That's in the Declaration of Independence, which has no relevance to public policy making. Also, I'm not talking about guaranteeing happiness. I'm talking about eliminating poverty and providing a near-guarantee towards economic stability, which not everyone has the ability to do. You think that the millions of people in poverty could all get out if they just tried harder? That's an extremely naive viewpoint.They can create their own personal economic stability and guess what nothing can or should be a guarantee. That is why in the constitution it says pursuit of happiness and not just happiness
There is a competitive disadvantage for companies who choose to provide paid leave though, because they will be making more expenses towards their employees, which on the surface puts them at a disadvantage, despite the productivity tidbit. And the mandate itself is designed to benefit the worker, not the company.than it should be up to the company if they want to provide maternity leave. It is not the governments job to tell a company how to increase productivity.
And it most definitely letting people do what ever they want (having a baby) and making someone else ( the company) pay for it while that employ is at home providing nothing to the company.
You think that parents want paid parental leave so that they can lounge around all day? Raising a baby is work, and that simply cannot be twisted to mean anything different. And just because we've haven't been offering paid parental leave in the past isn't a legitimate reason not to. We have a low birth rate and higher poverty rates because this policy has not been in place.It is about rewarding the lazy (those who want to get paid while doing no work) and punishing the rich by making them pay an employee who is not doing his job. What else can you call it. And paid maternity leave is not a need necessary for life. People have got along just fine for hundreds of years without it. You just want more for doing less. Call it whatever you want but that is the truth of it.
Your suggestion sounds better than the status quo, but as I have mentioned in previous posts, the lack of a mandate is going to put those who choose to offer paid parental leave at a competitive disadvantage, and therefore discourage those in lower incomes from raising a family altogether.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.
Well it is not always going to make sense economically for the business to offer paid parental leave, because each situation is different, (I do think it absolutely makes sense for them to choose to do from a moral and ethical perspective however) but the goal of a mandate is not to help the business, and any parts of the mandate that do aid the business are positive side effects. The goal of the mandate is to aid the worker, and with the exception of those in upper incomes who aren't going to struggle financially from not having paid leave, and even then it won't hurt them, workers who are also new parents will benefit from the mandate.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.