By George Neumayr on 9.24.02 @ 12:03AM
Liberals pass outrageous bills in one-party Sacramento, then tout them as ''models'' for the rest of the country.
Under one-party domination, Sacramento has become a sewer of
poisonous legislation, polluting policy-making not just in
California, but across the nation. Liberals pass outrageous bills
in Sacramento, then tout them as "models" for the rest of the
country.
This week's example is Senate Bill 1661, legislation that forces
California companies to provide "paid family leave." To the cheers
of labor activists and feminists across the country, Gray Davis
signed SB 1661 into law on Monday, making California the first
state to establish a compulsory program for paid family leave.
And who orchestrated this "victory for families"? None other
than the noisy lesbian activist Sheila Kuehl. California companies
will now get to grapple with her definition of family. Under her
measure, they must allow employees six weeks of paid leave for
emergency "family" reasons. This, of course, can include tending to
the needs of a "domestic partner," and even includes "bonding" with
a new foster child.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Kuehl originally
wanted the law to mandate twelve weeks of leave and wanted
employers to carry much of the costs. But Davis, always in
split-the-difference mode, encouraged her to reduce the time to six
weeks and to pin the program's financing to employee payroll
deductions. (Workers will make themselves eligible for the program
through a payroll deduction, "averaging about $26 a year," reports
the Times. The paid family leave program will fall under
the state's disability insurance system.)
Davis's compromise did not impress California companies. They
will still pay mightily for "family leave," even if employees are
theoretically paying for it. Who, after all, has to pay for all the
costs of having workers missing for those six weeks? The companies
do.
"California businesses will be at a competitive disadvantage
because of this, and (Davis) doesn't seem to care," Julianne
Broyles, a lobbyist for the California Chamber of Commerce, told
the Times. "Paid family leave is one of the worst bills
for employers in the 2001-02 legislative session. This bill fails
miserably to address the real cost concerns of employers -- the
costs of replacement workers and additional overtime to cover for
absent workers, training costs, and the loss of productivity."
Kuehl says the program will help business by boosting the morale
of employees. But her understanding of business is as fuzzy as her
definition of family. What boosts morale is a growing economy, not
a sluggish one weighed down by quasi-socialist laws designed to
accelerate social engineering.
Not every bill labeled "family" helps the family. And this bill
won't. Yes, it will help Kuehl's friends in the feminist and
homosexual community. But it will hurt the family by making jobs
more scarce. It is absurd to hear Davis's press secretary say that
the governor signed the bill because "he believes in putting family
first." Come on. Is this the same governor who opposed the marriage
initiative Proposition 22, who doesn't think parents have a right
to know whether or not their children are getting abortions, and
whose voting record would make an ACT-UP activist proud?
Davis signed the bill because he is a hack in hock to the labor
unions and feminists. He needed business to finance his campaign,
but he needs left-wing activists to win it.
The AFL-CIO is delighted with Davis. They hope California's law
will cow other states into creating paid family leave programs.
Karen Nussbaum, assistant to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, said
to the Los Angeles Times that labor advocates can now "go
to other states and make the case that if a state as concerned as
California was about balancing its budget can do this, other states
can do it as well."
Perhaps Nussbaum hasn't heard the news: California's state
government is $24 billion in debt. Before other states imitate
California's paid family leave program, they might want to take a
look at the politicians who are running it. Fiscal health and
family health have never been their forte.
topics:
Business, Abortion, Law, Unions
