Family Leave Act

[workswithseed 2,036]

I was listening to an interview between Steven Crowder, and Dan and they mentioned this act. I think it a great idea instead of forcing companies to make family leave, or just making a new governmental program all together.

 

 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/Houston-Rep-Dan-Crenshaw-backs-family-leave-13721240.php

 

"U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Houston has joined a growing group of Republicans on Capitol Hill trying to build support in the GOP for better programs offering paid family leave to young parents.

Democrats have largely been more aggressive in calling for paid family leave, but that is changing as Republicans sign on, including Ivanka Trump, the daughter of President Donald Trump, who has said she wants it to be a priority issue."

"Under the Rubio-led proposal, parents who tap their Social Security funds would then have the option to delay their retirement benefits by three to six months to offset the withdrawal. Or they could have the amount gradually deducted from their benefits during their first five years of retirement."

would the mods change over to CR?

Edited March 29, 2019 by workswithseed
Whoops, I meant for this to go to CR

[HenryJames 65,889]

Pay for family leave with future retirement.

Or do what the rest of the civilized world does. 

[workswithseed 2,036]

47 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Pay for family leave with future retirement.

Or do what the rest of the civilized world does. 

Why not do something diffrent? You may not be able to use retirement, but you could definitely use a break with your child.

[David Dennison 18,655]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Why not do something diffrent? You may not be able to use retirement, but you could definitely use a break with your child.

You just made a great argument for paid family leave.

[workswithseed 2,036]

Just now, David Dennison said:

You just made a great argument for paid family leave.

Yeah, this exactly what I'm getting at, except the only difference here would be out of future self instead of having the company pay.

[David Dennison 18,655]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

Yeah, this exactly what I'm getting at, except the only difference here would be out of future self instead of having the company pay.

I'd rather join the rest of the civilized world and have companies pay their employees during family leave. 

[workswithseed 2,036]

Just now, David Dennison said:

I'd rather join the rest of the civilized world and have companies pay their employees during family leave. 

Wouldn't they be able to pay more if they dont have to pay family leave? I'm not daying it happen, but I could see that as a good consequence.

[David Dennison 18,655]

Just now, workswithseed said:

Wouldn't they be able to pay more if they dont have to pay family leave? I'm not daying it happen, but I could see that as a good consequence.

Do companies that don't provide vacation and sick leave pay their employees more than companies that do?

[workswithseed 2,036]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Do companies that don't provide vacation and sick leave pay their employees more than companies that do?

Some do, some don't. I just don't see why the company has to pay, instead of using your social security for both parents where they make more than if McDonald's was paying for family leave.

[ChickenSandwich 9,798]

Paying for it <<<<<<< than having the government forcibly give it to you from someone else. 

[David Dennison 18,655]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

Some do, some don't. I just don't see why the company has to pay, instead of using your social security for both parents where they make more than if McDonald's was paying for family leave.

Why should the employee have to bear the burden?

[workswithseed 2,036]

5 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Paying for it <<<<<<< than having the government forcibly give it to you from someone else. 

If you're already paying for social security, this would make it a bit flexible

[workswithseed 2,036]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Why should the employee have to bear the burden?

I see this as putting money for your IRA. You hurt for a bit, but this will help in retirement. Your kids are supposed to take care of you when you get older. Why not take this as an investment? 

[gmr548 16,504]

To me there are two main issues with this proposal:

1.) It isn't paid family leave. It's no different than drawing on a savings account when you're unemployed. Would you call that paid vacation?

2.) I've not seen anything on how this SS distribution would be calculated. If it is earnings based like normal SS payments, the people who are most likely to have paid enough into SS for the amount of money they can withdraw to be suitable to raise a child on are a.) Far more likely to be employed in a professional job that does offer paid leave and b.) Better off than most people having kids/starting families and less likely to need the help. I believe paid leave should be available for all but this would basically just fund it for the upper middle class.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[hayden_horn 11,360]

Or, you know, companies could just provide paid leave. My company recently (in the past couple of years) expanded maternity and paternity leave. Why? Because employees with that type of leave (especially women) are less likely to leave the company. 

When i we had our babies, i got two days paternity leave. Two. Days. Women got a couple of weeks. That is fucking ridiculous when we look at the rest of the world. UK and europe give nine months, which seems about right. 

[David Dennison 18,655]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

I see this as putting money for your IRA. You hurt for a bit, but this will help in retirement. Your kids are supposed to take care of you when you get older. Why not take this as an investment? 

First, roughly half of the country has nothing put away for retirement. Social Security is it for them.

Second, you would be surprised how many older folks don't have the good fortune of children who can take care of them, for whatever reason.

I don't think it's too much to ask companies to pay for leave when their employees are engaging in activities that we deem socially beneficial. Requiring companies to do so is part of the social contract between the state and its citizens.

 

[gmr548 16,504]

I see this as putting money for your IRA. You hurt for a bit, but this will help in retirement. Your kids are supposed to take care of you when you get older. Why not take this as an investment? 

If you frame kids as investments, they are pretty much the worst ones you can make. The vast majority are huge financial net negatives. Beyond that, most kids will not be able to take care of their parents when they're older.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[workswithseed 2,036]

19 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

First, roughly half of the country has nothing put away for retirement. Social Security is it for them.

Second, you would be surprised how many older folks don't have the good fortune of children who can take care of them, for whatever reason.

I don't think it's too much to ask companies to pay for leave when their employees are engaging in activities that we deem socially beneficial. Requiring companies to do so is part of the social contract between the state and its citizens.

 

Forcing the company to pay wouldnt help someone who doesn't pay into thier retirement become better at doing that. 

@gmr548 would it be any different than what the company could pay? I also wonder since they didnt provide details to it, but as you age you should be paid more where you can live for 3 to 6 months without the check for SS. I'm n9t saying it's perfect, but I think it's an interesting idea that should be discussed.

[CooterBrown 17,905]

My company uses its short term disability for maternity leave. 6 months full pay and benefits with a doctor note. I assume a lot of self insured large companies do this.

[Hawndoh 2,382]

Using debt and worrying about it in a few decades is about the most American way to do this. 

Pretty stupid idea. 

[ChickenSandwich 9,798]

9 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

Or, you know, companies could just provide paid leave. My company recently (in the past couple of years) expanded maternity and paternity leave. Why? Because employees with that type of leave (especially women) are less likely to leave the company. 

When i we had our babies, i got two days paternity leave. Two. Days. Women got a couple of weeks. That is fucking ridiculous when we look at the rest of the world. UK and europe give nine months, which seems about right. 

This works great at larger establishments, but doesn’t make much sense for small businesses with 2-14 people. I’m fact, it’s crippling. 

Add the condition of publicly traded companies only and it makes more sense. 

[Enchubben 5,509]

I don’t think it’s a bad idea necessarily. If it’s their money eventually, give them access to it when they need it. Similar to 401K loans. If they choose to live irresponsibly draining their retirement accounts then so be it. 

I’m not in favor of forced paid leave, would prefer people be accountable for their life choices and not just shift the responsibility to their employers. What we have now works; companies that offer it are more desirable and those that don’t are at a disadvantage when it comes to bringing in talent.

[David Dennison 18,655]

40 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

I don’t think it’s a bad idea necessarily. If it’s their money eventually, give them access to it when they need it. Similar to 401K loans. If they choose to live irresponsibly draining their retirement accounts then so be it. 

I’m not in favor of forced paid leave, would prefer people be accountable for their life choices and not just shift the responsibility to their employers. What we have now works; companies that offer it are more desirable and those that don’t are at a disadvantage when it comes to bringing in talent.

That will eventually fall on the taxpayer.

[Js1 85,104]

12 hours ago, gmr548 said:

If you frame kids as investments, they are pretty much the worst ones you can make. The vast majority are huge financial net negatives. Beyond that, most kids will not be able to take care of their parents when they're older.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

Having kids is dumb, so don't have them because your employer shouldn't subsidize your bad investment.  BUT we should also stop all immigration.

Hmmm, these things do not work together.  Make America Japan again! 

[tantric superman 4,667]

Put it all on the employers.  Price of labor goes up, and as long as we keep an eye on the effect on international trade, the market will take care of the employers.

Long term effect, employers will just be slightly more cognizant of the importance of making good hiring decisions, because the cost of their employees just went up.

I'd be adamantly against any program which makes it more likely that people will be less prepared for retirement.  Simply looking at data shows that people are idiots about preparing for retirement.  We need to make it virtually impossible for people to tap into 401ks, Soc Security, etc.  That's just fantastically irresponsible policy.

(Side note, we need to change social security into a system of personal 401ks that can't be tapped into by individuals until they are 65, limit the amount that individuals can take out per year, and put a portion of forfeited benefits because of death into a fund for those who haven't put enough in their own 401ks because they were in low paying jobs or disabled.)

[tantric superman 4,667]

1 hour ago, Enchubben said:

Similar to 401K loans. If they choose to live irresponsibly draining their retirement accounts then so be it. 

Not, not so be it.  If they choose to drain their accounts then all of us will have to pay for it.  Fuck that.  When people's right to choose affects the well being of the nation, then we have to determine if they should have that choice.

[Js1 85,104]

9 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Not, not so be it.  If they choose to drain their accounts then all of us will have to pay for it.  Fuck that.  When people's right to choose affects the well being of the nation, then we have to determine if they should have that choice.

Future 65 year olds who had kids and withdrew from their retirement to pay for taking time off to care for them should just learn how to bootstrap harder. 

[wildcat09 29,237]

Please Republicans, run on this.

[tantric superman 4,667]

 

wrong post deleted

Edited March 30, 2019 by tantric superman

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

13 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

Or, you know, companies could just provide paid leave. My company recently (in the past couple of years) expanded maternity and paternity leave. Why? Because employees with that type of leave (especially women) are less likely to leave the company. 

When i we had our babies, i got two days paternity leave. Two. Days. Women got a couple of weeks. That is fucking ridiculous when we look at the rest of the world. UK and europe give nine months, which seems about right. 

I can't decide which is worse, 2 days for a new father, or 2 weeks for a new mother.  My company used to give 3 months for maternity leave and 2 weeks for paternity leave.  Since then, things have changed, and state law requires 10 weeks for all, although at reduced pay.  "Requires" only means anything when it comes to the company, however.  Employees are still free to make their own decision, and more often then not, they don't take all the leave that is available to them.

Now, in the lean start up I'm with now, its more difficult.  We pay full salaries for 10 week family leave.  But we also have no superfluous employees, so specialized temps are necessary for long leaves, and they cost more than full time employees do.  Essentially, we end up paying over 2x salary for paid leave.  It also makes the person who is on leave antsy because someone is there specifically to do their job, so they do get anxiety wondering if the temp is doing their job better than them.  That can cause people to come back early from leave as well.  I'm not sure there is a way around that problem though.

[Homercles 10,205]

Wouldn't they be able to pay more if they dont have to pay family leave? I'm not daying it happen, but I could see that as a good consequence.

Because that’s working out so well with the tax cut.

[Js1 85,104]

2 minutes ago, Homercles said:

 

Because that’s working out so well with the tax cut.

 

When the right's response is "if the employer is not required to pay X/Y/Z/, they will just pay higher salaries," all I hear is laughter.  

Business will never voluntarily pay workers more after removing benefits.  Laughable.  Profit > people. 

[workswithseed 2,036]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

That will eventually fall on the taxpayer.

I like how social security won't fall on tax payers, but using 3 months worth of it will.

[workswithseed 2,036]

22 minutes ago, Js1 said:

When the right's response is "if the employer is not required to pay X/Y/Z/, they will just pay higher salaries," all I hear is laughter.  

Business will never voluntarily pay workers more after removing benefits.  Laughable.  Profit > people. 

Never? 

 

[David Dennison 18,655]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

I like how social security won't fall on tax payers, but using 3 months worth of it will.

So it shouldn't be too much of a burden on employers.

[fattyflattie 4,636]

If you can’t make it 6-9 weeks without pay, you should probably be reevaluating your decision to have babies.  Seriously, daycare for 3 days a week for 2 kids is $460/week for a “middle of the road (ie not religious based)” facility.      

Or if it’s that important for you, find a job with a company that finds it a benefit to their system to provide.  People choose companies over others for better benefit packages everyday. There is no reason for the govt to force companies to do shit. Forcing this on a company will lead to two things, less women being hired, and child bearing aged women with lesser salaries to make up for the cost they will eventually bring.  

No reason all the employees without kids, or grown kids, should have to shoulder the financial burden for your fuck trophies.  The $$$ has to come from somewhere. 

So what’s better?  Less women hired and at lower wage, or expecting some responsibility out of adults having kids? 

[Js1 85,104]

That was so awful I think I got cancer 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

If you can’t make it 6-9 weeks without pay, you should probably be reevaluating your decision to have babies.  Seriously, daycare for 3 days a week for 2 kids is $460/week for a “middle of the road (ie not religious based)” facility.      
Or if it’s that important for you, find a job with a company that finds it a benefit to their system to provide.  People choose companies over others for better benefit packages everyday. There is no reason for the govt to force companies to do shit. Forcing this on a company will lead to two things, less women being hired, and child bearing aged women with lesser salaries to make up for the cost they will eventually bring.  
No reason all the employees without kids, or grown kids, should have to shoulder the financial burden for your fuck trophies.  The $$$ has to come from somewhere. 
So what’s better?  Less women hired and at lower wage, or expecting some responsibility out of adults having kids? 

Phew, I can smell the stench of this post through my phone.

[tantric superman 4,667]

31 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

So what’s better?  Less women hired and at lower wage, or expecting some responsibility out of adults having kids? 

What's better?  Paid sick benefits and plaintiff's attorneys  suing employers who don't hire women because of discrimination.

In truth, as an employment lawyer I am against more regulations for employers.  But in truth I don't see this as much more of a burden than having to comply with the minimum wage laws.  Some states have complicated laws.  I'd just make this one simple and say that after working six months, you are eligible for up to ________ weeks of paid sick/family leave for ___ weeks.  And its all on the employer.  Violate it and it's a violation of the FLSA.,

I've worked for the same company for 20 years.  I just had surgery and am on intermittent, unpaid FMLA.  I'm just using my 800 hours of banked sick leave to pay for it.  Not a big deal for me, but is a big deal for someone in one of our call centers who makes just above minimum wage if he had surgery. 

If we want to discourage people from having kids (and I personally think from an environmental point of view we should), we have plenty of ways to do this via the tax code.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

And why is everyone reducing this to just women having babies?

This would cover taking care of an ailing parent or a terminally ill spouse.

So cram the insulting “crotch fruit” nonsense.

I expect as the Boomers continue to age and get incapacitated and die that this policy will be used just as much for taking care of Nana and Papa in their final days as it is to welcome Junior into the world.

[fattyflattie 4,636]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

 

Phew, I can smell the stench of this post through my phone.

 

Smell anything like  a middle aged bammer that’s moist for Beto? Thats a stench that’s been on this board for awhile now. We lost Rocko, but apparently now have you as a replacement. 

Tantric, that’s what most everyone has to do.  If you know you are having a kid/surgery/whatever, probably shouldn’t blow all the vacation time on a fishing trip this year. Kids don’t exactly sneak up on you.  A private employer should be able to determine how much you are worth vs your cost to them.  If they want to offer 3 years paid leave, that’s their prerogative. I’m sure some company that values 20-something workers out there does. Why it needs to be mandated by the govt is the issue. 

*govt jobs exempted from my argument, they can do whatever they want for all I care. 

eta - this country needs to get out of the business of changing everyone else’s shit to meet the needs of the call center/minimum wage employee.  Let’s worry about the contributors, shall we? 

Edited March 30, 2019 by fattyflattie

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

24 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

And why is everyone reducing this to just women having babies?

This would cover taking care of an ailing parent or a terminally ill spouse.

So cram the insulting “crotch fruit” nonsense.

I expect as the Boomers continue to age and get incapacitated and die that this policy will be used just as much for taking care of Nana and Papa in their final days as it is to welcome Junior into the world.

You think Boomers are going to vote to give Gen Z or Gen AA anything?  Nope, so you will get PTO to take care of old people but the same old people will make sure you can't get PTO to take care of babies. 

[ChickenSandwich 9,798]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

What's better?  Paid sick benefits and plaintiff's attorneys  suing employers who don't hire women because of discrimination.

In truth, as an employment lawyer I am against more regulations for employers.  But in truth I don't see this as much more of a burden than having to comply with the minimum wage laws.  Some states have complicated laws.  I'd just make this one simple and say that after working six months, you are eligible for up to ________ weeks of paid sick/family leave for ___ weeks.  And its all on the employer.  Violate it and it's a violation of the FLSA.,

I've worked for the same company for 20 years.  I just had surgery and am on intermittent, unpaid FMLA.  I'm just using my 800 hours of banked sick leave to pay for it.  Not a big deal for me, but is a big deal for someone in one of our call centers who makes just above minimum wage if he had surgery. 

If we want to discourage people from having kids (and I personally think from an environmental point of view we should), we have plenty of ways to do this via the tax code.

You see removing a laborer for 3 months and paying them AND paying for their substitute as akin to minimum wage?  Show your work. 

Putting everything on the employers has worked out great for our health care system. 

The solution will be part time employment. You will need the flexibility and lesser benefits if you are a small business.  Instead of one full time mom, two part time moms become way more viable and valuable. 

And...what level of business are referring to?  A restaurant?  A convince store?  Or a chain retail store. The details matter

Edited March 30, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[tantric superman 4,667]

33 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

eta - this country needs to get out of the business of changing everyone else’s shit to meet the needs of the call center/minimum wage employee.  Let’s worry about the contributors, shall we? 

I think the contributors are okay.   If by contributors you are eliminating just about every person who is part of the economy. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by tantric superman

[tantric superman 4,667]

30 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Tantric, that’s what most everyone has to do.  If you know you are having a kid/surgery/whatever, probably shouldn’t blow all the vacation time on a fishing trip this year. Kids don’t exactly sneak up on you.  A private employer should be able to determine how much you are worth vs your cost to them.  If they want to offer 3 years paid leave, that’s their prerogative. I’m sure some company that values 20-something workers out there does. Why it needs to be mandated by the govt is the issue. 

Nothing "has" to be mandated.  But in a country where we have some serious wage discrepancy between the top tier and lower tier, this can be one of the most efficient ways to provide leave that would benefit the workers, as well as the workers parents and children.  So it can prove to be a benefit to both the causes of education as well as parental care.  And it would have one of the smallest effects on disrupting the market. 

 

[workswithseed 2,036]

4 hours ago, tantric superman said:

What's better?  Paid sick benefits and plaintiff's attorneys  suing employers who don't hire women because of discrimination.

In truth, as an employment lawyer I am against more regulations for employers.  But in truth I don't see this as much more of a burden than having to comply with the minimum wage laws.  Some states have complicated laws.  I'd just make this one simple and say that after working six months, you are eligible for up to ________ weeks of paid sick/family leave for ___ weeks.  And its all on the employer.  Violate it and it's a violation of the FLSA.,

I've worked for the same company for 20 years.  I just had surgery and am on intermittent, unpaid FMLA.  I'm just using my 800 hours of banked sick leave to pay for it.  Not a big deal for me, but is a big deal for someone in one of our call centers who makes just above minimum wage if he had surgery. 

If we want to discourage people from having kids (and I personally think from an environmental point of view we should), we have plenty of ways to do this via the tax code.

I'm actually really glad for your input.

I dont agree with your last point, I feel like we're on a track for a lower population as it is, and if other are paying for Social Sucurity like Donald said, we need a large tax base to tax. 

I really like this idea, but some things I haven't seen mentioned is how the pay scale will work, but that's really my thing that I'm wondering. 

I just think it would help mom and pops as week as the parents.