• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Connecticut to Pass Paid Sick Leave Law

tessaesque said:
It is done in other states. It isn't a state law in other states, but mandated sick pay is done outside of connecticut.
Click to expand...

But, it's not state law in any other state, which means that it's on each individual company to offer paid sick leave. Some comapnies can afford it and some can't. Laws like this will hurt the ones who can't. That is my point.

This is another one of those do-gooder laws that will help big business and hurt small business.
 
apdst said:
But, it's not state law in any other state, which means that it's on each individual company to offer paid sick leave. Some comapnies can afford it and some can't. Laws like this will hurt the ones who can't. That is my point.

This is another one of those do-gooder laws that will help big business and hurt small business.
Click to expand...

Are you completely ignoring the article? The article states that cities have done this. Now one singular state has done it. Perhaps you should do some research before you start panicking over a law that doesn't even affect you.
 
apdst said:
I posted my position, it's dripping with common sense. It's your turn to prove that I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Assumption based on ignorance of the structure of the law and common sense are not interchangable.
 
apdst said:
I posted my position, it's dripping with common sense. It's your turn to prove that I'm wrong.
Click to expand...


Great a self-appointed expert.:roll:
 
tessaesque said:
Assumption based on ignorance of the structure of the law and common sense are not interchangable.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying that it's a good idea to further invade a small businesses already shrinking bottom line, in the middle of a depression?
 
apdst said:
So, you're saying that it's a good idea to further invade a small businesses already shrinking bottom line, in the middle of a depression?
Click to expand...

I'm saying I don't know enough about this law to make a decision about it's benefit.
 
apdst said:
I'm saying it's not a good thing to make a small business pay out money, with no return.
Click to expand...

You do get a return from it though. You're less likely to have a sick person coming in and getting a bunch of other employees sick, which may cause a much larger problem for you a few days down the line. It would also mean you'll have happier and healthier employees, who will be more productive as a result.

While I don't necessarily agree with a law mandating it, I think any business that doesn't offer paid sick time is somewhat shortsighted.
 
tessaesque said:
Are you completely ignoring the article? The article states that cities have done this. Now one singular state has done it. Perhaps you should do some research before you start panicking over a law that doesn't even affect you.
Click to expand...

Eventually all these laws effect everyone by encouraging businesses to go elsewhere. We can't really complain when businesses are moving overseas or to another area if we arbitrarily add expenses to their cost of doing business. Eventually, and especially so for the smaller businesses rather than the larger corporations who just pass this added expense on to consumers, it just stops being worthwhile to hire. Of course the costs of government employees is just passed on to the taxpayer.

Business owners have none of these benefits.
 
tessaesque said:
I'm saying I don't know enough about this law to make a decision about it's benefit.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see that angle.

Now, for my angle: I think that this law will invade an already shrinking bottom line, that most small businesses can't afford in the current depression.
 
apdst said:
Ok, I see that angle.

Now, for my angle: I think that this law will invade an already shrinking bottom line, that most small businesses can't afford in the current depression.
Click to expand...

So you're the one who needs to provide proof.
 
molten_dragon said:
You do get a return from it though. You're less likely to have a sick person coming in and getting a bunch of other employees sick, which may cause a much larger problem for you a few days down the line.[/'b] It would also mean you'll have happier and healthier employees, who will be more productive as a result.

While I don't necessarily agree with a law mandating it, I think any business that doesn't offer paid sick time is somewhat shortsighted.
Click to expand...


If he can come to work sick, then the rest of them can come to work sick.
 
tessaesque said:
So you're the one who needs to provide proof.
Click to expand...

You mean, I have to actually provide proof that cutting into a small businesses profits, in the current economy is a bad thing? Really?
 
apdst said:
Ok, I see that angle.

Now, for my angle: I think that this law will invade an already shrinking bottom line, that most small businesses can't afford in the current depression.
Click to expand...

I can see this on both sides. I think it's been posted that similar laws have been tried without negative repercussion; and under most normal circumstances I can see that being the case. However, it is also true that we are in middle of a long going recession, with high unemployment, and these harsh times will particularly hurt the smaller businesses who aren't as insulated as corporations. Though I think (IIRC) it was something like 1/2 a day/month; which means 6 days of paid sick leave a year; and that doesn't seem terribly large. There are other concerns as well, such as allowing the paid sick days would encourage workers who are sick to stay at home; thus not spreading their cold to the rest of the workers and possibly affecting the productivity of many more.

It's a fairly entangled state, and it's hard to say how it will come out in the wash. Still, it's been made law? If so, we'll soon have data on it.
 
Ikari said:
I can see this on both sides. I think it's been posted that similar laws have been tried without negative repercussion; and under most normal circumstances I can see that being the case. However, it is also true that we are in middle of a long going recession, with high unemployment, and these harsh times will particularly hurt the smaller businesses who aren't as insulated as corporations. Though I think (IIRC) it was something like 1/2 a day/month; which means 6 days of paid sick leave a year; and that doesn't seem terribly large. There are other concerns as well, such as allowing the paid sick days would encourage workers who are sick to stay at home; thus not spreading their cold to the rest of the workers and possibly affecting the productivity of many more.

It's a fairly entangled state, and it's hard to say how it will come out in the wash. Still, it's been made law? If so, we'll soon have data on it.
Click to expand...

But, no statewide mandates.

As a small business operator, I believe this is counterproductive, especially in the current economic climate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom