Pay

[rollercoastergal]

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.

Ah yes, because all families can afford a babysitter for 8-10 hours a day 5 days a week...not quite. 100% paid maternity leave is common throughout the world, I think 80% is a good compromise.

Also, I'd like to know how you feel if you eventually decide to have kids and receive no paid maternity leave for multiple months. I don't think you'll like that very much.

 

[Whispered]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_oil_fund#Management_and_size

Some countries have trillions in public debt. Norway is sitting on a trillion in cash, stock, and bonds, with only a couple hundred billion in debt.

That's competence.

considering it gets that money through taxes that, if they have trillions in cash etc., really dont need to be there....

 

[allison]

Ah yes, because all families can afford a babysitter for 8-10 hours a day 5 days a week...not quite. 100% paid maternity leave is common throughout the world, I think 80% is a good compromise.

Also, I'd like to know how you feel if you eventually decide to have kids and receive no paid maternity leave for multiple months. I don't think you'll like that very much.

Um, i wouldn't accept free money. I would feel very guilty about receiving money I didn't earn. I would make sure my husband was financially stable. We would have money set aside so when I had to leave work, there was enough money. I'm just not going to accept money that I didn't earn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thrill]

Um, i wouldn't accept free money. I would feel very guilty about receiving money I didn't earn. I would make sure my husband was financially stable. We would have money set aside so when I had to leave work, there was enough money. I'm just not going to accept money that I didn't earn.

It's a little weird to think about it in this way, but there's an argument to be made that you are earning the money. Children are valuable. If people have fewer kids, then the population eventually drops, and sales drop economy-wide as a result. Like I said, it's weird, but children are a financial asset for everyone in an economy. As such, it is important to make sure that they are properly cared for early in their lives, so that they grow up to be healthy* and productive members of society down the road.

* = My previously posted plan entirely forgot about the fact that 6 months is considered to be the point where it's okay to stop breastfeeding, because that's where the baby's own immune system really takes hold. I presume that this is why mothers are asking for 6 month leaves. And, as Jedi already established, gender neutrality is important. 12 months of total leave.

 

[allison]

It's a little weird to think about it in this way, but there's an argument to be made that you are earning the money. Children are valuable. If people have fewer kids, then the population eventually drops, and sales drop economy-wide as a result. Like I said, it's weird, but children are a financial asset for everyone in an economy. As such, it is important to make sure that they are properly cared for early in their lives, so that they grow up to be healthy* and productive members of society down the road.



* = My previously posted plan entirely forgot about the fact that 6 months is considered to be the point where it's okay to stop breastfeeding, because that's where the baby's own immune system really takes hold. I presume that this is why mothers are asking for 6 month leaves. And, as Jedi already established, gender neutrality is important. 12 months of total leave.

But the employer pays the employee for work done for the company, not to have children. Sorry, but that doesn't even make sense. Also, it is not necessary to breastfeed a child.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whispered]

It's a little weird to think about it in this way, but there's an argument to be made that you are earning the money. Children are valuable. If people have fewer kids, then the population eventually drops, and sales drop economy-wide as a result. Like I said, it's weird, but children are a financial asset for everyone in an economy. As such, it is important to make sure that they are properly cared for early in their lives, so that they grow up to be healthy* and productive members of society down the road.

* = My previously posted plan entirely forgot about the fact that 6 months is considered to be the point where it's okay to stop breastfeeding, because that's where the baby's own immune system really takes hold. I presume that this is why mothers are asking for 6 month leaves. And, as Jedi already established, gender neutrality is important. 12 months of total leave.

Assuming both work in good, stable jobs, who pays the 30-100+ thousand dollars? I think allowing 7/8 total, but allowing parents to split it however they want is fine.

----------

But the employer pays the employee for work done for the company, not to have children. Sorry, but that doesn't even make sense. Also, it is not necessary to breastfeed a child.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It most certainly is. Breastfeeding for the first 5-6 months is the only way the baby gets any resemblance of an immune capability.

 

[allison]

Assuming both work in good, stable jobs, who pays the 30-100+ thousand dollars? I think allowing 7/8 total, but allowing parents to split it however they want is fine.

----------





It most certainly is. Breastfeeding for the first 5-6 months is the only way the baby gets any resemblance of an immune capability.[/COLOR]

Actually, some women are physically unable to breastfeed. There have been plenty of instances where the baby turned out completely fine b drinking strictly formula. If it is not possible for the baby not to be breastfed, the woman should consider pumping her own milk,
that way she doesn't have to spend time at home with her child breastfeeding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whispered]

Assuming both work in good, stable jobs, who pays the 30-100+ thousand dollars? I think allowing 7/8 total, but allowing parents to split it however they want is fine.

----------





It most certainly is. Breastfeeding for the first 5-6 months is the only way the baby gets any resemblance of an immune capability.[/COLOR]

Actually, some women are physically unable to breastfeed. There have been plenty of instances where the baby turned out completely fine b drinking strictly formula. If it is not possible for the baby not to be breastfed, the woman should consider pumping her own milk,
that way she doesn't have to spend time at home with her child breastfeeding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And there are plenty of instances where babies have died due to not having an immune system. Every single large, renowned, trusted pediatric medical literature recommends breastfeeding (not pumping, actual breastfeeding) the baby until around 6 months if at all possible, or at the very least 3-4.

 

[allison]

And there are plenty of instances where babies have died due to not having an immune system. Every single large, renowned, trusted pediatric medical literature recommends breastfeeding (not pumping, actual breastfeeding) the baby until around 6 months if at all possible, or at the very least 3-4.

Women do not need to be staying at home breast feeding their children though. Either be dedicated to your job or don't work at all. For working moms, it would probably be in their best interest to pump their own milk and put it in the fridge so that they will have it for later, and someone else can stay at home with the child.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whispered]

Women do not need to be staying at home breast feeding their children though. Either be dedicated to your job or don't work at all. For working moms, it would probably be in their best interest to pump their own milk and put it in the fridge so that they will have it for later, and someone else can stay at home with the child.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you're saying women should be required to choose between having a kid and no life, or having a life and no kid.

As I've said before, pumping is not the same as actual breastfeeding.

 

[allison]

So you're saying women should be required to choose between having a kid and no life, or having a life and no kid.



As I've said before, pumping is not the same as actual breastfeeding.

No. All I'm saying is a woman should not receive a lot of money for not even being at work. Companies need to make money. By paying out high amounts for women to not be working, they are going to lose money. When companies lose money, they have to increase the price of their goods, which is not good for anyone. A company just cannot afford to pay for someone who is not providing work for prolonged amounts of time, no matter how you look at.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Monorail]

No. All I'm saying is a woman should not receive a lot of money for not even being at work. Companies need to make money. By paying out high amounts for women to not be working, they are going to lose money. When companies lose money, they have to increase the price of their goods, which is not good for anyone. A company just cannot afford to pay for someone who is not providing work for prolonged amounts of time, no matter how you look at.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jack in the Box, the company, will soon have to raise minimum wage in California to $10.10 cents an hour (I know this isn't a minimum wage debate, just go with me here). If it did this for all minimum wage employees, they say they will only need to raise their prices 1% to compensate. That's an extra 3 cents on a hamburger to raise the wage of every minimum wage Jack in the Box worker in California.

Back to your point, yes, it is paying someone without them working. But I think you underestimate the profits businesses really rake in. I really think you may be blowing the effects of the plan out of proportion. If Jack in the Box is pulling in about $541M profit per year, I think they can afford to invest in the well being of a worker.

 

[Goddess]

No. All I'm saying is a woman should not receive a lot of money for not even being at work. Companies need to make money. By paying out high amounts for women to not be working, they are going to lose money. When companies lose money, they have to increase the price of their goods, which is not good for anyone. A company just cannot afford to pay for someone who is not providing work for prolonged amounts of time, no matter how you look at.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Paid leave is a perk that comes with some companies contracts, and a lot of employers offer paid leave. Yes this means being paid without being at work. It's a perk for putting in time with the company. You'd be surprised how much profits aren't effected by things like this, and if they are it's rarely a major issue.

Unless you've been in the real world working before, it's difficult to understand the concept of paid leave, but it does exist and (to my knowledge) I've never heard of a company or business going under because they offer employees paid leave for x amount of time. If there have been businesses that went bankrupt, it's highly unlikely it's due to paid leave for workers because a business that's suffering that kind of financial hardship wouldn't offer paid leave anymore, instead they'd be handing out lay-off notices.

----------

But the employer pays the employee for work done for the company, not to have children. Sorry, but that doesn't even make sense. Also, it is not necessary to breastfeed a child.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not that this is even relative to the actual topic of this thread, but just for arguments sake, breastfeeding is essential for children because it gives them vitamins, nutrients, and minerals produced through the mother that is essential for growth in early stages of the baby's life. These are healthier when coming from the mother than a processed can of baby formula made in a factory.

It's difficult for someone to understand this fact unless they already have children, or have worked with children and understand child development and the necessities that go along with it.

 

[Whispered]

Paid leave is a perk that comes with some companies contracts, and a lot of employers offer paid leave. Yes this means being paid without being at work. It's a perk for putting in time with the company. You'd be surprised how much profits aren't effected by things like this, and if they are it's rarely a major issue.

Unless you've been in the real world working before, it's difficult to understand the concept of paid leave, but it does exist and (to my knowledge) I've never heard of a company or business going under because they offer employees paid leave for x amount of time. If there have been businesses that went bankrupt, it's highly unlikely it's due to paid leave for workers because a business that's suffering that kind of financial hardship wouldn't offer paid leave anymore, instead they'd be handing out lay-off notices.

im just going to say that mathematically if they offer them 100 days of paid leave for every day they come to work they wont get very far.

on topic and serious: companies don't like anything that'll lower their profits. Jack and the box raised prices a small amount to keep their profit. Imagine if every company has to do this and raise their prices. Then JintheB will not only have its employees to pay more, but it'll have to pay more for its tomatoes, meat, bread, soda, etc - because all of those companies are paying their employees more. The trickle down raises the cost of living, and it becomes a never ending cycle (or at least one that won't end until after quite a bit of inflation).

 

[Goddess]

im just going to say that mathematically if they offer them 100 days of paid leave for every day they come to work they wont get very far.

on topic and serious: companies don't like anything that'll lower their profits. Jack and the box raised prices a small amount to keep their profit. Imagine if every company has to do this and raise their prices. Then JintheB will not only have its employees to pay more, but it'll have to pay more for its tomatoes, meat, bread, soda, etc - because all of those companies are paying their employees more. The trickle down raises the cost of living, and it becomes a never ending cycle (or at least one that won't end until after quite a bit of inflation).

Well said .

 

[Thrill]

Paid leave is a perk that comes with some companies contracts, and a lot of employers offer paid leave. Yes this means being paid without being at work. It's a perk for putting in time with the company. You'd be surprised how much profits aren't effected by things like this, and if they are it's rarely a major issue.

Unless you've been in the real world working before, it's difficult to understand the concept of paid leave, but it does exist and (to my knowledge) I've never heard of a company or business going under because they offer employees paid leave for x amount of time. If there have been businesses that went bankrupt, it's highly unlikely it's due to paid leave for workers because a business that's suffering that kind of financial hardship wouldn't offer paid leave anymore, instead they'd be handing out lay-off notices.

Bingo.

Happier workers are more productive workers. More productive workers help the company make bigger profits. Therefore, make your workers happier. One way a business can do that is by ensuring that there is a system in place that allows employees to have and care for children.

No, they're not doing anything while they're out on leave. But when they get back to work (or even before they leave), they will be worth more to the company.

 

[Goddess]

Bingo.

Happier workers are more productive workers. More productive workers help the company make bigger profits. Therefore, make your workers happier. One way a business can do that is by ensuring that there is a system in place that allows employees to have and care for children.

No, they're not doing anything while they're out on leave. But when they get back to work (or even before they leave), they will be worth more to the company.

Exactly my point!

I've said it before and I can say it again. The way you treat your staff/workers generates an equivalent reaction in their work ethic and motivation. People (especially when they're working the same job day in and day out) aren't mindless drones, and can't flourish and function like a machine. They're people, and thus need positive reinforcement and rewards for working hard for their company. Just because they're rank isn't as high as the person signing their paychecks, doesn't mean they aren't a huge chunk of the team. In fact, the lower level employee's are the backbone and foundation of the company, and without them it wouldn't run efficiently (or even at all).

Offering incentives and perks boosts morale among the staff and generates a healthier and more pleasant work environment. And when work is more pleasurable to be at, the quality of the work improves astonishingly.

My previous job didn't offer paid leave for it's employee's, but it did offer an incentive program. During busier times of the year where employee motivation will tank quickly day to day as the season progresses, they offered so much money per specific package/amount (It usually started at $350 per account, and the amount you got extra in your check went up if you got someone to buy more than $350 worth) that was sold to boost motivation to sell to the best of our ability and to perform. It's essentially the same concept in the sense that it's all about giving back to the workers and rewarding them for what they do for the company.

 

[allison]

I think ultimately, it should be the company's choice. No company should be forced to pay women for maternity leave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thrill]

I think ultimately, it should be the company's choice. No company should be forced to pay women for maternity leave.

Fine then.

Comapnies should be required to grant leave for X amount of time, and the government will handle the chosen pay.

I've said it a million times: it is absolutely imperative to the future of a society (and an economy) that children are raised properly. Parents who are stressed about money are going to have a much harder time raising kids to be healthy and productive members of society. Good kids are a public good, so the government should make sure they are adequately cared for.

 

[Goddess]

I think ultimately, it should be the company's choice. No company should be forced to pay women for maternity leave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But that's beside the point of this debate. Ultimately it IS the company's choice already. Not every company offer's paid maternity leave. The point of this debate is to voice your opinion and why you believe every company/business should or shouldn't offer maternity leave, and then as debates go, argue your point against the opposing side.

In other words, should the policies of company's that don't offer paid maternity leave change to offer it, or stay the same; or should all the companies that do, change or stay the same.