This could be an interesting discussion...
How good do you think the government and the government's laws are treating/protecting the labor force of the U.S. compared to other industrialized countries around the world...?
I think that the U.S. has a long way to go before they can even get close to treating their workers on the same level as some other industrialized countries are already doing... In Sweden, a woman who has just given birth to a child can take 480 days off (partially paid, around 80% I believe) during the child's first 8 years of life... That is pretty amazing right there...
Do you guys think that the U.S. should improve laws to better their relations with the labor force?
I think so, I think so many people are mistreated here at work that they become miserable people, thus leading to a miserable society and lower standards of living overall...
480 days off sounds like overkill to me. Woman who have babys get plenty of time off in the US after giving birth. I see no problem with how our workforce is. We get Paid vacation, Sick days, benifits. I mean i know people would like more but do we need it?
That's what one of my questions is. I am not saying either system is better than the other, however, those countries do enjoy better living standards overall.
Is the labor force getting screwed in the U.S.? Workers have no input into the firm's activities whatsoever, workers are getting fired and laid off when the firm feels like it, and the U.S. system of retraining and relocating these workers is slim to none when compared to Sweden's system....
Canada is interesting. When a "married" woman gives birth, both she and the other primary caregiver (ie father or partner (male or female)) can take up to 6 months off with pay. If the position they were in is a temporary one or they're contracting, it gets a little murky, but if they're permanent employees, they can't be fired. A couple of people where I work that are married and having kids basically work it so the mother has the first 6 months off (usually taking about a month to get ready for the baby), and the father takes the next 6 months off, or, the mother can take a full year off. Whomever is taking the leave, they get 55% of their regular pay (it's handled the same as an unemployment claim), and they have to get their employer to look after some forms for their end, and they have to give something like 6 months notice for maternity or parental leave after a doctor confirms pregnancy.
Sweden is a little different than Canada or the US, in the fact that they have few factory jobs, a lower birth rate, and the populace is fairly well educated ( I think over 45% have the equivalent of post-secondary education). I'm not entirely certain of the US's labor laws, but I do seem to remember the mother is allowed to take 6 months leave without pay, but the father is SOL.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Roscoe wrote:480 days off sounds like overkill to me. Woman who have babys get plenty of time off in the US after giving birth. I see no problem with how our workforce is. We get Paid vacation, Sick days, benifits. I mean i know people would like more but do we need it?
480 days is overkill, that's 2 months a year for 8 years. You are assuming that all workers get the same treatment you do. Not all workers get vacation, paid or not, nor do they all get sick days or benefits. The problem IMO, is that to compete in a global economy we can't afford to give workers all of these benefits. Even with the system we have now we are not really competing.
A good example is
AUTO MAKERS. It costs the big 3 $2,600 more in labor per vehicle. We are going down and no one gives a @!#$. If we buy always buy the cheapest products we will pay far more in the future.
BigJ: The US has a better economy than 99.98% of the world, what are you talking about competitive for??
Employers HAVE to give you time off sick if it's certified by a doctor. That's in the law as I remember. You can't be fired if you have an illness. They don't even PAY you for the time you're off ill in most cases of prolonged illness, the Gov't does in the form of workers Comp if its because of an injury or workplace borne disease.
The big 3 in the USA have to deal with unions, but you're paying more in the form of importation taxes for Japanese/European vehicles. Potayto/potahtoe. $2600 per vehicle to see that someone has a decent job, wages, and medical coverage, or $2600 to pay out to the Gov't so you can buy a car? Take your pick.
I personally don't believe in buying new cars (no matter the manufacturer) because money is money... I'll buy a used car before I buy new again.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I know you can take sick days, but a lot of companies keep track of this and hold it against you. I have taken off because I was sick and when I come back I have to listen to a bunch of bull@!#$. Also, if you are sick "too often" they can set you up to be fired.(I've seen it happen.)
As far as the importation taxes making up for the difference in labor cost, I think not. Nissan still makes $2,069 per vehicle while gm makes only $208. We will never be successful if to sell a (some say sub-standard) vehicle at the same price as foreign auto makers we half to make 1/10th of the profit. Somewhere there is a huge imbalance in manufacturing costs that more than makes up for importation taxes, because even after that they make 10 times more. manufacturing jobs are important and we are losing them at an alarming rate.
