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: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
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.


The only problem with that theory is that only the wealthy and higher middle income could afford to have children, and they aren't exactly popping out the little ones. Higher middle class could. But no/low income wouldn't and lets face it, we do need replacement people. But then again, at the rate of immigration, legal and illegal, maybe we shouldn't be procreating at all.




posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux

Whether it's increasing a minimum wage to an arbitrary number or this paid family leave stuff, I think it really shows the difference in mentality between people who have spent their lives in politics compared to those who have spent their lives working in "the real world" (for lack of a better phrase).
Even outside of the politics vs business comparison, this MIGHT be a liberal vs conservative thing as well.


I think this difference is best shown when the question is asked, "What is the mission of a private business?"


It seems to me that those in the "real world" (and likely right leaning people) will answer with something to the affect of, "The mission of a business is to make as much profit as possible while following all laws and regulations. This is done by providing a product/service that people want at a price they can afford and in order to do these things we must recruit and keep the best talent available."

It seems to me that the politicians (and likely some left leaning people) view a business not as something that is designed to make profit and benefit those whom took the chance and created and managed to grow the business. It seems that often they view a business as a mechanism to subsidize the lives of the employees.

I cringe sometimes when I hear people what should be an entry level position (fast food, supermarket cashier, etc) complain that they can't afford to buy a house, buy a car and have a bunch of kids. Further, they complain because they sincerely feel that they are entitled to these things at the expense of the private business just for the fact that they work at all and seem to have no regard whatsoever of what value they bring to the table.

There are most definitely positions that are truly "dead end jobs." That being said, many (if not most) entry level minimum wage jobs have opportunities for growth. Within almost every job there is the opportunity for an employee to increase his/her worth to the employer which will translate into a better salary/benefit package. I think a lot of us see this in our daily life, even if we don't stop to think about it.

Say you go into a fast food joint. You can tell who will grow within that company and become assistant off-shift managers then off-shift managers then day shift managers and perhaps even beyond the physical store into the regional office. These are the cashiers that treat the customers with respect and heaven forbid, have a pleasant attitude while doing their best to get orders right, etc. Then we see the one's that we KNOW aren't going anywhere. They are the ones that act like you are somehow inconveniencing them just by walking into the store and placing and order which makes them, heaven forbid, do what they were hired to do.

I'm drifting a little here but at the end of the day a business is there to make money. A business is not a charity that exists to subsidize the lives of the employees.

One last comment....

I personally dislike the assumption that without a law, businesses will not do " the right thing" by it's employees. While certainly not all, MANY private employers already take good care of their employees by way of benefits and as it pertains to the OP, including paid maternity leave. I know tons of people (my wife included) that upon having children received six weeks full paid leave (in some cases more). These businesses weren't compelled to do this. They did this because they realize that they want to retain the talent. They realize that when you have good people working for you it's cheaper in the long run to treat them well than it is to have a revolving door where you are constantly training new people and the clients are constantly dealing with different people (thus never forming that sort of "bond" with the staff).

Ok, just one more comment....

Why six weeks? Why not four? Why not eight? It just shows how arbitrary this is.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
This is a bad idea and something the government has place in getting involved. It is San Francisco though, so what do you expect. A liberals wet dream.

In all honesty, I'm a little surprised they have a new mommy problem if you know what I mean. People sure are getting rights mixed up with privileges these days. Use contraception or keep your clothes on, but for the love of God don't get pregnant if you can't afford it. Mature responsible people either look for a job with these benefits BEFORE the get pregnant, or they already have the money to take the time off. Goodwill is great. Wonderful if businesses want to do it on their own. But what the hell is this encouraging of government to always stick it to business like their are no consequences to the actions?



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
My Dad's side of the family has small corporations... Less than 500 but more than 100 employees at a time. Admittedly, I was surprised they were Trump supporters. They have always been republican, but I was greatly surprised they were not following the party line this election.

My point being, mom and pop businesses usually have less than 20 employees, this law will not even effect them, but the middle class family corporations will have a hard time with these type of laws. I guess seeing it from their side, I can empathasize. Also, why Bernie doesn't look so good to me. I know my family. They actually go out of their way to appreciate their hires and many of them have been there via generational references. My grandfather started the initial companies. My cousins now run them.

They have managed to make it still feel like family business even now. I know not every corporation does this and the bigger they get...so does the disconnect between owners and employees, but I do empathasize with smaller corporations and businesses.


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



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

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.



Yep, people are being exploited by small business providing jobs.

Are you actually serious?




posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

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.



Yep, people are being exploited by small business providing jobs.

Are you actually serious?

I don't know Subaeruginosa so I won't speak for him/her.
But I can say YES! Believe it or not many, MANY people really, honestly, truly believe that!!!



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: StoutBroux

originally posted by: Vector99
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.


The only problem with that theory is that only the wealthy and higher middle income could afford to have children, and they aren't exactly popping out the little ones. Higher middle class could. But no/low income wouldn't and lets face it, we do need replacement people. But then again, at the rate of immigration, legal and illegal, maybe we shouldn't be procreating at all.

Having a baby doesn't require millions of dollars. A single mom making 40-50k a year at a company that offers vacation time and benefits could have one easily. Use the vacation time for the pregnancy. But Donna at taco bell probably shouldn't have a kid, let alone expect to be paid while having the kid. America doesn't have a population issue, especially California. Well then again at the rate they are going Cali will start running out of people.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I do think companies should be more generous with leave for new parents. I have a two year old and I can tell you that six weeks is barely enough, particularly if the woman has a rough birth. My wife took three months off after the birth of our son. She is an upper level exec at a well known company. She only got maybe six weeks paid and then the rest we just dug into our savings. Of course, since we are productive and responsible, we actually planned to have our child when we could afford it, but I know that is asking too much of people nowadays.

Anyway, many companies are very generous without a law needing to be passed. Companies that are competing for top talent usually already offer a lot of these benefits.

People really don't realize how disruptive and costly a woman going on leave is for a company. My wife manages a large team and she recently has two of her employees going on maternity leave. As a woman, she supports it. However, as a boss, it is a huge pain in the azz for her because it disrupts the productivity of her team. She is having to reallocate work and responsibilities, etc. These are not jobs that you can just hire someone off the street to do.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I once was offered a position in San Francisco.

My asking salary was 250,000/year.

This will hurt small businesses. But who cares, right?

Just more government control.

yay.




posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I want to know when a company benefit became a mandatory law.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I want to know when a company benefit became a mandatory law.


It started with (I think) the (alleged) Affordable Healthcare Act. Some people were cheering so hard and loud they didn't hear the precedent being set.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

What you really mean is " we have a small standing army because America acts as our main defense"



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I want to know when a company benefit became a mandatory law.


You know, that's a great thought. It used to be that a job seeker ran down the list of pros and cons of a possible future employer, weighing the bennies, wages etc. Meh, now they'll all be the same. But why did the government have to get involved and micro manage the employers? It makes one wonder how people were able to have families before this.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
Anyway, many companies are very generous without a law needing to be passed. Companies that are competing for top talent usually already offer a lot of these benefits.


Think of it this way. If those companies are already being run by decent human beings, then they don't need a law to set a minimum standard, they're already going above and beyond it. If they aren't, maybe they should be forced to help make the country a better place to live.

Besides that, many companies aren't so generous. Civilized countries don't let employers screw their employees.
edit on 7-4-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




If they aren't, maybe they should be forced to help make the country a better place to live.


I think you are going to have to define what "a better place" means (and it has to apply across the board and contain some specificity that everyone agrees with).




Civilized countries don't let employers screw their employees.


Sticking with the OP, how is NOT paying someone for NOT working "screwing" employees?

Typically, when a person (employee) comes to an agreement with a company (employer) to work for them, there is an understanding that the employee will perform X-duties in exchange for Y-compensation.

If the employee makes a "change of life decision" (as it is sometimes referred to in insurance lingo), that was done so entirely at the discretion of the employee. There are laws in place that state that the employee's job must be "secured" for a certain amount of time after a child is born. However, why is it the financial responsibility of the employer to basically pay for this "change of life decision" that the employee makes unilaterally?

To flip the script, if an Employer and Employee enter into an agreement where the Employee will receive $1,000 per week to perform 40 hours of work per week... then the Employer decides that they want to pay the Employee the same $1,000 for 50 hours of work per week.... would you consider that a breach of the agreement? If you do, then you can't expect an Employer to pay an Employee for work that they agreed to perform that they did not.

You can't have it both ways. Either agreements mean something or they don't.

If you think it is OK for employees to arbitrarily change the terms of the agreements they make with their employers, then you have to be OK with it when the reverse is true.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:36 AM
link   
I wonder how many women will get laid off over this law? I wonder if the idiots whom passed this law ever even considered this? Before You call Me Hitler for thinking this is stupid let Me just be clear and I think women should have maternity leave. I don't think it's right for the business to pay for this leave but it's the fathers responsibility to take care of this.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Edumakated
Anyway, many companies are very generous without a law needing to be passed. Companies that are competing for top talent usually already offer a lot of these benefits.


Think of it this way. If those companies are already being run by decent human beings, then they don't need a law to set a minimum standard, they're already going above and beyond it. If they aren't, maybe they should be forced to help make the country a better place to live.

Besides that, many companies aren't so generous. Civilized countries don't let employers screw their employees.




General rule of thumb is if You work for a company and know the owner You will be treated well. I worked for a company like that once and I made great money and had nice bonuses around Christmas time. At this time the company was a private company but that all ended when it popped up on the Canadian stock exchange. Before it went public I was treated like a needed member of the company but after it went public I was treated like they were doing Me a favor. That favor ended when I was left home for five months with no work and no pay while the office staff got paid for no work while sitting in the office.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

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.




So please explain to Me how providing a job is exploitation. You do realize a job is 100% voluntary and You can quit at anytime. As a matter of fact when You walked through the door You came to them for employment not the other way around.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: StoutBroux

originally posted by: Vector99
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.


The only problem with that theory is that only the wealthy and higher middle income could afford to have children, and they aren't exactly popping out the little ones. Higher middle class could. But no/low income wouldn't and lets face it, we do need replacement people. But then again, at the rate of immigration, legal and illegal, maybe we shouldn't be procreating at all.



Only problem is the upper middle class is not having children because We have to foot the bill. I don't know about You but My life hasn't been fun these last twenty years and I've always been in danger of loosing My job. Now if I would have went to work for the government I might have had 4 kids because then I wouldn't have had to worry about fluctuating commodity prices.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 04:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
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


That, and exporting everything from oil to cars and paper is why.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join