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.
It most certainly is....and it will continue to be this way, b/c they are finding out, the foreign workers, work for less money and take very little time off.....
we keep asking for things like this, they will lay us off.....
Let me tell you, I've seen big big changes in the past 5 years with corporations....pretty soon it will be like it was, back in the days before the unions....they are taking so much away, and they can do it b/c there is no absolutely no competition....b/c all businesses are doing it.
My company hires from both India and the Philippines, both of which have more progressive maternity policies than the U.S. In India, women can take 12 weeks with pay, and I believe they are bumping that to six months in support of breastfeeding. In the Philippines, mothers can take 60 days off at 100% pay, longer for C-sections. Foreign workers get pregnant too.
#4 is discriminatory because it's not offered to all employees but only to those who want kids.
Unpaid leave mandated by the government is not good for the employer as it has no choice or say. Again, it's not offered to those who don't want kids.
Employers dont have to offer anything to all employees. Some employees get more leave time, raises, bonuses, a better office, more hours, less hours, field work, vacations, weekends off, etc. etc.
Mandated leave may put some employers in a spot for a few weeks but it protects employees from losing their job. Worker bees are good for the economy, good for society. It is offered to those who dont want kids. They are eligible if they do have a pregnancy, they are eligible if there is serious medical problems, family problems, etc. where they need to take an extended leave.
I believe you but I dont think it is FMLA that is flushing things down the crapper. If I ask for 6 weeks off I am the only one affected. Companies are going to hire those willing to work for nothing and never take a day off as long as they are permitted to do so.
I understand what you are saying, but huge companies, with thousands of employees and I mean thousands, are going to hire people who work for, tell you what, instead of me explaining, google, H-1B and H-2B, it is perfectly legal.
Employers dont have to offer anything to all employees. Some employees get more leave time, raises, bonuses, a better office, more hours, less hours, field work, vacations, weekends off, etc. etc.
Mandated leave may put some employers in a spot for a few weeks but it protects employees from losing their job. Worker bees are good for the economy, good for society. It is offered to those who dont want kids. They are eligible if they do have a pregnancy, they are eligible if there is serious medical problems, family problems, etc. where they need to take an extended leave.
Employers don't have to anything but when they offer one benefit to one group of people specifically, that's discrimination.
I have to remind you once again, for the millionth time, pregnancy is not sickness! You can't compare pregnancy with a heart disease. Not the same thing. This discussion is going nowhere if you continue to compare pregnancy with sickness. We need to agree at least that pregnancy is not sickness, not comparable with other diseases.
We can compare pregnancy with climbing Mount Everest though since both are by choice and both can be exhausting. Should I, who wish to climb Mount Everest, be able to take time off afterwards just like maternity leave?
My company hires from both India and the Philippines, both of which have more progressive maternity policies than the U.S. In India, women can take 12 weeks with pay, and I believe they are bumping that to six months in support of breastfeeding. In the Philippines, mothers can take 60 days off at 100% pay, longer for C-sections. Foreign workers get pregnant too.
I understand, and that's great, however, there was a woman who went out for maternity leave, who just bought a new home, and she was notified by the company that she was laid off.
Now, I don't know what became of it....however, we were all shocked and that was about 2 years ago, since then, the company has been hiring people from India, here...on the H-2B plan....I get the two mixed up...
maybe that get all that time off JustJulia, but, what kind of pay are they getting, and is it secure work, if not, they are probably jumping to work over here for a bit more....? I don't know, I can't dispute your post....
what I do know is, they're living expenses are dirt cheap, b/c they rent apartments, maybe 10 to an apartment and split the cost, they are used to living in close quarters....that's what they do in other countries, and it's coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
and I'm not trying to be condiscending, the whole thing makes me angry...we've all here in America, gotten greedy....food costs, utility costs, car up keep, its a trickle down affect, one affects the other, and soon, everyone is suffering from it, and the sad thing is, Americans cannot look ahead, and see this coming. We cannot problem solve. We want what we want, today, with no worries about tomorrow. And we should.
Last edited by cremebrulee; 05-05-2016 at 10:15 AM..
We can compare pregnancy with climbing Mount Everest though since both are by choice and both can be exhausting. Should I, who wish to climb Mount Everest, be able to take time off afterwards just like maternity leave?
No, the two are not comparable at all.
Pregnancy produces a new human being...a new 'consumer unit', if you will.
Climbing Everest produces nothing.
I'm still waiting for your argument that maternity leave is paid for by taxpayers. I see you came up with one scenario that was expertly debunked by other posters.
Pregnancy produces a new human being...a new 'consumer unit', if you will.
Climbing Everest produces nothing.
I'm still waiting for your argument that maternity leave is paid for by taxpayers. I see you came up with one scenario that was expertly debunked by other posters.
Care to try again?
Pregnancy produces a new human which is not needed by human species - we have way too many of us. It's a financial drain to everybody involved unless such child can recover all the cost - as we know a large percentage of them do not. It further drains the resource for other humans and lives on the planet. Not a good thing for human or for other lives.
Climbing Everest requires the climbers to pay $40,000 and up, a big help to the economy.
I understand, and that's great, however, there was a woman who went out for maternity leave, who just bought a new home, and she was notified by the company that she was laid off.
Now, I don't know what became of it....however, we were all shocked and that was about 2 years ago, since then, the company has been hiring people from India, here...on the H-2B plan....I get the two mixed up...
maybe that get all that time off JustJulia, but, what kind of pay are they getting, and is it secure work, if not, they are probably jumping to work over here for a bit more....? I don't know, I can't dispute your post....
what I do know is, they're living expenses are dirt cheap, b/c they rent apartments, maybe 10 to an apartment and split the cost, they are used to living in close quarters....that's what they do in other countries, and it's coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
I'd say that each employee's personal situation is really of no concern of the employer. Why should they? We, as employees, don't put the company's best interest ahead of ourselves or our families, do we?
It's sad it happened but the said woman should have planned for this. I didn't buy a house until I had enough money to pay for it even if I were laid off. I paid it off in 2.5 years.
It's hard on the body because you choose to have babies. It's no different from that I choose to climb the Mount Everest - that's hard on the body. Shouldn't I deserve months off for that too?
In Canada maternity leave is paid through Unemployment Insurance, which is taxpayer funded.
But somebody has to have the babies. It's the same decision your mother made to have you. You have to work in order to get paid maternity leave in Canada and pay into the system.
I'd say that each employee's personal situation is really of no concern of the employer. Why should they? We, as employees, don't put the company's best interest ahead of ourselves or our families, do we?
It's sad it happened but the said woman should have planned for this. I didn't buy a house until I had enough money to pay for it even if I were laid off. I paid it off in 2.5 years.
And again, how do taxpayers pay for this?
How does one plan to live without a job? How does one intend to support a child without a job? Unless you are rather rich, it's not possible.
But AGAIN, how do taxpayers pay for someone taking maternity leave?
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.
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.
