Wisconsin legislature passes bill removing sick pay and family leave

What the hell man!

Walker Signs Bill Removing Sick Pay Law

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Gov. Scott Walker has signed a bill that prohibits local governments from passing ordinances guaranteeing workers' paid sick and family leave.

The Republican measure came after a state appeals court upheld a Milwaukee ordinance requiring employers to give workers paid sick leave. Milwaukee voters overwhelmingly approved the ordinance by referendum two years ago but it's been tied up in the courts ever since.

Seriously? I mean seriously? The middle-class/lower income class isn't hurting enough? You sick bastard!

reply to post by Vitchilo


Uh, did you actually read the entire article?

What exactly is your little hissy fit about?

You do realize that the law in question REQUIRES employers provide PAID sick leave.

There are only two other cities in the US that have a similar law in place, San Fransisco and Washington DC.

Nothing about this bill prohibits employers from offering paid sick leave as a benefit.

Employers are not required to offer vacation or health insurance and any benefits for that matter. They offer them as a incentive to start and continue working for them.

Unpaid sick leave is a requirement by federal law, and it does make sense. But why should an employer be forced to pay someone for not working?

Right now Wisconsin , especially Milwaukee, is in desperate need for new business and jobs. How would a law like PAID mandatory sick leave encourage a business to start or move to Milwaukee. Consider how rare this type of law is and how you as a business owner would view it when considering where to start,expand or move your business.

reply to post by ViperChili


heck i read the whole article 3 times and still do not understand, it actually resembled some lawyer doublespeak to me.
Ehh i don't live over there anyway.
Rest assured if he goes way over his bounds he will be voted off of the island.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Gov. Scott Walker has signed a bill that prohibits local governments from passing ordinances guaranteeing workers' paid sick and family leave.

Well boss, I'm not going to work for you today, but either pay me or go to jail.

Yeah its ever so fair that someone does zero work but get paid any way. Not.

Its funny how the leeches of society we have in government are so adamant about taking other people's money but if they ever get a business them self they suddenly realize its actually morally corrupt to do things like that.

Not that the provision means much when there are already state ordinances requiring every employer in the state to do such a thing, so you didn't read the article carefully enough as another poster pointed out.

New Hampshire has the least business regulations. Yet New Hampshire has very well paid employees, and a thriving economy. Go figure. And consider that personally I have moved to a business friendly state to start a business. Businesses often move from Illinois to Wisconson because of more friendly laws. Look into the economy of Kenosha, Wisconson for example. Legislation like mandatory sick pay may very well put a stop from that happening. If middle class people think this will help them out, well they just are not thinking and don't that regulations friendly to business are what creates jobs in one place over another.

reply to post by civilchallenger


Of course they do not have to pay....or at least i think it is not a law...i really dunno.
I do know that sick pay/ time off is in many benefits package and this has been common in the US waaaay before we started having such epic financial failures.
This benefit is part of what makes a job attractive.
I had the benefit if in my line of work, and if they would not give me what i wanted, i could quit and compete with my old employer, some of these folks cannot do the same.
I always got what i wanted from work, but i promise, my boss was not complaining, he walked away quite fat too.
These folks just want to steal all the cream and leave none for the people, greed at it's finest.

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by civilchallenger

 

These folks just want to steal all the cream and leave none for the people, greed at it's finest.

Its not stealing because like you said, its optional to work there. It is however stealing if you are prying money for sick pay out of the hand of an unwilling fat-cat employer and putting it in the hands of his employee. You've got the one who is doing the stealing mixed up.

reply to post by civilchallenger


Don't you try to confuse me with the facts!!
No but really you are partially right.
All i am saying is i'm sure it was part of their benefits package upon hiring.
If i went for a job and their bene package wasn't up to par i insisted on better pay.
The employer i will take care of and sell their business, i in turn expect them to take care of me too.
That is not too much to ask, especially when you consider working folks pay to admins pay, or the pay and bene's bankers make and still get bailouts for failed business practices.

Sick leave and vacation pay are "benefits". "benefits" should be voluntary, not compulsory.
Even vacation pay is "voluntary" for employers and not compulsory,,, at least those of us with normal, non-union jobs,

"self" sees horse?
"self" gets over "it".
"self" deals with it when it doesn't work.
Unions don't care about the other "selfs".