Grumps 3,693 Posted September 9, 2015 Author Share Posted September 9, 2015 7 measly days of sick leave a year that a worker must spread out between himself/herself and their kids and elderly parents-- and some of you guys act like the communist takeover is complete. The most striking thing about many on the right these days is the almost absolute lack of basic humanity and decency. And how many opposing this claim to be Christian? I don't know why I'm even surprised anymore by some of these responses. What on earth does being a Christian have to do with this thread? I doubt it can be explained to you. Fair enough. I didn't think that you could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,459 Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Titan, do you think that this executive order was needed? In other words, do you think that workers are being mistreated by their employers and such an executive order fixes the problem? From experience, there are a lot of federal contractors that make a mint off of government contracts that squeeze the workers any way they can. If they aren't screwing them on pay, they screw them on vacation or benefits. I certainly don't see anything wrong with it. The companies that were doing workers right don't see any change. The stingy ones now have to step it up a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,778 Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Just because someone doesn't do the 'right thing' doesn't give the federal government license to step in. You tell em! Lazy kids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,778 Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 7 measly days of sick leave a year that a worker must spread out between himself/herself and their kids and elderly parents-- and some of you guys act like the communist takeover is complete. The most striking thing about many on the right these days is the almost absolute lack of basic humanity and decency. And how many opposing this claim to be Christian? I don't know why I'm even surprised anymore by some of these responses. What on earth does being a Christian have to do with this thread? I doubt it can be explained to you. Fair enough. I didn't think that you could. I don't think anyone who truly adheres to the teachings of Christ would look at this executive order and have his initial reflex be to decry the impact on corporate profits. It's not an overly generous benefit. I suspect we disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Titan, do you think that this executive order was needed? In other words, do you think that workers are being mistreated by their employers and such an executive order fixes the problem? From experience, there are a lot of federal contractors that make a mint off of government contracts that squeeze the workers any way they can. If they aren't screwing them on pay, they screw them on vacation or benefits. I certainly don't see anything wrong with it. The companies that were doing workers right don't see any change. The stingy ones now have to step it up a little. Agree with this. And would add, if you don't like it, don't go after business from the feds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,336 Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Just because someone doesn't do the 'right thing' doesn't give the federal government license to step in. Actually, I think that is a function of government - to provide a counterbalance to the private sector when it takes advantage of workers. But then again, I believe as a Christian that the laws we make are supposed to serve the interests of people, not that people are here to serve the interest of laws. Well yeahh but who defines it? I understand that we should want people to be treated fairly but life isn't fair. Never has been and never will be. Government can't right every wrong and there are simply things they don't have authority to do. I get that feferal contractors are subject to such rules. Just because you can't make everything perfectly fair in every single situation doesn't mean you therefore just throw up your hands and let whatever happens happen. The government is here to serve us. Part of lawmaking is to keep a reasonable balance of power and influence so that all the leverage doesn't accrue to a few of the powerful. We don't always do a very good job of that, but in a small instance where we do, the argument that "the government has no right" just doesn't hold much water to me. Cooltigger votes for anarchy. I'd say more like oligarchy. (Which we already have.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,459 Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Titan, do you think that this executive order was needed? In other words, do you think that workers are being mistreated by their employers and such an executive order fixes the problem? From experience, there are a lot of federal contractors that make a mint off of government contracts that squeeze the workers any way they can. If they aren't screwing them on pay, they screw them on vacation or benefits. I certainly don't see anything wrong with it. The companies that were doing workers right don't see any change. The stingy ones now have to step it up a little. Agree with this. And would add, if you don't like it, don't go after business from the feds. This actually puts the companies bidding on more equal footing. It takes a little bit of the ability to severely undercut other companies by sticking it to the workers. Nothing wrong with controlling overhead costs, but draining your employees dry to do it is not cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Titan, do you think that this executive order was needed? In other words, do you think that workers are being mistreated by their employers and such an executive order fixes the problem? From experience, there are a lot of federal contractors that make a mint off of government contracts that squeeze the workers any way they can. If they aren't screwing them on pay, they screw them on vacation or benefits. I certainly don't see anything wrong with it. The companies that were doing workers right don't see any change. The stingy ones now have to step it up a little. Agree with this. And would add, if you don't like it, don't go after business from the feds. This actually puts the companies bidding on more equal footing. It takes a little bit of the ability to severely undercut other companies by sticking it to the workers. Nothing wrong with controlling overhead costs, but draining your employees dry to do it is not cool. Completely agree. I am the choir, preach on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Just because someone doesn't do the 'right thing' doesn't give the federal government license to step in. Actually, I think that is a function of government - to provide a counterbalance to the private sector when it takes advantage of workers. But then again, I believe as a Christian that the laws we make are supposed to serve the interests of people, not that people are here to serve the interest of laws. Well yeahh but who defines it? I understand that we should want people to be treated fairly but life isn't fair. Never has been and never will be. Government can't right every wrong and there are simply things they don't have authority to do. I get that feferal contractors are subject to such rules. Just because you can't make everything perfectly fair in every single situation doesn't mean you therefore just throw up your hands and let whatever happens happen. The government is here to serve us. Part of lawmaking is to keep a reasonable balance of power and influence so that all the leverage doesn't accrue to a few of the powerful. We don't always do a very good job of that, but in a small instance where we do, the argument that "the government has no right" just doesn't hold much water to me. I never said don't do anything. My point is that there are limits placed on government and for good reason. We've gotten the idea that we can get Washington to make it "fair" You have to be very careful about that. The more you give the more they want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Just because someone doesn't do the 'right thing' doesn't give the federal government license to step in. Actually, I think that is a function of government - to provide a counterbalance to the private sector when it takes advantage of workers. But then again, I believe as a Christian that the laws we make are supposed to serve the interests of people, not that people are here to serve the interest of laws. Well yeahh but who defines it? I understand that we should want people to be treated fairly but life isn't fair. Never has been and never will be. Government can't right every wrong and there are simply things they don't have authority to do. I get that feferal contractors are subject to such rules. Just because you can't make everything perfectly fair in every single situation doesn't mean you therefore just throw up your hands and let whatever happens happen. The government is here to serve us. Part of lawmaking is to keep a reasonable balance of power and influence so that all the leverage doesn't accrue to a few of the powerful. We don't always do a very good job of that, but in a small instance where we do, the argument that "the government has no right" just doesn't hold much water to me. Cooltigger votes for anarchy. ;)/> I'd say more like oligarchy. (Which we already have.) Wrong on both counts but then coming from you two, I'd expect nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,336 Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Just because someone doesn't do the 'right thing' doesn't give the federal government license to step in. Actually, I think that is a function of government - to provide a counterbalance to the private sector when it takes advantage of workers. But then again, I believe as a Christian that the laws we make are supposed to serve the interests of people, not that people are here to serve the interest of laws. Well yeahh but who defines it? I understand that we should want people to be treated fairly but life isn't fair. Never has been and never will be. Government can't right every wrong and there are simply things they don't have authority to do. I get that feferal contractors are subject to such rules. Just because you can't make everything perfectly fair in every single situation doesn't mean you therefore just throw up your hands and let whatever happens happen. The government is here to serve us. Part of lawmaking is to keep a reasonable balance of power and influence so that all the leverage doesn't accrue to a few of the powerful. We don't always do a very good job of that, but in a small instance where we do, the argument that "the government has no right" just doesn't hold much water to me. I never said don't do anything. My point is that there are limits placed on government and for good reason. We've gotten the idea that we can get Washington to make it "fair" You have to be very careful about that. The more you give the more they want Yeah, but the topic is sick leave policy. More precisely, sick leave policy as it applies to companies doing business with the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,778 Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Just because someone doesn't do the 'right thing' doesn't give the federal government license to step in. Actually, I think that is a function of government - to provide a counterbalance to the private sector when it takes advantage of workers. But then again, I believe as a Christian that the laws we make are supposed to serve the interests of people, not that people are here to serve the interest of laws. Well yeahh but who defines it? I understand that we should want people to be treated fairly but life isn't fair. Never has been and never will be. Government can't right every wrong and there are simply things they don't have authority to do. I get that feferal contractors are subject to such rules. Just because you can't make everything perfectly fair in every single situation doesn't mean you therefore just throw up your hands and let whatever happens happen. The government is here to serve us. Part of lawmaking is to keep a reasonable balance of power and influence so that all the leverage doesn't accrue to a few of the powerful. We don't always do a very good job of that, but in a small instance where we do, the argument that "the government has no right" just doesn't hold much water to me. Cooltigger votes for anarchy. ;)/> I'd say more like oligarchy. (Which we already have.) I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan4Auburn 1,626 Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Anther dent in productivity. No wonder we can't compete with Japan and China. Like people that are sick are really being productive. Too support: Productivity: In Sickness and in Health: Health concerns, naturally, are a big drain on an employee’s ability to be productive, and companies know it. At the SHRM Conference and Exposition last June in Washington, D.C., a survey showed that 85 percent of U.S. employers said they were interested in services to increase employee productivity, minimize absences and enhance the health of their employees.Estimates show that 18 to 20 million American adults age 19 to 64 are not working due to a disability or chronic disease, or are not working because of health reasons. Roughly 69 million workers reported missing days due to illness last year, for a total of 407 million days of lost time at work.Along these same lines, nearly 40 percent of U.S. workers experience fatigue, according to a study in the January “Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.” Researchers noted that the effects of fatigue, most related to a wide range of physical and mental health problems, on health-related lost productive time is not just absenteeism, but also days the employee is at work and is performing at less than full capacity because of health reasons. For U.S. employers, fatigue carries overall estimated costs of more than $136 billion per year in health-related lost productivity, $101 billion more than for workers without fatigue. Eighty-four percent of the costs were related to reduced performance while at work, rather than absences. https://www.nbrii.co...s-productivity/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aujeff11 6,243 Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Anther dent in productivity. No wonder we can't compete with Japan and China. Like people that are sick are really being productive. Too support: Productivity: In Sickness and in Health: Health concerns, naturally, are a big drain on an employee’s ability to be productive, and companies know it. At the SHRM Conference and Exposition last June in Washington, D.C., a survey showed that 85 percent of U.S. employers said they were interested in services to increase employee productivity, minimize absences and enhance the health of their employees.Estimates show that 18 to 20 million American adults age 19 to 64 are not working due to a disability or chronic disease, or are not working because of health reasons. Roughly 69 million workers reported missing days due to illness last year, for a total of 407 million days of lost time at work.Along these same lines, nearly 40 percent of U.S. workers experience fatigue, according to a study in the January “Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.” Researchers noted that the effects of fatigue, most related to a wide range of physical and mental health problems, on health-related lost productive time is not just absenteeism, but also days the employee is at work and is performing at less than full capacity because of health reasons. For U.S. employers, fatigue carries overall estimated costs of more than $136 billion per year in health-related lost productivity, $101 billion more than for workers without fatigue. Eighty-four percent of the costs were related to reduced performance while at work, rather than absences. https://www.nbrii.co...s-productivity/ Exactly. Thanks for the numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.