3 ms·
It would be paid leave, and optional of course, so the men would not punished. You could perhaps claim that the corporation was being "punished", but you could
by Crito 12y ago
It would be paid leave, and optional of course, so the men would not punished.
You could perhaps claim that the corporation was being "punished", but you could claim that forcing corporations to give maternal leave in the first place is "punishing" them. A certain amount of "punishment" of corporations is to be expected.
In reality, "punishment" is just "regulation that aims to modify the properties of a corporation". Manipulative, not punitive.
- mahouse 12y agoAh! But if it's optional, I can only assume a lot of men would not opt for it, while women would probably be forced to take it at least for the first few weeks. In an ideal world, from my point of view, leaves would be both equal and mandatory.
- Crito 12y ago> "I can only assume a lot of men would not opt for it," Of course. There is no silver bullet. If you are expecting one, you will be perpetually disappointed.
- mahouse 12y agoThat's why I say it should be mandatory :-)
- Crito 12y agoStill not a silver bullet. Women would still be disproportionately effected and it would further incentivize discrimination on the basis of family status. You can tweak the parameters back and forth, but every solution will be imperfect. There is also the matter of if it would be mandatory for women. If so, that would be discriminatory against women, as single women would more frequently be forced to put their careers on hold than single men. If it is mandatory for men but not women, that is also discriminatory. Currently in the US, women cannot be forced to take maternity leave: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-preg.html http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-preg.html