Cooch Denounces Bwana as a Liberal

In the latest “Cuccinelli Compass” Cooch attacks the liberal media for their “tirade” over his “No Ablo Anglais” bill:

It only took a week for the liberal media to come charging after me for one of my bills – SB 339. SB 339 would change the law to make it employee “misconduct” for an employee not to speak adequate English to do their job, in violation of a policy of the employer. If an employee is fired for “misconduct,” then the employer is not liable for unemployment benefits.

He then gets to the heart of the matter…

So, SB 339 would make the failure to speak or learn adequate English “misconduct” if an employer required English proficiency as part of the job.

Then, his final defense…

This is common sense, but the liberals are wigging out. Maybe that’s a sign of just how good a bill this is…

Apparently the mere fact you think this is a bad bill makes a person a “liberal”.  I have been called many things, but never a liberal.  This will certainly come as news to the commenter at RK who called me a “mouth breather” because I an a Republican

Actually, liberals “wigging out” really has little to do with this bill.  And what this bill does, besides create an overly protective cushion for employers who make bad hiring decisions, is point out the drift of the GOP.

This bill seeks to protect business’s who made a bad call in hiring.  The business, or a representative of the owners, met with, interveiewed, and decided person “X” could do the job.  If  you hire a person to do a job and that person lacks the fundamental skills at hiring to do the job…that’s a two way street.  The Company decided to hire, and now Cooch wants to give them an out to dodge responsibility.

This is the type of fine tuned interventionist bill the demos used to be famous for.  If you want to let the free market work and let each earn according to their abilities-you know, Adam Smith stuff-then you let them take the hit for errors made.

But today’s GOP is too often concerned with amassing power and assuaging their sponsors (but not their constituents), even if the resulting laws are bad.

This bill is representative of so much that has gone wrong with the GOP…no conscience in proposing, no solid philosophy for proposing it , and no soul in standing by it.

Oh, but there I go talking like a “liberal” again.

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Cooch Denounces Bwana as a Liberal

  1. As I noted at the earlier post, it illustrates the bankrupcy of labels in modern Virginia (probably beyond Virginia also) politics. A “conservative” is someone who’s with me if I’m dumpster diving for votes as a Republican. A “liberal” is someone who raises concerns about my proposals.

    I’m with Bwana on this and the Cooch can count at least two real Conservatives who are calling him out on this. To me it is symptomatic of a much larger phenomenon – the tyranny of counterfeit labels. Once counterfeits get into even modest circulation, the value of the genuine article is debased.

  2. You people are nuts if you think this is a “liberal” bill. In fact it’s setting somewhat right what should be set more right. The fact of the matter is the real “liberal” part in all this is the unemployment insurance itself. Why should an employer have to pay it at all if you ask me? Do you think Adam Smith would have favored the kind of welfare system we have impacting business today? This bill encourages businesses to be able to take a risk on employees in a tight labor market and allow them the opportunity to grow into the job. If they refuse to do so, they can be fired for cause, as they should be; including the cause of not learning to speak in English as was a pre-requirement of their employ. It loosens the shackles on free-enterprise in our currently over-regulated economy.

    Perhaps your argument should not be with Mr. Cuccinelli for trying to lighten the over burdensome regulatory load on business, but should be focused on the overarching regulations themselves.

    If you think it “liberal” to open up free-enterprise by exempting employers from paying unemployment insurance when firing someone for cause, then perhaps you believe it “conservative” that they should always have to pick up the load for unemployment, regardless of the reason. I would say based on your previous comments you must favor that great form of economic conservatism (by your definition) known as… Socialism!

  3. Perhaps…and I am sure if the Cooch shares your concerns, he will be introducing legislation to make it happen.

    However, I doubt he will…and then you can draw your own conclusions as to his commitment to reform and his purposes for introducing this bill.

  4. So basically if I read you correctly, in your opinion there are no conservatives at all in the GA because of their joint willingness to allow the current unemployment insurance system to continue? I find that a bit hypocritical given your earlier calling out of the Senator individually.

  5. By the same logic I guess I should consider him pro-abortion for not introducing bills to outright ban the practice.

  6. No, I suggested the following:

    a) That Cooch suggests in his newsletter that it is the liberal media that doesn’t like his bill.

    b) I never said it was a “liberal” bill-that is a label and charge you have suddenly dreamed up…I said it was a bad bill…because…

    b1) That (and there was more detail in my post of yesterday) if someone doesn’t speak English well enough to do a job, why would you hire them in the first place? You hire someone for a job who doesn’t have the skills to do it, and then you want to be exempted from the reprecussions under the law in firing them. That is not just a liberal or conservative bill, it is a bad bill.

    b2) I did say this is type of daddy state bill that the demos are famous for putting up. That is why I am surprised the Cooch put it up.

    c) You brought up the matter of the whole range of regulatory…I never said anything about the wide range of regulatory matters. As far as the additional “no conservatives” in the General Assembly, that raises another whole discussion…I will leave it to you to blog about how the failure of the General Assembly to reform the matters you are concerned with show them to be conservative or not.

    d) I said that if the Cooch agrees with you on the regulatory range, he will be introducing bills to restrict the range…and that if he doesn’t you can draw your own conclusions about his commitment to reform on this issue.

    As far as the pro-abortion canard, I don’t see that a failure to submit a legislation that would create a law that is already voided under Roe v. Wade suggests Cooch is pro-abortion.

    I suggest the pretty clear lesson here is that Cooch is cherry picking issues on matters of concern that look good but have little or no chance of passing…this bill is in the same range of his media-restriction bill. It won’t pass, it isn’t good law, and is proposed for publicity sake. He is sending up legislation for the sake of burnishing his escutcheon for 2009.

  7. “This bill seeks to protect business’s who made a bad call in hiring. The business, or a representative of the owners, met with, interveiewed, and decided person “X” could do the job. If you hire a person to do a job and that person lacks the fundamental skills at hiring to do the job…that’s a two way street. The Company decided to hire, and now Cooch wants to give them an out to dodge responsibility.”

    By that standard, ANY firing is a business’s bad call on hiring. If a person is fired for theft and the employer fires this person, does the firing mean that the employer is dodging responsibility?

    As I understand the issue, it is actually pretty narrow: Employer hires limited-English employee with the understanding that the employee will improve language skills in six months (or whatever time period). Employee fails to live up to that agreement. So employer fires employee. The question becaomes, does the employer become subject to higher taxes over this? Again, how is this different from failing to learn any other necessary job skill?

    Now, one can tinker around the edges and say that such a language learning agreement needs to be put in writing or made perfectly clear to the employee in order for the employer to be exempted from the higher taxes should a firing be necessary. Maybe that’s already there; I don’t know.

    As far as “liberal” is concerned, well, don’t flatter yourself too much! LOL While I understand that both support and opposition cut across party lines (as witnessed by the comments here), it is obviously the major (left-oriented) newspapers that have made the most noise. In this case, I would say not to take Sen. Cuccinelli’s criticism too personally.

  8. Well, if I don’t flatter myself, who’s going to do it?

    I reckon I was taught that if someone can do the job, you hire them. If they cannot, you don’t. If you are going to take a risk on someone regarding developing a skill, write it into the contract so if they fail to do their job, you dump them for cause.

    One reason I think this is bad law is that there appear to be ways for the prudent employer to deal with this situation without the need for new legislation; another is that using language skills as the test for employement seems to be a standard that is going to be problematic to create and then to get court approval of when the inevitable lawsuit occurs.

  9. Bwana,
    Cooch is trying to look like he is “anti-illegal alien”. This plays well with certain folks. But you are “right on” when you analyse the bill as just another Big Business ploy to get out of paying unemployment insurance. Cooch knows how to get his bread buttered…and it ain’t from some unemployed immigant…legal or otherwise.

  10. Good point NoVa. Why not write the bill so that if any employee fails to develop a skill necessary to doing the job within the set timeframe, they will be terminated. And then putting in a clause allowing that employee to be put on a probationary period?

    Bwana and you aren’t liberal – trust me, I know liberals when I see ’em – and this bill is just plain bad policy. It’s pandering to the anti-immigrant crowd (as opposed to those who have a legitimate concern about illegal immigration).

  11. NOVA perhaps because 99% of business in the State of Virginia is conducted in ENGLISH. It’s right to expect then that most people would have to learn the language to be able to conduct business here. Now if there’s a large population of businesses in the state that are being duped by employees who refuse to speak some language other than English as required by their employer, then I suppose they would need to get that added to this or some other legislation.

  12. Wrong answer, RWE. The answer is that this legislation reflects the politician’s instinct that pro-English or anti-Hispanic (or anti-foreign) posturing can garner votes. If there is a legal problem caused by the statutes of the Commonwealth with respect to employers not being able to discharge employees who welch on pre-employment commitments, any legislator with a fifth grade command of the English language (ooops – now I’m doing it) could draft a neutral bill that clarifies the right of the employer to discharge that employee without penalty. It could be an employee who failed to master Pushtun as readily as one who fails to master English. Or the employee who failed to master the overhaul manual on a Toyota transmission. I’m not convinced that there’s much of a problem here, but it there is one, it’s not confined to people learning English. I once worked in a university library in the Classics section where I had to pass an examination 60 days into the job to show that I could read enough Greek, Latin, German and French to maintain the filing system. If I hadn’t passed, I would have expected to get sacked. My boss didn’t need no stinking state statute to can my butt. He told me up front what was going on. Cuccinelli’s playing games with the dimmer minds in the electorate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s