Paid Leave
Having a child is a choice. If you can't afford a child don't have a child. An employer shouldn't have to pay for paternity or maternity leave.
I don't care if other countries pay it. The other countries have it wrong.
Comments
-
You are so fucking wrong that it hurts.
-
Government telling businesses how to compensate their employees. Sounds like some communist bullshit right there.
-
Or you can attract good employees by offering quality benefits like this.
Maternity/paternity leave isn't about being able to afford a child, it's about spending time with them during critical stages of early childhood and family development. However, I imagine it would be difficult to afford a child if someone were to lose a job over it. That's the choice people without paid or even unpaid leave are forced to make.
Sounds like you don't have that option where you work, or are afraid of having to pay it to your employees. Which is unfortunate for you. But that's no reason to deny a scientifically proven benefit to our species to others.
This wasn't an issue back in the day because a man could easily support his family on a single income. Today, dual incomes are often a necessary reality to support a family (stagnant wage growth coming home to roost), which means the stay at home mom is fast becoming extinct. The flip side is many companies lose qualified and talented female employees that choose to stay home, and are forced to hire and train replacements. That costs money too.
I've retained talented employees by supporting them in this important time. I think you'll find that this course of action not only benefits them personally, but strengthens the loyalty and commitment they feel towards their place of employment. You get better performance and long term value by treating employees as people. Plus it's the right thing to do.
We hear a lot of lip service paid to family values by politicians, but things like this, women's health, and social safety net programs that protect needy families are constantly under attack and labeled as entitlements. Maybe those things actually make a huge difference.
This helps Trump IMHO.
There's my TL;DR dash of perspective for the day...brought to you by this #FreshBowl of #TeamSativa. -
Trump is a big government liberal which is why Race loves him.
-
Someone doesn't have a child.
Or he doesn't give a fuck the other dad is having to get up multiple times a night as his lazy ass sleeps. -
So you freely admit that it's in the company's best interest to provide paid leave, but want the taxpayer to foot the bill for the companies who don't?ThomasFremont said:Or you can attract good employees by offering quality benefits like this.
Maternity/paternity leave isn't about being able to afford a child, it's about spending time with them during critical stages of early childhood and family development. However, I imagine it would be difficult to afford a child if someone were to lose a job over it. That's the choice people without paid or even unpaid leave are forced to make.
Sounds like you don't have that option where you work, or are afraid of having to pay it to your employees. Which is unfortunate for you. But that's no reason to deny a scientifically proven benefit to our species to others.
This wasn't an issue back in the day because a man could easily support his family on a single income. Today, dual incomes are often a necessary reality to support a family (stagnant wage growth coming home to roost), which means the stay at home mom is fast becoming extinct. The flip side is many companies lose qualified and talented female employees that choose to stay home, and are forced to hire and train replacements. That costs money too.
I've retained talented employees by supporting them in this important time. I think you'll find that this course of action not only benefits them personally, but strengthens the loyalty and commitment they feel towards their place of employment. You get better performance and long term value by treating employees as people. Plus it's the right thing to do.
We hear a lot of lip service paid to family values by politicians, but things like this, women's health, and social safety net programs that protect needy families are constantly under attack and labeled as entitlements. Maybe those things actually make a huge difference.
This helps Trump IMHO.
There's my TL;DR dash of perspective for the day...brought to you by this #FreshBowl of #TeamSativa.
If the labor market demands paid leave and some companies won't provide it, those companies will suffer the consequences. Or you could force it with taxation and enjoy all the unintended consequences of government coercion. Barriers to entry for new businesses, increased tax burden, the possibility of firms discriminating against young women, etc.
-
If businesses want to offer it they can, but the government shouldn't make them. I think it's a good thing if a business offers it, but again it should be their choice. This is an issue the government has no business getting into. Maternity/Paternity leave is already offered, and paid depending on the business.doogsinparadise said:You are so fucking wrong that it hurts.
If your company doesn't offer it, then find a new job. But don't gripe about it being unfair. -
Such awesome J.PurpleJ said:
So you freely admit that it's in the company's best interest to provide paid leave, but want the taxpayer to foot the bill for the companies who don't?ThomasFremont said:Or you can attract good employees by offering quality benefits like this.
Maternity/paternity leave isn't about being able to afford a child, it's about spending time with them during critical stages of early childhood and family development. However, I imagine it would be difficult to afford a child if someone were to lose a job over it. That's the choice people without paid or even unpaid leave are forced to make.
Sounds like you don't have that option where you work, or are afraid of having to pay it to your employees. Which is unfortunate for you. But that's no reason to deny a scientifically proven benefit to our species to others.
This wasn't an issue back in the day because a man could easily support his family on a single income. Today, dual incomes are often a necessary reality to support a family (stagnant wage growth coming home to roost), which means the stay at home mom is fast becoming extinct. The flip side is many companies lose qualified and talented female employees that choose to stay home, and are forced to hire and train replacements. That costs money too.
I've retained talented employees by supporting them in this important time. I think you'll find that this course of action not only benefits them personally, but strengthens the loyalty and commitment they feel towards their place of employment. You get better performance and long term value by treating employees as people. Plus it's the right thing to do.
We hear a lot of lip service paid to family values by politicians, but things like this, women's health, and social safety net programs that protect needy families are constantly under attack and labeled as entitlements. Maybe those things actually make a huge difference.
This helps Trump IMHO.
There's my TL;DR dash of perspective for the day...brought to you by this #FreshBowl of #TeamSativa.
If the labor market demands paid leave and some companies won't provide it, those companies will suffer the consequences. Or you could force it with taxation and enjoy all the unintended consequences of government coercion. Barriers to entry for new businesses, increased tax burden, the possibility of firms discriminating against young women, etc. -
We think women are being discriminated against now, wait until this goes through. I don't want to see the job market for women between 21-35 when this initiative is approved. That's what's going to be unfair.
-
I think 6 weeks maternity/one week paternity leave should be mandatory, but I think paid or unpaid should be the company's choice.greenblood said:
If businesses want to offer it they can, but the government shouldn't make them. I think it's a good thing if a business offers it, but again it should be their choice. This is an issue the government has no business getting into. Maternity/Paternity leave is already offered, and paid depending on the business.doogsinparadise said:You are so fucking wrong that it hurts.
If your company doesn't offer it, then find a new job. But don't gripe about it being unfair.
I took two weeks vacation time for paternity leave with both of my kids. It was awesome, I wouldn't have traded it for anything. And I didn't resent my employer for not paying for it, we planned our vacation time for it. My wife took 6 weeks maternity for both of them, unpaid. Would have been awesome had it been paid, but we weren't in that position. I don't think it's anybody else's responsibility to pay for me to have kids. If they wouldn't have let her get the time off or would have let her go during her time off I would have been pissed though. -
Exactly. I'm not against forced maternity/paternity leave. I'm just not in agreement that the government should force it to be paid. Many companies allow people to roll over sick days, vacation days, etc. People just need to get creative.dnc said:
I think 6 weeks maternity/one week paternity leave should be mandatory, but I think paid or unpaid should be the company's choice.greenblood said:
If businesses want to offer it they can, but the government shouldn't make them. I think it's a good thing if a business offers it, but again it should be their choice. This is an issue the government has no business getting into. Maternity/Paternity leave is already offered, and paid depending on the business.doogsinparadise said:You are so fucking wrong that it hurts.
If your company doesn't offer it, then find a new job. But don't gripe about it being unfair.
I took two weeks vacation time for paternity leave with both of my kids. It was awesome, I wouldn't have traded it for anything. And I didn't resent my employer for not paying for it, we planned our vacation time for it. My wife took 6 weeks maternity for both of them, unpaid. Would have been awesome had it been paid, but we weren't in that position. I don't think it's anybody else's responsibility to pay for me to have kids. If they wouldn't have let her get the time off or would have let her go during her time off I would have been pissed though.
It's called planning -
That would have been illegal, but still.dnc said:
I think 6 weeks maternity/one week paternity leave should be mandatory, but I think paid or unpaid should be the company's choice.greenblood said:
If businesses want to offer it they can, but the government shouldn't make them. I think it's a good thing if a business offers it, but again it should be their choice. This is an issue the government has no business getting into. Maternity/Paternity leave is already offered, and paid depending on the business.doogsinparadise said:You are so fucking wrong that it hurts.
If your company doesn't offer it, then find a new job. But don't gripe about it being unfair.
I took two weeks vacation time for paternity leave with both of my kids. It was awesome, I wouldn't have traded it for anything. And I didn't resent my employer for not paying for it, we planned our vacation time for it. My wife took 6 weeks maternity for both of them, unpaid. Would have been awesome had it been paid, but we weren't in that position. I don't think it's anybody else's responsibility to pay for me to have kids. If they wouldn't have let her get the time off or would have let her go during her time off I would have been pissed though. -
Exactly. I'm saying the maternity laws we have now are correct IMO.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
That would have been illegal, but still.dnc said:
I think 6 weeks maternity/one week paternity leave should be mandatory, but I think paid or unpaid should be the company's choice.greenblood said:
If businesses want to offer it they can, but the government shouldn't make them. I think it's a good thing if a business offers it, but again it should be their choice. This is an issue the government has no business getting into. Maternity/Paternity leave is already offered, and paid depending on the business.doogsinparadise said:You are so fucking wrong that it hurts.
If your company doesn't offer it, then find a new job. But don't gripe about it being unfair.
I took two weeks vacation time for paternity leave with both of my kids. It was awesome, I wouldn't have traded it for anything. And I didn't resent my employer for not paying for it, we planned our vacation time for it. My wife took 6 weeks maternity for both of them, unpaid. Would have been awesome had it been paid, but we weren't in that position. I don't think it's anybody else's responsibility to pay for me to have kids. If they wouldn't have let her get the time off or would have let her go during her time off I would have been pissed though. -
Planning if wrapping that Jimmy up and not being in a spot where this is even an issue.greenblood said:
Exactly. I'm not against forced maternity/paternity leave. I'm just not in agreement that the government should force it to be paid. Many companies allow people to roll over sick days, vacation days, etc. People just need to get creative.dnc said:
I think 6 weeks maternity/one week paternity leave should be mandatory, but I think paid or unpaid should be the company's choice.greenblood said:
If businesses want to offer it they can, but the government shouldn't make them. I think it's a good thing if a business offers it, but again it should be their choice. This is an issue the government has no business getting into. Maternity/Paternity leave is already offered, and paid depending on the business.doogsinparadise said:You are so fucking wrong that it hurts.
If your company doesn't offer it, then find a new job. But don't gripe about it being unfair.
I took two weeks vacation time for paternity leave with both of my kids. It was awesome, I wouldn't have traded it for anything. And I didn't resent my employer for not paying for it, we planned our vacation time for it. My wife took 6 weeks maternity for both of them, unpaid. Would have been awesome had it been paid, but we weren't in that position. I don't think it's anybody else's responsibility to pay for me to have kids. If they wouldn't have let her get the time off or would have let her go during her time off I would have been pissed though.
It's called planning
-
Why do you hate mixing in some RU-486 into her drinks?PurpleThrobber said:
Planning if wrapping that Jimmy up and not being in a spot where this is even an issue.greenblood said:
Exactly. I'm not against forced maternity/paternity leave. I'm just not in agreement that the government should force it to be paid. Many companies allow people to roll over sick days, vacation days, etc. People just need to get creative.dnc said:
I think 6 weeks maternity/one week paternity leave should be mandatory, but I think paid or unpaid should be the company's choice.greenblood said:
If businesses want to offer it they can, but the government shouldn't make them. I think it's a good thing if a business offers it, but again it should be their choice. This is an issue the government has no business getting into. Maternity/Paternity leave is already offered, and paid depending on the business.doogsinparadise said:You are so fucking wrong that it hurts.
If your company doesn't offer it, then find a new job. But don't gripe about it being unfair.
I took two weeks vacation time for paternity leave with both of my kids. It was awesome, I wouldn't have traded it for anything. And I didn't resent my employer for not paying for it, we planned our vacation time for it. My wife took 6 weeks maternity for both of them, unpaid. Would have been awesome had it been paid, but we weren't in that position. I don't think it's anybody else's responsibility to pay for me to have kids. If they wouldn't have let her get the time off or would have let her go during her time off I would have been pissed though.
It's called planning -
Wait. You have kids? That aren't mine? What in the holy fuck!dnc said:
I think 6 weeks maternity/one week paternity leave should be mandatory, but I think paid or unpaid should be the company's choice.greenblood said:
If businesses want to offer it they can, but the government shouldn't make them. I think it's a good thing if a business offers it, but again it should be their choice. This is an issue the government has no business getting into. Maternity/Paternity leave is already offered, and paid depending on the business.doogsinparadise said:You are so fucking wrong that it hurts.
If your company doesn't offer it, then find a new job. But don't gripe about it being unfair.
I took two weeks vacation time for paternity leave with both of my kids. It was awesome, I wouldn't have traded it for anything. And I didn't resent my employer for not paying for it, we planned our vacation time for it. My wife took 6 weeks maternity for both of them, unpaid. Would have been awesome had it been paid, but we weren't in that position. I don't think it's anybody else's responsibility to pay for me to have kids. If they wouldn't have let her get the time off or would have let her go during her time off I would have been pissed though. -
At least his kids have two dads.Swaye said:
Wait. You have kids? That aren't mine? What in the holy fuck!dnc said:
I think 6 weeks maternity/one week paternity leave should be mandatory, but I think paid or unpaid should be the company's choice.greenblood said:
If businesses want to offer it they can, but the government shouldn't make them. I think it's a good thing if a business offers it, but again it should be their choice. This is an issue the government has no business getting into. Maternity/Paternity leave is already offered, and paid depending on the business.doogsinparadise said:You are so fucking wrong that it hurts.
If your company doesn't offer it, then find a new job. But don't gripe about it being unfair.
I took two weeks vacation time for paternity leave with both of my kids. It was awesome, I wouldn't have traded it for anything. And I didn't resent my employer for not paying for it, we planned our vacation time for it. My wife took 6 weeks maternity for both of them, unpaid. Would have been awesome had it been paid, but we weren't in that position. I don't think it's anybody else's responsibility to pay for me to have kids. If they wouldn't have let her get the time off or would have let her go during her time off I would have been pissed though. -
Further entanglement of employees' personal lives and problems with their workplace is neither fair, nor wise. Why must it become the employer's problem to deal with? Maternity leave and family leave already protect a woman's job, but the employer must pay her welfare, too? If an employer wants to offer that perk, great. If not, they either become the financially responsible parent of grown, breeding adults, or what, get sued or shut down?
Where the fuck is personal responsibility? Why support adults incapable of planning, saving money, and acting like grown-ups for the first time in their lives? This cradle to grave, Big Brother mandates all, welfare state shit used to be frowned upon and led to strong, capable adults. Now? Fucking joke. Nobody wants to be responsible for shit, while making somebody else pick up the tab. This is what a "shared" economy looks like? Fucking Communists.
Read Animal Farm, douchebags, and see what happens to the hardest, most loyal worker in that scenario, where hypocrisy reigns supreme. This is another step down that path. -
Sounds like a great business model Kaepernick.greenblood said:Now Trump is making this part of his agenda.
Having a child is a choice. If you can't afford a child don't have a child. An employer shouldn't have to pay for paternity or maternity leave.
I don't care if other countries pay it. The other countries have it wrong.
Let me know how that works out for you. -
Not sure where you copied this from but it is a classy post.ThomasFremont said:Or you can attract good employees by offering quality benefits like this.
Maternity/paternity leave isn't about being able to afford a child, it's about spending time with them during critical stages of early childhood and family development. However, I imagine it would be difficult to afford a child if someone were to lose a job over it. That's the choice people without paid or even unpaid leave are forced to make.
Sounds like you don't have that option where you work, or are afraid of having to pay it to your employees. Which is unfortunate for you. But that's no reason to deny a scientifically proven benefit to our species to others.
This wasn't an issue back in the day because a man could easily support his family on a single income. Today, dual incomes are often a necessary reality to support a family (stagnant wage growth coming home to roost), which means the stay at home mom is fast becoming extinct. The flip side is many companies lose qualified and talented female employees that choose to stay home, and are forced to hire and train replacements. That costs money too.
I've retained talented employees by supporting them in this important time. I think you'll find that this course of action not only benefits them personally, but strengthens the loyalty and commitment they feel towards their place of employment. You get better performance and long term value by treating employees as people. Plus it's the right thing to do.
We hear a lot of lip service paid to family values by politicians, but things like this, women's health, and social safety net programs that protect needy families are constantly under attack and labeled as entitlements. Maybe those things actually make a huge difference.
This helps Trump IMHO.
There's my TL;DR dash of perspective for the day...brought to you by this #FreshBowl of #TeamSativa.
Completely not Libertarian though
Welcome to the Trump Train! -
Papooses to you honeySwaye said:
Wait. You have kids? That aren't mine? What in the holy fuck!dnc said:
I think 6 weeks maternity/one week paternity leave should be mandatory, but I think paid or unpaid should be the company's choice.greenblood said:
If businesses want to offer it they can, but the government shouldn't make them. I think it's a good thing if a business offers it, but again it should be their choice. This is an issue the government has no business getting into. Maternity/Paternity leave is already offered, and paid depending on the business.doogsinparadise said:You are so fucking wrong that it hurts.
If your company doesn't offer it, then find a new job. But don't gripe about it being unfair.
I took two weeks vacation time for paternity leave with both of my kids. It was awesome, I wouldn't have traded it for anything. And I didn't resent my employer for not paying for it, we planned our vacation time for it. My wife took 6 weeks maternity for both of them, unpaid. Would have been awesome had it been paid, but we weren't in that position. I don't think it's anybody else's responsibility to pay for me to have kids. If they wouldn't have let her get the time off or would have let her go during her time off I would have been pissed though. -
TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Trump is a big government liberal which is why Race loves him.
-
We already pay the most in the world for childbirth:
Would be nice for our wives to not have to return to work with a bleeding vagina and an empty wallet.
But fuck it, if Papua New Guinea is doing it, you know it's right.
I'd be all for setting up an unemployment-like fund that you can opt-in and draw up to $500 a week, preferably based on a percentage of what you pay into. Three month minimum for maternity, two weeks for paternity.
There isn't enough job mobility or freedom of information to leave these benefits up to employers. I can't go to fucking Amazon.com and pick out the employer with the best maternity leave. Leave employers out of it altogether. -
Pretty much agree. If society at large wants this subsidy, tax for it so everybody contributes, even the employees themselves. Otherwise, it's just raiding the business's bank account for things it has no control over and derives no ROI for.UWhuskytskeet said:We already pay the most in the world for childbirth:
Would be nice for our wives to not have to return to work with a bleeding vagina and an empty wallet.
But fuck it, if Papua New Guinea is doing it, you know it's right.
I'd be all for setting up an unemployment-like fund that you can opt-in and draw up to $500 a week, preferably based on a percentage of what you pay into. Three month minimum for maternity, two weeks for paternity.
There isn't enough job mobility or freedom of information to leave these benefits up to employers. I can't go to fucking Amazon.com and pick out the employer with the best maternity leave. Leave employers out of it altogether. -
Options that include tax credits or employer subsidies, the cost of which will be passed along to consumers, snag monies from non beneficiaries. The best and most fair solution is an employee funded portable HSA. If you can't afford to fund the HSA, then you can't afford kids and shouldn't have them. If you can, then you're demonstrating a level of responsibility commensurate with being a parent, and you should have kids if you choose to.TurdBuffer said:
Pretty much agree. If society at large wants this subsidy, tax for it so everybody contributes, even the employees themselves. Otherwise, it's just raiding the business's bank account for things it has no control over and derives no ROI for.UWhuskytskeet said:We already pay the most in the world for childbirth:
Would be nice for our wives to not have to return to work with a bleeding vagina and an empty wallet.
But fuck it, if Papua New Guinea is doing it, you know it's right.
I'd be all for setting up an unemployment-like fund that you can opt-in and draw up to $500 a week, preferably based on a percentage of what you pay into. Three month minimum for maternity, two weeks for paternity.
There isn't enough job mobility or freedom of information to leave these benefits up to employers. I can't go to fucking Amazon.com and pick out the employer with the best maternity leave. Leave employers out of it altogether. -
Swaye said:
Wait. You have kids? That aren't mine? What in the holy fuck!dnc said:
I think 6 weeks maternity/one week paternity leave should be mandatory, but I think paid or unpaid should be the company's choice.greenblood said:
If businesses want to offer it they can, but the government shouldn't make them. I think it's a good thing if a business offers it, but again it should be their choice. This is an issue the government has no business getting into. Maternity/Paternity leave is already offered, and paid depending on the business.doogsinparadise said:You are so fucking wrong that it hurts.
If your company doesn't offer it, then find a new job. But don't gripe about it being unfair.
I took two weeks vacation time for paternity leave with both of my kids. It was awesome, I wouldn't have traded it for anything. And I didn't resent my employer for not paying for it, we planned our vacation time for it. My wife took 6 weeks maternity for both of them, unpaid. Would have been awesome had it been paid, but we weren't in that position. I don't think it's anybody else's responsibility to pay for me to have kids. If they wouldn't have let her get the time off or would have let her go during her time off I would have been pissed though.
-
Funny the response to this. If it were Hillary, you'd call her a communist. But because the person who said it had an R next to his name, some of you disagree but there's no outrage.
Just sayin. -
But, but, but: There's a huge cost to only subsidizing poor people and immigrants having all the kids like we do now. An immigrant family nearby has 10 kids, lives in an SHA house, and we pay for it all. Since those programs aren't going anywhere soon, we need to balance the subsidies so having kids isn't cost prohibitive for productive, responsible middle-class and working-class families, too.Southerndawg said:
Options that include tax credits or employer subsidies, the cost of which will be passed along to consumers, snag monies from non beneficiaries. The best and most fair solution is an employee funded portable HSA. If you can't afford to fund the HSA, then you can't afford kids and shouldn't have them. If you can, then you're demonstrating a level of responsibility commensurate with being a parent, and you should have kids if you choose to.TurdBuffer said:
Pretty much agree. If society at large wants this subsidy, tax for it so everybody contributes, even the employees themselves. Otherwise, it's just raiding the business's bank account for things it has no control over and derives no ROI for.UWhuskytskeet said:We already pay the most in the world for childbirth:
Would be nice for our wives to not have to return to work with a bleeding vagina and an empty wallet.
But fuck it, if Papua New Guinea is doing it, you know it's right.
I'd be all for setting up an unemployment-like fund that you can opt-in and draw up to $500 a week, preferably based on a percentage of what you pay into. Three month minimum for maternity, two weeks for paternity.
There isn't enough job mobility or freedom of information to leave these benefits up to employers. I can't go to fucking Amazon.com and pick out the employer with the best maternity leave. Leave employers out of it altogether.
It's just wrong to mandate that the employer pays for it. Again, if society at large supports it, it should be a tax, not a penalty exacted on successful businesses. -
I wish the govt had paid your mom to give you a scrape job.greenblood said:Now Trump is making this part of his agenda.
Having a child is a choice. If you can't afford a child don't have a child. An employer shouldn't have to pay for paternity or maternity leave.
I don't care if other countries pay it. The other countries have it wrong.
-
HurtfulBallSacked said:
I wish the govt had paid your mom to give you a scrape job.greenblood said:Now Trump is making this part of his agenda.
Having a child is a choice. If you can't afford a child don't have a child. An employer shouldn't have to pay for paternity or maternity leave.
I don't care if other countries pay it. The other countries have it wrong.
