Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Family leave (wasL Re: Clinton's flip-flop on Haitians!)
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 28 Jan 93 04:30:56 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
> 
> Few companies in the U.S. have a Family Leave policy.  Many have no 
> leave policy at all, except for a vaction and holiday plan.  The 
> average vacation time per year in the U.S. is 10 days per year per 
> employee, the lowest in the western world. (By contrast, Spain has 
> 30, Germany 25, and the UK 22.)   The U.S. is pathetically behind 
> other countries in allowing employees free time, and there is no 
> movement to change that.

we're also pretty darn productive compared to those countries. which
is more important? i don't know. extra time off for -me- is great.
but i've also got to consider how that time off will affect the
market as a whole. those extra 2 weeks may not be worth it.

> "Welfare capitalism" is being dismantled.  Large companies who
> have liberal benefits are laying off employees in record numbers
> and cutting these benefits.   Fully paid medical benefits, lengthy
> vacation time, company pensions, and other perks are going out the
> window.  There are few if any allowances for such things as
> "family leave" in today's cost-cutting environment.   The only 
> way to get companies to grant Family Leave is to force them to 
> do so.

ahh yes. but companies are smarter than you give them credit for.
force them to pay more (in money, benefits or leave time) & they'll
simply end up hiring less people. you think lay offs are bad now?
just wait. family leave will end up hurting a lot of people. the
average consumer will pay too, because they'll have to bear the extra 
costs that can't be reduced by hiring fewer employees.

the end result will be a lot of downsizing. smaller companies that
aren't being forced by the government will have a smaller overhead
& be more competetive. the trend toward self employed "consultants"
will also increase. for the most part, people -still- won't be getting
leave time, but now we've got more beaurocracy, more government waste
& lots more paperwork for businesses to spend valuable resources 
handling.  doesn't anyone making these laws *think* about the 
consequences first?

> We no longer live in a country where almost all mothers stay at home
> to take care of the kids.  Most mothers work.  When a child is
> sick, someone must stay home to take care of him/her. The person
> who does can be, and often is, terminated from employment.  The
> result is an economic disaster for the family, often leading
> to increased child neglect and more people on the welfare rolls.
> Society has changed, and so therefore must companies and the
> government.

if society truely has changed, business will respond eventually. 
(some of them already are.)  if the government tries to -force- the
change the results will probably less wonderful than you might expect.

> It is fine to have a "government hands-off" philosophy ... that is
> until YOU have a sick child and YOU lose your job.

i'm fully aware of that & am willing to take the risk. as i've said
before & will say again, "I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO BE MY !@#$ING
MOTHER!" i'm an adult & can presumably take care of myself. if not,
rough. at least this way i don't have mommy breathing down my neck.
if you need or want a babysitter, fine. but don't foist one off on those
of us who don't. they cost too damn much money & won't let ya get away
with anything.

jason "do i sound like a libertarian? funny, that." steiner

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`      "Innocence, joy, and squeezable fun for everyone" - TOYS       `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69916 alt.politics.clinton:21293 misc.legal:23353