• 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
Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is it a "travesty" that a woman who smokes or a woman who drinks would find it in her...and the child's...best interest if she gives up those activities? And what of the women who do NOT choose to give them up? It is the same with the choice of how to deal with a career when starting a family. It is simply a choice that each individual mother must make.

I find it to be more of a travesty that Obama, his buddies and bleeding-heart liberals in general want to make this whole parental leave issue a convenient political football that they hope will help them in the upcoming election...and that they would even consider dictating to individuals and businesses about how they should spend their money.
 
Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why was it never a travesty for men to do the same?

The way private enterprise works is that if something promotes the best people for the job then the enterprise will pay for maternity leave. Mandating it by fovernment force merely hurts private enterprise and discourages the best people for the job
 
Soupnazi630 said:
Why was it never a travesty for men to do the same?

The way private enterprise works is that if something promotes the best people for the job then the enterprise will pay for maternity leave. Mandating it by fovernment force merely hurts private enterprise and discourages the best people for the job
Click to expand...

I can not think of any reason as to why a company would find a compelling interest in promoting population growth in general.
 
Mycroft said:
Is it a "travesty" that a woman who smokes or a woman who drinks would find it in her...and the child's...best interest if she gives up those activities? And what of the women who do NOT choose to give them up? It is the same with the choice of how to deal with a career when starting a family. It is simply a choice that each individual mother must make.

I find it to be more of a travesty that Obama, his buddies and bleeding-heart liberals in general want to make this whole parental leave issue a convenient political football that they hope will help them in the upcoming election...and that they would even consider dictating to individuals and businesses about how they should spend their money.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something or is that whole post nothing more than one huge Straw Man?
 
Soupnazi630 said:
Why was it never a travesty for men to do the same?

The way private enterprise works is that if something promotes the best people for the job then the enterprise will pay for maternity leave. Mandating it by fovernment force merely hurts private enterprise and discourages the best people for the job
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point about men and your argument is illogical because what works best for private enterprise does not always work best for society...
 
Not just yes, but hell yes. The results would be nothing positive for everyone.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I don't understand your point about men and your argument is illogical because what works best for private enterprise does not always work best for society...
Click to expand...

Men have had to sacrifice family for career for ages.

Nothing works for society. Society is just an abstract concept
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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?
Click to expand...
Hmm...

As with many issues, I find myself indecisive.

On the one hand, I see the benifit to having paid maternity leave - so long as the woman does not abuse it, it allows her to have a child and retain her position, returning to continue her career at after the birth.

On the other hand, the company is without her services for the length of the maternity leave (unless some form of working from home exists, and then it's not really "leave", is it?).

In short, it appears to me that maternity leave is basically the same thing as paid sick leave - only available to those employees which the company wants to retain.

If we're talking a more physical labor type job, perhaps packing boxes or some such, the company has very little incentive to retain an employee who is basically taking extended sick leave. Depending on staffing, they might need to hire a new person anyway.
Especially in high-turnover jobs, unless the person is extremely good at the job, there is little reason.

And in the end, if you force the companies to do so anyway, they WILL pass the costs on to their customers, causing prices to go up.

All that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea though.

And in some ways, being able to effectively "plan" a "sick leave" period would be a positive - if you know a given employee will be "sick" for a relatively set period of time, it makes staffing decisions easier.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Am I missing something or is that whole post nothing more than one huge Straw Man?
Click to expand...

Not a strawman at all. Just discussing travesties.

You see travesties...I see choices. It's that simple.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
Men have had to sacrifice family for career for ages.

Nothing works for society. Society is just an abstract concept
Click to expand...

The interactions of people's are not abstract... they are 100% tangible.

And men sacrificing for ages is an Appeal to Tradition fallacy...
 
Mycroft said:
Not a strawman at all. Just discussing travesties.

You see travesties...I see choices. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

Of course they are choices... but how a society treats it's mothers and children is a reflection of that societies values... that is the travesty, in this case.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The interactions of people's are not abstract... they are 100% tangible.

And men sacrificing for ages is an Appeal to Tradition fallacy...
Click to expand...

Interactions between people are just actions and must be strictly voluntary. No government is capable of regulating such choices.

No men sacrificing for ages is not an appeal for tradition it is recognition of reality. If one wants something there are consequences. The appeal for mandated maternity leave is simply demanding the success without the sacrifice and work.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Of course they are choices... but how a society treats it's mothers and children is a reflection of that societies values... that is the travesty, in this case.
Click to expand...

Society is only an abstract concept again it cannot treat anyone bad or good
 
Bodhisattva said:
Of course they are choices... but how a society treats it's mothers and children is a reflection of that societies values... that is the travesty, in this case.
Click to expand...

I think our society should treat mothers, fathers, individuals and organizations...like businesses...the same, by allowing...no, by requiring...them to make their choices free from arbitrary government mandates.

That is the greatest value of our society...the ability, the right and the accompanying responsibility of all segments to make their own choices.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
Interactions between people are just actions and must be strictly voluntary. No government is capable of regulating such choices.

No men sacrificing for ages is not an appeal for tradition it is recognition of reality. If one wants something there are consequences. The appeal for mandated maternity leave is simply demanding the success without the sacrifice and work.
Click to expand...

It is an Appeal in that you are using it as a counter argument....

...and interactions between people being tangible IS society... government has nothing to do with it.

Society is only an abstract concept again it cannot treat anyone bad or good
Click to expand...

In this instance society is abstract... not as a real entity though and in this instance that is why government intervention is needed.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It is an Appeal in that you are using it as a counter argument....

...and interactions between people being tangible IS society... government has nothing to do with it.



In this instance society is abstract... not as a real entity though and in this instance that is why government intervention is needed.
Click to expand...

Interactions between people are not society and society has never been defined that way.

People choose when and how to interact yes government has everything to do with it when you and others call for government force to be applied to specific interactions.

Society is always an abstract concept and nothing more which is why there is no good for society or bad for society and government intervention for the sake of society is nothing more than thinly veiled tyranny.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
Interactions between people are not society and society has never been defined that way.

People choose when and how to interact yes government has everything to do with it when you and others call for government force to be applied to specific interactions.

Society is always an abstract concept and nothing more which is why there is no good for society or bad for society and government intervention for the sake of society is nothing more than thinly veiled tyranny.
Click to expand...

You touch upon a very important question: Does government have a responsibility to shape society? To control the evolution of society? Or is government the servant...the tool...of society? I'm no scholar, but I would contend that the Founding Fathers intended government to be the servant of the American society.

Unfortunately, there is a group...liberals/progressives/Democrats...who think it should be the other way around. As a result, they use this "society" argument to aid them in enabling the government to be the master instead of the servant.
 
Sure. Female employment is too high anyway.

Seriously, "required" is an ugly word.
 
Phys251 said:
Yes you (plural) did.
Click to expand...

You (plural)? What? Is that cryptic for something.

I'm a mother of 3. I can assure you, he didn't disrespect me. I see you're a man based on that little blue arrow. Since when does a man speak for mothers?
 
Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...


women dont have to do anything

they CHOOSE to do something

hard to be a mom when the job requires 80 hour weeks.....

hard to be a mom when you have to travel 40-50% of the time

everyone understands that women have to make these choices.....

you dont like them.....i understand

that wont change the fact that in order to get to the highest rungs in a lot of companies, you have to do the 80 hour weeks, and the travel

it sucks for everyone......not just women, everyone

making choices in life decide which paths we follow.....

i have met a few women who can do it all (career, kids, marriage) but they are fairly rare

usually one of the three gets less attention than required......

again...choices......

woman's choice to have a child.....and her and her partner's choice on who will care for said child

but the EMPLOYER has zero to do with their decision......
 
No, getting knocked up should cost the employee $ if anything. It's a choice and all. Funny how this would be a conservative position, like the one circumstance where the employee gets any time off.

Something like $40/day in 3rd trimester to keep their job instead. In cases of rape, they get 1 day paid leave for abortion.
 
chromium said:
lol you just got back and going after women again.

Plz be a little careful
Click to expand...

Just telling the truth.

There is NO way I hire a woman in her teens to mid 20s, especially if she's recently married.

Would you buy (and pay full price for) a gallon of milk that reaches an expiration date tomorrow? Would you go to an AYCE buffet if all you wanted was a half plate of food?

We're talking "bang for the buck" here, and young women of breeding age are more trouble than benefit - exceptionally so if this became mandatory.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
But of course the best if it payed by the goverment. Because having children being born and woman in theworkforce is good for the entire society. Also the cost will not behigher for branshces or companies that hires more woman. But that depends on a mayority of people wanting to pay for the huge benefite to society having children born and not wasting the talent and competence of 50 % of the workforce.
Click to expand...

I know from research work that plenty of women would take full advantage and get knocked up nonstop just for paid maternity and not have to work. I mean if she's always pregnant she's not in the workforce, so where's the impact on society except overpopulation by large welfare families?

Here is what a real working mother can do: dump the kids at Amish babysitter and go back to work. This is what mine did and it meets both your criteria.
 
Gipper said:
Just telling the truth.

There is NO way I hire a woman in her teens to mid 20s, especially if she's recently married.

Would you buy (and pay full price for) a gallon of milk that reaches an expiration date tomorrow? Would you go to an AYCE buffet if all you wanted was a half plate of food?

We're talking "bang for the buck" here, and young women of breeding age are more trouble than benefit - exceptionally so if this became mandatory.
Click to expand...

Only would if she or the govt paid me for their maternity leave, which is the opposite of this bill proposal. Even then you have to find and train a temp replacement or pay others overtime to get her work done. Then god knows if she'll actually return.

So i agree but you know how the mods are here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom