From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Family Leave Bill (was Re: Bush is pro-child ...)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:47:45 GMT

 farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:
> 
>>	That was a simplified example.  If you had 50 employees, the
>>same problems would apply.  Whether the person is paid or not makes
>>little difference, since the company loses much more from that person
>>being gone than it takes it pay that person.  Family leave is a great
>>idea, but it needs to be decided between the employer and employee
>>without a heavy government hand in between.  The more restrictions on
>>business, the fewer of them will succeed, the less jobs there will be.
>>A good intentioned bill is a bad bill if it makes conditions worse.

Right. The estimate I heard was that up to 75,000 jobs could be lost
from this regulation alone. It is far better to allow flexibility
on this matter then to force it on all employers and all employees.

>I disagree. Then again, it would have to pay the temporary much less
>than it would have had to pay the regular worker.

That's part of the whole problem. Right now a lot of companies
use semi-permanent "temporary" employees, and part-time employees,
to avoid the cost and expense of providing benefits to full-time
employees. This problem will only get worse, as employees wise
up and realize their costs are lower if they don't have to deal
with full-time employees getting these benefits. This wedge, when
added with all the other regulatory wedges, will only backfire
and do more harm than good.

BTW, how many jobs, say at GM, have been saved by the plant-closing 
notification bill? How many lost?

>I contest that the person
>being paid makes a big difference. I would prefer PAID leave but I can
>understand why some would think it's an unfair burden. I think UNPAID
>leave is much more fair and palatable to most. 

This is a benefit that not all employees would want.
I would prefer less regulation and more jobs for my fellow Americans.

>>	Rush Limbaugh made a good point about this bill today.  Bush
>>has vetoed this bill in the past and the Democrats know he will veto
>>it now.  They want him to veto it, because when he does veto it, they
>>will scream, "SEE! He doesn't care about family values!"  The
>>Democrats know there's a sucker born every minute.
> 	
>So what? 
>
>I admit that the timing is political. But then again, so is
>Bush's veto (he wants to be pro-business). That is a cop-out response.

Bush is making the right decision, and the timing is wholly determined
by the Congress. If anything, Bush wants the politics out of it.

>At least, I'll admit the real motivations behind the Dems move.  Their
>motivation doesn't change the fact that I think the family leave bill
>is a good idea nor should it change your mind that it's not. The timing
>shouldn't change the worthiness of the bill in anyone's mind.

True. But it begs the question of whether a partisan political move
that will have no real consequences is the most important thing they
have to do in Washington right now. ... if so, they are grossly overpaid,
and I would suggest permanent unpaid leave for *them*, come this
November. :-)

>Besides, what if the Dems think they have enough votes to override?

They know otherwise. 


Pat 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.pol