It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

San Francisco Becomes First City to Require Fully Paid Parental Leave

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
With CA just recently passing the $15.00/hr wage law, I wonder if this will be the straw that breaks the small businesses in San Francisco.


California is one of only a handful of states to already provide partial parental leave for new mothers and fathers. Under existing state-level legislation, workers are paid about 55 percent of their weekly wages for six weeks. The new law, however, is expected to require companies to pick up the difference to meet an employee's full-time salary.

The first-of-its-kind victory again throws California into the spotlight as a champion of progressive values. The state last month opted to raise its minimum wage to $15 per hour. California business owners over the next several years will be required to gradually increase their bottom earners' compensation in accordance with new state regulations that were passed last month.


I also wonder if employers will discriminate against younger hires, opting instead for older staff. If anyone live in SF maybe they could enlighten us on the welfare of small businesses in SF.

A bit more from the link:

The Small Business Commission of San Francisco, for example, reportedly voted 6-1 against the paid leave policy last week.

"If we want all those small businesses to move out of our city, then we are doing the right thing," commission Chairman Mark Dwight, founder and CEO of Rickshaw Bagworks, told the San Francisco Examiner last week.

www.usnews.com...


This obviously will spread to other areas in CA. But with CA's financial woes at an already crucial level, how will CA fare?


edit on 7-4-2016 by StoutBroux because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Lol good bye mom and pop shops
edit on 7-4-2016 by avgguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

Yep, and hello big international corporations as the only viable businesses in CA, next the world. ..lol people isn't it obvious?



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Oh they'll just raise prices and cut a few cents an hour from wages and cut staff bodies.

No problem.




posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Tuesday’s enacted policy, however, mandates full pay, requiring employers with at least 20 workers to make up the difference.

Businesses with 50 or more employees must comply by January 2017. Those with at least 20 workers have until January 2017 to comply. The new policy affects mothers and fathers, including same-sex couples, of newborns.

www.pbs.org...


I know the city passed coverage for both parents in the past. But this makes it sound like both parents for all businesses must be covered. Also, are businesses with less than 20 employees exempt? I need to look into this further.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Its always good to see people behing against america following suit with the rest of the 1st world countries, canada i know is only a tenth of us population, we have way more benefits, we pay way more taxes, but people seem to be pretty happy, its not a perfect country, but it gives its people tools to build for a better future.

Damn us canadian commies



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and traveled by blissfully ignorant victims.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Government imposition is not freedom, that's really a primary issue. It's also not realistic, lol neither is that commie Canadian stuff



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

I guess most of those savings come from Canada not having to maintain a real military



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and traveled by blissfully ignorant victims.


You should visit Canada were not that far from hell lol
edit on 7-4-2016 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

I guess most of those savings come from Canada not having to maintain a real military


Yep we have a small standing army, but we don't play the big bully in the sand box, we have better thing to do with our taxes.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
Lol good bye mom and pop shops


Looks like back a few years because of the original PFL in CA, it didn't bode well for some large companies:


“California’s regulatory policy makes it more difficult and more costly for current and potential entrepreneurs,” said study author Wayne Winegarden, a senior fellow at PRI and a partner in the consulting firm Capitol Economic Advisors. “These higher costs reduce the amount of business growth.”

And payroll employment growth. The 123-page report shows California’s payrolls continue to trail other states. State job growth significantly lagged even the subpar national average between 2002 and 2011.

Clinton might also want to talk to CEOs recently joining the corporate exodus from California.

By relocating its corporate headquarters and distribution facilities — and 350 workers — to the Dallas area, coffee maker Farmer Bros. expects to save $15 million a year. Farmer follows Toyota, which moved its U.S. sales and marketing headquarters to Texas, as well as Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems, eBay, Occidental Petroleum and RifleGear. Nissan recently bailed to Tennessee — which like Texas doesn’t require employers to pay for family leave.

www.investors.com...



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux

If I were a business I would pull out of California and for sure San Francisco.

The anti-business climate is ridiculous there.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux

This is a horrible idea to make businesses, especially small ones, pay for maternity leave. It will without a doubt cause silent discrimination against hiring women, especially minorities. Not to mention the financial impact small businesses will have to put up. One of the grocery stores I contract for has 12 pregnant women working there right now, granted grocery isn't really small business, but an additional 72 weeks of partial pay would be paid by them this year if they were based in Cali.

If Cali wants them to be paid, they should pick up the tab themselves by using government salary and pension cuts to fund it.
Bet it wouldn't go through if that were the case.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: StoutBroux

If I were a business I would pull out of California and for sure San Francisco.

The anti-business climate is ridiculous there.

I've had a couple offers to partner and expand my business into Cali, and every time I say a big HELL NO!



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
Lol good bye mom and pop shops


Good riddance to them if they can't manage to provide there employee's with decent working conditions... as far as I'm concerned.

Kind of ironic how some people are totally against any form of socialism when it comes to people on wages, but then claim that people who own their own business are entitled to a free ride, by exploiting the less fortunate.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

People that aren't financially able to shouldn't be having babies. If 6 weeks of pay will make or break you by having a baby...you shouldn't have a baby.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

You are right!

Having a baby is a choice that 2 parents make, not the employer. Why should the employer have to pay ? I didn`t get paid when I was on maternity leave with any of my 4 children, and that was my choice to have children.

I guess personal responsibility is no longer part of the way folks want to live.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa




Good riddance to them if they can't manage to provide there employee's with decent working conditions... as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand. But I'll bite anyway....

There are already PLENTY of laws on the books regarding wages, overtime and "working conditions." If someone feels they are not being compensated properly for hours worked, or if they are not receiving the required breaks, they can drop a dime to one of the local labor offices. If someone feels they are working in unsafe or indecent conditions, OSHA is always an anonymous phone call away.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonlover12

I have to say that I agree with you.

I'm thinking that these companies will make up for the losses by other means, like less raises for employees or hiring older people in the future or raising the prices of their goods or services. Others will have to pay in one way or another for someone's personal choice of having children.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join