects rights, it's acts are justified. Where it deviates from that, it's acts are repugnant."
That's one way to look at it. But not everyone will agree with you, and everyone does pretty much have a say. As well, not everyone will agree with how you define rights.
In any event, by your definition, I view the FMLA as repugnant then. I don't believe that it legitimately protects rights due the employee, and I do believe that it unjustly circumscribes the rights of employers.
And there's the rub - different folks have different perceptions. Thus, to some degree, law, practically speaking, becomes a negotiation between parties as much as or more than it is a protection of rights.
Perhaps you view the FMLA as a vindication of a single mom's rights. I view it as an outrageous and onerous burden on me, personally, as it can dramatically and unpredictably reduce my ability to conduct business, without warning. I view it as violation of my right to conduct my business affairs as I see fit.
"The rights involved are the employer's and the mom's to care for her child."
Not sure what you mean by the "employer's and the mom's to care..."
As an employer, I have neither the right nor the duty to directly care for the children of my employees.
"There is no right to miss work."
There is now. ;-)
It certainly is not a right for the mom to care for her child, as that right is close to absolute. But this right, as granted in law, ends after 12 weeks of absences.
It is a right precisely to miss work. To miss up to 12 weeks of work, for various reasons, in a 12-month period, one day at a time, without the need to notify the employer with any significant length of notice, or the need to try to work out the timing of the missed days with the employer.
"The govm't recognizes that the employer's world isn't going to fall apart, because the mom's day care disappeared temporarily."
So the government tells me, the employer. And if I don't believe 'em, well just who do I trust, the government or my own lyin' eyes? LOL.
The fact is, in smaller organizations, although there may be lots of days the mom can miss without catastrophe befalling the employer, sometimes there are days that if the mom misses work, the employer will suffer significant consequences.
And the government's definition of "temporarily" is 12 weeks. And not twelve weeks for which I can plan. The employee has the right to use those twelve weeks on an ad hoc basis, even a day in, day out basis, until they are used up.
In other words, folks with causes covered under the law, can take up to three months off from work in a twelve month period, a day here, a day there, without prior notice.
Guess what? I don't hire folks I don't need to show up reliably for work.
But then, you just told me, the government knows that I CAN do without employees who regularly show up for work. And of course, I believe the government, right?
"They note and acknowledge the priority of rights. Just as they should note and state the correct boundaries in the present case."
No, they define by law the limits to my freedom of action as an employer. And they do this without any regard to how the boundaries play out in my own circumstances.
But it is interesting that you say, "Just as they should note and state the correct boundaries in the present case."
You are saying what OUGHT to be, not what IS.
Throughout this conversation, I have focused on what is, with little comment on what ought to be. You are saying that employees ought to have a right to park their firearm-ladened vehicles on their employers' property, I have said, well, for now, mostly they are not able to do so without the employer's permission.
I will go further that I do not believe it is a "right" that the government should vindicate in law. It may be a sensible policy, but not everyone might agree that it is a sensible policy. At that point, you are using the law to coerce property owners and business owners to permit the use of their property as you see fit.
Although I acknowledge that there are circumstances that absolutely require that legal coercion, I believe that government should be reticent in using that power. Not everyone agrees with your version of what is right, or mine, either.
Whatever one might say about this, an employer who forbids employees to bring firearms onto the employer's property does not slay or assault the employee, does not force the employee to do anything at all, other than not to park his firearm-ladened car on the employer's property.
sitetest