Skip to comments.
Calif. Enacts Paid Family Leave Bill
AP ^
| September 23, 2002
| Paul Chavez
Posted on 09/23/2002 6:56:26 PM PDT by EveningStar
Gov. Gray Davis signed a law Monday that makes California the first state to offer workers paid family leave.
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: California
KEYWORDS: atlasshrugs; calgov2002; california; familyleave; gimmegimme; graydavis; paidleave; serfdom; socialism; troll
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-98 next last
To: seenenuf; Alan Chapman; BADJOE; Ernest_at_the_Beach; janetgreen; WillaJohns; AnnaZ; Jim Robinson; ..
ping
To: Salman
Employers will discriminate against parents. Good point. Why hire a risk?
To: Fundamentally Fair
The employer NEVER pays. No matter how you slice it, the employee pays. You were saying?I believe the consumer is the one that pays in the end everytime.
To: concerned about politics
You are correct; the right wing should pay for everything. The liberals are the ones that think up all this nifty stuff, they should'nt have to do everything.
44
posted on
09/23/2002 9:21:22 PM PDT
by
tjg
To: EveningStar
I wonder if there's a provision where I can opt out of paying in to this wealth redistribution scheme...
45
posted on
09/23/2002 9:57:17 PM PDT
by
mvpel
To: j271
This plan will never work as described in the article. Say I'm in the $72,000 bracket. My weekly salary is $1384, and 55% of that is $761. If I get 6 weeks off, the fund pays me $4569 for EVERY INSTANCE of leave.
Now, if I'm paying in only $70 per year, it will take me 65 YEARS to pay pack what I was paid for each 6-week leave.
I don't know about you, but I'm not planning to work for 65 years.
This is socialist voodoo economics at it's worst. I predict within 5 years we'll be paying $500 per year so our deadbeat neighbors can "take care of Granny".
To: EveningStar; *calgov2002; Carry_Okie; SierraWasp; Gophack; eureka!; ElkGroveDan; Grampa Dave; ...
To: EveningStar
A real shot-in-the-arm for Mexico's economy!
48
posted on
09/24/2002 6:13:00 AM PDT
by
tsomer
To: Psycho_Bunny
You are so correct! If this self-serving, under handed governor isn't voted out in the next election, California will certainly go to ruins.
To: tsomer
Talk about "giant sucking sound"...
To: concerned about politics
GADZ...they'd rather live in Tom Harkin country than Feinstein/Boxer/Davis land???
If the California GOP statewide candidates lose the general election, then I think it says that the state GOP needs to move from BURBANK and shelve the LA GOP leadership. The LA GOP leadership thought they were so popular...they ran Riordan and got kicked by the voters for being too liberal.
I wonder if the state GOP central committees will get the message from the voters from March or not?
America is ready for war.
Our people are prepared to fight for our families and our lives.
We are even ready to protect the lives of other citizens in other nations, like Israel.
The primary victory of Bill Simon over Riordan is a wake up call to the democrats... America is pissed off with poor leadership... payola is a part of that...
On the other hand...when the candidate is surrounding himself with a bunch of people who are failing to emphasize photo ops with children in them... well, it gets you a credibility gap.
To: concerned about politics
Too bad the legislators and governor Dimwit don't realize what you have and is quite obvious to those business owners like myself...this is the proverbial nail in the coffin...and we already have plans to shut down in CA if Davis is re-elected. We just can't afford to operate in CA for another four years of the Dimwit and a liberal state legistature. Taxes, workman's comp, CAL OSHA, waste, fraud and abuse just to name a few and now this...it's been real and it's been nice but I can't say it's been real nice and after 25 years I think we will just say "adios!" and let the "Barbra Streisands" in Malibu figure out how to pay for all this...
52
posted on
09/24/2002 9:09:05 AM PDT
by
kellynla
To: EveningStar
This whole idea is soooooo ridiculous....I mean do you really believe that a person who wants to take 6 weeks off won't???? It is hard enough to get people to work now especially in the summer months...I mean who needs SIX FRIGGIN WEEKS ? What are they gonna do???? Build a new house??? I buried my mother in 2 days and was back to work on Monday>>>> Helloooooooo???????? And a woman has a baby she gets to keep her job while I have to hire someone else and train them and then fire them and hire the person on leave back??????? Does anybody in Sacramento have half a brain????????? Have any of these morons ever operated a business in their entire lives??????????
53
posted on
09/24/2002 9:19:17 AM PDT
by
kellynla
To: BigBobber
They're going to rape those of us who don't want or can't concieve children. Socialism at its finest.
54
posted on
09/24/2002 1:14:25 PM PDT
by
mvpel
To: kellynla
*probably about to get flamed but steps in anyway* If the birth is particularly difficult (say like the emergency C section I had the first time around after I bled out) I was ordered to bed for the first two weeks after the birth and limited to lifting no more than 10 lbs for 4 weeks after that. Naturally some births are easier than that. But to assume that all people are just going to take advantage of this new law is a bit of a stretch IMHO.
55
posted on
09/24/2002 1:49:27 PM PDT
by
Severa
To: Severa
Not going to flame you. I am just happy you are up and about and hopefully your baby is fine. Obviously your situation is an exception to the rule and taking for granted that you were a very good employee, I know I wouldn't have a problem with you taking a leave "but" and you know there is always a "but" there are many people who will take advantage of this "leave" situation and that's what ruins it for the other 95%. Obviously with a pregnancy an employer can plan ahead but with a death heck many times you don't have much of if any notice. Good employers don't need the government telling us what to do and if a person is working for an employer that does then that person needs to go find a better job elsewhere...
56
posted on
09/24/2002 2:46:15 PM PDT
by
kellynla
To: kellynla; **California; GummyIII
I'm glad you see the significance of this. Obviously, too many folks at this and other boards don't. All too many people seem to think that this is just another California-is-the-land-of-fruits-and-nuts problem. Wrong. California is the vanguard state. If we don't fight this here, other states will follow suit - first, the more liberal states of course. But they will then be followed by the so-called less liberal states.
To: dogbyte12; RJayneJ; Lazamataz; mhking; rdb3; Dog Gone; Nick Danger
"Employers hate this bill because it gives people the cushion to actually take the 6 weeks. Many people couldn't afford to take 6 weeks unpaid leave off work. So, it is a negative for business, but they are not directly paying for this bill."
The unintended consequences of this bill will prove to be good for business, after the dust settles anyway.
Consider that any business that can survive without a given employee for 6 straight weeks in a row, probably doesn't need said employee (thus placing said employee on the short-list when the next round of downsizing arrives).
And on the other side of the coin, businesses in California will turn more and more towards paying for production rather than paying for time. Why pay salaries when one can pay for output (e.g. commissions and achievement plans such as paying $5 for each widget that a worker assembles)?
Thus, California will see a marked trend towards outsourcing, contracting out work to either individuals (who may even work at corporate facilities) or 3rd-party firms.
So how does the self-employed plumber in California get to take 6 weeks paid "family-leave"?
Does Joe Homeowner pay the plumber for NOT fixing a leak for 6 weeks? Of course not!
And just as homeowners won't be paying for this ill-thought-out law, neither will California businesses. Instead of hiring new employees, California businesses will engage in a combination of overtime, relocating, and outsourcing, as well as moving more and more towards paying for output instead of paying for time.
58
posted on
09/24/2002 3:55:32 PM PDT
by
Southack
To: Southack
Too many workers will see this as a benefit of up to 6 weeks vacation per year at half pay, in addition to any other vacation and sick time. As pointed out above, the deductions are woefully inadequate to pay for this program.
If this is the start of this program, then it will be expanded to cover all employers, and the staggering cost will also be shifted to all employers. It's going to be cost-prohibitive to be a California business, which is why they are so anxious that other states adopt a similar law. If they can make everyplace else as bad for business, there is less reason to relocate.
59
posted on
09/24/2002 4:16:30 PM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: EveningStar
Well it's law now so the only thing we can hope for is that Simon gets elected and then maybe we can get this wild idea changed or challenged in court.
60
posted on
09/24/2002 4:34:01 PM PDT
by
kellynla
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-98 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson