Replies

"You're correct about only one side. If the story is basically correct, however, it is negative in more ways than one: it just furnishes (legitimate) ammunition to those economically ignorant who want more regulation like the Family Leave Act."

Hopefully you will never encounter a situation with yourself or a family member such as described in the article. Pregnant women are also fired sometimes when a company finds out that they're pregnant (or at least they used to). I know, it happened to a relative of mine. She sued and she won. This relative was one of the top producers in the company, but said company did not want to pay benefits and take the risk of the employee not returning to work. They are currently no longer in business as they made piss-poor business decisions and went bankrupt, lol.

Re your post 15, but don't you understand that whenever a story like this is posted, the YES-BUT-THE-OTHER-SIDE-OF-THE-STORY-IS-MISSING crowd is inevitably going to weigh in. You can bank on it. I suppose that they think that this constitutes critical thinking. Tiresome, really damn tiresome.

You're preaching to the choir. Read my comment again. I said that, if the story is correct, the outrage is legitimate. When businesses are irresponsible, bad law results.

Your anecdote (or this one), not withstanding, the Family Leave crap is bad--just perhaps not as bad as what it seeks to rectify.