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

We have maternity leave now, you can't be fired. I didn't know that was an issue? I suppose it's like that false abortion issue. We already have it, it's the law, discussion is pointless.

Paid maternity is ridiculous. You are choosing to have a baby, fine, like abortion it's your choice. That doesn't mean your employer or the state should be funding it. You work you get paid, you don't work you don't get paid. You want more money, work more. You want to have a baby, save money then take your unpaid maternity leave.

I'm really at a loss as to why so many think it's someone else's responsibility to fund their lifestyles and choices…

Patently false for many americans.



If that's the case then why make any laws at all? Why have judges if there is no point in discussing the current status of laws?



I didn't realize a baby only lasted 12 weeks before you had to run out and get a new one. Paid Maternity Leave over the course of 18 years or so is a drop in the pan. Discussing this as your employer funding your entire child is again, patently false. And in every discussion about this, neither the state nor the corporations would be funding this type of program.



If you feel we shouldn't have paid maternity leave I'd like to see why you aren't ok with that but would be ok with welfare or disability coverage. If you feel we should have no safety net period then perhaps we just agree to disagree! I'd even go so far to say that conservatives should place a higher value on paid maternity leave than subsidized income programs. At least the maternity leave is for someone who has a job.

Even if the government implements full paid leave those limitations will still be there. The number of hours worked equals a year worth of hours for a full time employee.

Are you saying you want people to get hired today, get pregnant tomorrow and they should have full paid leave? All of those European countries that offer paid leave, do they have any stipulations on how long you have to work to receive that benefit?

Because we realize that saving up and all to take months off when you are in your 20s sounds good but for many people is just not possible... because we want to do this little thing to put just a small dent in the cycle of poverty... because we recognize that corporate profits and executive compensation continues to grow while worker wages remain stagnant and benefits are being reduced....

Corporate America has two choices, they can either choose to address these things on their own terms to improve things for workers and keep the government out of their business ... or they can continue to act like nothing is wrong and they are entitled to everything and more and force the workers to do what workers will do.. which is get the government involved and force change that they probably will not like.

In a previous time workers unionized and went on strike and negotiated a better deal.. unions are all but gone so workers will go to the next best source to impact change... the government.

I'm sorry it takes more time to post to crap like splitting out portions of statements than it's worth.

So...

Patently true for most working Americans, it's the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Sorry I'm not getting into a straw man debate here.

As long as employers aren't mandated to pay for it and the government isn't paying for it I could really care less.

Again, another straw man argument…

If they can't afford it for three months how are they going to afford it after that money runs out? I think people should pay their own way and live within their means, you know, the ideals you and I grew up with.

Then take your advice and don't set them up by saying discussing laws are pointless

Discussing maternity leave pay is older than anyone on this message board, as far back as 1919. Europe had them in place decades earlier and the US would have offered it if it didn't die on the house floor. Mainly because the congresspeople felt that we'd have nationalized health care in a few years, so just place maternity leave in with that. Irony, huh?

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C003

In addition during WW2 when there were more women in the workforce we were on the verge of 6 weeks paid leave, and then the war ended, so people felt that women could just go back into the kitchen and not worry about it.

So ya know, discussing paid maternity leave is discussing the ideals that you, me, and everyone else on this message board has dealt with in way or another.

First off, abortion is more and more, state by state, being removed as a choice.

Paid leave can't be a yes/no issue. It needs to be solved. A woman or couple go to college manage to get employment, but are saddled with college debt, which is another, "They shouldn't do it if they can't afford it!" issue.

So here in what's been called the greatest country on the planet a couple should be forced to put off parenthood until their 30s and at that same time consider buying their starter home?

Can we assume that all of these people have families that will help them? Is our economy working for ALL citizens?

There are so many issues these days that we older folks were "entitled" to not worry about. If we want to pretend we're the greatest country on the planet then we're fine, but if we want to back it up we need an economy that avoids limiting entitlement to those who can afford it.

J/C .....

3 of my best friends all waited till later in life to get married, and all are married to this day.

One was probably 35 when he got married. Shortly afterwards he and his wife had what was described as an "Ooops" moment, and they had a child.

Another friend of mine was close to 40 when he got married. His daughter is 9.

The 3rd friend I look to as a good example of marriage got married somewhere around 30. He had an 18 year old son, and a couple of younger kids as well.

All of these couples were well established in their careers. They were well prepared for marriage, and children.

I am not saying that this is the only path to successful marriage and child rearing .... but I do think that having the initial problems of adulthood ironed out before taking on those responsibilities can help.

Just my $0.02 worth.

I agree they did well. I'm not sure everyone has or wants that choice and why can't our economy do better?

Thought this would go well here.

What should our economy "do better"?

There is a great deal of concern that our economy is going to suffer due to a combination of low birth-rate and baby boomers living longer. You can already see it in the airline industry where retirement is mandatory at age 65:

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/coming-us-pilot-shortage-real

Additionally, women having kids later in life also lowers their "litter." In 1960 the average family was 3 people, so mom, dad, and junior. Now it's 2.5.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-households-in-the-us/

To keep the economy running you need new workers to replace the old, and that isn't happening. Many fields are desperate to get workers, especially in the skilled labor fields. While we can talk about the "myth of going to college" to go along with that, having fewer children is just a negative sum game. It can tip the balance of insurance as well, because older people cost more and need several young people to offset said costs.

So if it is beneficial to the economy to have 2 kids per family (the replacement rate), why do people say it's an economic problem to encourage higher birth rates by letting mothers recover for a bit after child birth?

Sources:

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/12/03/why-a-falling-birth-rate-is-a-big-problem
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/05/09/for-more-american-moms-kids-are-a-late-30s-thing/
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/05/173520619/not-having-kids-bad-for-the-economy

That is the exception, as you well know. I doubt that most would object if a woman had hemorrhaging going on in her womb as a result of problem with her pregnancy, with her life in serious jeopardy, and with a child who cannot yet live outside his or her mother, aborting the child rather than losing both mother and child.

There are always exceptions. It is not the exceptions most people object to, where abortion is used as a legitimate medical decision, but rather the callous decision to end a pregnancy because the mother has decided that the baby is just too darn inconvenient.

I would invite people to look up what the founder of Planned Parenthood had in mind with the organization, and with abortion. Her name is Margaret Sanger. For many, her quotes will be extremely enlightening. There is a reason why, today, almost 80% of all Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinics are either in, or within walking distance of a Black or Hispanic neighborhood.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/11/10-ey...argaret-sanger/

For those too lazy to look them up themselves, here you go.

I read it was near a university:

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/12/03/80-of...e-or-university

Which makes alot of sense because most college students are 18-24, and would be the likely candidates for an unwanted pregnancy.

As for Margaret Sanger, her quotes are eye popping under today's lens. However, it is important to apply at least some amount of understanding to the 1890s to 1920s though in regards to eugenics and race. Eugenics was a highly popular discussion and notable inventors and scholars were pro eugenic such as Alexander Graham Bell. We have had 30 states with compulsory sterilization programs during this time as well. This continued until the 1960s. Read up on Buck v Bell if you want a disturbing walk down memory lane.

As for race there is little to discuss. People held a very low view of african americans back then. Her talks about subverting their race weren't considered shocking by most, and welcomed by others. I don't agree with her views and neither would most on this message board but I think quotes are something we take out of context every day. At the very least, I hope someone learned something about Eugenics. It was *NOT* invented by the Nazis!