7 ms·

We're a republic, and it's precisely to prevent unfair outcomes like the one you're proposing. It's not good policy just because most people want it. The thing

We're a republic, and it's precisely to prevent unfair outcomes like the one you're proposing. It's not good policy just because most people want it. The thing is that in America, there is still a barrier between the private and public sectors. While we obviously like perks like this, we don't believe that it's the government's place to mandate it. As we can see by many companies in the United States willfully offering such perks without legal mandate, companies are willing to make these accommodations on their own if they feel it will benefit their position in the market by allowing them to attract better talent. Companies that can't afford this will be at a market disadvantage, but they won't have to be afraid to hire the workers they need when they're growing because the law would force them to pay out half of the employee's salary for up to a year without being able to derive any productive benefit from that outlay. The most American thing about America is "it's a free country". That means that unless there is a vast social cost with allowing a certain behavior, it should be legal and people should be allowed to prosper or fail on the basis of their own choices rather than governmental policy that states "we know what's best for you".

toomuchtodo 10y ago
> The most American thing about America is "it's a free country". "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill
criddell 10y ago
> We're a republic That's true, but if the issue is important enough to lots of people, those people will elect representatives to enact the policy they want made. > As we can see by many companies in the United States willfully offering such perks without legal mandate If it were many companies, then this wouldn't be news.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  >That's true, but if the issue is important enough to lots of people, those people will elect representatives to enact the policy they want made. Yes, but it's more complicated than that. The federal government isn't legally allowed to mandate these types of things under the Constitution, except insofar as they can claim it relates to "regulating interstate commerce" (which they do for almost everything these days). Most employment law is state-level, where there is not necessarily a constitutional prohibition on this type of action (each state has its own constitution, YMMV) and where there's a reasonable possibility of jurisdictional competition to keep things healthy. For example, there is no federal minimum wage (the term "Federal Minimum Wage" refers to the lowest amount of money that the government pays its employees, not a legally-required minimum wage nationwide). Each state has its own minimum wage. >If it were many companies, then this wouldn't be news. It's news mostly because AMEX paid its PR people to put this out. It's good press and may cause talented job seekers to look at their openings. There are a lot of news reports about routine things every day, because much of the news is bought by PR firms. Secondarily, it's news because it comports with the political agenda of the news editors and gives them an opportunity to say things like "America is behind other developed nations in this area", when that's anything but an objective conclusion (because whether this policy is "ahead" or "behind" is a subjective evaluation).
  - criddell 10y ago
    > Each state has its own minimum wage. That's true, but if a state has a minimum wage it can only effectively be higher than the federal minimum wage. From https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/q-a.htm https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/q-a.htm: > Where an employee is subject to both the state and federal minimum wage laws, the employee is entitled to the higher minimum wage rate. The rule is from the Fair Labor Standards Act.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      After further research, I stand corrected. The federal minimum wage is a minimum wage that is applicable to workers throughout the United States, not just employees of the federal government. Constitutionally, I'm not sure how that works, but I'm sure it's not unlike other blatant abuses of Constitutional structures. I'd bet there's a case I could look up somewhere, but don't have the time or inclination right now. That makes it a bad example of what I was talking about, but it's now a good example of how the foundational principles of the Union have been selectively permeated for political convenience. That's sad, IMO, and not something we should seek to replicate in further employment legislation.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>The thing is that in America, there is still a barrier between the private and public sectors. What barrier? It's a selectively permeable membrane at best: wealth can flow from public to private, but never the other way.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Wealth flows the other way (private->public) constantly, by governmental mandate. It's called "tax".
st3v3r 10y ago
"Companies that can't afford this will be at a market disadvantage" I disagree entirely that this "disadvantage" is enough for them to worry or care. If the disadvantage was real, you'd see more companies sacrificing profits to do it. "The most American thing about America is "it's a free country". That means that unless there is a vast social cost with allowing a certain behavior, it should be legal and people should be allowed to prosper or fail on the basis of their own choices rather than governmental policy that states "we know what's best for you"." That statement ignores an awful lot about reality.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  >I disagree entirely that this "disadvantage" is enough for them to worry or care. If the disadvantage was real, you'd see more companies sacrificing profits to do it. Most professional workplaces offer some form of parental leave. My workplace offers 1 week for men (I don't know what they offer women, I assume it's much longer). It's not the 20 weeks that Amex just announced, but it's not nothing. The disadvantage is real. I've tried to hire professionals in a place that didn't offer benefits before. They wouldn't come aboard -- not a single one (and yes, IMO, parental leave is a standard benefit). I had to draw from a pool of college kids who needed a break into the industry. >That statement ignores an awful lot about reality. I disagree. I think that's always been the American way. Government should be small and only interfere with specific legislation when very significant macro-level damage is likely. Other than that, the government's role is to preserve order (including both a criminal and a civil justice system) and promote freedom of conscience within the law, and free people will be free to act in their own best interests without burdensome constraints or regulation. That's how I define "freedom". Whether you think every company should offer 20 weeks of parental leave (itself debatable from a business perspective, though obviously not a perk many employees would willfully decline) is different from whether you think they should be forced to do so.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    >The disadvantage is real. I've tried to hire professionals in a place that didn't offer benefits before. They wouldn't come aboard -- not a single one (and yes, IMO, parental leave is a standard benefit). I had to draw from a pool of college kids who needed a break into the industry. So, to the higher ups, they were still able to hire. Did they eventually decide this was a disadvantage, and try to rectify it? Or did they not change? >and free people will be free to act in their own best interests without burdensome constraints or regulation. That's how I define "freedom". Having to pay rent and buy food are definitely huge burdensome constraints. Hence, most of this "If you don't like it, you don't have to work there!" is ignoring much of that, and reality. You said you had to hire college kids who didn't have any bargaining clout. But people out of college have kids too. Do you honestly think that this kind of benefit is something that should only be reserved for someone who is lucky enough to be in a good bargaining position? >Whether you think every company should offer 20 weeks of parental leave (itself debatable from a business perspective, though obviously not a perk many employees would willfully decline) is different from whether you think they should be forced to do so. Not to me. But then there are many things I don't believe should be dependent on where one works, or how good they are at bargaining.

toomuchtodo 10y ago

> The most American thing about America is "it's a free country". "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill

criddell 10y ago

> We're a republic That's true, but if the issue is important enough to lots of people, those people will elect representatives to enact the policy they want made. > As we can see by many companies in the United States willfully offering such perks without legal mandate If it were many companies, then this wouldn't be news.

cookiecaper 10y ago
>That's true, but if the issue is important enough to lots of people, those people will elect representatives to enact the policy they want made. Yes, but it's more complicated than that. The federal government isn't legally allowed to mandate these types of things under the Constitution, except insofar as they can claim it relates to "regulating interstate commerce" (which they do for almost everything these days). Most employment law is state-level, where there is not necessarily a constitutional prohibition on this type of action (each state has its own constitution, YMMV) and where there's a reasonable possibility of jurisdictional competition to keep things healthy. For example, there is no federal minimum wage (the term "Federal Minimum Wage" refers to the lowest amount of money that the government pays its employees, not a legally-required minimum wage nationwide). Each state has its own minimum wage. >If it were many companies, then this wouldn't be news. It's news mostly because AMEX paid its PR people to put this out. It's good press and may cause talented job seekers to look at their openings. There are a lot of news reports about routine things every day, because much of the news is bought by PR firms. Secondarily, it's news because it comports with the political agenda of the news editors and gives them an opportunity to say things like "America is behind other developed nations in this area", when that's anything but an objective conclusion (because whether this policy is "ahead" or "behind" is a subjective evaluation).
- criddell 10y ago
  > Each state has its own minimum wage. That's true, but if a state has a minimum wage it can only effectively be higher than the federal minimum wage. From https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/q-a.htm https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/q-a.htm: > Where an employee is subject to both the state and federal minimum wage laws, the employee is entitled to the higher minimum wage rate. The rule is from the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    After further research, I stand corrected. The federal minimum wage is a minimum wage that is applicable to workers throughout the United States, not just employees of the federal government. Constitutionally, I'm not sure how that works, but I'm sure it's not unlike other blatant abuses of Constitutional structures. I'd bet there's a case I could look up somewhere, but don't have the time or inclination right now. That makes it a bad example of what I was talking about, but it's now a good example of how the foundational principles of the Union have been selectively permeated for political convenience. That's sad, IMO, and not something we should seek to replicate in further employment legislation.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>The thing is that in America, there is still a barrier between the private and public sectors. What barrier? It's a selectively permeable membrane at best: wealth can flow from public to private, but never the other way.

cookiecaper 10y ago
Wealth flows the other way (private->public) constantly, by governmental mandate. It's called "tax".

st3v3r 10y ago

"Companies that can't afford this will be at a market disadvantage" I disagree entirely that this "disadvantage" is enough for them to worry or care. If the disadvantage was real, you'd see more companies sacrificing profits to do it. "The most American thing about America is "it's a free country". That means that unless there is a vast social cost with allowing a certain behavior, it should be legal and people should be allowed to prosper or fail on the basis of their own choices rather than governmental policy that states "we know what's best for you"." That statement ignores an awful lot about reality.

cookiecaper 10y ago
>I disagree entirely that this "disadvantage" is enough for them to worry or care. If the disadvantage was real, you'd see more companies sacrificing profits to do it. Most professional workplaces offer some form of parental leave. My workplace offers 1 week for men (I don't know what they offer women, I assume it's much longer). It's not the 20 weeks that Amex just announced, but it's not nothing. The disadvantage is real. I've tried to hire professionals in a place that didn't offer benefits before. They wouldn't come aboard -- not a single one (and yes, IMO, parental leave is a standard benefit). I had to draw from a pool of college kids who needed a break into the industry. >That statement ignores an awful lot about reality. I disagree. I think that's always been the American way. Government should be small and only interfere with specific legislation when very significant macro-level damage is likely. Other than that, the government's role is to preserve order (including both a criminal and a civil justice system) and promote freedom of conscience within the law, and free people will be free to act in their own best interests without burdensome constraints or regulation. That's how I define "freedom". Whether you think every company should offer 20 weeks of parental leave (itself debatable from a business perspective, though obviously not a perk many employees would willfully decline) is different from whether you think they should be forced to do so.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  >The disadvantage is real. I've tried to hire professionals in a place that didn't offer benefits before. They wouldn't come aboard -- not a single one (and yes, IMO, parental leave is a standard benefit). I had to draw from a pool of college kids who needed a break into the industry. So, to the higher ups, they were still able to hire. Did they eventually decide this was a disadvantage, and try to rectify it? Or did they not change? >and free people will be free to act in their own best interests without burdensome constraints or regulation. That's how I define "freedom". Having to pay rent and buy food are definitely huge burdensome constraints. Hence, most of this "If you don't like it, you don't have to work there!" is ignoring much of that, and reality. You said you had to hire college kids who didn't have any bargaining clout. But people out of college have kids too. Do you honestly think that this kind of benefit is something that should only be reserved for someone who is lucky enough to be in a good bargaining position? >Whether you think every company should offer 20 weeks of parental leave (itself debatable from a business perspective, though obviously not a perk many employees would willfully decline) is different from whether you think they should be forced to do so. Not to me. But then there are many things I don't believe should be dependent on where one works, or how good they are at bargaining.