2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

dogo, the same thing caught my ears. the AOI arguments contradict each other. 

Wilson said that fewer than 20% of employees would use paid family leave. therefore it's not needed.

Yet at the same time the AOI website says they oppose it in part because it wouldn't be sustaining. Contributions wouldn't meet demand, and then business would be asked to chip in.

They can't have it both ways. 

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

With the aging of America, it's hard to imagine that this would only used by 10 - 20% of Oregon employees. What an interesting statistic from AOI. How will people take care of their aging or ill parents? It's not just about new parents taking care of their new child.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context