Obama Just Guaranteed Sick Days For More Than A Million Workers

[trouble13]

so, for ****s and grins, lets say Donald wins in November

And he writes an EO stating that no company that provides vacation or sick days can now bid on government contracts

same thing that Obama has done here, but in reverse

i bet you arent going to like that much, and neither will all of the employees of those companies as they suddenly lose company benefits, and have to go to the ACA websites for their coverage

This is why EO's suck....and presidents that use them, suck more

If he wants this changed...fine

Get it through congress with a full fledged law....not some edict of a guy with a pen and the will to make crap happen

Agreed this was done the wrong way and honestly i would love it if trump did get scale work requirements nonmandatory but i would oppose him if he did it by EO.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[gdgyva]

actually, the outcome of your imagined scenario would be much worse

those employees of contractors who have the skills the government needs and wants would find alternative places to work, where their current level of benefits is continued

that would occur less often in remote locales where competition for good employees was not as intense, but those employees would be looking to move to another job

and the employees who remain working on those federal contracts would be those who could not go elsewhere because their skill set was not in demand, or because they had family circumstances that would not allow them to relocate to accept a job with compensation equivalent to what they had prior to the XO rescinding their sick leave and health benefits

the end result is a lesser grade of employees performing the work needed by the government. hell of a job, brownie

you think i care, or most people care if we lose a few good people because of the new EO?

let them see how hard it is on the outside.....

and nice deflect btw....

the main issue is EO's and what can and should be done with them

you apparently have no lines drawn in the sand....

just remember that when the OTHER party is in control and doing crap you dont like

we have a congress and lawmaking rules for a reason....

that is my point

 

[JasperL]

so, for ****s and grins, lets say Donald wins in November

And he writes an EO stating that no company that provides vacation or sick days can now bid on government contracts

same thing that Obama has done here, but in reverse

i bet you arent going to like that much, and neither will all of the employees of those companies as they suddenly lose company benefits, and have to go to the ACA websites for their coverage

This is why EO's suck....and presidents that use them, suck more

If he wants this changed...fine

Get it through congress with a full fledged law....not some edict of a guy with a pen and the will to make crap happen

Every President uses EOs, so I suspect you don't really have a problem with EOs, just ones you don't like.

But your point is accurate enough. You'd probably agree more often with EOs of conservatives, and I'm the reverse. And using them is inferior to passing a law, but so long as we have the kind of gridlock in D.C. that we've had for the Obama years, I suspect they'll be used more and more often no matter who wins in November, and Trump with that pen is pretty worrisome.

But the tendency for each successive Presidency to gather more and more power in the Executive branch isn't new or unique to Obama. As I'm sure you recall, the Bush admin spent 8 years arguing for a Unitary Executive with essentially unchecked powers to run the Executive branch as he saw fit without interference from Congress. Many of those Bush EOs and signing statements were in fact Bush declaring laws passed by Congress as essentially no more than suggestions that he could ignore as he saw fit.

If your broader point is that's a worrisome development, I agree. I also believe the polarization of Congress and the seeming inability for the two parties to make the kind of compromises that make effective government possible is also extremely worrying.

 

[washunut]

Every President uses EOs, so I suspect you don't really have a problem with EOs, just ones you don't like.

But your point is accurate enough. You'd probably agree more often with EOs of conservatives, and I'm the reverse. And using them is inferior to passing a law, but so long as we have the kind of gridlock in D.C. that we've had for the Obama years, I suspect they'll be used more and more often no matter who wins in November, and Trump with that pen is pretty worrisome.

But the tendency for each successive Presidency to gather more and more power in the Executive branch isn't new or unique to Obama. As I'm sure you recall, the Bush admin spent 8 years arguing for a Unitary Executive with essentially unchecked powers to run the Executive branch as he saw fit without interference from Congress. Many of those Bush EOs and signing statements were in fact Bush declaring laws passed by Congress as essentially no more than suggestions that he could ignore as he saw fit.

If your broader point is that's a worrisome development, I agree. I also believe the polarization of Congress and the seeming inability for the two parties to make the kind of compromises that make effective government possible is also extremely worrying.

First I will say that this is less an Obama issue than a creeping presidency issue. I have been against this abuse (IMO) for years. I think one of the reasons we have so much gridlock is because of this. Why would the party who holds the presidency compromise, when they can get most of what they want through an EO.

Also as much as any president can get frustrated by the pace of progress on certain issues they must remember we did not elect a dictator. To me at least this is an area where we are headed in the wrong direction.

 

[truthatallcost]

"Compassion for working people"??? They are being paid, aren't they? Why does the government need to interfere in the business of free people and set the terms? That's not what we have a government for.

Sure they're being paid. Should they be forced to work when they're sick? Many do, because of lack of sick days.

Look, business needs some regulations. Without the government mandating some decency from business, the US would go back to the business practices of the 19th century. Workers do need some rights.

I can't stand the wing of the GOP that wants to roll the clock back to 1816 and allow businesses to treat employees like slaves. There needs to be sensible regulation, with, yes, compassion for your fellow Americans who may not be from rich families, or fortunate enough to have a trust fund to live off of.

 

[trouble13]

you think i care, or most people care if we lose a few good people because of the new EO?

let them see how hard it is on the outside.....

and nice deflect btw....

the main issue is EO's and what can and should be done with them

you apparently have no lines drawn in the sand....

just remember that when the OTHER party is in control and doing crap you dont like

we have a congress and lawmaking rules for a reason....

that is my point

Ive said this about obamacare too. The left is really playing a danherous game with our freedom.

Imagine if the roght started complaining about the crime rates and demanded something had to be done about it. Im not sure if it could be done by EO but imagine they decided the most effective way to drive crime down was to require everyone to carry a gun and if they didnt they eould be taxed for noncompliance. Its kind of hard for them to complain about losing rights they have hsppily surrendered to sulport cause they liked.

What happens when they go around the scotus by not outlawing abortion but use EOs to restrict them so much that they might as well be illegal because its next ty o impossible to get a legal one

As a nation we are navigating through dangerous waters that threaten our republic

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Every President uses EOs, so I suspect you don't really have a problem with EOs, just ones you don't like.

But your point is accurate enough. You'd probably agree more often with EOs of conservatives, and I'm the reverse. And using them is inferior to passing a law, but so long as we have the kind of gridlock in D.C. that we've had for the Obama years, I suspect they'll be used more and more often no matter who wins in November, and Trump with that pen is pretty worrisome.

But the tendency for each successive Presidency to gather more and more power in the Executive branch isn't new or unique to Obama. As I'm sure you recall, the Bush admin spent 8 years arguing for a Unitary Executive with essentially unchecked powers to run the Executive branch as he saw fit without interference from Congress. Many of those Bush EOs and signing statements were in fact Bush declaring laws passed by Congress as essentially no more than suggestions that he could ignore as he saw fit.

If your broader point is that's a worrisome development, I agree. I also believe the polarization of Congress and the seeming inability for the two parties to make the kind of compromises that make effective government possible is also extremely worrying.

The difference i see is in rhe voters. People on the left cheer and celebrate it as some great moral victory over the right without regard to the price it cost us all. Some on the right do it too but not nearly as many.

If the right uses its power of the vote to block something the left needs to respect that and vice a versa of course. The ends do not justify the means

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

First I will say that this is less an Obama issue than a creeping presidency issue. I have been against this abuse (IMO) for years. I think one of the reasons we have so much gridlock is because of this. Why would the party who holds the presidency compromise, when they can get most of what they want through an EO.

Also as much as any president can get frustrated by the pace of progress on certain issues they must remember we did not elect a dictator. To me at least this is an area where we are headed in the wrong direction.

I so mostly agree with all that. Before I came to this place I was active on a local political board and spent most of the Bush years pointing out, correctly, that when a Democrat was in the WH the Republicans in Congress and in the public at large would regret supporting Bush assuming a bunch of unchecked powers in the WH, mostly to deaf ears. Now the shoe is on the other foot, I'm more likely to agree with what Obama is doing, but I also have to recognize my own hypocrisy here.

And without trying to make excuses for me or Obama here, I'd slightly rephrase your question above. Why would a President compromise or refrain from EOs when they can get some or most of what they want through an EO, and neither party in Congress seems to have an actual principled objection to it when it suits them? Bottom line is if/when Congress gets tired of having their authority stripped from them, the parties can get together and legislatively overrule most of these EOs with appropriate legislation. In this case, the POTUS is relying on the simple fact that such legislation just cannot get through the House and Senate, and he's on safe territory.

 

[JasperL]

The difference i see is in rhe voters. People on the left cheer and celebrate it as some great moral victory over the right without regard to the price it cost us all. Some on the right do it too but not nearly as many.

If the right uses its power of the vote to block something the left needs to respect that and vice a versa of course. The ends do not justify the means

I can't speak to the relative numbers - more or fewer on the right than the left - but there were plenty on the right who had no objections to the whole Unitary Executive thing, the record number of Bush signing statements, etc. and it was because they agreed with Bush on those particular cases.

Again, I agree with the premise and was just objecting a bit to this newfound principled opposition to EOs and signing statements that at least the conservatives I was talking with during the Bush years simply didn't object to as a group.

 

[gdgyva]

Sure they're being paid. Should they be forced to work when they're sick? Many do, because of lack of sick days.

Look, business needs some regulations. Without the government mandating some decency from business, the US would go back to the business practices of the 19th century. Workers do need some rights.

I can't stand the wing of the GOP that wants to roll the clock back to 1816 and allow businesses to treat employees like slaves. There needs to be sensible regulation, with, yes, compassion for your fellow Americans who may not be from rich families, or fortunate enough to have a trust fund to live off of.

bull****

most employers recognize that without our employees we are screwed....BUT

we get to dictate how we spend the dollars....not someone else

for my employees, they get better pay than most other area dealers, but less in other benefits

and they have to weigh what is more important to them....more money, or better benefits

i think you will find things that way across the country....choices....aint freedom grand?

when those choices are taken away, you limit what we as businessmen can and will do

better pay is how i compete....not better benefits, and for a LOT of people, that is what is important to THEM

 

[truthatallcost]

bull****

most employers recognize that without our employees we are screwed....BUT

we get to dictate how we spend the dollars....not someone else

for my employees, they get better pay than most other area dealers, but less in other benefits

and they have to weigh what is more important to them....more money, or better benefits

i think you will find things that way across the country....choices....aint freedom grand?

when those choices are taken away, you limit what we as businessmen can and will do

better pay is how i compete....not better benefits, and for a LOT of people, that is what is important to THEM

Everything that's been said here doesn't become invalid because of your personal experience in life.

How many people do you employ? 10 or less?

Great, so the 10 people who work for you are probably young and healthy, and prefer higher pay with no benefits.

Those facts change nothing about an economy made up of 125.89 million full time workers.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Because the wasteful spending that takes place in the government is going to get worse.

Again. As I pointed out the employers are paying for guaranteed sick days not the government.

 

[gdgyva]

I can't speak to the relative numbers - more or fewer on the right than the left - but there were plenty on the right who had no objections to the whole Unitary Executive thing, the record number of Bush signing statements, etc. and it was because they agreed with Bush on those particular cases.

Again, I agree with the premise and was just objecting a bit to this newfound principled opposition to EOs and signing statements that at least the conservatives I was talking with during the Bush years simply didn't object to as a group.

i would like to see a complete end to EO's

i dont care what party sits in the WH...they both have and will continue to try and be kings with them....not presidents

we have three branches of government for a reason....

if a president wants something done badly enough, he/she should be able to "negotiate" their way to a deal

and yes, that means giving something to the other side most times....

if it was good enough for Washington & Lincoln, it sure in the hell should be good enough for who we got sitting there now

 

[gdgyva]

Everything that's been said here doesn't become invalid because of your personal experience in life.

How many people do you employ? 10 or less?

Great, so the 10 people who work for you are probably young and healthy, and prefer higher pay with no benefits.

Those facts change nothing about an economy made up of 125.89 million full time workers.

me....i employ 184 as of today

but it isnt just me....

my wife employs 145 at her business

and there are countless other small business men and women who make these decisions daily

there are only so many dollars that can go to salary & wage expenses

you use those dollars to your best advantage to attract the BEST workers for your particular jobs

one rules doesnt fit everyone....never has, never will

which is why government needs to stay the hell out of the way

 

[gdgyva]

Again. As I pointed out the employers are paying for guaranteed sick days not the government.

if you think this is coming out of profits, you are crazy

those that dont have sick days will add them, and add those costs to any contracts they bid

and so where the government may have paid less before the rule, they will now PAY MORE

no owner in the country is just going to take it in the shorts because the president has a pen....

 

[trouble13]

I can't speak to the relative numbers - more or fewer on the right than the left - but there were plenty on the right who had no objections to the whole Unitary Executive thing, the record number of Bush signing statements, etc. and it was because they agreed with Bush on those particular cases.

Again, I agree with the premise and was just objecting a bit to this newfound principled opposition to EOs and signing statements that at least the conservatives I was talking with during the Bush years simply didn't object to as a group.

I dont think its as new found as you think. I think its more pronounced because of how egregiously obama has abused his authority and also how brazenly he threatens congress with its use.

As to the difference i spoke of....

Obama has not lost support with his base over it where as Bush lost a great deal of support with his base. Now its more complex than just saying EOs made him unpopular but it did play a part in it. It was one of many conservative principles that he is viewed as betraying. The tea party began under his watch not obamas. Part of why obama won was because of an unenergized opposition. Many on the right were and still are unhappy with how the right has been doing things.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

bull****

most employers recognize that without our employees we are screwed....BUT

we get to dictate how we spend the dollars....not someone else

for my employees, they get better pay than most other area dealers, but less in other benefits

and they have to weigh what is more important to them....more money, or better benefits

i think you will find things that way across the country....choices....aint freedom grand?

when those choices are taken away, you limit what we as businessmen can and will do

better pay is how i compete....not better benefits, and for a LOT of people, that is what is important to THEM

Not only that but most employets also understand that they are competing in a competive market place and the way to attract the top talent is by offering them the most attractive packages.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Again. As I pointed out the employers are paying for guaranteed sick days not the government.

Who pays the employers?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

i would like to see a complete end to EO's

i dont care what party sits in the WH...they both have and will continue to try and be kings with them....not presidents

we have three branches of government for a reason....

if a president wants something done badly enough, he/she should be able to "negotiate" their way to a deal

and yes, that means giving something to the other side most times....

if it was good enough for Washington & Lincoln, it sure in the hell should be good enough for who we got sitting there now

I agree with you 100% but of memory serves me correctly EOs date back as early as Washington. I think it was just a mistake they made not realizing how it would be abused

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[washunut]

I so mostly agree with all that. Before I came to this place I was active on a local political board and spent most of the Bush years pointing out, correctly, that when a Democrat was in the WH the Republicans in Congress and in the public at large would regret supporting Bush assuming a bunch of unchecked powers in the WH, mostly to deaf ears. Now the shoe is on the other foot, I'm more likely to agree with what Obama is doing, but I also have to recognize my own hypocrisy here.

And without trying to make excuses for me or Obama here, I'd slightly rephrase your question above. Why would a President compromise or refrain from EOs when they can get some or most of what they want through an EO, and neither party in Congress seems to have an actual principled objection to it when it suits them? Bottom line is if/when Congress gets tired of having their authority stripped from them, the parties can get together and legislatively overrule most of these EOs with appropriate legislation. In this case, the POTUS is relying on the simple fact that such legislation just cannot get through the House and Senate, and he's on safe territory.

Yes he ( perhaps she going forward) is on "safe" ground. But is it dangerous ground. There will come a time when the overreach is too much and the piblic will refuse to re-elect someone who is assuming powers never envisioned by our form of government. It could be also that the Supreme Court will rise beyond petty partisan politics and start constraining the use of the EO. If not we will have abandoned the check and balances that has allowed this country to be the most envied in the world. Neither of today's candidates look like they will pull back from this practice. Rather I would guess that they will take it to the limit.

 

[apdst]

Again. As I pointed out the employers are paying for guaranteed sick days not the government.

The employers will add the extra cost into their bids, costing the government more money. You do know that those contracts are paid for by the tax payers, right?

 

[JasperL]

Yes he ( perhaps she going forward) is on "safe" ground. But is it dangerous ground. There will come a time when the overreach is too much and the piblic will refuse to re-elect someone who is assuming powers never envisioned by our form of government. It could be also that the Supreme Court will rise beyond petty partisan politics and start constraining the use of the EO. If not we will have abandoned the check and balances that has allowed this country to be the most envied in the world. Neither of today's candidates look like they will pull back from this practice. Rather I would guess that they will take it to the limit.

Seems to me Congress has to be the ultimate check, maybe 'encouraged' by the voters, but overall I agree with your point and to the extent the SC has shut down some of Obama's EOs, I don't recall and don't think I would have ever objected to their conclusions. When they do that, they do set a precedent binding on the next POTUS, and I have no problem at all in theory with that.

 

[Anthony60]

you are saying the Constitution does not provide for the government to make purchases of goods and services

i say you are quite wrong

Obviously, I did not say that.

 

[Anthony60]

Sure it does. The payer of a contract can dictate terms of the contract, certainly. And there is no problem with the Feds regulating working conditions for private firms - been doing it for decades. You don't like it but there is no constitutional burden.

They do a lot that they may not have the power to do, but nobody takes any steps to stop them. But, let's say they can do it. I still question why they are doing it. Just get bids and accept them or not. There is absolutely no need to set conditions like that, at a cost to the public.

 

[Anthony60]

Sure they're being paid. Should they be forced to work when they're sick? Many do, because of lack of sick days.

Look, business needs some regulations. Without the government mandating some decency from business, the US would go back to the business practices of the 19th century. Workers do need some rights.

I can't stand the wing of the GOP that wants to roll the clock back to 1816 and allow businesses to treat employees like slaves. There needs to be sensible regulation, with, yes, compassion for your fellow Americans who may not be from rich families, or fortunate enough to have a trust fund to live off of.

Well, they are not being forced, so forget that. They are already working for the company without sick days, so I fail to see why the government wants it added on their projects. I don't know of anyone that wants to "clock back to 1816", so I think you are talking about a small amount of people, not even worth considering. Sensible regulation is fine, social engineering is a whole other issue.