If we had parental leave, our sons might still be alive today (1 Viewer)

[David_N]

Give this a read, I truly can't understand why we don't have paid parental leave. It's embarrassing. The richest nation on earth and we can't even help new mothers be with their kids.
Voices: If we had parental leave, our sons might still be alive today

Neither of us wanted to leave our babies in child care when we did, at mere weeks old. But neither of us had the luxury of choice. Our employers would not grant us any more time for parental leave. Our children were on our health care plans through work, and like the majority of American families, we couldn’t make ends meet on one income.

So, reluctantly, on an April morning in Oklahoma, Shepard was left at day care. A child care worker swaddled him for a nap, placed him in a car seat and didn’t check on him. He slipped down and suffocated, still too little to lift up his own head.

Just as reluctantly, in July, Karl was dropped off for his first day at day care near his mother’s office in Manhattan. When she came back to feed him at noon, Karl’s lips were blue and a child care worker was performing CPR. It could not be determined why this healthy baby died.

We believe that infants need to be with their parents at the beginning of their lives. And we are jointly calling on our parties, Republican and Democrat, to put aside their differences and pass job-protected, paid parental leave, for the sake of all American babies.
We are not alone in enduring such anguish. Just last week it was reported that a 3-month-old girl in Pennsylvania died on her first day of day care – the first time the mother was away from her daughter for more than 90 minutes.

Yet, here we are: One in four American mothers have no choice but to return to work within two weeks of giving birth; 87% of parents have no access to paid leave through their employers, according to a report from The Center for Law and Social Policy, an anti-poverty organization.

The benefits outweigh any potential negatives:

A study by McGill University and UCLA Fielding School of Public Health found that for each additional month a woman has maternity leave, infant mortality goes down 13%.

America has the highest infant mortality rate of any industrialized nation, according to the CDC. And research has shown that 60% of SIDS deaths occur in child care settings, non-profit First Candle says.

Of course, parental leave is not usually an issue of life and death. It is, however, an issue of our children’s health and well-being. When Norway began offering mothers paid leave, there were dramatic long-range effects: Children had lower high school dropout rates, higher rates of college attendance and higher incomes at age 30.
American babies whose mothers don’t have maternity leave are less likely to be taken to the doctor and less likely to be breastfed. Toddlers of parents without paid leave have more behavioral problems and score lower on cognitive tests, says a report from the National Bureau of Economic Research.

 

[Henrin]

Benefits are up to employers to decide. Frankly its a violation of the right to property and contract to force the issue.

 

[David_N]

Benefits are up to employers to decide. Frankly its a violation of the right to property and contract to force the issue.

Not true. Employers are forced to provide quite a few basic things.

 

[Henrin]

Not true. Employers are forced to provide quite a few basic things.

So what? All that means is that the government is violating employers right to property and contract.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Not true. Employers are forced to provide quite a few basic things.

True. Which is why they should not have to provide more.

Every added tax or employee benefit requirement adds to pressures putting small businesses out of business, and large businesses to pass the costs onto the rest of us.

If women want to work, then don't have kids until they are ready to stay home and take care of them while their husbands (or significant others) work to pay the bills. :coffeepap:

 

[David_N]

True. Which is why they should not have to provide more.

Every added tax or employee benefit requirement adds to pressures putting small businesses out of business, and large businesses to pass the costs onto the rest of us.

If women want to work, then don't have kids until they are ready to stay home and take care of them while their husbands (or significant others) work to pay the bills. :coffeepap:

Why not? Hell, employers who have below a certain number of employees get tax breaks or the government subsidizes the paid leave. Problem solved. The real question is, where is the problem in other countries? There isn't one, and the benefits are numerous. I'm sorry, but the "don't have kids" argument ignores reality. Women are going to have kids regardless.

 

[Henrin]

Why not? Hell, employers who have below a certain number of employees get tax breaks or the government subsidizes the paid leave. Problem solved. The real question is, where is the problem in other countries? There isn't one, and the benefits are numerous. I'm sorry, but the "don't have kids" argument ignores reality. Women are going to have kids regardless.

So now you're advocating taxpayers have to pay for peoples paid leave? sigh..

 

[Captain Adverse]

Why not? Hell, employers who have below a certain number of employees get tax breaks or the government subsidizes the paid leave. Problem solved. The real question is, where is the problem in other countries? There isn't one, and the benefits are numerous. I'm sorry, but the "don't have kids" argument ignores reality. Women are going to have kids regardless.

Did you miss the part about passing the costs onto the rest of us consumers?

Where do people get the idea that business is a charity? The point of doing business is to make a profit.

It's one thing to offer vacation time, sick leave, and the occasional bonus to keep workers happy and productive. The government already requires 12 weeks of unpaid FMLA for medical issues if you've worked for the employer long enough.

It's another thing to give paid parental leave for months of non-work time.

I'd end up paying for other people to have kids every time businesses raise costs to maintain their profit margins while paying for those parental leave benefits.

 

[David_N]

So now you're advocating taxpayers have to pay for peoples paid leave? sigh..

What makes you think a tax increase has to accompany such a venture?

 

[Henrin]

What makes you think a tax increase has to accompany such a venture?

Who mentioned a tax increase?

Oh right, you're suggesting that the government spend money they doesn't have.

 

[David_N]

Did you miss the part about passing the costs onto the rest of us consumers?

Where do people get the idea that business is a charity? The point of doing business is to make a profit.

It's one thing to offer vacation time, sick leave, and the occasional bonus to keep workers happy and productive. The government already requires 12 weeks of unpaid FMLA for medical issues if you've worked for the employer long enough.

It's another thing to give paid parental leave for months of non-work time.

Did you miss the part about passing the costs onto the rest of us consumers?

Ok, some businesses raise prices by a tiny amount, this is obviously a soul crushing burden in every other country with paid leave, especially in poorer countries. Oh wait....

The point of doing business is to make a profit.

Where did I disagree?

It's another thing to give paid parental leave for months of non-work time.

I agree, it's something we need.

 

[David_N]

Who mentioned a tax increase?

Oh right, you're suggesting that the government spend money they doesn't have.

Henrin, where do you think the private sector gets money from?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Ok, some businesses raise prices by a tiny amount, this is obviously a soul crushing burden in every other country with paid leave, especially in poorer countries. Oh wait....

Where did I disagree?

I agree, it's something we need.

Only people who think other people are required to take care of them think the way you do.

 

[Henrin]

Henrin, where do you think the private sector gets money from?

Don't tell me you're whole point is now going to be that money is debt. That argument gets old real quick.

 

[David_N]

Don't tell me you're whole point is now going to be that money is debt. That argument gets old real quick.

What do you think money is Henrin? In the real world, not fantasy land.

 

[Henrin]

What do you think money is Henrin? In the real world, not fantasy land.

Depends on the system in use and how it works. Under the one we have today in this country it's exactly what I said in the prior post.

 

[SocialD]

So , knowing that they couldn't afford for one parent to stay home and be with the kids and knowing they would have to put the kids in daycare they chose to have kids. an accident ( possibly neglect I don tknow the specifics ) happened... and now they are blaming it all on their employer. hrm..

 

[Gathomas88]

So , knowing that they couldn't afford for one parent to stay home and be with the kids and knowing they would have to put the kids in daycare they chose to have kids. an accident ( possibly neglect I don tknow the specifics ) happened... and now they are blaming it all on their employer. hrm..

Frankly, I don't buy it. Day care costs plenty. If you can afford that, you can most likely afford to just stay home for a couple of months.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Well I'll let the neanderthal extremist far right fight against an idea that has little to no impact on business at all and works in the rest of the civilized world. :roll:

Congratulations America, due to knuckle dragging Far Right Conservative ideologues you're like, LIBERIA! FREEDOM PARTAY!

 

[braindrain]

Why not? Hell, employers who have below a certain number of employees get tax breaks or the government subsidizes the paid leave. Problem solved. The real question is, where is the problem in other countries? There isn't one, and the benefits are numerous. I'm sorry, but the "don't have kids" argument ignores reality. Women are going to have kids regardless.

So because some people won't act responsibly that means it is other people's responsibility to pay for them. And you really don't see an issue with.

 

[David_N]

Frankly, I don't buy it. Day care costs plenty. If you can afford that, you can most likely afford to just stay home for a couple of months.

.... huh? When you stay home without paid leave, you're not bringing in any income. No one is saying people can't afford daycare if they work, the question is, what is better for the baby?

 

[David_N]

Well I'll let the neanderthal extremist far right fight against an idea that has little to no impact on business at all and works in the rest of the civilized world. :roll:

Congratulations America, due to knuckle dragging Far Right Conservative ideologues you're like, LIBERIA! FREEDOM PARTAY!

They truly don't care. It's the same argument going back 100 years. "EVERYTHING THAT ISNT "natural" with businesses will kill us all!"

 

[Paleocon]

Give this a read, I truly can't understand why we don't have paid parental leave. It's embarrassing. The richest nation on earth and we can't even help new mothers be with their kids.
Voices: If we had parental leave, our sons might still be alive today


The benefits outweigh any potential negatives:

Mothers should not be required to work at all. The law should require employers to pay men enough to support their dependents.

Unless you're proposing several years paid maternal leave, this is the only way to remedy the problem you refer to.

 

[Mithrae]

So , knowing that they couldn't afford for one parent to stay home and be with the kids and knowing they would have to put the kids in daycare they chose to have kids. an accident ( possibly neglect I don tknow the specifics ) happened... and now they are blaming it all on their employer. hrm..

It is not beneficial to any society if only the wealthy have any reasonable hope of having children, or providing a decent upbringing for them. If most families don't have kids because they are being 'responsible,' population growth takes a nosedive. If they do have kids but can't provide a decent upbringing, many of those are likely to be the destitute and criminals of tomorrow. Compared to the social costs of crime and the public expense of arrests, trials and incarceration, reasonable parenting provisions should be a no-brainer.

It must take a very special kind of mind to treat your country's next generation as irrelevant, someone else's problem, a burden to be avoided.

 

[Mithrae]

I've never really thought about it much, but always been a bit iffy, even leaning against the idea of maternity leave: Why should a business have to bear that cost and, if made to, wouldn't that be a strong incentive to hire fewer young women?

But paid publicly, with no burden on the business save a guarantee that the mother (or doubtless father in some cases) has an equivalent job to come back to afterwards, it seems only right and fair. Career downtime from having children is one the biggest, if not the biggest reasons for the income gap between the sexes. And yet if people stopped having kids, there'd be no future for the country. In a sense it is a public service; it shouldn't have to be a sacrifice.

I'd say that all parenting provisions/allowances should start decreasing after the second child though (maybe even first); the stereotypical welfare queen mother might be a vanishingly small number of women, but that's no reason to keep an incentive out there.