Pay

#42
So you're suggesting businesses may be worried about hiring women in general because they could get pregnant and receive maternity leave?
Yes. This is incredibly likely. If you've got two people, and the man might be slightly less promising, even so, they'll look a woman, and have to calculate the risk of her needing to take maturnity leave into consideration. In practice, if you think leave is important, it'd be important to keep it gender neutral (Yes, I'm aware in practice it might well still be the woman who takes it), or to not have it at all.
 

Monorail

Well-Known Member
#43
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.
OH! I actually kind of agree with that then.

----------

Yes. This is incredibly likely. If you've got two people, and the man might be slightly less promising, even so, they'll look a woman, and have to calculate the risk of her needing to take maturnity leave into consideration. In practice, if you think leave is important, it'd be important to keep it gender neutral (Yes, I'm aware in practice it might well still be the woman who takes it), or to not have it at all.
Is it not gender neutral? Males can receive maternity leave too.
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#44
OH! I actually kind of agree with that then.

----------



Is it not gender neutral? Males can receive maternity leave too.
But a male is less likely to quit after their leave, theoretically. The woman has a value to quitting - spending time with her new child, etc. The man? Men don't care as much as women about being there for the child, as it's the cultural norm the male will work.

So all in all, it's not gender neutral. Men take maternity(/paternity) leave less than women, and men are less likely to leave the job afterwords.
 

Fiyero

Well-Known Member
#47
I don't believe in paid maternity leave in the first place. Nor in extended cases.

It's your job to plan for these situations and to have money set aside for times when you can't work. It's not the job of the company to pay you when you're not working.

I don't think you should be fired just for taking time off (unless you're taking too much/extended periods), but you should get paid for what you're working for. So if you aren't working, you don't get paid

EDIT: I also agree with [MENTION=20]The_Jedi_Master[/MENTION] . Maternity leave just ends up being another liability in companies eyes. It can also be one of the reasons behind women getting paid less. They still give you maternity leave, but they wouldn't be paying you nearly as much if you were a man and not working.
 

allison

Well-Known Member
#48
I don't believe in paid maternity leave in the first place. Nor in extended cases.

It's your job to plan for these situations and to have money set aside for times when you can't work. It's not the job of the company to pay you when you're not working.

I don't think you should be fired just for taking time off (unless you're taking too much/extended periods), but you should get paid for what you're working for. So if you aren't working, you don't get paid
this so much
 
#50
Arbitrary system I drew up that I kinda like:
80% paid leave, capped at X dollars.
Mother gets 3 months, father gets 3 months, 2 months go to whoever wants it.

There you go. Pretty fair compromise. Parents get some pay for up to 8 months.
 

Fiyero

Well-Known Member
#51
Arbitrary system I drew up that I kinda like:
80% paid leave, capped at X dollars.
Mother gets 3 months, father gets 3 months, 2 months go to whoever wants it.

There you go. Pretty fair compromise. Parents get some pay for up to 8 months.
Who watches this though? If the parents don't work for the same company, who makes sure that the 2 months aren't being used by both parents?

Please don't say the government. Lord knows we don't need the government to be worried about maternity and paternity leave too
 

allison

Well-Known Member
#52
Arbitrary system I drew up that I kinda like:
80% paid leave, capped at X dollars.
Mother gets 3 months, father gets 3 months, 2 months go to whoever wants it.

There you go. Pretty fair compromise. Parents get some pay for up to 8 months.
That's hardly a compromise. 80% is still too much to be paying someone who is not even working. It needs to be less than half. I agree with the idea of putting money aside, so in the future, if you do have a child, you will be prepared. Also, 8 months total is kind of too much imo. It's simply not necessary to have that much time off between the mother and the father. Get a babysitter.
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#53
Arbitrary system I drew up that I kinda like:
80% paid leave, capped at X dollars.
Mother gets 3 months, father gets 3 months, 2 months go to whoever wants it.

There you go. Pretty fair compromise. Parents get some pay for up to 8 months.
I think this is the first post that's actually answered the topic of this thread xD

I like your solution though, assuming the 80% starts at the first day of leave.
 

Fiyero

Well-Known Member
#54
That's hardly a compromise. 80% is still too much to be paying someone who is not even working. It needs to be less than half. I agree with the idea of putting money aside, so in the future, if you do have a child, you will be prepared. Also, 8 months total is kind of too much imo. It's simply not necessary to have that much time off between the mother and the father. Get a babysitter.
And if you get a babysitter, you're giving someone a job. Republicans and Democrats happy all around!
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#55
Who watches this though? If the parents don't work for the same company, who makes sure that the 2 months aren't being used by both parents?

Please don't say the government. Lord knows we don't need the government to be worried about maternity and paternity leave too
Companies would have some representative talk to whatever company the other parent works for anytime an employee has a baby. They'd coordinate it all (HEY THIS CREATES JOBS TOO WINNING!)
 
#57
That's hardly a compromise. 80% is still too much to be paying someone who is not even working. It needs to be less than half. I agree with the idea of putting money aside, so in the future, if you do have a child, you will be prepared. Also, 8 months total is kind of too much imo. It's simply not necessary to have that much time off between the mother and the father. Get a babysitter.
It's a compromise because there's a pay cap. Someone who makes $200k a year is not going to take ~$70k through 5 months of not working.

8 months is reasonable on a global scale. It's comparable to pretty much the rest of the post-industrialized world.

Who watches this though? If the parents don't work for the same company, who makes sure that the 2 months aren't being used by both parents?

Please don't say the government. Lord knows we don't need the government to be worried about maternity and paternity leave too
Good point. Norway has a similar system, but their government is semi-competent (i.e. they are incredibly competent for a government). I don't know.
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#58
yes more jobs! We already created more than obama's destroyed heck yeah
well, i mean, what if the law was structured like this:

parents would both be required to report new children to the employer's HR (or equivalent) department by the beginning of the 3rd trimester, or they would lose any opportunity for benefits.

The mother's maternity leave clock will start, with her company, the day she takes off for labor/hospital admission (unless she opts for another type of leave, or opts for an earlier start). At this time, the representative from the mother's company will contact the representative from the father's company. The father will be allowed to start his paternity leave either immediately, or at any time before the mother's runs out (or by his next standard workday after the mother's would run out).

Alternatively, the father may opt to allow the mother the extra 2 (or 1, in my opinion) month on her leave, and he would communicate this to the HR rep from his company, who would communicate it to the HR rep from the wife's company. All of them would sign off and approve the 1 month use by the mother, after which the same rules regarding the father's 3 months would apply.

If the father does not opt to begin using his paternity leave by his first normal workday after the mother's has expired (i.e. the first day she has returned to work, or would have barring any other leave of absence), it will still be counted down as if he was on paternity leave (although he would be paid full for the time he comes in). At any time before the countdown on his expires, he may opt to take one or multiple days, or full time off for the remainder of his leave balance, at the 80% pay rate.

Example:
Mary and Joe have a baby. Her due date is around June 21, and she notifies her employer's (Say, Walmart) HR department in March that she is planning to have a child around that date. Walmart's HR department contacts Joe's office (say, UPS), and communicates the information.

When Mary chooses to either begin her leave of her own will, or is admitted/taken to the hospital for delivery, her leave clock starts. At this time, she will notify her company's HR department of her decision, and they will contact Joe's company to inform them that Mary's leave clock is starting. At this point, say Mary starts her leave on June 20. Her leave clock will expire on October 20.

At this time, Joe may either choose to start his paternity leave, or defer it until any point before Mary's expires. Any days of paternity leave he chooses to take during Mary's leave will be deducted from his total balance, and be paid at 80%

During her leave, Mary is paid 80% normal pay. Before her leave is up, and with 2 week notice, she informs her company of her intent to either return to work after her leave expires (at full pay), take unscheduled or scheduled other leave, or take the 1 month/family leave that her family gets. If she opts for the 1 month/family leave for herself, Joe's company will agree to this (really Joe will), and her clock will be extended to September 20.

Before her clock expires for whatever reason, Mary and Joe will have to decide whether Joe will take his paternity leave, or will continue with full pay with the option to take leave at any time until his clock (starting the day after Mary's expires - September 21) expires. If he opts to take a day off using his paternity leave, he will be paid 80% normal rate for that one day only. If he opts to take, say, one day a week off, it'd be 80% normal rate for those days, etc. etc. At any time he can take the remaining time until his clock expires off in full or in part (December 21).

When all leave is expired (theoretically 7 months plus 2 days from when it started, or when all time is used before that time), both parents are expected to either have returned to work or be using their accumulated other leave time.
 
#59
It's a compromise because there's a pay cap. Someone who makes $200k a year is not going to take ~$70k through 5 months of not working.

8 months is reasonable on a global scale. It's comparable to pretty much the rest of the post-industrialized world.



Good point. Norway has a similar system, but their government is semi-competent (i.e. they are incredibly competent for a government). I don't know.
And yes, Norway is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world with a total tax burden of roughly 45% of GDP– almost 4x Hong Kong and nearly twice the US. VAT here is a whopping 25%. Personal income tax rates border 55%.
Yes. So competent.
 
Top