From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Center for Policy Alternatives Reacts to Bush Family Leave Veto
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:28:18 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct2.060837.13084@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>In article <BvEE1D.I5B@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>                            
>>  This gets back to the jobs issue I posted about a few minutes ago.
>>  In a sort utopian view, it would be nice if all companies offered
>>  their employees leave for raising young children.  But any additional
>>  restrictions and regulations we place on companies cost money and 
>>  add to the burden of the company hiring someone.  We can't divorce
>>  issues like "family leave" from larger economic issues.   Decisions
>>  have to be made in as considered and rational a way as possible.
>>  This applies both to the decision of what regulations to apply to
>>  business and what their likely impacts will be, and ALSO the decisions
>>  we make as individuals about whether to have children.  
>
>Oregon has had a family leave bill for 18 months.  It came into the economy
>during a recession.  It has been highly successful in the opinion of both
>the state Republican and Democratic parties.

  Perhaps you could post the details of the Oregon law.   Also, it may
  well be that the business conditions of surrounding states are even
  worse than Oregon's (this is certainly the case for California) so
  businesses do not have as strong an incentive to leave as they might
  in other states.

>...There is no chance the requirements of this bill could prove onerous or
>excessively costly to American business.  Protests to the contrary are
>either uninformed or willfully blind to the studies that have been done on
>the aspect of cost and the experience of the 11 states and the
>District of Columbia which have passed family leave legislation."

  I'd like to see the evidence for this.  If you require that a job be
  held open for someone on family leave then *someone* has to do that
  job.  This means either an existing employee, in which case then his
  job doesn't get done, or a new hire/temporary employee, which has
  considerable costs of its own.   And of course there's the cost to 
  the taxpayer of just having yet another law on the books, of having
  to maintain compliance, etc. 


>The local paper is *very* Republican.  It's comment on Bush's veto for
>economic reasons:  "Family values for workers, according to the Republican
>Party, are reflected in the following rules:  Never have a baby.  Never
>adopt a child.  If you do have a child, never let it get sick.

   Well, first of all, *of course* the local Republican paper will 
   take this position since now that Oregon has such a law it puts
   them at a relative disadvantage compared to states which don't 
   so it's in their interest that the playing field be leveled by
   putting this burden on all companies.

   But the comments about "never have a baby" are perfectly
   reasonable.   My wife and I made a conscious *choice* not
   to have children because we wanted to enjoy the lifestyle
   and financial security that two incomes provide (and we also 
   didn't think this was a good culture to raise children in).
   Having a child is not some automatic entitlement; the world
   certainly doesn't need more people.   If you want to have a
   child and you think you can afford it, and your career/schedule/
   whatever will allow the time and flexibility to meet its needs
   then fine.  Children take a lot of time and money.   If you
   don't have those resources you shouldn't do it.  


> Never have an elderly parent.  If you do have an elderly parent,
> never let him or her get sick.

   What are Oregon's experiences on what % of leave requests and 
   how much time off were for children and how much was for 
   parents?


---peter



 


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections