Ariz. Governor Signs Immigration Enforcement Bill

[bonnie]

They said the same thing about the minimum wage. The Lord said, the laborer is worthy of his hire. That means the laborer deserves a fair wage. That includes health insurance. If you can't afford to provide health insurance for your workers, you shouldn't be in business.

Please show me. I would like to see something that states the employer is responsible for health care insurance.

Not your words or declaration.

You haven't a clue. Employer paid health insurance will not be affordable in the next few years.

Many will refuse and pay the penalty.Others like my brother,very successful, will simply hang it up.

[bonnie]

They said the same thing about the minimum wage. The Lord said, the laborer is worthy of his hire. That means the laborer deserves a fair wage. That includes health insurance. If you can't afford to provide health insurance for your workers, you shouldn't be in business.

Hopefully enough businesses will do this and those so enamoured with the "give me" mentality will be some of the first dependent on the tender mercies of the government

In a stunning revelation Wednesday, several top U.S. corporations are seriously considering dropping employee health insurance coverage in light of what they see as the inevitable consequence of ObamaCare--skyrocketing costs.

The companies state that after their legal experts poured over the thousands of pages in the new law, it will cost them less to pay the fines for not providing healthcare coverage for employees than continuing to provide employer-paid health insurance benefits.

As a side-note to the announcement, the companies maintain that ObamaCare will result in a dramatic increase in expenses for providing employee coverage, with added costs skyrocketing to multi-billions of dollars.

According to Business Record:

Additionally, the penalties to businesses for not offering coverage are less expensive than the cost of providing insurance, she said. "But for those that aren't providing coverage now, this is a huge burden to them. And for employers that have a lot of employees working 30 hours (the threshold to be considered full- ime), you may have a lot of businesses cutting them back to 29 hours."

Business Record maintains that despite this fact most companies will probably try to continue to provide coverage.

But a report issued today in Fortune Magazine and reported by CNN indicates that the dire warnings of ObamaCare critics concerning the consequences of approving the costly legislation are in fact well-founded.

The report points to internal documents from AT&T, Verizon, John Deere, and several other large corporations which show that executives are, in fact, looking at the option of dropping healthcare coverage for employees due to what they are sure will be unsustainable increases in costs. These costs will be so prohibitive that it would benefit the corporations to pay the government fines instead:

Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill's critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.

That would dismantle the employer-based system that has reigned since World War II. It would also seem to contradict President Obama's statements that Americans who like their current plans could keep them. And as we'll see, it would hugely magnify the projected costs for the bill, which controls deficits only by assuming that America's employers would remain the backbone of the nation's health care system.

Hence, health-care reform risks becoming a victim of unintended consequences. Amazingly, the corporate documents that prove this point became public because of a different set of unintended consequences: they told a story far different than the one the politicians who demanded them expected.

This information will most certainly be added motivation for those who are intent on repealing ObamaCare following the November 2010 midterm elections, or at the very least refusing to fund the program which was passed by Congress as an appropriations measure.

[Dr. Shane]

It isn't a "give me" mentality. It is "the laborer is worthy of his hire." Employers that do not provide health insurance to their employers at taking advantage of them much like an older man raping a drunken, teenage victim. It is unconscionable that a businessman would not provide health insurance for his employees. The only excuse why a businessman cannot provide health insurance to his employees is because his competitors do not do so so he would not be able to compete if he did so. However mandating employers to provide health insurance - just like workers' compensation insurance - will level the playing field so that no employer will have an ethical excuse not to provide the health-care benefits his workers are worthy of.

[bonnie]

It isn't a "give me" mentality. It is "the laborer is worthy of his hire." Employers that do not provide health insurance to their employers at taking advantage of them much like an older man raping a drunken, teenage victim. It is unconscionable that a businessman would not provide health insurance for his employees. The only excuse why a businessman cannot provide health insurance to his employees is because his competitors do not do so so he would not be able to compete if he did so. However mandating employers to provide health insurance - just like workers' compensation insurance - will level the playing field so that no employer will have an ethical excuse not to provide the health-care benefits his workers are worthy of.

Where is it written biblically that a employer is responsible for health care.I have never read that.

If a fair wage is ten dollars an hour and that is what they are paid what gives anyone the right to demand more.

However mandating employers to provide health insurance - just like workers' compensation insurance - will level the playing field so that no employer will have an ethical excuse not to provide the health-care benefits his workers are worthy of.

No, what will happen is the employer will pay the penalty and let the employee take care of his own.

Talk again after you have become a employer. There is a few gaps in your reasoning.

[Dr. Shane]

The health-care system was set up differently when the Bible was written so no sensible person would look for the Bible to say employers need to provide health-care insurance. That is most certainly a strawman argument that hurts the credibility of the person making it. The Bible doesn't tell us not to look at pornography either but establishes principles that clearly tell us pornography is sin.

Quote:

Talk again after you have become a employer.

This is a tactic to try to shut down discussion. It also hurts the credibility of the one making it. Of course, depending on the definition of the word employer, I am an employer. I hire and fire employees and am responsible for their payroll. But even if I was not an employer, that wouldn't mean that I would be disqualified from discussing the topic of ethical wages.

A fair wage has historically been considered three times the amount of money needed to purchase the food required for proper nourishment. However medical advances in healthcare have caused such dramatic increases in the cost of it that a person's health-care needs must be considered apart from the base salary. The base salary should be used to cover deductibles and co-pays but an employee must have health insurance in order to meet his or her basic living needs.

[Ted Oplinger]

The migrant worker thing is way overblown, Shane. The agriculture business has a decades-long relationship with the US Immigration departments, whereby Mexicans can LEGALLY enter the US as migrant workers. Now, migrant worker status can be granted to many fields other than agriculture. The point is, migrant workers can be here legally under a program which is very easy to access and use. Yet, illegals just don't want to bother.

Second, the chicken processing plant story is very similar to a local situation here some 300 miles to your northeast, Shane.

We have a Sanderson Farms chicken processing plant that once was very notorious for hiring ONLY illegals. Same arguments were used - Anglos won't work for such cheap wages, etc.,.

This plant became so arrogant about the situation that one day Sanderson Farms Corporate office sent immigration in and cleaned house. I don't have the details; it was simply done. The local news headlined it

Guess who hired in eagerly for all those vacancies that were so highly touted as unwanted by Anglos?

That's right...the local Anglo population. Same cheap pay-scale as the illegals had, and the Anglos were quite happy to work there.

I take those lines to excuse illegals being here with a substantial grain of salt.

Now, in today's economy, there are a lot more people out there looking for any kind of job - even the low-end pay jobs. The idea that illegals take ONLY those jobs Americans don't want is not the superficial blanket excuse like it used to be. In fact, illegals DO in fact take even some better-paying jobs Americans would like to have.

As for Mexico's border policies....perhaps the US ought to adopt and enforce Mexico's own immigration and border policies/actions for immigrants (illegal and legal alike), across our southern border, no?

Just a little food for thought...

[Dr. Shane]

First, Anglos that will work for low wages are not nearly as productive. The Mexican worker is in demand by American companies not only because he or she works for low wages, but because they are so efficient. Factories that have been relocated to Mexico so they could pay lower wages have often been surprised when not only did they pay lower wages, but they got better production with less errors.

Second, many of the migrant workers are unware of the programs available to come here. If I understand the programs correctly, it is the US company that must initiate the process with INS - not the migrant worker willing to come here and work.

Third, currently with the high unemployment we have, INS has scaled back greatly the number of migrant workers they allow to come here. A landscaper who does much of my work has told me he is no longer able to bring any migrants here under the program. He has also told me that although our county has a 14% unemployment rate, he has trouble finding workers and those he does find do not work as well as the migrants.

Fourth, the Anglo population that works for low wages are not normally the bread-winners in the family. Typically they are young, single adults or the second income-earner in the household. The turn-over and absentee rate among this is typically higher than head-of-household workers.

[bonnie]

The health-care system was set up differently when the Bible was written so no sensible person would look for the Bible to say employers need to provide health-care insurance. That is most certainly a strawman argument that hurts the credibility of the person making it. The Bible doesn't tell us not to look at pornography either but establishes principles that clearly tell us pornography is sin.

[karl]

ANYTHING we mandate that an employer provide to an employee will make the company less competitive in the marketplace and in the workplace. The more freedom companies have to respond to market pressures, the more competitive they are. The more government red tape they are bound by, the less free they are to respond.

These are basic, self-evident truths. Liberal slogans to the contrary are just hot air.

[Ted Oplinger]

First, Anglos that will work for low wages are not nearly as productive. The Mexican worker is in demand by American companies not only because he or she works for low wages, but because they are so efficient. Factories that have been relocated to Mexico so they could pay lower wages have often been surprised when not only did they pay lower wages, but they got better production with less errors.

[Dr. Shane]

don't bring in biblical quotes that you think enforce your point.

[karl]

I must. It is my sacred duty to God to do so. The Bible clearly teaches that employers are to be fair to their employees. Those that underpay their employees and do not provide the benefits they should are stealing from their employees and will find their place in the lake of fire just as sure as the liars, fornicators and gossipers will. Make no doubt about that.

This is blatant embroidery of Scripture. There is a warning in Revelation about this kind of thing. This is not your sacred duty. It is specifically verboten.

Revelation 22:18

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Not good.

[Dr. Shane]

ANYTHING we mandate that an employer provide to an employee will make the company less competitive in the marketplace and in the workplace.

This is true. If we allowed our companies to rape the employees they would be much more competitive.

[Dr. Shane]

Perhaps many Anglos are spoiled, but many more aren't, and they are just as productive and efficient as any Mexican is.

[Dr. Shane]

This is blatant embroidery of Scripture. There is a warning in Revelation about this kind of thing. This is not your sacred duty. It is specifically verboten.

Revelation 22:18

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Not good.

OK, so is it wrong for the Adventist church to teach that smoking and pornography are sin? Neither is forbidden in the Bible.

[bonnie]

Quote:

I must. It is my sacred duty to God to do so. The Bible clearly teaches that employers are to be fair to their employees. Those that underpay their employees and do not provide the benefits they should are stealing from their employees and will find their place in the lake of fire just as sure as the liars, fornicators and gossipers will. Make no doubt about that.

I am still missing the portion of scripture that promoted you to defining what fair is. I have never advocated in anyway underpaying a employee.

You determine what benefits they should receive.Sorry that is not your call. If a fair wage is 10.00 per hour and they are paid 10.00 per hour it is not your roll to condemn someone to the lake of fire.

Quote:

Again, if one wants to create a narrow definition of an employer, we must also say that Bill Gates is not an employer because Microsoft is an incorporation. That means the stock holders are the owner. The stock holders are risking their money.

You are not an employer by any definition. You do not own the company you work for,you have never had to sweat making payroll,you have not laid all you own on the line to start your own business.You are content to let others do that and then claim the right to condemn others to hell if they do not meet your criteria

Quote:

OH... wait a minute... I am a stock holder. In several companies in fact. OH,,, wait just one dog-gone minute!!! One of the companies I hold stock in is Microsoft. Sooooooo, I guess that means as part owner of Microsoft I am an employer according to Bonnie's narrow definition of being an employer.

You are being utterly ridiculous and you know it.My definition of employer is what most reasonable people assume.

Quote:

How silly really. The fact is that I put cost proposal together for construction projects. (That means I get the work) I run the projects. I pay our bills including the payroll. I also bill our clients. I am in charge of both accounts receivables and accounts payables. I understand how companies operate. In fact, many of the small business owners that work for me don't understand how to run their own business and I have to tutor them. The construction company I work for is pushing close to $100 million/year in gross revenue.

I am sure they are suitably impressed with your expertise. You still are not working with your money.Come payday you get yours.Many times when times are tough the employer's family is last and may have to wait.

Quote:

Not in 2010. That may have been realistic in 1950 but not today. An individual cannot get a good healthcare plan and will pay more for it when buying it outside of a group. An employer can provide his employee health insurance for $350 as part of a group plan. That same $350 will not get that employee the same insurance if he tries to get it on his own as an individual.

Simply not true.We always carried our own insurance. A good policy was very easy to find.We carried Blue-Cross Blue-Shield. With my hubsmand's stroke history we paid 1200.00 every three months.Not in 1950 but thru 2005

Quote:

Healthcare is a necessity. The employee is to pay the worker enough so that the worker can meet his needs. Shelter is also a necessity. Transportation is yet another necessity. Food is a necessity.

Absolutely not.The job is not tailored to the employee's "needs" it is the market place that determines the wage. The employee then contracts for a job that will take care of his needs.

Quote:

The far right wing gets things confused by using the word "right". Yes, each of us has the God given right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That right is not just for small business owners. Workers have those rights too. When an employer starts a company and starts looking for workers. he or she needs to make sure the workers can produce something which is valued enough that the worker's time will earn them enough money to meet their necessities.

The small business has a right to whatever he can make running his business fairly. He has the right to pursue his own business. Just as an employee has a right to pursue. He has no right to demand it from others. If a employee thinks he is worth more than one business will pay him,he has the right to pursue other options.He does not have the right to demand a employer take into account his needs and tailor salary accordingly.If a fair wage at 10.00 per hour is paid

and employee's don't consider that enough for their needs,guess what,you go elsewhere.

Quote:

I could start a company making hair ribbons to sell. Each ribbon might be so intricate that it takes two hours to make. If I pay my workers $7.50/hour I would have to charge at least $20 for their labor just to cover my costs. Add to that the cost of material, my overhead and profit and I would need to price these ribbons at $28 each in order to have a successful business. Now if the Chinese can make these same ribbons and sell them for $4.50 then I need to look at starting a different kind of business. I can't just complain about minimum wage, federal withholdings and workerman's compensation laws.

This has what to do with it? Most people begin a business that they are familiar with.They don't start one and then say

OOPS better start another.Most businesses do not complain about workman's comp. As most pay more than minium wage that isn't really at issue either.

Quote:

Yet many small business owners do exactly that. They point to the government as being to blame why they can't make a successful business. It isn't the government at all. The problem is that the person is in the wrong kind of business and needs to look at a different kind of business where they can pay employees fairly and still produce a product able to compete with other producers of the same product.

Your expertise is amazing. People that have run "the wrong kind of business for years" and have been highly successful are closing their doors.

Once you have paid out of your pocket insurance premiums per month that equal what many earn per year,when your family comes last on pay day,when a 8 hour day is a unheard of luxury then maybe you can tell the successful business man that does not so according to your dictates he is going to hell.

[Dr. Shane]

I am still missing the portion of scripture that promoted you to defining what fair is.

[bonnie]

I guess I figured that every Christian employer already knew the verses about paying employees fair wages.

Leviticus 19:13 You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of a hired man are not to remain with you all night until morning.

[Dr. Shane]

The debate is not over paying a fair wage.

[bonnie]

Yes, the debate is about fairly compensating an employee for their time and trade.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

I am still missing the portion of scripture that promoted you to defining what fair is.

I guess I figured that every Christian employer already knew the verses about paying employees fair wages.

Leviticus 19:13 You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of a hired man are not to remain with you all night until morning.

Leviticus 19:13 You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of a hired man are not to remain with you all night until morning.Deuteronomy 24:15 "You shall give him his wages on his day before the sun sets, for he is poor and sets his heart on it; so that he will not cry against you to the LORD and it become sin in you.

1 Timothy 5:18 For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."

Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:15 say nothing whatsoever about what the wage is. They are telling the employer to give the employee his pay WHEN it is due and not keep it from him - not even overnight. They say NOTHING about how much the wage is and they say NOTHING about benefits.

1 Timothy 5:18 says (starting in verse 17) "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."

If we assume "honour" to mean money, which it might or might not, this is telling us that the elder who rules well is to receive more money for doing a better job.

Shane, these verses say NOTHING about what you have been harping on. They say NOTHING about minimum wage or health care benefits for employees. In order for you to confabulate that they do say that requires more than embroidery. It takes flat-out putting words in God's mouth.

That is NOT recommended.

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

Perhaps many Anglos are spoiled, but many more aren't, and they are just as productive and efficient as any Mexican is.

What makes American workers more productive than Mexican is the technology we employ. When compared side by side, with the same technology, Mexican workers have shown they outproduce Americans almost every time an American factory is moved to Mexico. A company takes a $35/hour union job, moves it to Mexico and pays a Mexican worker $2.50/hour and gets more productivity with less errors from the Mexican. This is a story that repeats itself over and over every time an America company goes south of the border.

[Dr. Shane]

while you may have small business contracting with you or subbing under you,they work for your company,not Shane.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Deuteronomy 24:15 "You shall give him his wages on his day before the sun sets, for he is poor and sets his heart on it; so that he will not cry against you to the LORD and it become sin in you.

Deuteronomy 24:15 say nothing whatsoever about what the wage is.

This verse address the employer's obligation to meet the needs of his poor employees. That establishes a principle. Just like the Bible teaching that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit establishes a principle. Jesus teaching against lust establishes a principle. We can draw from these principles to make a present-day application.

Employers should pay fair wages and see that their employees have health-care coverage. We should eat healthy, exercise and get proper sleep. We should avoid pornography and sexually provocative television programs.

[Dr. Shane]

Are you saying that American companies, when they take their factories south of the border, don't take the American technology with them?