From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 14:25:28 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Oct9.160232.3882@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@carson.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
|> In article <cN5-D!=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> >I agree 100%.  It is not the job of the government to impose itself
|> >on the contractual arrangements between two parties.
|> 
|> "not the job of the government" in some abstract, philosophical
|> sense, right? 

No, in the original Constitutional sense.  There is no power granted
to the Federal government giving it the ability to interfere with
such contracts.

|> Legally, the government DOES have the right
|> to intervene in all sorts of relationships and contracts
|> between parties.

Only because the courts made some giant leaps of logic in the
30's that haven't been corrected.  Most of the convolution centers
on what constitutes 'interstate commerce'.  Since the Constitution
allows the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce, if
the government decides (and the courts concur) that some activity 
involves interstate commerce it can legally regulate it.  The idea
was to regulate the 'commerce', not the employment activities of
companies that may engage in such commerce.

|> 
|> >I, for example,
|> >may want to have family leave and would be willing to give up some
|> >other item for it.  Someone else may be willing to forgo family leave
|> >for some other item.  
|> 
|> This works fine if you have an employer who is willing
|> to negotiate.  If not, there are no options.
|> 

Then I guess you find another employer.  After all, it your employers
job, its *not* yours.  It would be unreasonable for the government to
force a person to accept employment which was unacceptable to the person
and it is equally unreasonable for the government to force an employer
to make an offer to an individual that is unacceptable to the employer.

|> >It is also unreasonable to assume that all businesses can afford to
|> >hold job positions open.  A lot depends on the nature of the business,
|> >and the position held by the employee.  A family leave bill will simply
|> >increase the dependence of these companies on temporary workers.
|> >Temporary workers generally don't receive the same level of benefits
|> >as full-time employees.  The net effect is to hurt people more than
|> >they are helped.  As an example, a relative of mine was working for
|> >a hospital.  She was working close to full-time hours.  However, recently
|> >she had here hours cut back.  They weren't cut back because they didn't
|> >need her, they weren't cut back because she was doing a bad job, they
|> >were cut back because they didn't want to make her full-time and give
|> >her full benefits.  I'm sure this was due either to a union contract
|> >or government regulations (or both), but the point is that she is
|> >worse off than if the company hadn't been required to pay her benefits
|> >when she became full time.
|> 
|> This sort of thing happens a lot with my current employer, too.
|> The main reason that people here are kept at a part-time
|> level is due to state budgetary constraints and cutbacks;
|> benefits are a factor in this, as are salaries.
|> This situation would arise whether or not there were state-mandated
|> benefits.  Do you suggest that non-salary benefits should
|> be removed?
|> 

Only if they are mandated.  Without the mandate, a business would
be able to more fully employ individuals that it doesn't currently
need as full time.  It should be up to the employer to decide when
to increase the compensation of a worker, not the government.

|> >However, it shows that businesses
|> >will find was to control costs, and reducing the number of full time
|> >employees is one way to do it.  Bills such as the family leave bill
|> >will simply hurt many workers because fewer full time jobs will be
|> >available.  Unfortunately, these workers are hard to see.
|> 
|> Then why is it that the main trading competitors of the US
|> manage to provide PAID leave for pregnancy and family crises?

At a cost.  Certainly in terms of freedom, likely in terms of
standard of living.  This country was established at a time when
most other countries had monarchs or other totalitarian figures
running them.  If you had lived then, would you have made the
argument that we needed a monarchy because our other trading
partners all had monarchies?  Freedom is a very important
commodity for most people in this country.  The more government
controls our lives, the less free we become.  I'm sure our
country would be a 'better' place, if only a benevolent dictator
was in power to do the 'right' thing.  In a sense, proponents
of bills like the 'family leave' bill are trying to create a
benevolent dictatorship.  They want a government which will
pass laws against 'bad' things, and force people and businesses
to do 'good' things.  No matter how hard we try, we will never
create a utopia by legislation.  We will only continue to 
erode our freedoms.

|> 
|> >Another good point.  Proponents like to claim that family leave is a 
|> >'right'.  If so, then *everyone* should be entitled to it, not just
|> >those working at companies larger than 50 employee, or making less 
|> >than $x.  Of course, family leave is *not* a right.  A right does
|> >not require that someone else provide it.
|> 
|> Maybe in some abstract realm, but in the real world
|> a right requires some enforcement mechanism.
|> 

There is a difference between provision and protection.  I have a
right to the fruits of my labor.  In the real world, this requires
protection against those who would violate that right.  It 
may require some enforcement to ensure that my right is maintained.
Family leave is not a right.  It requires that a business pay
for your 'right'.  This isn't enforcement, it is theft.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections