Contributions to NJ Family Leave and Temp Disability
- Thread starter NYShoreGuy
- Start date
So family leave and temp disability takers should just deal with the siutation with the rates as they have been? How do you feel about contributing to unemployment?
The problem is the state puts the financial burden on workers. If it were up to me, the onus would be entirely on employers to provide family leave and disability. You hired the person, you take the risk that they get injured or have to take leave. The state (read: other taxpayers) should not foot the bill. I'd also put in protections that guarantee the employer cannot fire the employee for these reasons.
Unemployment is a bit different. I don't mind contributing a bit to that.
Family leave is a concocted welfare/entitlement scheme; temporary disability is not but is abused.
That's a fairly reasonable approach.
I don't mind the extra hit in taxes to allow for parents to have time to bond with their kids or take care of family so wouldn't mind the same hit as a reduction in salary from my employer if they were responsible to cover the costs.
My only concern would be if employees would feel they can actually use the time off if it is a benefit from your employer rather than from the state.
Wow i am shocked that this comes out of you, so if a family member in your household becomes seriously ill or injured you view that as a concocted welfare/entitlement scheme
I think what he's saying is, why should taxpayers be on the hook for that? People get sick all the time.
The problem I have with this is it puts Coca-Cola corporation and Joe Schmoe landscaping under the same rules. Coca-Cola could take on that burden, Joe Schmoe landscapers not so much. There has to be some type of differentiation between a multibillion dollar corp and a landscaper grossing up $500,000 in total revenue who probably ends up with a net income of $150,000.
Also you can't force anyone to take the risk, so I would assume that would allow discrimination in hiring.
Last edited:
Right. It is a good debate worth having for sure.
Really depends if it is a program worth having, if it should be mandated, who pays for it, etc etc etc... Theoretically putting it as a mandated responsibility of each employer, it could be an insurance fund they pay into per employee. That way a small company isn't crushed. I'm sure there are a ton of ways to accomplish the goals of the programs with advantages and disadvantages to each.
I get what 09 is saying but just let me discriminate in my hiring. Let me ask a woman her age and marital status and if she has any kids in the interview. That will never happen. Lawyers would have a field day.
Like the point but a mother (or other prime caretakers) shouldn’t lose a job to take care of a baby or sick child for a few months or even more. That’s about it though.
