Obama Wants Your Wallet!

1. 79

   wildernessposted 9 years ago

   Obama has now decided that forcing you to pay "prevailing wage" (read as "union wages") for all government contracts isn't enough - he now demands that you pay workers for not working as well.  Called "sick leave", the 7 days he now demands you pay for without receiving anything in return will be added to the paid vacation days already being used.
   
   Plus he is now campaigning for paid leave for any woman deciding to get pregnant (you can bet that paid paternity leave will soon follow, to level the playing field).  More cost you will cover for people's personal choices as to what they want in life.
   
   And we sink further into the morass of the entitlement philosophy, where we can have anything we want, all paid for by someone else.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Obama is slowly transforming America into the socialist country he intended from the very beginning.  First, it was the "great society" of the 1960s which create the vast welfare state that America has today.  Then it was Obama"care" and now this.

      replyreport
   2. 80

      colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That is so anti American.

      replyreport
   3. 92

      blueheronposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The way I'm reading this is that this regulation is for "all government contracts." With all due respect, in my view government contractors come under the heading of welfare queens, themselves. That and crony capitalists and noshers at the pork-barrel trough. They contribute to election campaigns as a form of bribery to obtain government contracts and then gorge on taxpayers' money, usually to build worthless projects at excessive costs, with lots of elastic built in for cost overruns. And you are griping about a 7-day vacation as stolen productivity? When you stole the million-dollars for the contract from the taxpayer?

      replyreport
      1. 79

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Ummm.  The point is that you and I, not the contractor, will ultimately foot the bill for paying workers that aren't working.

         replyreport
2. 92

   blueheronposted 9 years ago

   You're the one being paid for "not working." Working is where you provide goods or services in a free market--not where you enjoy the fruits of extracting money from the taxpayer at gunpoint, which you are able to do because you have that special snowflake status of being a political insider.

   replyreport
3. 60

   Katie Wirthposted 9 years ago

   Wilderness, is this something new he's done?  I checked the news, and the only thing I'm finding is something from 2014.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ … story.html
      
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/2 … 76136.html

      replyreport
4. 60

   Katie Wirthposted 9 years ago

   It seems to me that Obama is exceeding the power he should have with these executive orders.  Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought executive order was to be used for extreme situations only.  Not for mandating sick leave.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Apparently an executive order is sufficient to change contractual obligations between private parties.  It might be interesting to consider that a unionized company, wishing to bid on a national contract but that does not have a contract granting those 7 days of sick leave, cannot unilaterally add it to their union contract any more than they could take it away.

      replyreport
5. 83

   GA Andersonposted 9 years ago

   Slow down folks, slow down a bit.
   
   I don't like this action either, but... How about looking at it with a little less spin.
   
   First, it appears "Executive action" is the most apt description used by media reports.
   
   Then... He has the right and authority to mandate contract stipulations for Federal contracts, (excepting of course illegal or unconstitutional stipulations). Don't citizens have the same right to mandate legal and constitutional stipulations on any contract they offer?
   
   He has changed no laws nor created  radical new policies. He merely, (chuckle), stipulated a new contract condition.
   
   Nothing illegal, anti-American, or nefarious about it.
   
   Those are the facts, and they don't need interpreting or spinning. But the effect of this legitimate action does need to be understood.
   
   This ain't no pebble in the pond generating ripples... this is a damn boulder in a mud puddle.
   
   It is also a significant Democrat move. With more than a few serious goals.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 79

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The "contract" I referred to is the union contract with employers.  Obama cannot change that contract via an executive order. Either that or any union shop that does not already offer sick leave cannot bid as Obama CAN require that all successful bidders offer it (at least I assume he can).

      replyreport
      1. 83

         GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I miss the point of your first sentence, but one of those Democrat "serious goals" I mentioned is what you stated in your last sentence.
         
         Of course non-sick day union shops, (are there any?), will now have to go with paid sick days. Leading to all union shops going to paid sick days. Leading to other non-union employers trying to compete with unions for Fed contracts, or labor having to offer paid sick days.
         
         Which of course will eventually lead to some yahoo suing an employer for not offering paid sick days.
         
         Also, and I believe you already mentioned it... it is the taxpayers that will pay for those paid sick days because the unions will just pass the costs off in higher Federal contract costs.
         
         The Curmudgeon in me says this move is more than just Democrat pandering in an election year.
         
         I think it will take a few years for the consequences to be measurable, but by then this move will be ancient history. The en-actors will be able to duck and dodge and most of the public won't be interested enough to put two and two together.  No finger-pointing, just a shrug that it didn't work out, and an attentive ear to the next song.
         
         That is just one direction of the consequences. I'm sure other comments will soon point out more.
         
         GA

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Katie Wirthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, GA Anderson, that no laws have been broken.  Everything he has done is within his rights.  I wonder, though, if the scope of the "executive order" should be re-evaluated and tightened up?  I'll be the first to admit that I do not know many of the particulars concerning the power of the president.  It is something that I need to do more research on.
      
      I also agree with you wilderness that this seems underhanded.  From what I'm understanding, he is trying to control the benefits that companies offer by withholding work from them if they do not comply with his demands.  It seems to me that if he wants these companies to offer paid sick leave by decree of the government, he should have to pass legislation through the House and Senate.
      
      GA Anderson, you also said "this is a significant Democrat move.  With more than a few serious goals."  Would you mind sharing some of the long term implications that you see as a result of this (other than setting a questionable precedent)?

      replyreport
      1. 83

         GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Hello Katie,
         
         In my opinion, No, to your first paragraph. This was not, (at least as so far reported), an Executive Order. But, even if it were; every president uses Executive Orders, and the most likely critics will be members and supporters of the out-of-office party.
         
         Regarding an underhanded appearance... I didn't get that from the OP, and with public announcement and fanfare concerning his action, underhanded isn't the first descriptor to come to my mind. All he is doing - at the root level - is exercising a contractual power that every citizen also has.
         
         As for other consequences... you will see one currently being discussed with Wilderness. The Curmudgeon would surely mention the potential divisive effect between employer/employee created by further government mandating how they conduct their business, or maybe the real appearance, (could it be true?), that this action is an administration show of support for their Union base. After all, there have been rumblings of recent Union dissatisfaction with Pres. Obama.
         
         We will see what comes down the pike.
         
         GA

         replyreport