So, I got in an argument with my supposedly conservative mother about the morality of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. This act, from what I understood, makes it illegal for an employer to fire an employee who takes extended leave to help a family member who is sick. Long story short, I am apparently a heartless libertarian who can't understand basic human decency. I tried to explain to her that this is a form of regulation used to cover problems created by other regulations. That taking time off from working wouldn't be as problematic if one has planned ahead for such an event. Also, that it is immoral to spread the problems of one person to another using the force of government.
She walked away before I could bring up the third man; the employee who would replace the empty position. Does he not deserve the job? What if he can't afford medical care for a loved one because he can't take the job?
I'd like to hear the position of other people on this issue. Does anyone know of any articles that go deeper into this specific topic?
"In a modern democracy, no matter whom you vote for, the government always gets elected" -Christopher Westley
Another consequence is that is part of a large package that subsidizes "family" building. There is nothing wrong with families, on the contrary it's important for individuals to build their interpersonal support system but a good way to ruin a good thing is too subsidize it. Latley a thought that has going around in my head is the correlation of family and child tax benefits, legal benefits, and services and how it's correlated with overtime with increase divorce rates and unwanted children.
In the case if you subsidize something you get more of it, but usally less quality of it like we've seen in education and healthcare. So if you subsidize marriage through tax benefits and other benefits it'd be consitent that it'd lead to more marriages, but less quality ones. Also if you provide benefits for having children it lead to more parenting, but less quality parenting.
I still have to take a look at the data if it matches up in any significant way, but something tells me there is truth to this thought process.
(also couldn't a child be considered a long term investment project that people may enter during artificially low interest rates thinking there'd be enough capital to complete the project? Just Saying, why can't the ABCT apply to family planning as well.)
Nathan Hayes:Long story short, I am apparently a heartless libertarian who can't understand basic human decency. I'd like to hear the position of other people on this issue.
I'd like to hear the position of other people on this issue.
The conditions of the firm may be such that such extended leave can actually compromise the financial soundness of the firm. Especially for smaller companies. Such regulations put other workers at risk also. What about them? Don't they have families?
It makes firms more reluctant to hire people that they think are likely to take such leaves. For example, women for the obvious reason. It puts women at a competitive disadvantage. Then they wonder why they get paid less.
The reality is that the consumer is not willing to bear the costs of the employee's extended leave. The employer's task is to serve the consumers and not the employees. To expect it otherwise would be to reverse rolls - consumers serve producers. In fact, that's the result of all such protectionist regulations.
Even if the employer is perhaps able to afford to come to his worker's aid, then to act in "decency" or not, should still be the employer's choice given that it is with his own property that he pays the worker his wage. Would your mother support the common thief if his intention was to hand out his loot to the needy?