From: dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman)
Subject: Re: Bush's veto of family leave bill
Keywords: Family values
Organization: Tacoma Screw Products, Inc.
Distribution: seattle
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:39:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.160719.9943@mdd.comm.mot.com> zintel@mdd.comm.mot.com (Mike Zintel) writes:
>
>I am also concerned that big government programs will be inefficient, and
>that very high tax rates and the demotivating (by removal of the greed
>incentive) power of socialism will reduce net output. I believe these factors
>need to be weighed against any given new AND existing programs, rather than
>a blind devotion to the free market. We certainly do not have a free market
>in health care now. The health care situation in the U.S. contributes to a 
>great deal of worry and fear even among folks that are "covered" (currently).
>A country with this much wealth and knowledge might do better.
>
>It would be nice if employers were enlightened enough to recognize that
>happy, appreciative, and loyal employees were good for them and a robust and
>productive economy, but that is not always the case.
>
>Think.
>

Well, I thought about what you said and I must say that your last
paragraph is a little, uh, silly, because it implies that you really
believe that government can legislate munficence.  That a vote-hungry
sell-his-soul-for-a-victory congressman or faceless bureaucrat has any
notion of what makes a healthy workplace.  I personally *prefer* to have
a difference in benefits amongst employers, because if I do a better
job, I can expect to get better benefits from a better company.  My
employer happens to have pretty good medical and dental coverage, but
you have to work here 10 years to get 3 weeks of vacation.  These are
tradeoffs.  If they had to hire more employees to compensate for those
who were gone, I'm certain that raises and bonuses would become scarcer.
But where can I go?  Every company has to give this "benefit", and
they're providing it on the backs of the people who don't need or want
it.  Every time you mandate a program like this, you are giving a cut
in benefits to those people who have strived to get ahead.  My company
is a good place to work because of the medical benefits.  If medical
benefits are universal, I lose a big part of the reason I work here.
Same thing with family leave and other programs.  They're nice to
have, but if everybody has them then there's nothing to work for -
no reason to strive to do your best in hopes of advancement.  Is this
a selfish position?  Damned straight!  The only benefit I've ever gotten
from the federal government for all my tax money is standardized
weights and measures; and organizations like the EIA, RIAA, SMPTE,
ASA, etc can do that without the tax burden.

No, I take that back.  I benefit from NASA and NOAA, too.

The point is that every time somebody in power starts talking about
making society more "fair", all it means to me is my taxes are going up,
and there will be a few more things I can get arrested for doing.

Still Thinking...

-- 
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
dcb@tacoma.uucp           |   SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez-  |   /   /___  /___/ 
 ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb      |  "Nylok lock nuts lose their  |  /   ____/ / 
CompuServe: 75760,1232    | binding strength after 1 use!"|