Should All Companies be Required to Provide Paid Maternity Leave?

The Man said:

You believe that people who can't afford to raise children should be encouraged to have them anyway and we should just subsidize them with more welfare? I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. There isn't a nicer way to put it.

We give away 'free' birth control and low cost abortions. People need to be responsible and use them if they can't afford to have children.

Click to expand...

Encouraging a low birth rate is no better. Paid parental leave=/=welfare, and I fail to see how either this or a national daycare program will have negative effects poverty wise. I do believe that abortion and birth control should be free, but birth control isn't foolproof, those who identify with the pro-life movement aren't going to want to have an abortion, and there are people in lower income levels who, believe it or not, would actually like to raise a family.

braindrain said:

It makes the worker deserving of the pay his skill and negotiating power can earn him. It does not mean his pay should be tied to the pay of the person taking all the risk or providing the skill and brainpower that makes the company profitable. And no company is controlling the lives of anyone. They are free to quit and start their own business any time they want.

Click to expand...

They are controlling the lives of the employee because the employee is, most of the time, entirely or mostly dependent on the wages provided by the company, and will not be able to successfully transition to owning a small business. Hell, finding another job can be near impossible in this climate, and with all the unemployment benefit cuts going on right now, it's not getting any easier. You're also implying that the skill and brainpower of a CEO is inherently superior to that of their workers. Geniuses are born into poverty and never make it out, while some idiot can inherent millions of dollars and a whole lot of bargaining power. Money does not measure intellect.

They can create their own personal economic stability and guess what nothing can or should be a guarantee. That is why in the constitution it says pursuit of happiness and not just happiness

Click to expand...

That's in the Declaration of Independence, which has no relevance to public policy making. Also, I'm not talking about guaranteeing happiness. I'm talking about eliminating poverty and providing a near-guarantee towards economic stability, which not everyone has the ability to do. You think that the millions of people in poverty could all get out if they just tried harder? That's an extremely naive viewpoint.

than it should be up to the company if they want to provide maternity leave. It is not the governments job to tell a company how to increase productivity.
And it most definitely letting people do what ever they want (having a baby) and making someone else ( the company) pay for it while that employ is at home providing nothing to the company.

Click to expand...

There is a competitive disadvantage for companies who choose to provide paid leave though, because they will be making more expenses towards their employees, which on the surface puts them at a disadvantage, despite the productivity tidbit. And the mandate itself is designed to benefit the worker, not the company.

It is about rewarding the lazy (those who want to get paid while doing no work) and punishing the rich by making them pay an employee who is not doing his job. What else can you call it. And paid maternity leave is not a need necessary for life. People have got along just fine for hundreds of years without it. You just want more for doing less. Call it whatever you want but that is the truth of it.

Click to expand...

You think that parents want paid parental leave so that they can lounge around all day? Raising a baby is work, and that simply cannot be twisted to mean anything different. And just because we've haven't been offering paid parental leave in the past isn't a legitimate reason not to. We have a low birth rate and higher poverty rates because this policy has not been in place.

Neomalthusian said:

Ok, thanks for sharing, but these proposals because of their complexity would be better for another thread so as not to derail.



It's not that one of those rights outweighs the other. It's that one exists and the other (the latter) does not. Children have a right to be provided for, but parents do not have the right to be given the means to provide for their own children.

Click to expand...

How do you believe that corporations bringing in profits is going to benefit society? I don't have a problem in theory with the idea of corporations bringing in profit, but why is this a right, while parental leave is not? If children have a right to be provided for, but parents do not have a right to have the means to provide for their child, how exactly is the child going to be provided for? I don't see what you're getting at.

Your question (about repealing laws providing for unpaid maternity leave) is difficult, and particularly because it has already been in place. I don't know that I would advocate its repeal per se because there are much bigger fish to fry concerning employee benefits (mostly related to health insurance). Philosophically I would only agree to mandate that employers disclose upon hire the specific conditions of personnel policies relating to things like this. If the company decides you are guaranteed nothing after taking a couple weeks off to give birth, then that's their right but it should be clearly communicated so that a fertile 25-year old can think carefully about taking that job as well as think carefully about whether to get pregnant if she or he wants to keep that job long-term. Only mandate people receive full information so that they can make informed decisions about such important things as family and career.

Click to expand...

Your suggestion sounds better than the status quo, but as I have mentioned in previous posts, the lack of a mandate is going to put those who choose to offer paid parental leave at a competitive disadvantage, and therefore discourage those in lower incomes from raising a family altogether.

I believe (and this is consistent with my personal experience) that some companies are financially prudent to voluntarily offer family-friendly policies because they want stable employees. Unstable and flighty employees and high turnover have big costs for some employers. It takes time and money and lost productivity to be continuously teaching new people how to do their jobs, and when you get a young family in a job, they are not going to quit on a whim and they are going to do whatever necessary to do a good job because they want to set down roots and provide for their families. That has value to employers and so it should be up to them to recognize that and offer compensation accordingly. It should not be up to a federal government to blanket the nation in that sort of policy, mandating it everywhere all of the time when it only makes sense some places some of the time.

Click to expand...

Well it is not always going to make sense economically for the business to offer paid parental leave, because each situation is different, (I do think it absolutely makes sense for them to choose to do from a moral and ethical perspective however) but the goal of a mandate is not to help the business, and any parts of the mandate that do aid the business are positive side effects. The goal of the mandate is to aid the worker, and with the exception of those in upper incomes who aren't going to struggle financially from not having paid leave, and even then it won't hurt them, workers who are also new parents will benefit from the mandate.

SocialDemocrat said:

How do you believe that corporations bringing in profits is going to benefit society?

Click to expand...

Is this a serious question?

I don't have a problem in theory with the idea of corporations bringing in profit, but why is this a right,

Click to expand...

Because adults have a right to produce things and trade with one another. Profit is an inevitable potential result of this.

while parental leave is not?

Click to expand...

Because having that job in the first place is not a right.

If children have a right to be provided for, but parents do not have a right to have the means to provide for their child, how exactly is the child going to be provided for?

Click to expand...

Children have rights to be provided for by their legal guardian(s). The legal guardian has a responsibility to come up with the means. Current and prospective employers have no responsibility either way regarding the children, unless that was decided between the parties to be part of the employment contract.

Your suggestion sounds better than the status quo, but as I have mentioned in previous posts, the lack of a mandate is going to put those who choose to offer paid parental leave at a competitive disadvantage,

Click to expand...

No it won't. Employers would only choose to offer it if it gave them an advantage, such as better commitment and longevity from the employee.

and therefore discourage those in lower incomes from raising a family altogether.

Click to expand...

Anyone who has not secured the means to provide for a family SHOULD be discouraged from starting one.

Well it is not always going to make sense economically for the business to offer paid parental leave, because each situation is different,

Click to expand...

Therefore you think companies should be forced by government to do what does not make sense.

The goal of the mandate is to aid the worker, and with the exception of those in upper incomes who aren't going to struggle financially from not having paid leave, and even then it won't hurt them, workers who are also new parents will benefit from the mandate.

Click to expand...

Not if, as I said, it puts them at a disadvantage to getting fully benefitted jobs in the first place. Young workers are often desired because they demand less pay which is commensurate with their lesser experience. Forcing them to be paid more artificially tilts the scale in favor of older folks who are done having kids.

I can't imagine how political liberals are successful business people. It seems they believe wholeheartedly and unquestioningly that simply raising the price of something results in a corresponding increase in revenue. They just do not think about the negative demand side effects that come with arbitrarily raising something's price.

SocialDemocrat said:

Encouraging a low birth rate is no better. Paid parental leave=/=welfare, and I fail to see how either this or a national daycare program will have negative effects poverty wise. I do believe that abortion and birth control should be free, but birth control isn't foolproof, those who identify with the pro-life movement aren't going to want to have an abortion, and there are people in lower income levels who, believe it or not, would actually like to raise a family.

First nothing is free. Just say what you mean and admit you want others to pay for it. And if low income couples want to raise a family than they should get a better job or make sacrices in other areas not just force others to pay for their wants. I want a Ferrari should I be able to get that for free just because I want it.
They are controlling the lives of the employee because the employee is, most of the time, entirely or mostly dependent on the wages provided by the company, and will not be able to successfully transition to owning a small business. Hell, finding another job can be near impossible in this climate, and with all the unemployment benefit cuts going on right now, it's not getting any easier. You're also implying that the skill and brainpower of a CEO is inherently superior to that of their workers. Geniuses are born into poverty and never make it out, while some idiot can inherent millions of dollars and a whole lot of bargaining power. Money does not measure intellect.
That is not controlling anyone. They are free to find another job our start their own any time they want. That is basically the definition of not being controlled. No one said it was going to be easy. You are right that there are geniuses who stay in poverty and it is usually a result of bad choices or lack of motivation. The majority of millionaires didn't inherent their money and there are thousands of new millionaires created every year so while brain power may not be an indicator of wealth brainpower combined with motivation are a pretty good one.


That's in the Declaration of Independence, which has no relevance to public policy making. Also, I'm not talking about guaranteeing happiness. I'm talking about eliminating poverty and providing a near-guarantee towards economic stability, which not everyone has the ability to do. You think that the millions of people in poverty could all get out if they just tried harder? That's an extremely naive viewpoint.
But it does give the ideas our country was founded on. And your plan to guarantee that is by taking more from the people who earned it to give to others. That is not how this country was designed.


There is a competitive disadvantage for companies who choose to provide paid leave though, because they will be making more expenses towards their employees, which on the surface puts them at a disadvantage, despite the productivity tidbit. And the mandate itself is designed to benefit the worker, not the company.

It is not supposed to be the governments job to decide which companies are successful and which ones are not. If a company wants to offer it and incurr the increased expense while being able to attract better employees that is there right. It is not the place of government to tell companies how to run thier business. Besides what do you think these companies will do just accept less profits. Of course not they will just increase prices as if American made products are not to expensive as it is. Plus I am sure those low income families will love paying more for everything.

You think that parents want paid parental leave so that they can lounge around all day? Raising a baby is work, and that simply cannot be twisted to mean anything different. And just because we've haven't been offering paid parental leave in the past isn't a legitimate reason not to. We have a low birth rate and higher poverty rates because this policy has not been in place.
I know how much work that it is to raise kids. I have a 6 YO and a 2 month old. And it doesn't matter what they are doing because what they are not doing is providing any use to the company that you want to force to pay them. Plus you said it was a nessicity of life. If that is true how do couples make it today without it not to mention what did they do in the past. Why again do you think making others pay for the things others want is morally right.

Click to expand...

I noticed you never answered the part about what should happen if we go with the 16 month maternity leave and she gets pregnant again right away. Just how many years should this company have to pay for someone to live while getting nothing in return. I will just never understand the liberal desire to force others to pay for the choices of others. Why is expecting people to be responsible for themselves such a bad idea.

TheDemSocialist said:

Click to expand...

And yet you say that you are not a fascist. If government does not control businesses through regulations how would this social engineering work?

TheDemSocialist said:

Do you agree with the President's recent statements that the US should join the rest of the industrialized world and have provided paid maternity leave? The President said that Congress should work on legislation requiring employers to have paid maternity leave? Do you believe this should be law or not?

Click to expand...

Why is this particular situation special?

What else should the employeer pay for where employees are concerned?

Phys251 said:

'MURICA! Also, Papau New Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Swaziland!

Click to expand...

In Russia, where does the money come from to pay a woman for more tan a year for maternity leave?

gdgyva said:

Some countries shoot people crossing their borders....would you like us to change that policy also?

Other countries, you take a test in 8th grade, and then they TELL you where you go next....college, or technical/trade school....shall we adopt this policy also?

There are a lot of countries that do things differently than us.....i wouldnt say theirs is the best way........would you?

Click to expand...

The chart doesn't tell us who pays for the matermity leave.

Is it 100% paid by the company, or does the government have to pay some of that?

I never get the argument that we should do something because "the rest of the world" is doing it. Who gives a F what the rest of the world is doing? And how has liberal policies worked for the foreign countries of Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and California?

The liberals dysfunctional need to be just like Europe either causes their anti-americanism or is the source of it. Not sure which.

Mason66 said:

The chart doesn't tell us who pays for the matermity leave.

Is it 100% paid by the company, or does the government have to pay some of that?

Click to expand...

I just asked a buddy here in Mexico that owns a company who pays for the maternity leave.

The government health insurance pays 100% of the money. The employer pays 0.

Is Obama willing to include maternity leave in a government health care program where the US Government pays 100% for it?

TOJ said:

Another reason not to hire straight women. Lesbians rarely get pregnant.
If you only hire lesbians, men, and women that are not of child bearing age the problem is solved. :2wave:

.

Click to expand...

What world do you live in where lesbians do not get pregnant?

This also brings up the gay aspect.

If two gay males are adopting a baby, should one be entitled to paid leave to bond with that baby?

shrubnose said:

Does anyone on this forum have any idea why the birthrate in the USA is so low?

Click to expand...

Not enough teen pregnancies.

How about if the employer holds back 20% of the womans salary while she Works for the company and if she gets pregnant, the company gives her the money.

Problem solved.

Ryan5 said:

Yes. It's disgraceful that we don't have it.

Click to expand...

Who do you think should pay for it?

Buddha C said:

Sweden has a PATERNAL (mother or father) leave system which has proven socially beneficial...

Tbh the fathers had to be met with a govt-funded cultural campaign to get them to Actually take their leave xP

Click to expand...

Are you saying the government pays for the leave?

Phys251 said:

I'd rather show respect to the life-giving citizens of our planet. A little paid time off from work seems to be a tiny repayment for what all they had to and will have to go through.

Click to expand...

But who pays for it?

So we have established that in Canada and Mexico the government pays the mother for the leave, not the employer.

Obama wants the employer to foot the bill, which is not like the rest of the world at all.

Does anybody know about other countries and how they work?

Mason66 said:

In Russia, where does the money come from to pay a woman for more tan a year for maternity leave?

Click to expand...

Why are you singling out Russia here? What about Belgium, Canada, the UK, China, Japan, South Korea, Guatemala, Brazil, Costa Rica, Venezuela, France, Singapore, Somalia, Egypt, Poland, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Cyprus, and the many, many, many other countries that have found a way to make maternity leave happen? And what a great research project this would be! Any interest in tackling it?

Phys251 said:

Why are you singling out Russia here? What about Belgium, Canada, the UK, China, Japan, South Korea, Guatemala, Brazil, Costa Rica, Venezuela, France, Singapore, Somalia, Egypt, Poland, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Cyprus, and the many, many, many other countries that have found a way to make maternity leave happen? And what a great research project this would be! Any interest in tackling it?

Click to expand...

I'd say relative to a single earner per household, I.e. A full time mother maternity leave should not be a problem. Otherwise, yes I think a parent should be able to shape their children without excessive economic burdens stopping them from otherwise.

Wrong person lol

Misterveritis said:

And yet you say that you are not a fascist. If government does not control businesses through regulations how would this social engineering work?

Click to expand...

How does this lead to fascism again?

Mason66 said:

What world do you live in where lesbians do not get pregnant?

This also brings up the gay aspect.

If two gay males are adopting a baby, should one be entitled to paid leave to bond with that baby?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Works for me.

"What's good for the goose, is good for the gander", eh?

Phys251 said:

Why are you singling out Russia here? What about Belgium, Canada, the UK, China, Japan, South Korea, Guatemala, Brazil, Costa Rica, Venezuela, France, Singapore, Somalia, Egypt, Poland, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Cyprus, and the many, many, many other countries that have found a way to make maternity leave happen? And what a great research project this would be! Any interest in tackling it?

Click to expand...

I singled out Russia because they pay for over a year. No I have no interest in doing homework, thanks though. You posted the misleading graphic, so maybe you should do the homework.

Mason66 said:

I singled out Russia because they pay for over a year. No I have no interest in doing homework, thanks though. You posted the misleading graphic, so maybe you should do the homework.

Click to expand...

Oh so the graphic is lying? Then surely it should be easy to prove that! Now let's see that proof.

Phys251 said:

Oh so the graphic is lying? Then surely it should be easy to prove that! Now let's see that proof.

Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between misleading and lying?

Nowhere on your graphic does it say who pays for the leave.

At least in Mexico and Canada the government pays for the leave.

How can you compare countries that pay for the leave themselves to what Obama wants which is for the employer to foot the bill.

Maybee you American can see it is apatriotic idea. Because companies that have a long term intersting inthe American market benefit from maternity leave. Because they need children to bee born both as future customers as well as employees. Theyalso need to be able to hire competent people and so it's also good for them to have a larger pool to hiring from if woman also can bep art of the work force. While maternity leave is bad for companies that only believes in shorttime profit or just move to other markets if their are more profitable for productions and/or sells.


But of course the best if it payed by the goverment. Because having children being born and woman in theworkforce is good for the entire society. Also the cost will not behigher for branshces or companies that hires more woman. But that depends on a mayority of people wanting to pay for the huge benefite to society having children born and not wasting the talent and competence of 50 % of the workforce.

Bergslagstroll said:

Maybee you American can see it is apatriotic idea. Because companies that have a long term intersting inthe American market benefit from maternity leave. Because they need children to bee born both as future customers as well as employees. Theyalso need to be able to hire competent people and so it's also good for them to have a larger pool to hiring from if woman also can bep art of the work force. While maternity leave is bad for companies that only believes in shorttime profit or just move to other markets if their are more profitable for productions and/or sells.


But of course the best if it payed by the goverment. Because having children being born and woman in theworkforce is good for the entire society. Also the cost will not behigher for branshces or companies that hires more woman. But that depends on a mayority of people wanting to pay for the huge benefite to society having children born and not wasting the talent and competence of 50 % of the workforce.

Click to expand...

Okay. You think the idea of parental leave is okay...if the government pays for it. But, as you say, it depends on if the taxpayer wants to pay for it or not.

It sounds, though, as if you are not American. Do you live in a country that provides such parental leave? If so, I have a question:

Let's say a woman goes on parental leave. The government pays her. She's good to go. But what about the company she was working for? Does the government pay THEM for their lost income? Does the government pay THEM the cost of hiring a replacement worker? And does that woman get to come back when the leave is over and step back into her old job? Even if the replacement worker is doing better work for the company?

Or...do y'all just think, "Screw the company. They got money. Let them suck it up."?