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.
Parental leave in Canada....Maximum amount $19,670 for 35 weeks...Her proposed amount is way too high.
Standard parental benefits are paid at a weekly benefit rate of 55% of your average weekly insurable earnings, up to a maximum amount. For 2019, this means that you can receive a maximum amount of $562 per week for up to 35 weeks. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-...-parental.html
You were the one hiring them but were you the one paying them? The issue here isn't so much maternity leave but paid maternity leave. A company is being forced to pay someone for no work in return, and then paying someone else to actually do the work, so they are paying twice. And if you were the one paying twice, you would very much prefer it be for 4 months versus 6 months.
You are right that I was not the one paying them, only in charge of hiring. And I would not object if the amount of time went to 4 months rather than 6, just because I concede that we can't always have the ideal situation. Sometimes interests have to be balanced. But I do object to people who don't feel that child bearing in an important task in society that deserves time off, and not the punishment of unpaid leave. Parenting is extremely important to any society, just as education is, and we should, as a whole society, be supporting it (both moms and dads.)
Ignoring for moment that the whole shebang is funded by stealing from others
Imagine you own a co. and have a marginal employee you are just waiting to let go, but cant until you find a suitable replacement. All of the sudden they turn up pregnant, now you have to hold their job for six months w/pay.
Lets look further; if her scheme came to pass and knowing how it will be funded, it certainly puts a damper on hiring women in general, and especially women of child bearing age.
And as always,if one has a talent in short supply, such leave can always be negotiated.
You are right that I was not the one paying them, only in charge of hiring. And I would not object if the amount of time went to 4 months rather than 6, just because I concede that we can't always have the ideal situation. Sometimes interests have to be balanced. But I do object to people who don't feel that child bearing in an important task in society that deserves time off, and not the punishment of unpaid leave. Parenting is extremely important to any society, just as education is, and we should, as a whole society, be supporting it (both moms and dads.)
I'm simply saying that what looks good from the receiving end doesn't look so good from the paying end. In all these liberal fantasy schemes that involve benefits it gets glossed over that someone else is paying for them. It's always sock it to the rich or sock it to the corporations as if there is a money tree with an endless bounty of dollars to pluck.
Unpaid leave is not "punishment". Employment is a business transaction not a social project. A company agrees to pay a person a certain amount of money for a certain amount of work. The only "punishment" here is then requiring a company to continue paying the money while not receiving the work. If parenting is so important to society then it needs to be paid for by society, not the entity that happened to hire the parent to do a job.
out of all the lame brain ideas liberals come up with .... this isn't one of them. I fully support this. Nothing more important for a newborn than to be nurtured by her parents. Pays off later in life IMO...
Its easy to propose these stupid benefits when you dont have to find a way to pay for it. Just dump the cost on every employer.
And that means consumers will pay for it as employers are forced to raise prices to cover their additional expenses. That means that in addition to people who don't have children paying to educate other people's children (which I agree is necessary), we'd also have to fund their stay-at-home time for half a year rafter birth. At some point, we need to stop enabling people who can't afford to have children to go ahead and have them anyway.
out of all the lame brain ideas liberals come up with .... this isn't one of them. I fully support this. Nothing more important for a newborn than to be nurtured by her parents. Pays off later in life IMO...
Nothing more important for a newborn than to be financially supported by her parents.
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.
