Two weeks is fine in most cases, at least at my job. There’d be some adjustment and getting back up to speed, but they’d be all right. We all get 4-6 weeks of personal time.
Is there a difference between “paid leave” and “personal time”?
Yeah, we all get personal time, paid leave is something extra if you have a family event. I’d bet if a paid leave bill passed, the days of employees getting 4 or more weeks vacation time would be over.
So instead they’d be getting paid leave. Or do you presume that one cannot use paid leave to, I dunno, go on a vacation?
Paid leave as I understand the policy is simply to make FMLA a paid leave instead of an unpaid leave, correct?
Otherwise, why not just mandate that all workers get at least two weeks paid vacation?
In my experience, people over-inflate just how “indispensable” they are at work. OMG, how can anything get done around here without MEEEEEE!!! And, yeah, this seems to be a peculiarly American thing. Americans know how to work; Europeans know how to live!
When those elderly people were dying in nursing homes during that heat wave, those nurses on vacation were pretty indispensable.
Some workers are hard to replace. When my company lost its Oracle DBA things just didn’t work as well. His replacement was a German lady who thought she was entitled to not be bothered when it wasn’t between 9am-5pm, Monday-Friday.
Was she paid for 40 hrs/week and the company just expected her to be available 24/7, or did her contract specify on-call with appropriate extra compensation?
What I commonly see is the first one, and I think if more people said no things would improve.
538 is reporting that Sanders could actually win Iowa and New Hampshire…and nowhere else.
Does that account for the momentum that usually results from winning the first two contests? I understand that Sanders doesn’t do well with minority voters and he certainly won’t win SC, but I would think that given the history of Democratic primaries, winning the first two contests should bump Sanders everywhere else.
Actually, it says that he could win IA and NH, and also COULD win nowhere else:
That would be a pretty unusual result though. When was the last time a Democrat won both IA and NH and didn’t win the nomination?
Personally I think the weight given to the IA and NH results (for either party) by the media is ludicrous, and is driven by the need to create a compelling narrative for the long campaign season. It’s certainly not an inevitability. So while Sanders winning them would certainly gain him a lot more name recognition and media exposure, I’m still not convinced he could beat Clinton in the long run.
I think you’re probably right. Sanders’ support among minorities is Republican level bad. But i still believe that if Sanders beats Clinton in either IA or NH, the party will be casting about for alternatives. So it’s hard to get someone new into the race that late? That’s why the DNC should be calling Liz Warren and Joe Biden right the hell now.
Whereas I believe that if Sanders beats Clinton in either IA or NH, she’ll up her game. If we’ve learned anything from 2008 it’s that Clinton doesn’t fold easily. There’s no reason to treat this like a “game over” moment.
let’s be real. Clinton was out of it long before she quit and it was causing quite a bit of anger among Democrats when she didn’t, along with dark promises that they wouldn’t support her because of the damage she was doing to the party for her selfish ends.
Of course, Clinton is no idiot and knew such threats were idle.
But the point is that she won’t quit, no, but she and Bill won’t hesitate to go negative on Bernie and continue to go negative long after he’s built an insurmountable lead. Then Republicans can, again, point out that their objections to Sanders are the same ones expressed by the Clintons. Didn’t work last time, but Sanders is no Obama.
Sanders is not Obama, and there’s no political capital to be gained by going negative on Bernie. Obama was a relative unknown who was a serious threat to Clinton; Sanders is well-known and only a minor threat who can be dealt with by co-opting some of his rhetoric. And Clinton will have learned from her mistakes of 2008.
Not seeing much evidence of that yet. Her press relations are actually worse. We’ll see if she’s better at getting delegates this time. Losing Iowa would indicate that she’s not actually better. And let’s remember that Obama did not win NH. If sanders wins NH, that means Clinton is doing worse than in 2008.
By one extremely limited metric, sure. In terms of money, name recognition and party endorsements, she’s waaaaaay ahead of where she was eight years ago.
Most casinos will let you double-down on hard 15; but it’s not the percentage play.
The only metric that matters is votes, and at this point in the process, polling predicts votes. And she’s polling about as well as in 2008 in the first two states. If she loses those, then her polling in other states will degrade.
There’s a path to victory without winning IA and NH, to be sure, but unless Democrats really, really love her, what confidence will they have in her ability to beat a Republican if she’s 0-2 against Bernie Sanders? And why would Democrats “settle” for Clintonian politics when they can have a real progressive? We saw the same dynamic with Obama. Obama was behind until he was ahead, and once he got ahead Clinton was never realistically going to come back. Sanders is if course no Obama, but Clinton is still Clinton. If she’s unable to close the deal, it won’t matter who she’s up against. If Sanders falters, someone else will defeat her. And how can she close the deal when she can’t even fake sincerity?
I’m glad you have the Mitt Romney this time and not us.
No, she’s polling a lot better.
Your wishful thinking is so much fun!