• Spongebobsquarejuche [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        But is that what we’re doing? Having business owner foot the bill for workers comp is more of the same. We do that already and the actual solution is to have the state perform that function. This solution just cuts out people that cant afford the new regulation. Leaving the large player who can afford it. Furthering wealth disparity.

          • Spongebobsquarejuche [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Really??? Im trying to understand and you’re not being persuasive. Saying you dont care about someone losing their income just comes off as cruel.

            Should we regulate it so that only McDonald’s afford to run a restaurant? Should benefits be based on employment?

            You’re acting like under our system this is a benevolent outcome and there couldn’t be a downside.

            • Swoosegoose [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              10 months ago

              The downside: Small business owners can no longer force employees to work for poverty wages

              The upside: the poorest workers in California get a living wage

              Why should we care about a few small business owners who can’t afford to not exploit their employees? And why should they be prioritized over the workers?