Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The smaller the buisness the more it hurts. I was running a buisness where I had highly paid proffessionals running around. One of seven of these pros were female and when she got pregnant my wallet flet it hard. She did 20% of the buisness. I felt it bad and it made it difficult to make payroll a couple of times. Leave is important for this but some thing needs to be done to mitigate it's effects on the small buisness!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.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.I believe the Government should foot the bill for Maternity Leave.
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?
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.
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?
Employers don’t pay workers on maternity leave in countries with mandated maternity leave. Nor should they.
In Canada, they’re paid by the unemployment insurance program for 52 weeks. 55% of wages to a maximum of $550.
In Norway the Welfare Office pays 80% of salary but most employers top up the benefit paid to 100%. The Scandinavian countries have the most generous maternity benefits in the world.
Japan gives 100% of salary from the Social Services Ministry.
In Britain, it’s a government paid benefit.
It is not a child before birth but I suspect you lack the intellect to understand that. But please carry on with your retarded thread derailment attemptWhy bother when you can just kill them prior to birthBan having children!
Ahhh, the old ‘if you don’t like it, leave’ argument. Truly the last desperate blathering of a proudly ignorant fucktardMove on to one of your socialist utopias then.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.
Bye
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?
Employers don’t pay workers on maternity leave in countries with mandated maternity leave. Nor should they.
In Canada, they’re paid by the unemployment insurance program for 52 weeks. 55% of wages to a maximum of $550.
In Norway the Welfare Office pays 80% of salary but most employers top up the benefit paid to 100%. The Scandinavian countries have the most generous maternity benefits in the world.
Japan gives 100% of salary from the Social Services Ministry.
In Britain, it’s a government paid benefit.
Every one of those countries are socialist worker's paradises with economies that suck as a result!
I'm talking to someone acting entitled and who apparently thinks conservatism is a game to be won in a competitionThis display of entitlement is shocking coming from you.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.
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.
I'm talking to someone acting entitled and who apparently thinks conservatism is a game to be won in a competitionThis display of entitlement is shocking coming from you.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.
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.
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?
Employers don’t pay workers on maternity leave in countries with mandated maternity leave. Nor should they.
In Canada, they’re paid by the unemployment insurance program for 52 weeks. 55% of wages to a maximum of $550.
In Norway the Welfare Office pays 80% of salary but most employers top up the benefit paid to 100%. The Scandinavian countries have the most generous maternity benefits in the world.
Japan gives 100% of salary from the Social Services Ministry.
In Britain, it’s a government paid benefit.
Every one of those countries are socialist worker's paradises with economies that suck as a result!
Yup, entitled lolI'm talking to someone acting entitled and who apparently thinks conservatism is a game to be won in a competitionThis display of entitlement is shocking coming from you.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.
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.
I'm not acting entitled. By your logic people should pay for their own vacation time off, no company should have to pay people to take a vacation day, or a sick day.
I made my point. The car was the exclamation point. LolThis display of entitlement is shocking coming from you.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.
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?
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
Paid maternity leave is nothing short of an entitlement.
You are not an American.Paid maternity leave is nothing short of an entitlement.
We are constantly hearing whining from the right to the effect that white women need to have more babies. Right wingers complain that abortion rates are too high. Both issues can be addressed with paid maternity leave.
“Financial concerns” are the deciding factor in 75% of all abortions. Since more than half of the women who seek abortions are married or in committed relationships maybe it’s time you looked at cause and effect.
You are not an American.Paid maternity leave is nothing short of an entitlement.
We are constantly hearing whining from the right to the effect that white women need to have more babies. Right wingers complain that abortion rates are too high. Both issues can be addressed with paid maternity leave.
“Financial concerns” are the deciding factor in 75% of all abortions. Since more than half of the women who seek abortions are married or in committed relationships maybe it’s time you looked at cause and effect.
YOUR OPINION IS WORTHLESS
We are discussing American bills and proposed laws.You are not an American.Paid maternity leave is nothing short of an entitlement.
We are constantly hearing whining from the right to the effect that white women need to have more babies. Right wingers complain that abortion rates are too high. Both issues can be addressed with paid maternity leave.
“Financial concerns” are the deciding factor in 75% of all abortions. Since more than half of the women who seek abortions are married or in committed relationships maybe it’s time you looked at cause and effect.
YOUR OPINION IS WORTHLESS
My opinion is just as valid as yours on a public message board. Smart people welcome ideas and experiences from different countries and different ways of doing things.
Your country is rapidly going to hell in a handbasket, in part because you cling to ideas that aren’t working.
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?
