• 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
I'm not saying we should do something just because other countries are doing it; that in and of itself would be a poor argument. What I am saying is that despite the cutbacks these companies have had to take, there is no conclusive proof that this alone will be a significant impact. on companies, because this hasn't been a major impact on employers in other nations.

The predicted significance of impact on the company is not the basis for whether or not this is a good idea.

"Their profits" lol. Ownership and/or management of a company does not guarantee you more rights to profits than the employees that earned them.

Employees don't earn profits, they earn wages.
Okay, but I still contend that without the collective bargaining process or a mandate, most workers whose employers do not already offer paid parental leave will have little to no chance of getting it.

They shouldn't.

It can be worthwhile for them, but oftentimes expending more money than what is legally necessary on your employees means that you are being more generous to your employees than competitors and therefore bringing in less profits. This system discourages the existence of paid parental leave entirely in some cases.

As it should. Mandatory paid parental leave would discourage hiring young women.


So you support the idea of mandating companies to pay money to the government,

That's called taxation and it's constitutional , so yes.

but oppose the idea of government mandating companies to spend money on their employees?

No, valid contracts require due consideration. Mandating random personally variable non-cash social benefits result in skewed hiring preferences which is unfair to the very people this idea purports to help.
 
I'm not saying we should do something just because other countries are doing it; that in and of itself would be a poor argument. What I am saying is that despite the cutbacks these companies have had to take, there is no conclusive proof that this alone will be a significant impact. on companies, because this hasn't been a major impact on employers in other nations.



"Their profits" lol. Ownership and/or management of a company does not guarantee you more rights to profits than the employees that earned them.

Actually, ownership of a company gives you the ONLY right to the profits of the company. In fact, the employees have NO right to profits.

Okay, but I still contend that without the collective bargaining process or a mandate, most workers whose employers do not already offer paid parental leave will have little to no chance of getting it.



It can be worthwhile for them, but oftentimes expending more money than what is legally necessary on your employees means that you are being more generous to your employees than competitors and therefore bringing in less profits. This system discourages the existence of paid parental leave entirely in some cases.



I could've brought up ACA, but I oppose it for other reasons irrelevant to this discussion. So you support the idea of mandating companies to pay money to the government, but oppose the idea of government mandating companies to spend money on their employees?

I support the right of the government to tax its citizens and businesses. I do not support the idea of government mandating that its citizens and businesses buy products they don't want to buy or spend money on entitlements that the government is unable to enact and fund on its own.

That's a very perverted definition of dictatorship you have there.

Perverted? LOL!! Yes, I suppose a liberal/progressive/Democrat WOULD consider opposition to government mandated purchases to be perverted.
 
The predicted significance of impact on the company is not the basis for whether or not this is a good idea.

That was essentially the argument that was being presented.

Employees don't earn profits, they earn wages.

Employees do earn the profits for the company; under the current system, they're simply not allowed to keep the majority of the money you earn.

They shouldn't.

So you not only oppose a mandate for paid parental leave, you think no one, including people who already receive it, should not have paid parental leave?

As it should. Mandatory paid parental leave would discourage hiring young women.

Parental leave, as opposed to maternity leave, means that both the mother and the father can use it, and eliminates the discrimination issue.

That's called taxation and it's constitutional , so yes.



No, valid contracts require due consideration. Mandating random personally variable non-cash social benefits result in skewed hiring preferences which is unfair to the very people this idea purports to help.

This is not "random." This makes it easier for parents to actually raise their child without extreme economic hardship. And as I previously mentioned, parental leave will not create discrimination in hiring.
 
If they are irresponsible enough to get pregnant when they can't afford a child, yes.

They are plenty of other ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies, such as free distribution of birth control. Also, if you're going to encourage abortion for families who can't afford to have children, as opposed to making it easier for parents to raise a child, economically speaking, you're essentially discouraging parenthood altogether for people who can't afford it.

Actually, ownership of a company gives you the ONLY right to the profits of the company. In fact, the employees have NO right to profits.

So? Legal rights=/=ethical rights.

I support the right of the government to tax its citizens and businesses. I do not support the idea of government mandating that its citizens and businesses buy products they don't want to buy or spend money on entitlements that the government is unable to enact and fund on its own.



Perverted? LOL!! Yes, I suppose a liberal/progressive/Democrat WOULD consider opposition to government mandated purchases to be perverted.

It's not the opposition to a paid parental leave mandate that I think is "perverted." I think it's odd and very misguided that a government mandating paid parental leave turns it into a dictatorship in your view. Do you consider most countries in the world to be dictatorships?
 
They are plenty of other ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies, such as free distribution of birth control. Also, if you're going to encourage abortion for families who can't afford to have children, as opposed to making it easier for parents to raise a child, economically speaking, you're essentially discouraging parenthood altogether for people who can't afford it.

Birth control is available for free, yet there are still far too many people having children who can't afford to raise them.

Yes I do discourage parenthood for people who can't afford it. What responsible person wouldn't?
 
Yes, because it's there was a federal law regarding maternity leave. And paternity leave while we're at it.
 
So? Legal rights=/=ethical rights.

Of course not. Ethics are in the eye of the beholder. Legal rights are in the eye of the law.

It's not the opposition to a paid parental leave mandate that I think is "perverted." I think it's odd and very misguided that a government mandating paid parental leave turns it into a dictatorship in your view. Do you consider most countries in the world to be dictatorships?

I don't judge other countries. If they want to dictate such things to their citizens and businesses, so be it. I DO judge my country.
 
The USA is a savage uncivilized country compared to the rest of the world.
 
The USA is a savage uncivilized country compared to the rest of the world.

Just the way we like it. I do wonder though why people from all over the world move here if we're so savage and uncivilized?
 
That was essentially the argument that was being presented.

It's not the strongest argument against this idea (but nor is it an argument for it).

Employees do earn the profits for the company; under the current system, they're simply not allowed to keep the majority of the money you earn.

They earn what their contract says they will receive in exchange for a specific quantity of services or the completion of a job. What you're griping about amounts to equity compensation for ordinary employees, which while it may be an interesting concept in some cases is usually too risky for ordinary employees, so they'd rather just have a regular paycheck calculated hourly or annually. They need that concrete expectation and don't want to take the gamble on whether their employer will turn a profit or not. You have to incur risk to reap that type of reward.

I'm guessing you want employees to share in the reward but not the risk. Am I wrong to assume that?

So you not only oppose a mandate for paid parental leave, you think no one, including people who already receive it, should not have paid parental leave?

For the most part I oppose the mandate. Beyond that I still think it's a bad idea but I wouldn't propose interfering with an organization's right to offer that as a compensation benefit.

Parental leave, as opposed to maternity leave, means that both the mother and the father can use it, and eliminates the discrimination issue.

This is not "random." This makes it easier for parents to actually raise their child without extreme economic hardship. And as I previously mentioned, parental leave will not create discrimination in hiring.[/QUOTE]

The option of fathers to stay home instead of the mothers won't be enough to overcome the tendency of the mothers to choose (or feel the need) to be the ones to stay home. And even if you were right that parental leave would reduce discrimination between sexes (which I don't think you are), it doesn't do anything about potential discrimination between age groups.

Out of curiosity, how much mandatory paid leave are advocates thinking is a good idea?
 
Of course not. Ethics are in the eye of the beholder. Legal rights are in the eye of the law.



I don't judge other countries. If they want to dictate such things to their citizens and businesses, so be it. I DO judge my country.

You're avoiding the question. Do you think that since most other countries implement paid parental leave, they are dictatorships?

Birth control is available for free, yet there are still far too many people having children who can't afford to raise them.

Yes I do discourage parenthood for people who can't afford it. What responsible person wouldn't?

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.
 
Do you agree with the President's recent statements that the US should join the rest of the industrialized world and have provided paid maternity leave? The President said that Congress should work on legislation requiring employers to have paid maternity leave? Do you believe this should be law or not?
No. That should be up for the employer to decide.
 
You're avoiding the question. Do you think that since most other countries implement paid parental leave, they are dictatorships?

You are harping on an issue that is irrelevant to this topic, imo, and I won't play your game.

Get over it.
 
It's not the strongest argument against this idea (but nor is it an argument for it).



They earn what their contract says they will receive in exchange for a specific quantity of services or the completion of a job. What you're griping about amounts to equity compensation for ordinary employees, which while it may be an interesting concept in some cases is usually too risky for ordinary employees, so they'd rather just have a regular paycheck calculated hourly or annually. They need that concrete expectation and don't want to take the gamble on whether their employer will turn a profit or not. You have to incur risk to reap that type of reward.

I'm guessing you want employees to share in the reward but not the risk. Am I wrong to assume that?

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.

For the most part I oppose the mandate. Beyond that I still think it's a bad idea but I wouldn't propose interfering with an organization's right to offer that as a compensation benefit.

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?

The option of fathers to stay home instead of the mothers won't be enough to overcome the tendency of the mothers to choose (or feel the need) to be the ones to stay home. And even if you were right that parental leave would reduce discrimination between sexes (which I don't think you are), it doesn't do anything about potential discrimination between age groups.

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.

Out of curiosity, how much mandatory paid leave are advocates thinking is a good idea?

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

U.S. Sen. Gillibrand Introduces Paid Family Leave Act - myChamplainValley.com
 
Do you agree with the President's recent statements that the US should join the rest of the industrialized world and have provided paid maternity leave? The President said that Congress should work on legislation requiring employers to have paid maternity leave? Do you believe this should be law or not?


Yes. It's disgraceful that we don't have it.
 
I think you should get paid for your work, not for contributing to over population.


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.
 
You are harping on an issue that is irrelevant to this topic, imo, and I won't play your game.

Get over it.

It is relevant to the topic. You clearly stated that you believe paid parental leave causes a government to become a dictatorship; I am challenging you on that claim. Either defend it or avoid the question. It makes no difference to me.

I think you should get paid for your work, not for contributing to over population.

Actually, low birth rates have been proven to help cause a lower standard of living.

Why a Falling Birth Rate Is a Big Problem - US News
 
It is relevant to the topic. You clearly stated that you believe paid parental leave causes a government to become a dictatorship; I am challenging you on that claim. Either defend it or avoid the question. It makes no difference to me.

Now see...this is why I find talking to you...and those like you...to be pretty much a waste of time.

I never stated...clearly or otherwise...that I "believe paid parental leave causes a government to become a dictatorship". In fact, my contention is that the Democrats...with their success in dictating in respect to Obamacare...has now turned to another issue they think they can have success with. In other words, parental leave is causing the dictating...the desire to dictate is causing this parental leave proposal.

Now...I'm getting quite bored with your antics...with your spin, illogic, strawmen and just plain misunderstandings. Until you come up with something new...something reasoned...something logical...I won't be responding to you.
 
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.
You should probably look up what some of those words mean before trying to use them.

Unless having a child is a product or service you are providing to your employer, your employer shouldn't have to pay for it. Neither should your boss pay you for adopting a dog from the pound.

If you want to be paid for not choosing abortion then you should get an insurance policy for it, or invest.
 
You should probably look up what some of those words mean before trying to use them.

Unless having a child is a product or service you are providing to your employer, your employer shouldn't have to pay for it. Neither should your boss pay you for adopting a dog from the pound.

If you want to be paid for not choosing abortion then you should get an insurance policy for it, or invest.


Yeah that's why almost every single European civilized country pays it..
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom