Familes First, er, Second...Maybe Third?

9News has a story on Senate Bill 21, the Family Leave Act, and once again Republicans are sticking with the "feet in mouth" strategy in opposing it. You might remember our discussion here last week on the bill, when we said that Republicans made a clear statement that business takes precedence over families in Colorado. Well - they're at it again:

"This is a huge penalty on small business," said Sen. Jim Dyer, (R-Littleton). "This is government interference on issues you ought to be able to make in your own family, within your own employ. This is an awful bill."

That's the point of the bill, Jim - some parents don't feel like they can make those decisions because their boss won't let them. You think "This is an awful bill" isn't going to appear on Democratic campaign literature in 2006? Whether you agree or disagree with the bill, if you're a Republican you should be cringing at the ammunition Dyer continues to serve up as an easy soundbyte that "Business is more important than Families."

"This is not the right way to go on mandates. We are supposed to be a business-friendly state to create more jobs," said Sen. Norma Anderson, (R-Lakewood).

"We are supposed to be a business-friendly state." The hell with families!

Where are the Republicans with their FACTUAL rebuttals? Why don't they trot out statistics on how the bill has hurt businesses in the other 12 states where a similar law has passed?

Maybe it's because it hasn't hurt business at all. As Senator Peter Groff states: "I don't recall any reports of the collapse of small businesses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont or the District of Columbus."

If this sort of bill really does hurt business, maybe the elephants at the state legislature should consider, you know, looking some of that up.

Again, for those of you ready with angry comments - this isn't about the meat of the bill, it's about not being smart enough to couch your comments so you don't appear as though you are indifferent to the needs of families...which is exactly what Republicans are doing.

Comments

[Jim C]

I think that this is a decision that should not be left to the government. A man or woman should be able to decide whether or not to take time off. If they don't feel their boss will let them, there's nothing keeping them there, if it's that important to them.

[Ter Ducken]

Why must we capitulate forever in favor of business? Are you so elitist that you think people who can't get time off from their job can just quit and find another job, just like that? Some of us don't have it so good. For some of us, our bosses turn down everything because they know we don't have a choice - we can't afford to lose our job.

Why is it so wrong to help working families out once in awhile? So a business has give up 40 hours a year - OH NO! how will they survive!

Republicans are the moral party. Yeah, right. Clearly.

[Jason]

"Are you so elitist that you think people who can't get time off from their job can just quit and find another job, just like that?"

Are you so elitist that you think you can tell private businesses how to conduct their own affairs?

Perhaps this is less about Colorado Pols phony meme of "business first, families last" and more about keeping govt out of places where it simply does not belong.

I doubt very much that the Republicans really doubt the merits of having time available to spend with kids. But then again maybe the caricature of the puppy kicking, blood-drinking conservative is what you base your perceptions on? Or maybe the Republicans didn't verbalize their opposition in a manner in which you and Colorado Pols understood their points? Perhaps these reporters’ news filings did not contain complete speeches or complete quotes in which they elaborated enough for you?

I would submit that it's more a responsibility of the business and market to make this a reality, and not a proper function of govt. This much is apparent to me; just from the sampling of news buzz I’ve read on this particular piece of legislature.

I do not doubt that similar laws in other states have not brought their economies tumbling, but that is not the point. It's funny how Colorado Pols says that this isn't about the meat of the bill, when they devote the majority of their post and their last post on this matter to that meat. Because if you aren't for this bill, then you must be some kind of HATE FAMILIES monster. That’s what the sound bites say. Well… at least if you are writing for Colorado Pols anyway.

[rjf]

I think Sen. Dyer hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that businesses would shy away from hiring applicants with kids. Then these "non-elitists" won't have to worry about asking for time off to attend their children's events, instead they'll continue searching for a job to put food on the table.

[Alva Adams]

You can't use that argument, because it would be illegal to discriminate in hiring practices based on family size.

[James Peabody]

Perception is reality in politics. In the next election, when an ad is run talking about this legislation and painting opponents as anti-family, do you really think voters will run to the legislative record and pore over it to get the real meaning of what was said? No. Most voters may remember a candidate's name and an anti-family time message.

This is pretty smart move by the Dems - they are laying a trap for the Republicans, who so far seem to be walking right into it.

[Alva Adams]

James is right - perception is the key point here. If Republicans would just trot out statistics on why this bill is bad, they'd be okay. Instead, they let fly with these horrible quotes that are going to come back to bite them in the ass in 18 months.

Hey, kid...want some candy?

[Jason]

Perception is reality in politics, to be sure. I think that that plays a little in this matter too and is a point well taken, don't get me wrong. I also think that this bill and the subsequent hand-wringing plays more to an already in place bias in individuals; which certainly effects perception. The battle lines in this one were drawn a long time ago.

When I read the articles it doesn't strain me to see that the Republican's reaction is from the point of no govt intrusion. I can plainly see where this is articulated. Perhaps my bias leads me to this quicker, and my perception of it as such. Colorado Pols' clear bias leads them to another conclusion. Alva Adams can barely get past his own bias with the constant stream of "trot out the statistics"; which is not the point of the Republican's opposition.

Perception is key; but so is bias. I can see where yours plays well for the "business first, families last" crowd. The Democrats have a few choice sound bites for Colorado as well. The Republicans can just as easily point out that Democrats would rather allow govt to intrude and dictate all facets of their lives than allow them to make their own choices(this is obviously hyperbole, but it plays the same as your version). We sure don't see Colorado Pols pimping that particular line though.