Americas diversity is a great asset but it is also a hindrance to making significant change on a national level. There is always a rational argument that any policy can have negative in at least one town or county.
A good example of this is paid family leave. Because it will cause hardship for some businesses politicians can always push it down the road.
Often incremental advances can lead to critical mass and the larger changes that we want.
So what I propose is pushing micro pieces of legislation at all levels of government. From town boards to the senate and presidency.
This legislation should be short (politicians have short attention spans and pretend to read things that they don’t), and written in a way that no one can disagree with.
So instead of proper paid family leave, I’d start with something like:
No person or entity shall prevent, or draw negative inference to, any parent or carer, attending medical appointments with or for a child 6 years and under.
I think of this is all perception often. Business would do better because their customers wouldn’t be so dehumanized. Businesses that would allow for their employees children to be well taken care would fair better if all weren’t so adversarial. The funniest part of the greed of the wealthy is often they could haver a better standard of living if they weren’t blinded by it. The nature of greed is that of an intoxicant. If companies collectively treated employees well they (employees / employers) will be more productive as a whole. If you accept their garbage as an input all that comes out is more trash.
I see what you’re trying to do. The problem is the courts a long time ago decided your interest as a parent is subservient to the states interest in your child. Until that changes any efforts like this you make will be undone. That isn’t to say they will stand and be observed until they are challenged.
Asserting a local / state law may help but you have jurisdictional issues with enforcement. Meaning no law would have any teeth unless the ecosystem of laws allow for that law to stand. Once again this would all then boil down to enforcement. If XYZ senators son / daughter were wronged in some way by said law their ability to assert their rights would be high due to wealth and social contacts. If you’re wronged and you don’t have position in society. Your rights will likely be not only ignored, but they also curtailed due to your hubris.
As another side note using professions as a proxy war for politics seems like a bad idea. I understand your intentions. If you treat your children well and communicate with them often this shouldn’t be an issue. If you attempt to control and indoctrinate it will be an issue. Partly why the right is so apoplectic about indoctrination of children is the fact that their efforts to do so are no longer working.
Topic: Social/Economic Justice & Security
Subcategory: Paid Family Leave
Is Legislation: Yes
Is Federal: No
States: Any Applicable
What?
Why?
pushing micro pieces of legislation at all levels of government. From town boards to the senate and presidency. EXAMPLE: No person or entity shall prevent, or draw negative inference to, any parent or carer, attending medical appointments with or for a child 6 years and under.
[Strategic: federal is easier to dismiss] Also: This legislation should be short (politicians have short attention spans and pretend to read things that they don’t) and written in a way that no one can disagree with.
Actions:
Original Poster@nukey, if you have any disputes regarding the classification (What and Why, etc.), please @ me and I will update in accordance… it is after all, Your input
Now @everyone, please vote on the following questions:
Are you in favor of this idea? (higher is better)
1
2
3
4
5
0voters
If AGAINST, on what grounds are you against the idea?