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

[ludin]

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!

actually it does have an impact.
some companies do offer paid leave others don't.

that is freedom. choice is freedom.

just ask the big 3 how much it costs to pay people for doing 0 work it is one of the things that drove them in
the ground. more so chevy than the others.

 

[David_N]

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.

Reminds me of Ron Paul during that debate about caring for the uninsured.. "Because freedom" means nothing.

 

[woodsman]

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:

Yes, let’s become a nanny state, yes let’s add more regulation onto business. Consider this, If an employer took the time and monies to train someone for an important position how does that company keep that position open if that person leaves for months? They will need to start the process over in order to fill that void, what then happens to the temp person?, unemployed?

So the business shoulders the cost of the person on leave and also shoulders the cost to train a temp employee that may be sub-par and cost the business monies. If anyone thinks this will not impact employing women they are mistaken. Why on earth would a business employ anyone that is almost certain to be a liability?

There is a solution and it doesn’t involve government regulation. It’s called saving funds If you're planning to have children, this would be called real planned parenthood unlike the organization that uses that tag. How about carrier planning or life planning, the last time I checked there has only been one miraculous pregnancy and her name was Mary.

 

[Ikari]

Yes, let’s become a nanny state, yes let’s add more regulation onto business. Consider this, If an employer took the time and monies to train someone for an important position how does that company keep that position open if that person leaves for months? They will need to start the process over in order to fill that void, what then happens to the temp person?, unemployed?

So the business shoulders the cost of the person on leave and also shoulders the cost to train a temp employee that may be sub-par and cost the business monies. If anyone thinks this will not impact employing women they are mistaken. Why on earth would a business employ anyone that is almost certain to be a liability?

There is a solution and it doesn’t involve government regulation. It’s called saving funds If you're planning to have children, this would be called real planned parenthood unlike the organization that uses that tag. How about carrier planning or life planning, the last time I checked there has only been one miraculous pregnancy and her name was Mary.

You do know that the Family Medicaleave Act isn't limited to just mother's, right? Fathers can use it as well. Only 2 States, I believe, have a paid period for FML, and that would be New Jersey and California (paid through State Disability, not by the employer). But all companies are required, by federal law, to recognize and accept FML.

So now what, will a company not hire anyone withing standard reproduction age? Companies won't hire anyone between the ages of 20 - 40, let's say? Keep in mind, this went into effect in 1993. So if it's as you claim, we should already be seeing these trends.

Do we?

 

[reinoe]

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

Yes, I am.

 

[woodsman]

You do know that the Family Medicaleave Act isn't limited to just mother's, right? Fathers can use it as well. Only 2 States, I believe, have a paid period for FML, and that would be New Jersey and California (paid through State Disability, not by the employer). But all companies are required, by federal law, to recognize and accept FML.

So now what, will a company not hire anyone withing standard reproduction age? Companies won't hire anyone between the ages of 20 - 40, let's say? Keep in mind, this went into effect in 1993. So if it's as you claim, we should already be seeing these trends.

Do we?

Your point is irrelevant to my post, If you take the concept as a whole all you have stated falls apart. What I do realize is any legislation with any FL is unnecessary. Any leave from said position should have been considered before taking the job. Why is it then, your personal choices fall onto the employer? Why is it then the tax payer and employer is punished and responsible for personal choices?

 

[Ikari]

Your point is irrelevant to my post, If you take the concept as a whole all you have stated falls apart. What I do realize is any legislation with any FL is unnecessary. Any leave from said position should have been considered before taking the job. Why is it then, your personal choices fall onto the employer? Why is it then the tax payer and employer is punished and responsible for personal choices?

It's not irrelevant, you said companies would not hire women because of it. This law has been in eeffect since 1993, so to your point, have women been hired less because of it.

Furthermore, it's absurd to claim just women will be hired less because men can use FML as well.

And again, it would be absurd to then claim that business would stop employing younger folk because they may go out on FML.

Now why do we need it? If a family member becomes seriously ill or injured and you need to be there to take care of them for a little bit as they recover, should you lose your job because of it? We're not savages.

Why should we have these protections and programs for people? Because you are not an army of one. You do not live in a vacuum. we are a society, a group of people all toiling for some betterment. We interact with each other, and through that interaction we can increase the betterment of the whole. A more stable, happy, and prosperous society is a benefit to everyone.

So we have FML so if something major happens in your family, you won't be thrown to the wolves for it. And because we adopt these forms of social programs, the liberty of the whole can be increased.

 

[woodsman]

It's not irrelevant, you said companies would not hire women because of it. This law has been in eeffect since 1993, so to your point, have women been hired less because of it.

Furthermore, it's absurd to claim just women will be hired less because men can use FML as well.

And again, it would be absurd to then claim that business would stop employing younger folk because they may go out on FML.

Now why do we need it? If a family member becomes seriously ill or injured and you need to be there to take care of them for a little bit as they recover, should you lose your job because of it? We're not savages.

Why should we have these protections and programs for people? Because you are not an army of one. You do not live in a vacuum. we are a society, a group of people all toiling for some betterment. We interact with each other, and through that interaction we can increase the betterment of the whole. A more stable, happy, and prosperous society is a benefit to everyone.

So we have FML so if something major happens in your family, you won't be thrown to the wolves for it. And because we adopt these forms of social programs, the liberty of the whole can be increased.

You are changing the debate to suit parameters that are not in play. Sick leave, or leave for tragic family issue are the norm and covered under the FMLA act of 1993. The important part is that, that leave is (unpaid) and only keeps the position for a certain amount of time. Most quality corporations/businesses have a benefits package that includes a certain amount of sick days and inclusion for emergency leave. That package should have been considered before applying to that job with that particular company.

All of your “It would be absurd" and “we’re not savages” statements means nothing, The FMLA is an unpaid paper tiger. What you are arguing is to put teeth into it, meaning forced payment by employers or on the backs of tax payers. This would be nanny state thinking, or could we jump it up into socialism. Unless you stat clearly that you want the free market and capitalism abolished this debate is done. If you admit that fact, that’s fine but let’s be honest shall we.

 

[SocialD]

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.

"population growth takes a nosedive."

Population growth taking a nosedive is probably needed honestly.
As far as families having kids well fine have them, but don't blame others for your difficulties with it.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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?

That's your argument? That we ALREADY pay a lot for other people who have kids????

Enough is enough! People need to take responsibility for themselves and those they care for. Demanding others help them? The arrogance of the entitlement mentality. :roll:

 

[reinoe]

That's your argument? That we ALREADY pay a lot for other people who have kids????

Enough is enough! People need to take responsibility for themselves and those they care for. Demanding others help them? The arrogance of the entitlement mentality. :roll:

I don't mean to go "lean police" but Ikari needs to double-check that libertarian moniker.

 

[Mithrae]

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.

1 - Maybe if you provided some evidence it would be helpful

2 - Everyone does everything for selfish reasons. No-one is a police officer or firefighter or soldier purely to serve the public; they are remunerated because those roles are necessary. Having children is necessary too, and truth be told it will always mean some career sacrifice to take time away from work. But with birth rates demonstrably declining in most/all developed countries, it certainly makes sense to reduce the impact of that sacrifice.

#####
#####

"population growth takes a nosedive."

Population growth taking a nosedive is probably needed honestly.
As far as families having kids well fine have them, but don't blame others for your difficulties with it.

A gradual population decline might be a good thing, though certainly accompanied by problems of its own (eg. higher aged care costs being borne by a smaller tax base); that's part of why I suggest parental allowances should start decreasing after the first or second child. However the drastic nosedive population would take if lower and middle demographic families stopped having kids because they can't afford a nanny or stay at home mum would certainly not be a good thing.

As a society - any developed country - we need women to keep pushing out an adequate supply of babies. Given the demonstrable income gap and already declining birth rates, without parental leave (and if some had their way, any other parenting allowances either) that might not happen.

And this is quite aside from the fact that in the case of those who have kids anyway, despite the career costs, there's a strong social (and moral) case for trying to ensure that those kids have a decent upbringing; not being raised into deprivation leading ultimately to crime.

#####
#####

So the business shoulders the cost of the person on leave and also shoulders the cost to train a temp employee that may be sub-par and cost the business monies. If anyone thinks this will not impact employing women they are mistaken. Why on earth would a business employ anyone that is almost certain to be a liability?

Do you think it's good for a business having employees depressed because their options for having children are severely restricted or non-existent? Or having new parents anxious and distracted because the most important thing in their world is in the care of strangers at a baby farm?

Businesses can make their own decision to pay parental leave at their own expense in those cases; or to simply fire those employees. Recognising it as a public issue benefits businesses as well as prospective mothers/parents.

You don't hire a green recruit to fill a temporary role; either get an experienced professional who is looking for temporary work, or shuffle staff around a bit, do a little internal training where needed, and hire the new person for a less difficult/important job. It would have to take a very special business which finds itself incapable of adapting to an employee's absense when they are given 4-6 months' advance warning of it! What do they do when someone quits?

 

[braindrain]

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.

Who said anything about only the wealthy. It is not necessary to be wealthy to provide for your children. Me and my wife do just fine and we are not wealthy.

The fact that you see no issues with forcing other people to pay for some folks who want to be irresponsible is rather telling.

 

[jonny5]

Reminds me of Ron Paul during that debate about caring for the uninsured.. "Because freedom" means nothing.

Or, it means everything.

 

[Ikari]

That's your argument? That we ALREADY pay a lot for other people who have kids????

Enough is enough! People need to take responsibility for themselves and those they care for. Demanding others help them? The arrogance of the entitlement mentality. :roll:

Family Medical Leave is the straw that breaks the camel's back? Hahahaha. FML is exactly for people taking care of themselves and their families. No one "helps" with FML, it's unpaid.

Wow, what a laughable argument. Corporate welfare? That's OK. Billions in subsidies? That's OK. Trillions on a Forever War? Good to go. But unpaid Family Medical Leave? Now there's a bridge too far.

Hahahahaha

 

[Ikari]

I don't mean to go "lean police" but Ikari needs to double-check that libertarian moniker.

If you didn't mean to do it, you wouldn't have. So we know that's a lie.

Beyond that dishonesty, I fear you're trying to pigeon hole an entire political philosophy to your liking. Instead, the libertarian political philosophy is broad reaching and can encompass quite a bit. Hence my lean as libertarian-left, had you taken the time.e to note that.

Libertarianism does not me zero government, it is a philosophy of controlled government and one that focuses on the freedom and liberty of the People. There are social programs and laws that fall under that. So before you purposefully "don't mean to....but" something, it would behoove you to learn a bit more about the fundamentals you're trying to speak to.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Family Medical Leave is the straw that breaks the camel's back? Hahahaha. FML is exactly for people taking care of themselves and their families. No one "helps" with FML, it's unpaid.

Wow, what a laughable argument.

I'm sorry. Did you misread my post (as usual)?

Did I not say FMLA was "unpaid" leave for twelve weeks? Let's check the specific part of that post you originally responded to:

...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.

Notice the second part? Basically it is bad enough to require an employer to keep a spot open and reduce production, OR as another member has mentioned, hiring a temporary worker for that period.

Forcing employers to also PAY WAGES for up to three months of no work so a couple can enjoy time off with their little bundle of joy? THAT is an unreasonable expectation.

The rest of your post is just fallacious nonsense not worth responding to.

 

[Mithrae]

Who said anything about only the wealthy. It is not necessary to be wealthy to provide for your children. Me and my wife do just fine and we are not wealthy.

The fact that you see no issues with forcing other people to pay for some folks who want to be irresponsible is rather telling.

It may be different in some areas, but from what I gather residents in most major cities would need to be wealthy to have a single-income family - ie, "afford for one parent to stay home and be with the kids" in the post to which I was responding - or to afford quality care such as a good nanny.

As I've pointed out several times, new births are both necessary for society in the long term, and beneficial that kids have a decent upbringing / harmful to society if they have an inadequate one. Irresponsible would be having four or five kids on a low income; but again as I've stated several times, parental allowances should be phased down after the first or second child to discourage that. However a couple having one or two children is not irresponsible; it's human nature, and indeed some folk would argue that it's the main purpose of life (certainly true from a biological perspective, at least). Is it your ideology which drives you to deny such basic facts?

 

[reinoe]

If you didn't mean to do it, you wouldn't have. So we know that's a lie.

Beyond that dishonesty, I fear you're trying to pigeon hole an entire political philosophy to your liking. Instead, the libertarian political philosophy is broad reaching and can encompass quite a bit. Hence my lean as libertarian-left, had you taken the time.e to note that.

Libertarianism does not me zero government, it is a philosophy of controlled government and one that focuses on the freedom and liberty of the People. There are social programs and laws that fall under that. So before you purposefully "don't mean to....but" something, it would behoove you to learn a bit more about the fundamentals you're trying to speak to.

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?

Having children is a choice. You want government to mandate to corporations that businesses have to give benefits for the voluntary choices people make. And if people voluntarily don't make that choice then they don't get the benefit. We're not talking about Sick Leave, or Berevement leave, or unpaid FMLA: you're talking about giving paid childcare leave. Are single people getting this benefit? Nope. You're mandating that the government favor one class of individual over another based on a voluntary choice and that's completely wrong.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

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.

By consumers you mean 'everyone' and by everyone you're including women like me who managed to be stay at home mothers . . . and support efforts to improve our economic-employment system so parents CAN be more involved with their children's lives early on without being forced out of a career to do the right thing.

Parenting in this country is often seen as a dire negative to be avoided or punished at all costs rather than a positive... case in point.

Our country's values have gone to pot.

 

[Ikari]

Having children is a choice. You want government to mandate to corporations that businesses have to give benefits for the voluntary choices people make. And if people voluntarily don't make that choice then they don't get the benefit. We're not talking about Sick Leave, or Berevement leave, or unpaid FMLA: you're talking about giving paid childcare leave. Are single people getting this benefit? Nope. You're mandating that the government favor one class of individual over another based on a voluntary choice and that's completely wrong.

What benefits? It's unpaid leave. And it's not just for pregnancy. Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick, do any of you research things before your run your mouth.

Several months ago, a buddy of mine, he's single BTW :roll:, was riding his bike home when a car ran a red light and smashed him.

He was in the hospital for over a week, needed some surgeries, and was unable to work for several weeks. Should he have lost his job because of that bit of anti-serendipity? We'd be paying unemployment and disability if so. Then we have someone who was normally productive out for much longer than his recovery period, so we miss out on that productivity. The business would have to go through the process of hiring and training another, which would cost more and take longer than his recovery period.

So no, that's stupid. It's a net loss to all of us and a decrease in individual liberty. So instead we have FML, and he was able to use it. He was able to stay out for an extended period of time while he healed enough to return to work. His job was there waiting for him, the rest of the department did not suffer during that time because we were appropriately staffed. Furthermore, since this was in NJ, he was able to get paid a percentage of his paycheck for 6 weeks (it ends up not being 6 weeks due to the functioning of FML, but it was more than zero). So now he can keep paying his bills, we don't end up spending more on welfare or unemployment plus disability, etc.

So we save money, we save productivity, we don't needlessly destitute people, it's a program open to EVERYONE.

So before running your mouth, read and research.

 

[Ikari]

Notice the second part? Basically it is bad enough to require an employer to keep a spot open and reduce production, OR as another member has mentioned, hiring a temporary worker for that period.

Forcing employers to also PAY WAGES for up to three months of no work so a couple can enjoy time off with their little bundle of joy? THAT is an unreasonable expectation.

The rest of your post is just fallacious nonsense not worth responding to.

It's not "bad enough" that we allow people to return to jobs after medical or family emergencies. Properly staffed businesses don't even need to higher a "temp". The employers don't pay the wages, it's funded by government. We all pay taxes, those taxes help fund disability, and disability would pay out for some limited number of weeks under FML. It saves all of us in the long run. Temporary support for a few weeks is better than longer term under unemployment and welfare. We don't destitute individuals for unforeseen medical emergencies, or even in the case of pregnancy or necessary corrective surgeries, foreseen medical events. Net liberty and general welfare increase at a small cost.

"bad enough" HA! Do you even know what you're talking about? Most of your hysterics are just fallacious nonsense not worth responding to.

 

[reinoe]

What benefits? It's unpaid leave. And it's not just for pregnancy. Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick, do any of you research things before your run your mouth.

Several months ago, a buddy of mine, he's single BTW :roll:, was riding his bike home when a car ran a red light and smashed him.

He was in the hospital for over a week, needed some surgeries, and was unable to work for several weeks. Should he have lost his job because of that bit of anti-serendipity? We'd be paying unemployment and disability if so. Then we have someone who was normally productive out for much longer than his recovery period, so we miss out on that productivity. The business would have to go through the process of hiring and training another, which would cost more and take longer than his recovery period.

So no, that's stupid. It's a net loss to all of us and a decrease in individual liberty. So instead we have FML, and he was able to use it. He was able to stay out for an extended period of time while he healed enough to return to work. His job was there waiting for him, the rest of the department did not suffer during that time because we were appropriately staffed. Furthermore, since this was in NJ, he was able to get paid a percentage of his paycheck for 6 weeks (it ends up not being 6 weeks due to the functioning of FML, but it was more than zero). So now he can keep paying his bills, we don't end up spending more on welfare or unemployment plus disability, etc.

So we save money, we save productivity, we don't needlessly destitute people, it's a program open to EVERYONE.

So before running your mouth, read and research.

OK, all instances I saw about this was that the childcare leave be paid! If I'm mistaken then I'm mistaken. I'll do more digging.

But again I already said that this isn't about sick leave or berevement leave. Those are all things that people cannot predict and should not lose their jobs over. I'm sorry about your buddy getting into a wreck but that fits what I'm saying: sick leave. Or short term/long term disability.

What the discussion is about is a parent getting pregnant with a child and then getting paid leave to have/care for the baby. That's wrong and government's shouldn't mandate that type of paid coverage.

 

[Lursa]

Choose a lifestyle where one parent can stay home with the child. It's better for them overall.

It 'is' possible, but people dont want to have less materialistic lifestyles.

Kids are very expensive. They require alot of sacrifices but the things they need the most from their parents dont usually cost alot of $.

 

[Lursa]

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

The other side of the coin here is that children have a better chance of a good upbringing if one parent does stay home during those early years. That means they end up being better, more productive citizens.

Much like how they sell us paying for public schools (even if we dont have kids). And educated public is better for everyone.