Free Time Makes Happy Act (Failed)

[Badger]

I'd certainly like to hear from the bill's sponsor as to the need for, and economic ramifications of, his proposal.

[Badger]

I do not support government managing private companies' labor policies. Hence I oppose this bill.

This, over and over again.

 Listen, honestly the idea sounds like a great one.. but how are we going to ask some of the smaller companies, who are really just scraping by hoping that things will get better, to have pay for these vacations. I know it sounds harsh, but some employees have to take the cut of a paid vacation right now in order to keep their job.

Perhaps an amendment withholding application of the law to small businesses under a particular size? 25 employees? 50? This is frequently done in real life to shelter businesses that can least absorb the impact of such regulation. (The Family Medical Leave Act comes to mind).

[Badger]

I do not support government managing private companies' labor policies. Hence I oppose this bill.

So simple common sense measures like the Family Medical Leave Act, the minimum wage, or abolition of child labor in industry even--is hunky dory by you, Senator?

Ah, 1890 was such an emulatable time.......

[Badger]

I do not support government managing private companies' labor policies. Hence I oppose this bill.

So simple common sense measures like the Family Medical Leave Act, the minimum wage, or abolition of child labor in industry even--is hunky dory by you, Senator?

Those are not what is being voted on here. Please stick to the actual legislation at hand.

This bill is unnecessary and potentially destructive. Hence I stand by my opposition.

my point, Senator, is that knee-jerk extremist opposition to even common sens regulation of private industry's labor policies is no good reason to oppose this very bill as (likely) amended.

Nice ducking the question btw. The answer, if honest, would've likely been quite embarrassing.

[Badger]

I think that companies with fewer then 75 should be exempted and that it not apply to workers who work less then 25 hours a week.


Are we ready to vote on Bk's amendment? If so, I will open a vote tonight.

Not quite, Mr. PPT. Based on your quite reasonable suggestion, I move to amend BK's amendment as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

FYI: I allow every business to exclude 75 employees rather than merely limit the bill to businesses of 75+ full time employees. I don't want businesses with 75 employees already to balk at hiring employee number 76 because it would make the lae applicable to their entire workforce in one fell swoop. Presumably businesses would phase the requirements in on their most senior employees--many of whom may already have such vacation benefits granted by the company--but that's up to each employer to decide.

[Badger]

I do not support government managing private companies' labor policies. Hence I oppose this bill.

So simple common sense measures like the Family Medical Leave Act, the minimum wage, or abolition of child labor in industry even--is hunky dory by you, Senator?

Those are not what is being voted on here. Please stick to the actual legislation at hand.

This bill is unnecessary and potentially destructive. Hence I stand by my opposition.

my point, Senator, is that knee-jerk extremist opposition to even common sens regulation of private industry's labor policies is no good reason to oppose this very bill as (likely) amended.

This policy is not common sense; it in fact runs quite contrary to common sense. I am only "extremist" in the sense that I am extremely dedicated to common sense policies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I addressed whatever question I could decipher out of that mess of words I was responding to.

Personally I find the economic ignorance you frequently display on the Senate floor to be a far greater source of embarrassment.

No, you ducked/conveniently ignored the question, as usual.
Sorry you couldn't (or wouldn't) "decipher" a single succinct sentence of plain English. It was such a "mess" after all.

Nice job fighting "big corporations", btw. For all your nonsensical sloganeering on the subject, other than Break the Chains most of your actual policy positions would make one believe you are the Chamber of Commerce and Natl Association of Manufacturers private rent boy.

There's no law saying your rhetoric and positions have to be consistent, but perhaps you should first try reconciling the idioms of Che Guevara and the economic policy of Calvin Coolidge before your accuse others of "ignorance".

[Badger]

I think that companies with fewer then 75 should be exempted and that it not apply to workers who work less then 25 hours a week.


Are we ready to vote on Bk's amendment? If so, I will open a vote tonight.

Not quite, Mr. PPT. Based on your quite reasonable suggestion, I move to amend BK's amendment as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

FYI: I allow every business to exclude 75 employees rather than merely limit the bill to businesses of 75+ full time employees. I don't want businesses with 75 employees already to balk at hiring employee number 76 because it would make the lae applicable to their entire workforce in one fell swoop. Presumably businesses would phase the requirements in on their most senior employees--many of whom may already have such vacation benefits granted by the company--but that's up to each employer to decide.

Excellent idea, I have been trying to think of way to deal with the concern of companies with 78 laying off three people or as your say a company not expanding beyond 75.

<bows> Why thank you, good sir.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So simple common sense measures like the Family Medical Leave Act, the minimum wage, or abolition of child labor in industry even--is hunky dory by you, Senator?

Those are not what is being voted on here. Please stick to the actual legislation at hand.

This bill is unnecessary and potentially destructive. Hence I stand by my opposition.

my point, Senator, is that knee-jerk extremist opposition to even common sens regulation of private industry's labor policies is no good reason to oppose this very bill as (likely) amended.

This policy is not common sense; it in fact runs quite contrary to common sense. I am only "extremist" in the sense that I am extremely dedicated to common sense policies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I addressed whatever question I could decipher out of that mess of words I was responding to.

Personally I find the economic ignorance you frequently display on the Senate floor to be a far greater source of embarrassment.

No, you ducked/conveniently ignored the question, as usual.
Sorry you couldn't (or wouldn't) "decipher" a single succinct sentence of plain English. It was such a "mess" after all. [/QUOTE]

Well yes, I tried my best to determine what your intended meaning was with that jumble of words.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why thank you, my record clearly shows my commitment to fighting corporate power and restoring individual liberty, and my position on this bill is consistent with that commitment.
[/quote]

Despite that being clearly, undeniably, almost empirically and quantifyably incorrect, you actually believe that, don't you. How.....sad.

Despite the defenses of your positions generally falling under the categories of either  a smarmy sarcastic "I know I'm right, thank you for noticing" (see above post), or a terse summary of "Its obvious I'm right and you're a doo-doo head" (see two responses up), and utterly consisting of superficial sloganeering at any rate, I'll offer a challenge:

In at least 6 sentences SPECIFICALLY explain why big corporations would actually support this proposal. As an additional challenge, do it without using the words "liberty", "freedom", "constitution(al)", or "neocon". Lastly, while its probably too much to ask that you, again, be specific rather than resort to empty sloganeering as normal, but at least avoid  someone else putting part of your post in the comedy goldmine are making it sig material.

This hardly is a high threshold, Senator. In all honesty you could post half a dozen sentences of utter drivel avoiding five words in the English language and congratulate yourself on a "victory". If you actually make a point anywhere in your missive you could actually hold a victory parade for the troops.

The call is yours. Feel free to hide behind lame arguments like"I don't have to and you're not worth my time, yadda yadda" or "I can make my point without being windy, etc. etc." All that means to most people is a concession you're incapable of expressing yourself beyond trite Paultard bumper sticker platitudes, and/or are a rent boy for big corporations despite your rhetoric to the contrary.

the ball is in your court rent boy Senator.

[Badger]

I've stated my objections to this legislation. Each and every business in this country is unique. Each has it's own circumstances and its own needs in order to be successful, for the good of its employees as much as for anyone else. Forcing every business in Atlasia to adopt some one-size-fits-all mandatory vacation scheme is not a good idea. The loss of productivity that companies would have to absorb could result in many employees getting a longer vacation then they bargained for- a permanent one. All of the workers will be on full-time vacation if the company they work for goes out of business. Alternatively, companies may attempt to compensate for the losses by overworking their employees when they're there.

I do not like the idea of trying to shoehorn-in some artificial and arbitrary generic standard upon all businesses, failing to take into account the unique situation and conditions each one finds itself in.


With that said, I could support this sort of legislation if it the punitive fine system were to be replaced with an incentive-based approach.

Kudos, Senator. That is one of the more well-reasoned, detailed and--uncoincidentally--compelling arguments I recall you giving. Seriously. I strongly encourage you to follow this tack in the future as it advances your arguments much more effectively (which, come to think of it, may not be a good thing)

While not quite enough to persuade me from voting no at this time, I do see your point about every business's needs being unique. But is that enough to have no uniform regulation of industry? IMHO, no. For that reason I still--currently, tenatively--support this bill in the version its heading via the amendment process.

Your idea about making this incentive based (via tax credits) is interesting. My biggest concern would be the amount of additional debt this would incur. Such a system would shift the costs for this bill from businesses to the taxpayers who would see some combination of taxes, service cuts and/or debt increased in order to compensate for lost revenue. Still, I'd be interested in seeing any reasonable amendment proposing this.

Come to think of it, why choose? Why not include both the fines AND the incentive of tax breaks? IMHO, this combination of carrots and sticks may work best.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Offered by Senator Bacon King here

Senators a vote is now open on the above amendment, please vote AYE, NAY or Abstain. As soon as it is finished, we shall move on to Badgers. So don't vote against this because of something that Badger's fixes. Vote for both.

Aye, ftr

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The above Amendment, proposed by Senator Badger, is now at vote, Senators please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain

AYE.

[Badger]

AYE.

[Badger]

AYE.

If, I am correct you swore in on September 30th in the year of our lord 2010, then this vote cast on October 1st does not count as you are no longer a Senator.

D'OH! You are right. Force of habit to never miss a vote.

[Badger]

The vote switching certainly indicates Yank and Andrew didn't want to be on the losing side of this measure, but would kill it if they had the chance (and did).

It indicates as president Andrew will campaign moderate, but govern right wing. It's only one vote, but discouraging nonetheless.

And before anyone wants to cry about the "JCP attack machine", please note this is the first criticism I've had of Andrew since he's run, and it's hardly without basis.

[Badger]

Hello to Atlasia Mitt Romney.

Oh good! Even more reason to vote for him.

No suprise. You have a taste for a people without a political principles, Isaac

Easy, Kal. That's a bit over the top don't you think?

IMHO, let's just say a Mitt Romney comparison is unfairly stretching it; that said, while Chris Shays may be Andrew's political hero, right now he reminds me more of Rob Simmons.

Can we take that as a campaign promise, Senator Andrew, to support this bill in the future once the economy recovers? If so, that's certainly encouraging.

[Badger]

The vote switching certainly indicates Yank and Andrew didn't want to be on the losing side of this measure, but would kill it if they had the chance (and did).

It indicates as president Andrew will campaign moderate, but govern right wing. It's only one vote, but discouraging nonetheless.

And before anyone wants to cry about the "JCP attack machine", please note this is the first criticism I've had of Andrew since he's run, and it's hardly without basis.

yummm, your eyes really did taste good.


Actually I fully expected this to pass from the start. I voted Aye and then switched to Nay for two reason:
1. To see if any of our weak press would notice and make an issue out of it, No
2. To throw my good friend SPC a bone.

As I said, your false vote, threw me off kilter, even after I pointed it out. So I expected a tie or a 6-4 passage. Either led to passage. So I played a little game with my vote. But since you have accused me of strategery and other illicit actions, buying votes and scandals and such for and such like, I have expropriated your eye balls from my dessert tonight.

This was my point. We added needed protections for small businesses and excluding part time workers, and appeared to have your support. You certainly didn't offer further objections to the bill as amended. If the bill was so unpalitable in the first place, why support it (or abstain in Andrew's case) in the first place? Just playing a "game" indeed in your case, and politics in Andrew's.

Both are certainly your right to do as senators, it's just not very respectable and I'm calling you each on it.

[Badger]

Actually I fully expected this to pass from the start. I voted Aye and then switched to Nay for two reason:
1. To see if any of our weak press would notice and make an issue out of it, No
2. To throw my good friend SPC a bone.

As I said, your false vote, threw me off kilter, even after I pointed it out. So I expected a tie or a 6-4 passage. Either led to passage. So I played a little game with my vote. But since you have accused me of strategery and other illicit actions, buying votes and scandals and such for and such like, I have expropriated your eye balls from my dessert tonight.

And for the record, the bill was unacceptable in these times. The protections themselves created yet a whole another problem by enouraging businesses to convert full time workers to part times then squeeze the same amount of work out of them. It was only after I looked at the limits after they were added that realized just how much of an effect they would have.

Kindly choose one version and stick with it. Preferably sans tantrum.