6 ms·

If an employee is pregnant, no one is forcing the employee to show up for work. When people talk about maternity leave, they usually don't mean the ability to

If an employee is pregnant, no one is forcing the employee to show up for work. When people talk about maternity leave, they usually don't mean the ability to not show up for work (which is a given in a free society), but rather the obligation of the employer to pay the employee whether or not she shows up for work. This meaning of 'maternity leave' is not a legal requirement of employment in the US, though some employers include it. Employers are not and should not be required to pay you for work you are not doing. If maternity leave is important to an employee, it's important to negotiate it when arranging employment, or failing that, negotiate a high enough salary that you can afford to save for a couple months without income. As of 1993, companies with 50 employees or more must offer unpaid maternity leave.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> If an employee is pregnant, no one is forcing the employee to show up for work. When people talk about maternity leave, they usually don't mean the ability to not show up for work (which is a given in a free society), but rather the obligation of the employer to pay the employee whether or not she shows up for work. Well, there's two kinds of mandatory maternity leave: Job protected leave, in which the employee is entitled to be returned to work after their leave, which may or may not be paid, and Paid leave, in which the employee is entitled to pay while on leave, whether or not they are entitled to return to work (in principle; in practice, mandated paid leave is usually also job protected.). The US (for some employees of some employers) has federally-guaranteed job protected maternity (and paternity) leave, but no federal mandate for paid leave for either. Some states have additional job protected leave mandates and/or paid leave mandates.
xg15 8y ago
> Employers are not and should not be required to pay you for work you are not doing. Most other developed countries seem to see that slightly differently. But ok, it is a stance you can discuss - however, it becomes enormously cynical when combined with the conservative aversion against welfare rights: So you're pregnant or sick and happen to not have enough resources to live from savings for a few months. If neither the state nor the employers are obligated to help you, who exactly is?
- zero_intp 8y ago
  America is known for practicing social darwinism as though it were a positive thing.
  - xg15 8y ago
    I remember an "ask a conservative" thread on reddit a while ago. What I found remarkable was that a lot of discussions that were ostensibly about "small government" or "promotion of conservative values", when challanged by a few counter-questions, shifted pretty quickly to population control along the lines of "if the poor get too much welfare they'll just have more kids". Admittedly, this was reddit, so apologies if I'm misrepresenting real-life conservatives here, but that thread got me thinking that a lot of the political discussion might, at the root, actually be about social darwinism.
    - tekknik 8y ago
      Yes you most definitely are misrepresenting the conservatives. None of it has to do with family values or anything other than the lack of understand on the left as to why your employer should not be forced to pay for everything you do or want to do.
- candu 8y ago
  Hell, most less-developed countries see that differently.
- frockington 8y ago
  In America it is assumed you will think ahead and financially prepare instead of relying on the government. What actually happens is the more educated will be prepared and relatively unaffected while the less financially educated will go into debt
  - pasabagi 8y ago
    This doesn't work, for simple economic reasons. Companies will pay the lowest wage they can so they can reduce operating expenses. The lowest wage in many jobs will therefore tend to be the cost of a healthy, independent individual's living. So, anybody who isn't a healthy, independent individual will not be able to negotiate on an individual basis for enough pay, in the typical case. It's always going to be cheaper for a company to only hire people without kids, and without special needs, so unless you force them to do things differently, that's what they'll do - because it's simply not their responsibility to be nice to single mothers. If you want to live in a socially darwinistic society, that's your bag. But don't pretend the people suffering it are 'uneducated'. You devalue both these people, and education in general.
grasshopperpurp 8y ago
This is why we can't have nice things.
- spacehome 8y ago
  I agree. Yet people keep voting for socialism.
  - Frondo 8y ago
    The contemporary American conservative's use of the word "socialism" seems so meaning-free, it's a stand-in for "things I don't like" or "whatever libtards want". Can you elaborate on what socialism you think people are voting for? Cause right now we don't have free education--we have massive loans we award to children that can never be disposed of. We don't have free health care--we have the worst of both possible systems, with only now a real national discussion about bringing our horrible health care in line with literally the rest of the western world. Where's this socialism people keep voting for, and when's it going to start reaching us and affecting our lives in a meaningful way???
    - spacehome 8y ago
      Maternity leave policies are a transfer of wealth from people who have fewer children to people who have more children.
      - spacehome 8y ago
        They’re also a transfer of wealth from shareholders to employees (who have kids).
        Frondo 8y ago
        Awesome. Transfer that wealth. Shareholders add nothing of value to any economic system. Transfer it all to the people who are making a contribution. But you said "people are voting for socialism" (in a discussion about some group unionizing) and that's just a bullshit claim. This country is so far from socialist policies, and no one's running on a socialist platform, it's just empty words to say anyone's voting for socialism.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> If an employee is pregnant, no one is forcing the employee to show up for work. When people talk about maternity leave, they usually don't mean the ability to not show up for work (which is a given in a free society), but rather the obligation of the employer to pay the employee whether or not she shows up for work. Well, there's two kinds of mandatory maternity leave: Job protected leave, in which the employee is entitled to be returned to work after their leave, which may or may not be paid, and Paid leave, in which the employee is entitled to pay while on leave, whether or not they are entitled to return to work (in principle; in practice, mandated paid leave is usually also job protected.). The US (for some employees of some employers) has federally-guaranteed job protected maternity (and paternity) leave, but no federal mandate for paid leave for either. Some states have additional job protected leave mandates and/or paid leave mandates.

xg15 8y ago

> Employers are not and should not be required to pay you for work you are not doing. Most other developed countries seem to see that slightly differently. But ok, it is a stance you can discuss - however, it becomes enormously cynical when combined with the conservative aversion against welfare rights: So you're pregnant or sick and happen to not have enough resources to live from savings for a few months. If neither the state nor the employers are obligated to help you, who exactly is?

zero_intp 8y ago
America is known for practicing social darwinism as though it were a positive thing.
- xg15 8y ago
  I remember an "ask a conservative" thread on reddit a while ago. What I found remarkable was that a lot of discussions that were ostensibly about "small government" or "promotion of conservative values", when challanged by a few counter-questions, shifted pretty quickly to population control along the lines of "if the poor get too much welfare they'll just have more kids". Admittedly, this was reddit, so apologies if I'm misrepresenting real-life conservatives here, but that thread got me thinking that a lot of the political discussion might, at the root, actually be about social darwinism.
  - tekknik 8y ago
    Yes you most definitely are misrepresenting the conservatives. None of it has to do with family values or anything other than the lack of understand on the left as to why your employer should not be forced to pay for everything you do or want to do.
candu 8y ago
Hell, most less-developed countries see that differently.
frockington 8y ago
In America it is assumed you will think ahead and financially prepare instead of relying on the government. What actually happens is the more educated will be prepared and relatively unaffected while the less financially educated will go into debt
- pasabagi 8y ago
  This doesn't work, for simple economic reasons. Companies will pay the lowest wage they can so they can reduce operating expenses. The lowest wage in many jobs will therefore tend to be the cost of a healthy, independent individual's living. So, anybody who isn't a healthy, independent individual will not be able to negotiate on an individual basis for enough pay, in the typical case. It's always going to be cheaper for a company to only hire people without kids, and without special needs, so unless you force them to do things differently, that's what they'll do - because it's simply not their responsibility to be nice to single mothers. If you want to live in a socially darwinistic society, that's your bag. But don't pretend the people suffering it are 'uneducated'. You devalue both these people, and education in general.

grasshopperpurp 8y ago

This is why we can't have nice things.

spacehome 8y ago
I agree. Yet people keep voting for socialism.
- Frondo 8y ago
  The contemporary American conservative's use of the word "socialism" seems so meaning-free, it's a stand-in for "things I don't like" or "whatever libtards want". Can you elaborate on what socialism you think people are voting for? Cause right now we don't have free education--we have massive loans we award to children that can never be disposed of. We don't have free health care--we have the worst of both possible systems, with only now a real national discussion about bringing our horrible health care in line with literally the rest of the western world. Where's this socialism people keep voting for, and when's it going to start reaching us and affecting our lives in a meaningful way???
  - spacehome 8y ago
    Maternity leave policies are a transfer of wealth from people who have fewer children to people who have more children.
    - spacehome 8y ago
      They’re also a transfer of wealth from shareholders to employees (who have kids).
      - Frondo 8y ago
        Awesome. Transfer that wealth. Shareholders add nothing of value to any economic system. Transfer it all to the people who are making a contribution. But you said "people are voting for socialism" (in a discussion about some group unionizing) and that's just a bullshit claim. This country is so far from socialist policies, and no one's running on a socialist platform, it's just empty words to say anyone's voting for socialism.