From: garrett@Ingres.COM (IF YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM)
Subject: Re: Family leave (wasL Re: Clinton's flip-flop on Haitians!)
Summary: bloody shirt!  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:44:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.133949.29849@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)       writes...
>If the family leave bill is so good and so compasionate, why are business
>with fewer then 50 employees exempted?  Could this be and "equal protection
>under the law issue?"

You want it both ways don't you? If it did affect businesses with fewer than
50 employees then you would say that it effects small businesses to hard.
Since it doesn't, then you say it isn't equal protection. Perhaps this is
just a comprimise that works best with the "real world". Or do you want
to ride some more fences?
> 
>>>secondly, it is -not- the government's responsibility to take care of
>>>families. i don't like that Bush said anything to that effect either,
>>>but i'm glad he didn't carry through on it. i don't want the government
>>>to be my mommy & give me an allowance every week. 'cause when it takes
>>>that kind of parental role it becomes impossible to get the car keys
>>>& you have to be in by 12.
>>
>>Certainly a lot of people agree with you on this.  However, the
>>government takes care of families all the time.  We can go down
>>a lengthy list: pure food and drug laws, child labor laws, Social
>>Security, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, Medicare,
>>Medicaid, laws to promote safe working conditions, environmental
>>regulations for clean air and water, child support laws,
>>and I could go on.   Certainly each of these things leads to
>>more regulatory bureaucracy.  It's worth it.   If the government
>>won't protect families, then no one else will.
> 
>In most of these cases the government has not stepped into a private contract
>between two responsible parties and dictated how that contract will be 
>implemented. 

This arguement went out with the Robber Barons of the 1800's. This was
the same arguement that the Supreme Court used to defeat Child Labor Laws,
Worker Safety Laws, Consumer Protection Laws, ect. Thank God, Oliver Wendell
Holmes helped put a stop to that.

>The Family Leave Act is an intrusion by government into the
>affairs individuals where it does not belong.

Only if you define the "individual" to include businesses.
>>
>>The problem is that many companies are run by people that cannot
>>or will not understand that our society has changed dramatically
>>over the past 25 years.  The working mother is a fact - a reality.
>>Wishing for a return to the "good ol days" won't change anything.
>>When your child gets sick, child care organizations and babysitters
>>won't take him/her.   A parent must take care of the child in these
>>cases.  To do so, you risk losing your job in many companies.  One
>>can say, "just go to another company with a more progressive
>>policy", but in this recession, that's difficult if not impossible
>>to do.
> 
>Baloney.  If that employee has made themselves worth keeping, the company
>will keep them and their (sometimes substanial) investment in that employee.
> 
So that will stop children from getting sick? But then I guess society
is better off if single mothers and their children are all starving or
on welfare.
>>
>>Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc.
>>Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
> 
>JSL.

-Garrett