Free Time Makes Happy Act (Failed)

[AndrewTX]

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.

[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.......

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[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.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Thou hath disturbed my rest up here, puny Libertas, You are smoted.

- PPT God

For the record, the description of someone's economic views as being "ignorant" is entirely subjective and dependent upon ones own economic belief. If Badger thinks that all you need is more gov't, that doesn't make him "ignorant". It just means that what he knows is wrong.

[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".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well first off, I forgot to do something.



Hans do you accept BK's amendment as Friendly?

BK, do you accept Badger's secondary amendment to your amendment as friendly?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[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.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am sorry Dallas I forgot to change the topic line back.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

God DAMNIT!!!!! .


This stupid storm has flooded the phone box outside and has turned my normally bad internet connection into an unusable mess. I have to restart the computer everytime I post. So for now everyone just sit tight till this storm passes. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[bgwah]

aye

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

[Franzl]

AYE

[Hans-im-Glück]

AYE

[AndrewTX]

aye