Family-Leave Good for Business?

The debate rages on regarding Senate Bill 21, the family-leave act that has generated so much attention lately.

Bill Johnson writes in the Rocky Mountain News today that a similar family-leave bill in California has actually proved beneficial to businesses.

In California, where workers get as many as 40 hours a year of such unpaid leave under a similar, years-old law, there has not been a mass exodus of companies who feel unduly put upon by the law.

Indeed, from everything I have read, it is a provision many employers there say they use to attract the best talent.

We think there is a logical argument to be made that family benefits are used to attract business. Here's a good take on that argument.

What we have been saying for weeks is that if Republicans are going to continue to fight this, it would behoove them to come out with some factual attacks on what is going to happen to businesses if this passes. If they had statistics showing that other states have severely suffered from it, then that would make for a compelling argument. Perhaps, if Johnson is correct, such argument may not exist.

Comments

[Jason]

Colorado Pols pimps their favorite line some more.

Bill Johnson rarely 'writes' anything, he 'opines'. As he said on Independent Thinking on PBS the other day; he's little more than a reactionary, knee-jerker. He said that as long as you're buying, he’d keep selling.

There are plenty of logical arguments for this to be a normal practice. And employers may use it to attract the best talent. Employers should use it as such, in my opinion. And if you think that making it a law will attract businesses to the state, then you are probably a legislator.

Using Bill Johnson and the post by Colorado Luis as proof that your meme is golden doesn't sway me. Colorado Luis' post says "In the end, doesn't that mean we are in a race to the bottom with states like Alabama to see who can deprive the people of their state the most to attract cost-cutting businesses? What kind of jobs will this policy create -- minimum wage jobs at unregulated chicken factories that spew sludge? Is that the Colorado we want?"

Hah. What boilerplate non-sense. Sophomoric and a non-sequitor to this argument. Good choice to link to.

This isn't about statistics. It's about the proper role of govt as a compelling argument. Colorado Pols should just pin the tail on the donkey already.

[Alva Adams]

The point we're trying to make here is that we just haven't heard a good argument against this bill other than "it's bad for business." Okay, how? How will it hurt business? It hasn't hurt business in other states - make an argument!

There are plenty of great arguments? Well, instead of insulting us and gleefully pointing out how biased everyone is, why don't you make some real arguments against the bill? Nobody on earth is unbiased, and pointing out that others ARE biased isn't an argument.

We really would like to see some good, intelligent debate about this. We didn't link to Colorado Luis because we thought it was the end-all of arguments on the subject, we just thought it was a good way to frame the subject. The argument that creating a better work environment for businesses is a valid argument, whether you like it or not. We haven't seen valid arguments on the other side of the issue that aren't just rhetorical statements about business and competition.

[Jason]

Alva Adams, there is no need to feel slighted. If you feel insulted I regret that, as that was not my intention. You can't continue to knock on doors and not expect someone to answer though. The debate does not live on the terms you are providing. I'm pointing out who you are holding water for, and how that biases your posts regarding such. You can throw away statements about business and competition if you like, but those statements are just as valid as your statements weather you like it or not. That is what I'd like to gleefully point out.

Perhaps I fail to frame my argument correctly(likely as my hands can never muster what my brain is thinking). Statistics, hurting or helping business, etc, are irrelevant when the legislature has no business conducting private citizens' affairs. This concept applies to many aspects of legislative intrusion, not just this one. Weather you feel the bill is for good or for ill the fact remains that the legislature is telling private citizens how to conduct their private affairs. The legislature should not be doing this, as I find it to be dangerous territory. I'm trying to point out how your meme fails to take this into account and that the Colorado Republicans have made this point many times. Bias it up or bias it down, but yours is clear and should be acknowledged.

Like I’ve said before: few people would find the spirit of this bill in some negative light. It’s the manner in which it becomes a standard. Maybe you are arguing that the market would not allow for this outcome because of horrible, family-hating Republican business owners? I would doubt it as an overall adhering factor in all Colorado businesses, as I suspect some businesses would voluntarily adhere and I do not deny that some would not. I would submit that the market would make some employers more attractive than others… but I guess you are not interested in that.

Maybe we should thank the Colorado Democrats for bringing up this issue, but we should also try not to demonize Colorado Republicans because of some hyperbolic caricatures(there are other issues in which this caricature may be correct, this does not seem to be one of them). I’d like to see Colorado businesses adopt this on their own, as it is ultimately their businesses, and not the Colorado legislatures’ to do with as they please.