Two things can be true
What is this crap? Lots of people in my residency with kids. Lots of them had kids during residency. I never saw any of this "leave early all the time" stuff happen. We all just suffered on together.
Where do you do 1 on 1 supervision. I need me some of that action
He just said the Army. Feel free to sign up. I am sure they would love to have you.
Army is pretty broad term.. Thats like sayin, where do you work, "In north america"..
That’s idiotic. Because that’s how the Army anywhere does their program. Sign up as an anesthesiologist and officer and you too will supervise one on one in an academic setting anywhere in North America.
That sounds ikea a leadership problem to me, which is admittedly where a majority of these problems come from.
But there are more and more laws being passed regarding FMLA all the time. You know this from your military experience. Today at the Veteran’s administration the government has mandated paid FMLA for those having children. For people like PGG who have grown children he would be required to fill the gap while his colleagues enjoyed paid FMLA to have children.
There isn’t a nation on earth that follows cutthroat libertarianism to a degree that would satisfy you if you think saving months of pay while being pregnant is some form of personal responsibility.
Yes I do. The Gi bill is available to everyone who is willing to serve in the military. It doesn’t discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, gender identity, etc. The Gi bill should be considered a benefit because the salary for most enlisted service people is quite low.
Look at the bolded. You've chosen to pick one group of government employees (who *chose* to do something) over another group of government employees who chose to do something else, but yet only one group is getting a special benefit. There are plenty of low paying civil and federal servants whose departments greatly benefit this country and our society, and they don't get to go to a 4yr college for free like veterans.
Yes, I agree with your point about making a judgment call and valuing the service and dedication provided by our enlisted service people. Those who risk their lives to defend our freedom and protect our country while receiving low wages deserve all the benefits they get. This is in contrast to a civil servant sitting in an a/c office complaining about the bad coffee in the break room. When your only risk at a job is getting a paper cut vs. having your legs blown off or being killed in the line of duty I truly think the benefits should be different. My neighbor’s son never made it home from Afghanistan. He was killed while performing a non combat duty in a supposedly safe zone. He had a wife and 2 kids who will never see him again.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the large majority of those who serve in the military aren't typically in persistent corporeal danger. OTOH, a CBP or DEA agent who faces a real threat of narco violence day in and day out doesn't qualify for 4 yrs of free college or the cash equivalent. Same goes for the IRS agent say whose ability to pick up a few million from a tax cheat ended up funding the last part of the drone plane that tracked Bin Laden's courier. As I said, plenty of civil and federal servants make very valuable contributions without the same remuneration as vets.
But if his widow gets breast cancer or one of her children is critically injured she shouldn’t get to sustain her income with fmla because that isn’t fair to people who don’t have cancer or critically injured kids right?
I support law enforcement, DEA, CBP, etc but I don’t decide their benefit package. They have better compensstion overall than military service people. I guessed you missed my comment about the death of my neighbor’s son who was in a non combat role inside a safe zone. He was killed in Afghanistan serving his country.
I don’t think the US taxpayer should have to fund a private sector companies FMLA plan. if you want to expand the safety net then that is not the same as a federally funded FMLA for some of the richest companies in the world.
www.healthline.com
Just above you said you don’t believe in paid fmla period. You frame you argument as one of equity but people using fmla have a problem nobody wants to have. It is the same reason I don’t envy people who qualify for Medicare before 65 because they need dialysis—I’m not angry my taxes pay for it.
I’m not angry about FMLA. I don’t really like it but I accept it as law and reality. Currently, FMLA is unpaid by most companies but some are offering paid FMLA. This is not funded by taxpayer money. Once FMLA becomes a paid benefit many more people will use it regularly. This means some groups will benefit more than others. That was my point. I oppose taxpayer funded FMLA. Private sector employers can offer paid FMLA to their employees as A benefit.
fairygodboss.com
So you don’t even like unpaid fmla? You think it is going to be abused on what grounds?I’m not angry about FMLA. I don’t really like it but I accept it as law and reality. Currently, FMLA is unpaid by most companies but some are offering paid FMLA. This is not funded by taxpayer money. Once FMLA becomes a paid benefit many more people will use it regularly. This means some groups will benefit more than others. That was my point. I oppose taxpayer funded FMLA. Private sector employers can offer paid FMLA to their employees as A benefit.
Paid Maternity Leave: 180 Companies Who Offer The Most Paid Leave
The following companies offer some of the most maternity leave ranging from 52 weeks (1 year) to 16 weeks (4 months) of paid maternity leave.
Again, you haven't really provided anything which invalidates the point I made, namely that that are plenty of other federal employees who are in danger, or who make very valuable contributions, but who don't receive $100,000 in tuition or the equivalent on top of their other benefits.
So you never had an unexpected need to take a month off work and not have the financial means to support yourself in the setting of whatever costs are incurred from this unexpected event?
You twist my words and distort my points. I am against taxpayer funded FMLA because it isn’t necessary. We have the greatest companies in the world and the notion that the government needs to provide even more benefits is absurd because we can’t pay for the ones we already have on the books. All we do is borrow and spend money we don’t have putting the next generation in massive debt. It’s irresponsible
I think employers should help their employees. How about lower tax rates for companies which help employees? Incentivize private sector vs involving the government which Can’t even manage the post office.
Absolutely, if that's what it takes to attract highly qualified applicants for our military. Supply and Demand.
Yuuge leadership problem. Small program. Not much oversight. A few young guys ran all the day to day stuff of the residency and ORs. They had their favorites that could just about come and go as they please. A couple of third years did some residency training with them and were chummy. The pet female had a never ending array of "legitimate" reasons she would be arriving late and/or leaving early. You were either a have or a have not.
Well, your position has been all over the place, ranging from how things were so great before the original FMLA in 1993 to now being only against taxpayer funded FMLA.
As much as I love a good social safety net, the issue at stake with parental leave is also supply. That is, making sure the supply of new Americans exceeds the numbers of deaths, so we don't have a populace whose average citizen is an 87 year old retiree on Medicare.
www.heritage.org
www.aei.org
Capitalism works but crony capitalism does not which is where we are!The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.
In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!
Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!
Why Socialism Always Fails
Slightly more than 20 years, I wrote the article “Why Socialism Failed” and it appeared in 1995 in The Freeman, the flagship publication of the Foundation for Economic Education. I think it was the first essay or op-ed I wrote for a general audience following graduation in 1993 from George Mason...
Crony Capitalism is a step on the way to a government controlled society. You reward your friends and punish your enemies.
The military is a special class of people doing a unique job. That 90% of us aren't ever in mortal danger is beside the point. Those other low paid civil servants don't get ordered around the country or overseas, they don't surrender basic civil rights while employed, and they can choose to quit with no notice or even tell their bosses to go **** themselves without getting thrown in prison. The GI Bill and other education benefits are huge recruiting tools, probably the single most important carrot that is offered to recruits. I wouldn't have joined if it didn't come with tuition.
My point in bringing up the GI Bill is not that I'm against it (I'm for it as I stated above), nor am I bringing it up in the context of this discussion because I think that everyone should have free public university tuition (which is something I do think, but that's besides this point).
Usually it’s just to satisfy some legal/compliance requirement.
My point was while the GI Bill is both a free market solution to a recruitment challenge, there's also a compelling (to me) argument that there's a moral imperative to treat members of the military better than other government employees. I admit my bias. And I don't think it's inconsistent of Blade to draw a line between FMLA or other benefits to all, and any given special treatment for the military. The military is different.
, was that you said the military wasn't more deserving of paid educational benefits than other civil servants, and I think they (we) are.Indeed, as I said, everyone has a subjective moral imperative and he (and anyone else) are free to draw that line where they wish. At the risk of my repeating myself, Blade's criticism and his implication was that FMLA had some kind of objective unfairness and discriminatory nature about it, while favoring the military vis a vis special benefits is an obviously correct thing to do, even if viewed in a vacuum. Very simply, that implication remains a logical contradiction because the things that we choose to fund or not fund are subjective value judgements, full stop.My point was while the GI Bill is both a free market solution to a recruitment challenge, there's also a compelling (to me) argument that there's a moral imperative to treat members of the military better than other government employees. I admit my bias. And I don't think it's inconsistent of Blade to draw a line between FMLA or other benefits to all, and any given special treatment for the military. The military is different.
I think we could, and maybe should, make higher education (whether university or vocational) a benefit offered to all. Same with healthcare, or paid FMLA. There are lots of public benefit things we could choose to do as a nation, if we also chose to spend less money doing other things. Those arguments aren't necessarily consistent with or oppositional to the notion that some unique benefits to some groups (like the military) make both economic and moral sense.
The reason I was arguing, apart from my fondness for arguing for the sake of arguing
www.forbes.com
