Though, allegedy, any employee could potentially use this in an emergency, we know exactly who will absolutely use it. I'm tired of financing the lifestlyle choices of other people. I suspect we would also find that employers no longer want to hire women of child bearing age. ~~ Family paid leave on Mass. agenda Proposal in Senate is nation's most generous By Andrea Estes, Globe Staff | April 23, 2006 Senate leaders this week will propose legislation to offer all workers in Massachusetts up to 12 weeks' paid time off to care for newborn and adopted children or sick family members, financed by an employee payroll premium of at least $1.50 a week. The bill, which would pay employees their full salary, up to $750 a week, would create the most generous paid leave policy in the nation. ''What family hasn't been touched by some emergency," said Senate President Robert Travaglini, who will formally unveil the proposal Tuesday before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. ''I've been through physical and medical problems. Knowing you're not going to lose your job and you will continue to be compensated will provide significant comfort." The legislation drew a cautious reaction from businesses and labor groups, which may oppose the proposed employee premiums, and could face a tough fight in the House. The premium amount has not yet been determined, but Travaglini aides said it would likely be between $1.50 and $2.50 a week. Under the bill, all employees would be required to pay into the fund, regardless of whether they believe they would ever take advantage of the benefits. The premium proposal comes only days after Beacon Hill lawmakers enacted a healthcare law that includes a $295 per worker tax on employers that do not provide health insurance coverage. Even though he is suggesting a payroll tax in an election year, Travaglini predicted his family leave proposal will gain support because the premiums would be so low. He said he hadn't decided when the Senate would take up the measure. ''I'm convinced the overwhelming majority of people will view this in a favorable way," said Travaglini. ''Employees are the direct beneficiaries, and the . . . contributions are a very small amount of money that can provide significant comfort and coverage in the event of a medical emergency or the birth of a baby." The Massachusetts proposal would also attempt to protect employees' jobs, making it illegal for an employer to fire someone who opts to take a paid leave under the new policy. The legislation would cover all 3 million employees in the public and private sectors, who would be eligible for a leave after working at least 900 hours in the previous nine months. Workers would be required to use their own vacation or sick time for the first week of their leave and then could receive an additional 12 weeks, paid by the new program. Workers could also use the paid leave time to recover from an illness or to care for an ailing relative. Travaglini, who batted down reports last week that he may leave the Senate, sees the proposal as part of an agenda to help working families, aides said. Democratic Senator Karen Spilka of Framingham, chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Children and Families, said the bill will especially help families who struggle paycheck to paycheck. Continued here http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/23/ family_paid_leave_on_mass_agenda/

Although you, Leah, may be tired of financing life style choices of other people, citizens of Mass. apparently are not. A bill like that would go nowhere if it wasn’t supported by the major players in local politics, who are usually profit-oriented businesspeople. Since the program is paid by employee contributions it will have no negative impact on employers other then a particular woman missing work. So if you own a business there it’s of no cost to you – the fund pays her salary. If you can get so worked up about couple of bucks a week you may need a 12-week paid leave yourself, chill, grab a beer :-) Jedem Das Seine.

---

Jedem Das Seine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orkster: Although you, Leah, may be tired of financing life style choices of other people, citizens of Mass. apparently are not. A bill like that would go nowhere if it wasn’t supported by the major players in local politics, who are usually profit-oriented businesspeople. Since the program is paid by employee contributions it will have no negative impact on employers other then a particular woman missing work. So if you own a business there it’s of no cost to you – the fund pays her salary. If you can get so worked up about couple of bucks a week you may need a 12-week paid leave yourself, chill, grab a beer :-) Jedem Das Seine.

---

Paid for by all the employees for the benefit of a few... Pardon me for seeing beyond the immediate to the eventual consequences. And, yes, it does hurt those businesses because they are having yet another thing dictated regarding how they run their business. If I have an emergency or lifestyle choice that requires leave, why should that be funded by my co-workers? And, why should I be required to fund someone else's? As for it being only a few dollars, I think that's what people claim every single time they add another tax or mandatory withholding. It is not a contribution if it is mandatory.

I'd like to see the law.. Nothing is ever this cut and dry. I don;t know who the hell most media articles are written for, but its not for anyone that wants to analyze :) To what extent is this enforced? Are there tax benefits for compliance or tax penalties for noncompliance? Etc. I generally support this type of stuff. But not as a universal law, only as an optional decision, for which tax benefits can be given. It should be a complicated decision to opt in or out (for the company at least. Maybe even for employees). Not an "easy" decision. in other words the benefits/penalties not being too obviously harsh. But they grow with the size of the company. "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." -H. G. Wells, Outline of History (1920)

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

Orkster, this is one of those cases where most people think they are voting for their own benefit not for others. Since people who would NEVER benefit from this are still a minority, this is not a fair vote. Kinda like making 5 people and you vote for whether you should give them $100. You know how that would come out :) But it is not a fair vote "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." -H. G. Wells, Outline of History (1920)

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor: Orkster, this is one of those cases where most people think they are voting for their own benefit not for others. Since people who would NEVER benefit from this are still a minority, this is not a fair vote. Kinda like making 5 people and you vote for whether you should give them $100. You know how that would come out :) But it is not a fair vote "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." -H. G. Wells, Outline of History (1920)

---

Exactly!

back to USSR

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: back to USSR

---

Not at all. In the USSR, The governement paid for it. Here, it seems to be a direct deduction from co-workers. Although I am not sure about the math here.. it doesnt seem to add up at all. "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." -H. G. Wells, Outline of History (1920)

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: back to USSR

---

Not at all. In the USSR, The governement paid for it. Here, it seems to be a direct deduction from co-workers. Although I am not sure about the math here.. it doesnt seem to add up at all. "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." -H. G. Wells, Outline of History (1920)

---

In USSR was the same thing, workers got less money to begin with, so we can pretend that there were no taxes, in reality both things are exactly the same.... -------------------

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

so you are saying if "dekreti" didn't exist that money would have been moved to increase salaries? Here its a direct deduction from you OFFICIAL SALARY. Subtracted from your income before the law. "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." -H. G. Wells, Outline of History (1920)

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor: so you are saying if "dekreti" didn't exist that money would have been moved to increase salaries? Here its a direct deduction from you OFFICIAL SALARY. Subtracted from your income before the law. "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." -H. G. Wells, Outline of History (1920)

---

what I'm saying is low salary was a hidden form of taxation in USSR. Economic science is universal, no matter how you call it. State has to finance itself and may use taxes like normal economies do, or if state ows everthing it's just pay less. -------------------

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....