Source
r/POLITIC•
IntrepidSI

A perfect example of Socialist policies and why the people who propose them never think things through. Please stop proposing new laws and policies without thought.

I work a very large corporation that employs many subcontractors. It became law in my state that employers provide their employees with five (5) paid sick days a year.

Did the CEO make less money?

No.

Did the Company have to fork out more money?

No.

The workers got stiffed, as predicted.

Two contractors I spoke with told me their company handled this new law in different ways.

First company used to provide one week vacation after 1 year, 2 weeks paid vacation after 3 years. There were no paid holidays. If you didn't work, you didn't get paid. Now that's ended. You get earned "Personal Time Off" days. You earn them at a rate of 1 hour for every 30 hours worked. For 40 hours a week, that means you get 8 paid days off. If you are there 20 years, you still only get 8 days.

Second company used to give 3 "floating holidays" and 7 paid holidays. They took away the floaters and 2 of the paid holidays (President's day and the day after Thanksgiving).

You don't work, you don't get paid.

I should mention the company they work at counts it's profits with a "B" in front. This is no "Mom and Pop" outfit.

Did all those of you who supported this law actually think it was going to go down some other way? This is the difference between Sander's supporters and most people I know. One "Feels" this would be a good thing, the other knows it won't be based on experience.

Posted Feb 17, 2016, 3:34 PM UTC · edited

022
zymmaster•

Respectfully, what do you feel the option should be? Keep going along with a system where companies choose profit margin over the greater good and hold the job market hostage to these tactics, or, try and change the system. Change is never perfect, but nothing changes until something is actually done.

1
IntrepidSIOP•

So you're saying do something, even if it does nothing or makes it worse for the sake of change?

1
zymmaster•

No, but waiting for the perfect solution means nothing will ever get done or change. More often than not it is better to proceed with what you can, even if it is not perfect. How would you make corporations change their tactics, what would you suggest?

1
IntrepidSIOP•

My first step would be to work with Business, not against it. Obama worked against it, what you got was CEO's still making record profits and workers taking a loss. Now you want to punish them some more?

I would suggest it will make the situation worse, not better.

1
zymmaster•

Respectfully disagree. The POTUS is just one of three branches of Government. The legislature is firmly controlled by conservatives who fought the POTUS tooth and nail over every proposed law. If he proposed the sun rose in the east and set in the west they would have fought him just on political principles. Additionally, I did some additional research and reading over policies and laws that actually passed the past 6 years. I could not find one that was "anti-business". Granted, I could be missing something. If so please elaborate. I do not consider the Affordable Health Care act anti-business. The original proposed law was drastically changed to accommodate the aforementioned legislature to the point that it ended up a shell of its original proposal. What was bad was that the most beneficial sections were watered down and changed to pander to insurance companies. Keep in mind, it was not POTUS that demanded these changes, it was the duly elected legislature.

Not that it might be important, but I do want to call attention to the fact that I am, and still consider myself to be a moderate Republican. My stances have not changed but conservative politics have moved so far to the right I guess you could say I slipped out of that circle.

With that all said, I do not claim to be infallible. If you can show me documentation of what has been discussed I am open to the ideas. Documentation please, not Fox news, CNN, or teabagger cherry picked propaganda presented out of context.

1
UncleStevie•

Come the revolution the whole idea of a dictatorial "boss" will eventually be discarded in favor of the concept of democracy. Workers in groups moderated by government employees will monitor decisions made to ensure the public good is ensured. It didn't work well in Russia where they called the citizen groups "soviets" but modern socialists have probably done the research and fixed the problems because they are very smart. They will care for us because they have big hearts, and all the guns so we will be safe.

1
zymmaster•

No, but a Government that is chosen by its citizens and actually serves it citizens would be nice.

1
IntrepidSIOP•

"Come the revolution"

Try it. I dare you. I double dare you. You sound like the Tea Party.

You push that far, and the country will have every right winger out (And they're the ones with the most guns) and put the left down like a rabid dog.

I am not saying I support that, I am just giving you a taste of reality - the form of change you want is people working less, making more and sitting on their duffs while others bust their ass. Trust me the, those who really work won't stand for it.

And by the way in a Civil War, my money is on the Right.

1
UncleStevie•

I belong to the Whigg party like Washington. I was trying to make the point that socialists have many unamerican ambitions. When he says "bring the people into the democratic process" he's talking about things like Workers Committees to help guide the economy to produce what it considers the common good. I was talking about Bernies revolution he keeps yelling about. Democrats know they would lose any armed conflict so if they can talk the people into voting socialism in they win without violence. The problem is that history shows that you just won't be able to convince everybody and then it's decided they have to be silenced. Russia killed about 20 million China killed millions Cuba killed thousands and last year imprisoned about 8000 political dissidents. Socialists don't reason with their enemies they eliminate them. My money is on the right as well.

1
The-Animus•

Dear OP,

You seem to be confused as to who you should be blaming. The purpose of the law is to provide a minimum (not maximum) number of days so that every worker at least gets some paid sick time off for obvious reasons.

You said yourself this didn't hurt the companies in any way, nor did it force them to lower their current benefits. The corporations you speak of decided to use this law as an excuse to do what corporations do, be greedy little fucks. This is an action they chose to take because they wanted to and because idiots like you give them a free pass and blame the people trying to make sure everyone actually gets paid sick leave.

Maybe you should stop and think about things yourself before talking about how others need to think things through.

Thanks

1
IntrepidSIOP•

No, this is a prime example of people who have no experience in the real world of business telling the rest of us how things should work.

These same people passed this law, thinking it would harm the companies or "Stick it to those Greedy CEOs". They couldn't be told otherwise because (According to them) they are the smartest people in the room.

Yet another example of why they are not, why book smart and street stupid is dangerous and why people who have no experience in things should learn to shut the fuck up.

1
The-Animus•

I have a bachelors in business administration with a management focus. I graduated magna cum laude and have been working for a large healthcare organization for many years.

Instead of making silly assumptions you should attempt to address my argument.

Who made the decision to lower the benefits at the companies you mentioned?

1
IntrepidSIOP•

Your argument is a deliberate misdirect. You would like me to say the company that employs those people is the culprit, which is true, but the circumstances of that decision more than justify their actions.

If you don't understand that contract companies that work on small margins and high competition were going to be substantially impacted when they were suddenly forced to pay millions in a new benefit, then i would suggest you take that degree and get some real use out of it by wiping your backside.

If you didn't understand that this action was going to cause an equal reaction, then I would suggest your the prime example of the type of people I am talking about; Book smart but real world stupid.

Perhaps it's because you're off in la-la land at your big corporation that you don't understand such things. Here's an idea; why don't you pull that silver spoon out of your mouth and go ask the people who run your building's Cafeteria, or those who do your landscaping or work your Security if they think there wouldn't be a consequence to forcing their employer to give out such a benefit. Go ask the I.T. department contractors how many of their fellow workers were let go and their jobs moved overseas?

If you can actually sully yourself that is to get into where the majority of the world works these day, down on those "lower decks".

If you work in Massachusetts, ask them if there were changes in their benefit program.

If you didn't understand that this was going to have an impact such as cuts in benefits, reduced work forces or shorter hours, then I would strongly suggest you call your school and have them take back your "magna cum laude".

0
The-Animus•

You realize you've contradicted yourself twice in that post. In your OP you said it didn't cost the company and the CEO anything as they gave less benefits. Now you try to say giving them less benefits somehow costs millions.

You tell me I don't understand because you assume I have no experience in business. Upon learning I have plenty of business experience you now assume I now don't get it because I have business experience. BTW your attempt to portray me as having a 'silver spoon' is so wrong it's laughable.

But it must be hard to keep your arguments straight when you have nothing but trolling and ad hom attacks.

In any case I gave you the chance to address my argument and you chose to troll instead so I won't wasting any further time addressing you.

1
Bills1911•

What ever happened to the idea that if you don't like the company's policies, just quit and go work for another company? Why does the government have to mandate policies to force your employer to fit an employee's idea of a perfect job?

1