Should All Companies be Required to Provide Paid Maternity Leave?

Ryan5 said:

That's like comparing building a sand castle to launching a rocket into space..

The illogical nature of that simplistic statement in regards to the intrinsic depth of maternity leave and how critical it is to a society is truly shameful and ignorant.

Click to expand...

there is no "intrinsic depth" to maternity leave...

it's time off of work so a woman can have a baby, that's it.... nothing less, nothing more.

I believe that maternity AND paternity leave should be offered by all employers. Paid? No, not so much. Realistically, companies must bring in temporary help to cover the work of women and/or men who have taken maternity/paternity leave. Most employers would be bankrupted by having to pay maternity/paternity leave AND the temporary help required to keep the company running.

We live in a country where birth control is easily accessible, where pregnancy termination is legal for unwanted pregnancies, and I approve of that wholeheartedly. However, if a couple decides to have a child they should be able to have at least one of them take time off to care for the newborn without losing their job, but it is not the employer's responsibility to pay for that choice. Employers have a finite amount of money to pay for the position available; they do not have the obligation of paying for two individuals to handle the job in question... one on maternity/paternity leave, and the other a temporary employee that actually does the work.

As wonderful as it would be for new parents to have mandated, paid leave every time they have a new addition to the family, it is neither fiscally responsible nor personally responsible to expect one or both employers to pay for that decision.

Only the big companies. Not small businesses.

I don't believe companies themselves should be required to offer paid maternity leave. That would hit them pretty hard financially, and in many cases, would encourage companies not to hire women of childbearing age, because of the money that they might cost them.

I wouldn't mind seeing the current 12 week unpaid FMLA leave turn into paid leave (paid for by the government). Even something like 2/3 the person's normal salary would be okay. And maybe phase it in slowly over a few years.

And I'd be fine limiting it to a certain number of children as well.

molten_dragon said:

I don't believe companies themselves should be required to offer paid maternity leave. That would hit them pretty hard financially, and in many cases, would encourage companies not to hire women of childbearing age, because of the money that they might cost them.

I wouldn't mind seeing the current 12 week unpaid FMLA leave turn into paid leave (paid for by the government). Even something like 2/3 the person's normal salary would be okay. And maybe phase it in slowly over a few years.

And I'd be fine limiting it to a certain number of children as well.

Click to expand...

I don't think we need any new entitlements...unless we raise taxes to cover the cost.

Buck Ewer said:

The USA is a savage uncivilized country compared to the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

and yet you continue to live here?

not just no, but hell no

starting a family is a personal decision....i have three kids myself

but asking a business to pay me, or my wife, to stay home with our baby? no

my wife used her vacation, and sick leave....and got paid for 3 of the 12 weeks she was out

we covered the rest thru my income, and our savings

i know...that takes personal responsibility....sorry.....but asking an owner of a business who has to hire a temp worker to cover the missing person for 12 weeks already, to also pay the person not working.....hell no

SocialDemocrat said:

Not exactly, because that's not exactly the kind of reform I would favor. As far as wage inequality, worker-employee relationships, etc., I would favor a doubling of the minimum wage (somewhere between $14-16, adjusted for inflation, would be preferable), the establishment of a maximum wage of 1 to 20, similar to the 1-12 initiative in Switzerland, and this kind of legislation to encourage employee ownership.

Of course the pay of a person who works a low to no skilled position in a company and suffers no real financial risk if the company doesn't make a profit or goes out of business should be linked to the guy who took a giant financial risk to start the company, manages it successfully and risks loosing a ton financially if the company fails. What a load of crap

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?

what you don't seem to understand is that neither the company or the worker has a right to any of what you are talking about. The company has to earn their profits and it is up to the individual to provide enough financial well being in order to raise a child. It is not and should not be a business job to cover the expenses of what ever decisions it's employees make which is what having kids is.
Why are you so against people being responsible for themselves




I personally favor the Swedish model: 16 months each for the mother and the father. The proposal in congress guarantees 12 weeks.

Click to expand...

You honestly don't see an issue with forcing a company to pay an individual for over a year for a decision they made while getting nothing from that employee. So what if the woman gets pregnant very soon after her first. How the long must the company keep this woman on the payroll.
I will never understand the liberal desire to make people no longer be accountable for their own actions. It seems the liberal dream is to be able to do whatever you want and just make someone else pay for it.

No. It's a private matter between employer and employee, the government has no business in it. If the company values its staff it will make arrangement - flex time, paid leave etc - but it should not do so with a gun to its head. If it doesn't value its staff it should lose enough of them until it does or goes out of business.

gdgyva said:

not just no, but hell no

starting a family is a personal decision....i have three kids myself

but asking a business to pay me, or my wife, to stay home with our baby? no

my wife used her vacation, and sick leave....and got paid for 3 of the 12 weeks she was out

we covered the rest thru my income, and our savings

i know...that takes personal responsibility....sorry.....but asking an owner of a business who has to hire a temp worker to cover the missing person for 12 weeks already, to also pay the person not working.....hell no

Click to expand...

Sweden has a PATERNAL (mother or father) leave system which has proven socially beneficial...

Tbh the fathers had to be met with a govt-funded cultural campaign to get them to Actually take their leave xP

braindrain said:

Of course the pay of a person who works a low to no skilled position in a company and suffers no real financial risk if the company doesn't make a profit or goes out of business should be linked to the guy who took a giant financial risk to start the company, manages it successfully and risks loosing a ton financially if the company fails. What a load of crap

Click to expand...

You're implying that all workers have low skills or no skills, and even for those that are in that category, that this makes them undeserving of economic stability. If a venture capitalist wants to take huge risks to attempt to become one of the powerful few, that's their choice, but just because he/she has chosen that career, it doesn't mean they should have a right to control the lives of those who are simply trying to live their lives in economic stability.

what you don't seem to understand is that neither the company or the worker has a right to any of what you are talking about. The company has to earn their profits and it is up to the individual to provide enough financial well being in order to raise a child. It is not and should not be a business job to cover the expenses of what ever decisions it's employees make which is what having kids is.
Why are you so against people being responsible for themselves

Click to expand...

The individual does not simply have the ability to create economic stability. They can be as "responsible for themselves" as possible, but that doesn't mean the state of the economy isn't going to screw them over.

You honestly don't see an issue with forcing a company to pay an individual for over a year for a decision they made while getting nothing from that employee. So what if the woman gets pregnant very soon after her first. How the long must the company keep this woman on the payroll.
I will never understand the liberal desire to make people no longer be accountable for their own actions. It seems the liberal dream is to be able to do whatever you want and just make someone else pay for it.

Click to expand...

As I've stated in earlier posts, a worker will be more pleased with a company that provides them with paid leave, and a happy worker creates a productive worker. And firstly, I'm not a liberal, and I fail to understand the obsession of pretty much every conservative or libertarian here to include that word in their posts as though it's inherently an evil ideology. And secondly, it's not "do whatever you want and someone else pays for it." That not only shows a lack of understanding of liberalism, but of the entire left as a whole. The basic idea here is that the current state of income inequality is totally unacceptable and something needs to be done about it. But no matter how many efforts at redistribution are enacted, minus the total abolition of capitalism, which I do not support, the rich will always still be in some fashion ahead of the poor. There's some illusion here that the left props up the poor and persecutes the rich with the goal of reversing the roles; that is simply not true. And paid parental leave, along with the other things I support as rights, or whatever you want, as you like to call it, is the basic needs necessary for life. It's not about rewarding the lazy and punishing the successful; quite the opposite.

SocialDemocrat said:

By discouraging people who live in lower incomes from having children, you're going to have a low birth rate and therefore have a lower standard of living (mind that I'm referring to discouragement via government policy, not personal discouragement.) It would be far better policy if we make it easier on lower income people to have a child economically, which includes paid parental leave, national daycare program, etc.

Click to expand...

You believe that people who can't afford to raise children should be encouraged to have them anyway and we should just subsidize them with more welfare? I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. There isn't a nicer way to put it.

We give away 'free' birth control and low cost abortions. People need to be responsible and use them if they can't afford to have children.

or they could try and better their situation first

get additional training....take on more responsibility

further their career.....

i have had women negotiate time off with pay to have their kids.....twice in 31 years......and both were higher level executives

and i agreed on both occasions, because i wanted them on my team

gdgyva said:

or they could try and better their situation first

get additional training....take on more responsibility

further their career.....

i have had women negotiate time off with pay to have their kids.....twice in 31 years......and both were higher level executives

and i agreed on both occasions, because i wanted them on my team

Click to expand...

I agree, but if they're too stupid and/or lazy to better themselves, then they need to use that birth control and/or abortions. I'd suggest they just keep their legs closed in the first place, but we're not talking about people who are smart enough to figure that out, so it would be pointless.

Mycroft said:

I don't think we need any new entitlements...unless we raise taxes to cover the cost.

Click to expand...

I'd prefer to cut other parts of the budget to make room for it, but I'd be okay with raising taxes slightly to cover it if necessary. I believe it's beneficial enough to justify it.

molten_dragon said:

I'd prefer to cut other parts of the budget to make room for it, but I'd be okay with raising taxes slightly to cover it if necessary. I believe it's beneficial enough to justify it.

Click to expand...

How about if people want kids, they use their own money to pay for it? How about one parent gives up their career to stay at home with the kid?

The Man said:

How about if people want kids, they use their own money to pay for it?

Click to expand...

Or, conversely, we could recognize that having children is a basic part of human existence, and do what we can to encourage people to be good parents.

The Man said:

How about one parent gives up their career to stay at home with the kid?

Click to expand...

It would be great if that were a viable financial option for most people. But it isn't.

molten_dragon said:

Or, conversely, we could recognize that having children is a basic part of human existence, and do what we can to encourage people to be good parents.

Click to expand...

Encourage them to be good parents? Sure, absolutely. Mandate that others pay for their kids? That's not encouraging them to be good parents.

It would be great if that were a viable financial option for most people. But it isn't.

Click to expand...

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.

SocialDemocrat said:

You're implying that all workers have low skills or no skills, and even for those that are in that category, that this makes them undeserving of economic stability. If a venture capitalist wants to take huge risks to attempt to become one of the powerful few, that's their choice, but just because he/she has chosen that career, it doesn't mean they should have a right to control the lives of those who are simply trying to live their lives in economic stability.
It makes the worker deserving of the pay his skill and negotiating power can earn him. It does not mean his pay should be tied to the pay of the person taking all the risk or providing the skill and brainpower that makes the company profitable. And no company is controlling the lives of anyone. They are free to quit and start their own business any time they want.



The individual does not simply have the ability to create economic stability. They can be as "responsible for themselves" as possible, but that doesn't mean the state of the economy isn't going to screw them over.
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



As I've stated in earlier posts, a worker will be more pleased with a company that provides them with paid leave, and a happy worker creates a productive worker.
Than that should be the companies decision if they want to provide it or not. It is not the governments job to tell businesses how to increase productivity

As I've stated in earlier posts, a worker will be more pleased with a company that provides them with paid leave, and a happy worker creates a productive worker. And firstly, I'm not a liberal, and I fail to understand the obsession of pretty much every conservative or libertarian here to include that word in their posts as though it's inherently an evil ideology. And secondly, it's not "do whatever you want and someone else pays for it." That not only shows a lack of understanding of liberalism, but of the entire left as a whole.
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.
The basic idea here is that the current state of income inequality is totally unacceptable and something needs to be done about it. But no matter how many efforts at redistribution are enacted, minus the total abolition of capitalism, which I do not support, the rich will always still be in some fashion ahead of the poor. There's some illusion here that the left props up the poor and persecutes the rich with the goal of reversing the roles; that is simply not true. And paid parental leave, along with the other things I support as rights, or whatever you want, as you like to call it, is the basic needs necessary for life. It's not about rewarding the lazy and punishing the successful; quite the opposite.

Click to expand...

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.

braindrain said:

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.

Click to expand...

Correct!

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.

Soupnazi630 said:

Especially no ones.

Their rights are no more or less than the rights of anyone who might employ one.

Click to expand...

I'd rather show respect to the life-giving citizens of our planet. A little paid time off from work seems to be a tiny repayment for what all they had to and will have to go through.

Phys251 said:

I'd rather show respect to the life-giving citizens of our planet. A little paid time off from work seems to be a tiny repayment for what all they had to and will have to go through.

Click to expand...

Fine.

Then make Congress create this new entitlement. Make the government pay for and run this feel-good program. Make them raise taxes to cover the cost. And make Obama spend what minuscule amount of political capital he has left to ram this down the people's throat.

SocialDemocrat said:

Not exactly, because that's not exactly the kind of reform I would favor. As far as wage inequality, worker-employee relationships, etc., I would favor a doubling of the minimum wage (somewhere between $14-16, adjusted for inflation, would be preferable), the establishment of a maximum wage of 1 to 20, similar to the 1-12 initiative in Switzerland, and this kind of legislation to encourage employee ownership.

Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for sharing, but these proposals because of their complexity would be better for another thread so as not to derail.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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 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.

Phys251 said:

I'd rather show respect to the life-giving citizens of our planet. A little paid time off from work seems to be a tiny repayment for what all they had to and will have to go through.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with YOU showing such respect. In fact there is nothing wrong with anyone showing respect.

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.

Mycroft said:

Fine.

Then make Congress create this new entitlement. Make the government pay for and run this feel-good program. Make them raise taxes to cover the cost. And make Obama spend what minuscule amount of political capital he has left to ram this down the people's throat.

Click to expand...

Soupnazi630 said:

Nothing wrong with YOU showing such respect. In fact there is nothing wrong with anyone showing respect.

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.

Click to expand...