First, welcome to my blog. I plan to only post occasionally here, when I have something to say, and when I have the time to type it out.
For my first post, I want to talk about my daughter's swim class, and how that correlates to politics. Yes, you read that one right.
Backstory: Every Saturday this fall, I took my youngest daughter to a parent/toddler swim class. The goal of the class is to get he comfortable with water, etc. The first few weeks went great. The lifeguard who taught the class was passionate about the age group she was working with, and did a good combination of working with the kids individually, and doing things in groups, such as singing songs and putting motions to music. It was a great class.
Week 4 of the class arrives and the teacher tells us that this will be her last week teaching the class. She announces that she's right at the 1000 hour threshold, so the City of Elgin (the folks that run the pool) won't schedule her again this year. Apparently, once the employee hits 1000 hours worked, the City of Elgin must offer her benefits.
I'm sure this rule was put in place to "protect workers". It isn't fair that a worker logs over 1000 hours in a year and isn't offered benefits. So, let's look at the results of this rule. The business decides that, despite this particular lifeguard being a great teacher (that's why she'd reached the 1000 hours in the first place), it's not worth the additional cost to offer her benefits. So, the tell her that they won't schedule her for the final three months of the year. So, the rule put in place to protect the worker caused her to get laid off for three months, so she'd need to find something else to do if she wants to have any income, despite the fact that she loved her lifeguard job. The results to the class were that we were assigned another teacher who was just as good of a lifeguard, but not as good of a teacher to this age group. The final three classes I attended had less than half the attendance of the initial classes, and the kids, while enjoying the pool, did not have the same fun of the earlier class.
It's examples like this that point the way as to why I'm a conservative. The lifeguard clearly would have been happy to have not been offered benefits and continue doing the job in October to December that she did in the first nine months of the year. The folks in the class would have been happy keeping the same great teacher, and would be more likely to sign their kids up again for another class. And obviously, the employer (City of Elgin) would have been happy to keep their existing lifeguards and not pay them benefits. All three parties would have been happy continuing what they were doing, but because of government regulations, now everyone loses. The lifeguard is out of a job, the City needs to scramble to find more lifeguards, and the class gets a less effective teacher.
Thomas Sowell has an entire book on this concept, titled "Thinking Beyond Stage One". The premise is that political talking heads make legislation based on cases like the above. A worker who logs 1000 hours or more should have benefits. So they make it law without any thought to the repercussions that this causes. Stage two thinking is examining the example above and determining if there are positive or negative benefits to the parties, and it's this type of thought that is so often not thought of when legislation is proposed and passed. And it's this stage two thinking that most conservatives try to look to when they oppose legislation like the above and gets us branded as SIX HIRB (SIX HIRB is columnist Dennis Prager's acronym for what conservatives are labeled so that debate can be avoided: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, islamaphobic, racist, bigoted, because people who are any of those are not worth being debated - there is no need to debate someone who is any of those words). When we oppose legislation like the rule above, we get branded as "anti-worker" because we want them to be able to keep working.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment