By Douglas V. Gibbs
As always, the liberal left has proven to show how stupid they really are. In the interest of being "fair" and "equitable," they have shoved their head so far up their butts that they have to open their mouths just to see where they are going.
Some people call that "unintended consequences" of liberal policies. I call it, "I told you so."
In California, the land of liberal milk and honey - of which has made this State an incredible failure and people are leaving in droves (except the illegals) - A bill is working its way through the state legislature that is supposed to protect the rights of domestic workers. Included in the provisions of that bill is babysitters.
Assembly Bill 889 is titled the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, and was introduced by hard left San Francisco Democrat Assemblyman Tom Ammiano. The bill states domestic workers, who are non-family members over the age of 18, should be entitled to get minimum wage, overtime pay, rest and meal breaks and workers compensation benefits.
Hmm, that will sure make it hard to hire a babysitter.
My son works opposite hours as his wife because a full time babysitter already costs a over $500 a week, which is more than he pulls in his paycheck. Now, they want to add the costs of vacation, break time, overtime, and workers compensation to that?
The proponents of the bill says that the bill is not about babysitters, even though they are included, but about "extending the same basic labor protections that all other California workers already have to the 200,000 domestic workers who provide care to our disabled and elderly."
I am a truck driver. I get paid by the load. I don't get breaks. I don't get lunch. I don't get overtime (and average about 70 hours per week). To take lunch alone would cost me up to $500 per week in my take home pay because of lost loads. Do I want this kind of "kind" attention. No! It would drive me right into the poor house . . . as will this bill for many industries.
These domestic workers he is trying to protect will find that the industry will dry up because it will be too expensive for employers to hire these people. As with most other liberal policies, this bill is a job killer.
State Sen. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale) said of the bill: "Why do we have to complicate something that's so simple? This is the kind of language we end up with when people rush to write a bill. If they want to tighten up the legislation and have it just for professional domestic workers -- great. But right now we're still talking about babysitters being included (in this bill)."
This is the result of entitlement thinking, and as with all entitlements laced with "good intentions," it turns out that this bill should it become law, will destroy jobs, and would serve as yet another thorn in the side of the struggling economy.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Bill Number AB 889
Domestic Worker Bill Sparks Outrage From Parents - News10
6 comments:
Doug, I really don't understand this bill. I read through it and all it seems to be doing is making a really difficult time to get some help, all that talk about itemizing how long they worked, how much they are being paid, who they are, their SSN... I mean I really don't get the point of all that. The beginning talked a little bit about trying to prevent abuses of workers but making workers get a receipt for their work and force them to take industry specified breaks and overtime... idk it just all seems such an asinine attempt to do a whole lot of nothing. What is this bill even trying to do exactly?
Either you did not read the actual bill or you are an out and out liar. The bill clearly and specifically excludes baby sitters, personal attendants and family members from the proposed rules.
State Sen. Doug LaMalfa is also lying about the bill. Try reading it first. Stop lying to people.
Hey, Ken, I see Karl Marx let your miserable butt out of your cage. Now, let's see who the liar is. If you read the bill, you will find it exempts under-18 babysitters, and unlicensed babysitters. Now, when I mentioned "full time babysitter $500 per week" I am obviously talking about a licensed childcare provider. You see, you are such an ideologue that you were looking for any reason to attack me, and then set your brain aside and went into idiot mode. How about "you" try reading the bill before you open your pie hole.
Mr. Larson,
What they are trying to do is what the liberal leftist statists always try to do. They want government to regulate everything, and for everything to be fit into a nice little cube where everyone is treated exactly the same - they call it fairness and equity. I call it cookie cutter communism.
What this will do is destroy many of the industries it targets because these industries cannot absorb such costs due to such draconian regulations. One of the industries it targets, for example, is home care facilities for the elderly. With the added regulations, the cost of doing business will skyrocket, which will cause the companies to be forced to raise prices and reduce pay - a perfect recipe for destroying the industry. It will become an industry for the rich because nobody else would be able to afford the care. That's what leftists actually do with their idiot programs. . . they widen the gap between the classes, because as good communists, they desire two classes: The haves (political elite and those with political connections) and the have nots (every one else).
If "full time babysitter $500 per week" to you obviously means a licensed childcare provider, then English is not your first language.
Let me try again. Please read slowly so you can absorb it. You may need to move your lips while reading. The law exempts all of the following:
(B) Any person who is the parent, grandparent, spouse, sibling,
child, or legally adopted child of the domestic work employer.
(C) Any person under 18 years of age who is employed as a
babysitter for a minor child of the domestic work employer.
(g) "Personal attendant" means a person who performs domestic work
related to the supervision, feeding, or dressing of a child or other
person who, by reason of advanced age, physical disability, or
mental deficiency, needs supervision. Personal attendant includes
babysitters. The status of "personal attendant" applies if no
significant amount of work other than the foregoing is required.
[And that exemption applies to workers over 18 years old]
I was not attacking you. I don't know you, thank goodness.
Ken, see, you are the kind of idiot that is screwing this country up. First of all, you are not getting it, second, you are so hung up on a small part of this that you failed to address how this law would destroy other industries. In other words, you are on the attack, rather than debating the "whole" issue. Are you saying it is a good law? Are you saying it won't drive up the costs of affected industries? You don't say, because you are too busy trying to pin me in a corner over the word "babysitter." Please, go be an idiot on a different site.
Post a Comment