- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,821
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
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.