9 ms·

I'm very glad to see this post, and to see that these issues are gaining in importance and visibility. It's not because I plan to use parental leave. I alread

• jacquesm 12y ago
  It shouldn't even be a perk, it should be standard and law.
  • wyager 12y ago
    Why? It may be nice, but why should employers be forced to subsidize reproduction?
    • jacquesm 12y ago
      Because it is one of those things that help close the gender gap, and besides without reproduction where will those companies get the next generation of workers and who will help pay for the pensions of those that work today. Almost every developed country has done the math and has realized that having children is part of having a society and that paid leave for people that have children is on balance a good thing. Ditto anti-discriminatory hiring laws and laws that state that it is illegal to ask a woman directly or indirectly whether or not she plans to have children during the hiring process. Here is a nice map illustrating the various times available per country: http://worldpolicyforum.org/global-maps/is-paid-leave-available-for-mothers-of-infants/ http://worldpolicyforum.org/global-maps/is-paid-leave-availa...
      • vonmoltke 12y ago
        I agree fully on the gender gap and non-discrimination issues. I'm going to disagree somewhat on the benefit of encouraging reproduction past a certain point. There is a limit to the number of people this planet can sustain. There is a limit to the size our societies can grow to before they start fundamentally changing, and not for the better. Those issues should be considered before making policy decisions that reduce the burdens of reproduction beyond the replacement rate. In my opinion, couples should have support in the form of parental leaves, daycare, and such for the first two children. After that, you are on your own.
        • jacquesm 12y ago
          Yes, that's a good point but I don't think it is 'encouraging reproduction' so much as that is is making sure that there is some balance. Society has entered a coffin corner where we need to increase the numbers to sustain the previous generation, obviously that isn't going to be a long term viable strategy and some very clear headed thinking will be required to see if we can still work our way out of that. But that's a different issue altogether than the one at heart of the debate here. Not entirely unrelated, but unrelated enough to be seen as a separate item.
          • vonmoltke 12y ago
            Yeah, I was wavering on whether to even make the point because it does start down a path that branches away from leave policies. I think it is useful to keep those concerns in mind when discussing them, though.
            • jacquesm 12y ago
              Point taken, it's a problem and a very serious one and one that we will likely have to face in the relatively near future.
        • ssharp 12y ago
          What happens if you have one child, but your second pregnancy is a multiple?
    • sigzero 12y ago
      I don't believe they should. If a company decides that that option is part of their benefits package great. The Fed should not be reaching its hands into businesses for much more than they do right now.
      • tinco 12y ago
        Why?
        • pc86 12y ago
          I think if you're arguing for a change in the status quo it's on you to explain why, not the other way around.
    • tinco 12y ago
      Because someone will have to pay, and it is the governments task to decide who. Obviously it could be decided that the government will pay for it. Regardless of who pays for it, the employers will suffer discomfort. Do you think it is the employers right to not be forced to subsidize the reproduction of their employees?
      • joshuaheard 12y ago
        Yes, someone will have to pay: the person raising a child. If they can't afford to take time off to have the child, then they should seriously reconsider having a family. Having a family involves major expenses that only increase as the children age. The employer side is that some employers will not be able to afford this luxury and will be unable to hire a temporary replacement. The result is decreased productivity, which hurts the economy. It should be the employers' choice if they want to offer that benefit. If it is such a benefit to the employer, then all employers will do it. As we continue to pile mandates on employers, you raise the cost of hiring. Economics 101 says if you raise the cost of something, you get less of it. More mandates=less jobs.
        • colmvp 12y ago
          > Yes, someone will have to pay: the person raising a child. If they can't afford to take time off to have the child, then they should seriously reconsider having a family. Having a family involves major expenses that only increase as the children age. Agreed. My parents didn't have me until they raised enough money to take time off. Likewise, I don't plan on having a child (if any) until I have that cushion. Quite frankly, I don't begrudge the government or corporations for not providing such benefits. I don't consider it their responsibility.
          • jacquesm 12y ago
            I did the same, but at the same time I don't begrudge others less fortunate financially to not be able to do so. Otherwise you get into a 'children are for the wealthy' situation which is for obvious reasons also not desirable.
    • untog 12y ago
      It's not as if having a child is some selfish act that only benefits you - it is to the benefit of society. Simply put: we need a new generation of workers to be working when we retire, or we're screwed. Optimally, those workers will be well educated - and numerous studies have shown that the more involved a parent is in their childs life, the better (particularly when they are very young). So, perhaps it isn't fair that employers subsidise this - but what's the alternative?
    • Someone1234 12y ago
      Why should companies be forced to pay for roads, utilities, and public schools? Because they need all of these things to get their business done.
      • pc86 12y ago
        They don't pay for any of these things. They pay taxes. The argument is here is whether the company should directly fund parental leave or if it should come from tax revenue (or if it should happen at all, which I think is a different argument).
    • Chinjut 12y ago
      Because it would be a nicer world to live in (in my opinion and many others') if becoming a parent didn't practically require sacrificing one's career and thus future livelihood. Mind you, I'd be happy to see paternity leave paid from a general tax base rather than necessarily from a particular employer, but the general principle that sometimes entities should pay for things they might otherwise not want to pay for to help make society more pleasant to live in is just the same as for myriad other generally accepted expenditures.
      • Chinjut 12y ago
        (Minor clarification: I wrote "paternity leave" thinking "That's the gender-neutral term, right? The one with 'parent' in it?". In retrospect, I realize my brainfart, but can no longer edit. Please pretend I had written "parental leave")
    • digikata 12y ago
      maybe we should tie it to benefit of corporate personhood as a societal responsibility.
    • vidarh 12y ago
      Strawman. It is not necessary for employers to "be forced to subsidize reproduction" in order to provide paid maternity leave. A lot of countries that have paid maternity leave covers it out of tax payment, or national insurance funds that are often predominantly or wholly paid by employees.
  • rifung 12y ago
    This seems really tricky to get right, though. For example, if you forced companies to pay through their leave, that gives them an incentive to hire people who they don't believe are likely to have children soon. If that's the case then it seems like this would penalize people in the child bearing age even when they are not planning to have children. On the other hand, not offering paid leave means that women are always going to be at an inherent disadvantage when they are bearing a child. Of course, you could argue that having a child is really a choice (at least most commonly) and those who wish to have children should plan accordingly. Others might say that having a child is something that everyone should be able to do. I definitely don't belong in that group but I also don't plan to have kids so maybe I just can't understand. Either way, I'd love to hear your or anyone else's thoughts on why this should be law when it's such a complicated issue and thus one that I bet law makers would screw up.
    • jacquesm 12y ago
      It should be a law because left to their own devices companies will otherwise simply evade the problem and hire guys instead of equally qualified women. But there are differences in implementation per country, some countries pay the interim out of tax revenues and the companies only have the requirement to re-instate the person that took leave after they return, in some countries it's only the women that can apply for leave like this, in others it's both the men and the women and so on. But those are implementation details, as a rule it is generally considered to be a good thing, even by the employers because they no longer have to fear that if they play nice they'll be undercut by competitors that have decided to go for an all-male cast.
      • 542458 12y ago
        > It should be a law because left to their own devices companies will otherwise simply evade the problem and hire guys instead of equally qualified women. Sometimes these laws actually discourage hiring women. For example, you say: > companies only have the requirement to re-instate the person that took leave after they return This is a great example of why these laws are more complex than they appear. For example, in that case I'll need to hire somebody to fill in for the person on leave while they're away. So I'm paying for that training, paperwork, etc for the new person. Then when the first person comes back from maternity leave, I've got two people for one job. Either I have the unpleasant business of firing somebody who hasn't done anything wrong (and may actually be the better employee!) or depending on how the laws are written I may be forced to continue to employ both, despite a lack of need. What if I've downsized or pivoted, and no longer need to original person? Do they accumulate benefits and paid vacation while they're gone? All this can be an employer's nightmare. A post by a Hungarian entrepreneur partially on this topic went viral last year. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that maternity leave is a bad thing, I just feel that paining it as a simple issue is unproductive. http://andorjakab.blog.hu/2014/03/02/this_is_why_i_don_t_give_you_a_job http://andorjakab.blog.hu/2014/03/02/this_is_why_i_don_t_giv...
  • pc86 12y ago
    But it is a perk, and it's not law, and to just cross your arms and say "it's not enough, it should be __________" is short-sighted. Progress is incremental. Legislation even more so. America will have government-paid parental leave eventually. To just say that anything less than 6 months 100% paid shouldn't be considered a perk in the current climate isn't fair.
  • Cymen 12y ago
    Well commuter benefits are a law and my employer doesn't follow that law (as far as I understand, maybe there is a clause that allows some time to get that setup). I applaud the leave policy and would love to work at a company that offered that benefit. My bar is fairly low though -- I'd love to have a 401k or some other tax deferred savings account (an HSA doesn't count in my book).
    • toomuchtodo 12y ago
      401ks should be abolished, and replaced with a higher limit on traditional IRAs. We're beginning to decouple healthcare from employment, why should retirement savings be any different. EDIT: If someone brings up the ability for a company to contribute a match of some sort, it should be straightfoward to have that computed and deposited directly to the IRA account through the payroll process.