• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should All Companies be Required to Provide Paid Maternity Leave?

Should Congress Pass A Bill That Requires Employers to Provide Paid Maternity Leave?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 30.8%
  • No

    Votes: 58 63.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 5 5.5%

  • Total voters
    91
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.
 
Do you know the difference between misleading and lying?

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.

I will not play these games with you, Mason. You are more than welcome to Google these answers for yourself, yet for some reason you have chosen not to. Furthermore, by not even acknowledging the emotional and physical struggles that mothers of newborns have to endure, you disrespect mothers all over the world. (You are aware of said struggles, right?)
 
I will not play these games with you, Mason. You are more than welcome to Google these answers for yourself, yet for some reason you have chosen not to. Furthermore, by not even acknowledging the emotional and physical struggles that mothers of newborns have to endure, you disrespect mothers all over the world. (You are aware of said struggles, right?)

No, he didn't disrespect mothers all over the world.
 
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 will not play these games with you, Mason. You are more than welcome to Google these answers for yourself, yet for some reason you have chosen not to. Furthermore, by not even acknowledging the emotional and physical struggles that mothers of newborns have to endure, you disrespect mothers all over the world. (You are aware of said struggles, right?)

He asked a legitimate question. The game is avoiding it because the answer is uncomfortable for you.

No one denis the emotional and physical struggle of motherhood. None of this however granst them special rights
 
He asked a legitimate question. The game is avoiding it because the answer is uncomfortable for you.

No one denis the emotional and physical struggle of motherhood. None of this however granst them special rights

BENGHAZI! Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi

They did not you are lying

Male.gif
 
Is this a serious question?



Because adults have a right to produce things and trade with one another. Profit is an inevitable potential result of this.

There are plenty of things that society should allow that are not necessarily rights. I believe smoking marijuana should be legal, and I assume you do as well based on your lean, but that doesn't mean I believe it should be a right.

Because having that job in the first place is not a right.

But the person who holds that job needs it more than the corporation needs to bring in a large amount of profits.

Children have rights to be provided for by their legal guardian(s). The legal guardian has a responsibility to come up with the means. Current and prospective employers have no responsibility either way regarding the children, unless that was decided between the parties to be part of the employment contract.

So a corporation has no responsibility to society other than to bring in profits? This seems awfully dystopian to me, and would lead to the abuse of the working class in many ways if corporations in power have little or no responsibility to their workers or society as a whole.

No it won't. Employers would only choose to offer it if it gave them an advantage, such as better commitment and longevity from the employee.

That's my point. Not everyone is going to want to offer paid parental leave, so it's going to discourage many businesses from offering it, and therefore make it harder for potential parents to find a job that offers it.

Anyone who has not secured the means to provide for a family SHOULD be discouraged from starting one.

But as I've stated earlier, a low birth rate is going to lead to adverse effects on society, including a lower standard of living.

Therefore you think companies should be forced by government to do what does not make sense.

Well the company's interest is not the only thing at stake here.

Not if, as I said, it puts them at a disadvantage to getting fully benefitted jobs in the first place. Young workers are often desired because they demand less pay which is commensurate with their lesser experience. Forcing them to be paid more artificially tilts the scale in favor of older folks who are done having kids.

I can't imagine how political liberals are successful business people. It seems they believe wholeheartedly and unquestioningly that simply raising the price of something results in a corresponding increase in revenue. They just do not think about the negative demand side effects that come with arbitrarily raising something's price.

With the exception of those who are in their teens and those who are of retirement age, the company isn't going to be able to tell who is planning to have a child without explicitly asking them. And the majority of those of retirement age are likely in retirement anyway, and those who are younger are most likely going to be in school.

First nothing is free. Just say what you mean and admit you want others to pay for it. And if low income couples want to raise a family than they should get a better job or make sacrices in other areas not just force others to pay for their wants. I want a Ferrari should I be able to get that for free just because I want it.

It is free for the recipient. There's a difference between wanting to raise a child and wanting a Ferrari. The first one is going to increase the birth rate and have a positive effect on society. The other is not.

That is not controlling anyone. They are free to find another job our start their own any time they want. That is basically the definition of not being controlled. No one said it was going to be easy. You are right that there are geniuses who stay in poverty and it is usually a result of bad choices or lack of motivation. The majority of millionaires didn't inherent their money and there are thousands of new millionaires created every year so while brain power may not be an indicator of wealth brainpower combined with motivation are a pretty good one.

And is it going to be practical for them to drop everything and find another job and start a business? No. Obviously on the surface it doesn't appear to be control because you have the illusion of being able to do whatever you want, even though large corporations have more power and therefore more ability to choose than you do. And wealth is not a measure of motivation either.

But it does give the ideas our country was founded on. And your plan to guarantee that is by taking more from the people who earned it to give to others. That is not how this country was designed.

So? Just because a document declaring our independence from Britain made a vague statement that could be interpreted multiple ways doesn't mean we need to follow it to the nth degree. Now if you were citing the constitution you might have an actual argument, albeit it'd still be a poor one.

It is not supposed to be the governments job to decide which companies are successful and which ones are not. If a company wants to offer it and incurr the increased expense while being able to attract better employees that is there right. It is not the place of government to tell companies how to run thier business. Besides what do you think these companies will do just accept less profits. Of course not they will just increase prices as if American made products are not to expensive as it is. Plus I am sure those low income families will love paying more for everything.

I'm not arguing for the government to declare some companies more successful than others; that's exactly what the free market does. And despite the high prices argument, countries with higher corporate tax rates, higher minimum wages, and more expansive welfare systems have lower poverty rates. It would seem as though giving more rights to the worker benefits them despite the occasional raise in prices that occurs.

I know how much work that it is to raise kids. I have a 6 YO and a 2 month old. And it doesn't matter what they are doing because what they are not doing is providing any use to the company that you want to force to pay them. Plus you said it was a nessicity of life. If that is true how do couples make it today without it not to mention what did they do in the past. Why again do you think making others pay for the things others want is morally right.

Yet you referred to those who desire to have paid parental leave via a mandate as lazy. You are implying that right now, no one is suffering because of lack of financial support while they raise a child. Many parents do not make it in this day and age; that has been true throughout history. And you are also confusing wants with needs.

I noticed you never answered the part about what should happen if we go with the 16 month maternity leave and she gets pregnant again right away. Just how many years should this company have to pay for someone to live while getting nothing in return. I will just never understand the liberal desire to force others to pay for the choices of others. Why is expecting people to be responsible for themselves such a bad idea.

16 months paid parental leave for all parents per child, no exceptions. Birth control is not foolproof and many people do not want to have abortions. I don't understand your desire to label those in difficult situations as "irresponsible."
 
Absolutely! The u.s. is too separated from the rest of the world, we're like the country version of an angsty teen who rejects everything their parents do.:newhere:

How are you a Libertarian?
 
It is free for the recipient. There's a difference between wanting to raise a child and wanting a Ferrari. The first one is going to increase the birth rate and have a positive effect on society. The other is not.
There is very little differences between the two. They are both desires that an individual wants. You just think some one else should have to pay for one and not the other. Lots of things the government could do would be good for society that doesn't mean it is the Govs job to do it. Banning alcohol keeping drugs illegal forcing everyone to all eat healthy all would be good for society. Why are you not advocating for those as well.

And is it going to be practical for them to drop everything and find another job and start a business? No. Obviously on the surface it doesn't appear to be control because you have the illusion of being able to do whatever you want, even though large corporations have more power and therefore more ability to choose than you do. And wealth is not a measure of motivation either.
Who ever said things in life have to be practical or easy. Do you think it was practical or easy for all the people who started small business in the past. It is not control at all. Every single person in the US has the exact same freedom to start a business or find a new job. It's not practical to start a family if you can't afford it and forcing others to pay for it is not the answer



Yet you referred to those who desire to have paid parental leave via a mandate as lazy. You are implying that right now, no one is suffering because of lack of financial support while they raise a child. Many parents do not make it in this day and age; that has been true throughout history. And you are also confusing wants with needs.



16 months paid parental leave for all parents per child, no exceptions. Birth control is not foolproof and many people do not want to have abortions. I don't understand your desire to label those in difficult situations as "irresponsible."

So a company should be forced to pay someone a wage for basically as long as they feel like having kids. So if someone wants four kids and times it right a company should be paying them and the person they have to hire to do the work that person was originally hired to do for over 5 years. I don't see any way that could force small business out of business.
Birthcontrol when used properly is ultra effective I would be willing to bet that the amount of people who got pregnant while using it correctly is extremely tiny. That means that they vast majority of others were in fact being irresponsible if they got pregnant and can't afford it. Not to mention the fact that someone is in a difficult position due to choices they made is not the company's problem or anyone else's for that matter.
 
Still avoiding the question and now lacking in humor.

The day you and I have credibility to discuss women's issues on a level playing field is the day that you and I can get pregnant. You are out of your place, sir, and will not be listened to until you choose to accept this basic truth. But I am 99.9% confident that you will not.
 
The day you and I have credibility to discuss women's issues on a level playing field is the day that you and I can get pregnant. You are out of your place, sir, and will not be listened to until you choose to accept this basic truth. But I am 99.9% confident that you will not.

We were not discussing womens issues but human rights issues which do not apply more to one sub group.

ANy person regardless of genetalia has a place in this discussion. Your evasion is just cowardice and hypocrisy
 
There is very little differences between the two. They are both desires that an individual wants. You just think some one else should have to pay for one and not the other. Lots of things the government could do would be good for society that doesn't mean it is the Govs job to do it. Banning alcohol keeping drugs illegal forcing everyone to all eat healthy all would be good for society. Why are you not advocating for those as well.

Why shouldn't we do things that are good for the benefit of society? It's been proven through history that prohibition does more harm than good and fails to eliminate the presence of drugs, alcohol, or unhealthy foods. A desire is not incompatible with a need, and just because someone wants something that would ultimately benefit society does not mean they should not have it, regardless of their desire.

Who ever said things in life have to be practical or easy. Do you think it was practical or easy for all the people who started small business in the past. It is not control at all. Every single person in the US has the exact same freedom to start a business or find a new job. It's not practical to start a family if you can't afford it and forcing others to pay for it is not the answer

Not everyone has the same exact freedom because they don't start on the same playing field. Someone in upper incomes who come from an influential family will likely get much farther than someone in born in poverty. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush would be where they are today if it weren't for how influential their families were?

So a company should be forced to pay someone a wage for basically as long as they feel like having kids. So if someone wants four kids and times it right a company should be paying them and the person they have to hire to do the work that person was originally hired to do for over 5 years. I don't see any way that could force small business out of business.
Birthcontrol when used properly is ultra effective I would be willing to bet that the amount of people who got pregnant while using it correctly is extremely tiny. That means that they vast majority of others were in fact being irresponsible if they got pregnant and can't afford it. Not to mention the fact that someone is in a difficult position due to choices they made is not the company's problem or anyone else's for that matter.

Depending on the type of birth control used, it can be ineffective in various circumstances. People don't just "feel like" having kids. It's a very difficult decision to make, as you would know. Having paid parental leave doesn't mean that you never come to work. Everyone has the option to not use their leave, and businesses have the ability to give workers the incentive to come back part time.

How are you a Libertarian?

She's a left libertarian, according to her lean, and left libertarianism strongly disagrees with the economic policies of right libertarianism.
 
Why shouldn't we do things that are good for the benefit of society? It's been proven through history that prohibition does more harm than good and fails to eliminate the presence of drugs, alcohol, or unhealthy foods. A desire is not incompatible with a need, and just because someone wants something that would ultimately benefit society does not mean they should not have it, regardless of their desire.



Not everyone has the same exact freedom because they don't start on the same playing field. Someone in upper incomes who come from an influential family will likely get much farther than someone in born in poverty. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush would be where they are today if it weren't for how influential their families were?



Depending on the type of birth control used, it can be ineffective in various circumstances. People don't just "feel like" having kids. It's a very difficult decision to make, as you would know. Having paid parental leave doesn't mean that you never come to work. Everyone has the option to not use their leave, and businesses have the ability to give workers the incentive to come back part time.



She's a left libertarian, according to her lean, and left libertarianism strongly disagrees with the economic policies of right libertarianism.

Nothing can be done to harm or benefit society. Society is an abstract concept and nothing more. What does count is what hurts or benefits persons.

Yes everyone gets the exact same freedom regardless of their position at birth of their advantages. Freedom is not given by position or opportunity it is merely no obstruction in your way.
 
Why shouldn't we do things that are good for the benefit of society? It's been proven through history that prohibition does more harm than good and fails to eliminate the presence of drugs, alcohol, or unhealthy foods. A desire is not incompatible with a need, and just because someone wants something that would ultimately benefit society does not mean they should not have it, regardless of their desire.



Not everyone has the same exact freedom because they don't start on the same playing field. Someone in upper incomes who come from an influential family will likely get much farther than someone in born in poverty. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush would be where they are today if it weren't for how influential their families were?

No they have the exact same freedom. I think you don't understand what the word freedom means. Someone not having the money to do do does not mean they don't have the freedom to do it. The same as everyone has the freedom to run for political office, some just have the money to make it easier.

Depending on the type of birth control used, it can be ineffective in various circumstances. People don't just "feel like" having kids. It's a very difficult decision to make, as you would know. Having paid parental leave doesn't mean that you never come to work. Everyone has the option to not use their leave, and businesses have the ability to give workers the incentive to come back part time.

And like I said those circumstances are very rare if used properly. That is what makes the majority of those who get pregnant on accident irresponsible. And while you are right that those using the leave have the option to work part of the time or take leave. The company, the one being forced to foot the bill really would have no say. What incentive would the business have. Pay the person not working even more money to come back and work part time. Sounds like a great business plan.
I have to ask have you ever had a job as anything above a entry level position.
 
The fertility rate in the U.S. is currently 1.86. It might suit your ideology to say that low income people shouldn't have kids, but given current wages that is going to mean negative population growth. Having kids isn't just a personal choice, its also obviously an absolute requirement for the continuation of our nation.

That said, its stupid to have employers pay for it, as that will only lead to discrimination and screwing small businesses. Raising the next generation is something that impacts our whole society and should be administered by the government and paid for with taxes.
 
We were not discussing womens issues but human rights issues which do not apply more to one sub group.

ANy person regardless of genetalia has a place in this discussion. Your evasion is just cowardice and hypocrisy

Your reliance on personal insults is noted. Please feel free to resume discussion with me when you are able to engage me in a civilized debate.
 
There are plenty of things that society should allow that are not necessarily rights. I believe smoking marijuana should be legal, and I assume you do as well based on your lean, but that doesn't mean I believe it should be a right.

I agree it should be legal, but you display your difficulty understanding that rights are FROM something, not TO something. Marijuana being legal means you have a right not to be deprived of liberty (incarceration) or property (fines) for smoking marijuana. It does not mean you are entitled to be kept in consistent supply of marijuana (i.e. you have no right TO marijuana).

But the person who holds that job needs it more than the corporation needs to bring in a large amount of profits.

Contracts do not cater to subjective assessments of relative need between the parties. If I offer my car for sale for $5,000, I will sell it indiscriminately to a billionaire or to a person who has exactly $5,000 to his name and has no transportation. My "need" for $5,000 vs. the billionaires "need" for a car vs. the poor guy's "need" for a car are all irrelevant. The car and the $5,000 are a fair trade considering the blue book value of the car.

So a corporation has no responsibility to society other than to bring in profits?

They don't have any social responsibility whatsoever, not even "bringing in profits." They tend to try for that because, if they are not profitable, no one will want to invest in them or work for them because they would not see it as a worthwhile or fruitful endeavor, but that's just cause and effect. There is no intrinsic "responsibility to society" of any kind.

That's my point. Not everyone is going to want to offer paid parental leave, so it's going to discourage many businesses from offering it, and therefore make it harder for potential parents to find a job that offers it.

Companies will offer it when they deem it in their own best interests to offer it. If they want more stable and committed employees, they may choose to offer this benefit, whereas others that tried to get early-20-somethings to work for minimal pay to build experience might save some money in the short-term but they will have higher turnover because younger people are flightier. Not mandating it lets each business decide for itself what types of employees it seeks to do work for it. It's not smart to blanket the nation in mandates that slant hiring preference toward or away from a particular type of person. In no way could that intelligently be considered "fair."


It would be more justified for the government to directly disburse a guaranteed basic income to new moms than it would to mandate it upon all employers. And I'm not saying the government disbursement idea is justified, just saying that by comparison, it would be more justified.

Well the company's interest is not the only thing at stake here.

Companies are free to tilt their recruiting efforts toward whatever type of people they want to hire, so policies that significantly inflate the cost of some employees are not necessarily helping the people they claim to help.

With the exception of those who are in their teens and those who are of retirement age, the company isn't going to be able to tell who is planning to have a child without explicitly asking them.

You're ignoring the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s. The 20s and 30s are the most likely to incur maternity leave costs. The risk of maternity leave plummets to zero around the early forties. It's not that really that difficult to predict that a 45-year old mother of three is less likely to incur maternity leave costs than a newly married 25-year old. So if an employer is running on a tight budget and is looking for stable, consistent employee, that might be enough to make the 45-year old a competitive advantage.

We don't need our laws to tinker with all of this. It doesn't necessarily do anyone any favors. All that can be gleaned from this idea is that left wingers have good intentions. That's it.
 
Your reliance on personal insults is noted. Please feel free to resume discussion with me when you are able to engage me in a civilized debate.

An insult is directed against a person. My comments were directed against your evasion.

You ran from debate to begin with
 
An insult is directed against a person. My comments were directed against your evasion.

You ran from debate to begin with

I'm sorry, do I need to spell this out for you? I engage mature people, not those who refuse to have an honest debate. Good day.
 
I'm sorry, do I need to spell this out for you? I engage mature people, not those who refuse to have an honest debate. Good day.

You refused to have an honest debate seems you describe yourself
 
Yes. It is an absolute travesty that women have to give up on careers in order to have a family... I would think that those that favour private enterprise would actually want this as it promotes the best people for the job.
 
An insult is directed against a person. My comments were directed against your evasion.

You ran from debate to begin with

The evasion is something that he chose to do, if that is the case, and as such your insult was actually directed at his personal choice to evade... nice try though.
 
Back
Top Bottom