Since we are Going to Make Employers Give their Employees Free Money . . .

Jul 2019
12,632
9,245
Georgia
I'm not baiting.

If you think I am, why do you obsessively respond to it?

Isn't that called, "taking the bait?"
obsessively you say?

when someone starts like, say 20 threads a day about the same shit, and I post in maybe a few of them, who again is the obsessive one?
 
Feb 2020
1,748
643
Houston
Predictably, he completely avoided this.
$511 per day only comes out to about 130K per year. Which isn't really that much, especially to support a family. In some cities that's kind of poor even for a single person. These people have bills too. The bill is fair as in it pays what you would have made if you were able to work. If you make over 130K per year, then you're getting less than what you'd normally make for 2 weeks, if you have to be out for that long.

Surely if you read the WaPo article, you would have seen that this is not forced on all employers, and only applies to people who have to take the time off, and is not paid by the employer, which would have helped you out before making a thread title that displays your cluelessness on how things work.
Yeah, se7en's concern for the plight of the six figure worker is touching.

How is it fair that the McDonald's workers grandkids will be paying the taxes to pay the interest on the debt we're making to pay the junior executive $7,154 for just calling in sick from his cell phone.

Just out of curiosity, does the employee have to show any proof? Or would that defeat the purpose?

What if he's discovered to have called in sick from a strip club? Does he still get the money? What if he's leaving the strip club and then calls in and says, "

Yeah, boss. This spaced out looking girl I never met in my life got all into my personal space and she didn't act too healthy. I better stay avoid the office just to err on the safe side." What safeguards are there against that kind of . . . what . . . fraud?

I guess it would not be fraud. He made a true statement.

In fact he could tell the stone truth: "I was getting lap dances and drinking body shots off this hot European looking girl and she started coughing and apologized in an Italian accent."

He gets the money, right?
 
Nov 2005
10,133
5,503
California
Yeah, se7en's concern for the plight of the six figure worker is touching.
How is it fair that the McDonald's workers grandkids will be paying the taxes to pay the interest on the debt we're making to pay the junior executive $7,154 for just calling in sick from his cell phone.
How many junior executives have no paid sick leave?
You keep exaggerating such situations and ignore the facts of the matter.


Just out of curiosity, does the employee have to show any proof? Or would that defeat the purpose?
Can you try something different for a change?
POSE AN ARGUMENT BASED ON KNOWLEDGE instead of this incessant attacks which revolve around your ignorance?

Because that is all you are doing. OVER and OVER and OVER again.
You have started out with one foolish misrepresentation of this legislation...
One after another after another...
And you feel absolutely no shame for how absurd you are being. You are too busy mocking ideas that pop in your head WHICH YOU DO NOT EVEN BOTHER TO FIGURE OUT IF THEY ARE TRUE.

As such, stop asking such questions which prove you clueless on the issue of this legislation that you are seeking to attack.
Attack it based on the facts instead of what meaningless fantasy you create in order to compensate for your lack of knowledge.
 
Dec 2015
21,303
22,339
Arizona
THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!1!!!1!!

Giving farmers taxpayer money isn't. Giving airlines taxpayer money isn't giving corporations taxpayer money isn't. Arranging things such that corporations give taxpayer money to its workers is.

I can't figure out the difference.
Here's the rule, my friend. If the government gives corporations (airlines) taxpayer money it is NOT socialism. If the government gives poor folks money, it is.
See how that works?
 
Jul 2019
12,632
9,245
Georgia
Yeah, se7en's concern for the plight of the six figure worker is touching.

How is it fair that the McDonald's workers grandkids will be paying the taxes to pay the interest on the debt we're making to pay the junior executive $7,154 for just calling in sick from his cell phone.

Just out of curiosity, does the employee have to show any proof? Or would that defeat the purpose?

What if he's discovered to have called in sick from a strip club? Does he still get the money? What if he's leaving the strip club and then calls in and says, "

Yeah, boss. This spaced out looking girl I never met in my life got all into my personal space and she didn't act too healthy. I better stay avoid the office just to err on the safe side." What safeguards are there against that kind of . . . what . . . fraud?

I guess it would not be fraud. He made a true statement.

In fact he could tell the stone truth: "I was getting lap dances and drinking body shots off this hot European looking girl and she started coughing and apologized in an Italian accent."

He gets the money, right?
Jesus Christ. It's not that much money in the big scheme of things no matter who's claiming it and what they're getting.

You claim to be a public school consultant, so I imagine your pay is okay. You work for the Government, and guess what? They have to pay you guys your salary regardless if you miss work or not. Under this Bill. It's the first section in that WaPo article you shared. But you're all worried about a guy who works for a small corporation and gets his regular salary from the government while he's out of work for a few days? CTFO
 
  • Like
Reactions: imaginethat
Feb 2020
1,748
643
Houston
To clarify so I can't be accused of being a troll who never admits he made a misstatement. Yes, I did not realize that the government was going to reimburse employers. I made an honest mistake based on the fact that liberal Republicans and Democrats have always insisted that employers pay minimum wages and that employers should be offering paid sick leave. This is new.

I *guess* that's better? Let me think about it.


Ok, so I get it that you Republicans and Democrats are fine with the fact that the government money will be $7,154 for the first year law associate whose mother's firm pays him 150K per year and will be $812 dollars for a thirty five year old single mother of three who works at McDonald's. You are not only fine with it, you insist on it.

I won't belabor the point since I know I will change no minds about that. Let me just say one more thing: Imagine what that single mother could do if somehow by a miracle, her check was switched with the young lawyer's and she legally got the $7,154 instead.

So let me ask another one:

What if, instead of the minimum wage, the workers got a living wage? Just for the fourteen days, since its all paid for by government anyway, pay them for $15.00 an hour instead of 7.50. That would be $1680 instead of 812. Not a large amount, but E. Warren is fond of telling anecdotes of single mothers who run behind the power curve by a couple of hundred dollars each month.

Somehow, those women always seem to work at low-wage jobs at banks owned the very banker she is at that moment grilling in a Senate hearing.

Those people would be able to catch up.

Maybe with that breather, they could become woke enough to realize they need to use their voting power to make that happen permanently.

Pretend it was not I, Seymour, who suggested that but Elizabeth or Bernie or Grandpa Joe. Or even our own Lyzza.

What would you think of that idea?
 
Jul 2019
12,632
9,245
Georgia
To clarify so I can't be accused of being a troll who never admits he made a misstatement. Yes, I did not realize that the government was going to reimburse employers. I made an honest mistake based on the fact that liberal Republicans and Democrats have always insisted that employers pay minimum wages and that employers should be offering paid sick leave. This is new.

I *guess* that's better? Let me think about it.


Ok, so I get it that you Republicans and Democrats are fine with the fact that the government money will be $7,154 for the first year law associate whose mother's firm pays him 150K per year and will be $812 dollars for a thirty five year old single mother of three who works at McDonald's. You are not only fine with it, you insist on it.

I won't belabor the point since I know I will change no minds about that. Let me just say one more thing: Imagine what that single mother could do if somehow by a miracle, her check was switched with the young lawyer's and she legally got the $7,154 instead.

So let me ask another one:

What if, instead of the minimum wage, the workers got a living wage? Just for the fourteen days, since its all paid for by government anyway, pay them for $15.00 an hour instead of 7.50. That would be $1680 instead of 812. Not a large amount, but E. Warren is fond of telling anecdotes of single mothers who run behind the power curve by a couple of hundred dollars each month.

Somehow, those women always seem to work at low-wage jobs at banks owned the very banker she is at that moment grilling in a Senate hearing.

Those people would be able to catch up.

Maybe with that breather, they could become woke enough to realize they need to use their voting power to make that happen permanently.

Pretend it was not I, Seymour, who suggested that but Elizabeth or Bernie or Grandpa Joe. Or even our own Lyzza.

What would you think of that idea?
I'm cool with $15/minimum year round. Have been for a while. In fact, the House passed a Bill for that, 8 months ago, that McTurtle is sitting on, and trump promised to veto on the off-chance it got through the Senate.

glad you've come over to the sensible side. now you just have to admit it to yourself, and we can start progressin'
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rescue Basket
Feb 2020
1,748
643
Houston
Jesus Christ. It's not that much money in the big scheme of things no matter who's claiming it and what they're getting.

You claim to be a public school consultant, so I imagine your pay is okay. You work for the Government, and guess what? They have to pay you guys your salary regardless if you miss work or not. Under this Bill. It's the first section in that WaPo article you shared. But you're all worried about a guy who works for a small corporation and gets his regular salary from the government while he's out of work for a few days? CTFO
So funny you should mention that.

I'm a self-employed school consultant. I offer my services to districts and they either hire me or don't. I won't be getting any of that cash. But, I was a teacher and yes, I would have been paid. My wife will be.

I had given up on getting any work the rest of the school year. Not a real problem for me, Spring is always slow anyway and I plan for it.

But . . . I was shocked that a local school district called and wants to consult. "Like yesterday," they said (with hyperbole).

They are not taking this bullcorn lying down. They want to figure out ways to teach the kids through remote learning. I love it!

My expertise is in how kids best learn, not special ed regulations. But many's the time I've pitched my services to a group of administrators and had the group seem interested. Then the senior one would pull me aside and say WTTE of "what we really need is for you to tell us how to stay out of (legal) trouble."

I understand. Special ed is a tangled mass of contradictory and confusing regulations, the violation of any one of which could get the pants sued off them. But I tell them politely that they consultant they need is called a lawyer. I know how to help disabled kids learn, that's my schtick.

So, I won't be online much tomorrow if at all.

Enjoy a break from me, but I'll be back if the mods let me.
 
Jul 2019
12,632
9,245
Georgia
So funny you should mention that.

I'm a self-employed school consultant. I offer my services to districts and they either hire me or don't. I won't be getting any of that cash. But, I was a teacher and yes, I would have been paid. My wife will be.

I had given up on getting any work the rest of the school year. Not a real problem for me, Spring is always slow anyway and I plan for it.

But . . . I was shocked that a local school district called and wants to consult. They are not taking this bullcorn lying down. They want to figure out ways to teach the kids through remote learning. I love it!

My expertise is in how kids best learn, not special ed regulations. But many's the time I've pitched my services to a group of administrators and had the group seem interested. Then the senior one would pull me aside and say WTTE of "what we really need is for you to tell us how to stay out of (legal) trouble."

I understand. Special ed is a tangled mass of contradictory and confusing regulations, the violation of any one of which could get the pants sued off them. But I tell them politely that they consultant they need is called a lawyer. I know how to help disabled kids learn, that's my schtick.

So, I won't be online much tomorrow if at all.

Enjoy a break from me, but I'll be back if the mods let me.
My son's first day of home-schooling (at work) was today, and the teachers have done an outstanding job of making it easy if you need any pointers. They're not even doing it online (as in they don't have to get online at any point if they don't want/need to). They do their work, and we send it in.

Not Special-Ed, and a private school, not public, but probably similar concept.
 
Feb 2018
3,210
2,441
Oregon
I was thinking of posting in this thread. Then I began to see that it is ridiculous.