Paid Maternity Leave - Good for Women?

[OldLady]

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.

It's a deal.

 

[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.

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.

I was no surgeon, but I gave up my personal training business and all my clients to be a stay-at-home dad. I just don’t believe anything matters more than raising your kids. I would live in the wilderness with them before I would hand them over to strangers. I have a raw, human perspective on this sort of thing.

I think you do better by your kids, and by society, by raising them personally, even if you’re dead broke, than you do providing them with material comforts or performing an ostensibly important service, and letting them be raised by others. But it doesn’t necessarily need to be parents, though I think it’s preferable. Grandparents, aunts and uncles, very close family friends. Just someone who is always there, and will always be there (barring the unfortunate). Nannies fade away once the kids get bigger.

It’s just the natural order of things. Family needs to stay together. Even grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins living in one building, or at least one block, if possible. We are tribal beings. Other cultures recognize this more than we do in the modern U.S.

 

[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.

I was no surgeon, but I gave up my personal training business and all my clients to be a stay-at-home dad. I just don’t believe anything matters more than raising your kids. I would live in the wilderness with them before I would hand them over to strangers. I have a raw, human perspective on this sort of thing.

I think you do better by your kids, and by society, by raising them personally, even if you’re dead broke, than you do providing them with material comforts or performing an ostensibly important service, and letting them be raised by others. But it doesn’t necessarily need to be parents, though I think it’s preferable. Grandparents, aunts and uncles, very close family friends. Just someone who is always there, and will always be there (barring the unfortunate). Nannies fade away once the kids get bigger.

It’s just the natural order of things. Family needs to stay together. Even grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins living in one building, or at least one block, if possible. We are tribal beings. Other cultures recognize this more than we do in the modern U.S.

Okay, Brian. As I said, I commend you. Nothing more to say.

 

[2aguy]

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?

No....it will make it less likely for a company to hire a woman......

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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?

Simple solution: Equal paid parental leave for all people, regardless of gender or marital status.

 

[Montrovant]

This is one of those difficult ideology vs. practicality issues. Ideologically speaking, I would want companies to offer paid maternity (or family) leave of some kind. Practically, it could be incredibly difficult for a business that is just getting by.

My first instinct is to say that government should not mandate companies provide maternity leave. I am not firmly wedded to that opinion, however.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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?

Simple solution: Equal paid parental leave for all people, regardless of gender or marital status.

And whether or not they have children.

 

[BluesLegend]

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

LOL do you have any idea who you are talking to? My pinky is more conservative than you.

 

[BluesLegend]

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

If you want to retain the best employees there's no choice, free market. Otherwise you end up with a bunch of losers, probably liberal.

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

You are already paying for the cashier's maternity leave .

 

[CowboyTed]

Can I point out that the US and Papa New Guniea are the only two first world countries which don't have mandatory maternity leave...

Why? Population Maintenance, Look at Japan's problems with a declining population.

How it is paid varies, A lot have a national insurance scheme which also covers sick days as well...

But lets make it clear, paid maternity leave is a family values issue... If you are against it you are asking for weaker families and its consequences...

The big thing in Europe now is Paternity leave, this allows a parent to take a day off a week (or two half days) and get 80% pay.. After tax in Europe this is favourable... In France it is a employee right but is highly negotiable right in other countries... turns out that the worker is more productive with the time off and come to work more focused, some results have actually shown the achieving the same or more work as 5 day a week workers...

The simple question here is:
Are you for strong families with kids raised by parents or are you for corporations?

 

[initforme]

Any and I mean any company that doesn't provide maternity leave is a BAD place to be working. It is that simple.

 

[dblack]

Can I point out that the US and Papa New Guniea are the only two first world countries which don't have mandatory maternity leave...

Why? Population Maintenance, Look at Japan's problems with a declining population.

How it is paid varies, A lot have a national insurance scheme which also covers sick days as well...

But lets make it clear, paid maternity leave is a family values issue... If you are against it you are asking for weaker families and its consequences...

The big thing in Europe now is Paternity leave, this allows a parent to take a day off a week (or two half days) and get 80% pay.. After tax in Europe this is favourable... In France it is a employee right but is highly negotiable right in other countries... turns out that the worker is more productive with the time off and come to work more focused, some results have actually shown the achieving the same or more work as 5 day a week workers...

The simple question here is:
Are you for strong families with kids raised by parents or are you for corporations?

I'm for the freedom of society to decide for itself how to raise its kids. I don't want corporations involved. Nor government.

 

[initforme]

Corporations don't like kids.....they like workers to work for the least amount while producing the most. Anything that might help their workers is disdained by them. Pro life not so much. The way it is.

 

[dblack]

Corporations don't like kids.....they like workers to work for the least amount while producing the most. Anything that might help their workers is disdained by them. Pro life not so much. The way it is.

Briar patch.

Corporations love policies that make their employees more dependent. That's why health insurance is tied to your employer. They whine about the regs when negotiating, but it's only for leverage. There's nothing they'd love more than to make a family's ability to have children dependent on an employer, just like health care.

 

[DJT for Life]

It's up to the corpshow they want to pay and it is up to the individuals
who they want to work for.

It's that simple.

Maternity leave is already a law. Paying for them to be gone would be
devastating to many businesses.

Next will come, how long do you pay them for? Some women have issues
after giving birth. Some are not strong enough to return in a month. Who
decides that?

Nah...I'm ok with protecting their job while they are having a child, but
not in paying them to be away. I don't believe in paid sick days. You're
just inviting people to miss X amount of days per month. Now you can demand a doctor's excuse and that will help ease that issue. A Doctor's
visit is up to a couple of bills per visit. That's a good chunk of change to
pay for an extra day off.

People plan to have children. (The responsible one's) They can keep on
planning and when their finances permit it, they can have a child.

 

[initforme]

What a warped idea...no paid sick days. A worker who gets sick on the job from being on the job loses pay. Only a God awful employer thinks this way. Anti American I would call them.

 

[DJT for Life]

What a warped idea...no paid sick days. A worker who gets sick on the job from being on the job loses pay. Only a God awful employer thinks this way. Anti American I would call them.

A worker who gets sick "on the job" gets workman's comp. The worker who calls in once a week, if the boss tracks it, can fire him. Nobody is required to
employee the chronically ill.

 

[initforme]

Nobody calls in once per week except on jobs that pay 15 dollars per hour or less....and those employers don't want nor expect good productive employees. Those are designed high turnover jobs where employers don't really want solid workers.

 

[dblack]

What a warped idea...no paid sick days. A worker who gets sick on the job from being on the job loses pay. Only a God awful employer thinks this way. Anti American I would call them.

Good slave owners care about the health and well being of their stock.