5 ms·

No what you really need is federal binding minimum standards for Annual leave (4 weeks ) and Sick pay and minimum wage. Repeal all the right to work laws and m

No what you really need is federal binding minimum standards for Annual leave (4 weeks ) and Sick pay and minimum wage. Repeal all the right to work laws and massively reduce the ability of employers to use non compeats (us CA as a model here I think)

justAnotherNET 7y ago
Then you end up with a situation like France where incompetent employees are hard to fire. No thanks. If I can hire you at will, I can fire you at will. Anything less than that crosses into weird entitlement areas.
Shivetya 7y ago
How do you decide who qualifies for four weeks pay? that is a significant cost to many small businesses. Do you limit it based on how many employees they have? How many hours the employee averages per week? The last time Congress set limits they threw low wage earners under the bus; the now infamous ACA twenty nine hour rule. minimum wage should not be at the federal level, it is a state by state and city by city issue that should be based upon cost of living in that area. federal laws should protect from working without pay and discrimination. if localities wanted to protect low wage earners they woulds step back occupational license requirements for many positions and reduce the burden of fees and regulatory compliance as well; that twenty to twenty five dollar fee some states charge just for a license may not be bad for you or me but for the low wage earner it is very bad. having to pay five hundred dollars for a license to work is no better, but these costs exist and are not income scaled
- kornakiewicz 7y ago
  > How do you decide who qualifies for four weeks pay? You don't. Every full-time employee have right to paid holidays, like we have in every other country in the world.
  - linuxftw 7y ago
    That leads to less full-time employees. People will get their hours cut. Maybe we need to consider someone who works more than 15 hours a week full time. Or perhaps the benefits scale for employees based on number of hours worked.
    - kobbe 7y ago
      It works in every other country...
      - mcrocop309 7y ago
        Depends what you mean by 'it works'. In 2016 the US had 2000 people becoming millionaires every day. It depends what your goals are. If you want to rest, maybe go to France.
    - kornakiewicz 7y ago
      I wasn't clear. In Europe, part-time employees get their time off pro-rated based on working hours, while full-time ones get minimum required by law (20+ days per year, depending on country). Plus additional ~10 paid public holidays for everyone.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      The US is pretty much the only developed country without mandatory vacation time. This is a solved problem. Just look around how other countries do it.
      - linuxftw 7y ago
        If it's such a bright idea, why can't NY and CA do it? They're literally the size and population of many other countries. In the US, the states are free to do whatever they want with wage and employment laws, so long as it doesn't violate the constitution. If CA wants to set the minimum wage to $30/hr + 2 weeks mandatory PTO, they are 100% free to do it. It's pretty much a single party state at this point. Other countries are able to support higher labor rates because they have protectionist tariffs, such as the VAT. But if the US wants to raise tariffs, all of a sudden we're racist idiots. Anyway, a lot of what's perceived to be wrong with the US can easily be solved at the state level, but turns out nobody actually wants to foot the bill for these things.
- mseidl 7y ago
  Well, it turns out, people aren't robots. They need rest. They need time off.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  I was proposing basically removing most of not all of the sates jurisdiction over labour laws the USA doesn't need 52 different sets of labour laws.
snarf21 7y ago
This is all true, but you also need to remove the ability for healthcare to be based on one employer. You should be able to get your own coverage and contribute to an HSA no matter what job you do. That mobility will make a huge difference
- whenanother 7y ago
  same with pension. either social security should absorb all pension programs or a separate government entity is created. or have a workers’ union control it all. too many companies are being raided or declared “bankruptcy” to hide the dumping of pension obligations.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Oh true but that's not labour law - go back and implement the sort of system (Basicly Germany's ) the US was moving to in the 50's
neilwilson 7y ago
And if the statutory alternative job has 5 weeks annual leave, $25 per hour minimum, is 9-5 35 hours per week, with full medical, pension and sickness cover with he job within walking distance (or a short bus ride) of your house? Why regulate when you can compete rubbish jobs out of the system?
BuckRogers 7y ago
Closer, and that would help but not change the fundamental problem of who controls the means of production. I think you'll lose in the end, as we see today. You could just remove the tension of the employer-employee imbalance altogether. I'd advocate for public funding of loans for worker owned co-ops. 1 employee/owner = 1 share = 1 vote. Vote on wages, vote on bosses, run it like a democracy. Once people have democracy in their workplace, they'll finally demand it out of our government. Businesses will still fail, some will still survive, but ultimately the proven business models (most businesses) should have this more equitable distribution of profits. There's no reason the 7-Eleven should be hauling profits back to Japan, the employees can own and operate local variants and keep the money in the community. This is how I personally plan on making the world a better place whether I'm a millionaire or have nothing. Organizing and start at least 1 worker-owned cooperative before I die. It's something most of us are capable of doing that truly improves the world where it counts (happiness which comes from a sense of control over your own destiny, and money which the latter equals food and housing).
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Being a coop by ownership rather than direct democracy works better in my opinion - and not sure having a government sugar daddy helps they would impose to much political control.
  - BuckRogers 7y ago
    "Government sugar daddy". That sort of slanted injection won't win many people over that don't already agree. I'm advocating for government loans to start co-ops. Less of a "sugar daddy" than the massive corporate subsidies going on today. You missed the point on a co-op being worker owned, you have to work there to own a share, and have to own a share to acquire a vote. Ownership and direct democracy in one. Solves a lot of problems economically and socially.
    - C1sc0cat 7y ago
      I have worked for and been a member of a well know tech coop in the uk btw. The previous commentator said the government would be involved in setting thease coops up - now may this is not going to be used by the executive for political ends. I was refereeing the attempt by Tony Benn in the 70's to restructure a uk motorbike manufacturer as a coop.

justAnotherNET 7y ago

Then you end up with a situation like France where incompetent employees are hard to fire. No thanks. If I can hire you at will, I can fire you at will. Anything less than that crosses into weird entitlement areas.

Shivetya 7y ago

How do you decide who qualifies for four weeks pay? that is a significant cost to many small businesses. Do you limit it based on how many employees they have? How many hours the employee averages per week? The last time Congress set limits they threw low wage earners under the bus; the now infamous ACA twenty nine hour rule. minimum wage should not be at the federal level, it is a state by state and city by city issue that should be based upon cost of living in that area. federal laws should protect from working without pay and discrimination. if localities wanted to protect low wage earners they woulds step back occupational license requirements for many positions and reduce the burden of fees and regulatory compliance as well; that twenty to twenty five dollar fee some states charge just for a license may not be bad for you or me but for the low wage earner it is very bad. having to pay five hundred dollars for a license to work is no better, but these costs exist and are not income scaled

kornakiewicz 7y ago
> How do you decide who qualifies for four weeks pay? You don't. Every full-time employee have right to paid holidays, like we have in every other country in the world.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  That leads to less full-time employees. People will get their hours cut. Maybe we need to consider someone who works more than 15 hours a week full time. Or perhaps the benefits scale for employees based on number of hours worked.
  - kobbe 7y ago
    It works in every other country...
    - mcrocop309 7y ago
      Depends what you mean by 'it works'. In 2016 the US had 2000 people becoming millionaires every day. It depends what your goals are. If you want to rest, maybe go to France.
  - kornakiewicz 7y ago
    I wasn't clear. In Europe, part-time employees get their time off pro-rated based on working hours, while full-time ones get minimum required by law (20+ days per year, depending on country). Plus additional ~10 paid public holidays for everyone.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    The US is pretty much the only developed country without mandatory vacation time. This is a solved problem. Just look around how other countries do it.
    - linuxftw 7y ago
      If it's such a bright idea, why can't NY and CA do it? They're literally the size and population of many other countries. In the US, the states are free to do whatever they want with wage and employment laws, so long as it doesn't violate the constitution. If CA wants to set the minimum wage to $30/hr + 2 weeks mandatory PTO, they are 100% free to do it. It's pretty much a single party state at this point. Other countries are able to support higher labor rates because they have protectionist tariffs, such as the VAT. But if the US wants to raise tariffs, all of a sudden we're racist idiots. Anyway, a lot of what's perceived to be wrong with the US can easily be solved at the state level, but turns out nobody actually wants to foot the bill for these things.
mseidl 7y ago
Well, it turns out, people aren't robots. They need rest. They need time off.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
I was proposing basically removing most of not all of the sates jurisdiction over labour laws the USA doesn't need 52 different sets of labour laws.

snarf21 7y ago

This is all true, but you also need to remove the ability for healthcare to be based on one employer. You should be able to get your own coverage and contribute to an HSA no matter what job you do. That mobility will make a huge difference

whenanother 7y ago
same with pension. either social security should absorb all pension programs or a separate government entity is created. or have a workers’ union control it all. too many companies are being raided or declared “bankruptcy” to hide the dumping of pension obligations.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
Oh true but that's not labour law - go back and implement the sort of system (Basicly Germany's ) the US was moving to in the 50's

neilwilson 7y ago

And if the statutory alternative job has 5 weeks annual leave, $25 per hour minimum, is 9-5 35 hours per week, with full medical, pension and sickness cover with he job within walking distance (or a short bus ride) of your house? Why regulate when you can compete rubbish jobs out of the system?

BuckRogers 7y ago

Closer, and that would help but not change the fundamental problem of who controls the means of production. I think you'll lose in the end, as we see today. You could just remove the tension of the employer-employee imbalance altogether. I'd advocate for public funding of loans for worker owned co-ops. 1 employee/owner = 1 share = 1 vote. Vote on wages, vote on bosses, run it like a democracy. Once people have democracy in their workplace, they'll finally demand it out of our government. Businesses will still fail, some will still survive, but ultimately the proven business models (most businesses) should have this more equitable distribution of profits. There's no reason the 7-Eleven should be hauling profits back to Japan, the employees can own and operate local variants and keep the money in the community. This is how I personally plan on making the world a better place whether I'm a millionaire or have nothing. Organizing and start at least 1 worker-owned cooperative before I die. It's something most of us are capable of doing that truly improves the world where it counts (happiness which comes from a sense of control over your own destiny, and money which the latter equals food and housing).

C1sc0cat 7y ago
Being a coop by ownership rather than direct democracy works better in my opinion - and not sure having a government sugar daddy helps they would impose to much political control.
- BuckRogers 7y ago
  "Government sugar daddy". That sort of slanted injection won't win many people over that don't already agree. I'm advocating for government loans to start co-ops. Less of a "sugar daddy" than the massive corporate subsidies going on today. You missed the point on a co-op being worker owned, you have to work there to own a share, and have to own a share to acquire a vote. Ownership and direct democracy in one. Solves a lot of problems economically and socially.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    I have worked for and been a member of a well know tech coop in the uk btw. The previous commentator said the government would be involved in setting thease coops up - now may this is not going to be used by the executive for political ends. I was refereeing the attempt by Tony Benn in the 70's to restructure a uk motorbike manufacturer as a coop.