Helping workers without strangling business

Michael Jordan, San Antonio, tx — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:38:13 GMT

In Europe and other developed economies, they have had paid family leave and 4 weeks vacation for EVERY worker and yet somehow their economy and standard of living remains the highest in the world, it can be done.

Helping workers without strangling business

Nancy Roesner, Copley Feed, Copley Ohio — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:01:44 GMT

I would ask Michael Jordan what is the going salary of those employers in Europe. Do they also have the added costs that employers pay here like health insurance, workers compensation,unemployment compensation, state and federal taxes, and many other costs to our businesses? You have to take into account everything that our small businesses are already paying. To add this to those costs, you will definitely see many small businesses go under.

Helping workers without strangling business

Dave Cearley, Houston, TX — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:36:14 GMT

What Europe does have is rampant unemployment and very slow growth. Yes, they can provide some of those benefits, for some of their population. But an 8oz soda costs $6 at a sidewalk cafe, and half the population can't afford a car due to 125% gasoline taxes. Alas racism is equally rampant in France because the government doesn't track ethnicity, leading to riots and a high level mof street crime. They just stab you to death or slash your throat since they can't get guns. Small businesses are heavily protected in several countries, but everyone pays more for everything since there's no walMart and stores are only allowed one sale a year.

The real issue is that all these benefits are a wonderful idea, kinda like the want to do's you have in your own budget, but we can't afford them. Why do liberals keep ignoring the real budgetary limits of businesses, government, and taxpayers before they pass spending bills and unfunded mandates?

Helping workers without strangling business

James, North Bend, WA — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:14:11 GMT

It's interesting how much of a fuss small business makes about giving employees extra benefits but will quite happily continue paying poverty wages in the form of the minimum wage. Granted, in 2006 the minimum wage in Ohio was increased and is now indexed with inflation. But guess what; the minimum wage is STILL under the poverty line. And it will continue to be under the line. People always point to big corporates as the source of the malaise facing the American worker. Yet, it's small business that put up the biggest fight against giving workers any additional rights and benefits. Most small businesses don't offer health insurance. Many don't offer paid annual or sick leave because they are too small and the gov't gives them exceptions. I would guess that quite a few use illegal labor (thus suppressing wages even more). And it's widely known that small business offer lower remuneration than their large corporate counterparts.

All in all, I'd say government has already given small businesses quite a break already - particularly in the form of legislated dirt wages. And until recently (2006) those dirt wages weren't indexed in any way. This means businesses like Copley Feed could keep raising their prices in line with CPI (or more) but not pay their people a penny more than they did 10 years ago. Maybe Copley values their people and is generous with their compensation. If so, good for them. However, they are under no obligation to do anything except pay the minimum wage. The point of the "paid family leave" and any other benefit is to make it law so everyone has to pay for it. It may cost more, but it's a cost everyone has to pay and that makes it fair.

On a side note, labor costs in Western Europe are generally much higher than America. Higher labor costs, higher taxes, more benefits. Yet somehow, they still manage to make it work.

Helping workers without strangling business

Patricia, Sacramento, CA — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:52:26 GMT

Customer service? Technical assistance? How often have you encountered a voice speaking English with an Indian accent. And usually named "Christian" or "Mary?" Questions of this ilk have been on the news lately.

Without bias against India or the needed progress of that nation, my question has to do with U.S. governmental and corporate policies with respect to economics, training, pay scales, and related concerns of this example of outsourcing. More specifically, who pays for what and how are these expenditures justified?

Are the technical and customer service representatives trained by Indian sources? By corporate sources? By the government of the United States of America through direct funding or as an unidentified sponsor? What contractual arrangements are in place? Who profits from this example of outsourcing? Who suffers because of it?

Again,this message has little to do with which country is the provider of services at this skill level. Are there not sufficient numbers of qualified Americans who would gladly fill jobs of this type. Indeed, many Americans would take positions in the computer industry and some may even be able to answer inquiries without reading from a script.

Who initially and subsequently pays for this type of outsoucing? And why? Are there political or economic
justifications for these arrangements?

Your knowledge and commentary are welcomed.

Helping workers without strangling business

Sean, Torrington CT — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:29:35 GMT

Too much of America's wealth is stagnant at the top. We need to get that wealth flowing through our economy.

This is the main problem.

Helping workers without strangling business

Michael Kennon, Joplin, MO — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:48:43 GMT

Currently working as a "Blue Collar" worker for a large corporation, I have in the past worked for small businesses. Other than goverment mandated benefits, all benefits were provided only at the generousity of my then employers at these places.

While my own personal work ethic would prevent me from "abusing" such a benefit as paid leave, it would have been nice to recooperate at home during short-term illnesses instead of having to go to work sick or fear loosing my job. Once in three years of working at a pizza place I took one day off sick and was fired for it and I was the Assistant Manager at the the time. The owner did hire me back after he realized no one else wanted the job for the low pay he offered.

Bottom line or not, it makes sense to take care of your workers no matter how large or small your business is. Used to be that the philosophy was "you take care of your job and your job will take of you", but now it is more "Everyone for themselves". Employee loyalty to their employer has gone out the window along with the employer loyalty to their employees.

Whether or not government mandated paid leave is ever passed in to law should not be your main concern, it should be doing what is right for your employees and for your business which does benefit from a reliable and positively motivated work force to do a good job for you.

Helping workers without strangling business

Amy Knight Tampa Florida — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:00:10 GMT

James, I am a small business owner and talk to many other small business owners. None of us pay "minimum" wage to any of our workers. That's something a large company or government would do. Most small biz owners know just how important it is to keep the best team members on board and would never insult them with low wages.

Helping workers without strangling business

Carl, Kalamazoo, Michigan — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:07:45 GMT

Question for people who think minimum wage increases actually help...

Why not set the minimum wage at $1000/hour? If you believe that having the government mandate a wage increase really does work economically, then lets have everybody make so much money that they only need to work a few months and they they're set for life!!!

Think about it, if everybody makes $1000 per hour, then nobody will be poor!

In reality, there is a trade-off between opportunity and wages for entry-level workers. The higher you set the price floor on labor, the harder it will be for students and people just trying to get started to get into positions where they'll be able to develop the skills they need to get ahead. That's why there's a spike in unemployment among low-wage workers every time the minimum wage is raised.

Second, what makes a person morally entitled to take extended time off work? If you want to work, work. Where does the authority come from to tell a private business what their time-off policy has to be? If I own a business, and I quit for a few months, my business will probably tank, and then I won't have an income; where's my bailout?

If you agree to work at a job, to show up every day on a pre-determined schedule, with vacation, holiday, and emergency time off agreed to by you and company policy, then it's your responsibility to show up for work, and it's their responsibility to pay you for your work the wages you agreed to work for.

Save up money so that you can have the flexibility to quit during times that you need off. If you really do have skills and knowledge that are valuable to the business, then you have nothing to worry about; they will WANT to hire you back.

Helping workers without strangling business

1friend Houston, TX — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:59:02 GMT

Small business problems are only one facet of a greater economic crystal that is about to shatter. Unbalanced wealth distribution seems to be the bottom line evil. Government must force the CEO class/campaign contributors to do the right thing by the large number of not only employees, but investors via 401k contributions. Only when the middle class stabilizes and grows rather than shrinks, will small business prosper again. Enough wealth mongering of the self-coronated American "royalty" - the CEO class must be legislated back to a sane level of greed. They're running the world into the ground.

Helping workers without strangling business

James, North Bend, WA — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 12:50:16 GMT

Amy from Florida: That's great if you pay your people more than the minimum. Really! And wouldn't it be great if everyone had to do it so you wouldn't have to compete on wages?? What a headache that must be. You are trying to make it as a small biz while your competitors are undercutting you by paying poverty wages.

Carl from Kalamazoo: Your $1000/hr argument is ridiculous. I won't even bother with it. Authority to dictate to business what they can and can't do comes from federal and state labor laws. You know, "by the people, for the people." Deal with it. Save up money on $6.25/hr? Might as well say "let them eat cake". Do you actually have a clue?

Helping workers without strangling business

Jennifer — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:38:58 GMT

Let's throw in mandated foot rubs and pre-work pep rallies, too! If the government wants to force most (never all) businesses to act generously with employees, it should be ready and willing to pay the bill and arrange all the details. That would be lovely, and I'd gladly pay for this tax over my employer's bloated health plan any day. Free or reduced childcare for all, especially when the kids are sick? Great! (Just figure out how to implement it fairly, even in rural areas, when the job at the mini-mart pays less than the cost of care, and then figure out why each person’s kids are being watched by the next person.)
But to say that I, as a business owner, should pay for my employees to stay home with some vague symptom of the human condition (anxiety/stress/general pain), while I am unable to fill their positions with more motivated and all-around better employees? Are you kidding? Keep their job unfilled and un-worked for months or even years at a time, because they might not be depressed one morning? This is not an exaggeration, but the reality of our call center's daily absence line, and its corresponding FMLA paper trail.
(Well, it used to be. As of April, our work's actually been outsourced to India/Philippines/Panama, homes to the "New American Dream.")
Not all employees are the victims of their employers. Some are in fact quite savvy about how to milk the system, and those remaining few with strong moral character and ethics will soon cave into temptation as they see that raises or terminations can not legally be based even on absurd levels of absence. Who in their right mind will be honest in their need for time off, if only the "sick" are rewarded? Being late for work due to a heroic act or unavoidable hardship can keep one from being promoted, but being gone for two months due to mental illness? A guaranteed spot on the payroll, and maybe even a promotion – all governed by the Family Medical Leave Act. Not to mention the need for gruesome details to be given and documented in a separate file from performance records. What? You say this is an unlikely scenario, or even untrue? Your HR department must not be doing its job. If expanded, even Mom & Pop stores will need to keep deadbeats on the payroll, at least until they permanently close shop.
Please, keep America open for small business, and while at it, keep employers out of our healthcare records!

Helping workers without strangling business

Mike, Toledo Ohio — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:44:38 GMT

The fraction of people who are the primary or even secondary wage earners earning the minimum wage has been grossly mistated. Most minimum wage earners are teens and college students just starting out in the job world. Most work part-time by choice. Many are seasonal employees. Requiring small businesses to pay for accumulating and undocumented "sick" time for these part-time employees is irresponsible. The employers will be forced to do more with less by hiring fewer employees. We have seen this already in Ohio, Michigan and other states in which the minimum wage increases have been inacted. The employer will also be forced to raise prices to help pay for these type of mandates. You need to ask yourself; who is most harmed by price increases? Currently in Ohio, the minimum wage is tied to the inflation rate. Manufacturers will be leaving as those wages continue to increase. Just wait and see!

Helping workers without strangling business

John, Lafayette, IN — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:14:37 GMT

The minimum wage argument is a tired one, and I don't know how it persists. Why does everyone look at the failure of the minimum wage to ever have a positive impact at any time in any nations history, and then look at tomorrow and say, "This time it will be different."? Increasing minimum wage has correlated with a higher poverty level, because you just increased the cost of basic services, which define the poverty level.

The problem is the ubiquity of the large businesses, and the establishment of programs being applied with such a small brush. It's difficult for even experienced workers to perceive the difference between companies. If you want to give companies incentives to offer their employees better terms, make them, or even just allow them to, COMPETE for labor.