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.
Were I an employer I'd invest in both. Because I've seen the results.
Many years ago I worked for a company that was very progressive for the times on these sorts of things. People went the extra mile because it was such a great place to work. The employer had a TON of perks, paid very well, great benefits, treated the employees more than fairly, had flexible hours for working parents (not just moms) and productivity was through the roof because of it.
They were able to be very selective in who they hired because people were beating down the door to work there.
I work for a biotech company like this. Amazing benefits and big on work life balance- for singles, married people, and parents. The culture is one where everyone wants to contribute and make the company successful because it benefits us. In a work culture where most people job hop, I work with people who started at this company as interns and stay for 10, 20 years.
They offer maternity and paternity leave. Also, every six years, every employee gets a six week sabbatical.
I think it's ridiculous to act like women can't have kids and a career. Of course we can. And the majority of people do have children, so it's obviously possible. Women have been doing it for several decades now, and its only becoming more and more common, not less.
Additionally, the first six months are critical and women are healing from pregnancy, estaishing breast feeding, and bonding. It doesn't mean the other 18 years are pointless. If we took away maternity leave, as the OP proposed in another thread, that would indeed spell the death of females in the workplace. You can't pop out a child over the weekend and return to the office on Monday.
Both. America can afford both, its not a poor country.
Something that could help employers afford longer maternity leaves is using a system like they have here for sabbaticals. The employee goes on their sabbatical (or in this case, parental leave) and the employer takes on an unemployed person for the duration (not necessarily to cover the role left open, but to help ease the workload of the other employees) but not having to pay that unemployed person (because they continue to get their unemployment money). The employer doesn't lose out, the employee on leave can continue to get their normal pay (or reduced, whatever) and the unemployed person gains valuable work experience.
Natsku - do they make reasonable attempts to find unemployed people who can make themselves useful to the employer, and expand their own skills... or can it be hit and miss?
Natsku - do they make reasonable attempts to find unemployed people who can make themselves useful to the employer, and expand their own skills... or can it be hit and miss?
I'm not sure. I really don't know much about it, its just something I heard about but my Finnish isn't so good that I can really read up on it, but I know with labour market training at least, which is somewhat similar, the unemployed apply for it and are selected based on their previous training/skills so I expect they probably try and send people who are more suitable.
I go for family friendly policies for ALL. How about flex time for all and if you provide daycare for the parents, how about a gym for the non parents? Or if a parent needs to leave early one day the next day the childless person can leave early. Or providing paid leave for anyone who needs it regardless of being a parent.
This is a classic ME GENERATION response. This is like saying because I give a person who had diabetes a refrigerator to store their medications in I owe the rest of the employees a vending machine. Giving one person what they NEED to be a productive employee does not mean you owe someone else what they want. Working parents NEED child care. They can't work without it and if that child care is questionable, their concerns will impact other areas of their life like work. Just like taking care of the person with diabetes doesn't mean you owe everyone else, taking care of the parents doesn't mean you owe anyone else. This is just taking care of business. If work/life issues are impacting my employees ability to function, then I have a vested interest in helping fix that problem. I assume the single/childless person has more money and time to find their own gym. However, this may also be in my best interest but NOT because I gave the parents something. That's just the ME GENERATION SCREAMING ME!!! ME!!! ME!!! Health of my employees is also important but that's not relevent to this thread. That's a different need and a different issue.
Another component that I think should be included is that paid maternity leave, if federally funded, should not be based on the woman's salary. Rather at minimum wage or close to it with an income cap. This way the families that are struggling the most will benefit while higher earning women could just receive benefits from their employers, which would save on tax dollars to a degree.
My wife got a long maternity leave (4 months + 2 weeks prior to delivery) AND she is able to flex time (use PTO, etc) as needed to deal with child care related issues.
AND she gets great health insurance.
AND I am insured as her domestic partner.
AND there are discounts on gym memberships (we have a home gym, so we don't do it) AND discounts on your contribution if you belong to a gym.
THAT is a family friendly work place.
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.