From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Bush is pro-child molestors?
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:35:56 GMT

jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:

>In article <farenebt.716140581@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>-> jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:
>-> >	Think about this forced unpaid maturity leave.  Say you are a
>-> 	
>-> I believe you mean, maternity leave.

>	That's funny.  Jump on me for spelling with a grammatically
>incorrect sentence.

How is it a grammatically incorrect sentence? Besides, I wasn't jumping on you. 
If I were jumping on you, I guarantee it would have included some 
sarcastic flame.
 
>-> >small business and have one employee.  The employee says they are taking
>-> >time off, and you can't do anything about it, because it's federally
>-> >mandated.  While that person is off, you have to put your business on
>-> >hold, find someone else, and spend the money to train them.  Say that
>-> >employee comes back, works a few months, and then takes more time off.
>-> >You have to do it all again.  Usually, you would just find someone more
>-> >reliable, but because of the federal law, you're stuck.  This already
>-> >happens in big companies that mandate leave to their small franchise
>-> >stores, and it would be a big mess on a federal government level.
>-> 
>-> >	I haven't heard of the second one.  You'll need to provide some
>-> >more information.	
>-> 
>-> I think I need to provide you with some info on the first one. The bill
>-> mandates up to 12 weeks of UNPAID maternity leave for workers who work
>-> in businesses of MORE THAN 50 EMPLOYEES. Therefore, your example doesn't
>-> hold water.

>	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.

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

>	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.
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.

Besides, what if the Dems think they have enough votes to override?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL
CLARKSON '95
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING MEMBER OF THE ACLU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
 speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the 
 moment, unpopular."		---EDWARD R MURROW


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45437 ca.politics:7776