Gay workers to get family leave (AP)

[Ming]

again... you were the ONLY one to bring up pets and add them to the discussion of partnerships. So you must be a sheep shagger. Are you sure you aren't a Catholic Priest?

[MrFun]

In State's without gay marriage, how is this substantively different from requiring employers to offer leave for someone to take care of a roommate a situation not covered by the act?

For people who are concerned about such nonsense idiocy (DD and Benny), there is a solution to preventing those things from happening.

Nationally recognize marriages between two gay men and marriages between two lesbians. There - no more worries about polygamous partners claiming benefits, nor roomates claiming partner benefits.

As if any of that would happen.

[MrFun]

Umm, all I said is that people love their pets, and consider pets to be among their loved ones. You were the one who interpreted love to mean you want to have sex with them.

Just damn, Ming. I don't want to know what you do with them, but I'd never have taken you for a sheep shagger. Are you sure you aren't part welsh?

You make the mosst stupid remarks.


There's a difference between platonic bonding between a pet and the owner, and a romantic relationship between two people. You know which type of relationship we're talking about here. But once again, your compulsive lying and stupidity has led you to distort the argument.

[rah]

It's UNPAID TIME OFF. Wow what a reward. The only benefit is that your job is protected while you're gone. (and I've seen that aspect cheated on also)

So if someone want to take 12 weeks UNPAID off, what's the problem, I really don't care what excuse they use?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It's UNPAID TIME OFF. Wow what a reward. The only benefit is that your job is protected while you're gone. (and I've seen that aspect cheated on also)

So if someone want to take 12 weeks UNPAID off, what's the problem, I really don't care what excuse they use?

There are very real costs to the employer for UNPAID time off. Worker replacement costs (up to 12 weeks) typically exceed those costs of a qualified worker. As an example, in hourly wage ranks short term replacement is usually covered with over time (time and half) of like skilled (if available) personnel. If longer term replacement/substitution is required then there are worker inefficiencies and training costs to contend with.

Then there is also the chance that the employer will simply attempt to do without the job functions. This of course is dangerous to both the employer and the employee. IF the employer can figure how to do without and not get into trouble it makes a compelling case for downsizing.

All that being said, I take no issue with the unpaid leave requirement for asistance of SO's.

[DinoDoc]

For people who are concerned about such nonsense idiocy...

What are you talking about?

[rah]

Ogie Oglethorpe, yes I been a manager for a long time and understand the consequences when an employee is out, BUT since it's UNPAID, people aren't jumping up and down to take advantage of it. There's usually quite a compelling reason. If the employee is good, and is having that type of issues, I'm usually quite sympathetic and want to support them however I can. And the one great thing about this law is that allows you too.

If it's a marginal employee it allows me to make alternate arrangements while the person is out why they're still willing to answer questions. The law says nothing about protecting their job once they're back. Proving that I didn't need them while they were gone is the start of good documentation for a RIF.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nationally recognize marriages between two gay men and marriages between two lesbians. There - no more worries about polygamous partners claiming benefits, nor roomates claiming partner benefits.

That's like arguing the way to put out a fire is to throw gasoline on it.

[Ben Kenobi]

There's a difference between platonic bonding between a pet and the owner, and a romantic relationship between two people.

Sure, but Obama's bill doesn't make any such distinctions.

You know which type of relationship we're talking about here. But once again, your compulsive lying and stupidity has led you to distort the argument.

It's a stupid bill. I've listed about 10 reasons why. But, you don't care because you think it helps you. If you really cared about passing a good bill, you'd be writing to Obama suggesting that he closes some of these loopholes.

[Ben Kenobi]

you were the ONLY one to bring up pets and add them to the discussion of partnerships

All I ever said is that cats and dogs are among our 'loved ones', terminology that Obama uses.

You were the one who brought up this whole, 'sexual relationship with your pets'. Just damn, man. Look, it's TMI. I get that you have a thing for your pets, but keep that to yourself, ok?

[rah]

It really doesn't matter Ben. (at least at our company) If you say you need the time to take care of your sick father, we don't require you to prove it. So at least for us, nothing is going to change.

[Ben Kenobi]

Cool.

Businesses making their own decisions. Whudathink?!

[MrFun]

Sure, but Obama's bill doesn't make any such distinctions.

It's not Obama's fault that you lack common sense.

[Flubber]

Are they restricted to just one? Because if not, then the employees could chain together.

ROTFLMAO

Yup thats the threat -- people will claim a chain of partners to get the "benefit" of unpaid time off-- The horrors


My bottom line is if a benefit would be available to any male-female couple that holds themselves out as adoptive parents should be the same for same-sex couples

[Flubber]

Sadly there's nothing in the article that says you get 12 weeks for each loved one. It says "up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year to take care of loved ones or themselves". Wrong as usual.

THIS!!!!



For paid benfits every company I have worked for would have you name your "spouse" (how else can your medical and dental insurers know who to cover?)-- Benefits rings with respect to real benefits are an idiotic concept whether you are married or single, gay or straight-- Any sensible plan administrator has thought of this and usually it gets covered at the moment you fill out a form and only have the ability to add one spouse or similar to spouse.


Ben -- I see the crumbs and the chocolate again LOL