4 ms·

Among the list of things about the United States that are incomprehensible to me (a Canadian), the absence of paid maternal (let alone parental) leave ranks pre

Among the list of things about the United States that are incomprehensible to me (a Canadian), the absence of paid maternal (let alone parental) leave ranks pretty close to the top.

tbrownaw 13y ago
Most worker protections in the US apply to companies with more than some fixed number (I think it's 50) of employees. http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html About 1/6 of the working population is at employers with less than 20 employees, and so wouldn't be covered anyway. Another 1/6 is at employers with 20 to 99 employees, and many of them would also not be covered. Why should the social safety net exclude 20% of the population?
yummyfajitas 13y ago
I find it incomprehensible why paid maternal leave would be mandatory. Why should companies (in particular the ones who hire women) be forced to pay for the life choices of their employees? And why maternity specifically, as opposed to all sorts of other life choices?
- marquis 13y ago
  So women have the opportunity to give birth and raise children in a safe, welcoming society, so you have a healthy population and grandkids around to pay for elderly social services? Is 'paying it forward' anathema?
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    Why should companies who hire a larger number of women bear a disproportionate portion of these costs?
    - sentenza 13y ago
      You are aware that it's not the company that pays the wage compensation during the maternity leave? At least here in Germany, you get 60% of your salary (up to an upper limit) for 12 months (14 if both parents take part of the leave) _from the state_. These schemes are usually designed in such a way that they are either cost-neutral or beneficial to companies that employ women.
      - yummyfajitas 13y ago
        You are aware that there are still costs for keeping non-producing employees around, right? For example, either their work goes undone, or else you need to hire someone who might become superfluous if they return. In the meantime their skills might atrophy or they may become unnecessary (but getting rid of them in this case is legally risky). (The latter is not hypothetical - I know of a specific case, namely a large but shrinking company that is firing everyone who is either below average or has been pregnant recently. )
        furyg3 13y ago
        So you support firing someone who is pregnant? There are costs for using humans to do your work. Sometimes they get sick, sometimes they get pregnant, sometimes they have a super-productive day and sometimes they don't.
        yummyfajitas 13y ago
        I don't think companies should be obligated to give people the choice to vanish from the workforce and return a year later to an equal or better job. I would also enjoy the option to take a year off and have a job when I return (for other life choices than having children), I just don't see why my employer should be obligated to hold my job open.
        furyg3 13y ago
        I'm not prescribing what the duration should be, surely there is some middle ground between zero and a year. Where I am currently living (NL) it is a few months (three I believe), happily paid for by the taxpayers. Where I lived before (US-CA) it was a few weeks of partially paid leave, paid by the employer. I'm also not completely convinced that the weeks surrounding a childbirth are the most productive working weeks.
- r3m6 13y ago
  I am not sure about Canada, but in most of Europe not the company but the state (= tax payer) pays for the cost of the maternity leave.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Reproduction of the species is not a "life choice." Our stock is all worthless if there's no generations of 18-35 year olds to provide a consumer and worker base into the future. What's the market cap of Facebook in a world where all the 13+ year olds that ever will exist are already born? To me, this a key differentiating point between conservatives and libertarians. Following the libertarian position here has caused conservatives to undermine a key core pro-family policy position.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    Assuming increasing fertility is your justification for maternity leave, will you change your position if I show you data suggesting that maternity leave has little effect on fertility (among first world nations)? https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:CAN:GBR:FRA:FIN:DEU:GRC:IRL:RUS:SWE&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...
    - rayiner 13y ago
      I didn't say anything about increasing fertility. I was responding to your comment: "Why should companies (in particular the ones who hire women) be forced to pay for the life choices of their employees?" Parenting isn't a "life choice." Reproduction of the species is a basic function of society. Our economic system is deeply dependent on the assumption of at least stable if not growing population. Companies benefit from people who perform that basic function, and therefore it isn't wrong to force them to pay for benefits like parental leave. Otherwise, companies have an incentive to free-ride.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Parenting isn't a "life choice." People can and do choose to do, and others choose to not do it. How is it not a "life choice"? > Reproduction of the species is a basic function of society. If it was purely a function "of society", then it would be a social choice, not a personal one, who would do it and how. So I think that it is pretty clear that -- in Western society at least -- while there may be social aspects to reproduction, it is not generally viewed first and foremost as a "function of society". I personally think that's a good thing, but YMMV. > Our economic system is deeply dependent on the assumption of at least stable if not growing population. That's certainly an argument for why it ought to be a preferred and encouraged life choice.
philwelch 13y ago
You seem woefully misinformed. Paid parental leave exists in the US, it's just not legally mandated.
- RyanMcGreal 13y ago
  Yay pedantry. You're right; I meant paid parental leave that employers must make available to their employees.

Among the list of things about the United States that are incomprehensible to me (a Canadian), the absence of paid maternal (let alone parental) leave ranks pretty close to the top.

tbrownaw 13y ago

Most worker protections in the US apply to companies with more than some fixed number (I think it's 50) of employees. http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html About 1/6 of the working population is at employers with less than 20 employees, and so wouldn't be covered anyway. Another 1/6 is at employers with 20 to 99 employees, and many of them would also not be covered. Why should the social safety net exclude 20% of the population?

yummyfajitas 13y ago

I find it incomprehensible why paid maternal leave would be mandatory. Why should companies (in particular the ones who hire women) be forced to pay for the life choices of their employees? And why maternity specifically, as opposed to all sorts of other life choices?

marquis 13y ago
So women have the opportunity to give birth and raise children in a safe, welcoming society, so you have a healthy population and grandkids around to pay for elderly social services? Is 'paying it forward' anathema?
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  Why should companies who hire a larger number of women bear a disproportionate portion of these costs?
  - sentenza 13y ago
    You are aware that it's not the company that pays the wage compensation during the maternity leave? At least here in Germany, you get 60% of your salary (up to an upper limit) for 12 months (14 if both parents take part of the leave) _from the state_. These schemes are usually designed in such a way that they are either cost-neutral or beneficial to companies that employ women.
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      You are aware that there are still costs for keeping non-producing employees around, right? For example, either their work goes undone, or else you need to hire someone who might become superfluous if they return. In the meantime their skills might atrophy or they may become unnecessary (but getting rid of them in this case is legally risky). (The latter is not hypothetical - I know of a specific case, namely a large but shrinking company that is firing everyone who is either below average or has been pregnant recently. )
      - furyg3 13y ago
        So you support firing someone who is pregnant? There are costs for using humans to do your work. Sometimes they get sick, sometimes they get pregnant, sometimes they have a super-productive day and sometimes they don't.
        yummyfajitas 13y ago
        I don't think companies should be obligated to give people the choice to vanish from the workforce and return a year later to an equal or better job. I would also enjoy the option to take a year off and have a job when I return (for other life choices than having children), I just don't see why my employer should be obligated to hold my job open.
        furyg3 13y ago
        I'm not prescribing what the duration should be, surely there is some middle ground between zero and a year. Where I am currently living (NL) it is a few months (three I believe), happily paid for by the taxpayers. Where I lived before (US-CA) it was a few weeks of partially paid leave, paid by the employer. I'm also not completely convinced that the weeks surrounding a childbirth are the most productive working weeks.
r3m6 13y ago
I am not sure about Canada, but in most of Europe not the company but the state (= tax payer) pays for the cost of the maternity leave.
rayiner 13y ago
Reproduction of the species is not a "life choice." Our stock is all worthless if there's no generations of 18-35 year olds to provide a consumer and worker base into the future. What's the market cap of Facebook in a world where all the 13+ year olds that ever will exist are already born? To me, this a key differentiating point between conservatives and libertarians. Following the libertarian position here has caused conservatives to undermine a key core pro-family policy position.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  Assuming increasing fertility is your justification for maternity leave, will you change your position if I show you data suggesting that maternity leave has little effect on fertility (among first world nations)? https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:CAN:GBR:FRA:FIN:DEU:GRC:IRL:RUS:SWE&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I didn't say anything about increasing fertility. I was responding to your comment: "Why should companies (in particular the ones who hire women) be forced to pay for the life choices of their employees?" Parenting isn't a "life choice." Reproduction of the species is a basic function of society. Our economic system is deeply dependent on the assumption of at least stable if not growing population. Companies benefit from people who perform that basic function, and therefore it isn't wrong to force them to pay for benefits like parental leave. Otherwise, companies have an incentive to free-ride.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Parenting isn't a "life choice." People can and do choose to do, and others choose to not do it. How is it not a "life choice"? > Reproduction of the species is a basic function of society. If it was purely a function "of society", then it would be a social choice, not a personal one, who would do it and how. So I think that it is pretty clear that -- in Western society at least -- while there may be social aspects to reproduction, it is not generally viewed first and foremost as a "function of society". I personally think that's a good thing, but YMMV. > Our economic system is deeply dependent on the assumption of at least stable if not growing population. That's certainly an argument for why it ought to be a preferred and encouraged life choice.

philwelch 13y ago

You seem woefully misinformed. Paid parental leave exists in the US, it's just not legally mandated.

RyanMcGreal 13y ago
Yay pedantry. You're right; I meant paid parental leave that employers must make available to their employees.