This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

The Savage Republican

Local Attractions

Favorite Links

Remember, Being a Savage Republican is not where you are from, but what you believe.

Previous Posts

Archives

Sunday, August 07, 2005

A tale of two employees

This is the tale of two employees, each faced with a family medical situation. One employee's wife had to have back surgery to repair a degenerated disk, the other had to help with the post-operative care of her mother (who lived in another state). Both employees work customer service in a field that relies heavily on technology. One employee works for a large corporation that is governed by federal regulations such as FMLA. The other works for a small business owner. One employee was allowed to work remotely while caring for the family member, the other is heading to court over the issue. My challenge to you dear readers....which employee is getting the opportunity to work remotely, with no hassles from the employer and which is going to court?

Give up? The employee that is having to go to court is the one that works for the company bound by federal regulation! You see, by being bound by regulation (and thus having to fill out mountains of paperwork) the large corporation has made the process so onerous to the employee that he has had to resort to drastic action. Meanwhile, the small business owner, eager to keep his employee happy and productive, made it possible for his employee (through cellular and VPN/internet technology) to be in another state and still work and handle her familial duty.

How do I know all of this, you ask? Simple, one employee is me and the other is a dear friend of mine. My employer (the small business owner) has graciously allowed me to work remotely, thus filling the empty hours when my mother is sleeping, resting or with her doctors. My friend, on the other hand, had to fight so long with his manager (regarding his wife's surgery and post operative care) that it has gone to HR and is possibly going to court.

The moral of this story is simple, dear reader. Government regulation is NOT the answer when it comes to situations like this. Simple human decency and belief that workers are not sheep that need to have their every move managed (regulated) are the answer.

posted by The Lady Logician at 8:17 AM permalink 0 comments

The Law of Unintended Consequences

This post is not as timely as I had hoped, and I apologize dear readers. Family business has kept me off-line for a few days. However, it is better late than never (as the old saying goes).

This is an important subject for all of us, especially our legislators. It has to do with the "law" of unintended consequences. This is the "law" of nature that causes our best intended actions to back-fire on us causing some unexpected results. For example, 6 months ago Hennepin County passed the most restrictive smoking ban (for bars and restaurants) in the state. Opponents of the bill said that smokers would flock to bars in the surrounding counties that did not have a similar smoking ban and that it would kill businesses and tax revenue. The county commissioners poo-pooed their claims saying that the non-smokers would come out in larger numbers so there were no worries. Well, now it seems that the county is considering scaling back the smoking ban. Why? What has changed their minds? The fact that the intake of tax dollars from pull tab sales has dropped dramatically since the smoking ban took effect! One bar owner told the County Board that his business was down so far that he was not going to be able to pay his taxes. We can't have that now, can we?????


Two weeks ago there was a bill pending in the Senate (S397 the Protection of Lawfull Commerce in Arms Act) that was to protect Arms manufacturers from frivilous lawsuits brought against them. Now the anti-gun forces were out in droves against this bill as were the 2nd Amendment supporters. Sen's Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) were subjected to intense lobbying from the constituents as five of the oldest manufacturers of fire arms are in the state of Conneticut. Job losses for millions of Conneticut citizens were expected if the class action lawsuits were allowed to continue. Thankfully (if you are a fan of the 2nd Amendment) S397 was passed overwhelmingly.

Then there is Governor Pawlenty's "health impact fee". What are the unintended consequences here? Well, since the "health impact fee" went into effect on August 1st, smokers in the state of Minnesota have turned to several alternative options. Many have quite smoking, others (if they live close enough to the border) are driving to Wisconsin, Iowa or the Dakota's to buy their cigarettes, while others are ordering their smokes over the internet! Unintended consequence of raising taxes on the backs of the smokers? LESS TAX REVENUE FOR THE STATE!!!!! An ad (from the Taxpayers League of Minnesota) says it all when it says "The future of Minnesota's education rests on the wallets of the states smokers. So light up folks! The state's 660,000 cigarette smokers can't live forever. And when they die, Minnesota lawmakers are going to have to find a new form of revenue." (emphasis mine)

That about sums it up. Our governor, in caving to pressures from the DFL lead Senate, has turned the funding of our education system over to the smokers of the state. With restrictive smoking bans (like the one in Hennepin County) being pushed for ALL counties in Minnesota, smokers in Minnesota are going to be forced to quit. THEN where is the money going to come from Governor???????

posted by The Lady Logician at 7:40 AM permalink 0 comments