Matt Gaetz

Quote: GenoDRPh

The difference is I am pro-worker and think organizations should be able to withstand people in certain high ranking jobs taking a few weeks or a few months off for certain legally defined and legally protected reasons. That's just good organizational management. Apple just kept right on chugging along when Steve Jobs took months off to treat his pancreatic cancer, and when he had his liver transplant.

Look at the big picture. You don't think employers should pay their workers a minimum wage, and now you want to take away medical leave or leave for birth/adoption. What other worker's rights do you want to take away? Unpaid lunch breaks, maybe? How about worker safety rules?

Just like there should be no minimum wage, I don’t think the government should FORCE a company to provide certain benefits. I NEGOTIATED for vacation time/sick time/disability pay at my last two jobs. And before them I was aware of the total packages offered.

Funny you should cry about paid time off for this, paid lunch break for that…. This site was started and populated by a bunch of APs who get NONE of those.

Of course (most) organizations can ‘withstand’ the loss of any employee for ANY reason. Most businesses are trying to do better than ‘withstand’ something.

Quote: SOOPOO

Just like there should be no minimum wage, I don’t think the government should FORCE a company to provide certain benefits. I NEGOTIATED for vacation time/sick time/disability pay at my last two jobs. And before them I was aware of the total packages offered.

Funny you should cry about paid time off for this, paid lunch break for that…. This site was started and populated by a bunch of APs who get NONE of those.

Of course (most) organizations can ‘withstand’ the loss of any employee for ANY reason. Most businesses are trying to do better than ‘withstand’ something.

It's unpaid lunch breaks, amigo. Let's just say I like my version of employee-employer relationship better than yours.

Most business are indeed doing better than withstanding a temporary or permanent loss of an employee. Which is why taking legally protected leave is no big deal, and is nobody's fault but the employer's if it is.

Quote: GenoDRPh

It's unpaid lunch breaks, amigo. Let's just say I like my version of employee-employer relationship better than yours.

Most business are indeed doing better than withstanding a temporary or permanent loss of an employee. Which is why taking legally protected leave is no big deal, and is nobody's fault but the employer's if it is.

You never ran a small business. I did. It’s easy to say ‘just deal with it’ when being forced to contend with government regulation. It’s the anti-business concept that Democrats embrace. And was I’m sure a small part of why they lost the Presidency, House, and Senate, to a party headed by the worst candidate in HISTORY.

Quote: SOOPOO

You never ran a small business. I did. It’s easy to say ‘just deal with it’ when being forced to contend with government regulation. It’s the anti-business concept that Democrats embrace. And was I’m sure a small part of why they lost the Presidency, House, and Senate, to a party headed by the worst candidate in HISTORY.

Small businesses are exempt from FMLA. Small businesses are exempt from the employer mandates of the ADA. Small employers are exempt from the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. As a person who ran a small business, I'm sure you were and still are aware of that. Any business large enough and capitalized enough to be covered by those laws and whatever similar state laws are large enough to have at least one person knowledgeable enough to cover for the dude or dudette who is out on leave. If not, then that is the sole fault of the person running, hiring for and training for said not-small business. As a person who ran a small business I dare you to tell me that you ran your business otherwise. The Federal Dept of Transportation has 58,622 employees (thanks wikipedia) and at least 3 Senate confirmed secretaries and under secretaries. They were more than capable of handling with aplomb Buttiegieg's absence during family leave. It;s not "just deal with". It's called "planning" and is the smart way to run a business, large or small.

I've never run a small business but I've run departments in larger organizations. I took seriously my responsibilities to scrupulously comply with labor laws AND allow my employees to avail themselves of the full panapoly of benefits available to them. And I made sure we could handle with aplomb any absence due to short or long term leave.

Those people-who benefit from the supposed anti-business laws you despise-who voted for the worst candidate in history thinking he would be better for them in the workplace, let's just say I hope they are happy with the results over the next 4 years.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Small businesses are exempt from FMLA. Small businesses are exempt from the employer mandates of the ADA. Small employers are exempt from the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. As a person who ran a small business, I'm sure you were and still are aware of that. Any business large enough and capitalized enough to be covered by those laws and whatever similar state laws are large enough to have at least one person knowledgeable enough to cover for the dude or dudette who is out on leave. If not, then that is the sole fault of the person running, hiring for and training for said not-small business. As a person who ran a small business I dare you to tell me that you ran your business otherwise. The Federal Dept of Transportation has 58,622 employees (thanks wikipedia) and at least 3 Senate confirmed secretaries and under secretaries. They were more than capable of handling with aplomb Buttiegieg's absence during family leave. It;s not "just deal with". It's called "planning" and is the smart way to run a business, large or small.

I've never run a small business but I've run departments in larger organizations. I took seriously my responsibilities to scrupulously comply with labor laws AND allow my employees to avail themselves of the full panapoly of benefits available to them. And I made sure we could handle with aplomb any absence due to short or long term leave.

Those people-who benefit from the supposed anti-business laws you despise-who voted for the worst candidate in history thinking he would be better for them in the workplace, let's just say I hope they are happy with the results over the next 4 years.

It is certainly possible I lumped the State regulations together with Federal regulations when I said ‘government regulations’. And by ‘small’, I think we had 40 or so total employees at the max. Here is how we did it. Employees were given (a lot by virtually any standard!) days off. It didn’t matter if you broke a leg, were in Cannes partying at the festival, or watching your kid play in the big kindergarten soccer game. If you weren’t at work, you were charged on of those (45!) days. I forget how many (20?) you could save from one year to the next. Woman planning on pregnancy/time off after delivery? Didn’t take any days off before such. One partner even went so far as to work every holiday (you got an extra day for each) so she could take more time off after delivery. Of course it was not easy to adjust schedule for someone away for two straight months, but she did it by the rules she knew were in existence in our group. And everyone tried their best to help her out with on call responsibility, trading those holidays, etc…. But WE did it WITHOUT the government telling us what to do. She never missed a paycheck, but also, at the end of the year, fulfilled her work responsibilities.

Of course we covered for each other during emergencies. I figured it out that during my career I mostly averaged 55 hours a week. One missing person divided by 18 doctors means we all work 3 hours a week more. Of course to you it’s a who cares moment. To me it was 3 hours more for of course the same pay.

Quote: SOOPOO

It is certainly possible I lumped the State regulations together with Federal regulations when I said ‘government regulations’. And by ‘small’, I think we had 40 or so total employees at the max. Here is how we did it. Employees were given (a lot by virtually any standard!) days off. It didn’t matter if you broke a leg, were in Cannes partying at the festival, or watching your kid play in the big kindergarten soccer game. If you weren’t at work, you were charged on of those (45!) days. I forget how many (20?) you could save from one year to the next. Woman planning on pregnancy/time off after delivery? Didn’t take any days off before such. One partner even went so far as to work every holiday (you got an extra day for each) so she could take more time off after delivery. Of course it was not easy to adjust schedule for someone away for two straight months, but she did it by the rules she knew were in existence in our group. And everyone tried their best to help her out with on call responsibility, trading those holidays, etc…. But WE did it WITHOUT the government telling us what to do. She never missed a paycheck, but also, at the end of the year, fulfilled her work responsibilities.

Of course we covered for each other during emergencies. I figured it out that during my career I mostly averaged 55 hours a week. One missing person divided by 18 doctors means we all work 3 hours a week more. Of course to you it’s a who cares moment. To me it was 3 hours more for of course the same pay.

55 hours a week for me is 15 hours at time and a half. 3 hours a week more is 3 hours at time a half. Sign me up! Unless you want to take away overtime as well...

Quote: GenoDRPh

55 hours a week for me is 15 hours at time and a half. 3 hours a week more is 3 hours at time a half. Sign me up! Unless you want to take away overtime as well...

I don't think I have ever earned a single dollar of overtime. Since I was 23 years old I have only been on salary. I have worked many 90 hour weeks and only been paid the same as when I worked 10 hour weeks.

Quote: DRich

I don't think I have ever earned a single dollar of overtime. Since I was 23 years old I have only been on salary. I have worked many 90 hour weeks and only been paid the same as when I worked 10 hour weeks.

I thank the payroll gods every week for the FLSA. Of course Soopoo and Duffy are going to come up with some rationale to take away overtime and also to somehow say we all should be on salary and work extra for the same pay...

Quote: GenoDRPh

I thank the payroll gods every week for the FLSA. Of course Soopoo and Duffy are going to come up with some rationale to take away overtime and also to somehow say we all should be on salary and work extra for the same pay...

When you are on salary it is not working extra for the same pay, it is doing your job for the same pay whether it takes one hour or 100 hours it is getting paid to do the job.

I have worked many salaried jobs where I did almost nothing for months on end and then had a month where I worked crazy hours. One job I worked about 580 hours in six weeks.

Quote: DRich

When you are on salary it is not working extra for the same pay, it is doing your job for the same pay whether it takes one hour or 100 hours it is getting paid to do the job.

I have worked many salaried jobs where I did almost nothing for months on end and then had a month where I worked crazy hours. One job I worked about 580 hours in six weeks.

When you're hourly and your employees are hourly time is money. When you're salary time is...money. Use time wisely and get projects done on time. I, personally never valued "staying late to get the job done." I valued more the person who got the job done on time on budget and in the allotted time they said it would take. Maybe that's because I am so used to paying and getting paid by the hour that I'm sensitive to taking too long or costing more. 'Tis not to say some OT isn't justified or even a cost-saver.