Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Dec 2011, 1:56 pm

Here's more "conspiracy": an Obama supporter explaining how regulation is stopping his company from hiring:

Regulatory mandates flowing from federal health care reform may be the most visible, but the list also includes measures such as new mandatory paid leave provisions that require us to change the way we accommodate employees who need to take time off when they are ill and ever more unrealistic requirements regarding employee meal and rest breaks that, in California for example, force our employees to take breaks in the middle of serving lunch or dinner.

This reality is the result of the best intentions. Policymakers working in silos at every level are pushing through regulations that on their face seem to address admirable goals -- that are each directed at outcomes that seem desirable.
. . .

To preserve this important driver of economic opportunity, we need policymakers to understand the snowball effect of too many regulations. Their collective effect is to threaten job creation and prevent us in the restaurant industry from doing our part to put our economy back on its feet.


And yes, the author did give to the Obama campaign.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 09 Dec 2011, 1:27 pm

ceo of darden
the list also includes measures such as new mandatory paid leave provisions that require us to change the way we accommodate employees who need to take time off when they are ill


How can the guy be expected to make a decent profit if he can't force his staff to handle food when they are ill?
And did the changes to health benefits get better ?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 11 Dec 2011, 11:14 am

rickyp wrote:ceo of darden
the list also includes measures such as new mandatory paid leave provisions that require us to change the way we accommodate employees who need to take time off when they are ill


How can the guy be expected to make a decent profit if he can't force his staff to handle food when they are ill?
And did the changes to health benefits get better ?


Uh? I have no idea what you are trying to say here other then some asinine sarcastic comment.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 11 Dec 2011, 3:21 pm

The guy's bitching about having to provide sick days Archduke.

Without discussing the nature of the employer / employee relationship in that scenario , consider the daner to public health in a situation where sick people come to work handling food because they can't afford to take the cut in pay....
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7454
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 11 Dec 2011, 4:21 pm

I am all for an employer providing sick days if he/she wants to, It is the employee that makes a choice as to work there or not based upon all facets of employment. I would hope that you are not saying that it should be a government mandated work requirement.

If you are saying that it should be a mandated policy for sick days, please show the basis of your opinion that the government should be responsible to for this. The government IS responsible to the populace to keep food supplies safe, but not to ensure an employee is not sick at work. It is the responsibility of the worker and employer to provide proper judgement.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 11 Dec 2011, 8:22 pm

rickyp wrote:The guy's bitching about having to provide sick days Archduke.

Without discussing the nature of the employer / employee relationship in that scenario , consider the daner to public health in a situation where sick people come to work handling food because they can't afford to take the cut in pay....


I waited tables while in law school. If I called out sick, I didn't get paid. You are saying they should be required to give paid sick days?

I am currently working as what is called a contract attorney. I am hired by a placement agency to fill a law firms temporary need for attorneys to review large discovery dumps. The contracts can be anything from a couple of weeks to a couple of months. I call out sick, I don't get paid. You are saying I should get paid sick days? I am about to start a 2 week contract tomorrow. How many sick days should I get?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 12 Dec 2011, 7:15 am

b
. It is the responsibility of the worker and employer to provide proper judgement.

lets examine the dynamics of the situation. A restaurant hires and fires at will. What recourse do the line cooks or servers have, if the restaurant fires them?
So a restaurant decides that if you get sick, and don't show up to work, you get fired. The employee has the option of coming to work sick or lose his job.
Employment is tough to come by right now. A person in this line of work, supporting a family, would be in tough to make that decision.
You can decide all you want what proper judgement is.... but what recourse does the employee have if the restaiurant decides that the proper judgement is , you don't work I replace you?
You can bet that means a lot of people who really shouldn't be working are carrying contagions into the restaurant...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7454
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 12 Dec 2011, 9:19 am

And I as the consumer make the choice of do I eat at one place or another. If I think the place is not a good or safe choice, I don't eat there.

Let me be more direct. Do you think it is the responsibility of the government to ensure sick days are provided as a term of employment? You seem to think it is not the responsibility of the employer to make that choice. What makes the government more qualified to make that decision.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Dec 2011, 9:33 am

rickyp wrote:b
. It is the responsibility of the worker and employer to provide proper judgement.

lets examine the dynamics of the situation. A restaurant hires and fires at will. What recourse do the line cooks or servers have, if the restaurant fires them?


Actually, they do have recourse. Wrongful termination lawsuits for one. For another, they may be in a State that has regulations concerning such matters.

You want to create a world in which the government controls and mandates everything. As Americans, we don't want to be Europe. Thanks so much for caring!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Dec 2011, 11:03 am

At the risk of getting back on topic, I think the Congressional Republicans may finally have a way to force Obama to approve the XL pipeline and thus create American jobs: by tying it to the payroll tax holiday. We'll see, but if they can squeeze it through the Senate, I think Obama has to sign it.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 12 Dec 2011, 11:27 am

]steve
Actually, they do have recourse. Wrongful termination lawsuits for one


and waiters who can't afford to lose a paycheck can always afford lawyers, and the time it takes for a law suit...

Steve says
You want to create a world in which the government controls and mandates everything. As Americans, we don't want to be Europe


after saying
For another, they may be in a State that has regulations concerning such matters
.

So what are you saying Steve? Some parts of the US do want to be Europe\? But thats okay cause its "states rights"?

Do you think it is the responsibility of the government to ensure sick days are provided as a term of employment? You seem to think it is not the responsibility of the employer to make that choice. What makes the government more qualified to make that decision

Employment laws are there to ensure that employees can't be unfairly exploited. And to provide employers with a structure that ensures they are protected from acting to protect their interests. The former may seem honerous to those employers who don't share you're ideas of fair treatment .
I suppose Newts ideas about child labour ring true as well?
Be that as it may, if Olive Garden doesn't provide sick leave to waiters, they'll show up when they shouldn't. When they will certainly spread disease. And I doubt you actually choose a restaurant with a questionnare saying, "anyone in here got the flu?"
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15996
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 12 Dec 2011, 11:44 am

bbauska wrote:And I as the consumer make the choice of do I eat at one place or another. If I think the place is not a good or safe choice, I don't eat there.
And many's the time I've seen a detailed breakdown of a restaurants employment policies (and the degree to which local management adhere to them) in order to make an informed choice before I enter.

Actually, I've never seen such a thing. How does one know what the policy is, or if one of the chefs has struggled in with what turns out to be a bacterial infection because he'd be docked?

The problem with the caveat emptor argument is that there a loads of people out there selling pigs in pokes.

Let me be more direct. Do you think it is the responsibility of the government to ensure sick days are provided as a term of employment? You seem to think it is not the responsibility of the employer to make that choice. What makes the government more qualified to make that decision.
I think it most definitely should be mandatory for a company to ensure a level of sick coverage for employees who work a minimum period (similarly holiday). It is over here, and the minimum rate is covered by the government (paid for from payroll taxes), with companies encouraged to pay the full rate. It's not a blank cheque: there are limits to how long an employee can claim it and companies can choose from a wide range of their own options, and of course someone on long term sick can legally be laid off as long as the right procedures are followed, and naturally you need to supply a medical certificate (it's usually acceptable to self-certify for a few days, but you need a doctor to sign off for longer).

I can't see that this is actually egregious. I can understand for short-term contracts (as Archduke Russell John describes) and new starters that it's not appropriate to have paid sick leave. Which is why over here you have to have worked 6 months to qualify for the statutory terms, although employers are free to be more generous.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Dec 2011, 11:57 am

rickyp wrote:]steve
Actually, they do have recourse. Wrongful termination lawsuits for one


and waiters who can't afford to lose a paycheck can always afford lawyers, and the time it takes for a law suit...


Because only the rich can get attorneys, right? Ever heard of "contingency?" Amazingly, I've hired three attorneys in my lifetime: one on contingency, two on retainer. Even the two on retainer didn't expect all the money up front. If you have a legitimate case, there are legitimate attorneys who will help.

Steve says
You want to create a world in which the government controls and mandates everything. As Americans, we don't want to be Europe


after saying
For another, they may be in a State that has regulations concerning such matters
.

So what are you saying Steve? Some parts of the US do want to be Europe\? But thats okay cause its "states rights"?


Perhaps you simply don't understand a Federal system? Perhaps you don't understand we have a 10th Amendment?

Whatever your problem is, you do not understand American law nor American culture.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 12 Dec 2011, 2:18 pm

you do not understand American law nor American culture.


according to your tortured logic, ...thanks to the 10th amendment, some parts of America have turned positively European, with all those mandated sick leave benefits
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Dec 2011, 3:03 pm

rickyp wrote:
you do not understand American law nor American culture.


according to your tortured logic, ...thanks to the 10th amendment, some parts of America have turned positively European, with all those mandated sick leave benefits


Further proof that you don't get it. Each State has every right not reserved to the Federal government or individuals. Stop spitting and start thinking.