Calif. Enacts Paid Family Leave Bill

AP ^ | September 23, 2002 | Paul Chavez

[Iscool]

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.

Maybe some facts are in order...Under the current law, available vacation time has to be used up as part of the leave before the leave takes effect...Paperwork must be filled out by a medical specialist for the leave to be legitimate...And there is recourse by the employer to immediately appeal the leave request...

The multi-million dollar employer that I work for has just over 50 employees, qualifying it for the leave program...We have had less than 1 leave per year since the program has been in effect...Maybe because employees can't afford to be off without pay...The new Kaliphornia paid leave plan makes it look pretty attractive tho...

I can't imagine taking less than 3 days off for the funeral of a loved one...Funeral arrangements, grieving, etc...I would probably take more than 3 days...Even if I owned the business...

[mikeIII]

The employer NEVER pays. No matter how you slice it, the employee pays.

The employer with more than 50 employees is required to keep the job open for the paid-vacationer!

[Dog Gone]

There probably are some disincentives for an employee to take this leave, especially if they try to do it every year. The employer will find a justification for firing them.

The medical specialist won't be hard to find, though. Doctors give patients what they want, or they won't have them as repeat customers. A cottage industry in unscrupulous doctors will spring up who will approve a disproportionate number of these requests. It always works this way.

There is no free lunch. The California legislature consistently proves that they believe otherwise.

[Euro-American Scum]

I hope Davis wins. If not, then as California slides into hell from all he has done the idiots there will blame Simon.

They'll blame Simon win or lose.

[glory]

You aren't kidding about that. I'm a mother of two young ones. About 18 mos. ago I joined a mother's group to get kids together. You would not have believed how ticked these women were that they had to choose their kids or their jobs. They said they should have a mandatory ONE YEAR maternity leave, paid preferably and guess who they wanted to enforce that employers gave it.Of course I spoke out, not to mention I was shunned shortly after. I would say as far as mothers were concerned, I was in the minority in thinking that women(families really) have to make a choice once they have a child and if you choose to stay home, then you choose to resign from your career indefinitely unless you have the motivation to start a business or consulting from home. The sick thing of course is one of these gals was a teacher(she was the most verbal FOR this) and she could have EASILY done tutoring on the side for probably a pretty good income--problem solved! No need to waste a job and you still have a resume with experience on it. It made me wonder what she really wanted which sounded like a free ride for a year.

[Southack]

"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."

I agree, but even with those facts considered, the socialists still don't understand that they are destroying their core Labor-cushion, the salaried job.

Take my business, for example. My company provides two services, programming and technical staffing. When I get a new software contract, however, I don't rush out to hire new programmers. Instead, I bid out the work to see if my competition is hungry-enough to do this one new job. If they aren't, then I farm out the work to programmers who've worked with me in the past on a contract basis. Only when I can't find reasonable contractors or outsourcing do I try to hire an in-house salaried employee to knock-out the programming work.

Likewise, when one of my client firms needs extra staff, I pay my recruiters a commission for finding said staff. Other staffing firms might pay their recruiters a salary.

But why? Why pay people a salary for their "time" at work? Why not simply pay people for their performance? Find the right programmer for my client, get paid a commission. I don't care how much or how little time my recruiters spend hunting down good candidates, so why pay my recruiters a salary for that time?

I do care that they find good candidates, so why not pay them for their production? Which is of course what I do. They find the right candidate and then they get a commission.

And with no "salary", I'm in no more danger of this California-style piece of socialistic "family leave" law than I would be of paying a plumber to not fix a leak in my house for six weeks while he spent time with his family.

This trend can be extrapolated, too. Why pay secretaries a salary (and be "on the hook" for laws like the one in this thread) when you can pay them based upon how many documents they type up? Why pay salesmen salaries for their time (and be "on the hook" for laws like the one in this thread) when you can pay them based upon how much they sell? Why pay geologists for their time (and be "on the hook" for laws like the one in this thread) when you can pay them for the oil that they find?

Alvin Toffler talks about this very thing in his magnificent tome Future Shock of 30+ years ago. Laws like the one in this thread will hasten the demise of salaried jobs, to be replaced by contracting and other forms of payments-for-performance.

How many California sports teams are going to be competitive nationally when football, baseball, and basketball players on those teams take six weeks of "family leave" in the middle of the season, with the LAW requiring that their jobs remain open to them when they return?

California is killing the salaried job, one law at a time. Lord only knows how they are going to handle paying attorneys for taking 6 weeks off. Are past clients going to be on the hook, or will the state simply borrow more money to pay Tobacco-company-level payouts? With the right timing, trial attorneys and sports players could very well extend their lucrative careers by six paid work-free weeks, all at the tax-payers and/or past clients' expense.

Paying people for NOT working has always been a bad idea (ridiculous and predictable sob-stories notwithstanding). Perhaps this law will bring that fact more clearly out into the open...

[Southack]

"It made me wonder what she really wanted which sounded like a free ride for a year."

That's why socialism has always sounded so good. Who doesn't want a free ride? Who wants to have to work? Doesn't everyone want to be born rich, and if not, then made rich by something magical happening?!

Enter politicians promising things for free. Fully paid maternity leave for a year? Heck, why not double-pay for two years?? It's "overtime" to actually have to take time off, right?! Where does the madness stop? Paid time off. "Free" day care. Free prescription drugs. Free health care. Free houses. What's next, free cars??

Heaven forbid that a politician actually get elected without promising a bunch of slackers a lot of money from other hard-working taxpayers...

[goldstategop]

Swedefornia on the Sacramento River!!!

[goldstategop]

The upside is soon we'll be all paid for NOT working! ;-)

[meyer]

I hope Davis wins. If not, then as California slides into hell from all he has done the idiots there will blame Simon.

Interesting statement. In AA, there is talk that the alcoholic cannot or will not generally quit abusing alcohol until he or she "hits bottom". Would a Davis win allow the dems in California to "hit bottom"?

[meyer]

Employers will discriminate against parents.

And at the same time, the state will discriminate against non-parents.

[meyer]

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.

Having many friends in the building trades, I can concur that there will be a number of employees taking advantage of the opportunity to get a "free lunch", much as is done with unemployment at times. And you're correct; the fees collected will not even come close to paying for the costs of the program.

[M Kehoe]

Next year Kali, like Mugabe in Rhodesia wondering why they are starving, will wonder why all of the business left the state and unemployment is at record levels.

Wake up people, there has been 70 some years of practiced communism and if you haven't been living on the planet Pluto, it has failed.

Sheesh.

5.56mm

[meyer]

In reference to #66, good post. You're obviously in a good position to explain the steps that are available to the management side of the company to counter this. Of course, you realize that the socialists will not be satisfied until everybody is unemployed (and still miraculously paid with acceptable legal tender). Interesting concept they seem to have.

[meyer]

Heaven forbid that a politician actually get elected without promising a bunch of slackers a lot of money from other hard-working taxpayers...

This is particularly, but not exclusively true with democrats. They are really trying to get 51% of the population to live for free off of the other 49%'s earnings. Of course, it goes without saying that the 51% would presumably be democrat voters. I love paying taxes to support my enemies.

I think I know why a few repubs seem so wishy-washy at times.

[cibco]

"*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.

No flame, but I can tell you have never worked for the Post Office. FMLA opened a can of worms there. Almost everyone took advantage when the angles got figured out. ;0)

[meyer]

No flame, but I can tell you have never worked for the Post Office. FMLA opened a can of worms there. Almost everyone took advantage when the angles got figured out. ;0)

It ain't just the post office, though it is probably more pronounced in that instance. I have a friend working there as well and he could tell you a few stories. Quite a few.

[cibco]

I used to work there. The abuse of FMLA was one of the final straws. I wish I had kept a dairy. The book would have explained the PO to the country. It is communism in action. :0)

[EveningStar]

Why would you want a dairy? Did you own cows? ;)

[cibco]

ROFLMO! See what 11 yrs will do to a person. ;0)