From 1972 to my retirement I worked for myself, even when technically I was was a corporate employee (of a corporation I owned). In that time I took one (1) one-week vacation. Not to say I didn't travel - I just always worked from my hotel/car/wherever I was, phoning in to the office from pay phones or hotel rooms, carrying files, calling on customers. My kids would sit in the car while I went in to see a customer, I would check with the office before enter Six Flags over Georgia, etc. Hardly a real vacation. Whe i went to Rice's first CWS in 1997, I was handling a customer complaint from the plaza in front of Rosenblatt just before game time. When we won the NC in 2003, I spent the 6th inning under the stands on the phone to a lawyer handling an emergency. I got so tired of paycheck-cashers telling me that i was the boss - I could take off all the time I wanted. Sure, as long as i didn't expect anyone to send me money. I could take two hours anytime, two days with a little planning, two weeks never.

Good thing I'm retired now - i might resent this guy telling me I have to work even harder to cover my employee's absences as well as pay for them.

If he wants to do this, fine, but make some provision for the self-employed. They get the short end of the stick any time the government sticks its nose into the workplace.

Amen OO! Preach it brother!

You had over 50 employees?

"The bill would require companies with more than 100 employees to offer a week of paid vacation for both full-time and part-time employees after they’ve put in a year on the job. Three years after the effective date of the law, those same companies would be required to provide two weeks of paid vacation, and companies with 50 or more employees would have to provide one week. "

(05-22-2009 04:06 PM)JOwl Wrote:  You had over 50 employees?

"The bill would require companies with more than 100 employees to offer a week of paid vacation for both full-time and part-time employees after they’ve put in a year on the job. Three years after the effective date of the law, those same companies would be required to provide two weeks of paid vacation, and companies with 50 or more employees would have to provide one week. "

You think it would stop there?

Edit: I decided this deserved a fuller answer. In the early days, when I was just starting out, there were fewer employees. Most of the stories about Six Flags, etc, date from that time when my children were young. As time went by, I added other businesses and opened branches. I put them in separate corporations, so each entity had from 2 to 17 employees. I don't know if the aggregate ever came to 50 or not, but it doesn't matter, for two reasons:

1. If this passes, the number won't stay at 50. Over time the number will drop to 40. to 30, to 20, maybe even to eventually 1, in all probability. Fifty is just a good starting point; once it is in, it will be easy to make the case to expand the coverage of this law.

2. Every employee of every business under my umbrella got vacation time or pay - their option. Except one. Me. I didn't need any law to get me to do that. My employees got all the time they needed to go to the doctor, attend funerals, travel to graduations, etc., without Big Brother making me. Didn't keep track of every minute, like some places do. My employees were my friends, and one doesn't treat one's friends like crap. I treated them right, they treated me right.

I know a roofer - he has over 50 employees. he won't be making any two week trips soon. There are lots of businesses headed by people who are self-employed that have over 50 employees.

Still, what's your point?

(05-22-2009 10:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Agree WMD.... While i think vacations are a good idea... and i try and take lots of 3 day weekends etc... working 52 weeks a year is generally a choice, not a mandate.

If I pay my (legal and reported) housekeeper $10/hr for 52 weeks and she wants a vacation... I have to do without, or hire somebody else for that time and pay ANOTHER $10/hr or more to a contract laborer. Would she work for $9/hr with 2 weeks paid vacation? I've offered... and all of them have taken the $10/hr.

and the folks who don't work for someone as nice as you and end up not getting to go or getting fired if they insist? the world, as you know, isn't filled with nice rational people. we get all sorts.

(05-22-2009 04:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Still, what's your point?

Just confirming that you read you what you think you read.

"Good thing I'm retired now - i might resent this guy telling me I have to work even harder to cover my employee's absences as well as pay for them."

Unless you had 50+ employees, it appears you've misread the proposal or you're getting potentially resentful over something you think this guy might propose in the future.

(05-22-2009 07:50 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(05-22-2009 04:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Still, what's your point?

Just confirming that you read you what you think you read.

"Good thing I'm retired now - i might resent this guy telling me I have to work even harder to cover my employee's absences as well as pay for them."

Unless you had 50+ employees, it appears you've misread the proposal or you're getting potentially resentful over something you think this guy might propose in the future.

Well,I'm not resentful at all, and even if this legislation was passed 20 years ago, it wouldn't have bothered me. Pretty much like passing a law that I had to give my employees a lunch break. BFD, already doing it. I'm sure we can find a study somewhere that says some percentage of workers work through lunch. Come to think of it, I had one like that but she did it so she could go home an hour earlier. But yes, we defifinitely need a law to force her to take that hour. The 50 is irrelevant, since if it passes, it will quickly move to lower numbers, unless you have some crystal ball that says it will remain at 50 forever. History implies that it will not stay at 50. Famously, there was debate over the original income tax, warning that some day, this 2% tax might rise as high as 5%. But at 50, at 20, whatever, I am sure that the affected businesses will adjust. Some borderline businesses may close, but by and large they will do what they have to do to survive, and probably pass the added cost, if any, on to the consumers(no free lunch, remember?). That's what has happened with every government requirement since the beginning of governments. Adjust or die. I think this will be a very easy adjustment for most businesses. The only ones that might be affected, IMO, would be those with lots of minimum wage or undocumented workers. I doubt a week of vacation would mean very much to either group and I doubt many of them would use their week to go to Disney World. But if it makes a legislator feel good, let's do it.

wow, i didn't know that minimum wage workers and undocumented workers didn't have families they like to vist (US or in a homeland), or take a picnic down to the beach, or handle errands they hadn't been able to take care of, or just spend a couple of days with their kids, etc... :) i would think we could allow that the time might mean something to them. whether or not they can afford to, or will, go to Disney World seems like a different question.

I simply don't understand what you're saying.

(05-22-2009 12:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Good thing I'm retired now - i might resent this guy telling me I have to work even harder to cover my employee's absences as well as pay for them.

(05-22-2009 11:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well,I'm not resentful at all, and even if this legislation was passed 20 years ago, it wouldn't have bothered me.

(05-23-2009 07:15 AM)kinderowl Wrote:  wow, i didn't know that minimum wage workers and undocumented workers didn't have families they like to vist (US or in a homeland), or take a picnic down to the beach, or handle errands they hadn't been able to take care of, or just spend a couple of days with their kids, etc... :) i would think we could allow that the time might mean something to them. whether or not they can afford to, or will, go to Disney World seems like a different question.

I think minimum wage is $7.25, so a vacation week check would be $290 before taxes - say $240 net. if you think that is going to get a family to Disney World, much less in, I can only say go for it. Ditto a trip to the homeland - cost questions aside, for the undocumented there is the problem of getting back. I doubt it even finances a trip to the lake, as that is living expense money, not mad money. The difference is in time, not income, so projecting additional expenditures on the basis of additional available time makes no sense. Maybe some teenagers would sit around visiting with family (no teenagers I know, but hey, it's possible), but most low-oncome workers i am familiar with will use the time off to pick up another check doing some sort of temp work. That's what a lot of people do now with their vacation time anyway.

OK, what's the point of all this? I don't mind if people get vacation time or money, even if they misuse it. I figure most of the employers will adjust, so what's the problem? I merely said that some provision needs to be made for self-employed people, which does often include business owners. They will be bearing the burden of both money paid and time off with no compensation to themselves. I'm guessing they will pass the costs on in the form of higher prices, less service, whatever way they can. I think the law of Unintended Consequences is in play here, as it is in most tax and regulation issues.

(05-23-2009 08:57 AM)JOwl Wrote:  I simply don't understand what you're saying.

(05-22-2009 12:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Good thing I'm retired now - i might resent this guy telling me I have to work even harder to cover my employee's absences as well as pay for them.

(05-22-2009 11:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well,I'm not resentful at all, and even if this legislation was passed 20 years ago, it wouldn't have bothered me.

True, so true.

(05-23-2009 03:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think minimum wage is $7.25, so a vacation week check would be $290 before taxes - say $240 net. if you think that is going to get a family to Disney World, much less in, I can only say go for it. Ditto a trip to the homeland - cost questions aside, for the undocumented there is the problem of getting back. I doubt it even finances a trip to the lake, as that is living expense money, not mad money.

straw man responding to what i did not say or defend. and, you're mistaken if you think that undocumented folks don't risk going back and forth occasionally to see family, or that low income folks aren't willing to find a way to go home once in a blue moon.

i'll give you a for instance, quite a few builders around houston don't bother to work the second half of december because their crews go home for the holidays. those crews are not high income earners, and some may be documented or undocumented workers, but it doesn't stop them from going home.

(05-23-2009 03:26 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  

(05-23-2009 03:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think minimum wage is $7.25, so a vacation week check would be $290 before taxes - say $240 net. if you think that is going to get a family to Disney World, much less in, I can only say go for it. Ditto a trip to the homeland - cost questions aside, for the undocumented there is the problem of getting back. I doubt it even finances a trip to the lake, as that is living expense money, not mad money.

straw man responding to what i did not say or defend. and, you're mistaken if you think that undocumented folks don't risk going back and forth occasionally to see family, or that low income folks aren't willing to find a way to go home once in a blue moon.

i'll give you a for instance, quite a few builders around houston don't bother to work the second half of december because their crews go home for the holidays. those crews are not high income earners, and some may be documented or undocumented workers, but it doesn't stop them from going home.

OK, guess I misunderstood someything, but in return please note that at no time have I contended that no one ever goes home or that nobody ever goes even to Disney World. I am in the realm of "often" or "usually", not "always" and "never". I know that MANY construction companies don't work in the second half of December, and I know that PART of the reason is that SOME of their crews will take off, whether to go home to Alabama or Chihuahua or for other reasons, I don't know. (I doubt that ALL of them are just not showing up so they can go home for the holidays, heck for many of them, Houston is home.) When you put that together with the fact that there is going to be a lot of downtime for Christmas, New Years, and possible bad winter weather, and trying to get things done with an unknown portion of your crew missing, it just make sense to get the vacation requirement out of the way all at once and give all of them the time off, whether they want it or not. I even think it is probable that some people who would have preferred to work, once given the mandatory time off, will decide to go home and others will decide to find temporary work. Does this not make sense?

This is a common response in Mexico as well, giving everybody two weeks at Christmas and half the week before Easter, closing the manufacturing plants. The businesses i worked with there always closed from about Dec. 20 to about Jan 3, depending on how sundays fell, and always closed the Thursday, friday and saturday before Easter, and expected a lot of absenteeism the next couple of days. Maybe some of them come to Houston to visit family, I really don't know. I can't say it never happens. I know some of the workers had family in New Mexico and Texas, for sure.

If I am a worker taking home about $300/wk for 50 hours work, and then am told to stay away a week, and I will get a $240 check for 40 hours of vacation pay, well, some workers will be happy, some will go see Aunt Greta, and some will be upset that it is costing them $60. Some will sit home all week (not neccesarily a bad thing), some will do some home or car repairs, some will...anything and everything. Some will go home to _____ and never return, some will find a new job. Some good things will happen and some bad. I doubt these are the results envisioned by the author of the bill.

So, where exactly are we differing? I've already said to pass the law.

perhaps i misunderstood your earlier post. i thought you argued, in part, earlier that those groups weren't likely to value the time off. that was what i was probing at and what i was trying to refine. i didn't weigh in on passing the law at all. just adding a thought here or there to the discussion.

Well, you're sorta right, sorta wrong. I think a lot of people who are affected by this will like it, and some will dislike it. I think some of the ones who like it will use it in ways the billwriter envisions and some will use in ways he not only hasn't thought of, but may not like.

After all that, JMHO.

(05-23-2009 03:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-23-2009 08:57 AM)JOwl Wrote:  I simply don't understand what you're saying.

(05-22-2009 12:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Good thing I'm retired now - i might resent this guy telling me I have to work even harder to cover my employee's absences as well as pay for them.

(05-22-2009 11:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well,I'm not resentful at all, and even if this legislation was passed 20 years ago, it wouldn't have bothered me.

True, so true.

Care to enlighten me?

(05-24-2009 07:29 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(05-23-2009 03:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-23-2009 08:57 AM)JOwl Wrote:  I simply don't understand what you're saying.

(05-22-2009 12:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Good thing I'm retired now - i might resent this guy telling me I have to work even harder to cover my employee's absences as well as pay for them.

(05-22-2009 11:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well,I'm not resentful at all, and even if this legislation was passed 20 years ago, it wouldn't have bothered me.

True, so true.

Care to enlighten me?

Sure. Twenty years ago, I might have resented being told I HAD to do something i was already doing voluntarily anyway, but it would not be a bother since I was already doing it. Today, I am not resentful or bothered either one since I am not affected.

Enlightened? If not, you will just have have to stay endarkened.

Funny how you will let 57 states pass, but you leap on a subtle difference in semantics like a rat terrier. Is it just me, or are you this way with a lot of people? I feel as if this would not be a problem with you if it wasn't me. Is this personal? Have I hurt your feelings somehow? If so, i apologize.

(05-22-2009 10:27 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(05-22-2009 10:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Agree WMD.... While i think vacations are a good idea... and i try and take lots of 3 day weekends etc... working 52 weeks a year is generally a choice, not a mandate.

If I pay my (legal and reported) housekeeper $10/hr for 52 weeks and she wants a vacation... I have to do without, or hire somebody else for that time and pay ANOTHER $10/hr or more to a contract laborer. Would she work for $9/hr with 2 weeks paid vacation? I've offered... and all of them have taken the $10/hr.

I think it's unfair to use this as an example. .

Why is it unfair? It is certainly a straw-man argument and a took a flyer on the pay difference (It's really only about 40 cents/hr)... but it doesn't seem to me to be much different from your father selling back his vacation or the self-employed or commissioned who lose money when they take it. You may not have liked it, and I understand, but your father had a choice. Why as an employer would I not be able/willing/encouraged to offer you a better salary with no paid vacation or a worse one with 2 weeks. The numbers work out to be the same.

did I miss something?

(05-25-2009 11:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-22-2009 10:27 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(05-22-2009 10:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Agree WMD.... While i think vacations are a good idea... and i try and take lots of 3 day weekends etc... working 52 weeks a year is generally a choice, not a mandate.

If I pay my (legal and reported) housekeeper $10/hr for 52 weeks and she wants a vacation... I have to do without, or hire somebody else for that time and pay ANOTHER $10/hr or more to a contract laborer. Would she work for $9/hr with 2 weeks paid vacation? I've offered... and all of them have taken the $10/hr.

I think it's unfair to use this as an example. .

Why is it unfair? It is certainly a straw-man argument and a took a flyer on the pay difference (It's really only about 40 cents/hr)... but it doesn't seem to me to be much different from your father selling back his vacation or the self-employed or commissioned who lose money when they take it. You may not have liked it, and I understand, but your father had a choice. Why as an employer would I not be able/willing/encouraged to offer you a better salary with no paid vacation or a worse one with 2 weeks. The numbers work out to be the same.

did I miss something?

I didn't catch that the amounts worked out the same. I thought you were implying a financial incentive to work year-round (thus being analagous to my situation with my dad).

I think it's clear that people do need time off, and using the example of a housekeeper, who is likely a low-skilled, low-income type person as an example of people choosing to work year-round is bad because those people may feel they have no choice. You're ignoring the fact that there are definite benefits to society, and to people's lives, of NOT working year-round. I think this case is much easier to make for someone not living paycheck-to-paycheck.

I'm not 100% for this legislation, by the way. I often enter a discussion and take a devil's advocate position, especially (no offense) around here where there is such an echo-chamber effect with about 90% of you guys being on the conservative side of things (admittedly center-to-right, with some variations, but still largely conservative). It's not fun to debate that way.

I would rather see some way to prevent employers from requiring a year-round work schedule. Unfortunately, if you simply say that "you can't fire employee X for taking their allowed vacation", you'll still have the problem of it being something rewarded with e.g., promotions, etc. on a "voluntary" basis, so I'm not really sure what is appropriate.

A big problem here is that we don't have any factual data about what amount of vacation time is good for a person, their family, and society. I suspect an amount greater than zero, but I can't prove it.

Aside from the arguments about unfairness to the self-imployed (I have no insight there), what exactly do you guys think will be the negative consequences of such a law? Besides "I don't get to do exactly what I want to do?" (which I'm not saying is invalid, just the only thing I've heard).

(05-27-2009 08:05 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  Aside from the arguments about unfairness to the self-imployed (I have no insight there), what exactly do you guys think will be the negative consequences of such a law? Besides "I don't get to do exactly what I want to do?" (which I'm not saying is invalid, just the only thing I've heard).

Most employment laws i know of have thresholds for applicability, in this case 50 or 100 employess. Some employers will choose to stay below the threshold, costing a few people jobs. For example, 48 people without vacations can probably produce the same amount of X as 52 people with vacations, but at a lower cost and less paperwork. The article in post #1 says that part-time employees count toward the threshold of 100 (later to be 50). So any business that found this requirement to be onerous would probably let part-timers go or consolidate two part-time positions into one full time. I know of a company that stopped using part-timers for similar reasons - a friend was given the option to go full-time or go away. He went away, as there was no way he could give up his other job. Some people don't want full time - that is why they are part-time to begin with. Maybe they have another job, or they have small children at home, orthey are elderly, or ... anyother reason that makes sense for them. Some of those may be forced to either go full or go away. Another possibile negative is that for a company that barely hanging on, the additional cost may push them over the line into closure. That some people may lose their jobs or their second, parttime job, or that some some business may close, are unintended consequences, but to some degree they will be real. I would think that there would not be a lot of this, but there will be some. I think that although there will be some collateral damage, overall the law is workable and probably will result in a net good. But you asked for negatives, so there they are.

edit: possible example. A friend is a retired school teacher, getting her full pension, BUT she also works 80-100 days/year as a substitute teacher. She gets no vacation time now or other benefits, , but if she were to be classified as a part-timer, then the ISD would have to come up with the money to pay her and hundreds of others subs vacation pay (and maybe other benefits too). Clearly this would come out of property taxes, forcing them higher, another unintended consequence. Maybe substitute teachers won't be classified as part-timers, but i can see a case on it making its way eventually to the Supreme Court, who might be swayed by empathy with the the retired teachers. IOW, it is not out of the question.

NOTE: I am NOT opposing the law, just pointing out some negatives as requested.