Now I remember why I was an independent all those years.

[Guest Speed Racer]

And minimum wage. And having to pay unemployment benefits for those you let go. GASP!

[Guest Jules]

And Jules, come on. Just cut through the white noise. You don't want to pay. It's as simple as that. Government is in the business of setting up rules for business in myriad ways that result in costs to businesses. Beltmann's example is a good one, but there are countless other examples. Don't pretend that this is some moral issue about govt butting into your business and telling you what to do.

It absolutely is, Matt. It's not that I don't want to pay, we've been doing it for 50 years, but I should have the freedom to determine the best cost scenario for my company, specifically how much of the premium I will pay vs. pass on to the employee. The way I understand it (I hope this is how it is still written; otherwise I will feel like a dumbass) companies over 50 employees will be required to offer a plan and cover a certain percentage of the premium. If an employee does not take the insurance, they will be required to sign up for an outside plan (basically the public option everyone wants) which the insurance companies will be required to offer. The government wants employees to think they are providing for them, when it's really their employer.

 

As for the OSHA, FMLA, OT, unemployment, child labor laws and regulations, etc, you guys know that's not what I'm talking about, but I guess I was too vague. I'm talking about specific benefits. Health care, 401K, etc. Yes, there are regulations & basic rules set up by the government, but stipulating that I have to pay X% of a single enrollee and X% of a family enrollee is a different ballgame.

[MattZ]

It absolutely is, Matt. It's not that I don't want to pay, we've been doing it for 50 years, but I should have the freedom to determine the best cost scenario for my company, specifically how much of the premium I will pay vs. pass on to the employee. The way I understand it (I hope this is how it is still written; otherwise I will feel like a dumbass) companies over 50 employees will be required to offer a plan and cover a certain percentage of the premium. If an employee does not take the insurance, they will be required to sign up for an outside plan (basically the public option everyone wants) which the insurance companies will be required to offer. The government wants employees to think they are providing for them, when it's really their employer.

 

As for the OSHA, FMLA, OT, unemployment, child labor laws and regulations, etc, you guys know that's not what I'm talking about, but I guess I was too vague. I'm talking about specific benefits. Health care, 401K, etc. Yes, there are regulations & basic rules set up by the government, but stipulating that I have to pay X% of a single enrollee and X% of a family enrollee is a different ballgame.

 

No, I get you. I guess I don't really see much of a distinction between the government telling you that you have to pay minimum wage, or medicare taxes. I get why you have no interest in paying a dictated X% of health benefits, but it strikes me as a $$ issue. That seems to be a different issue than a principled "govt should butt out" issue. Maybe this is all semantics, though. If I were you, I'd be frustrated too.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I guess I was too vague.

 

You weren't; you complaining about government interference as it directly affects you. Which is exactly why I forgot OHSA, unemployment and minimum wage - they're not really at the top of my mind. The other ones I only think about because I encounter them as a part of my job.

 

You pay out of pocket every day for a lot of those others laws and benefits to work, but you're not complaining about them right now. This will even itself out like everything else has; there might be job losses at the beginning, sure, but this law is not going to be the catastrophe that ends employment forever or completely ruins our nation. Arguably (and I know you and I covered this earlier in the thread), what this portion of the bill does is merely require employers to assume a cost they should haev been assuming as an operating cost for a long time now.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I guess I don't really see much of a distinction between the government telling you that you have to pay minimum wage, or medicare taxes.

 

You and I agree? Hold on, as the world tumbles off its axis.

 

If I were you, I'd be frustrated too.

 

And if I were an employee in a situation where this postively affects me, I'd be pretty alright with how this shook out. Yes, I'll probably lose my job at Jules, Inc. because of this armageddon-like bill, but when I'm re-employed that's one less thing I'll have to worry about for now.

[Guest Jules]

Yeah, I'm just venting a bit. It's that time of year. What I really wish was that this country made it more attractive for manufacturers to stay here. It's just not a priority.

[uncool2pillow]

I hear you, Jules. But how do we compete with 3rd world countries where the standard of living is a tiny percentage of ours?

 

On a semi-related note, I remember hearing a story about 4 years ago about how GM ought to be one of the strongest advocates for a single-payer health care system. Many of the competitors come from nations that have it and one statistic cited in the story was that GM spends more $$ per vehicle in health care costs (for employees AND retirees) than they do for steel in the car.

 

I'm not saying I think single-payer is the best system for this country; there are many, many problems with it. It was just an interesting angle.

[ikol]

Totally. I'm still pissed about the government interfering with their damn child labor laws.

 

Some jobs require small hands.

 

On a more serious note, the fact that people don't complain about all those other regulations is part of the problem. Sure they're all well-intentioned, but should the government really be dictating how many hours people are allowed to work? And every new regulation that gets added makes it that much harder to start up a small business, which gives yet another advantage to big businesses. I couldn't even imagine starting up a business. I would probably have to hire a lawyer to wade through all the regulations and red tape and would probably end up deciding it's not worth the trouble.

 

And there's no such thing as a single-payer healthcare system.

[LouieB]

For what it's worth LouieB, I don't disagree with you. I think futureage1 is way off base, and of course I think Obama is governing as a pragmatist and is doing a good job in many areas. He certainly can't be blamed for the fact that the Dems don't have a backbone and/or don't beat their members into submission on health care. But the fact remains that Obama set a very high bar, and I am disappointed in as many areas as I am pleased.

 

 

I am disappointed too, but that doesn't mean I think there is someone out there who would be better. I think those of us on the left need to get real. If we allow the crazies on the right and the naysayers on the left to torpedo this presidency, we are going to end up with President Palin (it could happen) or some other shill for and from Fox News. I listen to way too much mildly left and further left radio (I really have to start listening to all those CDs I never find time for instead) and all the noise on how disappointed people are and how they don't plan to vote again, etc. etc can't help get better healthcare or anything else resembling the things those of us left of center want. I think we can and should voice our disappointment and disagreement. I am not talking about anykind of lock step party crap, I am just saying.....look at your local reps and get on their butts. If anything they are the folks who let us down. All the wimpy bullshit and back room dealing is their fault. Who says they have to be like that? Not Obama and not Rahm Emanuel!! I am sure they would rather these douches stand on their own two feet and act with the best interests of the country in mind rather than their parocial issues. Conneticut elected Leiberman, those other states elected those other assholes. Who represents you? (not Matt specifically..that was a retorical question.) Who is your member of the House. How did they vote? My rep is more or less solid so I get to cruise. The rest of you guys...get your asses in gear. Without a decent Congress Obama has to wheel and deal with these jerks. If we let the midterm elections go without beefing up Congress or sit on our hands in 2012, we get what we deserve - more of the same old shit.

 

LouieB

[uncool2pillow]

And there's no such thing as a single-payer healthcare system.

Which is one of the many problems I have with it.

[Guest Speed Racer]

On a more serious note, the fact that people don't complain about all those other regulations is part of the problem. Sure they're all well-intentioned, but should the government really be dictating how many hours people are allowed to work? And every new regulation that gets added makes it that much harder to start up a small business, which gives yet another advantage to big businesses.

 

Well, yes, I think it is fine. I don't think it's right for employers to discriminate based upon anything covered under EEO, I think it's terribly important for manufacturers to provide absolutely safe working conditions, and answer for it when they don't. I think that hourly employees working overtime should be compensated for doing so, because I think it is a qualify of life issue; do you disagree?

 

I would also argue that very few of those laws mentioned actually interfere with starting a small business - at least no more than they interfere with the operations of a larger corporation. Small businesses are usually a labor of love at the beginning and it's hard, just plain hard, even without any employees. No business should employ people unless it can afford to employ them responsibly.

[Moss]

I just don't understand how someone like Leiberman continues to get elected. Talk about a guy who will do anything to keep his job at the expense of everything else. Complete corporate toady. I just don't get it.

[MattZ]

You and I agree? Hold on, as the world tumbles off its axis.

 

No way, dude. You and I agree on virtually everything. We had one falling out over how much to blame Obama about campaign promises. We agree on the substance.

[uncool2pillow]

I would also argue that very few of those laws mentioned actually interfere with starting a small business - at least no more than they interfere with the operations of a larger corporation. Small businesses are usually a labor of love at the beginning and it's hard, just plain hard, even without any employees. No business should employ people unless it can afford to employ them responsibly.

Here's the difference: Big Corporations have the overhead to have a staff of lawyers on hand who can read and react to new regulations.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Here's the difference: Big Corporations have the overhead to have a staff of lawyers on hand who can read and react to new regulations.

 

It's not rocket science: work out a budget and consult someone, the same you would with any other personal financial decision. There are self-employed lawyers and legions of small businesses that thrive on helping other small business get their start. Our (small) firm relies on small-scale vendors, banks, insurance brokers, etc., as a way of encouraging small business, getting the personal attention we need and finding rates that will work for us.

[MattZ]

On a more serious note, the fact that people don't complain about all those other regulations is part of the problem. Sure they're all well-intentioned, but should the government really be dictating how many hours people are allowed to work? And every new regulation that gets added makes it that much harder to start up a small business, which gives yet another advantage to big businesses. I couldn't even imagine starting up a business. I would probably have to hire a lawyer to wade through all the regulations and red tape and would probably end up deciding it's not worth the trouble.

 

It's a fine line and a tough balance. I don't have any answers, but there's got to be a middle ground.

 

You say there's no such thing as a single-payer healthcare system. There's also no such thing as pure capitalism. And since there isn't, govt has to get involved to help the employees too. The tough part is doing it in a way that incentives the Jules' of the world to keep running their businesses.

[Guest Jules]

You say there's no such thing as a single-payer healthcare system. There's also no such thing as pure capitalism. And since there isn't, govt has to get involved to help the employees too. The tough part is doing it in a way that incentives the Jules' of the world to keep running their businesses.

It's ok. I will be running it in Mexico soon anyway. (just part of it that is)

[jff]

should the government really be dictating how many hours people are allowed to work?

 

No. And they don't.

[Winston Legthigh]

No. And they don't.

Fair Labor Standards Act

[jff]

Fair Labor Standards Act

 

Show me where that puts limits on the hours a person can work.

[Guest Jules]

Well, technically, they don't say "this person can only work X hours per week", but that wasn't ikol's point.

[Winston Legthigh]

Show me where that puts limits on the hours a person can work.

It says that if you want someone in production to work more than 40 hours a week, you have to pay them time and a half. I'd consider that a limit, and a pretty hefty one at that. My company's unwritten policy is to not allow the non-exempt employees to work more than 40 hours.

[jff]

Well, technically, they don't say "this person can only work X hours per week", but that wasn't ikol's point.

 

It sort of seems like ikol's point is that an employer should be able to make their employees work as many hours as the employer wishes, and that the government should not have a say in the matter.

[jff]

It says that if you want someone in production to work more than 40 hours a week, you have to pay them time and a half. I'd consider that a limit, and a pretty hefty one at that. My company's unwritten policy is to not allow the non-exempt employees to work more than 40 hours.

 

If a business has more than 40 hours worth of work per employee per week, perhaps they have too few employees.

[Guest Speed Racer]

It says that if you want someone in production to work more than 40 hours a week, you have to pay them time and a half. I'd consider that a limit, and a pretty hefty one at that. My company's unwritten policy is to not allow the non-exempt employees to work more than 40 hours.

 

If I may take a stab, your exempt employees earn considerably more than the non-exempt, correct?