Bring It On!

Why Do Republicans Hate the American Family?

February 25th, 2007 | by Jersey McJones |

From Reuters…

U.S. mat-leave policies “among the worst”

By Tamara Schweitzer, Inc.com) -

The United States is one of only five countries that does not provide or require employers to provide some form of paid maternity leave, placing it behind a majority of the world when it comes to instituting family-oriented job policies, according to a new study.

In a study from McGill University’s Institute for Health and Social Policy, the United States, Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland, and Papua New Guinea were the only countries out of 173 studied that didn’t guarantee any paid leave for mothers. Among the 168 countries that do, 98 offer 14 or more weeks of paid leave.

Overall, the study’s other major findings indicate that workplace policies in the United States for families — such as paid sick days and support for breast-feeding — are weaker than those in all high-income countries as well as many middle and low-income countries.

…At least 145 countries provide paid sick days for short- and long-term illnesses, with 127 countries providing for a week or more every year, the study found. In addition, 137 countries require its employers to provide paid annual leave, whereas the Unites States does not guarantee any sort of paid leave.

Under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, U.S. workers are allowed to take up to 12 weeks leave for to tend to family or medical needs, but their absence is unpaid.

States are beginning to take more of an initiative on this front, human-resources experts say. For example, California has passed legislation for paid family leave — called the State Disability Insurance Program, which entitles employees a maximum of six weeks of partial pay per year to care for a newborn or other family matters.

While U.S. companies are moving in the way of providing more family-friendly workplace policies, many currently provide alternative forms of payment through their short-term disability programs. For example, having a baby can be considered a qualifying condition for getting paid disability leave.

The release of the study was appropriately timed with discussions in Washington over whether to consider new legislation that would enforce paid leaves. On February 1, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who authored the Family and Medical Leave Act, proposed new legislation that would expand the act by providing at least six weeks of paid leave for workers.

…The only area where U.S. job policies were more favorable compared to other countries was in regard to guaranteeing higher pay for overtime work and non-discriminatory hiring policies, researchers found.

“The U.S. has been a proud leader in adopting law that provide for equal opportunity in the workplace, but our work/family protections are among the worst,” Heymann said. “It’s time for a change.”

So, here we are, with Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland, and Papua New Guinea, among the most anti-family nations on the Earth. Yeah for us! But, wait - there’s even more good news!

From The Hill…

Employer groups take aim at part of medical-leave law

By Jessica Holzer

Employer groups are trying to persuade the Bush administration to restrict the illnesses that qualify under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and make it less tempting for workers to take sporadic time off under the law.

…This latest push by employers to modify the FMLA comes on the heels of a Department of Labor (DoL) request in December for public comment on the law and just after Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), one of its original architects, introduced a bill Feb. 1 to expand the act. His legislation would ensure six weeks’ paid leave under the FMLA, to be funded by the federal government, the employer and the employee.

Last month’s DoL request for comments on the FMLA sparked worries among proponents that the administration would water down the act.

“We have significant concerns that this is a first step in a process that will lead to a substantial weakening in the FMLA protections,” Jocelyn Samuels, vice president in charge of education and employment at the National Women’s Law Center, said.

…“We are not trying to repeal this law. We are not trying to gut the regulations. What we are seeking is clarity and simplicity,” the director of labor law policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Marc Freedman, said.

Riiiiiight… “clarity” (re: destroy) and “simplicity” (re: completely).

When the sleazy cons use catch-words like these, you know they’re up to no good. They claim that employees are “abusing” the FMLA. While I’m sure that goes on, wouldn’t it be just as fair to assume that employers are doing at least just as much “abusing” of their own? They do have the upper-hand in the compact, afterall. The government has been more and more employer-over-employee friendly these past years. Unions have shrunk from a third of the workforce in the 50’s, to well under 10% today. Working class pay has been stagnant against inflation for over a generation. Families are falling to pieces, with divorce rates, abortion, single-parenthood, and other ill-boding indexes extremely high. And now they want to rip apart the FMLA?

So, I ask the question - Why do Republicans hate the American family?

JMJ

  1. 11 Responses to “Why Do Republicans Hate the American Family?”

  2. By SteveIL on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

    Goddamn Republicans!!!  Why don’t they just give money to its citizens for doing no work, as Democrats do?

    By the way, the only politician mentioned is Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, the guy who actually wrote the bill for the unpaid leave.  Of course, since he’s a Democrat, and now wants to make amends by turning our economy into copy of the one France has (the wet-dream for NYT columnist Paul Krugman), he’s loved by the reality-based crowd (and who ignores the fact that Dodd has called for American troops to go into Sudan).  Of course, if he was so concerned, why wouldn’t he have put it in in the first place?

    (Sounds of crickets chirping…)

    According to the parts of the article Jersey conveniently leaves out, this isn’t about the following:

    “This isn’t about taking away FMLA rights to mothers and newborns. But there are a lot of areas where there are challenges and we think it needs to be looked at,” the director of government affairs for the Society of Human Resource Management, Mike Aitken, said.

    In fact, there are some specific things that, in a way, make sense, since the idea for the FMLA was for serious illness and dealing with parenthood (as noted above):

    One major beef employers have with the law is a 1996 DoL regulation that qualifies a host of minor illness for FMLA protection that they believe should be addressed by companies’ regular sick leave policies.

    Under the rule, earaches, upset stomachs or common colds meet the criteria for a “serious health condition” under the FMLA as long as the worker is incapacitated for at least three consecutive days and is following a treatment regimen, such as taking prescription drugs.

    So, since the only politician mentioned is Dodd, who didn’t put the paid leave in the original bill (when Democrats had a majority in Congress and Bubba was busy ignoring terrorism as President), where does it actually even imply Republicans hate the American family?  Dodd could have put paid leave in his bill 14 years ago and didn’t.  I would say the real question is: why do Democrats hate the American family? 

  3. By Jersey McJones on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

    SteveIL, the Man that’s Hates all American Families,

    “Why don’t they just give money to its citizens for doing no work, as Democrats do?”

    Having a baby and caring for him/her in those early days is no work at all!!!  What the f’n hell was I thinking???  And Lord knows that taking care of a seriously, even terminally, ill family memeber is nothing at all!!!  Why on Earth would we want to help those people in their rime of need with a little job security and financial assistance???  After all, we could be giving that money away to Haliburton and go around attacking Third World nations!!!

    So, America Hater SteveIL stumps on… 

    “…the only politician mentioned is Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, the guy who actually wrote the bill for the unpaid leave.  Of course, since he’s a Democrat, and now wants to make amends by turning our economy into copy of the one France has…”

    From the first article:

    In a study from McGill University’s Institute for Health and Social Policy, the United States, Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland, and Papua New Guinea were the only countries out of 173 studied that didn’t guarantee any paid leave for mothers. Among the 168 countries that do, 98 offer 14 or more weeks of paid leave.

    If the choice was being like France (and of course the choice is a hundred times wider than that) or being like 4 failed African states, SteveIL The UnAmerican, would rather belike the 4 failed African states.  Yes, SteveIL, we know.

    Oh, and here’s the qualifications…

    work for a covered employer;

    have worked for the employer for a total of 12 months*;

    have worked at least 1,250 hours over the previous 12 months*; and

    work at a location in the United States or in any territory or possession of the United States where at least 50 employees are employed by the employer within 75 miles.

    And, here’s the entitlement:

    A covered employer must grant an eligible employee up to a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for one or more of the following reasons:

    for the birth and care of the newborn child of the employee;

    for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care;

    to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; or

    to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition.

    Spouses employed by the same employer are jointly entitled to a combined total of 12 work-weeks of family leave for the birth and care of the newborn child, for placement of a child for adoption or foster care, and to care for a parent who has a serious health condition.

    Leave for birth and care, or placement for adoption or foster care must conclude within 12 months of the birth or placement.

    Under some circumstances, employees may take FMLA leave intermittently — which means taking leave in blocks of time, or by reducing their normal weekly or daily work schedule.

    If FMLA leave is for birth and care or placement for adoption or foster care, use of intermittent leave is subject to the employer’s approval.

    FMLA leave may be taken intermittently whenever medically necessary to care for a seriously ill family member, or because the employee is seriously ill and unable to work.

    Also, subject to certain conditions, employees or employers may choose to use accrued paid leave (such as sick or vacation leave) to cover some or all of the FMLA leave.

    The employer is responsible for designating if an employee’s use of paid leave counts as FMLA leave, based on information from the employee.

    “Serious health condition” means an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves either:

    any period of incapacity or treatment connected with inpatient care (i.e., an overnight stay) in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical-care facility, and any period of incapacity or subsequent treatment in connection with such inpatient care; or

    Continuing treatment by a health care provider which includes any period of incapacity (i.e., inability to work, attend school or perform other regular daily activities) due to:

    (1) A health condition (including treatment therefor, or recovery therefrom) lasting more than three consecutive days, and any subsequent treatment or period of incapacity relating to the same condition, that also includes:

    treatment two or more times by or under the supervision of a health care provider; or

    one treatment by a health care provider with a continuing regimen of treatment; or

    (2) Pregnancy or prenatal care. A visit to the health care provider is not necessary for each absence; or

    (3) A chronic serious health condition which continues over an extended period of time, requires periodic visits to a health care provider, and may involve occasional episodes of incapacity (e.g., asthma, diabetes). A visit to a health care provider is not necessary for each absence; or

    (4) A permanent or long-term condition for which treatment may not be effective (e.g., Alzheimer’s, a severe stroke, terminal cancer). Only supervision by a health care provider is required, rather than active treatment; or

    (5) Any absences to receive multiple treatments for restorative surgery or for a condition which would likely result in a period of incapacity of more than three days if not treated (e.g., chemotherapy or radiation treatments for cancer).

    “Health care provider” means:

    doctors of medicine or osteopathy authorized to practice medicine or surgery by the state in which the doctors practice; or

    podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists and chiropractors (limited to manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation as demonstrated by X-ray to exist) authorized to practice, and performing within the scope of their practice, under state law; or

    nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives and clinical social workers authorized to practice, and performing within the scope of their practice, as defined under state law; or

    Christian Science practitioners listed with the First Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston, Massachusetts; or

    Any health care provider recognized by the employer or the employer’s group health plan benefits manager.

    With all these requirements and entitlements, we rank among the worst nations on Earth when it comes to family and sick leave, and SteveIL, who most definately hates the American Family, thinks we should be more like 4 failed African states.  He’s more worried about “terrorism” (ewwwww, ter-ror-is-mmmm… scaaaaaaaarrrrryyyy….) which, compared to most everything else that affects the American Family, ranks about 192nd, he’s worried about the fact that Chris Dodd just happens to be bringing up a payable benefit to add to the act now (never mind that 12 of those 14 years, he was in a powerless minority).

    SteveIL - why do you hate the American Family?

    JMJ

  4. By Jersey McJones on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

    Hey, wait a minute… “Christian Science practitioners”???  WTF???

    JMJ 

  5. By SteveIL on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

    Jersey said:

    …Chris Dodd just happens to be bringing up a payable benefit to add to the act now (never mind that 12 of those 14 years, he was in a powerless minority).

    Uh, so?  He’s supposed to be a smart guy.  The guy’s been in the Senate for a shitload of time.  He wrote what is now the law.  Why the hell didn’t he put in paid leave in the first place?  The fact that Republicans were in the majority for most of the previous 14 years is immaterial since he wrote the bill before they had the majority; you know, when the Democrats had the majority.  Why are you covering for Dodd?

  6. By Jersey McJones on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

    Nice dodge, SteveIL.  Your baitings and dodgings show what a fine republican you are.

    JMJ

  7. By SteveIL on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

    I’m dodging?  I don’t think so.  You’re the one dodging the issue that Dodd didn’t put paid leave in the FMLA.  Dodd is the only politician mentioned in either article, and nowhere does it say any Republicans were against or for the idea of paid leave.  You tell me how you came to the conclusion that Republicans hate the American family, especially since the only politician mentioned, the Democratic Senator Dodd, is the guy who wrote the FMLA and didn’t put paid leave in the FMLA originally, and you continually cover for him.

    I’m not dodging. 

  8. By Jersey McJones on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

    It wouldn’t have passed, SteveIL, if Dodd had tried to insert it then - but it was still a helluva lot better than what we had before!

    It’s the REPUBLICAN “administration” that is reviewing the FMLA ”administration.”

    Duh.

    JMJ

  9. By SteveIL on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

    Jersey said:

    It wouldn’t have passed, SteveIL, if Dodd had tried to insert it then - but it was still a helluva lot better than what we had before!

    Oh really?  Not from where I sit.  At the company I was working at at the time Dodd’s FMLA became law, I could call in sick and not be charged a day off (my company didn’t mark sick time).  At every company I’ve worked at since then, this isn’t the case; if I take off because I’m sick, it’s marked as a day off against my accumulated vacation time (”vacation” being a relative term).  Now, you could say why did I leave that company?  Well, it wasn’t due to the sick policy and doesn’t matter.  The fact is, I can’t take a day off due to illness without it being charged against my vacation time (and this is the case with thousands of companies).

    As far as the first part of your comment, how do you know it wouldn’t have passed?  The Democrats had control of Congress and the White House.  Didn’t they have the “working class” in mind?  We’ve been told forever that Democrats are the party for the “working class”.  Are you telling me that’s not true?  And if the FMLA wouldn’t have passed with a section for paid leave in it, and the Democrats were in the majority, then doesn’t that make the idea that what we’ve been told about Democrats being for the “working class” has been a lie?

    The rest of your comment is immaterial since the links you provided only discussed one politician, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT).  The word “Republican” doesn’t even show up in either piece.  Based on what I see, Sen. Chris Dodd hates the American family, or at least did, and is trying to make up for it, maybe.

  10. By Jersey McJones on Feb 27, 2007 | Reply

    If I recall, there were amendments at the time that included pay, but they didn’t make it through.  Not enough votes.

    As for your little anecdotal rant - sounds like BS to me.

    JMJ

  11. By Jersey McJones on Feb 27, 2007 | Reply

    (Oh, and a little piece of advice - if you want time off and good benefits, don’t work for AMericans.  They treat their employees like shit.)

    JMJ

  12. By SteveIL on Feb 27, 2007 | Reply

    Jersey said:

    If I recall, there were amendments at the time that included pay, but they didn’t make it through.  Not enough votes.

    Well, the Democrats had the majority and couldn’t push it through, or didn’t even try that hard.  You answered my question (from above and pasted again below) with a resounding “yes”:

    And if the FMLA wouldn’t have passed with a section for paid leave in it, and the Democrats were in the majority, then doesn’t that make the idea that what we’ve been told about Democrats being for the “working class” has been a lie?

Post a Comment