that's not a valid rationale for the federal government requiring companies pay for months of work that is not done.
why hire a woman if you know you'll have to shell out months and months of pay for .. nothing?
hire a man instead... no need to take a loss, no need to replace that worker when she's with child... and the man will probably be denied those benefits anyways ( while we pretend to be against discrimination.)
"I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
--Albert Einstein, 1929
☮★★☮ Just a democratic-socialist in the heartland of America.CHECK OUT MY TUMBLR(BLOG)HERE "Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
-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
Again, you referred to paid parental leave as "hurting" the company, despite the fact that companies based in every other first world country get along fine while paying for parental leave of their employees.No there isn't. Both things are the result of personal choice of the individual.
Well, you are right on this one. If a company has to pay an employee to not do any work, that's going to hurt the company. The employee will be watching TV on their own time.
Regarding the decisions between the employer/employee, what makes the company more deserving of profits than they can get along fine without than a worker who needs paid parental leave to remain economically stable.So would the individual making wise decisions...like not having a baby...or buying a TV...unless they can afford it.
All that may be true...but that is a decision arrived at between the employer and the employee. The government has no business mandating that companies spend money...just because the EMPLOYEE wants a benefit.
By "negotiate," I assume you were referring to collective bargaining, but since you weren't, the employee won't have anyone sticking up for them, so unless the employer is unusually generous, they're not getting paid parental leave.Collective bargaining?? What the hell does THAT have to do with anything?
How does getting the government involved "screw everything up?" Companies that give paid parental leave are at a competitive disadvantage, just as companies that pay their workers a higher wage than the minimum wage are at a competitive disadvantage. If everyone is required to give employees paid parental leave, those who are already providing it will no longer be at a competitive disadvantage. How does that qualify as the government screwing things upYou really don't know anything about business, do you? All companies are subject to falling under a competitive disadvantage...or advantage...depending on decisions they make. That's the way it works. Don't screw things up by getting the government involved.
The reason I brought up taxes is that you said you oppose the idea of a government mandate such as this one, yet taxes are a government mandate upon citizens, and are preferably used for wealth redistribution.Mandating that a business pay for the personal choice of a private citizen is not a tax. It is simply government issuing dictates. Taxes have nothing to do with this issue.
And lastly, how is supporting a paid parental leave mandate go against democratic or republican values?Look, you are twisting, spinning and flying in the breeze trying to justify the government acting as a dictator. It's not working.
Another reason not to hire straight women. Lesbians rarely get pregnant.
If you only hire lesbians, men, and women that are not of child bearing age the problem is solved.
Does anyone on this forum have any idea why the birthrate in the USA is so low?