If Republicans Cared About Families, They’d Stop Blocking Paid Leave

[rightwinger]

No.....it's not a big chunk
It is an insignificant burden on the total workforce. Three workers out of 100 being on maternity leave for a short period of time

Then do the math yourself: Three people a year taking six weeks off is 18 weeks of pay and benefits an employer must pay. And again, add the 18 weeks of replacements to do the work. Now we're talking 36 weeks of pay and benefits that an employer must payout. That's not a significant burden on an employer?

You should start your own company and see if you feel the same way then.

Out of 100 people. That's 18 weeks out of 5200 weeks

Wow, you really aren't motivated by money, comrade big guy. No matter how much of other people's money you spend, it just doesn't bother you

Just putting things in perspective. No, maternity leave will not bring employers to their knees
What brought them to their knees is having to pay a minimum wage, 40 hour week, OSHA, fire codes, child labor laws

Yet, they managed to survive. Just like they do in every other civilized country that mandates maternity leave

Just putting things in perspective. What you advocate's not your money, of course spending it is nothing to you. It is literally nothing to you

It is our society...we get to set the rules
Just like every other country

 

[rightwinger]

The government has absolutely no right interfering in the compensation package between an employer and employee.

Libtards hate the idea of freedom. They want the filthy government to dictate everything.

We went through that seventy years ago when we set rules on minimum wage, 40 hour week and FLSA

 

[mudwhistle]

Republican "family values" don't exist, unless it involves protecting zygotes.
If Republicans Cared About Families, They’d Stop Blocking Paid Leave

Several participants at the Republican debate last week spoke fervently about putting Rosa Parks’ image on the $10 bill. They also spoke fervently in support of a decision by Congress to defund Planned Parenthood—an organization that counted Rosa Parks among the members of its national board.

The contradiction would have been obvious and painful to Ms. Parks. Like many of us, she’d have been bewildered by the priorities of candidates who have held vote after vote on shutting down vital health services for women, but won’t even schedule a hearing on the FAMILY Act, a bill to provide affordable family and medical leave. It’s impossible to care about families and leave communities bereft of services for contraception, mammograms and other cancer screenings, and dozens more critical health services for women. It’s also impossible to call yourself “pro-life” and oppose a badly-needed, common sense program to make family and medical leave affordable to care for a new child or a seriously ill family member.

In 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act passed Congress with bipartisan support. The FMLA provided up to 12 weeks unpaid leave for care of a new child or a serious personal illness or that of a child, spouse or parent. Republicans as well as Democrats saw that valuing family meant making sure people could care for family members without losing their jobs or health insurance. Many of the state and local campaigns within Family Values @ Work’s national network have leaders from both parties—including the numerous Republicans leading the charge for the Family Care Act in Georgia.

So what’s the problem in the nation’s capital today?

The FMLA is now 22 years old. While it constituted a major breakthrough and established the principle that having a family shouldn’t cost you your job, the leave remains out of reach for millions—some because they’re not covered by its protections (two-fifths of the nation’s workforce), and many who are eligible because they cannot afford to take unpaid leave. According to a study done for the Department of Labor (DOL), nearly one in four employed mothers who are pregnant go back to work within two weeks of giving birth—with disastrous results for maternal and infant health. Others who take the time they need to heal and bond with a child often face financial hardship.

Democrats must like dreaming up ways of making it more expensive to have employees.

Paid leave for everyone is intended only to do one thing, cause anyone with any common-sense to reject it.

Usually it's Republicans.

 

[rightwinger]

No.....it's not a big chunk
It is an insignificant burden on the total workforce. Three workers out of 100 being on maternity leave for a short period of time

Then do the math yourself: Three people a year taking six weeks off is 18 weeks of pay and benefits an employer must pay. And again, add the 18 weeks of replacements to do the work. Now we're talking 36 weeks of pay and benefits that an employer must payout. That's not a significant burden on an employer?

You should start your own company and see if you feel the same way then.

Out of 100 people. That's 18 weeks out of 5200 weeks

5200 weeks? Is that like 57 states?

Math and conservatives.......what ya gunna do?

52 weeks a year times 100 employees equal?
<now run and get your calculator>

I see what you're trying to do, and that's water down facts.

Let's do the real math:

A girl working for $12.00 per hour each week gets paid $480.00. With benefits, we'll round that off to $550.00.

$550.00 per week times 6 weeks is $3,300 per employee. Three employees a year getting leave is nearly $10,000 per year.

Do you have $10,000 a year to waste? I don't. Furthermore, if I were an employer and such a law was instituted, I would simply avoid hiring younger women.

That is $10,000 out of a total payroll of $2.4 million

Refuse to hire young women and it will cost you a lot more than $10k

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then do the math yourself: Three people a year taking six weeks off is 18 weeks of pay and benefits an employer must pay. And again, add the 18 weeks of replacements to do the work. Now we're talking 36 weeks of pay and benefits that an employer must payout. That's not a significant burden on an employer?

You should start your own company and see if you feel the same way then.

Out of 100 people. That's 18 weeks out of 5200 weeks

5200 weeks? Is that like 57 states?

Math and conservatives.......what ya gunna do?

52 weeks a year times 100 employees equal?
<now run and get your calculator>

I see what you're trying to do, and that's water down facts.

Let's do the real math:

A girl working for $12.00 per hour each week gets paid $480.00. With benefits, we'll round that off to $550.00.

$550.00 per week times 6 weeks is $3,300 per employee. Three employees a year getting leave is nearly $10,000 per year.

Do you have $10,000 a year to waste? I don't. Furthermore, if I were an employer and such a law was instituted, I would simply avoid hiring younger women.

That is $10,000 out of a total payroll of $2.4 million

Refuse to hire young women and it will cost you a lot more than $10k

Employers can avoid hiring younger women. They don't have to provide excuses. Just hire males and older women.

So ten grand a year for a company that shells out 2.4 million is nothing? Where do you get that at? A company may be only growing at 1%. That's a failure. They may be on the verge of leaving the state or country which so many have over such expenses.

I have a better idea. Since 10K is nothing, why don't you offer a company of 100 employees that 10K to provide maternity leave for their employees? It's nothing, right?

 

[rightwinger]

Out of 100 people. That's 18 weeks out of 5200 weeks

5200 weeks? Is that like 57 states?

Math and conservatives.......what ya gunna do?

52 weeks a year times 100 employees equal?
<now run and get your calculator>

I see what you're trying to do, and that's water down facts.

Let's do the real math:

A girl working for $12.00 per hour each week gets paid $480.00. With benefits, we'll round that off to $550.00.

$550.00 per week times 6 weeks is $3,300 per employee. Three employees a year getting leave is nearly $10,000 per year.

Do you have $10,000 a year to waste? I don't. Furthermore, if I were an employer and such a law was instituted, I would simply avoid hiring younger women.

That is $10,000 out of a total payroll of $2.4 million

Refuse to hire young women and it will cost you a lot more than $10k

Employers can avoid hiring younger women. They don't have to provide excuses. Just hire males and older women.

So ten grand a year for a company that shells out 2.4 million is nothing? Where do you get that at? A company may be only growing at 1%. That's a failure. They may be on the verge of leaving the state or country which so many have over such expenses.

I have a better idea. Since 10K is nothing, why don't you offer a company of 100 employees that 10K to provide maternity leave for their employees? It's nothing, right?

Cost of doing business. Same as all labor laws

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

5200 weeks? Is that like 57 states?

Math and conservatives.......what ya gunna do?

52 weeks a year times 100 employees equal?
<now run and get your calculator>

I see what you're trying to do, and that's water down facts.

Let's do the real math:

A girl working for $12.00 per hour each week gets paid $480.00. With benefits, we'll round that off to $550.00.

$550.00 per week times 6 weeks is $3,300 per employee. Three employees a year getting leave is nearly $10,000 per year.

Do you have $10,000 a year to waste? I don't. Furthermore, if I were an employer and such a law was instituted, I would simply avoid hiring younger women.

That is $10,000 out of a total payroll of $2.4 million

Refuse to hire young women and it will cost you a lot more than $10k

Employers can avoid hiring younger women. They don't have to provide excuses. Just hire males and older women.

So ten grand a year for a company that shells out 2.4 million is nothing? Where do you get that at? A company may be only growing at 1%. That's a failure. They may be on the verge of leaving the state or country which so many have over such expenses.

I have a better idea. Since 10K is nothing, why don't you offer a company of 100 employees that 10K to provide maternity leave for their employees? It's nothing, right?

Cost of doing business. Same as all labor laws

The same labor laws that helped chase jobs out of our country?

Oh yes, we definitely need more of them.

 

[rightwinger]

Math and conservatives.......what ya gunna do?

52 weeks a year times 100 employees equal?
<now run and get your calculator>

I see what you're trying to do, and that's water down facts.

Let's do the real math:

A girl working for $12.00 per hour each week gets paid $480.00. With benefits, we'll round that off to $550.00.

$550.00 per week times 6 weeks is $3,300 per employee. Three employees a year getting leave is nearly $10,000 per year.

Do you have $10,000 a year to waste? I don't. Furthermore, if I were an employer and such a law was instituted, I would simply avoid hiring younger women.

That is $10,000 out of a total payroll of $2.4 million

Refuse to hire young women and it will cost you a lot more than $10k

Employers can avoid hiring younger women. They don't have to provide excuses. Just hire males and older women.

So ten grand a year for a company that shells out 2.4 million is nothing? Where do you get that at? A company may be only growing at 1%. That's a failure. They may be on the verge of leaving the state or country which so many have over such expenses.

I have a better idea. Since 10K is nothing, why don't you offer a company of 100 employees that 10K to provide maternity leave for their employees? It's nothing, right?

Cost of doing business. Same as all labor laws

The same labor laws that helped chase jobs out of our country?

Oh yes, we definitely need more of them.

Our workers are the most productive on earth. Work more hours, receive less benefits, less vacation time, retire later than anywhere else in the industrialized world

Conservative outrage over a woman wanting to spend time with an infant is just another indicator

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I see what you're trying to do, and that's water down facts.

Let's do the real math:

A girl working for $12.00 per hour each week gets paid $480.00. With benefits, we'll round that off to $550.00.

$550.00 per week times 6 weeks is $3,300 per employee. Three employees a year getting leave is nearly $10,000 per year.

Do you have $10,000 a year to waste? I don't. Furthermore, if I were an employer and such a law was instituted, I would simply avoid hiring younger women.

That is $10,000 out of a total payroll of $2.4 million

Refuse to hire young women and it will cost you a lot more than $10k

Employers can avoid hiring younger women. They don't have to provide excuses. Just hire males and older women.

So ten grand a year for a company that shells out 2.4 million is nothing? Where do you get that at? A company may be only growing at 1%. That's a failure. They may be on the verge of leaving the state or country which so many have over such expenses.

I have a better idea. Since 10K is nothing, why don't you offer a company of 100 employees that 10K to provide maternity leave for their employees? It's nothing, right?

Cost of doing business. Same as all labor laws

The same labor laws that helped chase jobs out of our country?

Oh yes, we definitely need more of them.

Our workers are the most productive on earth. Work more hours, receive less benefits, less vacation time, retire later than anywhere else in the industrialized world

Conservative outrage over a woman wanting to spend time with an infant is just another indicator

We're not outraged by it, we just don't believe the employer should be held liable for a woman's decision to have kids. If she wants to take a couple months off, fine with us, but she shouldn't be getting paid for it either.

You know, the cost of having a family????

 

[mgh80]

I see what you're trying to do, and that's water down facts.

Let's do the real math:

A girl working for $12.00 per hour each week gets paid $480.00. With benefits, we'll round that off to $550.00.

$550.00 per week times 6 weeks is $3,300 per employee. Three employees a year getting leave is nearly $10,000 per year.

Do you have $10,000 a year to waste? I don't. Furthermore, if I were an employer and such a law was instituted, I would simply avoid hiring younger women.

That is $10,000 out of a total payroll of $2.4 million

Refuse to hire young women and it will cost you a lot more than $10k

Employers can avoid hiring younger women. They don't have to provide excuses. Just hire males and older women.

So ten grand a year for a company that shells out 2.4 million is nothing? Where do you get that at? A company may be only growing at 1%. That's a failure. They may be on the verge of leaving the state or country which so many have over such expenses.

I have a better idea. Since 10K is nothing, why don't you offer a company of 100 employees that 10K to provide maternity leave for their employees? It's nothing, right?

Cost of doing business. Same as all labor laws

The same labor laws that helped chase jobs out of our country?

Oh yes, we definitely need more of them.

Our workers are the most productive on earth. Work more hours, receive less benefits, less vacation time, retire later than anywhere else in the industrialized world

Conservative outrage over a woman wanting to spend time with an infant is just another indicator

Why should a woman who chose to have a baby be paid for taking time off when a woman who chooses not to have a baby still has to work for their paycheck?

Does that seem "fair" to you?

 

[kaz]

No.....it's not a big chunk
It is an insignificant burden on the total workforce. Three workers out of 100 being on maternity leave for a short period of time

Then do the math yourself: Three people a year taking six weeks off is 18 weeks of pay and benefits an employer must pay. And again, add the 18 weeks of replacements to do the work. Now we're talking 36 weeks of pay and benefits that an employer must payout. That's not a significant burden on an employer?

You should start your own company and see if you feel the same way then.

Out of 100 people. That's 18 weeks out of 5200 weeks

5200 weeks? Is that like 57 states?

Math and conservatives.......what ya gunna do?

52 weeks a year times 100 employees equal?
<now run and get your calculator>

I see what you're trying to do, and that's water down facts.

Let's do the real math:

A girl working for $12.00 per hour each week gets paid $480.00. With benefits, we'll round that off to $550.00.

$550.00 per week times 6 weeks is $3,300 per employee. Three employees a year getting leave is nearly $10,000 per year.

Do you have $10,000 a year to waste? I don't. Furthermore, if I were an employer and such a law was instituted, I would simply avoid hiring younger women.

Why would RW care? He's not paying for it

 

[kaz]

Then do the math yourself: Three people a year taking six weeks off is 18 weeks of pay and benefits an employer must pay. And again, add the 18 weeks of replacements to do the work. Now we're talking 36 weeks of pay and benefits that an employer must payout. That's not a significant burden on an employer?

You should start your own company and see if you feel the same way then.

Out of 100 people. That's 18 weeks out of 5200 weeks

Wow, you really aren't motivated by money, comrade big guy. No matter how much of other people's money you spend, it just doesn't bother you

Just putting things in perspective. No, maternity leave will not bring employers to their knees
What brought them to their knees is having to pay a minimum wage, 40 hour week, OSHA, fire codes, child labor laws

Yet, they managed to survive. Just like they do in every other civilized country that mandates maternity leave

Just putting things in perspective. What you advocate's not your money, of course spending it is nothing to you. It is literally nothing to you

It is our society...we get to set the rules
Just like every other country

And it's easy to do that when it's not your money, isn't it, comrade big guy?

So what else do you have on your shopping list that you aren't planning to pay for?

 

[paulitician]

Let's be real, if angry greedy white Republican guy had his way, Businesses would be allowed to have their slaves. And they'd get their Corporate Welfare Tax Breaks on top of it. Most of our Founding Fathers were greedy old white dudes who owned slaves for God's sake. That's America.

Slavery is where unchecked hate & greed ultimately takes you. All Americans should actually thank God that Unions existed and thrived for a time. They wouldn't enjoy the perks they take for granted today, if Unions didn't fight for them. Unions need to make a comeback in this country. It's the only way to keep greedy white Republican guy somewhat honest.

Actually it's a good way to get the greedy white Republican to move his business and jobs out of the country like so many have in the past.

They do that anyway. It's what greedy white Republican dude is all about.

 

[paulitician]

'If' being the key word here. They don't care. But on the bright side, greedy white Republican dude's numbers are dwindling. And more & more Americans are turning against them. Winning a Presidential Election will be incredibly difficult for the Republican Party for many years to come.

Sorry to hear you were in a coma last mid-term elections, but it was historical. The Republicans gained seats in Congress and took leadership of the Senate. It didn't stop there. It was a Republican sweep across the country, states, and even city elections.

It'll be short-lived. And stupid shit like this is the reason. Mistreating American Mothers isn't exactly an endearing agenda to most Americans. The People will make the Republicans pay for this one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

'If' being the key word here. They don't care. But on the bright side, greedy white Republican dude's numbers are dwindling. And more & more Americans are turning against them. Winning a Presidential Election will be incredibly difficult for the Republican Party for many years to come.

Sorry to hear you were in a coma last mid-term elections, but it was historical. The Republicans gained seats in Congress and took leadership of the Senate. It didn't stop there. It was a Republican sweep across the country, states, and even city elections.

It'll be short-lived. And stupid shit like this is the reason. Mistreating American Mothers isn't exactly an endearing agenda to most Americans. The People will make the Republicans pay for this one.

So who is mistreating American mothers?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's be real, if angry greedy white Republican guy had his way, Businesses would be allowed to have their slaves. And they'd get their Corporate Welfare Tax Breaks on top of it. Most of our Founding Fathers were greedy old white dudes who owned slaves for God's sake. That's America.

Slavery is where unchecked hate & greed ultimately takes you. All Americans should actually thank God that Unions existed and thrived for a time. They wouldn't enjoy the perks they take for granted today, if Unions didn't fight for them. Unions need to make a comeback in this country. It's the only way to keep greedy white Republican guy somewhat honest.

Actually it's a good way to get the greedy white Republican to move his business and jobs out of the country like so many have in the past.

They do that anyway. It's what greedy white Republican dude is all about.

No, the greedy white Republican is just trying to stay in business. As long as Democrats keep coming along and making that a harder goal, they will keep moving out.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is $10,000 out of a total payroll of $2.4 million

Refuse to hire young women and it will cost you a lot more than $10k

Employers can avoid hiring younger women. They don't have to provide excuses. Just hire males and older women.

So ten grand a year for a company that shells out 2.4 million is nothing? Where do you get that at? A company may be only growing at 1%. That's a failure. They may be on the verge of leaving the state or country which so many have over such expenses.

I have a better idea. Since 10K is nothing, why don't you offer a company of 100 employees that 10K to provide maternity leave for their employees? It's nothing, right?

Cost of doing business. Same as all labor laws

The same labor laws that helped chase jobs out of our country?

Oh yes, we definitely need more of them.

Our workers are the most productive on earth. Work more hours, receive less benefits, less vacation time, retire later than anywhere else in the industrialized world

Conservative outrage over a woman wanting to spend time with an infant is just another indicator

Why should a woman who chose to have a baby be paid for taking time off when a woman who chooses not to have a baby still has to work for their paycheck?

Does that seem "fair" to you?

Please, don't give them anymore whacky ideas. Next thing they will want is maternity leave for the father too.

 

[paulitician]

'If' being the key word here. They don't care. But on the bright side, greedy white Republican dude's numbers are dwindling. And more & more Americans are turning against them. Winning a Presidential Election will be incredibly difficult for the Republican Party for many years to come.

Sorry to hear you were in a coma last mid-term elections, but it was historical. The Republicans gained seats in Congress and took leadership of the Senate. It didn't stop there. It was a Republican sweep across the country, states, and even city elections.

It'll be short-lived. And stupid shit like this is the reason. Mistreating American Mothers isn't exactly an endearing agenda to most Americans. The People will make the Republicans pay for this one.

So who is mistreating American mothers?

You.

 

[paulitician]

Let's be real, if angry greedy white Republican guy had his way, Businesses would be allowed to have their slaves. And they'd get their Corporate Welfare Tax Breaks on top of it. Most of our Founding Fathers were greedy old white dudes who owned slaves for God's sake. That's America.

Slavery is where unchecked hate & greed ultimately takes you. All Americans should actually thank God that Unions existed and thrived for a time. They wouldn't enjoy the perks they take for granted today, if Unions didn't fight for them. Unions need to make a comeback in this country. It's the only way to keep greedy white Republican guy somewhat honest.

Actually it's a good way to get the greedy white Republican to move his business and jobs out of the country like so many have in the past.

They do that anyway. It's what greedy white Republican dude is all about.

No, the greedy white Republican is just trying to stay in business. As long as Democrats keep coming along and making that a harder goal, they will keep moving out.

No, you guys just want your Slave Labor. It's no coincidence since the decline of Unions, wages have stagnated and decreased. Unions need to make a comeback in this country. It's the only way to keep you greedy white Republican dudes somewhat honest.

 

[kaz]

Let's be real, if angry greedy white Republican guy had his way, Businesses would be allowed to have their slaves. And they'd get their Corporate Welfare Tax Breaks on top of it. Most of our Founding Fathers were greedy old white dudes who owned slaves for God's sake. That's America.

Slavery is where unchecked hate & greed ultimately takes you. All Americans should actually thank God that Unions existed and thrived for a time. They wouldn't enjoy the perks they take for granted today, if Unions didn't fight for them. Unions need to make a comeback in this country. It's the only way to keep greedy white Republican guy somewhat honest.

Actually it's a good way to get the greedy white Republican to move his business and jobs out of the country like so many have in the past.

They do that anyway. It's what greedy white Republican dude is all about.

Republicans are greedy because they don't want to force employers to pay their workers for not working. Got it. Thanks for that insight, Polly. While Democrats, who are paying for nothing, are generous, got it.

Here's a tip. Charity isn't an act that can be performed with someone else's money...