Regulate my thoughts, so I don't have to Think!

Here’s a prime example of ‘a little regulation’ that sounds good, get’s passed and then begins to grow and Grow and GROW!  To the cost of who?  The small business owner – the tax payer – you and me!

Presidential candidate and Connecticut Democrat Senator Chris Dodd, who authored the original Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), has decided it should be expanded.  Currently FMLA provides unpaid leave, but Senator Dodd has decided it should provide employees with at least six weeks of paid. Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska plans to con-sponsor the bill.

Dodd and Stevens intend to expand the number of individuals eligible for FMLA.  Other than the loss of productivity and the cost of monitoring leave the current law has no direct cost to the employer.  But watch out … whose going to PAY for that time off?  Like I said: business, tax payers, you and me!

In announcing his intent Dodd referenced the ‘Work, Family and Equity Index’, and said, “this report validates what millions of working Americans already know – that the U.S. does not do nearly enough to ensure that our workers aren’t forced to choose between their family and their job.  Now more than ever, millions of workers need to be able to take care of their young children and their aging parents.  No worker should be penalized for caring for their family.”

What a bunch of food for the profanity filter.  I’m a business owner and an employee of my business, and millions of others just like me must try to balance - work life with home life, along with spiritual life, social life, educational life, physical life and much more, every single day.  Why don’t we just go ahead and legislate that a person can only play one round of golf per month and must do so in under 4 hours … because anymore would take too much time away from the family.  Oh yeah, let’s slip in a limitation on the amount of television someone can watch because that’s also takes away from Family Time!

Since the good Senator has not officially proposed the legislation, who knows how such a system would actually work.  We do know that Dodd proposes to fund the program through a shared-cost mechanism, involving the employer, the employee and the federal government.  Restated, business, tax payers and you and me will pay for it!  Although much about the proposed bill is unknown, one thing is for sure the cost of doing business, the cost of having employees, the cost of goods and services would INCREASE!  Ah, but it’s for the good of the people, so says my government through added regulation for business and tax payer burden!

As is, most companies find it more cost effective to simply grant leave vs the cost of tracking eligible leave.  But make it PAID leave, guess what business will then need to purchase and administer leave-tracking software – more cost to business to be passed on to the consumer!  Oh yea, and employee may be required by the employer to get a second opinion, which the employer will be required to pay for.  And the employer is simply going to DENY the leave any time possible.  Why, because it now cost too much to be nice!  Guess what else, because the employer can require an employee to take any available vacation or sick leave FIRST, its going to cause business savvy employers to replace their existing vacation and sick leave policies with a combined PTO. 

How popular will this be when ops no family vacation this year, no trip to grandmas at Christmas? 

How much will all of this cost business?  Billions!  Oh but wait a minute, business doesn’t pay for such things --- they pass these cost on to the consumer --- You and Me!  The government who must now hire thousands to administer the regulation, oh they’ll just pass that on to the taxpayer – YOU AND ME!

Ah ---- regulation isn’t it grand!  And aren’t the politicians so smart, we’ll start out with this little bit and then we can expand it!  One should be careful what one wishes for!  Why do so many people have their hands out saying give me, protect me, help me?  Because they’ve forgotten how to think, how to act and how to work!  How to exchange effort for reward!  But that’s just my opinion what’s yours!

Believe and Succeed,DaleFranSynergy, Inc.Synergizing Franchising!

Profile picture for user FranSynergy

Comments

Regulation of Thoughts --Brain Washing

Dale:

Your article makes sense in many ways and it is the problem in a viable democracy to decide what legislation will actually work for the "public good".

Even if the definition of the "small business" we see inequities arise and while we may all "stand equal before the law", the rule of law is promulgated by human beings who are influenced by special interestsd, etc...and the law does not treat us equally, as is demonstrated in the franchisor-franchisee relationship.

I understand that legislation like "the family leave" policy, if passed, would be misused by some of the individual employees who would mistreat the terms of any new law and work a hardship on their employers out of their own greed. I don't think I would vote for this legislation because I believe in "family planning" and the weeks without pay should be part of the family "planning" and "saving" for the new baby.

However, it is the excesses of The Corporate Elite and The Government Elite that permit the passage of regulatory laws that will not work for the public good because one extreme enables another extreme.

It is also true that many of our citizens have forgotten how to think and how to act and how to work. But, the consciousness of our people is being formed on all they see and hear and read and the examples that our culture sets up as leadership roles or models. The message of the advertisers, who are supported by the corporate sponsors, have licensed all kinds of self-destructive and immoral behavior in the interests of their profits. If the people want shit and shit makes money, this is the American way and the corporations have no responsiblty as citizens to worry about the character of the consumers. Since they are legal entities who have no "soul", they see their only responsiblity is to make money for themselves and their share holders.

Our children are being taught that it is better to be "lucky" and "win" than to "work hard". Our children are being taught that it is okay to lie to avoid a bad consequence and that if you get caught and you are powerful enough and rich enough, there are no consequences.
Our children are taught that the defense of this country should be left to the "regulars" who are career people and to the poor and disenfranchised who can't go on to college from highschool and who join the volunteer force as a means of getting a life for themselves. Even the National Guard and the Reserve Troops continue their contracts because of the extra money that they can bring into their families. This is not to say that they are not proud of the work that they do and the fact that they are serving and protecting their families and their country but the "money", always, is a factor as well.
But, there is no shared sacrifice and, I, personally, do not believe we can have a viable democracy if there is no shared sacrifice. Capitalism should be able to provide all of the joys of conspicuous consumption but not a "free" ride for those who
will never have to bleed or sacrifice for the joys of living in a democratic Republic under capitalism.
We can see that a "voluntary force" where only a small segment of the population sacrifices anything at all can be more easily used by government as a policy "tool" in foreign policy matters. Government is then enabled to engage in more premtive type wars for the public good, and especially when The Congress has fewer and fewer veterans in its midst who have actually "bled" for their country.
This will have to be addressed.
I agree with you on much that you say, Dale. But, we must address corporate welfare as well as individual welfare, and we must adress and agree on the values that we stand for as a Country.
Are you willing to do this or have you given up?
You still haven't explained why you are opposed to full disclosure and equal protection of the laws for franchisees in the franchisor-franchisee relationship.

FMLA applicability

For those not familiar, the statute referenced here is a US federal law whichonly applies to employers who:

  1. Have 50 or more workers
  2. during each day of
  3. 20 or more workweeks
  4. of the current or preceding year

and only covers employees who:

  1. have been employed by that employer for 12 months or more and
  2. have at least 1,250 hours of service with that employer during the previous 12 months

The citation is 29 USC 2611, the above is found at section 4. For a search of the US Code, click here and for a better understanding, go to your library and see the USCA (which is the Annotated version, much better to read in order to understand what the law really means and how it is applied in practice).

Paul, of course is...

Paul, of course is correct.  However in Senator Dodds statements he has indicated a STRONG DESIRE to INCREASE the number of eligible employees....which could be accomplished by reducing the guidelines which Paul has outlined.

Believe & Succeed,DaleFranSynergy, Inc.Synergizing Franchising 1 Franchisee at a time!

The answer to your questions.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, ideas and opinions in such a clear, concise and heartfelt manner.  I so wish everyone would get a screen name so that it was easier to know who’s who! 

You wrote: I agree with you on much that you say, Dale. But, we must address corporate welfare as well as individual welfare, and we must address and agree on the values that we stand for as a Country.  Are you willing to do this or have you given up?

I also agree with your sentiments, in theory.  I’m just a very simple person, who’s not too deep, what little I have I’ve worked hard to get, and work equally hard to protect.  I believe the rules should be really pretty simple: Treat others the way you’d want to be treated.  Do what you say you’ll do.  Deliver more than you promise.  Give more than you take.  So on and so forth. 

I believe a business has a responsibility to exchange a fair product or service for a fair price.  I believe the customer should have the option to buy from who they think delivers the best value. I do not think corporate America should be REQUIRED to ‘give back’, however I do think they should, and that many do.  I also believe that the profits of the corporation belong to the stockholders and that it should be those stockholders who decide where and to whom those profits go.

I do not believe that corporate America or the American tax payer should pay for and keep paying for individuals who make and keep making bad life decisions.  I’m all for giving a hand up to those who truly need it, I’m against giving a hand out to those who are too lazy to get up and do something positive and constructive with their life.  I believe God provides the nuts, but it’s up to us to crack them. 

I'll also state that I do not believe in government bail-outs for private business.  It should be up to private business to make a profit and too manage those profits so that they can build and grow their business.  If they mess it up, they're own their own.

You wrote: You still haven't explained why you are opposed to full disclosure and equal protection of the laws for franchisees in the franchisor-franchisee relationship.

I’m not opposed to full-disclosure.  I agree that a franchisor should conduct their business in a manner which produces the Dr. Phil mentality of ‘He who has nothing to hide, hides nothing’.  I do not however agree that more regulation is the answer.  If you produce a regulatory action that dictates that this is what should be disclosed, guess what…all but the crooks will disclose that which they are required to disclose.  John & Betty Franchisee then say, okay they told me everything that they were supposed to, I’m safe, I’m buying.  This doesn’t produce more due-diligence but less. And of course even the most reputable franchisor is a business; they are in business to Attract, Retain and Grow customers.  The franchisee is the Franchisors customer.  So what does the franchisor do, they put spin into the document to best present their version of the truth in disclosure.  The example I love to give, and forgive me if I’ve used it here before, comes from the camp of Hillary Clinton, and it goes something like this:

Eugene Judy, a professional genealogical researcher, discovered that Hillary Clinton's great-great uncle, Remus Rodham, a fellow lacking in character, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows.

On the back of the picture is this inscription: "Remus Rodham; horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889."

Judy emailed Hillary Clinton @NY.Gov for comments. Hillary's staff of professional image adjustors cropped Remus' picture, scanned it, enlarged the image, and edited it with image processing software so that all that's seen is a photograph of Remus' head.

The accompanying biographical sketch is as follows: "Remus Rodham was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory.  His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed."

There is no substitute for effective and efficient due-diligence.  I personally would rather see a regulation that eliminated the UFOC, and replaced it with a single sheet of paper which might read something on the lines of:

Don’t be an idiot!  Don’t waste your life savings!  Don’t you know that businesses including franchises fail, at an alarming and unacceptable rate!  If you fail, you might owe money you don’t have!  You might blow your kids college education.  You might lose your home!  Your spouse may leave you!  It’s not worth it!  If any of the above mentioned advice, causes you to abandon you dreams of business ownership that is good because you’re obviously not right to go into business on your own.  So, take this advice….believe nothing, check out everything! If your prospective franchisor isn’t willing to answer any question you have to your complete satisfaction, and if you can’t validate those answers…find another franchisor! 

As for Equal Protection, it really comes down to how one defines equal protection.  Do I think either party should be able to bring suit against the other party for breaching the contractual obligations contained within an Agreement which the two parties entered into?  ABSOLUTELY!

Believe & Succeed,DaleFranSynergy, Inc.Synergizing Franchising!

Paul, of course is...

Paul, of course is correct.  However in Senator Dodds statements he has indicated a STRONG DESIRE to INCREASE the number of eligible employees....which could be accomplished by reducing the guidelines which Paul has outlined.

Believe & Succeed,DaleFranSynergy, Inc.Synergizing Franchising 1 Franchisee at a time!

The answer to your questions.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, ideas and opinions in such a clear, concise and heartfelt manner.  I so wish everyone would get a screen name so that it was easier to know who’s who! 

You wrote: I agree with you on much that you say, Dale. But, we must address corporate welfare as well as individual welfare, and we must address and agree on the values that we stand for as a Country.  Are you willing to do this or have you given up?

I also agree with your sentiments, in theory.  I’m just a very simple person, who’s not too deep, what little I have I’ve worked hard to get, and work equally hard to protect.  I believe the rules should be really pretty simple: Treat others the way you’d want to be treated.  Do what you say you’ll do.  Deliver more than you promise.  Give more than you take.  So on and so forth. 

I believe a business has a responsibility to exchange a fair product or service for a fair price.  I believe the customer should have the option to buy from who they think delivers the best value. I do not think corporate America should be REQUIRED to ‘give back’, however I do think they should, and that many do.  I also believe that the profits of the corporation belong to the stockholders and that it should be those stockholders who decide where and to whom those profits go.

I do not believe that corporate America or the American tax payer should pay for and keep paying for individuals who make and keep making bad life decisions.  I’m all for giving a hand up to those who truly need it, I’m against giving a hand out to those who are too lazy to get up and do something positive and constructive with their life.  I believe God provides the nuts, but it’s up to us to crack them. 

I'll also state that I do not believe in government bail-outs for private business.  It should be up to private business to make a profit and too manage those profits so that they can build and grow their business.  If they mess it up, they're own their own.

You wrote: You still haven't explained why you are opposed to full disclosure and equal protection of the laws for franchisees in the franchisor-franchisee relationship.

I’m not opposed to full-disclosure.  I agree that a franchisor should conduct their business in a manner which produces the Dr. Phil mentality of ‘He who has nothing to hide, hides nothing’.  I do not however agree that more regulation is the answer.  If you produce a regulatory action that dictates that this is what should be disclosed, guess what…all but the crooks will disclose that which they are required to disclose.  John & Betty Franchisee then say, okay they told me everything that they were supposed to, I’m safe, I’m buying.  This doesn’t produce more due-diligence but less. And of course even the most reputable franchisor is a business; they are in business to Attract, Retain and Grow customers.  The franchisee is the Franchisors customer.  So what does the franchisor do, they put spin into the document to best present their version of the truth in disclosure.  The example I love to give, and forgive me if I’ve used it here before, comes from the camp of Hillary Clinton, and it goes something like this:

Eugene Judy, a professional genealogical researcher, discovered that Hillary Clinton's great-great uncle, Remus Rodham, a fellow lacking in character, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows.

On the back of the picture is this inscription: "Remus Rodham; horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889."

Judy emailed Hillary Clinton @NY.Gov for comments. Hillary's staff of professional image adjustors cropped Remus' picture, scanned it, enlarged the image, and edited it with image processing software so that all that's seen is a photograph of Remus' head.

The accompanying biographical sketch is as follows: "Remus Rodham was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory.  His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed."

There is no substitute for effective and efficient due-diligence.  I personally would rather see a regulation that eliminated the UFOC, and replaced it with a single sheet of paper which might read something on the lines of:

Don’t be an idiot!  Don’t waste your life savings!  Don’t you know that businesses including franchises fail, at an alarming and unacceptable rate!  If you fail, you might owe money you don’t have!  You might blow your kids college education.  You might lose your home!  Your spouse may leave you!  It’s not worth it!  If any of the above mentioned advice, causes you to abandon you dreams of business ownership that is good because you’re obviously not right to go into business on your own.  So, take this advice….believe nothing, check out everything! If your prospective franchisor isn’t willing to answer any question you have to your complete satisfaction, and if you can’t validate those answers…find another franchisor! 

As for Equal Protection, it really comes down to how one defines equal protection.  Do I think either party should be able to bring suit against the other party for breaching the contractual obligations contained within an Agreement which the two parties entered into?  ABSOLUTELY!

Believe & Succeed,DaleFranSynergy, Inc.Synergizing Franchising!

reply

admin reply