On the Yahoo! front page is an article comparing the US against other developed nations and undeveloped nations, it highlights the differences in government regulations in labor practices, should the US federal government be more involved in the 'family-friendly' workplace, should it remain as it is, or should it be more removed from the situation? Please be specific.
For example: A couple chooses to start a family, should the govt. and employer: 1) pay more for extended leaves of absence 2) allow the person(s) to retain their job and not have to compensate them 3) no guarantee they will have job when they are ready to return to the job market. Thanks.
2007-02-01 04:01:47 · 8 answers · asked by Amy V 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
While the government should provide certain basic protections to the workforce (thus "promoting the general welfare") in order to keep corperations from taking advantage, it should still be as far removed as possible. The more the government gets involved with companies and the workforce, the closer we move to socialism.
2007-02-01 04:07:10 · answer #1 · answered by Firestorm 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Answer 1 is out. This is a socialist idea and has no place in America. Why should employers be forced to pay employees because they choose to have children. Further, the government does not pay anyone anything, the taxpayers do and again why should they be forced to support someone else's lifestyle choices.
Answer 2 is good within a defined time frame and is actually the system which is in place under the Family Leave Act. However, here again there is no reason why an employer should be forced to leave a spot unfilled for long periods of time while you engage in a lifestyle choice.
Answer 3 is correct for extended periods of time. There are people who choose to take years off during their children's formative years and while I support their dedication to their children, they have to accept the reality that when they choose to return to work there may not be a job for them.
2007-02-01 04:12:24 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, no, and no. I am one of the few surviving genuine liberals, and believe we always need less government, not more. If people want to work for family-friendly firms, they should not take jobs with other places. IF they need to move to find an employer they like, that's their choice. If enough employees leave workplaces they don't like, maybe those employers will change their ways, or maybe not. That also is their choice.
By the way, I myself went to a lot of trouble to find an employer that suited the way I wanted to live. I was not wealthy or privileged in any way; others can do the same.
2007-02-01 04:06:47 · answer #3 · answered by dognhorsemom 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. This nation does NOT need more gov't intervention into our lives. Enough is enough already. If enough people want something the private business owners will undoubtedly change their practices to accomodate accordingly. Why do many Americans believe the gov't is the only entity that can change things for the "better"? We are moving towards an almost total dependency on Big Brother and that is a horrible situation to be in.
2007-02-01 04:17:15 · answer #4 · answered by thinking-guru 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No the government should stay out of it.
However corporations and small businesses should get off their butts and find policies that are good both for their employees and the business itself.
Unfortunately most businesses wait till an angry group of voters force their elected officials to enact these laws. Then these businesses cry about the government interference they brought upon themselves.
2007-02-01 04:18:03 · answer #5 · answered by Bad M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not our "form of government" that's become destructive but how Obama is perverting and twisting it in order to advance his personal agendas, i.e., having the IRS harass non-liberal organizations, turning the Department of Justice on the media to try and silence them, etc.,.
2016-03-28 23:50:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO!!!. keep the government out of our affairs. do you think those "benefits" come without cost? look at those nations income tax rates too. last i looked sweden could get up around 64%
2007-02-01 04:34:20 · answer #7 · answered by dwalkercpa 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Usually the goverment the reason for that problem!!!
2007-02-01 04:11:32 · answer #8 · answered by Ricky 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋