Paid Maternity Leave - Good for Women?

[RDD_1210]

Men want maternity leave too. They call it family leave. I don't think anyone should get paid for taking time off.

Spoken like someone who has never held a job.

 

[RDD_1210]

What a load of crap, my company offers paid maternity leave for BOTH parents and considers it a benefit and cost of doing business. Those who would only hire men and older women to avoid paying their fair share of maternity leave you cheap bastards are just shoving your costs off onto other businesses. You employ the husband while someone else picks up the tab for their wife's maternity leave.

This display of entitlement is shocking coming from you.

No man or woman is entitled to my money but my family.

I have no problem with freely offered benefits but forcing someone to further pay for your sexual escapades is complete bullshit. First your birth control, now your bills...what's next your kids first car?

Ridiculous

You literally can't make a point without going to the extreme ridiculous, can you?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What a load of crap, my company offers paid maternity leave for BOTH parents and considers it a benefit and cost of doing business. Those who would only hire men and older women to avoid paying their fair share of maternity leave you cheap bastards are just shoving your costs off onto other businesses. You employ the husband while someone else picks up the tab for their wife's maternity leave.

This display of entitlement is shocking coming from you.

No man or woman is entitled to my money but my family.

I have no problem with freely offered benefits but forcing someone to further pay for your sexual escapades is complete bullshit. First your birth control, now your bills...what's next your kids first car?

Ridiculous

You literally can't make a point without going to the extreme ridiculous, can you?

I made my point. The car was the exclamation point. Lol

Many smaller companies would be devastated by a bill like this. First the loss of production. Then the cost of replacing that lost production. Then the real kick in the nuts, paying a partial to full salary to someone who is sitting at home.

Maternity leave is an admirable perk offered by many companies in an effort to retain good help. Forcing it on everyone is bs.

 

[jillian]

It's wonderful to be able to have a child without concerns about finances looming over your head. Women especially, but men too, have a lot to deal with at this time, and paid maternity leave can be a comfort.

It's a great kindness when offered willingly by company owners who value families, and I believe that a righteous society would gladly do this at every opportunity, assuming its within their means. But what about mandatory paid maternity leave, legislated by the state? What effect does this have, particularly on women's rights issues?

If, as a company owner, I must pay you, even though you're contributing nothing to the business, I am in a very difficult position. If I have numerous women working at my company, I can't help but see them as red flags of potential hardship. My male employees aren't going to ask for a month's pay without working, but my female employees may.

Larken Rose gave an apt analogy: Imagine walking into a grocery store, filling your cart, and when you go to check out, the manager comes over and says, "Our cashier is out on maternity leave. To cover this cost, you will have to pay for all these items in your cart, but you can't take them, you have to leave them here". You have to pay the same amount you usually would, but you get absolutely nothing for it. Wouldn't you be less likely to go to a store with this policy?

Doesn't this have the necessary result of dissuading owners from hiring women in the first place, especially in important positions where they can't afford to lose them for a month, no less to pay them the high salary those positions command during that lost time? Isn't it natural and rational for an owner to devise ways to hedge against this hazard, like maybe paying women less to begin with, so if they take leave it doesn't hit their bottom line quite as hard? Is this sort of legislation really good for women?

most civilized countries have maternity leave, child care, etc.

you should probably come into the 21st century.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It's wonderful to be able to have a child without concerns about finances looming over your head. Women especially, but men too, have a lot to deal with at this time, and paid maternity leave can be a comfort.

It's a great kindness when offered willingly by company owners who value families, and I believe that a righteous society would gladly do this at every opportunity, assuming its within their means. But what about mandatory paid maternity leave, legislated by the state? What effect does this have, particularly on women's rights issues?

If, as a company owner, I must pay you, even though you're contributing nothing to the business, I am in a very difficult position. If I have numerous women working at my company, I can't help but see them as red flags of potential hardship. My male employees aren't going to ask for a month's pay without working, but my female employees may.

Larken Rose gave an apt analogy: Imagine walking into a grocery store, filling your cart, and when you go to check out, the manager comes over and says, "Our cashier is out on maternity leave. To cover this cost, you will have to pay for all these items in your cart, but you can't take them, you have to leave them here". You have to pay the same amount you usually would, but you get absolutely nothing for it. Wouldn't you be less likely to go to a store with this policy?

Doesn't this have the necessary result of dissuading owners from hiring women in the first place, especially in important positions where they can't afford to lose them for a month, no less to pay them the high salary those positions command during that lost time? Isn't it natural and rational for an owner to devise ways to hedge against this hazard, like maybe paying women less to begin with, so if they take leave it doesn't hit their bottom line quite as hard? Is this sort of legislation really good for women?

most civilized countries have maternity leave, child care, etc.

you should probably come into the 21st century.

Move on to one of your socialist utopias then.

Bye

 

[RDD_1210]

What a load of crap, my company offers paid maternity leave for BOTH parents and considers it a benefit and cost of doing business. Those who would only hire men and older women to avoid paying their fair share of maternity leave you cheap bastards are just shoving your costs off onto other businesses. You employ the husband while someone else picks up the tab for their wife's maternity leave.

This display of entitlement is shocking coming from you.

No man or woman is entitled to my money but my family.

I have no problem with freely offered benefits but forcing someone to further pay for your sexual escapades is complete bullshit. First your birth control, now your bills...what's next your kids first car?

Ridiculous

You literally can't make a point without going to the extreme ridiculous, can you?

I made my point. The car was the exclamation point. Lol

Many smaller companies would be devastated by a bill like this. First the loss of production. Then the cost of replacing that lost production. Then the real kick in the nuts, paying a partial to full salary to someone who is sitting at home.

Maternity leave is an admirable perk offered by many companies in an effort to retain good help. Forcing it on everyone is bs.

Corporate America has shown that their priority are shareholders and profits, so leaving this sort of thing up to companies is not something we should do.

Women are more important than corporate greed or your selfish desires.

 

[RDD_1210]

It's wonderful to be able to have a child without concerns about finances looming over your head. Women especially, but men too, have a lot to deal with at this time, and paid maternity leave can be a comfort.

It's a great kindness when offered willingly by company owners who value families, and I believe that a righteous society would gladly do this at every opportunity, assuming its within their means. But what about mandatory paid maternity leave, legislated by the state? What effect does this have, particularly on women's rights issues?

If, as a company owner, I must pay you, even though you're contributing nothing to the business, I am in a very difficult position. If I have numerous women working at my company, I can't help but see them as red flags of potential hardship. My male employees aren't going to ask for a month's pay without working, but my female employees may.

Larken Rose gave an apt analogy: Imagine walking into a grocery store, filling your cart, and when you go to check out, the manager comes over and says, "Our cashier is out on maternity leave. To cover this cost, you will have to pay for all these items in your cart, but you can't take them, you have to leave them here". You have to pay the same amount you usually would, but you get absolutely nothing for it. Wouldn't you be less likely to go to a store with this policy?

Doesn't this have the necessary result of dissuading owners from hiring women in the first place, especially in important positions where they can't afford to lose them for a month, no less to pay them the high salary those positions command during that lost time? Isn't it natural and rational for an owner to devise ways to hedge against this hazard, like maybe paying women less to begin with, so if they take leave it doesn't hit their bottom line quite as hard? Is this sort of legislation really good for women?

most civilized countries have maternity leave, child care, etc.

you should probably come into the 21st century.

Move on to one of your socialist utopias then.

Bye

Wouldn't it be easier for you to move to Iran since they seem to embrace your way of thinking?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What a load of crap, my company offers paid maternity leave for BOTH parents and considers it a benefit and cost of doing business. Those who would only hire men and older women to avoid paying their fair share of maternity leave you cheap bastards are just shoving your costs off onto other businesses. You employ the husband while someone else picks up the tab for their wife's maternity leave.

This display of entitlement is shocking coming from you.

No man or woman is entitled to my money but my family.

I have no problem with freely offered benefits but forcing someone to further pay for your sexual escapades is complete bullshit. First your birth control, now your bills...what's next your kids first car?

Ridiculous

You literally can't make a point without going to the extreme ridiculous, can you?

I made my point. The car was the exclamation point. Lol

Many smaller companies would be devastated by a bill like this. First the loss of production. Then the cost of replacing that lost production. Then the real kick in the nuts, paying a partial to full salary to someone who is sitting at home.

Maternity leave is an admirable perk offered by many companies in an effort to retain good help. Forcing it on everyone is bs.

Corporate America has shown that their priority are shareholders and profits, so leaving this sort of thing up to companies is not something we should do.

Women are more important than corporate greed or your selfish desires.

Why is corporate America responsible for your sexual habits?

You want to have children plan for it.

Simple as that.

 

[RDD_1210]

What a load of crap, my company offers paid maternity leave for BOTH parents and considers it a benefit and cost of doing business. Those who would only hire men and older women to avoid paying their fair share of maternity leave you cheap bastards are just shoving your costs off onto other businesses. You employ the husband while someone else picks up the tab for their wife's maternity leave.

This display of entitlement is shocking coming from you.

No man or woman is entitled to my money but my family.

I have no problem with freely offered benefits but forcing someone to further pay for your sexual escapades is complete bullshit. First your birth control, now your bills...what's next your kids first car?

Ridiculous

You literally can't make a point without going to the extreme ridiculous, can you?

I made my point. The car was the exclamation point. Lol

Many smaller companies would be devastated by a bill like this. First the loss of production. Then the cost of replacing that lost production. Then the real kick in the nuts, paying a partial to full salary to someone who is sitting at home.

Maternity leave is an admirable perk offered by many companies in an effort to retain good help. Forcing it on everyone is bs.

Corporate America has shown that their priority are shareholders and profits, so leaving this sort of thing up to companies is not something we should do.

Women are more important than corporate greed or your selfish desires.

Why is corporate America responsible for your sexual habits?

You want to have children plan for it.

Simple as that.

It's funny that you somehow equate reproduction of the human species as "sexual habits". Literally complaining about the continuation of our species.

You turnips and the things you complain about are hilarious.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This display of entitlement is shocking coming from you.

No man or woman is entitled to my money but my family.

I have no problem with freely offered benefits but forcing someone to further pay for your sexual escapades is complete bullshit. First your birth control, now your bills...what's next your kids first car?

Ridiculous

You literally can't make a point without going to the extreme ridiculous, can you?

I made my point. The car was the exclamation point. Lol

Many smaller companies would be devastated by a bill like this. First the loss of production. Then the cost of replacing that lost production. Then the real kick in the nuts, paying a partial to full salary to someone who is sitting at home.

Maternity leave is an admirable perk offered by many companies in an effort to retain good help. Forcing it on everyone is bs.

Corporate America has shown that their priority are shareholders and profits, so leaving this sort of thing up to companies is not something we should do.

Women are more important than corporate greed or your selfish desires.

Why is corporate America responsible for your sexual habits?

You want to have children plan for it.

Simple as that.

It's funny that you somehow equate reproduction of the human species as "sexual habits". Literally complaining about the continuation of our species.

You turnips and the things you complain about are hilarious.

It's funny how you equate your children as being SOMEONE ELSES financial responsibility.

Not a turnip, a freeloader

 

[RDD_1210]

You literally can't make a point without going to the extreme ridiculous, can you?

I made my point. The car was the exclamation point. Lol

Many smaller companies would be devastated by a bill like this. First the loss of production. Then the cost of replacing that lost production. Then the real kick in the nuts, paying a partial to full salary to someone who is sitting at home.

Maternity leave is an admirable perk offered by many companies in an effort to retain good help. Forcing it on everyone is bs.

Corporate America has shown that their priority are shareholders and profits, so leaving this sort of thing up to companies is not something we should do.

Women are more important than corporate greed or your selfish desires.

Why is corporate America responsible for your sexual habits?

You want to have children plan for it.

Simple as that.

It's funny that you somehow equate reproduction of the human species as "sexual habits". Literally complaining about the continuation of our species.

You turnips and the things you complain about are hilarious.

It's funny how you equate your children as being SOMEONE ELSES financial responsibility.

Not a turnip, a freeloader

Your corporate masters would be proud. Next they'll have you arguing against treatment for cancer.

"I'm not sure how your being sick is the responsibility of your employer. They should be able to fire you if you miss time for your chemo treatment."

 

[OldLady]

What a load of crap, my company offers paid maternity leave for BOTH parents and considers it a benefit and cost of doing business. Those who would only hire men and older women to avoid paying their fair share of maternity leave you cheap bastards are just shoving your costs off onto other businesses. You employ the husband while someone else picks up the tab for their wife's maternity leave.

Why should companies pay for their employees to have children?

Because that's what people do in their real lives and children deserve parents to be there to care for them, especially during those important bonding months after birth. You wonder, don't you, what's happened to the American family? All its values? Try supporting some of those values by giving priority to healthy families as a start.

 

[Fugazi]

I believe the Government should foot the bill for Maternity Leave.

 

[OldLady]

I believe the Government should foot the bill for Maternity Leave.

The government already funds too much. There is no reason why employers can't offer decent maternity benefits to their employees. They don't fire a worker for breaking a leg and being out six weeks or for getting cancer and being out four months? They cope. They can do the same for pregnancy.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I remember the tail end of the days when this was an open topic in job interviews. They tried creative ways to chat you up and figure out if you were married (sure to get pregnant, then) had kids, etc., even though they weren't supposed to ask.
It is a part of what Affirmative Action equalized; I believe you're right that employers shied from hiring women of a certain age because they figured they'd get pregnant and leave. Now they are asking to get pregnant and be paid for being out.
I can see an employer's point. I can also see women's point, which is it isn't our fault Mother Nature made us the ones who carry the babies, but there you are, and why should our perfectly normal and natural decision to want children have to truncate or end a career? A lot of women who are serious in their careers are NOT having children due to this, and it seems an unfair price to pay. It's your life--you only get one. Children are important to a lot of people. If you are a woman, it can still be a career or motherhood option, though.

I think there’s a case to be made for making a choice. The idea that you can have it all is a lie. Sure, you can have broken bits of it all, but there’s only so much time and energy to go around.

I believe that children should be raised by family, however you interpret that. People who aren’t going anywhere and who know them, love them, and can focus specifically upon them. Having kids then dumping them on strangers while you go have your big important career is selfish and irresponsible, in my opinion, even if it upgrades the family’s “lifestyle”. It breaks down the moral foundation of society and leads to abandonment issues that few talk about, but that express in unhealthy ways.

We’ve been bamboozled by a monetary system that devalues the currency, while being bombarded with incessant social pressures to live for materialistic goals. Both parents are now out of the home, while children are handed over to the state. Family should be raising (which includes educating) the children. This core human value should never be abandoned.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

It's wonderful to be able to have a child without concerns about finances looming over your head. Women especially, but men too, have a lot to deal with at this time, and paid maternity leave can be a comfort.

It's a great kindness when offered willingly by company owners who value families, and I believe that a righteous society would gladly do this at every opportunity, assuming its within their means. But what about mandatory paid maternity leave, legislated by the state? What effect does this have, particularly on women's rights issues?

If, as a company owner, I must pay you, even though you're contributing nothing to the business, I am in a very difficult position. If I have numerous women working at my company, I can't help but see them as red flags of potential hardship. My male employees aren't going to ask for a month's pay without working, but my female employees may.

Larken Rose gave an apt analogy: Imagine walking into a grocery store, filling your cart, and when you go to check out, the manager comes over and says, "Our cashier is out on maternity leave. To cover this cost, you will have to pay for all these items in your cart, but you can't take them, you have to leave them here". You have to pay the same amount you usually would, but you get absolutely nothing for it. Wouldn't you be less likely to go to a store with this policy?

Doesn't this have the necessary result of dissuading owners from hiring women in the first place, especially in important positions where they can't afford to lose them for a month, no less to pay them the high salary those positions command during that lost time? Isn't it natural and rational for an owner to devise ways to hedge against this hazard, like maybe paying women less to begin with, so if they take leave it doesn't hit their bottom line quite as hard? Is this sort of legislation really good for women?

How about a (typically) male analogy .

There are laws that prevent companies for firing men who join the national guard and run off to their service time . Some places I believe they may even get paid leave.

Do you agree with those laws ?

Interesting. No, I don’t support any laws governing the policies of private businesses.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What a load of crap, my company offers paid maternity leave for BOTH parents and considers it a benefit and cost of doing business. Those who would only hire men and older women to avoid paying their fair share of maternity leave you cheap bastards are just shoving your costs off onto other businesses. You employ the husband while someone else picks up the tab for their wife's maternity leave.

This display of entitlement is shocking coming from you.

No man or woman is entitled to my money but my family.

I have no problem with freely offered benefits but forcing someone to further pay for your sexual escapades is complete bullshit. First your birth control, now your bills...what's next your kids first car?

Ridiculous

You literally can't make a point without going to the extreme ridiculous, can you?

I made my point. The car was the exclamation point. Lol

Many smaller companies would be devastated by a bill like this. First the loss of production. Then the cost of replacing that lost production. Then the real kick in the nuts, paying a partial to full salary to someone who is sitting at home.

Maternity leave is an admirable perk offered by many companies in an effort to retain good help. Forcing it on everyone is bs.

Corporate America has shown that their priority are shareholders and profits, so leaving this sort of thing up to companies is not something we should do.

Women are more important than corporate greed or your selfish desires.

Almost all major corporations already do this. There is no way it should be mandated by the Govt


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[OldLady]

I remember the tail end of the days when this was an open topic in job interviews. They tried creative ways to chat you up and figure out if you were married (sure to get pregnant, then) had kids, etc., even though they weren't supposed to ask.
It is a part of what Affirmative Action equalized; I believe you're right that employers shied from hiring women of a certain age because they figured they'd get pregnant and leave. Now they are asking to get pregnant and be paid for being out.
I can see an employer's point. I can also see women's point, which is it isn't our fault Mother Nature made us the ones who carry the babies, but there you are, and why should our perfectly normal and natural decision to want children have to truncate or end a career? A lot of women who are serious in their careers are NOT having children due to this, and it seems an unfair price to pay. It's your life--you only get one. Children are important to a lot of people. If you are a woman, it can still be a career or motherhood option, though.

I think there’s a case to be made for making a choice. The idea that you can have it all is a lie. Sure, you can have broken bits of it all, but there’s only so much time and energy to go around.

I believe that children should be raised by family, however you interpret that. People who aren’t going anywhere and who know them, love them, and can focus specifically upon them. Having kids then dumping them on strangers while you go have your big important career is selfish and irresponsible, in my opinion, even if it upgrades the family’s “lifestyle”. It breaks down the moral foundation of society and leads to abandonment issues that few talk about, but that express in unhealthy ways.

We’ve been bamboozled by a monetary system that devalues the currency, while being bombarded with incessant social pressures to live for materialistic goals. Both parents are now out of the home, while children are handed over to the state. Family should be raising (which includes educating) the children. This core human value should never be abandoned.

I assume you are a man, Brian?

Imagine you had spent your life working toward being a doctor, are in your mid thirties, a surgeon who performs life saving surgery every day in a large city hospital. Then you are asked to give up that career, forever, so you and your wife can have children. She is a CEO and makes more than you, so you are "chosen" to be a stay at home Dad until the children are out of the nest. She pops them out, returns to work after six or eight weeks and you stay home with Mommy and Me and classical music appreciation for infants group, which meets every Tuesday. Three kids. Thirty years of your life as "Billy's Dad."

If you are 100% personally comfortable putting yourself in that situation and freely making that decision, I commend you. I think most people might consider it a terrible talent to waste. So would the country if half the work force had to stay home to raise the kids for the duration. We need MORE qualified workers, not less.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

What a load of crap, my company offers paid maternity leave for BOTH parents and considers it a benefit and cost of doing business. Those who would only hire men and older women to avoid paying their fair share of maternity leave you cheap bastards are just shoving your costs off onto other businesses. You employ the husband while someone else picks up the tab for their wife's maternity leave.

I don’t know that any business has a “fair share” of maternity responsibilities. Again, how keen are you to pay for a cart full of groceries and come home empty-handed so the store can pay their absent cashier? Any paid maternity leave is a gift, not a duty. Why doesn’t the family set aside enough cash to cover the leave time before having children? That being said, I think it’s good to take care of people if you can.

 

[whitehall]

It's an interesting point. Society wants small businesses to hire more women and at the same time offer them maternity benefits. I think the inconvenience to businesses inherent in maternity benefits should be tax deductible for small LLC's.