Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-20-2015, 10:46 AM
 
17,386 posts, read 11,902,357 times
Reputation: 16131

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe View Post
It's obvious, isn't it? They didn't go far enough. In addition to the 32 hour max and no fire, they needed more laws -- ones preventing businesses from moving or outsourcing, and ones requiring businesses to hire employees. The problem was they weren't fully committed to central control of the factors of production.

Right. And because staying would mean more operating costs, they have to raise prices. So the government will step in to fix prices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-20-2015, 01:01 PM
 
5,444 posts, read 6,939,149 times
Reputation: 15146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Special_Guest View Post
I think people on here sometimes just talk to entertain themselves and see how much silly nonsense they can spout. If by chance some of you are serious, explain what you think should happen, because I'm seeing few viable solutions. For maternity situations, women should:

1. Stop having babies if they aren't wealthy or upper-middle class. Just a silly comment. Plenty of middle/lower middle class families have children all the time.
2. They should have enough money saved up to finance 6-8 weeks of maternity leave You have plenty of time before you give birth to save up money. So, yes, save money so you can take unpaid time off.
3. If they don't have this money saved up, they should plan to report to work maybe a week after having a baby. If they aren't responsible enough to save up a few months of pay over a 7 month period(I say 7 because it might be a month or two before they realize they are pregnant), then yes, you get a few days recovery and then back to work.

I was reading an online forum the other day, and women were sharing stories of returning to work two, three days, maybe a week after birthing babies because they couldn't afford to miss work. Sounds like many of you are okay with this.

I just look at our society sometimes and shake my head. We have truly become a heartless, cold, callous society, yet folks are so quick to jump up and claim they are "Christlike". :-/
See the comments in red.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2015, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Cape Cod
24,296 posts, read 16,970,291 times
Reputation: 35542
This is why we need more of a business man for President and not a perpetual campainging politician.
It all sounds so good for an employer to give health care, extra time off, sick time, maternity leave etc.. etc... but guess what someone actually has to pay for these perks. Where does the money come from, out of the companies bottom line? many companies operate with tight budgets. If the company produces something do they cut back on quality? More than likely the company that is trying to save some bucks will let people go or instead of hiring 2 will hire 1 instead and make every one else do more work.
It all seems like a good idea when Obama tells us about it but when it comes down to paying for the ideas there is silence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2015, 02:27 PM
 
14,332 posts, read 14,129,578 times
Reputation: 45555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Year2525 View Post
and paid maternity leave. On the maternity leave, isn't that a choice and a very personal one? Why should anyone else pay someone's time off to have a baby?
Why should there be a minimum wage law?

Why should there be a maximum hours law?

Why should employers be prohibited from firing someone for participating in a labor union?

Why should employers be required to maintain a safe place to work for employees?

Why should there be a family medical leave act?

I haven't even gotten to laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, and religion.

The real question is what, we as a society, believe that employers should be obligated to do? I think all the laws that establish the measures I have listed above are reasonable laws. Yet, at some point, we could move past a point of reasonableness.

I argue for balance. I argue for middle ground. I think any law that requires sick leave and maternity leave should be limited in scope. It shouldn't apply to any business with 50 or fewer employees. If individual states want such a law than that is up to them and they make regulate those companies with fewer than 50 employees.

The actual number of required sick leave or maternity leave days should be few in number. The statute should be written in a way that it is easy for business to understand and should be straightforward in its implementation.

It also needs to be understood that such laws have a cost. Business may be a little less competitive with such laws in place. Are we willing to accept that trade-off? Business may also hire a few less people. Are we willing to accept that?

If such a law is necessary it should be implemented carefully and gradually.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2015, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Wonderland
67,652 posts, read 60,329,256 times
Reputation: 101015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
Fathers do not get the same access unless their spouse gets no paid leave. A mothers access is not reduced by the fathers coverage
See - sorry, but I think that's discriminatory against new fathers, and I think it's a lawsuit waiting to happen. But that's just my years of writing HR policies rearing up!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 11:11 AM
 
3,570 posts, read 2,503,280 times
Reputation: 2290
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
It's not the job of business to support society. That's a bi-product of business. And if you CHOOSE to work to live, then you might be living a little less opulently. That's just reality. But to insist on a "balanced" life (which I assume means little to no responsibility, clock out after 8 hours, get lots of vacation and sick days) you will not make as much money as someone that works harder than you do.

Everyone is assuming that every pregnant women has high value to their employer. Valuing a person's skills, and having to spend money to hire and retrain someone else isn't always the case. In fact, if that person does have value, chances are they're already working for an employer that offers more benefits, such as paid maternity leave. So once again, our government is going to force businesses to cater to the lowest common denominator. How long do you think this will fly before those that ARE worth more just give up?

PS: it's also not a businesses obligation to improve the morale of any of their employee's home lives.
Many people work very hard but make far less than people who work less. Construction work can be physically demanding and dangerous but is paid far less than, for example, dental hygienist work, which tends to have reasonable hours in a comfortable environment. Work-life balance matters for people who command high compensation. It matters to everyone.

Parental leave is not about bending over backwards for employers to do as they please. It is about bending over backwards so that parents can spend time with their children. Swedish families, for example, are entitled to 480 paid (~80% of salary) parental leave days, of which the father must take at least 60. This is a national policy dedicated to encouraging familial life.

But Sweden is a small, rich country you say?

Kenya requires 3 months maternity leave (calendar months) and 2 weeks paternity leave (for married fathers only)--both at full pay.

Employers can respond to new benefit requirements according to the status of the labor market. The labor market always functions within the constraints of labor laws (unless employers and employees are breaking those laws).

Most flawed in your post, "those that ARE worth more" are not going to just give up because other people start getting paid leave. That's just silly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 03:15 PM
 
1,994 posts, read 1,509,988 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
Many people work very hard but make far less than people who work less. Construction work can be physically demanding and dangerous but is paid far less than, for example, dental hygienist work, which tends to have reasonable hours in a comfortable environment. Work-life balance matters for people who command high compensation. It matters to everyone.

Parental leave is not about bending over backwards for employers to do as they please. It is about bending over backwards so that parents can spend time with their children. Swedish families, for example, are entitled to 480 paid (~80% of salary) parental leave days, of which the father must take at least 60. This is a national policy dedicated to encouraging familial life.

But Sweden is a small, rich country you say?

Kenya requires 3 months maternity leave (calendar months) and 2 weeks paternity leave (for married fathers only)--both at full pay.

Employers can respond to new benefit requirements according to the status of the labor market. The labor market always functions within the constraints of labor laws (unless employers and employees are breaking those laws).

Most flawed in your post, "those that ARE worth more" are not going to just give up because other people start getting paid leave. That's just silly.
If a woman decides to have children, it is her responsibility to spend time with her kids, not anyone else's to pay het to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,695 posts, read 28,331,173 times
Reputation: 35862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe View Post
I was in a role for six years where I had to keep tabs on the goings-on of about 1100 employees (in a 40K employee company). I didn't need to know about vacation or sick days, but I did need to know of maternity leave, disability leave, FMLA, and terminations. Probably 3 out of 5 times what we would see is a woman would use the 8 weeks paid maternity leave (and the insurance), come back for the mandatory 2 weeks, and then that was it, they left the company (and presumably the workforce in general). Just something we observed time and time again. We were surprised when a new mother actually continued working.
I like the idea overall, but I do wonder how it would work.

The last time I used a "sick day" was in 2009 when I suffered a double-dislocated left index finger. Generally-speaking I can't just take a sick day on the spur of the moment because I want to (it's okay because I quite literally never get sick). At best I could work remotely. But spur of the moment is kind of the idea behind sick days.

Vacation days typically require a LOT of planning ahead. I have to make sure I won't be impacting any big projects I'm leading or working on, I have to ensure the days I want to take aren't certain days of the month (FBD through FBD+6 are out of the question most of the time), I have to coordinate my days off with colleagues so they can handle my work in my absence (and vice versa), and there's still always the possibility of having to cancel due to a fire drill, or business travel, or senior management visits, etc. Then the week leading up to vacation is a bit of a train-wreck, a sort of self-imposed deadline for all topics. And the day back to work after vacation is a monster. And vacation can still entail attending calls remotely and being available for emergencies (on the plus side I'm 40 years old and planning to retire at age 50).

I'm also not married and have no children so there's a little bit of a bias against my days. I have trouble getting my vacation taken seriously sometimes.

This is pretty typical at the Director level and up. Sick days are necessarily limited to only a few days (6 at my company) but are those days you can (if you're so able) take with no notice, while vacation days are more numerous (22 at my company) but are those days that require a month or more of notice and a lot planning and coordination.

So, is the idea with PTO that every day is supposed to become a 'spur-of-the-moment' day like a sick day, or that every day is supposed to become a 'long-term planning' day like a vacation day?
It can be both. Most employees do not have as detailed jobs as you and can plan ahead for vacation days. No one knows they will be sick. The idea is you take your days just as you would under any other company rule. You begin with a bank of x number of days to be used for time off. How you use them is your business.

There is no difference between having to ask in advance as you would traditionally or call in sick the same day. Your bank is your bank and the company's rules on how and when you can take your days from your bank still apply. They may still require you to only take your vacation days at certain times of the year for example or only when there is someone to cover for you.

If you want to take your hours for paternity leave or if you want to take them for the same amount of time to take a class, they are yours to take. The choice is yours. I use that as an example because the discussion of separate paternity leave has come up here and to me, as a childfree person, I consider it very unfair to give one man separate paternity time off for his life choice of having a child and then allowing him vacation time as well. In the meantime another man would have only vacation time and no other time off if he wants to do something, like say go to school, to be able to get ahead in his job. Each are worthwhile endeavors but neither should be supported in the workplace over the other.

With PTO, each man could use the time in whichever way he chose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 09:30 PM
 
1,994 posts, read 1,509,988 times
Reputation: 2924
All this will lead to is yet another incentive for companies to automate jobs and reduce the need for workers. If a woman is in such a low quality job that the employer doesn't provide the paid leave as a benefit, just how much help will that paid leave be anyway and that job probably isn't paying enough to raise the child.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 10:16 PM
 
5,661 posts, read 3,500,935 times
Reputation: 5155
Maybe there should be a push for vacation time or more vacation time.
If people didn't work so hard, wouldn't get run down, therefor not getting sick as much.

Some of the European countries have that right.
A Holiday, is that what they call it?

They get quite a bit of Holiday.
Builds strong bonded families also.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top