• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

reinoe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sick leave doesn't typically cover the lengths of time that are necessary for the events covered under FML. For States that pay during FML (NJ and CA), it indeed does come from disability, not the employer. FML is a net win, people can attend their own injuries or medical necessities of their family without fear of being fired. Companies don't need to seek a new employee and train a new employee which can be very costly and time consuming. The tax payer doesn't have to foot the bill for unemployment/welfare.

Maternity leave (for both mother and father) is covered under FML. The only way to get paid maternity leave is either if the company specifically offers it or you live in one of the two states that provides limited financial support for individuals on FML
 
Aunt Spiker said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you supporting the idea that employer's pay wages for doing no work, so that parents can stay at home for 12 weeks? Or longer?

If so why is it the employer's responsibility?

If you want a career, then that should be your focus right up until you want to be a parent. THEN your focus should shift to caring for your children until they are able to care for themselves.

That means either YOU, or your spouse needs to chose which role to play...stay-at-home parent or family provider.

All of this dependence on day care, nannies, baby-sitters, schools, or the forced self-reliance on latch-key kids is the PARENT's fault...not societies or the employers. It's people wanting their cake and to eat it too by demanding others help with their kids so they can have "careers."
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree.

However, it is my position that one parent stay home and the other provide just as you indicated in post #74.

BTW this does two things. First, it reduces competition for jobs which increases the likelihood one parent will get and be able to keep a good job. As long as there are large numbers of qualified competitors all seeking work then it is a buyers (employers) market. Cut competition down and it becomes a sellers (employees) market.

The second thing is it creates a stable home environment, with clear roles, proper guidance, and an incentive to live within ones means. The kind of environment a child needs to grow up in.
 
I'm shocked ... all of these anti-abortion, pro god, pro family people showing their true colours which basically equals screw the family and leave the kids in day care ...

good to know
 
_Sal said:
I'm shocked ... all of these anti-abortion, pro god, pro family people showing their true colours which basically equals screw the family and leave the kids in day care ...

good to know
Click to expand...

I'm shocked at the stereotyping and assumptions made in this comment to stretch and attack the pro-life position.

Oh wait...no I'm not.
 
_Sal said:
hey you go with what makes you feel better than me I am okey dokey with that... :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Well it seems that intellectual honesty within your posts and opinions aren't important. I was just pointing out your cheap and incorrect political attack.
 
_Sal said:
well thanks for the guidance kiddo, you're a true guiding intellect
Click to expand...

No problem, kid. Laying off the cheap, intellectually dishonest, political attacks goes a long way to making one not look like a partisan hack.
 
Funny thought...

If my wife owns a daycare and takes care of 15 children. And then she gets pregnant and has to take leave,, should all those parents still have to pay.. I mean they are her employer, right?

djl
 
bmr528 said:
Funny thought...

If my wife owns a daycare and takes care of 15 children. And then she gets pregnant and has to take leave,, should all those parents still have to pay.. I mean they are her employer, right?

djl
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure state regulations wouldn't allow a single person to take care of 15 children. Your wife would need employees, and if you have employees, you're going to need enough to cover in case one quits or they get sick or a plethora of other reasons that would make one short handed. So if she had to take leave, there should be enough employees to cover the operation for the time, and thus services still being rendered then those parents would still have to pay.

I mean, do you think that when an employee of a company now takes Family Medical Leave that services turn off and customers stop paying for goods? :roll:
 
One telling item from the OP article
"we couldn’t make ends meet on one income." ,
- yet they made the decision to have kids.
- maybe they should have planned ahead even if it forced one of them to take a different job or change shifts if possible, so one of the parents is with the kids any time of the day.
- While more parental leave may work for large corporations, not sure it would fit well for a small business (less than 25 employees).

- Rich country, but the US govt. still has to borrow money for the budget it spends.

- I feel for the parents that lost the child. It was tragic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom