It Ain't Easy Walking the Center Line

Everybody wants to be business-friendly these days, but for Democrats who think that business isn’t the only business worth discussing at the Capitol, the focus on the almighty dollar is causing a few rifts.

Last week some Democrats were heard waffling over a bill that would require businesses to provide unpaid leave for workers to attend some of their children’s activities that occur during work hours. Senate Bill 21 passed through that chamber by a party-line vote, but House Democrats aren’t as united.

According to the Rocky Mountain News: Speaker Andrew Romanoff, of Denver, has concerns about the measure, and other Democrats are skittish because they believe it is perceived as anti- business…

…The measure is expected to pass out of a House committee Monday then face tough going on the floor, where Democrats have a 35-30 edge. [Senator Peter] Groff never mentioned Romanoff by name but said he was going to be "very blunt."

"I would hope that my friends who control the other chamber . . . see the value of actually supporting families, the very families that" gave Democrats the majority, Groff said.

That last line is one that is being oft-repeated by some Democrats and their supporters these days. Dems are being careful to avoid the mistakes made by their Republican counterparts in the past few years – mistakes that likely cost the GOP control of the legislature – but are they being too careful? One of the primary complaints that gave Democrats control in Nov. 2004 was that Republicans focused almost entirely on their own special interests and rarely got anything done at the Capitol that helped a majority of Coloradans. But now some longtime donkey supporters are upset that Democrats have stayed too close to center.

Some labor union leaders, for example, aren’t happy with the way Democrats are failing to advance any of their bills and are feeling a little left out down at the Capitol. Case in point: earlier this month a bill that would have allowed workers hurt on the job more say as to which doctors would treat them died on the House floor when Rep. Anne McGihon cast the deciding ‘no’ vote.

According to The Denver Post: Rep. Anne McGihon, D-Denver, liked the concept put forward by her colleague, Rep. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, she said. But McGihon said that in a moment of distraction, she hit the wrong button Monday, realizing it too late to change her vote, she said. That made the final vote a rare 33-31 victory for House Republicans, to the disappointment of McGihon, Carroll and others who supported the bill.

Pressing the wrong button is a pretty lame excuse, and we’ve heard from more than one legislator on both sides of the aisle that McGihon never had any intention of voting ‘yes’ on House Bill 1018. Even if the bill had passed, there is a good chance that Governor Bill Owens would have vetoed it, which is why some labor unions are incensed that Democrats aren’t doing more to at least show their support for a traditional friend.

With less than a month left in the 2005 legislative session, will Democrats feel as though they need to do more in 2006 to appease traditional friends such as labor unions and teachers? Perhaps. But either way, it’s an interesting dilemma they face now that they have control of the legislature. Romanoff faces particular scrutiny and is rumored to have been the reason behind several shouting matches behind closed doors. It’s his plan that essentially leads the Democrats, but can he walk the middle line well enough to avoid falling off?

Comments

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

This is a very anti-business bill, and it would hit small businesses especially hard.

It also is a very anti worker bill, because it would provide incredible financial incentives to businesses to outsource their jobs to other states and countries and to buy equipment that replaces workers.

This would drive all the remaining call centers out of Colorado. The state's pritners, who already are high priced compared with other states, would become even less competitive and willing to invest in expensive new technology. You can't run an organization, especially a small one, not knowing who will be available to work.

If the Dems want to run on this bill in '06, they will set themselves up as the even more hard left, irresponsible and anti-business, anti-jobs party. The NFIB, CACI and every trade association in the state will use this bill in their fund raising efforts regardless of whether the bill passes. It is the kind of left-wing legislation that just makes a business owner's blood boil.

But this is academic. Owens would veto the bill if it passed.

[wonderwoman]

Democrats moving toward the center will be the death of the Democrats in the State House. While the Dems ran on a middle of the road platform in the 2004 election, the liberal groups like Emily's List, Sierra Club, the national union lobby, and the CEA are going to push their liberal agenda on the Democrats and give the Republicans all the political fodder they need for 2006.

[Rob M.]

The only thing the Democrat leadership has to worry about is not upsetting Polis, Striker, Bridges, and Gill if they want to be successful in 2006. These four individuals own the Democrat party so it makes Romanoff's and Fitzgerald's life easy keep those four happy and the money will keep rolling in, the CEA and Labor Union have no other place to go and at the end of the day don't add much other than a few volunteers.

[Strider]

An anti-business bill? No. An anti-fascist manager bill yes.

This is a pro-family bill. We need to start taking children and families seriously in this state. I hear a lot of bs about "family values" and ZERO effort made to actually pass legislation to help families.

If Dems want to keep their majority in the House and Senate they need to take a stand on issues like this. REAL family values. Not corporate ones. The Dems should be running adds on TV about this bill.

I own a small business and I can tell you that this bill will only HELP employee morale. When an employee actually feels like they have a life outside of work then they really dedicate more effort to the company. That is how you run a sucessful business.

If draconian business owners cannot handle that. They need to:

a) Examine their personal morality
b) Get a life of their own

[sparky]

So it's come down to whether this bill is anti-business or pro-family? Spare me.

Just a reminder - a parent's involvement with their child's education is as important, if not more so, than the entire school system.

90% of the business owners I know will not be affected if this law passes. They already work with their employees to schedule time for the parents to be involved in their children's education.

This law is designed for the other 10% of business owners who either a) don't run their businesses effectively enough to allow an employee a few hours off to assist in their child's education, or b) don't care about the family needs of their employees.

The argument against this bill that cracks me up is the "what if everyone in a business has to take the same time off on the same day?"

This is obviously an argument from someone that has no clue about schools or business. How many people, with children in the same school, and the same class, work in the same business? The odds of even two people in a single business needing the same time off are very slim.

The only time this could possibly be an issue is at the end of the school year when some schools have 'graduation' ceremonies for their classes. We're talking one day here. And these ceremonies are even spaced out so parents can come see their kid graduate, and then go back to work.

Sorry, but there is no valid reason that this bill shouldn't be passed.

[gopelpaso]

I have to say that I support this bill. Gasp. We need to start putting families first.

[pitbull]

Without these businesses paying taxes, you have no schools. I say anything that hurts business, hurts schools. You want to force businesses to do stuff like this, move to Cuba.

[a]

Maybe the reason that Strider's employees have a low moral is because of his leadership, not because the government is not involved.
I cannot beleive mindset that legislation must be passed to help families instead of allowing families the freedom of choosing what jobs are right for them and employeers the right to choose the kind of employees that fit their business.
Following Strider's mentality the best thing that could happen to Colorado is to outlaw business, then families will have all the time they want to spend with each other. I hate it when people do not understand basic economics and how it effects society as a whole.

[Alva Adams]

Take it easy on the personal comments - there's no need for that. I deleted the last two comments for that reason.

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

Many of us are very accommodating of our employees' requests for time off to see doctors and be with kids, especially when they're sick. And some busiensses aren't and can't be accommodating for a whole bunch of reasons, including the issue of fairness to workers who don't have kids in their houses.

It all depends on timing and what the requests are.

If there is a law that requires accommodation, the flexibility that exists will leave the workplace as everyone plays by the rules and no more. What today are efforts by employers to be family friendly would become highly resented rules and regulations that workers would throw up to managers and owners. This would create new tensions in many workplaces.

Family values begin with jobs. No jobs, no family values. No jobs, lots of family violence, breakups, dysfunction.

Workers with kids are very demanding of employers today, laws or no laws. We try to accommodate as much as possible, but some people take every advantage they can, and, sometimes, you wonder what the real story is. Other parents recognize that they are being paid to do a job, and they give the job their all, knowing that by doing so, they are earning promotions, raises and opportunities to grow professionally and intellectually.

These things aren't clear to politicians or many advocates of the legislation under discussion. They have little or no business or managerial experience and base all their opinions on their experiences as workers and parents and teachers, or whatever. They know only half the story, and they seem to think that businesses can afford to hand out benefits and paid time off as if money grows on trees. (Ask Qwest if money grows on trees.)

They don't recognize that many small businesses are marginally profitable, and they're at breakeven or in the black only because their owners work six or seven days a week and sacrifice their families in the process.

So is it a promotion of family values to drive small businesses out of business, force business owners and managers to work longer hours away from their families and increase workplace tension so that when mom and dad come home they're in no mood to spend time with their kids?

Have the advocates of this legislation really thought about the consequences?

I doubt it.

[Strider]

a,

My employee is HIGH. Read my post more carefully please.

"allowing families the freedom of choosing what jobs are right for them and employeers the right to choose the kind of employees that fit their business."

The problem with this is, that many people CANNOT find the exact employer that they want. Does that mean that their relationship with their children should suffer? Wouldn't it be better if we lived in a State that took this kind of leave time as a matter of course?

And as a business owner myself why would I ever want to "outlaw business"? Do you own a business? Do you have a family? "Basic economics" is SERVED by SB 21.

[sparky]

Basic economics? Choosing a job? In case you've missed it, most people end up at whatever job they think will pay their bills. And they are terrified that they will lose that job.

I'm very lucky - I've always been the type of person that tells my employer when I'm going on vacation, or, for that matter, when I'm going to spend some time at my kid's school. I'm good at my job and I've always had the luxury of dictating my schedule.

The problem is, I am a rare exception. Most people are afraid to say 'boo' to their bosses, because they think they'll get fired. I have a very good friend that works 50-plus hours a week, is very good at her job, but won't ask for an hour off to volunteer at her child's school. She really thinks that she might be fired - and as far as I know, she may be right.

The point is, there has to be a balance between the needs of the business and the needs of the family. This law would simply give the employees the right to be part of their child's education. As I said previously, this would affect a very small number of businesses - only the ones that need to be affected.

[Strider]

"My employee is HIGH. Read my post more carefully please."

Should read:

"My employee MORALE is HIGH. Read my post more carefully please."

Sorry bout that.

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

This whole issue assumes that businesses much accommodate the schedules of schools and various kids' activities.

Why won't the schools accommodate the work schedules of parents? Why do school events have to happen during normal work hours (recognizing that work hours vary for workers around the clock)?

Why have schools been cutting school hours, forcing kids out of school at mid day and mid afternoon?

Whatever happened to weekends? Why are teachers different from the rest of us, who frequently work evenings and weekends?

Why hasn't anyone proposed legislation requiring all kids activities take place between 6 p.m. and 8:30 pm weekdays or on weekends?

Why aren't people thinking outside the box?

[sparky]

Let me put this in perspective. We often hear about priorities and making choices. For me this one is simple - families and education are more important to me than business. To be honest, I don't care what anyone else thinks about this issue.

I hope the Repubs continue to fight this one. It will be interesting to see if the Dems can actually spin something in their favor for once.....

[Strider]

"We try to accommodate as much as possible, but some people take every advantage they can, and, sometimes, you wonder what the real story is."

It is really easy. If you think you have an employee who is consistantly taking advantage of the system . . . fire them.

This law says nothing about firing employees who take advantage and simply refuse to take their job seriously. That is your choice to make as an employer. Always will be.

The fact remains that there are employees out there who would love to spend some time with their kids but are consistantly denied the ability to do so.

Who is going to stick up for them?

Democrats are actually passing some legislation in honor of families here. I think that helps the caucus as a whole. What legislation have the Republicans introduced?

A ban on same-sex marriage. Gimme a break.

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

Here's another huge assumption: Parents will use the time off to be with their kids.

How many weekend sporting or other events have you attended where every parent was present? 50%? 25%? 10%?

If this legislation is enacted, what percentage of parents would attend every event? How do you know?

[pacified]

Just for the record, Business's don't pay as much tax as people, with our glorious 8.1% REGRESIVE sales tax.

Also, Business don't create jobs... demand create jobs. If there is a big enough demand, someone or something is going to step in and meet that demand.

The owners of the business are just lucky. Lucky. Someone had to do it, and they did.

Henry Ford wasn't a genius, nor was Bill Gates. It's called being in the right place, at the right time.

We would still have a "windows" operating system with our without bill gates. Why?

BECAUSE THERE IS DEMAND.

For being Repbulicans, you think some of the people on this board would realize this.