Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
View Poll Results: Should the government mandate paid maternity leave?
Yes 29 20.71%
No 82 58.57%
Only the current unpaid leave (FMLA) 29 20.71%
Voters: 140. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-13-2014, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,386 posts, read 35,447,774 times
Reputation: 14692

Advertisements

It's not the government's place to decide how long of a leave women should take. If they mandated paid maternity leave they would be declaring that that is the "right" amount of time to take off and this is not their call. This is a personal decision. FMLA allows for time to heal (for all kinds of medical conditions). If a woman wants more time than that it should be on her dime and her employer should not have to wait for her to come back. Beyond the time it takes to medically recover and adjust, it's just time off. If you want to take time off, take it. No one is stopping you but you shouldn't expect your job to be held for you or to be paid to take the time off.

Parents also should not expect to progress the same as non parents in their careers and they shouldn't be surprised when their decisions have future impact. I mommy tracked myself by going part time when dd#2 was born. That decision ultimately led to the premature end of my engineering career. It might have ended anyway but landing where I did pretty much guaranteed I'd be downsized out when the recession hit. That is a decision I have lived to regret but it was my decision and I get the consequences of that decision. No one owed anything to me. I was paid for the work I did and did the work I was paid for. I just failed to put myself into a more secure position for the future. That is on me.

My advice is that if you want to take time off when you have kids you do what a coworker of mine did. From the day she got married, they banked her paycheck and lived off of his. By the time her second child was born, they had a paid off house and enough in retirement savings that she did not have to worry about whether she ever returned to work. She planned well and gave herself choices because of her plan. Smart lady. The problem is too many women mortgage their futures by taking time off and that should not be encouraged by the government. In fact the opposite should be encouraged. The government should be making it easier for women to stay in the work force because the price is so high for taking time off and doing so places her and her children at risk in the future.

Last edited by Ivorytickler; 12-13-2014 at 12:38 PM..

 
Old 12-13-2014, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Iowa, USA
6,542 posts, read 4,077,514 times
Reputation: 3805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
Selective again. What if mommy has a damaged infant requiring more care? You will carry her further out? What if another mommy with a non-infant but still a child has a Special Needs one? Most parents really have day care issues which is an issue for several years instead of the maternity period. How about some help there? Our one has to discriminate where the help is offered. That could apply to both males and females and so make it gender neutral. Then there are issues like divorce which affects the financial wellbeing of either spouse. You intend to help there?

What do you mean 'carry her out further?'I wouldn't pay them any more or less than I normally would. If she needs more time off, then so be it. Past a certain point, the payment will have to stop and depending on the amount of time, I would likely terminate the employee. That depends on a lot of factors. If the infant is ill, I would offer more leeway.

We can assume in any situation dealing with employment that the employee is a value member of a team. If the slightest inconvenience draws an employer to terminate the employee, then the employee is not as valuable of a member. So why keep them around at all? In this scenario, I would want them to come back. Obviously I can't give them more than a year of paid leave, and really, even past 6 months pay becomes financially irresponsible. That's getting a little to specific though. The point is that as an employer, I would only want employees whom I would WANT to work for me. If they have a personal issue, like a newborn, and need time off, so be it. If they are a valuable employee, I will do everything in my power to make sure they come back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
But by your own admission you are selective. That is really not respectful or selective.
It's based on circumstance. If you have a kid, you get maternity leave. If you don't, you don't get it. In cases like that, you have to be reasonably selective. No, it's not equal, but not everything always is. Inequality is not always bad so long as the inequality can still benefit everyone in some way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
Avoided the issue. Again it is being selective to a percentage of the staff.
Of course maternity leave is selective. Men don't get pregnant. Being pregnant isn't exactly easy, is it? Offering a benefit for something that is 100% necessary for societal growth seems entirely rational.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
You did start a company to make profit and enrich yourself or for some other reason? How much loyalty do you think you staff will have if you do not pay them well or provide annual increases. How much loyalty do you think you will have if you offer privileges to staff who are not present but then do not offer privileges to those who remain but are outside of your Special Assistance Group. They will think you are disrespecting them.
A company is made to make a profit yes, but I view it as being 100% unethical to violate any moral values for the sake of monetary gain.

As I've already said, maternity leave is beneficial to the greater good. If I have employees who can't see that, I consider that to be their problem, not mine. I'd listen to their complaints and do my best to make them understand why I do it, but that's the best I can do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
Staff observe each other all the time to ensure the other members are pulling their weight. It is basic office/workplace politics. No one minds working hard or more than required but it burns people to work while others are wasting time. The ultimate example is a person sitting at home being paid and not working while they themselves are working and with added duties and they know they will never be able to be in the same position-sitting at home and being paid. There is a considerable disparity in the fairness decision matrix between a person being able to return to their job after X time has passed but with no pay being provided and a person who is still being paid and not present, not working and is able to return to their job. Then there is the issue of decayed skills for being out of the workplace and broken linkages with either staff or clients if the position is a public contact one. People may smile and nod at a Special person but inside they are severely displeased.
I'd like to begin by saying you are dehumanizing the working mother by saying 'she's just sitting at home.' That's not what's happening.

As I've already said, maternity leave is in place for the benefit of society. I've already said I would offer only reasonable pay and time off. I'm not giving some two years off. I'd give them a few months and after a certain amount of time, either half pay or no pay. But being a mother is a responsibility that I personally hold a great deal of respect for. If her motherhood interferes with her job more than a reasonable amount, then there would be a different discussion to be had. But we're looking at this from the most basic of scenarios. A woman notified her employer of her pregnancy, actions is taken within the next 8-9 months about how her work should be handled to maintain efficiency, and she is then given a few months off to recover and take care of her new born child. She would then return after her time off and work would continue.
 
Old 12-13-2014, 01:23 PM
 
Location: Austin
15,589 posts, read 10,320,893 times
Reputation: 19403
My advice would be to go to work for a liberal if one is unhappy with their company' benefits policy. I'm sure all liberal, small business owners are happy to provide employees with 6 months of paid time off in maternity benefits.
 
Old 12-13-2014, 01:39 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,799 posts, read 21,426,844 times
Reputation: 9263
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowne View Post
Does anyone find it odd that Canadians start threads about what we need to do in the US? Especially when this same scenario has been beat to death several times already.
Not anymore, some of them are just pretty obsessed with us so its not surprising anymore.
 
Old 12-13-2014, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,087 posts, read 9,798,618 times
Reputation: 6650
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty View Post
[/b]What do you mean 'carry her out further?'I wouldn't pay them any more or less than I normally would. If she needs more time off, then so be it. Past a certain point, the payment will have to stop and depending on the amount of time, I would likely terminate the employee. That depends on a lot of factors. If the infant is ill, I would offer more leeway.
So you are basically subsidizing someone who is not working for. You are in business for profit not human services outside of work.
We can assume in any situation dealing with employment that the employee is a value member of a team. If the slightest inconvenience draws an employer to terminate the employee, then the employee is not as valuable of a member. So why keep them around at all? In this scenario, I would want them to come back. Obviously I can't give them more than a year of paid leave, and really, even past 6 months pay becomes financially irresponsible. That's getting a little to specific though. The point is that as an employer, I would only want employees whom I would WANT to work for me. If they have a personal issue, like a newborn, and need time off, so be it. If they are a valuable employee, I will do everything in my power to make sure they come back.

Valuable member is someone who is productive at work. If they are not working they are no longer productive. Unless you define valuable differently.

It's based on circumstance. If you have a kid, you get maternity leave. If you don't, you don't get it. In cases like that, you have to be reasonably selective. No, it's not equal, but not everything always is. Inequality is not always bad so long as the inequality can still benefit everyone in some way.

See previous comment related to this.
Of course maternity leave is selective. Men don't get pregnant. Being pregnant isn't exactly easy, is it? Offering a benefit for something that is 100% necessary for societal growth seems entirely rational.

Ibid
A company is made to make a profit yes, but I view it as being 100% unethical to violate any moral values for the sake of monetary gain.

moral values are subjective. Does not have to being or end with maternity.

As I've already said, maternity leave is beneficial to the greater good. If I have employees who can't see that, I consider that to be their problem, not mine. I'd listen to their complaints and do my best to make them understand why I do it, but that's the best I can do.

WAIT. Let us confirm it is not maternity leave it is PAID maternity leave. I have no issue with unpaid leave only paid leave.

I'd like to begin by saying you are dehumanizing the working mother by saying 'she's just sitting at home.' That's not what's happening.

To the staff at the office who are working it is. They are earning their pay by working for you. The mother is earning your pay by taking care of the infant. You are not a stakeholder in her life outside of work. She is not permanently assigned to work for you. Not a slave. Not live-in family.

As I've already said, maternity leave is in place for the benefit of society. I've already said I would offer only reasonable pay and time off. I'm not giving some two years off. I'd give them a few months and after a certain amount of time, either half pay or no pay. But being a mother is a responsibility that I personally hold a great deal of respect for. If her motherhood interferes with her job more than a reasonable amount, then there would be a different discussion to be had. But we're looking at this from the most basic of scenarios. A woman notified her employer of her pregnancy, actions is taken within the next 8-9 months about how her work should be handled to maintain efficiency, and she is then given a few months off to recover and take care of her new born child. She would then return after her time off and work would continue.
Benefit of Society? You a very young person by any chance. What benefit to society is there with paid leave vs. unpaid leave. Do you have confirmatory studies or is it a WAG? Does anyone doubt that the value of an employee to a company is that they work. Does anyone doubt that the value of a mother to her infant is to be present at his initial period. Both are correct but not related as a woman may have a child without being employed but a woman cannot be paid unless she is employed. To pay someone for not working strikes at the basic tenet of the workplace that a person is paid for their productivity. There is no productivity for the company when someone is at home. Home office users excluded as that is another topic/

Last edited by Felix C; 12-13-2014 at 03:51 PM..
 
Old 12-13-2014, 03:04 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 3,867,578 times
Reputation: 2293
There's a balance here. It is import that we protect women who want to both have a career and have children, which we as a society should 100% be doing both for ethical and practical reasons, and at the same time not encourage employers to discriminate against women who they think might go on maternity leave, which would be counter-productive to those goals.

Personally, I think that the current laws (you must grant maternity leave but don't have to pay during that period) strike the best balance, but could be convinced to change my views in either direction if someone had good data that on one hand requiring pay wouldn't cause hiring discrimination or on the other and that even unpaid leave does do so to a large extent.
 
Old 12-13-2014, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,386 posts, read 35,447,774 times
Reputation: 14692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
It's not the government's place to decide how long of a leave women should take. If they mandated paid maternity leave they would be declaring that that is the "right" amount of time to take off and this is not their call. This is a personal decision. FMLA allows for time to heal (for all kinds of medical conditions). If a woman wants more time than that it should be on her dime and her employer should not have to wait for her to come back. Beyond the time it takes to medically recover and adjust, it's just time off. If you want to take time off, take it. No one is stopping you but you shouldn't expect your job to be held for you or to be paid to take the time off.

Parents also should not expect to progress the same as non parents in their careers and they shouldn't be surprised when their decisions have future impact. I mommy tracked myself by going part time when dd#2 was born. That decision ultimately led to the premature end of my engineering career. It might have ended anyway but landing where I did pretty much guaranteed I'd be downsized out when the recession hit. That is a decision I have lived to regret but it was my decision and I get the consequences of that decision. No one owed anything to me. I was paid for the work I did and did the work I was paid for. I just failed to put myself into a more secure position for the future. That is on me.

My advice is that if you want to take time off when you have kids you do what a coworker of mine did. From the day she got married, they banked her paycheck and lived off of his. By the time her second child was born, they had a paid off house and enough in retirement savings that she did not have to worry about whether she ever returned to work. She planned well and gave herself choices because of her plan. Smart lady. The problem is too many women mortgage their futures by taking time off and that should not be encouraged by the government. In fact the opposite should be encouraged. The government should be making it easier for women to stay in the work force because the price is so high for taking time off and doing so places her and her children at risk in the future.
To the person who posted this on my rep page in response to my post above "And yet, you were looking for welfare for your pregnant daughter."

Are you really comparing maternity leave to welfare?

I love it when people don't have the balls to even leave their name. Sorry dear, two different topics. Two entirely different topics. However, I would not advocate the use of welfare to extend a maternity leave either. Welfare is for parents who cannot afford to support their children because it's not the children's fault their parents can't afford them. Welfare has nothing to do with maternity leave unless someone is using welfare to fund a maternity leave and that would be wrong.

How long a maternity leave someone takes is their business not their bosses or the government's business however, no one owes it to them to hold their job or pay them while they are off. I do think we need FMLA but that's really it. There should be a limit to the hardship an employee causes their employer. Businesses don't exist to take care of their employees. Employees are only valuable when they are doing their jobs. There comes a point where they need to be replaced and should be replaced so that business can go on. Short term, an employer should accommodate a good employee who needs time off but 3 months is a more than reasonable time to wait for them to come back. This is a personal decision and employers are not obligated to accommodate our personal decisions.

Last edited by Ivorytickler; 12-13-2014 at 03:15 PM..
 
Old 12-13-2014, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,386 posts, read 35,447,774 times
Reputation: 14692
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity View Post
There's a balance here. It is import that we protect women who want to both have a career and have children, which we as a society should 100% be doing both for ethical and practical reasons, and at the same time not encourage employers to discriminate against women who they think might go on maternity leave, which would be counter-productive to those goals.

Personally, I think that the current laws (you must grant maternity leave but don't have to pay during that period) strike the best balance, but could be convinced to change my views in either direction if someone had good data that on one hand requiring pay wouldn't cause hiring discrimination or on the other and that even unpaid leave does do so to a large extent.
Actually it isn't. If a woman had a career and children she protects her career with her productivity. As long as she is valuable to the company, they'll keep her. What needs to be protected here beyond an initial short maternity leave?

I do think it's in the best interest of employers to accommodate their employees who are parents though. The easier they make it for them to work the more likely they will keep on working. Things like on site day care, flexible work hours and day care subsidies. If I were an employer I'd much rather have an employee I've invested in at work than at home. If they choose to stay home for an extended time I think employees need to be fair with their employers and not expect them to hold a job open. This is a two way street. Businesses don't exist to take care of the employees. They exist to make products, offer services and make a profit.
 
Old 12-13-2014, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,386 posts, read 35,447,774 times
Reputation: 14692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
Benefit of Society? You a very young person by any chance. What benefit to society is there with paid leave vs. unpaid leave. Do you have confirmatory studies or is it a WAG? Does anyone doubt that the value of an employee to a company is that they work. Does anyone doubt that the value of a mother to her infant is to be present at his initial period. Both are correct but not related as a woman may have a child without being employed but a woman cannot be paid unless she is employed. To pay someone for not working strikes at the basic tenet of the workplace that a person is paid for their productivity. There is no productivity for the company when someone is at home. Home office users excluded as that is another topic/
I'd like to know what benefit there is to society in maternity leave too. I took maternity leave with both of my kids. IMO, the only person it benefitted was me. It was time to heal and adjust. I have no clue how this benefitted society. In fact I think it's safe to say that society didn't care one iota whether I took 6 days, 6 weeks, 6 months or 6 years off. My employer did but not society.
 
Old 12-13-2014, 03:28 PM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,003,519 times
Reputation: 10270
Why?

Clearly, from your own poll, it shouldn't.
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.


Closed Thread


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 > Politics and Other Controversies
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