If we had parental leave, our sons might still be alive today

[faithful_servant]

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:

Why are you trying to expand the income gap between men and women?? Don't you know that for every month a woman is out of the workforce taking care of her baby, she makes less money?? OH, THE HUMANITY!!!!!


:roll: X 1,000 (sometimes there just aren't enough smilies to go around)

 

[Mason66]

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:

So in this story it is the employers fault the baby is dead and not the people that actually caused the death?

 

[soot]

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.

23,000 infants died in the United States in 2014, the most recent year for which there are records.

While many of those deaths were unavoidable from the perspective of anything a parent could have done (congenital malformations, chromosomal abnormalities, pregnancy complications) many of them occurred in the postpartum population of apparently healthy babies.

While it's unfortunate that some of these deaths occurred while the children were in the care of someone other than a parent the glaringly obvious fact remains that some of them happened while the child was very much in the care of a parent.

I think what we really need to drill down in to, before it is in any way rational to propose the kind of legislation you advocate for here, is whether or not infants are dying while in the care of adults other than their parents to some appreciable and measurable degree beyond what would otherwise be statistically expected.

A handful of anecdotes, heartbreaking though they may be, do not commend national legislation that is likely to cost businesses billions of dollars every year.

Demonstrate that there is a real and pervasive problem and this might be something I could get on board with, or maybe I'd be more inclined to get on board with a policy mandating a change to the manner in which infant daycare is provided, but either way if you could demonstrate that there is a real problem then I could support a real solution.

But so far this just seems like a red herring to me.

The simple fact that some infant children die while in daycare does not indicate to me that the foregone conclusion is more employment benefits for new parents.

You've got a "Point A" and a "Point B" here with nothing connecting them.

That's a lousy argument.

 

[longview]

I think Alberta gives a year of Mat leave, but only at 60% pay.
The Provence pays the mothers (or whichever parent stays home)
I think I read they justify it because the lost work and daycare benefits in that
first year basically balance out at a 60% scale.
I am not sure if their numbers add up, but the benefit is VERY popular.
https://work.alberta.ca/documents/Maternity-Leave-and-Parental-Leave.pdf

 

[Mason66]

I think Alberta gives a year of Mat leave, but only at 60% pay.
The Provence pays the mothers (or whichever parent stays home)
I think I read they justify it because the lost work and daycare benefits in that
first year basically balance out at a 60% scale.
I am not sure if their numbers add up, but the benefit is VERY popular.
https://work.alberta.ca/documents/Maternity-Leave-and-Parental-Leave.pdf

So in this case the employer is paying the employee 60% of his/her wage to stay home and 100% for another employee to do the work of the first employee.

I can see why it is a popular benefit for the employee, not so much I would guess for the employer.

In this case I think the employer should have a say as to weather the employee has a baby or not.

 

[David_N]

Why are you trying to expand the income gap between men and women?? Don't you know that for every month a woman is out of the workforce taking care of her baby, she makes less money?? OH, THE HUMANITY!!!!!


:roll: X 1,000 (sometimes there just aren't enough smilies to go around)

The "income gap" is a myth. Women tend to work less and don't go into the same professions.

 

[David_N]

23,000 infants died in the United States in 2014, the most recent year for which there are records.

While many of those deaths were unavoidable from the perspective of anything a parent could have done (congenital malformations, chromosomal abnormalities, pregnancy complications) many of them occurred in the postpartum population of apparently healthy babies.

While it's unfortunate that some of these deaths occurred while the children were in the care of someone other than a parent the glaringly obvious fact remains that some of them happened while the child was very much in the care of a parent.

I think what we really need to drill down in to, before it is in any way rational to propose the kind of legislation you advocate for here, is whether or not infants are dying while in the care of adults other than their parents to some appreciable and measurable degree beyond what would otherwise be statistically expected.

A handful of anecdotes, heartbreaking though they may be, do not commend national legislation that is likely to cost businesses billions of dollars every year.

Demonstrate that there is a real and pervasive problem and this might be something I could get on board with, or maybe I'd be more inclined to get on board with a policy mandating a change to the manner in which infant daycare is provided, but either way if you could demonstrate that there is a real problem then I could support a real solution.

But so far this just seems like a red herring to me.

The simple fact that some infant children die while in daycare does not indicate to me that the foregone conclusion is more employment benefits for new parents.

You've got a "Point A" and a "Point B" here with nothing connecting them.

That's a lousy argument.

That's not the main argument, the benefits play a larger part.

 

[zyzygy]

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

Those people are taxpayers. They are getting their own money back.

 

[Henrin]

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.

Two things.

1. There is no income gap
2. Unless you became a parent by accident then it is likely an act you did for selfish reasons. No one becomes a parent because it serves the public.

 

[Winchester]

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:

It certainly makes older experienced employees who have already gone through child bearing years more attractive to hire. I would be incapable of replacing some of my employees for a parental leave period. I'd have to offer a full-time permanent position to any replacement which would preclude the parental leave person from coming back to their job unless I had a new opening.

If the government wants parents to stay at home with young ones then it ought to be incumbent upon them to pay a parental leave benefit. The employee would then have to choose whether to leave their job to raise their kids (as it should be). If they want to add another payroll tax to cover said pay, so be it, it'll get factored into what an employer can pay in compensation just like all the other payroll taxes.

 

[longview]

So in this case the employer is paying the employee 60% of his/her wage to stay home and 100% for another employee to do the work of the first employee.

I can see why it is a popular benefit for the employee, not so much I would guess for the employer.

In this case I think the employer should have a say as to weather the employee has a baby or not.

Actually I think it is part of the unemployment insurance package.

 

[jimbo]

That's not the main argument, the benefits play a larger part.

Actually that is the main argument. Kids die for a multitude of reasons. Far more die of accidents in the home than in child care facilities. Benefits have little to do with it.

 

[David_N]

It certainly makes older experienced employees who have already gone through child bearing years more attractive to hire. I would be incapable of replacing some of my employees for a parental leave period. I'd have to offer a full-time permanent position to any replacement which would preclude the parental leave person from coming back to their job unless I had a new opening.

If the government wants parents to stay at home with young ones then it ought to be incumbent upon them to pay a parental leave benefit. The employee would then have to choose whether to leave their job to raise their kids (as it should be). If they want to add another payroll tax to cover said pay, so be it, it'll get factored into what an employer can pay in compensation just like all the other payroll taxes.

Is this happening in every other country?

 

[radcen]

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.

If the idea is truly good and beneficial, why should a small employer get a pass and/or incentives just because they're small?

Goes for any issue; i.e. maternity/paternity leave, minimum wage, health care, and so on.

 

[David_N]

If the idea is truly good and beneficial, why should a small employer get a pass and/or incentives just because they're small?

Goes for any issue; i.e. maternity/paternity leave, minimum wage, health care, and so on.

I was responding to the statement that small businesses could be negatively affected. I never said that I want them to get a pass or incentives, I'm saying its an option for those who fear for small businesses. It is a good idea, based on all studies I've seen and the results in other countries.

 

[reinoe]

I'm against paid parental leave because it gives an incentive to parents who have children over those who don't.

 

[Mason66]

Actually I think it is part of the unemployment insurance package.

That would make more sense, but how much does that cost the employer?

A woman of child bearing years must be very expensive to insure.

 

[longview]

That would make more sense, but how much does that cost the employer?

A woman of child bearing years must be very expensive to insure.

I am by no means an expert, or even Canadian, but my understanding is the employer is responsible
for keeping the position open for when the Mat leave is complete.
I am sure the benefit increases the cost of unemployment insurance,
but the cost is spread across all employees.

 

[Socrates1]

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:

And most only wonder why businesses are closing and leaving the Country . :roll:

 

[Ikari]

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.

You lay for a lot of things for people with kids. Having kids gets some significant reduction to tax liabilities. That has to be made up for. Property taxes and such pay for public education, are you against that too? Should only families have to pay into the public school system?

 

[ludin]

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

not really. according to the department of labor the only thing that a company is required to give is due compensation.

vacation time, sick time, (up until obamacare) health insurance is all optional and up to the company to offer.

employers do have to pay workers comp, but other than that no they don't have to offer anything else.

 

[Ikari]

I'm against paid parental leave because it gives an incentive to parents who have children over those who don't.

So do the child tax deductions, we against those too?

 

[ludin]

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.

for a new born baby a daycare will cost 500-1000 a month and that is on the low end.

 

[jonny5]

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:

Because freedom. Employment benefits are between the employee and the employer, no one else. People arent forced to have kids or forced to work anywhere. They CHOOSE to, knowing the consequences.

 

[jonny5]

not really. according to the department of labor the only thing that a company is required to give is due compensation.

vacation time, sick time, (up until obamacare) health insurance is all optional and up to the company to offer.

employers do have to pay workers comp, but other than that no they don't have to offer anything else.

Exactly. There is no reason employees cant save their money and pay for their own leave, or vacation, or insurance.