Nowhere on your graphic does it say who pays for the leave.
At least in Mexico and Canada the government pays for the leave.
How can you compare countries that pay for the leave themselves to what Obama wants which is for the employer to foot the bill.
Maybee you American can see it is apatriotic idea. Because companies that have a long term intersting inthe American market benefit from maternity leave. Because they need children to bee born both as future customers as well as employees. Theyalso need to be able to hire competent people and so it's also good for them to have a larger pool to hiring from if woman also can bep art of the work force. While maternity leave is bad for companies that only believes in shorttime profit or just move to other markets if their are more profitable for productions and/or sells.
But of course the best if it payed by the goverment. Because having children being born and woman in theworkforce is good for the entire society. Also the cost will not behigher for branshces or companies that hires more woman. But that depends on a mayority of people wanting to pay for the huge benefite to society having children born and not wasting the talent and competence of 50 % of the workforce.
It sounds, though, as if you are not American. Do you live in a country that provides such parental leave? If so, I have a question:
Let's say a woman goes on parental leave. The government pays her. She's good to go. But what about the company she was working for? Does the government pay THEM for their lost income? Does the government pay THEM the cost of hiring a replacement worker? And does that woman get to come back when the leave is over and step back into her old job? Even if the replacement worker is doing better work for the company?
Or...do y'all just think, "Screw the company. They got money. Let them suck it up."?
-I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he's picking my pocket.- Time Enough For Love - Robert A Heinlein
My avatar created by Feliza Estrada email@example.com
Outside of following health and safety regulations, all companies should not be required to provide anything, IMO.
No paid leave, no severance pay, no maternity leave, no 'nuttin''.
And they should be able to hire and fire anyone they want to for any reason they want to.
'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
"Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."
All mandated social programs like paid maternity leave, etc., come at a very dear price of loss of control, loss of liberty, loss of self determination, and assurance of a more flat, less prosperous society. Such will be in varying degrees depending on how restrictive a nation's government might be. But before giving Russia high praise, consider the results of a government run social order that controls almost every aspect of Russian life:
Russia’s economic freedom score is 51.9, making its economy the 140th freest in the 2014 Index. Its score is 0.8 point higher this year, with improvements in four of the 10 economic freedoms, including control of government spending, counterbalanced by declines in trade freedom, freedom from corruption, and fiscal freedom. Russia is ranked 41st out of 43 countries in the Europe region, and its overall score is below the world average.
Over the 20-year history of the Index, Russia’s economic freedom has been stagnant, with its score improving less than 1 point. Overall, notable improvements in trade freedom and monetary freedom have been largely offset by substantial declines in investment freedom, financial freedom, business freedom, and property rights, and Russia’s economy remains “mostly unfree.”
Russia Economy: Population, GDP, Inflation, Business, Trade, FDI, Corruption
Things are rarely as simple as they seem.
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776