Pay
- Thread starter Whispered
- Start date
My apologies, we've gotten so far past the OP because opinions saying it shouldn't be offered at all have sparked an entirely new debate that I've focused more on that then whether they should offer it on extensions as well. 
But that is essentially what the debate has geared towards now. It's no longer if they should offer pay on extended maternity leave, but if they should offer paid maternity leave at all.
To get back on topic with the OP, I believe pay on extended maternity leaves should be allowed in cases of deliveries that faced complications (either with the woman herself, or with the child - premature delivery, jaundice, organ failure or difficulty functioning, the newborn or mother needing surgery, etc) and it's medically necessary for the woman to be out longer, in which case I feel 80% of her pay is fair. If the leave extends past 6 months, an additional 10% of her pay should be taken off.
tl;dr- In other words, she's medically incapable (or her newborn is facing medical problems) and can not return to work in the allotted time-frame so therefore needs an extension. In which case, I believe 80% of her pair is fair.
However, fundamentally I think it's essential for a woman and her newborn to bond within the first year and develop a nurturing relationship for the stability and development of the child. So being at home for as long as possible (especially within the first few months after the child is born, and even longer) is important for the baby. Children are the future, and need to be raised by their parents (not nannies, or babysitters) as much as possible.
But that is essentially what the debate has geared towards now. It's no longer if they should offer pay on extended maternity leave, but if they should offer paid maternity leave at all.To get back on topic with the OP, I believe pay on extended maternity leaves should be allowed in cases of deliveries that faced complications (either with the woman herself, or with the child - premature delivery, jaundice, organ failure or difficulty functioning, the newborn or mother needing surgery, etc) and it's medically necessary for the woman to be out longer, in which case I feel 80% of her pay is fair. If the leave extends past 6 months, an additional 10% of her pay should be taken off.
tl;dr- In other words, she's medically incapable (or her newborn is facing medical problems) and can not return to work in the allotted time-frame so therefore needs an extension. In which case, I believe 80% of her pair is fair.
An acceptable alternative could be:
If she chooses to take an extension for reasons other than health and rehabilitation due to the conditions above (or other serious conditions not included above), then her pay should be less than 80%, but no less than 65%. If the leave extends for more than 6 months, an additional 18% of her pay should be taken off.
tl;dr-In other words, if she just wants to be with her child for extra time she should have the option, but since it's not medically necessary, some may feel she shouldn't get as much pay, so I believe 80%-65% is acceptable.
If she chooses to take an extension for reasons other than health and rehabilitation due to the conditions above (or other serious conditions not included above), then her pay should be less than 80%, but no less than 65%. If the leave extends for more than 6 months, an additional 18% of her pay should be taken off.
tl;dr-In other words, if she just wants to be with her child for extra time she should have the option, but since it's not medically necessary, some may feel she shouldn't get as much pay, so I believe 80%-65% is acceptable.
However, fundamentally I think it's essential for a woman and her newborn to bond within the first year and develop a nurturing relationship for the stability and development of the child. So being at home for as long as possible (especially within the first few months after the child is born, and even longer) is important for the baby. Children are the future, and need to be raised by their parents (not nannies, or babysitters) as much as possible.
Last edited:
So, how would you feel about the 6+1 month total leave for a family (3 mother, 3 father, 1 whoever), at 80% for every day either one takes of the leave, with the option for further leave that would start at 70% for the first month of extra leave, and go down to a minimum of 50% for months after that, limited to no more than a year after delivery (barring complications ofc)?
What did you do to my quote? 
And you're going to have to break that down for me differently. I read that as a family of 3 mothers, 3 fathers, and 1 whoever (????) to which makes me think you're asking about a polygamist family
lol.
----------
Also for reference, here is an example of how Canada's maternity leave plan is different from America's.
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0512/maternity-leave-basics-canada-vs.-the-u.s..aspx
And you're going to have to break that down for me differently. I read that as a family of 3 mothers, 3 fathers, and 1 whoever (????) to which makes me think you're asking about a polygamist family
lol.----------
Also for reference, here is an example of how Canada's maternity leave plan is different from America's.
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0512/maternity-leave-basics-canada-vs.-the-u.s..aspx
What did you do to my quote?
And you're going to have to break that down for me differently. I read that as a family of 3 mothers, 3 fathers, and 1 whoever (????) to which makes me think you're asking about a polygamist family lol.
And you're going to have to break that down for me differently. I read that as a family of 3 mothers, 3 fathers, and 1 whoever (????) to which makes me think you're asking about a polygamist family
lol.
but no it means the mother gets 3 months, the father gets 3 months (OR ELSE PEOPLE CRY SEXISM) and they can decide who gets 1 extra month.
my plan's somewhere in this thread in more detail but im too lazy to go find it lo siento mucho.
I'm referring more to maternity leave than paternity leave, I haven't given any thought to paternity leave (not because I'm sexist, because I was addressing the OP which was directed at maternity leave), but I'll think it over and get back to you.
Since I haven't given thought to paternity leave, I'd have to get back to you on your particular question as well. It's 1:21 AM here at the moment and I'm losing steam and valuable thought process haha. I'll respond tomorrow.
Since I haven't given thought to paternity leave, I'd have to get back to you on your particular question as well. It's 1:21 AM here at the moment and I'm losing steam and valuable thought process haha. I'll respond tomorrow.
How about this.
Let businesses do what they want. We can't really control it anyway. If they can afford to pay people maternity leave and are satisfied it, let them eat cake.
A lassiez faire approach (sp?)
But it should not be required that those who do not want to give maternity leave, should give out pay for maternity leave.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let businesses do what they want. We can't really control it anyway. If they can afford to pay people maternity leave and are satisfied it, let them eat cake.
A lassiez faire approach (sp?)
But it should not be required that those who do not want to give maternity leave, should give out pay for maternity leave.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think lassaiz faire (or however) is the reasoning. Let them be, and they even themselves out if they're prohibited from monopolizing. Competition will produce the best working environment in the long run - but not necessarily in the short run.
It'd go like this: Company A offers maternity leave, Company B doesn't. Company B's workers will go work for Company A if they can. Company B has no workers. Yolo out of business bc workers dont wanna work.
That's what'd happen, but it'd take time, probably a decade or more. People aren't willing to wait, and in the long run all the regulation, requirements, it prevents the natural competition from making the best environment for what the workers of the time want.
It'd go like this: Company A offers maternity leave, Company B doesn't. Company B's workers will go work for Company A if they can. Company B has no workers. Yolo out of business bc workers dont wanna work.
That's what'd happen, but it'd take time, probably a decade or more. People aren't willing to wait, and in the long run all the regulation, requirements, it prevents the natural competition from making the best environment for what the workers of the time want.
Well put. 
I get what you mean.
I get what you mean.
If an employer is required to pay a woman for a few months while she is not working, employers will be more hesitant to hire women, because why pay a woman while she's not working when you can pay a man who is?* They are also more likely to fire women who become pregnant because they don't want to pay them. Additionally, I believe the employer should have the freedom to make decisions about how they play their employees.
*edit: This would most likely be seen in two equally qualified candidates in a situation where only one can get hired, but one is male and one is female. Hiring a male would make more economic sense.
*edit: This would most likely be seen in two equally qualified candidates in a situation where only one can get hired, but one is male and one is female. Hiring a male would make more economic sense.
Last edited: