My recent post on Family Medical Leave has brought out all of the ideologically-blinded conservative concern trolls. As is typical, they want to argue ideology instead of either morality or anything that approaches reality.
The problem with conservative ideology is that it believes that an organization made up of people called "government" is incapable of exercising good judgment or in accomplishing anything positive. But if you call those people "business", they are magically able to make the best decisions and are damn near infallible - despite the lengthy history of market failures that have periodically cast our country into dire economic straits. In other words, instead of trying to work out the times and ways that government works and the times and ways that business works, they slip on their rose-colored blinders and pronounce their ideologically-driven assumptions as facts.
This allows me to inflict some country music on you:
Of course, because I believe that government is instuted among men to secure the rights and liberty of the people I must be - how does that commenter put it? Oh yeah: "liberalist" with "socialist-colored glasses" who has "never owned a business or other entity".
I could tear this apart with the simple derision it deserves ("Socialist" is not a color, even in the big 128 crayola pack). Instead, I'd like to undermine the basic premise of it. Notice my statement in bold - where on earth would I come up with some crazy idea like that? Did Marx pen it in Das Kapital? No. That isn't it. Was it in some obscure letter of Vlad Stalin? Uh, no. It couldn't be from Stalin, unless it was written in blood. It wasn't part of Mao's Great Plan. Which socialist dared defend government in such a way?
Why, Thomas Jefferson, of course. He wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
From Jefferson's perspective, I shouldn't have to defend this - it's self-evident. That our Conservative/Libertarian brethren have strayed so far from our foundational principle is informative. It demonstrates that they are not, after all, so concerned with the defense of liberty and the principles that made America great - no, they are simply reactionary anti-governmental types.
The first commenter then applies personal experience - which, of course, is neither demonstrable nor refutable - that workers abuse sick leave; therefore they would abuse FML and it should therefore be opposed. Oy, what a mush of logic. It is a characteristic of any system that some people will attempt to game it and subvert it from its purpose. There is no greater example than the system of government that Jefferson himself helped to create and institute. The fact that a system can be gamed is not an argument for abandoning it, it's an argument for reforming it. It's an argument for plugging the holes in the system.
For example, the proposed Family Leave policy would allow someone to take off for six weeks. In order to keep it from hurting businesses, it is funded with very small contributions taken entirely from employees. How, one wonders, does one abuse a system paid for with their own money? Further, it can only be taken once in a twelve month period. So an employee can't claim that grandma is dying every other month. Further, taking FML requires a substantial income penalty - is anyone going to argue that $300 a week (maximum) is putting someone on easy street here in New Jersey?
Looks like the holes are pretty well plugged. No system is perfect, of course, and someone somewhere will figure out how to "get over" on it - losing income along the way. That's why employers are give power to police all of their policies - even ones mandated by the state.
Of course, the commenter says people and businesses "continue to flee" our state. But our population is growing and our unemployment rate is fairly low - and I've yet to see flocks of unemployed people marching through the streets demanding reform. And it isn't as if we have enough room for an infinite number of people to stay in New Jersey, either, so if a few choose to move elsewhere, I bear no grudges about it. Of course, one supposes that my conservative commenter has not yet left the state - so maybe it isn't so horrible after all.
In fact, our current rate of unemployment, according to the Department of Labor and Workforce Development is about 4.5%. It's been hovering around there since about mid-2004 when it began a slow downward trend from the 5-6% range, where it had been for over three years. It's about half of what it was in the early 1990s. Funny way to prove we are costing people jobs, I guess.
The second commenter is more alarmist:
In many businesses (especially small to medium businesses that are not assembly line oriented) EVERY employee is a KEY employee.
I've worked at some pretty small employers - less than ten people - and it is true that every person has to pull their weight. But the idea that any given person is so important to a business that they cannot be gone at all for any length of time is an argument that a business is being run poorly. The first job of any manager is to make sure someone else can do their job - otherwise you can never move up or take on more responsibility. Of course, I've met more than one small-minded person who was trapped at mid-level manager because they refused to let anyone know what they were doing (they would usually giggle and say "job security").
Of course, the example given is that of a receptionist - obviously, receptionists never get sick or take vacation. Nor has anyone ever hired a temp worker to take that position. Nope. This is an iron-clad argument against Family Medical Leave, right? Geez, I think I threw up a little in my mouth with that one.
The third comment says:
Many small businesses do have rational family leave policies - flexibility is given to handle family issues, and the employee gets his work done too. My firm does just that; we can work from home if necessary, we can stay in touch via cell phone and laptop. Your point about key employees, and noting that oftentimes the clerical staff is some of the most important, is spot on.
This is more "I have it good, so everyone does" baloney (which is sometimes adapted to "everyone could have it as good as me if they wanted"). My wife used to work for Horizon BCBS - a major employer in New Jersey that does have a telecommuter provision. The way it works in practice, though, is that they leave the decision of who can telecommute in the hands of the manager - and if you have a manager who just doesn't like the idea of telecommuting (and there are a LOT - maybe even some of those same commenters) because they are afraid employees will game the system, get over on them, and actually - I don't know, enjoy life while getting their work done?
It's telling that they write:
I have a friend who was forced to work overtime during the week between Christmas and New Years. His company has a family leave policy, they allow you to take unpaid leave for a family emergency. A coworker with no remaining vacation time suddenly had a grandmother die on the day after Christmas. He didn't come back to the office until January 3rd. The cynic in me says this was an awfully fortuitous family emergency.
First of all, let me say that my heart bleeds for anyone who is "forced to work" during the week between Christmas and New Years. That is such an important national holiday! Can you imagine how many insignificant college football bowl games would be missed? And the religious significance of that week cannot be overstated, right?
Yes, how convenient for grandma to die on Christmas. I bet the whole family got together and just held a great big party - that was really why that employee took off. Remember that part about employers having the power to enforce policies? All that is needed is a copy of the death certificate. When my grandmother died in New Mexico a couple of years ago, we ended up getting fifteen copies of the death certificate so various uncles, aunts, and cousins could provide proof to their employers that it was a bona fide family emergency.
And we aren't told where Grandma lived, are we? When my mother-in-law died, my wife took off for three days - one to plan the funeral, one for the funeral, and one to make sure family got back to the airport. When my Grandma died, I took off six days. One day to fly to New Mexico. One to drive six hundred miles to the tiny remote town where she lived. One day for the funeral. One to drive back. One to fly back. One to sleep about sixteen hours for getting only about five hours sleep in the past five days. Did I rip someone off with that final day?
Then there's the obligatory comparison to France. Man, we are a long way from France - in more ways than one. I don't think that six weeks of Family Medical Leave is going to destroy society and result in twenty-five percent unemployment (as it is among French youth).
My favorite comment - because it reveals how ideological these arguments are - is the last one (so far):
I sometimes like to think of optimum government in terms of league management in the NFL (and I'm no expert on the NFL) ... as part of the system where inter-team policy be negotiated, rules and referees established (and maintained with trust), and differences settled. Not a perfect fit, but it gets me thinking ...
Oddly enough, the NFL sets fair labor policies for the entire league. That is the whole point of having a league organization, it enforces uniform rules and regulations for each team.
Currently, those employers that offer family medical leave are actually at a disadvantage because those that don't can gain a competitive advantage. Enforcing a uniform basement policy will create a more competitive environment because everyone will have the same basis from which to operate - unless they decide to exceed the state policy.
The only way this isn't true is if companies are at no disadvantage for offering family medical leave. If that is true, then there is no reason to oppose it because it doesn't actually hurt business.
This policy is not perfect, but it does show that New Jersey honors both work and family. After all, the employment exists to support the family, and not the family to support the employment. By creating a uniform policy, the state creates an environment that is more predictable and in which labor costs are more uniform across industries. That is good for business. It just so happens that it is also good for workers, too.
