Posted on 12/27/2002 12:05:32 PM PST by John Jorsett
Edited on 04/14/2004 10:05:41 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
My bet is Texas or Florida.
We are desperate for industry here, wages are low, regulation is low, and the scenery is beautiful. There aren't many places in the US where a humble factory worker can afford a home overlooking a waterfall like one can here.
This guy Pulaski is not a government employee - he's a union thug. California Federation of Labor (CFL is a statewide branch of AFL-CIO).
Here's another question: since when are companies who employ people supposed to "care" about them?
I am coming up on 18 years working for a HUMONGOUS company here in California. The first seven years were great - we really felt that "The Company" "caaared" about us. With the end of the Cold War and the cuts in defense spending, we had a very rude awakening. While your individual manager or supervisor may give a rat's patoot about you, they're nearly as powerless as you are. The big suits up in the corner offices are only looking at the bottom line.
Yes, everyone pays (with the possible exception of the self-employed. I don't know if we pay into this thing or not. If we're covered, I'm taking a 6-week paid vacation each year, courtesy of this system.)
This leave is for more than maternity. It could be for adoption, a death in the family, etc. The employer is supposed to be the 'gatekeeper' of what constitutes an emergency. I'm betting that most employers, since they aren't the ones paying directly, will be somewhat lax.
I don't think you could characterize this as a redistribution scheme just yet. The benefits are capped at some level, and everyone pays a fixed amount into the system. However, when the inevitable abuse runs the cost up, it'll become too expensive for lower-income workers to pay, so I expect that we'll see "the rich" socked for more. That's the point at which point it'll take on redistributionist characteristics.
That's a good point as well, Davis has already been raiding the various California funds by the simple expedient of declaring them to be "in surplus," and taking the money. Then some time later it's "discovered" that the fund is short of money. So the state gives it back. JUST KIDDING! Davis naturally says that to make up for the shortage, taxes must be raised to replenish the fund.
What do you want to bet that this giant pot of money is going to get the same treatment?
The rats would love to bankrupt the state and start an income tax to destroy the economy. We'll fight tooth and nail before we let them.
Would the state constitution have to be amended, or would a simple vote of the legislature be enough. If the latter, what I'd be doing right now is getting a ballot proposition going to put the "no income tax" in the state constitution itself. You might have to simultaneously vote out the liberal state Supreme Court members at the same time in order to get it to stick. I understand that they regularly strike down ballot proposals that they disagree with on the "no multiple issues" pretext.
"Federation of Labor"? So this guy is a socialist scumbag union thug? Democrat operative? Both?
The funny thing is, one GOP leader recently said that the Republicans are going to be a whole lot more concerned with making sure individual families don't get socked with new taxes than they will be with protecting businesses, because so many of California's businesses helped fund scumbag Democrat campaigns. LOFL!! "Revenge is a dish best served cold." See what that does to California's ranking with business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.