Quote:Come on fringe benefits are meant to attract employees lets not pretend this is some new idea never used. He basically mandating small businesses offer the same perks as large corporations regardless of their ability to pay for it, so guess what they'll just offer less jobs.
That's just phase one.... phase 2 will mandate the # of employees a business must hire
Quote:That's just phase one.... phase 2 will mandate the # of employees a business must hire
and the racial, gender, and sexual orientation composition of the staff.
I have yet to watch the State of the Union address. Worked late last night.
I will assume its a lot of republicans in congress being disrespectful with some booing or jeering. A lot of Boehner looking bored and derisive behind the president next to a Joe Biden with some crazy man smile on his face randomly nodding at people while the president lays out a bunch of social ideals a midst some smug comments directed at the GOP.
Right wingers will hate it because not their party.
Left wingers will hate it because they are wusses.
Can someone confirm this for me?
Quote:Obama didn't propose any private alternatives to any of his plans. So yes. You can expect taxpayers to pay for that as well as free community college.
WTHeck? Taxpayers have to pay for private companies to offer PTO?
Quote:No one has a problem with paid sick leave and maternity pay. I have a big problem with government making it mandatory, if I own a business it's up to me what benefits to offer not the Feds.
So he's forcing companies to provide these things? And at taxpayer cost (according to another post)?
The ONLY reason I would agree with mandatory is I think people
should have that benefit. Too many people go to work when they're sick as hell because they can't afford to stay home. Then they spread their nasty germs and leads to others getting sick. People need to learn how to stay home and get over their illness but if they can't afford to then they won't.
It would be nice if companies would just offer it but most (big business specifically) are too greedy. It sucks because it's a double edge sword. Companies should be able to offer the benefits they want but people often need
the one they don't want to offer.
Quote:Seriously?
Slippery Slope fallacies for fun and profit.
Quote:Slippery Slope fallacies for fun and profit.
They aren't always fallacies, ask the German Jews about the results of gun control laws for instance.
Quote:They aren't always fallacies, ask the German Jews about the results of gun control laws for instance.
Godwin's Law dictates you just lost not only the argument, but all credibility as well.
Quote:So he's forcing companies to provide these things? And at taxpayer cost (according to another post)?
The ONLY reason I would agree with mandatory is I think people should have that benefit. Too many people go to work when they're sick as hell because they can't afford to stay home. Then they spread their nasty germs and leads to others getting sick. People need to learn how to stay home and get over their illness but if they can't afford to then they won't.
It would be nice if companies would just offer it but most (big business specifically) are too greedy. It sucks because it's a double edge sword. Companies should be able to offer the benefits they want but people often need the one they don't want to offer.
I haven't heard of any talks about taxpayers paying for fringe benefits. He just wants to create legislation that if you hire an employee they get ___ amount of benefits. What that will do is further drive down entry level jobs, I'm not going to offer someone ___ benefits to flip burgers and scrub toilets.
Quote:I haven't heard of any talks about taxpayers paying for fringe benefits. He just wants to create legislation that if you hire an employee they get ___ amount of benefits. What that will do is further drive down entry level jobs, I'm not going to offer someone ___ benefits to flip burgers and scrub toilets.
Aside from the fact it'll never pass I think it'll be one of those work 30 hours to qualify for benefits thing. Then every crap employer is just going to schedule everyone for 29 hours and "request" their employees work extra hours while dismissing any complaints of illegal labor practices with the phrase "you should be happy to have a job at all".
Quote:Aside from the fact it'll never pass I think it'll be one of those work 30 hours to qualify for benefits thing. Then every crap employer is just going to schedule everyone for 29 hours and "request" their employees work extra hours while dismissing any complaints of illegal labor practices with the phrase "you should be happy to have a job at all".
You're right just about everything he said last night was all for show. He could've said he wants a living wage but reality is he's not getting anything new passed the rest of his presidency without the other side playing ball.
Quote:I haven't heard of any talks about taxpayers paying for fringe benefits. He just wants to create legislation that if you hire an employee they get ___ amount of benefits. What that will do is further drive down entry level jobs, I'm not going to offer someone ___ benefits to flip burgers and scrub toilets.
Whenever you hire a employee, there is an obligation to protect your Inc. from liability in the invent him/her injures themselves that's why workman's comp is required.
You may not want to offer fringe benefits to part time workers, but as someone else said its a hit on payroll if one person gets sick and spread their illness throughout the workplace, not to forget that person has to come to work because they can afford to lose money, or run the risk of facing written notice, or termination.
Quote:Godwin's Law dictates you just lost not only the argument, but all credibility as well.
Im still trying to piece together his point.
Quote:You're right just about everything he said last night was all for show. He could've said he wants a living wage but reality is he's not getting anything new passed the rest of his presidency without the other side playing ball.
And seeing as how it's gone for the last 6 years.....
Quote:It's his boys that immediately proposed new gas taxes since they can't tolerate the low prices brought on by private frackers.
And did Obama sign off on the proposed gas tax? No
And its not nothing about the Democrats not being able to "not" tolerate the low oil prices, they along with Obama and OPEC expect oil and gas to creep back up during the annual production switch in March.
Quote:Whenever you hire a employee, there is an obligation to protect your Inc. from liability in the invent him/her injures themselves that's why workman's comp is required.
You may not want to offer fringe benefits to part time workers, but as someone else said its a hit on payroll if one person gets sick and spread their illness throughout the workplace, not to forget that person has to come to work because they can afford to lose money, or run the risk of facing written notice, or termination.
That's fine I accept the argument it's a good business practice to offer paid sick time. That's different then government telling a private individual you can't own a business and hire someone without offering it.
It's good personal finances to have a savings account, should the government mandate everyone keep ___ amount of their paycheck in a savings account?
Quote:And did Obama sign off on the proposed gas tax? No
And its not nothing about the Democrats not being able to "not" tolerate the low oil prices, they along with Obama and OPEC expect oil and gas to creep back up during the annual production switch in March.
How would he sign off on a gas tax if congress hasn't voted on it?
Quote:Aside from the fact it'll never pass I think it'll be one of those work 30 hours to qualify for benefits thing. Then every crap employer is just going to schedule everyone for 29 hours and "request" their employees work extra hours while dismissing any complaints of illegal labor practices with the phrase "you should be happy to have a job at all".
A friend of mine was subject to this because of the Healthcare law. Her hours were cut from 40 (full time employee) to 28 hours a week. Thankfully she was able to tell her employer to stuff it eventually, and quit the job that she already hated.
It'd be better if it were based on total revenue by the companies, rather than by employee hours. Meaning small businesses that can't afford it, wouldn't have to in the first place.