|roofle - 2015-11-02 |
|Scrotum H. Vainglorious - 2015-11-02 |
What would Ayn Rand do?
|Miss Henson's 6th grade class - 2015-11-02 |
What a charming gentleman.
|infinite zest - 2015-11-02 |
Ugh.. you could pay me NOT to have to be in Janesville for a day..
|badideasinaction - 2015-11-02 |
No, you see he's saying that workers should encourage the invisible hand of the market to encourage those companies to provide benefits to them. But not a union, of course, that'd be un-American.
|The Mothership - 2015-11-02 |
Of course it doesn't make any sense to you, because you're a robot.
|Meerkat - 2015-11-02 |
As long as I get mine, fuck all y'all.
|animegurl1000 - 2015-11-02 |
This snake would allow companies to force you, your spouse and your children to work 7 days a week if he and his lobbyists had their way.
But hey, if you don't like it you could just find a better job.
|Raggamuffin - 2015-11-02 |
He's against paid family LEAVES, with and "S"! We can have ONE.
Better make it count! Jimmy, you either walk yourself to the emergency room while mommy's at work or there'll be no Disneyland
|urbanelf - 2015-11-02 |
I don't get it. If you want kids, save your money or negotiate for paid leave. I suppose it's more expedient to look at a worker like me, who won't have a family, and insist that I work extra to support everyone else who does.
What happened to you in your childhood to leave you with such hate for humanity, that you would rather see it fall into extinction than see someone else benefit from living in a socially cooperative civilization?
Nothing happened. I'm just a naturally horrible person.
"Would rather destroy all social protections and worker benefits than see a single person receive them who doesn't 'deserve' it" has pretty much been the conservative mantra for the past 35 years.
You're stupid because you think having sane work loads and time off means that all the extra work would go onto your poor shoulders, when anyone without a rotted brain could understand that more workers (more jobs) is the solution.
urbanelf is trolling again, and he got some bites.
SolRo, someone thinking clearly would see that it is obviously transferring the workload from one group to another.
I'm paying taxes and some soon-to-be parent is paying taxes. The soon-to-be parent takes paid leave. The money to pay them during their leave is coming out of the taxes we both paid... but I'm still at work being productive. Clearly the financial burden is being transferred to people who aren't parents.
Even an idiot can see that.
Nominal, right now no one is describing a fine-tuned law to get the money to people who actually deserve it. Already, a person in California who is single, makes k, is frugal, doesn't take vacations, saves money is paying for a couple who collectively make 0k, don't save money, take vacations, lease fancy cars, live in a barely affordable property, and consciously decide to have children.
If you want a social program that helps people in need, then someone should actually describe a program that does just that, but seeing that you've been bought and paid for by the Panem-et-Circenses Party you should find someone else who is capable of thinking through policy consequences. In the meantime, keep posting that conservatives are meanies.
The Mothership, every time I state some obvious logical consequence of this policy, its proponents have a lot to say, but none of it is a defense of the policy.
Oh, and SolRo, to respond to your "more workers" solution, ignoring the fact that the money for the additional workers is coming from somewhere, it doesn't matter how many additional workers you hire: The new workers you hire who aren't going to be parents are paying taxes that will only be paid out to the workers who are currently, or will be, on paid leave as parents.
Miss Henson's 6th grade class
You know, I could more or less agree with urbanelf on economic terms: a federal paid leave policy might put a strain on businesses, who might have to hire more workers to replace, at least temporarily, workers on family leave.
At the same time, I think it's disingenuous of Republicans to prattle on about the horrible state of the American family while at the same time rejecting something of hand that might actually shore up the integrity of the American family because it might be some sort of business expense. Priorities, bitches: choose one.
I also think that it's not exactly sane to say that you, as a worker, will be penalized for someone taking family leave. If your manager can't see that someone taking federally-mandated family leave will put undue stress on the existing workforce and take steps to remedy that, you have a cheap owner or a bad manager, and let's put the blame where it belongs. The road to hell is paved with arguments that causing business to do anything to safeguard their workers' lives or make them more bearable will inevitably hurt them because businesses simply can't be expected to compete and spend money on things like that.
Lastly, there are lots of workplaces where "negotiating with your boss" is a short road to "getting fired." Which is why we need labor laws. What planet do you live on?
We need to get rid of sick leave too.
Tired of these sick leeches stealing the money of people that will never get hurt or sick, EVER.
Also, right now I'm a single loser SO ALL OF SOCIETY MUST BE REMOLDED TO FIT MY LIFESTYLE.
|Hooker - 2015-11-03 |
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you turn something into the opposite of something.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|