Commentary 19- Shure on Family Leave Act

From the New Jersey Star Ledger

Don't be afraid of family leave insurance
Posted by Jon Shure January 29, 2008 4:44PM

One thing that came through at yesterday's Senate committee hearing on family leave insurance is that New Jersey has a lot of very decent owners of small businesses - and both those for and against the proposal to allow up to six weeks a year at up to two-thirds pay to take care of a sick family member. If we take those who testified at their word (and there's no reason not to), they treat their workers like family and when someone has a problem everyone pitches in to help.

So, what separates small business owners on FLI is that the opponents express tremendous fear that it will disrupt their businesses, even to the point of threatening their continued existence. And those who are for FLI feel that it won't cause more disruption than small business owners already have to put up with; that it will, in fact, be helpful because it will allow small businesses to offer benefits that compete with what the big ones often give; and that over the course of a year very few working people have the sort of family emergencies that would require taking leave.


Those testifying against FLI made it clear that they already do give time off to employees who need it because of a family emergency. So here's a question to those decent employees: if you already give them time off, how would family leave insurance make things any different? Running a small business isn't easy and you already have to put up with key people quitting, getting sick, dying or taking time for a family emergency. So I hope your answer isn't that you only object to FLI because employees would get some pay, and that you only want them to take time off if they can't get paid. I hope the answer isn't that you think your employees are so eager to cheat you that they will abuse family leave.

If the pay thing bothers you, keep in mind they will get only up to two-thirds pay and the money will come from a fund paid into ONLY by employees. You hear that the maximum benefit is $524 a week, but keep in mind that's only what they get if their regular salary is $700 a week. Someone making $500 a week would only be eligible for $333. Do you think they're going to risk criminal prosecution to rip you off for so little?

Many people who oppose FLI get their information about it from the New Jersey Business and Industry Assn., the Chamber of Commerce and other opponents who have not done a complete job in informing their members about how FLI works. For example, the person who commented on Thurman Hart's blog below cites someone taking off work for a sick grandmother. That wouldn't even be allowed under FLI. It only covers illnesses to children, spouses and parents. And before using FLI someone has to exhaust up to two weeks of vacation or sick time. This has been more carefully thought out than the opponents would have you understand.

One more point. Not all employers in New Jersey are as decent as those who took the time to come to Trenton and testify. In fact, 40% of low-wage workers in New Jersey work for someone who allows them NO paid vacation or sick time. So no matter how great your benefits are, there are people making a living (or trying to) and supporting a family who get zip. I'm willing to pay up to a buck a week into a fund that will provide those folks with some safety net. Aren't you?

You can respond all you want about "big government" interfering with workplace relationships. The truth is we need that involvement in order to protect workers from the worst employers. If you own a business and oppose FLI you ought to be angry at those bad employers who undercut you in the labor market and make government action necessary. They're your problem, not those of us for FLI. Many of us who want family leave insurance have been advocating for 10 years on this. Government didn't come to us, we came to government. And if it looks like we might just be winning it's because the difficulties of balancing work and family and the unconscionable behavior of some employers have reached a point where this all makes sense.

Is this a tax? Yes, a very small one. Will it be paid by some people who won't need the benefit? Yes, just like any tax. Bottom line: if you hate every tax and every government requirement that benefits working people, then you'll never support family leave insurance. But if you think this through and allow compassion rather than fear to guide you welcome aboard.

Original Referenced Link


My Commentary:

Posted by Zemack on 02/17/08 at 1:54PM

The debate on the Paid Family Leave Act is being framed solely on the basis of the pros and cons of the specific, concrete issue involved. Is it a good idea that a person be able to take some time off for personal, family-oriented reasons such as the birth of a child, the sickness of a relative, etc.? Is it desirable that a person is paid for some of the time off (up to six weeks, in this case) so he doesn't have to worry about paying the bills during this period? Of course paid family leave is a good idea. Who would have any reason to think otherwise?

But, alas, family leave is not the issue here. The issue is its implementation. The issue is one that must be ignored for the PFL act to pass into law. The issue is brushed aside by Mr. Shure without even a cursory mention in his article. The issue is individual rights. He writes:

"Those testifying against FLI made it clear that they already do give time off to employees who need it because of a family emergency.So here's a question to those decent employees: if you already give them time off, how would family leave insurance make things any different?"

Ignored here is the crucial distinction between private, voluntary actions, and coercive government actions...i.e., between an employer extending this benefit by choice or by compulsion. Ignored here is the principle of individual rights. An employer is not the servant of its employees. It has the right to offer the terms and conditions it deems in its own rational self-interest to attract and keep the kinds of employees it needs to fill the job positions it offers. Every individual, in turn, has the right to accept or reject any job according to his own rational self-interest, or to create his own job by starting a business and perhaps becoming an employer himself. What no one has the right to do, in a free society, is to impose his ideas on either the employer or the employee by force...i.e., by governmental coercion.

Mr. Shure obviously sees it differently:

"Many of us who want family leave insurance have been advocating for 10 years on this. Government didn't come to us, we came to government."

In other words, Mr. Shure and his FLI allies didn't get their way, so they're going to force it on those who disagree. Because of "bad employers" (i.e., those who won't do as Mr. Shure demands), "government action [is] necessary" (i.e., we will disregard your rights, and compel obedience).

Private advocacy, arousing public pressure for change, organizing boycotts and other forms of private, rational persuasion are the only legitimate means for free people to deal with one another. FLI advocates are free to create their own private insurance plan, either through their own company or in partnership with private insurers. Employers and employees are free to purchase it voluntarily. Individuals are free to set up their own FLI fund by setting aside money into an emergency fund (Which is standard financial advice, really. As a matter of fact, having no paid vacation or sick time in my job, my wife and I long ago became "self-insured" by setting aside several month's worth supply of ready cash). But to use governmental force to impose it on people who may disagree is immoral and directly contrary to the fundamental founding principles of our nation, which are the inalienable, natural rights articulated in the Declaration of Independence, and which are possessed equally by all people.

Mr. Shure concludes with:

"But if you think this through and allow compassion rather than fear to guide you welcome aboard."

The advocates of state control over the lives of its citizens always resort to appeals to emotion. That is because principled opposition based on the defense of individual rights stops the socialist advance dead in its tracts. Nevertheless, fear is warranted here for anyone who values his freedom. The methods of Mr. Shure and his PFL allies is a symptom of a disease that has consumed America and that has set us on a course toward democratic tyranny. That disease is the acceptance of the idea that force is a legitimate means for people to deal with one another, so long as it is governmental force. It is the "there oughta be a law" mentality, practiced by both the Left and the Right, that is trampling the rights of the individual to his liberty and property.

Family Leave Insurance is not, as I've said, the issue. The issue is the right to be free from the coercive rule of men over men. The issue is the right to disagree. The issue is the proper role of government, which is designed, under our system, to protect the individual's right to be free from his neighbor's (or the democratic majority's) coercive interference. Those who would trample the rights of his fellow citizens in order to advance his pet "cause" cannot claim compassion, "family" values, and certainly not American values as a motive.

The Family Leave Insurance act is just the latest in a long line of "compassionate" government programs designed to shift control of people's lives to the state. State-imposed FLI must be defeated because it is a violation of individual rights.


Mr. Shure Responds:

Posted by jshure on 02/18/08 at 3:44PM
I'm not sure I'm allowed to reply because you are just Ordinary People and aren't supposed to be accountable but let me try. Pardon the "attitude;" I forget that you're supposed to have it but but I'm not.

wmo8803: you are simply flat out WRONG. People who are better at this than you or me have done the math and the fund will be big enough to meet the demand. We know what the participation is in California. And the fund won't pay out until it has built up reserves for 6 months. Opponents are raising this issue to scare off supporters, but they are wrong.

zemack: No, actually the pros and cons of the specific issue ARE the criteria by which to judge it.

Your attempt to frame the issue is grossly unjust. Your logic could have been used (and in fact was) to oppose things like th 8 hour day, child labor laws, unemployment insurance, pollution controls and on and on. Unable to stoke up opposition based on the merits of such reforms, those trying to kill them talked up the imposition on employers along the lines of what you cite.

It is part of the democratic process for people who want reforms to try to get the government to enact them. That IS the democratic process ,for crying out loud. For you to say we're going to the government because we haven't been able to win FLI any other way displays you have a very firm grasp of the obvious.

But going to the government is what people do in a democracy. You can throw out words like "socialism" all you want but you are behind the curve of history.

As for your observation that "An employer is not the servant of its employees," yes and neither is an EMPLOYEE the servant of his or her EMPLOYER. What's needed is a balance and that's what family leave is all about.


My Commentary:

Posted by Zemack on 02/21/08 at 7:35PM
jshure:

Re: points raised on your post of 02/18/08

"Your attempt to frame the issue is grossly unjust."

Framing the issue according to the principle of individual rights is "grossly unjust"? What is the core founding principle of America if not the inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of one's own welfare and happiness? If "the pros and cons of the specific issue ARE the criteria by which to judge it", and we are to ignore broader abstract political-philosophical principles, then how are we to judge the longer term consequences of such legislation? Without addressing such fundamental questions as the proper role of government, the rights of the individual, the crucial difference between government and private action, etc., how are we ever to discover that this "insurance" scheme represents yet another piece of control (i.e., of our freedom) shifted from the individual to the state?

To not frame the issue in this manner would be grossly unjust, in my view, given the crucial importance of our freedom. And yes, this "logic" could (and should) be applied to all issues involving government action, including "things like th 8 hour day, child labor laws, unemployment insurance, pollution controls and on and on", (though not necessarily in opposition). The principle of individual rights (the right to be free from the initiation of physical force) is THE underlying principle, and "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." This includes not only protection from government, but from other men as well. So the government does have a crucial role in a society where one person's actions can physically harm another or another's property. Being the domain of legalized force, though, the validity of any governmental action must begin with reference to the broad principles noted above, in my view.

You may be wondering why I have chosen FLI to make such a strong stand. It is because of the powerful role that precedent plays in human affairs. Just in this thread, the federal Family Medical Leave Act and unemployment insurance have been mentioned in support of FLI, and FLI will serve as a precedent for some further state intrusion into private lives and decision-making. Taken in isolation, as you would like to do, FLI (or any single "social welfare" program) doesn't seem like such a big deal. But with each step, a little bit of our freedom is lost. Stepping back, and seeing the broad picture...the "forest"... you can see that the growth of welfare-statism and the consequent erosion of individual rights has been built bit by bit, program by program, precedent by precedent. With few exceptions, most never saw this monstrosity coming. That's because to ignore political philosophy...to declare that "the pros and cons of the specific issue ARE the criteria by which to judge it"...is to shrink one's field of intellectual vision down to the size of a keyhole. Without principles, we are blind.

"It is part of the democratic process for people who want reforms to try to get the government to enact them. That IS the democratic process ,for crying out loud. For you to say we're going to the government because we haven't been able to win FLI any other way displays you have a very firm grasp of the obvious.
But going to the government is what people do in a democracy."

This is true, Mr. Shure...dangerously true. You are here "framing the issue"...according to the principle of "democracy". This, I submit, is "grossly unjust". That is because democracy is fundamentally incompatible with individual rights. As proof, I need only point out that under the FLI act, my right to act according to my own judgement as to whether family leave insurance is in my rational best interest is abrogated. The erosion of our freedom is an inevitable consequence of the rise of democracy in America.

Ayn Rand observed that "Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law." This gets to the heart of the matter. By losing sight of the principle of individual rights (which means the right to disagree, to think and act on one's own judgement, to set and pursue one's own goals, to earn and dispose of one's own property without coercive interference by one's fellow citizens or by government), the door has been thrown wide open to people "going to the government" (i.e., to the rule of majoritarian force). The rise of special interest, pressure group warfare; the flood of money going into politics; the all-encompassing importance of elections and the never-ending campaign; the "polarization" of America; the power of political pull (i.e., lobbyists); these are all consequences of the enormous power the state has accrued to itself under "democracy" that you embrace. The Founders were very fearful of democracy. John Adams said; "It is ... as necessary to defend an individual against the majority in a democracy as against the king in a monarchy."

Democracy is only just and valid when the rights of the minority are protected from the power of the majority. And the smallest minority, the only one that really counts, is the individual. What is "grossly unjust" is to violate another's rights under the banner of "democracy." Democracy, unconstrained by the principle of individual rights enshrined in constitutional law, is just another form of tyranny. Clearly, "going to the government" to impose (to force) FLI on one's fellow citizens is "grossly unjust". It is either/or...democracy or individual rights. I choose the latter. Therefore, I reject the "democratic process" as a justification for enactment of the FLI act.

"...you are behind the curve of history."

Throughout history, the belief that the individual is the property of the state (or the king, the feudal lord, the military ruler, the church, the dictator, etc.) was taken for granted. The Enlightenment philosophers and the Founding Fathers bucked that historical tsunami, which resulted in the creation of the first nation founded on the principle of the subordination of the state to the individual. The political implementation of this principle was not perfect. This, however, does not diminish its historical significance. I do not believe in miracles, but the American achievement was as close to one as you will ever see on earth. But that miraculous achievement is now threatened by, to use your words, "the curve of history". But there is nothing inevitable about the course of history. That is because the driving force of human affairs is philosophical ideas, and as long as we have free speech rights, there is the opportunity to advance better ideas. Perhaps the historically brief experiment in individual liberty will indeed give way to a return of the supremacy of the state...the rule of force by men over men. Perhaps I am indeed "behind the curve of history". Then again, perhaps I'm in the vanguard of the next curve.

PS:

"I'm not sure I'm allowed to reply because you are just Ordinary People and aren't supposed to be accountable but let me try. Pardon the 'attitude;' I forget that you're supposed to have it but but I'm not."

I have long had great respect for people who are willing to put their ideas out there and open themselves up to scrutiny, criticism, and even ridicule. That includes you, Mr. Shure. The easiest thing in the world to do is stay silent for fear of what someone may say about you. So I have to take exception to the above statement about not being accountable. That sure doesn't apply to me. Also, I don't have "attitude", I have ideas which I am passionate about and willing to put out for debate.