|
The only way to prevent it would be to pass laws guaranteeing leave for both parents. And also to pass laws barring discrimination in hiring/promotion (breeders vs. child-free) -- because if I'm an employer I'm going to very strongly prefer an employee who isn't MIA, potentially, for several months out of every year (since the fad here in the States seems to be to pop out as many kids as frequently as you can biologically manage). But if you do pass those laws, then you're massively discriminating against childless people, who lose out on all that leave. So you'd have to pass laws giving them an equal amount of time off. And pretty soon, everyone works only 2/3 of every year, and jobs that already have a shortage of skilled employees get even more short.
Here in Australia we recently-ish (couple of years back I think?) got a federal paid parental leave program up and running. Skipping over the complicated politics of the issue, it entitles parents (usually the mother, but it can apply to the father as well) to 18 weeks paid of parental leave, and there's also a connected thing that I believe gives the other parent 2 weeks of paid parental leave. I am also fairly sure it's legally considered discrimination to fire an employee because of pregnancy or taking parental leave.
I don't feel particularly left out because new mums and dads can take time off to recover and get to know their newborn and I don't. As far as I'm concerned, they're doing a civil service. It's kind of like complaining that someone gets paid to take time off to attend jury duty.
I don't think there were many child-free types complaining at the time that it was introduced. I also believe public sentiment was that the federal paid parental leave was a good idea overall. YMMV, of course; America is an entirely different beast, after all.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I find the exaggerated status bestowed on breeding people to be slightly nauseating; anyone with a functioning reproductive system can produce a baby -- whether they can raise it in a responsible manner is another question entirely. So the idea that I'm socially required to tell them how awesome they are (that's not avoidable unless you want to be shunned by humanity) and at the same time work twice as hard to cover for their absence... it makes me kind of mad, yes. Do a favor for the environment, and for humanity as a whole, by refraining from breeding, and you're punished for it? Madness. We should encourage people to adopt, not produce more of their own!
I'm aware that 99.9% of humanity violently disagrees with me on this, but that's where my mileage varies!
And really, do you think a significant number of people are going to have babies as fast as possible, with all the pain and work sleep deprivation that involves, just to get a few months off work every year?
Obviously you don't watch much TV. There are whole reality shows specifically devoted to them, and no shortage of people to appear on them. You don't just get time off from work -- you get to be famous, too!
There may be regional differences, too. The guy in Texas with "only" four kids was always maudlin about stopping. No one thought it at all unusual that the guy downstairs had nine kids.
Personally, I find the exaggerated status bestowed on breeding people to be slightly nauseating; anyone with a functioning reproductive system can produce a baby -- whether they can raise it in a responsible manner is another question entirely. So the idea that I'm socially required to tell them how awesome they are (that's not avoidable unless you want to be shunned by humanity) and at the same time work twice as hard to cover for their absence... it makes me kind of mad, yes. Do a favor for the environment, and for humanity as a whole, by refraining from breeding, and you're punished for it? Madness. We should encourage people to adopt, not produce more of their own!
I'm aware that 99.9% of humanity violently disagrees with me on this, but that's where my mileage varies!
I am the one percent.
I finally got to use that line!
|
|
I guess it's a matter of perspective. I don't feel that I'm being punished by not receiving a benefit that someone else does.
On a side note, I don't really care if someone has a baby, nor do I think it's particularly amazing or exceptional or try and make it out to be as such... I can't stand babies and I make that very much known. :P I also wish more people would adopt.
But in our current society, there's an assumption that the young will replace the old, and also of constant population increase fuelling capital and growth, etc. All I know is that until there's some significant changes in monetary policy and governance, having more children is basically pretty important.
Maybe the socialist goblin would have something to say about that.
I certainly find it utterly ridiculous, although more because I worry about the state of the earth rather than having any particular attraction to one ism or another.
Maybe the socialist goblin would have something to say about that.
I know, right? I give him a perfect opening, one that even Comrade jeff picks up on, and he's too busy plotting worldwide revolution to immediately comment in our thread?
(Or maybe he's on paternity leave.)
How are those handled in the European countries that have family leave policies that are much more generous than the US?
And really, do you think a significant number of people are going to have babies as fast as possible, with all the pain and work sleep deprivation that involves, just to get a few months off work every year?
I can't speak for the rest of the European countries, but in my neck of the woods the policies are fairly lenient. However, rearing children is expensive and exhausting, so I doubt anyone would "abuse" the system by getting knocked up every nine months.
Anyway, the rules go something like this:
1) A woman has the right to take leave for four weeks before her estimated due date. (Medical complications or work conditions that is deemed a risk to the pregnancy could increase this week period). This leave is with full pay (the government compensates the company with a percentage of their expense for this).
2) After delivery, the mother is required to take two weeks of leave. After that, she has the right for 12 more weeks of leave. The father can claim some of these 14 weeks if the mother is unable to take care of the child (death, illness, etc.). Ontop of this, the father has the right to take two weeks of leave starting within the first 14 days of the birth. Again, all this is at full pay etc.
(There's also a whole section on adoption, but I'm skipping that for now.)
3) Past the 14th week after the birth, both parents have the right to take up to 32 weeks of parental leave. These 32 weeks can be extended to 46 weeks in some situations (I'm not sure how). This parental leave is at reduced pay.
4) Some of this parental leave can be saved for later, but has to be held before the child's 9th birthday. Only one parent can save their leave like this.
5) In agreement with their employer, a parent can return to work part-time during this leave.
6) There is no "frequency" clause. Having lots and lots of children is enough punishment. :)
And despite regional differences and anecdotes, that's all figured in to the overall rates. That guy with 9 kids, he's averaged into the ~2.1 birthrate.
If you're going to ignore regional differences in favor of one big average, we should look worldwide -- now, is it really necessary for people here to maintain a 2.1? Everyone in the U.S. could stop having kids entirely (replenishing population through immigration and adoption only) and the world population would still be skyrocketing. The breeders here are not doing us a favor, nor providing an invaluable service. In my view, they're simply helping to choke an already too-crowded planet.
Nothing stopping you from voting for Mr Smith, if he's the incumbent chances are he'll win anyways, but if you're trying to fill an empty ballot why couldn't the party put forward Mrs Smith?
Because any mechanism that enforces a 50 50 balance will stop someone from trying to run the candidate they want.
If greene county democrats want to run mr smith, Browne county democrats want to run mr jones, and orange county democrats want to run mr Johnson what do you use to say "no you can't do that" and who gets to decide which county can't run the male?
But in our current society, there's an assumption that the young will replace the old, and also of constant population increase fuelling capital and growth, etc. All I know is that until there's some significant changes in monetary policy and governance, having more children is basically pretty important.
You hit the nail on the head while somehow not realizing it.
Yes, that our government incentivizes procreation is perverse precisely BECAUSE of this. It's part of our economic model that is predicated on wholly unsustainable, continual growth.Personally, I find the exaggerated status bestowed on breeding people to be slightly nauseating; anyone with a functioning reproductive system can produce a baby -- whether they can raise it in a responsible manner is another question entirely. ... Do a favor for the environment, and for humanity as a whole, by refraining from breeding, and you're punished for it? Madness. We should encourage people to adopt, not produce more of their own!
Finally someone who shares my sentiment!
Look, we'll never stop people from spawning completely, nor should we endeavor to! But there's absolutely no reason we need to socially encourage or economically incentivize this behavior.As far as I'm concerned, having a child is a personal choice. It's a that an individual chooses to spend their money. Why should someone get special privileges for wanting to have a child, while I don't enjoy similar privileges because I want to backpack across Europe or something?
On this issue I'm the mirror image of the Republicans: I want to heartily encourage birth control and abortion, but if someone does have a kid I think it should be taken care of, i.e. free good education and healthcare for life!
A broader point, though. In this thread we've discussed how social pressure has been used, historically, to tell women they shouldn't be in the workplace or vote, that they should be in the kitchen popping out kids, that their place is not in the sciences, etc. Does anyone believe that we should continue this by exerting the immense social pressure to procreate that we do? You don't think, maybe, it's legitimately holding back gender parity?
Maybe the socialist goblin would have something to say about that.I know, right? I give him a perfect opening, one that even Comrade jeff picks up on, and he's too busy plotting worldwide revolution to immediately comment in our thread?
(Or maybe he's on paternity leave.)
Sorry, I was putting the finishing touches on Nickel and Dimed.
It reaches its most feminist, and on-topic, point when she is working on the floor at the Wal-Mart in the Woman's Dept. and, harried by clueless customers and vandalizing brats, she finds herself staring at a misbehaving child and thinking "abortion is wasted on the unborn."
Hee hee!
She also had some funny stuff about taking a drug test. Not really funny, I guess. More like, true.
Maybe I'll type it up later. I'm tired.
I largely agree with that, but I'd also say that family leave policies are more along the lines of "free good education and healthcare for life" than economic incentives.
Not sure how. Look, if you want to impose a law that guarantees several weeks of vacation time per year, I'm with you! And if some women want to save up that vacation time to pop out their demon spawn, that's fine by me. I don't think it's fair to make an employer pay for it, nor do I think it's right for the government to subsidize or incentivize it.
I largely agree with that, but I'd also say that family leave policies are more along the lines of "free good education and healthcare for life" than economic incentives.Not sure how. Look, if you want to impose a law that guarantees several weeks of vacation time per year, I'm with you! And if some women want to save up that vacation time to pop out their demon spawn, that's fine by me. I don't think it's fair to make an employer pay for it, nor do I think it's right for the government to subsidize or incentivize it.Because babies and parents do better if the parents can take care of them, especially right after they're born. If they can't take time off work, that doesn't happen.
The same logic as yours could be used to argue that if parents want to spend their money on their demon spawn's education, that's fine, but the government shouldn't subsidize it.
I think if you reread the post you responded to, you'll see I'm advocating for mandatory vacation time for everyone. Hence, the parent WOULD have time to take off.
By the way, at UPS, which has a strong union and so can, in fact, enforce compliance with the law, the Family Medical Leave Act allows everyone, male or female, to take 12 weeks off a year, unpaid, with their job safely held 'til they come back. Now granted, that's not 12 weeks of vacation, you have to have a valid medical or familial reason, but we have guys go out on paternity leave all the time. They don't take the full 12 weeks, but, to be honest, the mothers don't always, either.
Having babies ain't cheap.
Anyway, I don't think that's contractual at all, I'm pretty sure it's the law of the land. Getting your employer to abide by the law of land, now, that's another thing...
I, on the other hand, say:
30 for 40! For a 6-hour-day with no loss in pay!
Paid maternity leave and at least as many vacation weeks as they have in France!
Free, quality health care for all except the liberals who keep trying to sell us on Obamacare!
For state-run 24-hour childcare centers and an opportunity to finally try out Charles Fourier's phylansteries! Also his seas of lemonade, if we can!
Of course, it's all moot. Methane plumes in the North Arctic are gonna kill us all in 20 years, so, I'd say use all the vacation time you got now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always modelled myself after the Grasshopper from The Grasshopper and the Ants. The Disney version, of course.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until we perfect the robot butler even people that don't want kids need to support other people who want to have kids. In all likelihood at some point you'll need someone to look after you . . . unless you plan like plan like fictional character Nick Romano.
Rubbish. Chances are extremely high I'm going to die before I need anyone to "look after" me.
I think people who want kids should chip in and subsidize my Doctor Who DVD collection!
At a vastly greater cost, since it's for everyone. And you'd have to mandate allowing people to accumulate it for years. And assume that all pregnancies are planned far enough in advance to save up "several weeks a year" to cover.
Meanwhile, countries with actually family leave plans aren't seeing population booms, so the "incentive" doesn't seem to be having an effect.
Sure, greater cost, but FAIR. I mean, you're genuinely arguing that not everyone should get the same benefits from the same employment.
Like what Doodlebug was saying, 30 for 40. The reason we have economic issues right now is in part because we're attached to a 40 hour a week paradigm where productivity increases but pay doesn't.
Pregnancies don't have to be planned at all...they take 9 months. Yes, I think if you work full time for 8 months you should be able to accrue 6 weeks off. After that, I'm fine with women (or men) taking FMLA leave, because it's unpaid and it functions for scenarios other than giving birth.
I'm not talking about family leave, I'm talking about mandatory PAID maternity leave. What countries have that? I'm going to guess the reasons the population isn't booming there are irrelevant to that particular law and more systemic i.e. economic prosperity.
Yeah. Unpaid leave is the law, though I think there are exceptions for small companies? There usually are for such regulations.
Yeah, I don't know. Probably. To be honest, I'd never heard of it until I started working at UPS.
But it's not just for women to have kids was my main point. Paternity leave, my hetero life partner got time off to take care of his dying father, surgery, etc.
Of course, if you're working paycheck to paycheck and barely getting by, unpaid leave doesn't help much.
True dat.
Our full-time union members qualify to get paid out of the union coffers if they are out "on disability" but, not, alas, the part-timers and there are definitely more female part-timers than female full-timers.
There was one woman from another shift that I would see, young, Latina, presumably part-time, who worked until she couldn't pick up boxes anymore because her tummy was so big. And even then she kept coming to work, although she mostly just stood around and had a supervisor do everything for her. We don't usually let supervisors do our work, but the thought of the supe having to sweat and our proud, pregnant union sister getting paid was pretty awesome, and let it slide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And abortions are evil and birth control fails so I suppose most people should just not have sex.
Let me hip you to some awesome sex acts that are 100% guaranteed not to result in pregnancy... ;)
*draws up a diagram*| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do they involve Japanese tentacle porn?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They do now! :P
You get exactly the same benefits. If you have a kid, you get time off for pregnancy and birth. Obviously the mother gets the pre-birth part, but I think fathers should be able to take the time after birth. The fact you don't take advantage of them every year doesn't change that.
If I don't get sick, I don't use my sick time. Does that mean I'm not getting the same benefit as the guy with a chronic disease? Is that horribly unfair? Me, I'm just glad I'm not sick.
Couple things.
One, there's no WAY you'd stand for this if it was something only men could take advantage of. Are you okay with men with children being paid more than men without children? What about women without? Why not? It's exactly the same damn thing! You have two people, regardless of gender. One of them is getting paid full salary for 52 weeks of work (minus vacation) the other is getting paid full salary for 34 weeks of work. That's 1.5 times as much based on a personal choice she made. One a man us incapable of making.How about mandatory paid time off for people wanting to go to PaizoCon? I mean, it applies to everyone equally.
Sickness isn't a personal choice and, while you may not use sick time, many perfectly well people use it as impromptu vacation time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I went back and tried to figure out how this maternity leave thing got started. Maybe I missed something in the deletes, I can't tell.
In America, we don't get paid maternity leave. In all of these countries being listed as examples with paid maternity leave, there's some mechanism where the couple can switch it up or hold on to their time or whatever.
But anyway, as a commie and a trade unionist I am totally in favor of the bosses having to pay us for as many days of us not working as possible.
If, along the road to international proletarian socialist revolution, we have to temporarily compromise and settle for fully paid maternity leave that men can't take a minute of, I'm okay with that.
For the record, I'd also support paid leave to attend Paizocon, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah so it's a gender thing, not a childless adult thing.
I've said several time that, except for the time immediately around the birth, I think either parent should be able to take the time. Several countries mandate some time for both and then more time that can be split as they choose. Ithink that's a good model.
Does that help?
*scratches head*
No, because I still don't want to have kids and am punished for my decision.Are you supportive of people with children, regardless of gender, being paid more than their childless counterparts?
There's all this talk about closing the pay gap between men and women, and what I'm trying to illustrate is that there are other inequities. How about paying disabled employees less? Or giving Christians an extra week off around the holidays? It's discrimination.
Equal pay for equal work. Isn't that the slogan? Now you're saying "well, unless you're a pregnant woman. Or her husband (who gets SOME benefit)."
Hogwash I say!
Again, I'm so totally down with draconian laws ensuring everyone has copious amounts of vacation time, minimum one month per year, preferably more like 6 weeks. In conjunction with the Family Medical Leave Act, which allows for additional UNPAID time off, there should be no need for laws ensuring special treatment of pregnant women.
Pregnant women are about the only thing there should be special laws for.
EDIT: Well, that's probably too categorical. But even wolves take care of their pregnant and nursing females.
In America, we don't get paid maternity leave. In all of these countries being listed as examples with paid maternity leave, there's some mechanism where the couple can switch it up or hold on to their time or whatever.
Not as a function of a federal government mandate, no, but many employers offer it and some states enforce it with government employees. Like my own.
My friend's wife is a middle school teacher. When she got knocked up she got 3 months off. By contractual stipulation, even though she had her kid in the middle of summer, she got 3 months paid time off, which she got to take from September 1 to December 1. During those 3 months they had to hire a substitute as well.
Pregnant women are about the only thing there should be special laws for.
How quaint and patriarchal of you.
Guilty as charged, I guess.
"By contactual stipulation," though. Are you sure that's gov't mandate and not union contract? Just curious.
Also, the fact that they had to hire a substitute just reinforces my being pro-paid maternity leave--more jobs, even if just temporary ones.
1) I specifically said it wasn't a gov't mandate, federally. However, AFAIK, all state of Wisconsin employees (including University of Wisconsin employees) in an eligible class (permanent, full-time, yadda yadda) have paid maternity leave. I know because my gf gets it as a benefit. It's quite possible that is, indeed, purely a contractual i.e. union deal. Given Wisconsin's long and strong labor history, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it was, indeed, statutory.
My point was that, you said "In America we don't get paid maternity leave" but many of us do. Heck, even my shiznitty job which I complain about constantly gives up to 8 weeks (lifetime) paid leave for maternity. On top of vacation and FMLA time, of course, and only once you've worked there full time for 6 months.
2)Yes, but popping out babies is a pretty inefficient jobs program, altogether.
1) I specifically said it wasn't a gov't mandate, federally. However, AFAIK, all state of Wisconsin employees (including University of Wisconsin employees) in an eligible class (permanent, full-time, yadda yadda) have paid maternity leave. I know because my gf gets it as a benefit. It's quite possible that is, indeed, purely a contractual i.e. union deal. Given Wisconsin's long and strong labor history, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it was, indeed, statutory.
My point was that, you said "In America we don't get paid maternity leave" but many of us do. Heck, even my shiznitty job which I complain about constantly gives up to 8 weeks (lifetime) paid leave for maternity. On top of vacation and FMLA time, of course, and only once you've worked there full time for 6 months.
2)Yes, but popping out babies is a pretty inefficient jobs program, altogether.
1) I know you specifically did. I was asking about the Wisconsin state gov't, but anyway, I admit, I know little about who and where paid maternity leave is available. I've never gotten anyone pregnant. I don't think we've ever had it anywhere I've worked, but I could be wrong. None of the employees ever got pregnant while I was there.
2) In 2013, I think, the American proletariat should take what it can get.
meatrace:
How about we split the difference and say that anyone with a parasite in them that tops 3 pounds can get time off? :)
Huh. Checked out the only two states I've ever worked in and, surprisingly, while Massachusetts says that pay for maternity leave is up to the discretion of the employer, New Hampshire law mandates that if the employer usually pays for temporarily disabled employees, they must pay for maternity leave.
In your face, Ma*&$@#~s!!!
Although I imagine that in practice, not many New Hampshire employers pay for temporarily disabled employees.
meatrace:
How about we split the difference and say that anyone with a parasite in them that tops 3 pounds can get time off? :)
Sure. That's what sick time is for!
|
I went back and tried to figure out how this maternity leave thing got started. Maybe I missed something in the deletes, I can't tell.
Probably as an aside from the BBC video I linked. A small portion of it dealt with forcing employers to take on the responsibility for employee pregnancy as a potential fix to the gender issue in positions, while the other was that the individual mother/family should take the responsibility for their choice, as I recall.
Ah. Well, that one's a no-brainer for me. We've been calling for paid maternity leave for over a century now.
And charges of patriarchal quaintness don't worry me none.
Vive le Galt!
|
|
Well, with one daughter and another on the way, I do partially agree. It is a choice, usually and it is one that, usually two people make in advance, long in advance. Truely unexpected pregnancy is incredibly rare, most of the time simply being someone forgot, or simply didnt feel like doing something, a great many times, but that'ssatill a choice on at least one persons part and an uninformed choice on the other.
Now that being said, actually raising a child, especially early on, is an enormous ordeal. In all of my experiences (one personally, but many for friends to help out) paternaty leave was not at all fun, relaxing, or easy. It was he father doing almoat everything, as a lot of the time the mother is pretty torn up and has a lot of difficulty even getting out of bed, (and reasonably so). Its a few days or weeks that is much worse than boot camp, and I mean tv boot camp. Its not at all a vacation. For the womans side, again in my experinces only, the vast majority of it was either before hand because you really dont know when its going to happen, and after, for a few weeks literally almost completely about healing and regaining strength. Pain and vaginal stretching aside, the birth changes the woman's body in a lot of ways and really depletes a lot of their nutriants, as does producing milk, (actual breast feeding or not). So for the mother its very much like post surgery medical leave, and for the father really similar to taking leave to take care of someone very sick, sort of a 24 hour job. In my experience, to, even being on leave didnt actually mean you didnt do work for your job, just in a different way and amount. So in that sense, more along the lines of it was really nice to hear encouragement and empathy to keep going that to be thanked for some sort of community service for having kids.