If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Well if we want to talk about good family values, a parent forgoing their career to stay at home and raise the child is a must. A parent simply taking off a bunch of weeks, whether paid or not, and then dumping the kid off on someone else so they can go back to their career is not good family values. Most couples could raise children with only one parent working, they're just unwilling to make the sacrifices to do so.It would be great if that were a viable financial option for most people. But it isn't.
Last edited by The Man; 06-26-14 at 06:18 PM.
This proposal is nothing more than a new entitlement dreamed up by Obama and his liberal/progressive/Democrat buddies. But the really nasty thing about this proposal is that they want to shove the cost onto the backs of employers. Obama and his ilk don't even have the balls to try to make this a government-run and funded entitlement.
It's not that one of those rights outweighs the other. It's that one exists and the other (the latter) does not. Children have a right to be provided for, but parents do not have the right to be given the means to provide for their own children.So you essentially believe the right of corporations and businesses to bring in profits outweighs the right of parents to have sufficient ability to raise their child without large economic strains?
Your question (about repealing laws providing for unpaid maternity leave) is difficult, and particularly because it has already been in place. I don't know that I would advocate its repeal per se because there are much bigger fish to fry concerning employee benefits (mostly related to health insurance). Philosophically I would only agree to mandate that employers disclose upon hire the specific conditions of personnel policies relating to things like this. If the company decides you are guaranteed nothing after taking a couple weeks off to give birth, then that's their right but it should be clearly communicated so that a fertile 25-year old can think carefully about taking that job as well as think carefully about whether to get pregnant if she or he wants to keep that job long-term. Only mandate people receive full information so that they can make informed decisions about such important things as family and career.I'm not saying parental leave would reduce discrimination between genders. I'm saying it would not create discrimination where maternity leave exclusively has the potential to. And the unpaid leave currently in place here already places some disadvantages towards businesses, albeit they are minor ones, so would you support repealing unpaid leave on that basis that discrimination could occur under those circumstances? In addition, anyone between the age of 18 and 45 has the potential to be having a child. I don't think a company is going to be able to tell conclusively who is going to have a child while working for them.
I personally favor the Swedish model: 16 months each for the mother and the father. The proposal in congress guarantees 12 weeks.
I believe (and this is consistent with my personal experience) that some companies are financially prudent to voluntarily offer family-friendly policies because they want stable employees. Unstable and flighty employees and high turnover have big costs for some employers. It takes time and money and lost productivity to be continuously teaching new people how to do their jobs, and when you get a young family in a job, they are not going to quit on a whim and they are going to do whatever necessary to do a good job because they want to set down roots and provide for their families. That has value to employers and so it should be up to them to recognize that and offer compensation accordingly. It should not be up to a federal government to blanket the nation in that sort of policy, mandating it everywhere all of the time when it only makes sense some places some of the time.
"The knowledge and prudence of the poor themselves, are absolutely the only means by which any general and permanent improvement in their condition can be effected." - Thomas Malthus
Respect cannot be mandated by law however. We were discussing rights not respect and eve the rights of mothers is no greater than the rights of anyone else including their employers.
If you wish to repay them then repay them as you see fit but do not force others to do the same.