Pay

[Whispered]

I believe (as I stated above) that when on any kind of leave, extended or otherwise, maternity or medical recuperation, you should receive the same wages you make when working, as long as your leave is entitled pay.

I think we both agree that a woman should not be fired for having a baby, but beyond a point a company cannot afford to pay someone full wage who isn't working, especially at higher salary ranges. Say a woman must (or chooses) to take maternity leave for 6 months so she can nurse her baby without as many troubles (6 months is the average time it takes a baby to form their own immune system, not a random number). Should she be paid her 90k wage that whole time? That's 45k the company is paying for no work. If she chooses a year? That's 90k.

I'm not saying pay them something drastic like 10%, but maybe after 3 months, pay them half of their salary or the equivalent of 30k a year, whichever is higher? I'm not sure of the numbers.

----------

the entire purpose of minimum wage is that its supposed to be something that the person working that job can live on. A surprising majority of people lack the opportunity completely to be a doctor, or a lawyer, on no fault of their own. Are they any less deserving of being able to at least function comfortably?

Minimum wage is not meant to be living wage. Minimum wage is meant to make sure that employers aren't paying people a penny to do work. It's meant to be a wage for starting jobs - and it's expected that they will get raises (I know many companies go by either the quarter-per-year or similar rules) and promotions (not necessarily new jobs, but such as in pharmacies a promotion from "technician" to "senior technician" which really entails no new duties but pays more).

 

[Captain-Heather]

Note to people posting on this thread:

Please keep TO THE TOPIC as posed by Whispered:

Should salaried women be paid full pay while on extended maternity leave? If you say that a decrease in pay (only while on leave) is appropriate, how much?

PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL.


If this thread turns into a flaming fest of people hating each other because their views differ, then the thread will be closed.

Thanks

 

[Chicknoodle]

except thats not really how it works. I worked at an ice cream job for two years with no raises or promotions, and with a coworker who worked 2 other jobs just to survive, as a single mom with two sons.

 

[Whispered]

except thats not really how it works. I worked at an ice cream job for two years with no raises or promotions, and with a coworker who worked 2 other jobs just to survive, as a single mom with two sons.

then another company? you're under no legal obligation to stay with that company and there's tons of in-demand jobs out there that require little/no training and heck, you get paid WHILE training (not just for training, you get a wage during training), have lots of opportunity for advancement, and lead to careers.

Pharmacy Technician
Lifeguard
LVN/LPN/Associates degree nurse
CNA
ECA/EMT-B

yes most of these are healthcare, but they exist in other fields too.

 

[Goddess]

then another company? you're under no legal obligation to stay with that company and there's tons of in-demand jobs out there that require little/no training and heck, you get paid WHILE training (not just for training, you get a wage during training), have lots of opportunity for advancement, and lead to careers.

Pharmacy Technician
Lifeguard
LVN/LPN/Associates degree nurse
CNA
ECA/EMT-B

yes most of these are healthcare, but they exist in other fields too.

My sister in law is a Pharmacy Technician, and isn't making enough to afford food so she has to rely on food stamps (and their household has 2 incomes). Those jobs don't guarantee advancement, or good pay. It all depends on the company you belong to, but some people don't have the choice or opportunity to work with a fair company based on where they live.

 

[Whispered]

My sister in law is a Pharmacy Technician, and isn't making enough to afford food so she has to rely on food stamps (and their household has 2 incomes). Those jobs don't guarantee advancement, or good pay. It all depends on the company you belong to, but some people don't have the choice or opportunity to work with a fair company based on where they live.

Walgreens are all over the USA, and they have corporate requirements for advancement. I know a vast majority are hiring, and they'll pay for your training.

 

[Goddess]

Walgreens are all over the USA, and they have corporate requirements for advancement. I know a vast majority are hiring, and they'll pay for your training.

Our local Walgreens is too far away from where they live (just because it has stores all over the US doesn't mean there's one on every street corner believe it or not). In fact I've only been to a Walgreens once in my life because there's only 1 in our general area and it's extremely out of the way.

CVS and RiteAid are closer, but don't pay as much as Walmart either. We're trying to get a pay increase, not decrease.

 

[rollercoastergal]

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/02/17/opinion/17coontz2-map.html

The United States is one of the only countries that doesn't offer paid maternity leave for all women. It depends on your job of course, but I know when my mom had me she was not offered paid maternity leave and my family went bankrupt. I believe every woman should have the opportunity to paid maternity leave up to say, 3 months?
In my women studies class fall term we talked a lot about this. If I remember correctly childbirth is one of the top situations that can send a person into poverty, because having a child in a hospital is ridiculously expensive as is, and if you aren't offered paid maternity leave after the fact, that is an easy way to send a family to poverty.

 

[Whispered]

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/02/17/opinion/17coontz2-map.html

The United States is one of the only countries that doesn't offer paid maternity leave for all women. It depends on your job of course, but I know when my mom had me she was not offered paid maternity leave and my family went bankrupt. I believe every woman should have the opportunity to paid maternity leave up to say, 3 months?
In my women studies class fall term we talked a lot about this. If I remember correctly childbirth is one of the top situations that can send a person into poverty, because having a child in a hospital is ridiculously expensive as is, and if you aren't offered paid maternity leave after the fact, that is an easy way to send a family to poverty.

We can agree on the 3 months. This thread is more asking about extended leave - such as 6 months, or 1 year (what some women would like/ask for).

 

[The_Jedi_Master]

No obviously. It doesn't take a whole lot of logic to realize pregnancy in a situation where you can't afford it is preventable. At most, you should be able to take leave without pay without being fired. Your company's job isn't to keep you out of poverty when it's completely possible to prevent it. That's yours. This is just an insult to women's rights. They deserve the same treatment as everyone else. Not to be held back as a whole because companies don't want to hire them because they are literally worse workers. That's a fact. It's not sexism, it's a fact, that if a company has to pay for your maturity leave, you are worth less to them because of your gender. Which leaves two honest options, paternity leave being required as well, or not being idiots, and planning only to have a child when you can afford it. Otherwise we leave women at a disadvantage in hiring, which just makes the whole thing pointless.

 

[allison]

No obviously. It doesn't take a whole lot of logic to realize pregnancy in a situation where you can't afford it is preventable. At most, you should be able to take leave without pay without being fired. Your company's job isn't to keep you out of poverty when it's completely possible to prevent it. That's yours. This is just an insult to women's rights. They deserve the same treatment as everyone else. Not to be held back as a whole because companies don't want to hire them because they are literally worse workers. That's a fact. It's not sexism, it's a fact, that if a company has to pay for your maturity leave, you are worth less to them because of your gender. Which leaves two honest options, paternity leave being required as well, or not being idiots, and planning only to have a child when you can afford it. Otherwise we leave women at a disadvantage in hiring, which just makes the whole thing pointless.

This. A company simply cannot afford to pay an employee who is not working, regardless of the situation.

 

[Monorail]

This. A company simply cannot afford to pay an employee who is not working, regardless of the situation.

Sick days?
Vacation Days?

 

[The_Jedi_Master]

Sick days?
Vacation Days?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs.t05.htm

Hmmm... This somehow seems like it's an order of magnitude less, and indeterminate by gender . It's also not mandated, and only applies to companies who feel they can offer it.

 

[allison]

Sick days?
Vacation Days?

Ok, but those are generally few and far between. I probably should have said companies cannot afford to pay workers who are not working for long periods of time. That was my fault for wording it incorrectly. When you're talking about not working 6 months to a year, or even more, there comes a time where, eventually, the company cannot afford to pay these women for missing work for very long periods of time.

 

[Monorail]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs.t05.htm

Hmmm... This somehow seems like it's an order of magnitude less, and indeterminate by gender .It's also not mandated, and only applies to companies who feel they can offer it.

I'm aware, I was just addressing the statement.

 

[The_Jedi_Master]

And it's not even about the fact that they can't afford to pay them, it's the fact that they won't hire them in the first place, for fear of not being able to pay them.

 

[Monorail]

And it's not even about the fact that they can't afford to pay them, it's the fact that they won't hire them in the first place, for fear of not being able to pay them.

So you're suggesting businesses may be worried about hiring women in general because they could get pregnant and receive maternity leave?

 

[Whispered]

So you're suggesting businesses may be worried about hiring women in general because they could get pregnant and receive maternity leave?

Would that be surprising? Businesses are there to make money. If they get the sense a woman may take as much maternity leave as possible, and then sick days, etc with pay, they may not hire.

What about a woman who gets a good job, just to go on maternity leave for 3 months, come back for a week, and then quit. The company has lost potentially half of the worktime she would have normally been doing for her salary.

 

[Monorail]

Would that be surprising? Businesses are there to make money. If they get the sense a woman may take as much maternity leave as possible, and then sick days, etc with pay, they may not hire.

What about a woman who gets a good job, just to go on maternity leave for 3 months, come back for a week, and then quit. The company has lost potentially half of the worktime she would have normally been doing for her salary.

Sure, you could say that may happen, but is that really grounds to take away maternity leave? I mean, that's like saying the they should take away Workmans Compensation because people will get hurt on the job purposely to receive it, or taking away vacation days because someone could get a job, use whatever vacation they have, and then quit.

Hiring any individual is always a gamble. Anyone can get hurt. Anyone can quit at any time. But just because a small hypothetical minority takes advantage of the system does not mean that it should be taken from the majority of those that need it.

The way I see it, it's a means of investment for a business, regardless of whether it is mandated or not, especially when you talk about this theoretical woman going into a "good job." I mean, if the job is that good, she must have some sort of qualification to work there. If you hired her, you want here there for a reason.

 

[Whispered]

Sure, you could say that may happen, but is that really grounds to take away maternity leave? I mean, that's like saying the they should take away Workmans Compensation because people will get hurt on the job purposely to receive it, or taking away vacation days because someone could get a job, use whatever vacation they have, and then quit.

Hiring any individual is always a gamble. Anyone can get hurt. Anyone can quit at any time. But just because a small hypothetical minority takes advantage of the system does not mean that it should be taken from the majority of those that need it.

The way I see it, it's a means of investment for a business, regardless of whether it is mandated or not, especially when you talk about this theoretical woman going into a "good job." I mean, if the job is that good, she must have some sort of qualification to work there. If you hired her, you want here there for a reason.

No no I wasn't saying it was grounds to do *anything* (except maybe, if the company has a bad feeling about the motives [hire, leave, quit] of the applicant to not hire them). I'm saying it should be fine if they take it away (i.e. don't hire) from those who they have a good belief may abuse it.