From: sieferme@carson.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:02:32 GMT

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

>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.

>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?

>You can claim that the hospital did 
>a slimy thing, and that may be true.

No, they probably chose one of many unpalatable alternatives
availble to them.

>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?

>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.

>If the economy is strong then there will be high demand for workers.  The
>more demand there is for workers, the easier it will be for a fired
>worker to find new work, or the greater the incentive will be for a
>company to keep the worker in the first place.  A sluggish economy
>hurts both the business and the worker, but it hurts the worker more.

Agreed (at last!).

>James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |