Why are people so pissed off about the state of Arizona taking a hard stance in enhancing and enforcing an existing federal law? Before all of you democrats start calling me a republican, please refer to my article about Religion.
This is a step in the right direction, not in the sense that the bill is bringing something new to the table, but that the bill is just reminding us to “do what we say and say what we do”.
I have wanted to write about marriage for a while so what better time to do it than when Tiger Woods is all over the news?
Let’s set the foundation. Marriage is an institution promoted by governments to not only collect income tax from the profits generated in all the cost involved in the wedding, but also promote the idea of “family” to create stability and sustain population. These are efforts to ensure the government has enough revenue to be self sustaining. For those reasons, the government created more than 1,000 legal rights for married couples to promote the behavior of getting married. (refer to my other posts for other examples of where the government changes behavior through legislation)
Now you may think I am here trying to convince people to sign up for atheism, but in all honesty, NO. First of all, advocating atheism would be semi-hypocritical because I will be trying to persuade people to believe in my understanding of the world, which is that there is no god, deity, or supreme being. Secondly, I acknowledge that religion obviously serves a purpose because every civilization in the world developed its own religion ranging from sun god and dragons to Jesus and Buddha. Religion is basically comfort food for the people who need to rationalize problems in their lives in order to overcome them emotionally. Finally, it is less that I support religious freedom, but more that I DON’T CARE what you believe in.
Prejudge, prejudgment, and prejudice, why do these words have such a bad reputation? Like most problems, the society responds to one extreme with the opposite end of the spectrum. Example is the solution to discrimination, affirmative action, was in place for close to 40 years until California finally banned it in 1997. The politicians meant well, they wanted to eliminate discrimination against minority races, women, and the disabled. However, similar to most reactionary regulations, the answer to the problem created reverse racism and resentment towards the minorities that were less qualified.
Well, before we get in too deep, this article is only going to cover the “maternity” aspect of these two regulations, not the “health condition” aspect. For those of you outside of California, CFRA is basically the California edition of the Federal FMLA so for the purposes of this article, I am only going to be discussing the common aspect of the regulation: employees have the right to be on unpaid leave for up to 12 work-weeks during any 12-months period and the employers MUST grant the leave. This means the employer must allow the employee to return to the same or equal position when the employee returns to work within 12 workweeks.
Posted in Policy
Tagged behavior, burden, CFRA, choose, employee, employer, FMLA, gender, government, kids, maternity, tax