Pope Francis To Employers Who Don’t Offer Health Care: You Are ‘True Leeches’

[Fish and Bread]

Link:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2016/05/19/3779838/pope-francis-health-care-leeches/

 

[concretecamper]

Absolutely, exploitation of people is morally wrong. The title of the thread is however misleading.

 

[Martinius]

In the last couple of days, Pope Francis has really ratcheted up his comments about the exploitation of workers by employers. I like the line: "Living off the blood of the people: that is a mortal sin." I would add sweat and sinew as well. I am wondering if he recently learned of an exploitation situation that got him going on this.

 

[Fantine]

Wonder what he thinks of the bishops who are encouraging employers to sue the government, with every lawsuit having the potential to "bring down Obamacare" and cost tens of millions their health insurance.

Wonder what he thinks of the bishops who encourage people to vote for Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, et al.

Don't know why I'm wondering. I'm pretty sure I know.

 

[Tallguy88]

"The pontiff then pretended to be the hypothetical business leader, saying, “I will pay you this much, without vacation time, without health insurance, all under the table — but I will become rich!”"

Under the table jobs are often very necessary for some people. Especially felons and others who can't get a regular job due to background checks, tax leins, judgments, immigration status, etc. These people take what they can get and these under the table jobs are often all they can get. If you force them to dry up, you actually are hurting the people who need those jobs. My dad is one such person.

 

[Martinius]

Businesses could play the game of offering benefits to employees, but then control their work hours so they are not eligible for them. Use part time employees instead of full time. I recall one woman who had transitioned to part time, and gave up benefits in the process, which was okay as she had health insurance through her husband. When the business was busy and she worked extra hours to help cover, she was yelled at and told not to do that. She was confused as she thought that they would be thankful she was helping fill the need. Being an employer myself, I explained to her that the company wouldn't want her to work those extra hours, even if they desperately needed the help, because she would then become eligible for benefits. So once she reached her maximum hours for the week, she had to stop and go home. No matter how short handed they might be.

At our business we prorated some benefits, such as personal leave and vacation time, so even a person working 18 or 20 hours per week would get something. But not health insurance. In any case, we had low turnover due to the way we treated all employees. Plus we didn't have to monitor hours as closely, so could schedule to fit the need, rather than to limit benefit costs. Didn't have to spend time and money hiring and training new people very often, either. I saw that as being very fair and cost effective. Plus, having a well trained and experienced staff made the customers happy. We were successful and were able to grow; the other place struggled and had to seek a buyout partner.

Insurance and other benefits are critical if you want to hire and retain good people. If you want to make short term profits at the expense of a company's future viability, and don't care about the welfare of your employees and their families, go for the cheapest route.

 

[RKO]

Wonder what he thinks of the bishops who are encouraging employers to sue the government, with every lawsuit having the potential to "bring down Obamacare" and cost tens of millions their health insurance.

Wonder what he thinks of the bishops who encourage people to vote for Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, et al.

Don't know why I'm wondering. I'm pretty sure I know.

I've never understood people, poor people, who will snarl at me for suggesting that an employer has a moral responsibility to treat its workers fairly. And they are the ones who call us the koolaid drinkers.

 

[concretecamper]

I am sure all good practicing Catholics believe employers have a moral obligation to treat workers fairly.

 

[RKO]

I am sure all good practicing Catholics believe employers have a moral obligation to treat workers fairly.

I believe the variation comes in the definition of "fairly."

 

[concretecamper]

I believe the variation comes in the definition of "fairly."

I dont think is is how "fairly" is defined, I think it's a problem of "everyone better define it as I see it".

When treating workers fairly, there are alot of ways to provide for a fair wage, and some of the ways don't include employer sponsored health care. Which is why I said the title of this thread is misleading

 

[RKO]

I dont think is is how "fairly" is defined, I think it's a problem of "everyone better define it as I see it."

Which is exactly the same thing as having different definitions.

 

[dzheremi]

I've never understood people, poor people, who will snarl at me for suggesting that an employer has a moral responsibility to treat its workers fairly. And they are the ones who call us the koolaid drinkers.

Everyone in America thinks they are either rich or one step away from becoming rich, and that others are trying to steal their piece of the pie before they even have a chance to enjoy it. "Why should I pay for someone else who doesn't work?", "You got pregnant? Isn't that YOUR problem?", etc. People internalize the selfish attitudes of the truly wealthy, even if they themselves are not.

 

[RKO]

Everyone in America thinks they are either rich or one step away from becoming rich, and that others are trying to steal their piece of the pie before they even have a chance to enjoy it. "Why should I pay for someone else who doesn't work?", "You got pregnant? Isn't that YOUR problem?", etc. People internalize the selfish attitudes of the truly wealthy, even if they themselves are not.

Exactly. It's almost like a "wannabe" thing.
And I cannot help but wonder if some people just have to find somebody that makes them feel superior. I would really like to be wrong about that. But I fear I am not.

 

[LoAmmi]

Everyone in America thinks they are either rich or one step away from becoming rich, and that others are trying to steal their piece of the pie before they even have a chance to enjoy it. "Why should I pay for someone else who doesn't work?", "You got pregnant? Isn't that YOUR problem?", etc. People internalize the selfish attitudes of the truly wealthy, even if they themselves are not.

I get annoyed when they stand up and thump the Bible to justify that. Now, I realize that Christians talk about not being under the Law and that's fine, but you can't honestly sit there and tell me the book where those who grow crops are REQUIRED (not suggested) to leave part of their fields unharvested so that the poor could eat also supports not helping people who are in need because they didn't work for whatever.

 

[concretecamper]

Exactly. It's almost like a "wannabe" thing.
And I cannot help but wonder if some people just have to find somebody that makes them feel superior. I would really like to be wrong about that. But I fear I am not.

I agree 100%. IMO, *staff edit* some liberals in the media love to create need (any many follow their lead) to make them feel superior to those who need.....you are correct...and it is so sad.

 

[dzheremi]

The post I was responding to didn't specify liberals or conservatives, concretecamper -- it just says poor people. Wouldn't it be better to keep it that way, since people of all political persuasions can be rich or poor?

 

[concretecamper]

I wasn't responding to your post

 

[dzheremi]

You quoted a reply to me and proceeded to go on a diversion into political partisanship, even though there was no left/right dichotomy expressed in either the post you quoted or the post I was originally replying to. "I wasn't replying to you" is not an excuse to go on an irrelevant tangent.

 

[RKO]

I agree 100%. Liberals love to create need to make them feel superior to those who need.....you are correct...and it is so sad.

Ha. Only "liberals?"

 

[RKO]

You quoted a reply to me and proceeded to go on a diversion into political partisanship, even though there was no left/right dichotomy expressed in either the post you quoted or the post I was originally replying to. "I wasn't replying to you" is not an excuse to go on an irrelevant tangent.

I forgot about this poster. He seems to be on a divine mission to infiltrate the "enemy position" and straighten them out by insult and one sided thoughts.