Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Maternity/Paternity Leave

ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 2:15:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
...is stupid. Why should companies pay employees to not work, and why should they have to hold their jobs until they come back?

When I was born, my mom quit her job and stayed at home for 4 years until I was old enough for school. My dad stayed at his job and our family lived on one small salary. We had one car only, and when the AC broke down in the middle of summer South Texas, we didn't have the money to repair it. We also didn't have cable TV, or a large expensive house, or go out to restaurants for dinner. We lived on a tight budget, and my parents made it work.

I see no reason for business owners and childless employees to subsidize an extended vacation for those who choose to have kids. If you want to stay at home to raise your kids, that's great! Just don't expect the rest of society to give you money for doing so.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 2:20:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Remind me to post on this soon, pls.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 6:26:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 2:20:25 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Remind me to post on this soon, pls.

You've been reminded. Go!!!!!
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 6:28:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
People who are childless aren't really subsidizing those who have kids, atleast not in the United States. Paid maternity and paternity leave is used to attract good talent, so it's not like a state subsidy forced upon the masses. Childless people are free to work at companies that don't offer that benefit.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 7:08:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Wylted nailed the basic point of the matter. If you, the employer, can afford to pay maternity leave, why would you risk your talented female candidates choosing a different job instead?
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 11:21:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 6:28:00 AM, Wylted wrote:
People who are childless aren't really subsidizing those who have kids, atleast not in the United States. Paid maternity and paternity leave is used to attract good talent, so it's not like a state subsidy forced upon the masses. Childless people are free to work at companies that don't offer that benefit.

Sort of. I would argue though that many companies wouldn't offer paid maternity leave if there wasn't a general expectation that they have to offer it, because everyone else does. Similarly, healthcare is a "benefit" that salaried jobs all offer, in theory to attract top talent. But hypothetically if I as an individual job seeker didn't value health care at all (assume this is pre Obamacare mandate) I'd be hard pressed to find a corporate job that didn't offer healthcare but paid me more in salary to compensate.

So basically, the people who don't value healthcare/401k are subsidizing the people who do, which is fine because they aren't an easily defined demographic. There's no clear demarcation between people who use healthcare and retirement plans and those who don't. There is a clear demarcation between people who use maternity leave and those who don't, and that distinction is the decision to first have a kid, then stay home with it.

That's why it's problematic
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 11:24:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 11:21:44 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:28:00 AM, Wylted wrote:
People who are childless aren't really subsidizing those who have kids, atleast not in the United States. Paid maternity and paternity leave is used to attract good talent, so it's not like a state subsidy forced upon the masses. Childless people are free to work at companies that don't offer that benefit.

Sort of. I would argue though that many companies wouldn't offer paid maternity leave if there wasn't a general expectation that they have to offer it, because everyone else does. Similarly, healthcare is a "benefit" that salaried jobs all offer, in theory to attract top talent. But hypothetically if I as an individual job seeker didn't value health care at all (assume this is pre Obamacare mandate) I'd be hard pressed to find a corporate job that didn't offer healthcare but paid me more in salary to compensate.

So basically, the people who don't value healthcare/401k are subsidizing the people who do, which is fine because they aren't an easily defined demographic. There's no clear demarcation between people who use healthcare and retirement plans and those who don't. There is a clear demarcation between people who use maternity leave and those who don't, and that distinction is the decision to first have a kid, then stay home with it.

That's why it's problematic

I don't know. I just know that my job offers it because of the FMLA as required by law, but that it's unpaid. I think virgin airlines and other companies offer it to attract talent, and maybe people not seeking parenthood can find a benefit for themselves in another company, maybe not.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 4:17:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 11:21:44 PM, ford_prefect wrote:

I'd be hard pressed to find a corporate job that didn't offer healthcare but paid me more in salary to compensate.

Since you're not seeing the money anyway, why begrudge other people the healthcare? The employer made that money by selling something to willing consumers; if they want to distribute some of it as healthcare, why shouldn't they?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 3:09:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The only controversial part of this issue is when the government forces employers to provide select benefits.

This is a benefit that is for a select group. Employment mandates that are not beneficial across the board would end up having an opportunity cost to the non- affected employees.

As far I know, this is not an employment mandate.