Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Congratulations Boston!





And kudos to Mayor Walsh!










An enlightened city (catching up with Portland, Oregon?):



BOSTON - Monday, May 18, 2015—Mayor Martin J. Walsh today signed an ordinance establishing paid parental leave for City of Boston employees, Boston's first-ever Paid Parental Leave policy. The ordinance, which was proposed by Councilors Michelle Wu, Tim McCarthy and Tito Jackson, allows for up to six weeks of Paid Parental Leave to both men and women, as well as same-sex couples, who have worked for the City for at least one year. 

"I would like to thank the Council for working with the Administration to pass this important step forward for working families," said Mayor Walsh. "This is not only the right thing to do but it is important to the vitality and economy of our city. The benefits of this policy to both individuals and organization are a win-win and it is my hope that businesses will follow our lead and extend this benefit to their employees." 

Previous parental leave policies, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act and Massachusetts Parental Leave Act, have focused on protecting parents' jobs during unpaid leave. The lack of income during periods of parental leave is a factor in the wage gap experienced by many women, and forces employees to return to work sooner than their particular family may really need with their newborn or newly adopted child.

25 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...

And now the taxpayers pick up yet another tab. Oh well, why not. Money grows on trees and there is a pot-o-gold at the end of the rainbow.

Seriously, I get the argument and a part of me sympathized, but still.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"but still..." I don't know how the City of Boston will fund this. Do you? I haven't the time right now to do the research. But when you balance what a family loses in pay when a mother or father has to stay home for the new born, it may be a wash. I don't know. But I DO know this:

"Approximately 178 countries worldwide offer some form of paid maternity leave, and over 50 offer paid paternity leave. The United States is one of only three countries that lacks a law requiring employers to fund parental pay, with the others being Oman and Papua New Guinea."

We're supposed to be the greatest country in the world. Right? And we're with the bottom feeders on this issue.

Shameful, IMO.

Ducky's here said...

We're getting more European as time goes on.

RN, yes there is a cost but if that cost goes to a useful social benefit like maintaining families and not exposing them to dangerous levels of debt then it is a gain.

It isn't cost of government that concerns me as much as where the money is spent.

We could manage this state wide on far less than what would be pissed away on this bogus Olympics bid or the idiotic casino fad.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Amen, Ducky. I am against having the Olympics here in Boston. That would be magnitudes higher burden on the ENTIRE state than parental leave.

skudrunner said...

Ducky,

Cost of government and where the money is spent are one in the same. Pregnancy is a choice, paying taxes for others benefit is not.

Don't tell the Indian Nations or Las Vegas that casino's are a fad. They would tend to disagree.

I think Boston is the perfect place to hold the Olympics and wish you well.

Jerry Critter said...

Fiscal conservatives are often more concerned with the cost rather than the benefit, when it comes to people, but not so concerned when it comes to things and corporations. Don't believe me? Just look at the corporate giveaways, and the DOD budget.

Dave Miller said...

Oh man, the Olynpics will turn youse guys into in the American Montreal, in debt for years and years...

On a somewhat related note, Los Angeles announced to day they are moving towards a $15.00 minimum wage by 2020.

It's small, but progress.

Dave Miller said...

Les, maybe society is making a values decision that we'd rather pay higher taxes, like in Europe, and have a stronger central authority doing more.

I know conservatives will not like it, but if the republic makes that decision, could there be a time when we would put the partisan sniping behind us and work together to roll those policies out well, or will a dedicated group always oppose them and work to undermine them, even as they claim, wrongly, that the majority is with them?

I don't know, I'm just asking...

Rational Nation USA said...

To not be concerned with cost is foolish IMO. I am guessing nobody has done a cost benefit analysis and I'm not sure it is even possible for situations like pregnancy.

My point really is this, perhaps it should have been put to the voters who will be footing the bill with the understanding that Boston taxpayers will fund the benefit through increased taxes . If that passed super!

Government must be funded and people should be willing to pay for what they want.

Jerry, you make a valid observation and yes, the federal bureaucracy had gotten out of hand with respect to the DOD, MIC, and corporate welfare from government has indeed gotten out of hand.

Jerry Critter said...

I agree, corporate welfare from government is out of hand, not only from the federal government, but also from the state governments which are using tax breaks to convince businesses to move.

Anonymous said...

oh people are just flocking to France for that 75% income tax.
How son before the government allows you to have just keep 10% of you earnings and then rations your groceries and before long we are answering to a higher authority

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dear Anonymous,

"InternationalLiving.com’s annual Global Retirement Index reports that France, Uruguay and Malaysia provide the best and most affordable health care in the world.

The Health Care category in the Index considers the cost of care and the quality. Also considered are the number of people per doctor, the number of hospital beds per 1,000 people, the percentage of the population with access to safe water, the infant mortality rate, life expectancy, and public-health expenditure as a percentage of a country’s GDP.

France comes in first in this category as the best country in the world for health care."

France: an exceptional country where health care is concerned.

How Low Are U.S. Taxes Compared to Other Countries?

Anonymous said...

We pay tax on practically every thing we purchase and service We use,school tax,property tax,State tax,local taxes.
You are just going by incomd tax
If we want the "free" healthcare expect not only income taxes to increase but also tbe cost of living

Anonymous said...

FYI France does not provide long term health care services to non citizens/illegals
That is where they are smart

Jerry Critter said...

Here is what we pay in taxes when all local, state, and federal taxes are included.

skudrunner said...

JC

Guess your link shoots holes in the wealthy don't pay their "Fair Share" doesn't it.
21% of the income and 23% taxes. Looks like they should have a decrease in tax rate don't you think.

Rational Nation USA said...

Guess your link shoots holes in the wealthy don't pay their "Fair Share" doesn't it.
21% of the income and 23% taxes. Looks like they should have a decrease in tax rate don't you think.


Don't know about that skudrunner but the first step out to be overhaul spending, cutting out excess and duplicitous spending, scale back the DOD by 50%, stop government corporate welfare, and etc. Then we'd have a base to discus where taxes might be reduced and by how much.

We simply spend a lot of our tax revenue on stupid sh*t.

Jerry Critter said...

Spoken like a true republican, skud, and always true to the party line. You want to lower the taxes on the rich which, in case you don't realize it, will increase taxes on the poor.

skudrunner said...

JC
I am a fiscal conservative not a republican, big difference.
There is another avenue and RN hit on it. If we are expected to live within our means why shouldn't we demand that of the federalists.

Do we really need a pentagon that is the size of a small city. Do we really half of our boated bureaucracy. Term limits, Fair Tax and BTW, the poor do not pay federal income tax, but you knew that.

Anonymous said...

Large corporations also don't pay taxes either, but skudrunner doesn't mention that. just poors are the devils. btw, poor people pay taxes in many other ways. and a flat tax would hurt them the most.

Jerry Critter said...

Skud,
If you paid attention to ALL of my reference where you got your numbers, you would have seen that the include local and state taxes as well as federal.

I agree with you, the DOD budget should be significantly reduced.

You want a "fair" tax? Make corporations pay their fair share.

Want to "live within our means"? Put a democrat in the White House. Remember Bill Clinton? He did it, then a republican came along and blew a balanced budget all to hell! We are still trying to recover from that one.

skudrunner said...

JC and anon

I realize it is a hard concept to grasp but, corporations do not pay taxes, they pass them on to the consumer.

FIT and SIT amount for the largest percentage of taxes paid. The rest is sales tax, shouldn't the poor pay that to pay for services they use?

If you would look at the fair tax you would see it has provisions for the poor.

Jerry Critter said...

That's the problem, Skud, corporation aren't paying taxes. They can only pass on tax increases if demand for the product justifies the price increase. Otherwise it comes out of their profits. If they don't have enough profits, they go out of business and someone else will come along with a better business model. Thats the way business works. Profits should not be guaranteed by the taxpayer.

Dervish Sanders said...

A "fiscal conservative" is a republican wishing to distance themselves from the failed presidency of gwb (excepting those who voted Libertarian. These other "fiscal conservatives" voted for gwb and used to be proud republicans).

Jerry Critter said...

"A "fiscal conservative" is a republican wishing..."

And most will continue to vote republican.