Don't talk to your employees (if you know what is good for you)

I must expand on an entry at CORE PRINCIPLES, in which Jack Hoogendyk brings up a piece of proposed legislation. Michigan’s HOUSE BILL No. 4530 introduced by Reps. Miller, Gonzales, Polidori, Leland, Switalski, Liss, Tlaib and Roberts. Under this bill the very act of an employer asking about the family becomes a civilly liable act. Further it does not allow employers to have any say as to inquiries about whether an employee was indeed sick or not. (ie: asking for a note from a doctor)

Let me be clear… Reps. Miller, Gonzales, Polidori, Leland, Switalski, Liss, Tlaib and Roberts? Please go play in traffic. I pray you have not procreated. And if you have, I hope your kids hate you, and every thing you stand for. You certainly don’t stand for any freedoms at all. You certainly do not stand for any businesses in your districts. In fact HEY BUSINESSES in Reps. Miller, Gonzales, Polidori, Leland, Switalski, Liss, Tlaib and Roberts’ districts!! Listen up!! THEY HATE YOU. And also, hey EMPLOYEES IN Reps. Miller, Gonzales, Polidori, Leland, Switalski, Liss, Tlaib and Roberts’ districts The really don’t like you very much either and want you unemployed!!

Oh I am sorry.. was that rude? Is it rude to suggest these are lead paint eating ideas of full blown communists and  fascists?  Is it rude to point out that my business is MY DAMN business, which shall be run on MY Terms?  ..I rarely swear on the blog, but this type of swill sponsored by so many who vote daily on issues of importance to Michigan, means that even marginally thoughtless ideas have even a better chance of  getting through our legislature. (head.. meet wall)

How about it you “moderate” Republicans?  You want to get in on this little LIBERAL-FASCIST plan?  Or say something to the effect “oh its not so bad..?”  Let me ask you, do you support “minimum wages?”  Most do.. even in light of the fact it reduces opportunities for workers and employers.   I think I hear a  “Oh my, that terrible blogger thinks minimum wages are a bad thing.”   How about the EFCA? you think it is so different?  “Perhaps we could work with these folks to ‘temper the language’ a bit..”  Perhaps you could sell your soul while your at it..  These folks have their wires messed up.

THIS is the era of government intrusion into the operation of YOUR business.  Reps. Miller, Gonzales, Polidori, Leland, Switalski, Liss, Tlaib and Roberts are too inept to understand how damaging it will be. Reps. Miller, Gonzales, Polidori, Leland, Switalski, Liss, Tlaib and Roberts are among those who we need to not only RID ourselves of but need to ask them to NEVER serve in public office for the good of the nation.

Let me be very clear.  (since I am sure I have not yet been already)

It is time to take a stand, and that  Republicans and even the Democrats have a stake in this battle against such idiocy by Reps. Miller, Gonzales, Polidori, Leland, Switalski, Liss, Tlaib and Roberts. Because if they want a job, or an opportunity to create one in the future, the time is NOW to speak up and/or duct tape Reps. Miller, Gonzales, Polidori, Leland, Switalski, Liss, Tlaib and Roberts to a wall somewhere so they cant cause any create any more trouble and hardship for honest hardworking Michiganders.

13 comments for “Don't talk to your employees (if you know what is good for you)

  1. sue
    March 23, 2009 at 9:43 am

    I get the gist of your argument and outrage, government intrusion in private business is troublesome. But I just read the bill and you seem to have misunderstood it.

    The employer is barred from asking questions or taking action based on the health of the employee’s relative – not the employee.

    Further, the bill specifically states that employers are not prevented from asking for verification to prove the employee was eligible to use sick leave or family and medical leave, or to process a health coverage claim. (Asking for doctor’s notes is still okay.)

    Did you read the bill?

  2. jgillman
    March 23, 2009 at 11:02 am

    I did read it, and I mis understood THAT part to be sure. You are correct.

    the part in question:
    10 (2) The prohibition in subsection (1) does not apply to
    11 prevent any of the following inquiries:
    12 (a) An inquiry to obtain information necessary to verify the
    13 employee’s eligibility for use of sick leave.
    14 (b) An inquiry to obtain information necessary to verify the
    15 employee’s eligibility for family and medical leave.
    16 (c) An inquiry to obtain information necessary to process an
    17 employee’s health coverage claim.

  3. jgillman
    March 23, 2009 at 11:09 am

    Now.. As to the outrage, you are also correct.

    There are hundreds of representatives between the state and federal levels who each have their own vision of our future. I am ONE MAN who is trying to catch all of the little slips and slides to the ultimate gerrymander of our very existence. The excessive controls over how we contract with our help, deals we make to better ourselves, and ultimately the very decisions we make to survive are HARDLY the place of the the state legislature.

    It is still CRAP legislation, and can be used to abuse employers with the hammer of government.

    By the way thank you for the catch on my Mis-read..

  4. March 23, 2009 at 12:49 pm

    It is time to take a stand, and that Republicans and even the Democrats have a stake in this battle against such idiocy …

    Yes. Things have gotten so completely out of hand, that I believe the Democrat vs. Republican debate (as far as voters are concerned) is the least of our worries. The true battle has become Us (“we the people”) vs. Them (the Kings and Queens in Washington)!

    And Lansing, of course.

  5. Shell
    March 23, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    JG, this idiot bill automatically assumes that companies are Big Bad Bullies who want nothing better than to cut costs and the expense of their employees.

    One of my dearest friends is waiting for a kidney transplant due to PKD. When his dialysis port became infected and landed him in the hospital, not only did his boss come to see him, but he reassured him that he would look out for his family and would NOT lose his job. He brought him all the paperwork he needed to sign and took care of it personally. (The company is AT&T).

    This bill is buying into a negative populist stereotype for the sake of politics. And it’s disgusting.

  6. Josh Cleveland
    March 27, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    “Under this bill the very act of an employer asking about the family becomes a civilly liable act. ”

    Well, no. That’s not actionable. What’s actionable is employment discrimination based on family circumstances. Surely, you’d agree that all should be judged on the content of our character, not on the nature of mom’s illness.

    But I think you already know this. Rude? No. You’re just sad.

  7. jgillman
    March 28, 2009 at 9:44 am

    The point I make is that government continues to create a web of complexities which strangles the ability of a business to operate.

    Let me ask you, “how many laws do you break daily?” I’ll bet you break more than you realize. These laws written by incredibly shortsighted people tend to give more fuel to folks who instead of looking to their own means of production, will look the the laws available to persecute an owner who might have “slighted them.” Just another way to “punish the boss,” whether it is deserved or not.

    Bottom line is this.. If I want to fire you because you suck it is my right no matter the law. The last thing we need is a legal method of “paybacks” legitimized through a legislative action.

  8. Josh Cleveland
    March 28, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    Besides traffic laws? None.
    How about you?

    Diversity, advanced technology, sophisticated science, effortless communication, easy transporation, complicated financial transactions (and &tc) make this a complex society. Laws are both an acknowledgment of that complexity and at times its cause. But, what is wrong with a law that acknowledges the Founding Principles, to judge a person as an individual? Is there something wierd about making our principles the law?

  9. jgillman
    March 28, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    There is something wrong with writing laws which abridge our principle rights. And though there are mechanisms to argue against such laws (supreme courts) which run contrary to the constitutional premise that free minds can reach agreements independent of authority, it sometimes isnt so easy or affordable to do so.

    So in the mean time I cry foul when ANYONE makes an attempt to limit my personal and “individual” rights to control my own life, whether through the nature of my business dealings or otherwise.

    As an argument, would you say that I would be violating or infringing on someone’s born into rights by firing them because they had a sick cousin? If you argue to the affirmative, I would suggest you read the constitution more thoroughly.

    Whether the current set of “moral” standards supports that or not is irrelevant. what matters is that I owe NO ONE anything but that which I contract for and make agreement to, either through an implied hourly wage standard or contractual. My argument extends out to things such as Minimum wage laws as well.

    Society is complex, but the understanding of the constitution need not be. Just uncross your eyes.

  10. Josh Cleveland
    March 28, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    “…I owe NO ONE anything…”
    You … are wrong.

    • jgillman
      March 29, 2009 at 1:13 am

      See.. Now, that is the mark of a true statist. Assumes the debt of some for the benefit of others. You should really back up a pompous statement such as this with some divine evidence which supports yours or any claim against the rights with which I am born. You must not agree with the founders of this country when they declared such rights were irrefutable. Would you suggest the revolution which founded this great nation was wrong as well? If you don’t see any difference between what they stood for and what we should today, you might consider finding a nice European country to settle in, as I and many others are to the point we cannot suffer such foolishness for long without calling you out for what you are.. the enemy…

  11. Josh Cleveland
    March 29, 2009 at 8:18 pm

    Divine evidence? Are you kidding? Apparently we’ve been paying Adam and Eve’s debts since creation … Talk about divine evidence!

    Right or wrong we are all born into a society that expects things from us and us from it. The revolution that founded this great nation understood that.

    Sure, you had no choice in the matter, but so what, you had no choice in your family, skin color, hair color, eye color or height.

    Yeah, as for the Founding Fathers, lets review what they stood for:
    (1) Slavery,
    (2) Misogyny and
    (3) Rights for real estate property owners only.

    And, of course, you want to go back to that. Who’s the statist and (GROAN) the “enemy?”

  12. jgillman
    March 30, 2009 at 7:09 am

    Divine evidence being something that overcomes the fact we are born with rights that NO government can take away. As to Adam and Eve’s debts please elaborate..

    “Wrong or wrong..” would be a more appropriate term. At least when “expects” turns to “extracts.”

    As to the founding fathers.. The premise that we are born equal is correct. If you want to echo Whoopie sentiments, go ahead. Because those of us who actually appreciate the good in the founding of this country often quote our founding fathers, you throw out red herrings. Weak arguments. Should it not be your own thoughts, or mine which matter here?

    I now understand why you don’t get it. Your frame of reference and understanding of the founding of this great land is concentrated on those parts which we have overcome (THANKS TO THE WORKS OF MINDS SUCH AS MINE – NOT YOURS) You cannot separate history from current reality.

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...