New York’s Latest Idea: Three Months Paid Bereavement Leave

This is what happens when you legislate with emotion and pandering, not common sense, experience, or knowledge of how business works

From the link

Lawmakers want every worker in New York to get three months paid bereavement leave to mourn the loss of a loved one.

But many business owners say it could be crippling. Will Gov. Andrew Cuomo sign it into law?

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Richard Funke, of upstate Batavia, whose son died.

“I’ve experienced the pain of losing a child. The grief can be unpredictable and overwhelming,” he said in a statement. “No employee should have to fear losing their job in order to take the time they need to mourn.”

Sen. David Carlucci, of Clarkstown, is cosponsoring the bill, which quietly passed at the end of the legislative session and is awaiting action by the governor.

“We need to make it as easy as possible, be humane and understand the real cost involved in losing a loved one,” said Carlucci.

The bill covers the death of a spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, in-law, grandparent or grandchild.

The law, if passed, phases in what workers can collect between 50 to 67 percent of the average weekly wage — $680 a week.

While I think most of us can sympathize and empathize, this would force a company to pay an employee to not work for this period of time, and cause lots of other problems

But Greg Greenwood, owner of Bleeker Street Pizza, said it could cripple mom and pop stores.

“Our business and any other small business it would be catastrophic. Twelve weeks paid leave. We need all the staff that we have,” he said.

He said the biggest problem would be training new people, then letting them go when the old employee comes back.

Another option would be to simply leave the position open till the person returns. But, that would mean a small business would be running shorthanded for three months, as so many typically run a razor’s edge margin of employees. Back in the day when I worked in wireless, if someone was out on vacation for a week it meant that the others either worked more hours to cover, but we’d still be have problems taking care of customers during the busy times. There was a point we could do temp workers simply to take payments, but, it’s way to involved for that now.

I guess we’ll see whether Cuomo signs this bill, one which panders to a certain set of voters and is based on emotion.

Read: New York’s Latest Idea: Three Months Paid Bereavement Leave »

NY Times Is Suddenly Cool With Hiring Racists

As long as they’re the correct type of racists. In case you missed this one earlier

She was hired to sit on the Editorial Board. And how does the NY Times respond?

Make sure to save this one for the time when the Times, or other leading Leftist outlets, starts smearing a Republican, Conservative, alt-righter, or any right leaning person.

more under the more tag

Read More »

Read: NY Times Is Suddenly Cool With Hiring Racists »

If All You See…

…is a hazy, carbon pollution world, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Weasel Zippers, with a post on Maxine Waters getting hit with an FEC complaint.

Read: If All You See… »

‘Climate Change’ Could Maybe Possibly We Guess Increase Heatwave Deaths By 2,000 Percent Or Something

I ran across this article at CNS News, but was going to pass it by because the survey is from earlier in July. But, let’s look at it first

Despite Al Gore’s Persistence, Global Climate Change Is Not People’s Most Pressing Concern

In a recent interview with the Vatican News service, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore again claimed “the climate crisis is now the biggest existential challenge humanity has ever faced.”

Gore boasted, “I have been fortunate to be able to pour every ounce of energy I have into efforts to contribute to the solution to his crisis.” Ironically, Mr. Gore personally uses vast amounts of energy, often traveling in private jets, SUVs and limousines, and lives in mansions, one of which uses 21 times more electricity than the average American home.

We often hear claims that man-made climate change is our greatest threat. But according to a recent Gallup poll, very few people in the United States actually believe it is. Indeed, even the United Nations own polling reveals that respondents across the world rate climate change last among issues they would like the UN and governments to focus on. No matter how long the list, climate change is nearly always last.

Other polls bear this out time and time again. Why? Perhaps it’s due to unhinged pronouncements like this, which would fit in better with those crazy papers like the Weekly World News you used to find at the supermarket checkout line. Not in what’s supposed to be a respectable mainstream news site

Climate change could increase heat wave deaths 2,000 percent by 2080: study

Deaths from heat waves could increase by up to 2,000 percent in certain parts of the world by 2080 as a result of climate change, according to a new study released on Tuesday by PLOS Medicine.

“Future heatwaves in particular will be more frequent, more intense and will last much longer,”  Yuming Guo, the study’s lead, said in a statement to Reuters. “If we cannot find a way to mitigate the climate change (reduce the heatwave days) and help people adapt to heatwaves, there will be a big increase of heatwave-related deaths in the future.”

Guo’s study looked into 20 countries on four continents, finding that the increase in mortality was likely to be highest near the equator.

The team said the country hardest hit by rising temperatures would be Colombia, which reportedly could suffer 2,000 percent more premature deaths due to extreme heat from 2031 to 2080 compared with 1971 to 2010.

Their computer models (which have failed again and again and again) tell them it’s going to get hotter and they’ve decided mankind is at fault, and then they scaremonger about future deaths. Yet, the same people want to restrict the use of air conditioners, along with reliable fossil fueled energy. But refuse to give up their own big carbon footprints.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Could Maybe Possibly We Guess Increase Heatwave Deaths By 2,000 Percent Or Something »

Excitable Ed Markey (D) Pledges To Hold Up State Dept Nominee Till Trump Stops 3D Gun Plans

Ed apparently hates the 1st Amendment, and that, as an elected member of the Legislative Branch, he can actually propose legislation. Or, maybe he realizes that the actual text of the 1st Amendment reads “Congress shall pass no law…or abridging the freedom of speech”

(Daily Caller) Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts announced his intention Wednesday to stall the confirmation of R. Clarke Cooper to the Department of State until President Donald Trump agrees to prevent an unrelated company from publishing instructions for 3D-printed guns.

Senate Democrats have expressed outrage for the past few weeks over a settled lawsuit allowing Americans access to detailed firearm blueprints, which will enable a roadmap to designs that can be recreated with a 3D printer at home. (snip)

During a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing Wednesday, Markey told Cooper, who is nominated for assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, that he would be opposing Cooper’s confirmation until the Trump administration reverses its decision on the blueprints.

“I appreciate that you are not the person who made this policy, but you are asking us to confirm you to a position where you will be defending the indefensible,” Markey said to Cooper. “Until the president agrees to reverse this policy and prohibit the online publication of these dangerous blueprints, a decision that is entirely within his authority, I intend to place a hold on your nomination.”

What Markey wants Trump to do is what’s known as prior restraint. Also, censorship. He’s not trying to block the guns themselves: he’s attempting to block the publication of the plans. As noted in previous posts, the guns themselves are mostly illegal to start with, thanks to a 1988 law, the Undetectable Firearms Act.

Rather than constantly yammering about the doom from these plans and wanting to restrict free speech, they would be better off saying that these guns are stupid, expensive, and more dangerous to the user than the person being targeted. Of course, this would also be highlighting that citizens are better off purchasing a firearm manufactured to exactly specifications, one that has been tested and made to work properly, and Democrats do not want that, either.

Anyhow, the more the Democrats talk and fear and doom-monger about these guns in the manner they’ve been, the more some people will say “I gotta get me one!”

Oh, and if Trump did restrict them? The Democrats would then say Trump is a dictator and hates free speech (among other slurs).

Read: Excitable Ed Markey (D) Pledges To Hold Up State Dept Nominee Till Trump Stops 3D Gun Plans »

Good News: Democratic Socialists Set Up Shop On Campuses Nationwide

What do these Democratic Socialists really want? Meagan Day explains at Vox

I’m a staff writer at the socialist magazine Jacobin and a member of DSA, and here’s the truth: In the long run, democratic socialists want to end capitalism. And we want to do that by pursuing a reform agenda today in an effort to revive a politics focused on class hierarchy and inequality in the United States. The eventual goal is to transform the world to promote everyone’s needs rather than to produce massive profits for a small handful of citizens.

Meagan goes on to note things like not wanting Medicare for all, but full single payer, because the former simply covers insurance, and they want a nationalization of the entire health system. True, textbook Socialism as part of the Democracy model also features virtually no restrictions on voting, which seems to be covered by these kooks (along with other nutty things)

but, what of the 3rd core, the Moral Core, where the government stays the hell out of our lives? I’m thinking they aren’t for that part. Anyhow, in regard to profit and capitalism and stuff

https://twitter.com/reg1776/status/1024814385372508160

From Zero Hedge

The Young Democratic Socialists of America organization now claims to have more than 250 chapters on campuses across the country, a dramatic increase from just 15 chapters in 2016.

YDSA is the student-focused branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) which is “a political and activist organization” that seeks to “empower working people” and has several ongoing campaigns, including Medicare for All, Strong Unions, and Electoral Power.

The YDSA mission is to “build the power of students, campus communities, and youth to fight for equality, justice, and democratic socialism,” according to its constitution, which was last updated in August 2017.+

In June 2017, YDSA launched a “Fall Campus Drive” with the goal of registering 100 new chapters by the fall semester, noting that it had already expanded from just 15 chapters to 50 chapters in 27 states over the preceding year.

“When we originally launched the YDSA fall campus drive, we set the bold target of 100 campuses across the country,” the recognized chapter list states. “Currently, we’ve received over 250 campuses register for the fall drive! This explosion in interest shows that this semester will be the biggest ever for YDSA. We will be able to build a mass movement for democratic socialism and justice at campuses across the country.”

The list is hilarious. Locally, there’s Duke University, which costs almost $50,000 per year (just for tuition and fees). Same with Stanford. Yale is over $53K. American University is $43K. Northwestern is $53K. We could keep going on and seeing these kids attending expensive colleges, learning all about how they can make oodles of money in their own lives, but, you get the point.

Read: Good News: Democratic Socialists Set Up Shop On Campuses Nationwide »

Swedish Woman Protecting Illegal Alien From Deportation Might Want To Rethink That Position

Remember this?

https://twitter.com/jazz_sleeper/status/1022777625675280384

She was oh so celebrated. She was totally brave

https://twitter.com/BaselAlhasan4/status/1022451571265863680

Um, yeah, about that

Afghan migrant whose deportation was thwarted by ‘hero’ Swedish student was actually sentenced for assault

The Swedish student who was branded a “hero” and captured worldwide attention after she stopped the deportation of an Afghan migrant by refusing to sit down on a plane instead prevented the extradition of a man sentenced for assault and whose asylum application was rejected.

Elin Ersson, a student at Gothenburg University, was subjected to fawning media coverage over her stunt earlier this month when she refused to take her seat on the plane until the 52-year-old Afghan deportee was released. She was successful and authorities weren’t able to deport the man.

However, Swedish Police confirmed to Fox News that the man whose deportation Ersson prevented had received a prison sentence in Sweden for assault. The police spokesman declined to go into more details about the crime the migrant has committed. His asylum application was also rejected.

We already know he’s from Afghanistan, and most likely brought his 3rd world beliefs to Sweden, and most likely assaulted at least one woman.

An annoyed passenger tried to grab the phone from Ersson, saying she’s upsetting others. To which the student replied: “It’s not my fault that he’s getting deported. I’m trying to stop this.”

“I’m trying to change my country’s rules. I don’t like them. It’s not right to send people to hell,” she added.

She was attempting to protect a criminal. Oh, and he was deported shortly thereafter. They should have made Ersson house the man in her own home.

Read: Swedish Woman Protecting Illegal Alien From Deportation Might Want To Rethink That Position »

If All You See…

…is a horrible rising sea, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is No Frakking Consensus, with a post on plastic straw ban memes.

Read: If All You See… »

Surprise: California’s ‘Climate Change’ Board Is Unelected And Unacountable

What was supposed to be about transparency has essentially created a monster, but, then, transparency and accountability are things mostly missing from the Cult of Climastrology

California’s climate change regulator chooses self-preservation over transparency

When the next governor is sworn in January, he will have the opportunity to shape policy by filling the many state boards and commissions with his appointees — except, apparently, to the powerful agency charged with overseeing California’s ambitious climate change program.

Last week the California Air Resources Board approved a plan to set new, staggered six-year terms for the board’s 14 voting members, 12 of whom are subject to gubernatorial appointment. The terms were required by a bill passed by the Legislature in 2016.

Previously, board members were all at-will appointments who could have been replaced at any time — or as often happened, remain on the board for years and years. Now, members will serve fixed terms and can’t be replaced until their term is up. And under the distinctly backloaded schedule adopted by the board, most of governor’s appointees won’t come up for review until December 2020 and December 2022. (snip)

Even worse, though, was the secretive way the Air Resource Board handled the change. Board members had the plan for phasing in the new terms for nearly two weeks, yet the agency refused to make the plan public on its website until a few hours before the vote. That left little opportunity for advocacy groups to weigh in.

Well, that’s perfect, because they’re pretty secretive on how they spend all the money forcibly taken from Californians and California businesses.

Yet one of the reasons lawmakers overhauled the board as part of Assembly Bill 197 in 2016 was to give lawmakers and the public more say over this powerful panel, which sets environmental policies that often become the template for the nation. The measure allowed the governor to continue filling most of the seats on the board, but imposed six-year terms to give the Legislature some oversight when seats came up for review and confirmation.

It appears as if once a person is confirmed to the board, they cannot be dismissed till the end of the term. There’s almost no accountability, and they can pretty much do what they want. Who regulates the regulators?

Read: Surprise: California’s ‘Climate Change’ Board Is Unelected And Unacountable »

Woman Who Didn’t Want Gender Confused Men In Locker Room Wins Suit Against Planet Fitness

In the Real World, as opposed to SJW World, most females would prefer that their locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms remain separate from men. It’s a safe space for them (as opposed to the Safe Spaces SJWs want. Capitalization matters). They would prefer not to be subjected to peeping and such. In fact, women have filed many lawsuits against men peeping at them. And then there’s this one (via Twitchy)

From the loopy, unhinged article

It all started back in 2015, when Cormier saw a trans woman in the locker room. She went around warning other gym members about someone who “totally looked like a man” in the women’s locker room and telling them they were “unsafe.”

Planet Fitness responded by terminating membership on grounds of “inappropriate and disruptive” behavior, saying Cormier violated their “judgement-free zone” policy with her transphobic outburst.

As many point out, in response to the article, this isn’t about hate, it’s not gender deranged-phobic, er, transphobic, it’s about consent. And respect. Planet Fitness is a private company, and can make their own policy on allowing the gender confused to allow whichever side they want to use. But, they should have told the people who pay the bulk of the dues that members of the opposite sex would be allowed in to their locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms. As Twitter user Chad Felix Greene writes

No.
Consent wins.
The woman was not informed physical males could enter the women’s locker room.

There is no hate involved. Reducing women’s safety amd privacy to ‘hate’ in this one context is absurd and offensive.

The court ruled the company has a responsibility to inform.

And that’s what the court ruled

(Norwalk Reflector) A Michigan appeals court has ruled in favor of a former Planet Fitness customer who argued that her rights under Michigan’s consumer protection law were violated when the club did not disclose its unwritten policy and canceled her membership because she complained about a man in the women’s locker room. (snip)

The court’s opinion said, “The plaintiff was already a member of the gym when she learned of the unwritten policy and was thus subject to a financial penalty if she canceled her membership earlier than provided in the membership agreement. Plaintiff’s actions indicate that she strongly preferred a locker room and a restroom in which individuals who are assigned biologically male are not present, and it is thus reasonable to infer that defendants’ failure to inform plaintiff of the unwritten policy affected her decision to join the gym.”

Cormier alleged that Planet Fitness misrepresented the nature of its contract when it said that she would have access to a private women’s locker room while failing to disclose that includes “men who self-identity as women.” This unwritten policy would have affected her decision to purchase a membership, and Planet Fitness appears to have engaged in deceptive business practices.

Funny, liberals always support the right to “choice”, and that women should have control over their own bodies, and should not be harassed and shouldn’t feel unsafe (I think we can all agree on the last two, yet, it sure seems like this doesn’t happen in liberal areas like Hollywood), except where they put the rights of people with mental problems over those of real women

https://twitter.com/Melvin_Udall_/status/1024370814743977985

Read: Woman Who Didn’t Want Gender Confused Men In Locker Room Wins Suit Against Planet Fitness »

Pirate's Cove