1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Californians get paid leave

Discussion in 'The OT' started by John Corn, Sep 24, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. John Corn

    John Corn Hall Of Fame

    5,046
    0
    Mar 21, 2002
    Since most of you aren't registered for the LA times the law basically says workers can take up to 6 weeks to "bond" with a new child, even adopted or care for a sick relative and get paid for six weeks of it of up to $728 a week.
     
  2. Karl Foster

    Karl Foster Hall Of Fame

    1,849
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    How generous of the taxpayers of California to provide this paid administrative leave for everyone. :rolleyes:
     
  3. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    No different than my benefits, working for a private non-profit organization. In fact, my employer won't allow me to take unpaid family leave benefits until my allowance is exhauseted.

    In Canada, they is a proposed law to give family leave for up to two years. The current law is one year. The leave can be unpaid but the worker has a right to the same job when he/she comes back.

    A better alternative, in my opinion, is to provide on-site day care at a nominal cost to employees. However, because of teh rise in liability insurance premiums and the cost of increased overhead, this altnerative is far more expensive than giving paid leave.
     
  4. zimm0who0net

    zimm0who0net Legend

    101
    0
    Aug 27, 2002
    What are the rules regarding residency and this paid leave? I.e. could I move to California, get a sham job for a day, and get 6 weeks "paid leave" courtesy of the taxpayers?
     
  5. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Generally, before getting paid leave benefits, you have to work a certain number of months and have the hours vredited to a "bank". In my case I get about 1.5 days credited to an "extended illness bank" for each month I work, but since I have been there 12 years, my accrual is faster than a new hire. I believe that new hires get five days/year into the bank during the first five years. Essentially, this is a "sick time" allowance that is used also for family leave. Many new private labir contracts are starting to do the same. My point is that it is not unique to state employees.
     
  6. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I think one point you are missing that Rich just pointed out, it that you cannot just move to California, take any job for a day, and then go on paid leave for six weeks. You must get a job as a state employee.
    Also, not everyone is going to be getting $728 a week. That is the max. I believe the rate is about half of the persons regular pay.
    As Rich said, this is a policy that more and more companies have, and for a state to get and retain good workers they have to compete with benefits.
     
  7. Ryan

    Ryan Icon

    622
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    We wouldn't want to be thought of as pro-family now, would we?
     
  8. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Heaven forbid!
     
  9. Mike123abc

    Mike123abc Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    2,818
    0
    Jul 19, 2002
    Well this bill is funded via a payroll tax. It is deducted from employee's checks, it runs $27-$72 per year. This is all paid into a fund to pay you 50% of of average income for family leave.

    There is no employer contribution to this. But, employers are screaming because small companies cannot afford to have everyone taking off for up to 3 months at a time... If you have 10 employees and 2 decide to take off for 3 months, and you have to give them their job back when they come back... what do you do?
     
  10. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    You can usuallly hire temps through an agency to fill in for employees on family leave. Yes, it is an added expense, but in the scheme of things, it is probably better for industry and society as a whole. In an era where more and nore benefits are disappearing, its good that family leave is a Federal Mandate.
     
  11. Mike123abc

    Mike123abc Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    2,818
    0
    Jul 19, 2002
    I would say it is not better for a society as a whole. It used to be that one person could work (usually the father) and one could stay home and raise the kids.

    The right to work vs having to take care of the kids arguement aside, it is pretty difficult to afford only one parent working. Now both parents have to work. By the time you figure in child care so both can work, you are actually not making much money.

    I would say that taxes are the main cause of this. It used to be that 95% of Americans did not have to pay income tax (99% when it first started). For example lets say the pay is $100, used to be you got the $100, now you get $66-75 of it after taxes. 2 people working gives you $132-$150, factor in child care and you are probably less than you used to have with just one worker.

    Now you have to have people working day and night to get by and force paid leave to handle something that was not an issue less than 30 years ago.
     
  12. Karl Foster

    Karl Foster Hall Of Fame

    1,849
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    I think a better way would be similar to the Soldier's and Sailor's Relief Act which forces an employer to hold a position for an activated Reservist during the duration of the tour of active duty. They are required to hold A position of equal status not the SAME position. This makes it so that an employer can back-fill a position without hurting the company too much.
     
  13. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I'm heading to California tomorrow. I'll see if any Californians want to comment on this.
     
  14. James_F

    James_F Damn you woman! DBSTalk Gold Club

    5,205
    1
    Apr 23, 2002
    Bogy, your cross is making me dizzy. I'm with you. :welcome:
     
  15. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    I hope when you go that you phrase your questioning correctly. If you simply say, "do you think employees should be allowed to take a 6 week leave at 50% pay for such and such an event" you will probably find much support. If you ask "do you think employees should be allowed to take a 6 week leave at 50% pay, paid for by deductions from everyone's paychecks" I suspect the support will go down considerably. Then again, the answers you get will depend much on the demographics of the people you solicit opinions from.
     
  16. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    That's an attempt at hypnotism. I see it has worked on you. :lol:
     
  17. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    I believe, in the US at least, there are usually exemptions for small business. In Hawaii, I think it's ten or twenty employees. While 20-30% of your workforce requesting leave at the same time would certainly be a burden, this is probably the exception rather then the rule. I ran a business here for nine years with seven or eight employees, mostly part-time and mostly women. There was only one instance of a gal who took several months to have her child. We juggled schedules, added some hours, and I worked a little more myself. There were some headaches but I retained a valued, fully trained employee. As long as employers are not required to directly fund the leave time, I think it's an acceptable burden. Unemployment and/or Worker's Comp are probably adequate in most cases.

    I think this is a recognition that in a free society, one's occupation should not be the primary focus of one's life. Family and friends, and yes, even leisure or intellectual activities outside the work environment should be. This is something that's been recognized for a long time by most western, industrialized societies and we are just starting to catch on. When a single wage earner could easily support a family of four, this was a given. Now that so many find it necessary to have multiple incomes to support their families and lifestyles, I think we may have forgotten what we've lost.
     
  18. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Yep, and we need time to go to church, too! :)
     
  19. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Hey, whatever pops your cork. I don't think it should be paid leave though. Your reward is in heaven, right?:rolleyes: ;)
     
  20. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    I said that only half jokingly, Jon.

    Many of the "blue laws" regarding Sunday closings, were, of course, to give workers (and shoppers) a day to go to church. I believe some of these laws are still in effect in a few states. And early in the 20th Century, many stores required their salespeople and clerks to attend church on Sunday - The Chicago department store, Marshall Fields, was one of them.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page