- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 29,262
- Reaction score
- 10,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It's a poll, dude! That's not proof of anything.
Then present something to counter it.
It's a poll, dude! That's not proof of anything.
It is done in other states. It isn't a state law in other states, but mandated sick pay is done outside of connecticut.
Jesus.. Then google it yourself or give up. This isn't moving the discussion forward.
Then present something to counter it.
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.
I posted my position, it's dripping with common sense. It's your turn to prove that I'm wrong.
I posted my position, it's dripping with common sense. It's your turn to prove that I'm wrong.
Assumption based on ignorance of the structure of the law and common sense are not interchangable.
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?
I'm saying it's not a good thing to make a small business pay out money, with no return.
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.
I'm saying I don't know enough about this law to make a decision about it's benefit.
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.
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.
So you're the one who needs to provide proof.
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.
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.