Paid family Leave?

[simplicio]

Did you ever think some people might like that kind of work vs your cookie cutter solutions? I have a neighbor that does contract work and loves it, he can pick his own hours and schedule things around his family. Several journalists do that and it’s great because they can plan their lives around their work. Not everyone wants to work a 9-5 job, stop forcing your beliefs on others and calling it ‘compassion’ because it isn’t.

Some workers love the freedom it offers, others don't appreciate the inherent insecurities inherent with contract work. Which is why the common sense regulations are so difficult.

I do have to ask, just what "cookie cutter solutions" am I offering up here? It might be prudent if you would cut back on your caffeine consumption, because I haven't been forcing my beliefs on others (except for my attempt to force my pro life beliefs on others)

[lilpixieofterror]

Some workers love the freedom it offers, others don't appreciate the inherent insecurities inherent with contract work. Which is why the common sense regulations are so difficult.

Every job has its goods and bad’s, but it’s not the government’s job to stuff everyone into a 9-5 job. That doesn’t work for every person or every industry.

I do have to ask, just what "cookie cutter solutions" am I offering up here? It might be prudent if you would cut back on your caffeine consumption, because I haven't been forcing my beliefs on others (except for my attempt to force my pro life beliefs on others)

Maybe you should cut back on the passive aggressiveness and your holier than thou attitude. Not everyone wants the same benefits and a company could use benefits and pay to attract the talent they want. Some might prefer higher pay, with less benefits, yet others might prefer less pay and more benefits, yet others might want an in between option. What you propose is everyone is treated to the same stuff and not everyone wants the same stuff. AKA a cookie cutter solution.

[lilpixieofterror]

You call it noblesse oblige, which is quite like its cousin which is called caritas, Christian charity.

And I just checked your faith listing on the profile. You list "Atheist" as the faith. I think you were the first poster to bring in the very Christian concepts of generosity, honorable actions. and obligation. Each of those three virtuous attributes have their opposites, as well as a "lack of", or absence of that virtue.

And it is notable that the lack of those qualities are also close synonyms to the opposite of those qualities.

Here’s a great example of what I’m talking about, you make digs against your opponents, assume our motives, and complain when anyone says anything to you. People have lots of reasons for their beliefs and might even have nothing to do with ‘they hate poor people’.

[simplicio]

Here’s a great example of what I’m talking about, you make digs against your opponents, assume our motives, and complain when anyone says anything to you. People have lots of reasons for their beliefs and might even have nothing to do with ‘they hate poor people’.

Who brought in "They hate poor people"? I think your objections are not based on any reality, rather you are trying to stuff the responses into certain predetermined slots, which is what a straw argument is.

[Sparko]

The government’s job is to watch for workplace safety and to guard contracts, not to pick my benefits for me because cookie cutter solutions don’t always work. Some may want parental leave while others don’t. Some may want health insurance while others don’t. Companies who want to attract the best talent are going to do what it takes to find it.



Why would I, who is done having children, care about my parental leave? Again, cookie cutter solutions don’t work. Not everyone wants the same benefits.

the leave he is talking about isn't just for parental leave. The FMLA is for family leave and for medical leave. You might end up in the hospital and recovery for an extended time period and would need to use such a thing.

Do you think the government should take away unemployment insurance which is mandatory now?

[Sparko]

The gig economy is an abandonment of traditional employment, and the use of temps or contract workers. Education is not any hedge against that form of employment insecurity. It is a growing trend., even within the professions. https://www.naco.org/featured-resour...se-gig-economy

Anchoring benefits to the employer or employment cuts out those who are self employed or other nontraditional employment from traditional avenues of accessing benefits.

Ah. OK I get it now. basically contract employees or things like driving an uber.

Usually temp agencies would be the ones who manage a contract worker's benefits. They sort of "rent" out the employees to companies. If you are working freelance then yes, it would be up to you to take care of your own insurance, pay your own social security and taxes and all that. You would then be self-employed. I used to do that when I was a graphic/web designer. I decided I wanted more stability so I went and worked for a design studio.

[lilpixieofterror]

Who brought in "They hate poor people"? I think your objections are not based on any reality, rather you are trying to stuff the responses into certain predetermined slots, which is what a straw argument is.

Denying your digs, against your fellow Christians, will not make them go away. You’ve painted the picture of:

“All of my opponents are unloving and have no care for their fellow humans while my side is loving and cares deeply for their fellow humans.”

While the reality reveals a different picture. My very motivation is based on caring for people and wanting them to have the work/life balance they so desire. Uber/Lyft is a great way for someone to earn extra income and work on their own schedules. I know independent contractors that like being able to choose their schedule. Again, this would remove this option too. So see, nothing to do with an uncaring attitude, but rather, your inability to understand that work shouldn’t be cookie cutter, but based on what people want. Some want a 9-5 job, others don’t. Some want lots of benefits, others don’t. It’s an individual’s job to understand their life situation and adjust accordingly, not the government’s job.

[lilpixieofterror]

the leave he is talking about isn't just for parental leave. The FMLA is for family leave and for medical leave. You might end up in the hospital and recovery for an extended time period and would need to use such a thing.

Do you think the government should take away unemployment insurance which is mandatory now?

I think people should find what works best for them. Remember, all those benefits take money from your pay that you never see. Some might like the security of 9-5, with generous benefits, while others love the freedom of making their own schedules and getting paid more. You have pay, benefits, and job security, pick two.

[Sparko]

I think people should find what works best for them. Remember, all those benefits take money from your pay that you never see. Some might like the security of 9-5, with generous benefits, while others love the freedom of making their own schedules and getting paid more. You have pay, benefits, and job security, pick two.

They take money from my paycheck right now, LPOT - to pay for long term disability. About $6/month. How much of a burden would it be to make the employer pay that $6/month for everyone? Should be even cheaper for short-term disability insurance.

And instead of the worker paying, have the employer pay that fee, just like they do unemployment insurance.

I have pay, benefits and job security. As do you. I have no idea what you were trying to get at there. And you have free health care and lots of other benefits.

All paid for by the government. Because you work for the government. Every bit of your pay and benefits are paid for by other people's taxes.

[lilpixieofterror]

They take money from my paycheck right now, LPOT - to pay for long term disability. About $6/month. How much of a burden would it be to make the employer pay that $6/month for everyone? Should be even cheaper for short-term disability insurance.

And instead of the worker paying, have the employer pay that fee, just like they do unemployment insurance.

I have pay, benefits and job security. As do you. I have no idea what you were trying to get at there. And you have free health care and lots of other benefits.

All paid for by the government. Because you work for the government. Every bit of your pay and benefits are paid for by other people's taxes.

And in return, I have to leave, at a moments notice and don’t have the same constitutional rights you have. When is the last time you were told you’re leaving for an unspecified amount of time, to a place you can’t be told where until you get there, and you have 3 hours to grab you’re stuff to go? There’s a pretty big price to have those benefits. Now, I am married and see my husbands. His work does offer benefits. Does he need health insurance? No because it’s not needed for our situation. Every situation is different and every situation needs an individual to make those decisions.

[simplicio]

Denying your digs, against your fellow Christians, will not make them go away. You’ve painted the picture of:

“All of my opponents are unloving and have no care for their fellow humans while my side is loving and cares deeply for their fellow humans.”

While the reality reveals a different picture. My very motivation is based on caring for people and wanting them to have the work/life balance they so desire. Uber/Lyft is a great way for someone to earn extra income and work on their own schedules. I know independent contractors that like being able to choose their schedule. Again, this would remove this option too. So see, nothing to do with an uncaring attitude, but rather, your inability to understand that work shouldn’t be cookie cutter, but based on what people want. Some want a 9-5 job, others don’t. Some want lots of benefits, others don’t. It’s an individual’s job to understand their life situation and adjust accordingly, not the government’s job.

You really aren't good at reading things in context, are you? The article, if anyone here bothered to read it was definietly pro life (crisis magazine). The comments which followed were quite contrary to the positions taken when the discussion is abortion.

The first two pages were like a twilight zone, Christian style. Because babies are good, not a burden etc. etc. There is irony in that answer coming from an atheist who likely does not support a culture of life, which is why I responded as I did.

Being pro life does not mean that you can switch the pro life stuff off when convenient.

[lilpixieofterror]

You really aren't good at reading things in context, are you? The article, if anyone here bothered to read it was definietly pro life (crisis magazine). The comments which followed were quite contrary to the positions taken when the discussion is abortion.

The first two pages were like a twilight zone, Christian style. Because babies are good, not a burden etc. etc. There is irony in that answer coming from an atheist who likely does not support a culture of life, which is why I responded as I did.

Being pro life does not mean that you can switch the pro life stuff off when convenient.

And that had what to do, with the topic?

[simplicio]

And that had what to do, with the topic?

It was a response to your post. Read it in context.

[Sparko]

And in return, I have to leave, at a moments notice and don’t have the same constitutional rights you have. When is the last time you were told you’re leaving for an unspecified amount of time, to a place you can’t be told where until you get there, and you have 3 hours to grab you’re stuff to go? There’s a pretty big price to have those benefits.

that has nothing to do with the discussion here. If we are talking about how the government shouldn't be using tax money to pay for benefits for everyone, you don't have any room to speak since my taxes are paying for yours.

I figure if every company just bought short-term insurance for each employee, whether the government tells the employer to pay for it like unemployment, or even has the employee pay for it (like Social Security) - it would not cost the taxpayers anything at all, and would only cost the employer or employee about $72 a year ($3/week) if it is anything like what I have here at my job. It's not that expensive.

Now, I am married and see my husbands. His work does offer benefits. Does he need health insurance? No because it’s not needed for our situation. Every situation is different and every situation needs an individual to make those decisions.

So what? Your husband may never need unemployment either, but it's nice that he has it in case he loses his job. You never know when you could be in an accident, or have a heart attack or disease and need to take some time off.

[lilpixieofterror]

that has nothing to do with the discussion here. If we are talking about how the government shouldn't be using tax money to pay for benefits for everyone, you don't have any room to speak since my taxes are paying for yours.

I never said that at all. What I have said is the government should keep itself out of setting standard, across the board, benefits (in most cases) and should allow employees and employers freedom to choose what benefits they prefer. As an employer, the government needs to set up a military and needs to compete with other employers to attract the talents they desire. Military service is difficult, ask people to give up lots of freedoms, and this requires something to get someone to sign that dotted line. In this case, benefits because they can’t really offer things you get in regular jobs. Do you get overtime? Per regulation, I have to only be given 6 hours of rest, per day and don’t get a penny more, no matter how many hours I work. Would OSHA allow your employer to do that? Would labor unions agree to that? That’s the cost and why the benefits are so generous because who would agree to that stuff without some benefit? Did you pick your current job, based on the provided benefits? Have you turned down jobs, due to the benefits not being what you wanted? That’s what I mean, you should have the freedom and flexibility to pick what you want.

I figure if every company just bought short-term insurance for each employee, whether the government tells the employer to pay for it like unemployment, or even has the employee pay for it (like Social Security) - it would not cost the taxpayers anything at all, and would only cost the employer or employee about $72 a year ($3/week) if it is anything like what I have here at my job. It's not that expensive.

And if you want it great, but not everyone seeks the most benefits because their situation is different. An Uber driver might have a full time job and just wants the extra cash. A Walmart door greeter may be retired and just does his job for something to do. Yet a wife might have great benefits through her husband and doesn’t care much about the benefits of her job. Everyone should be able to work in the way they choose. Some like the security of a 9-5 job others like the flexibility of being a contractor, let them both work the way they choose.

So what? Your husband may never need unemployment either, but it's nice that he has it in case he loses his job. You never know when you could be in an accident, or have a heart attack or disease and need to take some time off.

Maybe, but it should be your choice to make.