DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Un-paid Leave for new Mothers

I just think it's disgusting that we are one of two countries that don't have a federal mandate for women to have paid leave while having a child(pregancy and beyond).

women currently have to take vacation days, sick days, and are on unpaid 12-week leave.

california and New Jersey are 2 of only 3 states that have PARTIAL paid leave.

i think its immoral, and we should be ashamed of ourselves.

k.

I agree with you but will play devil's advocate.


So your saying a business should be wary of hiring women because at anytime they decide to be mothers they will have to pay out for 12 weeks of work even though they still have to pay another person to come in and do that persons job. Sounds more practical to just hire men to avoid losing a large sum of money for someone who may or may not even come back.

I actually think if a nation wants to state that it's Christian and there's nothing more important than the life of an unborn baby it only makes sense that that nation would be continually preaching the necessity of allowing every woman to do everything possible to insure the health of their unborn or newborn.

Not just the women who have husbands to provide the income to allow them to stay home.

It could be concluded that by not doing this indicates a hollow concern for the unborn or newborn and a solid intent to punish women who are single or are part of a 2 parent family that does not earn enough for the woman to stay home.

Just curious.....did you start this thread because you just recently saw "Last Week Tonight"?

lol sure did.

im sure there can be protection clauses that helps ensure a woman will come back to work after her leave.

on top of that, at what point do we expect some sort of morality from companies/corporations?

I actually think that if a nation claims it has no basis in faith of any kind and is a totally secular nation that it should be every man/woman/child for themselves, do what you got to do to survive and prosper. Nobody else owes you anything out of some manifested moral obligation.

so you're saying you can't have morality without faith?

ok...

Nope, just pointing out how the passage I quoted can easily be flipped around if one wants to make the nations maternity leave policy a discussion on faith.... which it shouldn't be, it should be a discussion on economics.

I wish we didn't need a national policy, I wish corporations would just do the right thing... People scream about the hand of big government and I'm one of them, well when companies and people continually fail to do the right thing, government intervention is the next step.

Which nation claims it has no basis in faith of any kind?

The idea that our nation is Christian is something that has been stated regularly, but I really haven't heard a regular statement that our nation is secular.

Why does secular mean every man/woman/child for themselves, do what you got to do to survive and prosper?

I've also have heard it regularly stated that the lives of the unborn are sacred. Why shouldn't this mean that caring for mothers be a priority?

I agree.

Fortunately, I work for a company that gives ME 12 paid weeks off whenever my wife has a baby. That's pretty rare to find.

You mean to tell me that obummercare didn't mandate that all women should have post partum paychecks?!?!?! It's a war on women, I tell you!!

Maybe insurance companies should have a product that people could pay into so they can cover that pay during the post partum mother/baby bonding time. I would find the preferable over everyone having to pay for this, especially as I don't need that type of coverage anymore.

And every time somebody states it, somebody else chimes in with "no it's not"... which side is right?


Go Google "America is a secular nation" and you can read for months.


Secular is the wrong word in this context so I apologize... but if there is no moral foundation like faith, then morals are subject to ebb and flow with the whims of society... and if you don't have any moral obligation to a higher power than yourself, then are you not free to pick your own morals?


And every time you have heard that, somebody quickly countered with "it's not a life at all until it's born".. until then it's just a part of the mother, like a spleen, that can be removed and discarded at the moms discretion...


It should, but it doesn't. Maybe I'm completely misinterpreting your point... but you can't argue that we are not a Christian nation and that our laws should have no basis in religion, then argue that there should be laws enacted for maternity leave out of some Christian obligation.

Are you kidding me?! really!?

Why should any business owner be FORCED to pay for a pregnancy he was no party in whatsoever. Why should he be forced to pay someone for not working?

Do you realize having a job is a "Social Contract" not a damn privilege. If i hire you to do a job i expect to pay you when your actually there to do the job we agreed to. Outside of vacation, personal time and sick time we agreed to prior to employment, if your not doing the job, i shouldn't have to pay you. If your not working, i shouldn't have to pay you.

Im sick of this entitlement mentality nonsense! Just because a woman gets pregnant doesn't give her the right to receive a paycheck while she isn't working, and it sure isn't right to require a business owner to pay someone who isn't working.

Isn't it a violation of my rights to force me to pay someone for months who isn't even working or giving any type of productive output to my business? I thought this was the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave"

I thought the Constitution gives me the right to run my business how i see fit as long as i pay my taxes and abide by codes.

its ridiclious to be forced to pay someone for not working, even if they are pregnant.

See THANK GOD there is this wonderful thing called the Constitution, and Private Property Rights, at least those things are still here that protect us from being forced to pay for nonsense we had no party in like you suggest, a business is in fact private property and they have rights too.

I would never expect an employer to pay for my woman's maternity.

I've stated that our nation is not founded on Christianity. I've stated that laws should not be based on religion, so I understand where you're coming from.

On the same hand, my point is valid. How can we claim unborn life is sacred yet not provide for the mother and baby's health?

I've posted on another thread how the rights of women have quickly eroded due to new state laws. I don't know if those laws were backed up by statements based on religious beliefs, but I'm sure some have.

To imply secularists are promoting everyone for themselves holds less credence than my point, but I understand you believe it does.

I raised two step children and two children from my first marriage. I know this is a different time (the world has changed), however my oldest is 31 now and there was no paid leave when any of them were born and we survived.

I believe in safety nets for things that will derail your life, not for bumps in the road. I think a woman's job should be secure if she decides to have a child. She should be able to count on that job being there after the fact. Other than that I feel like it's her decision so it's her problem.

I also think the planet is way over populated and anything that discourages population growth is a good thing. I absolutely detest the earned income credit people get for popping out kids today. I see so many broke ass couples run out to spend their income tax return like it's Christmas all over again knowing full well the bonanza is coming from the EIC checks. The EIC wasn't created for idiots to buy Big Screen TV's...

My kids all work, they all have children. My youngest dropped out of college when she got pregnant. Her boyfriend is a leech, bouncing from minimum wage job to minimum wage job and she carries him in between. This year she got a $5,500 tax return due to the EIC, he blew it in less than two weeks. I know this because she called me for a loan (to buy diapers and gas) 3 weeks after getting the return.

She used to have a pretty good head on her shoulders, but it's like he has her under some kind of spell and she's become an idiot with her money. I will always make sure my grandson is not going without but lately I have cut off the help (tough love and hoping he leaves) and have been telling her to be more responsible.

My son and his wife just had twins and she is off on leave. He juggles college(delayed going because he didn't know what he wanted to do), a full time job and being a dad. They saved and prepared for having the twins (well they prepared for 'a' baby until they found out they were twins anyway). He even took two weeks of leave to help her...

So no I don't think the coddling needs to be anymore than a guarantee (safety net) that you will have your job and the right to time off for family matters.

Your point is not valid, and you should not assume it is. Shouldn't the parents provide for the care of their child? Shouldn't they be responsible enough to plan ahead? My wife left her job years ago after we determined that it cost more to put our kids in daycare than what she was making. I made more money than her at that time, and it was her idea. That was the right decision for us at that time.

Only if as a society we do not actually care for the life of ALL unborn.

Seems some people only want the child born.

They don't actually give a crap about actual life though. We got people who view women as simple machines, nothing more.

I wonder if they would tell their mothers exactly what they're posting on this board. Would love to see some video of it.

Wasn't it you who was complaining that you didn't get paid maternity leave (misnomering it in process)? It's funny how libertarians always want a helping hand, but never want to give one.

I believe I said something about paid paternity leave, but I also said nothing about anyone paying it for me. If that product was available through my company, I would have taken it. It wasn't. My argument had more to do with people screaming for things to be 'fair', but fail to see the folly in their thinking. If life was meant to be fair, we'd all look alike, dress alike, listen to the same music, and basically be drones.

I never asked for a 'helping hand' either. I would have liked to have stayed home with my wife during that baby bonding period, as I like babies. They are fun to play with, make faces at, and be goofy at. I'll probably even take vacation when grandchildren start rolling in, as I want to be the grandpa that gets in trouble with the g-kids.

I want abortion virtually eradicated because people learn to make smarter decisions, not by government fiat.

I also understand the debate between wanting less (or no) abortions and then the care for the mother and child after the baby is born and to be perfectly honest, I'm really stuck in the middle and I'm not afraid to admit it.

Abortion for convenience repulses me but I am not in favor of making it illegal.. On one hand, as far as once the baby is born, I do believe that people (parents) have to be responsible for themselves and their children.. it's not the governments job (and by default our job as tax payers) to support countless women and children indefinitely because moms and dads are just reckless. On the other hand, the thought of a child without proper nutrition and medical care also really upsets me. On the third hand, is it a companies responsibility to continually pay for women to miss work because they CHOSE to have a baby? It is a complex, multi-faceted problem that will not be fixed with any one magic solution.. but we have to start somewhere.

You would have to put exceptions to the law in for small business, many which cannot afford to pay someone who is not there, much less hire a temp to fill in.

Then when you put in the exception, others cry foul. Or what about the women that keep having kid after kid, should a company be required to pay 12 weeks every year or 2 for the same person over and over, because we know they could not fire her for having all those kids even though it is a burden on a company to keep repeating.

There's a reason I don't like government intervention, and that is because you just can't cover all the variables, and you typically create as many problems with laws as you solve.

I want abortion virtually eradicated because people learn to make smarter decisions, not by government fiat.

Then DC, how do you feel about victims of rape and incest? Should they be forced to give birth to these children?

i already stated that I don't want abortions made illegal, so I certainly don't want them made illegal in special circumstance cases like violence.

No. We are not. When the only 2 countries in the developed world include the USA, it better be for something good. Instead only the USA and Papua New Guinea offer no paid maternity leave. China gives women 98 days and they have no problem crushing us economically.



Most implementations don't cost employers anything, but are rather paid for as a worker tax. After all, the workers would be taking the time off so no, the business shouldn't just "foot the bill."



Then don't hire women! I'm sorry if their womenly parts offend you. If you don't hire women then you wont have to worry about them gettin' all preggers. Jeez.







Not really; the Constitution as written was for people, not businesses. We have defined business law as being an extension of citizenry but that is federal law not the Constitution.



I'm glad you are happy with America being tied for last place in the world!

To be fair, when the women do go back to work, they will be making $.98/hour.

It sounds to me like you're not being "my way or no way" about this and it makes it easier to talk about it.

I agree that certain laws should not mandate, but abortion restrictions without assistance for the unborn or new born have been and are being mandated at this moment.

We provide assistance for corporations, countries and congress-persons. Why do we want our most precious resources to suffer from what may or may not have been 2 people's mistake?

My wife and I ended up making the same decision for our 4 month old. Daycare is just too damn expensive. I'm glad we were in the situation we are in to be able to do that. But most families are 2 income families. What if you couldn't afford for your wife to take time off work? What if she made as much or more than you?

Or, what if the baby was born premature? Many women have to go back to work while their kid is in NICU and pretend everything is just fine.

As for cost, it has been demonstrated everywhere it has been done that the cost would be negligible but the business gain would still outweigh that small cost. After all; lets not forget the cost of training new employees. It takes a new hire up to 3 years to get "up to speed" from an old hire. So even if a woman takes half a year off, she's still ready to be more effective when she returns to work.

Yea, I'm not real happy about those either.


I don't. I also don't want to enable people to continue to make those same mistakes without consequences. That is where my biggest challenge lies.. how do you impart the consequences on those who made the mistake without harming the child? If I knew that, this would be easy.

Yea especially with the overtime, but it's all relative. China sells stuff at a fifth of the cost to the United States so Apple can jack up the price and sell it for a huge profit, but it still costs half the money it would take to make it stateside so we think we're getting a deal

Hiring men over women because women will have kids is already a norm for hiring practices.

I believe that we should obviously have this in place... In theory. In reality it'll probably just exacerbate our current hiring problems.

I have no idea of the percentage of abortions are "convenience", but when it's assumed that most or all are it does a disservice to women and kids.

The current laws are severely effecting ALL women seeking abortions of any kind.

This has nothing to do with hiring women, of course ya hire woman if they are the best fit and most qualified for the job like anyone else.

What does that have to do with paying someone who isn't working? turning this into a "gender thing" when it isn't.

What difference, the impact on a business, is there between my breaking a leg and being unable to work and a woman getting preg and being unable to work?


In both cases:

1. the employee can't work.
2. the reason the employee can't work is not in any way work related.

Honestly, this is comical. As it stands now, employers are expected to provide:

1. Good Wage
2. Paid Sick days
3. Paid vacation days
4. Medical Insurance
5. Retirement Pension.

Now were also expected to pay someone a full wage while they are not working. If we pay a woman because she is preg, where do the demands end? Do we pay someone who breaks their leg outside of work? Do we pay someone while their off work in rehab for drugs?

where do the demands end? Stop turning this into a gender/woman's right issue because it isn't, nothing could be farther from the truth.

This is an entitlement/I should get paid because X reason i can't work issue. this boils down to any but a plethora of reasons or justifications why someone should get paid because they can't/won't work.

See i wasn't cut from this cloth. If my woman gets preg, know what i do?

I go get a 2nd, and even a 3rd job and make up the difference for her not working...i don't stand by with my hand out expecting my employer or someone else to pay for an issue such as pregnancy that is purely a personal and fmaily matter.

Regardless, I don't think any man/woman is entitled to being paid for extended periods of time for not working.

Look if we talking a few days because of a family death, or illness, or vacation or personal days, yes i cna understand that...but to be paid for 2 months or more while not working..no way...i can't agree to that, We might as well let everyone sit at home for 2 months out of the year and get paid if thats the case.

You don't think most abortions are for convenience? I would disagree.. and I would define convenience as anything other than serious medical issue, life of mother, or pregnancy from act of violence. I believe the overwhelming majority of abortions are because the mother just thinks she is too young, too old, can't afford it, just doesn't want a child, etc. For me, those are a matter of "convenience" because there is no potential health risk to prevent a healthy child birth.

The fact that you keep using the term "my woman" is a little telling in and of itself..

Do you think the company should have to hold her position for her for a period of time to return or should she be out of luck and back looking for a job when she is ready to return to work?

That depends on the job. If you're working as a sports athlete then you can't play. I'm a computer programmer, so a broken leg wouldn't affect me none. Similarly if a woman is a programmer but pregnant it otherwise wouldn't affect her to work, up until the water breaks



None of these things you list are requirements except Medical Insurance for businesses that qualify for it. And even then the business can offload the bulk of the cost on the employee if they want. Businesses that pay their workers medical do so at their option. Why? Employee Retention.

Look your arguments fall flat on the few businesses that *do* offer paid maternity leave because they have seen how it provides a long lasting benefit for employee retention and training new workers. If you feel employees don't have any intrinsic value to your company I can see why you disagree.



Get your slippery slope stuff out of here....



You have not provided any example that shows it's not a gender rights issue. Breaking a leg is gender neutral. When men can get pregnant let me know.



And if you are already working 2 or more jobs to make ends meet, you're screwed. There are only so many hours in a week you can work without sleep lag or psychosis setting in. It's a simple math problem.

You are making it sound like this would cripple the US economy, when we are 10th in GDP/Capita and all of the nations above us offer extensive paid maternity leave.

Then I think have we different definitions of "convenient".

Stats show pregnancies for single women are the number one cause of children in poverty.

To believe a child should live like this life because the mother should be punished is probably not how we should value life.

If every pregnancy is mandated to lead to a birth then we should mandate provisions for the child so it has opportunities in spite of its parents' possible mistake.

So you do believe that a company should pay people for time not spent working, we are just debating degree now.