|
So with that in mind, Im undecided on how I think it should work, and Im just talking about US here). I see no valid reason why an employer should be accountable for the parent's decision, so I wouldn't agree to requiring fully paid time off, unless the parents had earned it through accumulated work. The issue is that not all jobs offer that option, or if they do it may not be realistic. That sort of goes back to the parents should have taken that into account prior to becoming pregnant, but even then things do happen.
There should be some sort of emergency safe guard, and for the women there are. Unemployment might be an option. But that still does not take into account that the parents are still forcing employers and other employees to do more work and to loose money because of a choice you made without their consent. Especially if the job is handicapped in their ability to do without or temp replace you, again for a choice you forced on them by choice, as opposed to an accident you got injured in.
|
|
I'd say rather than make up our own version based on reasoning from abstract principles and theories about fairness and business needs, we should look at countries that have implemented such policies and see how they've worked and which versions lead to the best results.
Oh wait. I forgot. This is America. We're the exception. We can't ever learn from others.
Its less that and more that in a lot of ways we have a completely different foundation(s) and too many other things that work on each other for simple solutions like that to matter. I also think, and I do not mean this in any arrogant sense, in a lot of ways we are sort of the leaders in this. Our country was founded on the principle of learning from other governments and ways of doing them and avoiding the ones we did not like. I do think that there are things we could look at in other countries and governments, and I do not think the US is either perfect or the best, but at the same time we also have some very different circumstances than many others.
So with that in mind, do you have any specific examples you feel are worth looking at that might be a reasonable change?
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.
"In a spirit of contrition for multiple sins, I decide to devote the weekend to detox. A Web search reveals that I am on a heavily traveled path; there are dozens of sites offering help to the would-be drug-test passer, mostly in the form of ingestible products, though one site promises to send a vial of pure, drug-free urine, battery-heated to body temperature. Since I don't have time to order and receive any drug-test-evasion products, I linger over a site in which hundreds of letters, typically with subject lines reading "Help!!! Test in Three Days!!!" are soberly answered by "Alec." Here I learn that my leanness is an advantage--there aren't too many places for the cannabis derivatives to hide out in--and that the only effective method is to flush the damn stuff out with massive quantities of fluid, at least three gallons a day. To hurry the process, there is a product called CleanP supposedly available at GNC, so I drive fifteen minutes to the nearest one, swigging tap water from an Evian bottle all the way, and ask the kid manning the place where his, uh, detox products are kept. Maybe he's used to a stream of momlike women demanding CleanP, because he leads me poker-faced to an impressively large locked glass case--locked either because the average price of GNC's detox products is $49.95 or because the market is thought to consist of desperate and not particularly law-abiding individuals. I read the ingredients and buy two of them separately--creatinine and a diuretic called uva ursis--for a total of $30. So here is the program: drink water at all times, along with frequent doses of diuretic, and (this is my own scientific contribution) avoid salt in any form at all since salt encourages water retention, meaning no processed foods, fast foods, or condiments of any kind. If I want that job in plumbing at Menards, I have to make myself into an unobstructed pipe: water in and water just as pure and drinkable coming out."
--Nickel and DimedThat sounds exactly what I did when I was told to report for a drug test before I got my job at the airport. And even though I bought the $49.95 product which said it was only good for 24 hours, and I couldn't pee in the cup when I was scheduled because the stupid company forgot to send the chain of consent form (or whatever it's called), I still passed, which was pretty surprising.
Man that job was great, driving around the tarmac, getting a view of the Boston skyline that people rarely see, getting high. Makes me nostalgic, I tell you.
Now that being said, actually raising a child, especially early on, is an enormous ordeal.
Going home and pounding nails through my hands and feet is an enormous ordeal. If I choose to do so (read: insist on doing so), should every one else be forced to subsidize it?
the stupid company forgot to send the chain of consent form (or whatever it's called)
Chain of Custody. Remind me to tell you sometime about almost getting thown bodily from an offshore rig because I refused to violate sample custody procedures. Hee!
"Going home and pounding nails through my hands and feet is an enormous ordeal. If I choose to do so (read: insist on doing so), should every one else be forced to subsidize it?"
No, but if you were deadset on doing it, I would support public subsidization of your care in a mental health facility.
"Remind me to tell you sometime about almost getting thown bodily from an offshore rig because I refused to violate sample custody procedures."
Ooh, I wanna hear a story!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, but if you were deadset on doing it, I would support public subsidization of your care in a mental health facility.
Careful -- that's how zombie apocalypses get started! You want to keep us all separated, if possible. Or, in the words of Robert B. Parker, "It is best for society if he is kept busy."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I'm pretty sure Doodlebug just endorsed mental health testing for would-be parents. :P
Ooh, I wanna hear a story!
This one doesn't involve urine, only tank residue, so it's probably a less interesting story than you had in mind.
|
|
Now that being said, actually raising a child, especially early on, is an enormous ordeal.Going home and pounding nails through my hands and feet is an enormous ordeal. If I choose to do so (read: insist on doing so), should every one else be forced to subsidize it?
If you take note, you may see that I mentioned that even with all of that, Im not really in favor of employers and other employees taking the hit. If a person does something that could be easily seen as suicidal (and probably leading to homicidal) behavior, Im pretty sure everyone has avenues for aid through their jobs health insurence or through government care for psychiatric care. Im not entirely sure what your point was to be, as we are seeming to agree? In my opinion, if said person is keeping their job, the employer should only be required to pay them in accordance with how much leave/vacation time they have earned, and if they want maybe allow them to go negative in hours to compensate as needed, but not required.
This one doesn't involve urine, only tank residue, so it's probably a less interesting story than you had in mind.
Well, a good story is a good story no matter what it's about, and that was a good one, but, yeah, I was hoping for one with urine. And maybe some cocaine. But at least it had a helicopter.
And, Dicey, I would never endorse that as a public policy or nothing, but, yeah, you gotta be some kind of pathological masochist to have (pinkskin) babies.
Goblin babies, of course, can look after themselves within minutes of popping out of the womb. And within three hours they can
Do it in the streets!
Ooh, I wanna hear a story!This one doesn't involve urine, only tank residue, so it's probably a less interesting story than you had in mind. ** spoiler omitted **
Nothing to do with the thread topic, but do you think the guy just honestly didn't get it, or was it a bald-faced attempt to intimidate you?
Nothing to do with the thread topic, but do you think the guy just honestly didn't get it, or was it a bald-faced attempt to intimidate you?
The latter
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Coming in a little bit at the end of the "Maternity/paternity Leave" (and I feel foolish for even jumping in a little, but, like an idiot, I can't seem to help myself).
I'll just say this, and then slink back out.
Babies are, literally, the future of the society they belong to. They grow up to be the people who inhabit and work and play (and spend money) in that society. No babies, no people. No people, no society.
Better babies mean better people, for the large part. The current thought, based on years of scientific research (done by people, who were once babies!), is that the formative years for babies are crucial for making well-adjusted adults that contribute to society. Y'know; scientists, doctors and RPG designers.
Now, babies are going to be made regardless. It's too great of a biological imperative to be cut out anytime in the near future. Some people don't want babies. Not a big deal, there are enough folks that want them to more than cover for those others.
So, people mostly choose to have babies, true. But babies are a necessity for the survival of a species. And a society.
A business, which is also a part of society, could do worse than put a little money towards the continuance and betterment of that society. It's in its own best self-interest. Society expects—and needs—parents to provide their children with continuity of care, meaning the intensive, intimate care that human beings need to develop their intellectual, emotional, and moral capabilities. Leave to help promote this isn't a crazy idea.
I can see the other point of view, and would probably agree with it too, if I saw babies as a negative impact on the world. But I don't.
I don't see people who are raising children as "heroes", anymore than I see people who don't want kids as "villains". They're just people who are propagating their species, which is a role society needs filled. Like scientists, doctors and RPG designers. But it's not an easy job, and it has its drawbacks as well as it's rewards. I don't think it's wrong for folks to get help in doing a hard job.
No babies, no people.
Now, babies are going to be made regardless. It's too great of a biological imperative to be cut out anytime in the near future.
Your second statement renders the first moot.
There is absolutely no need to incentivize reproduction. None. People will have babies even if you dis-incentivize it as strongly as possible.
No babies, no people.
Now, babies are going to be made regardless. It's too great of a biological imperative to be cut out anytime in the near future.
Your second statement renders the first moot.
There is absolutely no need to incentivize reproduction. None. People will have babies even if you dis-incentivize it as strongly as possible.
I never made an argument for incentivizing. I simply got that point out of the way to forestall any of what you just said being made as a counter-argument.
Helping was the point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If by "help," you mean "give extra time off of work," that's an incentive.
If we cared about a stable world population, we'd give that to people who adopt, but not to people who have their own!
I can see the other point of view, and would probably agree with it too, if I saw babies as a negative impact on the world. But I don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your second statement renders the first moot.
There is absolutely no need to incentivize reproduction. None. People will have babies even if you dis-incentivize it as strongly as possible.
Here's the thing. Maternity leave is not about "incentivizing reproduction". It's about not being a jerk. The entire point of society is to acknowledge that some people have different needs than you. If you can't handle that, there are plenty of places on Earth where you can live without being troubled by civilization.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If by "help," you mean "give extra time off of work," that's an incentive.
If you shatter your knee, you get sick leave, aka "extra time off of work". That's an incentive. Why are you not searching for a hammer right now? And you don't even have to worry about a college fund for your knee.
If by "help," you mean "give extra time off of work," that's an incentive.
If we cared about a stable world population, we'd give that to people who adopt, but not to people who have their own!
I can see the other point of view, and would probably agree with it too, if I saw babies as a negative impact on the world. But I don't.
I'm not saying that we need SO MANY babies. And adoption is wonderful, but it still makes it necessary for people to have babies! And those people who CHOOSE to adopt should still have time off to bond with their new baby. (And population control is another argument entirely.)
I'm saying that some babies are neccesary (if you want a species to survive, this is true by definition alone), and that it doesn't hurt to help people who have babies.
And if you're having a baby just to get 6 weeks off of work, you're not very bright, in my estimation.
No babies, no people.
Now, babies are going to be made regardless. It's too great of a biological imperative to be cut out anytime in the near future.
Your second statement renders the first moot.
There is absolutely no need to incentivize reproduction. None. People will have babies even if you dis-incentivize it as strongly as possible.
Why should we even attempt to di-incentivize it? As a society, we need reproduction. It is in our self interest to incentivise it.
I strongly agree that over population is a serious problem and needs to be addressed. I would have no problem with incentives not to breed or to adopt instead of breeding.
Although there are some folks who would say not having children is the reward for not having children. :P
Guaranteeing reproductive numbers is not the issue, as even the poor will reproduce under stress. The point of paid leave is giving parenting a better start than you'd have otherwise. It's not the solution by itself, but it may contribute to having less overall family failure in an increasingly toxic and stressful society.Why should we even attempt to di-incentivize it? As a society, we need reproduction. It is in our self interest to incentivise it.No babies, no people.
Now, babies are going to be made regardless. It's too great of a biological imperative to be cut out anytime in the near future.
Your second statement renders the first moot.
There is absolutely no need to incentivize reproduction. None. People will have babies even if you dis-incentivize it as strongly as possible.
True. I should have stressed that it is our self interest to incentivise healthy child rearing, not all births.
Why should we even attempt to di-incentivize it? As a society, we need reproduction. It is in our self interest to incentivise it.No babies, no people.
Now, babies are going to be made regardless. It's too great of a biological imperative to be cut out anytime in the near future.
Your second statement renders the first moot.
There is absolutely no need to incentivize reproduction. None. People will have babies even if you dis-incentivize it as strongly as possible.
No. You incentivize things you want MORE of. Charitable giving, for example. We want, and demonstrably NEED, less children. Hence we should heavily disincentivize procreation.
It's our population trap we've been caught in. Every generation, technology gets better and it takes less people to cultivate the resources to support more people. It used to be that something like 90% of the population were farmers, because that's how much labor it took in agriculture to produce enough food for everyone (and even then...).
Now, in the industrial age, less than 15% of the population works in agriculture and supports the diet of the rest of us. Similarly, manufacturing and commerce have gotten so efficient, so automated in fact, that from an economic perspective we have an enormous surplus population.
Not having children, or rather if we as a society have less than enough to replace us, is a kindness and desirable because so many of US are without any use.
On top of all this, as our technology gets more advanced, and many of us have more time for leisure, we consume more resources. And those resources have hidden externalities which we psychologically discount, and so there are more people every generation, using up more finite resources...
It's an unsustainable model. There WILL be a population crash. It's basic ecology (carrying capacity). It has been said that the human race is the one species that has foreknowledge of its own death. Similarly, modern humans are the only civilization that have foreknowledge of our own fate.
Population control isn't the entire equation, but it's a big factor, as to our survivability. It also has a bearing on other factors, such as resource allocation and climate change. If we are unable to consciously restrain our excess, to reach a manageable and sustainable population "plateau," we will be subject to the same immutable laws that cause animal populations to be cyclical.
This is our greatest test and failure means, at best, a complete upheaval of how we understand civilization to be, at worst, its demise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you shatter your knee, you get sick leave, aka "extra time off of work". That's an incentive. Why are you not searching for a hammer right now? And you don't even have to worry about a college fund for your knee.
I get 40 hours (hours, not days) sick leave a year. I can use it to sit at home and do crossword puzzles, or to go hiking, or to nurse a broken knee. Once those 5 days are gone, I get no more until next year. If I broke my own knee at home, I'd thereafter earn no money at all until I returned to work, able to do the job. So, no, there is in fact a strong dis-incentive for me to do something like that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you had more sick days, but could only take them when you actually had medical issues, would you break your knee more often?
Look at it this way: if I'm injured on the job, I can claim workmen's comp (for reduced wages, some fraction of the normal amount) after my sick time and vacation leave are chewed up. But my employer is perfectly within their rights to let me go due to "downsizing" in the meantime. And other employers are perfectly within their rights to say, "this guy spends a lot of time off the job because he's accident-prone, so let's not hire him."
So again, there are strong dis-incentives for me to follow that course. Dis-incentives that specifically cannot be applied to people missing work in order to breed.
If everyone gets 6 or 8 weeks a year paid leave, and some choose to use it for maternity leave, and others choose to use it for a sabbatical, and others choose to use it to follow the Stones on tour? Good deal, I'm all for it. But instead, people having babies get 6 weeks off to do so, and everyone else is made to work unpaid overtime to cover for their absense. And if I question why, I'm a monster who should be exiled from civilization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scattered points:
At UPS, if you shatter your knee and are a full-time employee, you can get up to three (two-and-a-half?) years worth of time off, paid. We still don't seem to have many people going out with shattered knees.
Also at UPS, if you work harder to cover for absent employees, you're a chump.
As Comrade Jeff already mentioned, most (all? some?) maternity leave programs allow for time off to adopt children. One program (can't remember where, but I think it was in the States--Massachusetts?) allows maternity/paternity leave for an adopted child up to the age of 21 or something, IIRC.
Only 15% of counties in the United States have functional abortion clinics. If we're not going to have maternity leave, we'd better invest in our birth control facilities. I'm in favor of doing both, of course.
I find it hard to think of maternity leave as an incentive to have children. I suppose it would be different in an office environment, but pregnant women in most of the places I have worked at, can't actually perform the job duties of loading trucks or airplanes when they're heavily pregnant without endangering themselves or their potential children.
And sustainability of the species? Methane plumes in the Arctic Circle, man. Game f#~~ing over no matter how many kids you do or don't have. Game f%#+ing over, man.
But instead, people having babies get 6 weeks off to do so, and everyone else is made to work unpaid overtime to cover for their absense. And if I question why, I'm a monster who should be exiled from civilization.
6 weeks? I believe the scenario we were talking about earlier was 14-18 weeks.
If by "help," you mean "give extra time off of work," that's an incentive.
How is that an incentive when time off work = career damage?
Time off work isn't an incentive unless you really really loathe your job.
Only 15% of counties in the United States have functional abortion clinics. If we're not going to have maternity leave, we'd better invest in our birth control facilities. I'm in favor of doing both, of course.
I find it hard to think of maternity leave as an incentive to have children. I suppose it would be different in an office environment, but pregnant women in most of the places I have worked at, can't actually perform the job duties of loading trucks or airplanes when they're heavily pregnant without endangering themselves or their potential children.
Yeah, Wisconsin just passed some super restrictive abortion bill. And then yesterday I heard Texas passed an identical bill. Identical legislation across multiple (Republican controlled) states? Smells like ALEC to me! *sigh*
As to the other point, weren't you just telling an anecdote about a union sister who was pregnant and she basically didn't have to do work anyway, since your supervisor did her share? That sounds like your argument falling apart... Oh, women aren't incentivized to have kids, because it's really hard for them to get along in the workplace...except someone else will just step in and have to pull double duty while she gets paid.
Except that nobody was pulling double duty. A supervisor who isn't supposed to do work, was helping her. So, his "double duty," if you want to call it that, went from standing around doing nothing except scowling at people, to loading packages, for, like, a week.
Bump
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, his "double duty," if you want to call it that, went from standing doing nothing except scowling at people, to loading packages, for, like, a week.
Too right.
In twenty years of management roles, and having dozens and dozens of Maternity leave vacancies occur during that time, not once have I seen anyone have to do 'double duty' to cover the gap.
The work either gets shared out across the staff, someone gets appointed to a maternity leave vacancy, or someone steps up and does higher duty to that position on a temp basis. If there is a serious staff shortage, a casual is usually brought in to plug basic gaps.
Real effect is usually pretty negligible.
How is that an incentive when time off work = career damage?
Thanks -- you're back to the source of the argument. The claim was made that there should be no career damage, that laws should be passed to require people absent from work on maternity leave to be promoted at least as fast as the people working during that interval. And indeed, some will go further and say that, because women's salaries lag, the person on maternity leave should in fact be promoted ahead of the people working.
Disclaimer: I'm actually in favor of paid maternity leave. I'm in favor of having a job to come back to. And, if the leave results in minimal disruption to job responsibilities, and when the said matron is doing a better job than her shiftless lazy no-account childless co-workers, she should damn well be promoted ahead of them. But that's not what I typically see.
Re: Abraham Lincoln and what not: The United States still, I read, has the highest first-day infant mortality rates in, I think the article said, the top 17 industrialized societies in the world. I don't know exactly what that means, maybe the writer just stopped tabulating when the U.S. wasn't #1.
A little somethin' somethin' I left out of the pregnant Teamster anecdote above. I'm no doctor and I couldn't tell you by looking at you how pregnant you are, but this girl was preg-nant. Like 2 to 3 times the size she used to be. I'd sit there and wonder why she was even coming to work, but she wasn't on my shift and hence wasn't my responsibility.
Still, I sent one of my PR members to go talk to her and ask her if she knew about maternity leave. He came back and said that she claimed that she'd never heard of it before. I kind of found that hard to believe, but, perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, pretty soon thereafter she stopped coming to work.
On the other hand, I haven't seen her since, either. Maybe she just quit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In twenty years of management roles, and having dozens and dozens of Maternity leave vacancies occur during that time, not once have I seen anyone have to do 'double duty' to cover the gap.
My experience has differed. As a consultant, I'm generally part of a team on several client accounts. We have "X" amount of money to finish each job. When someone goes on maternity leave, it generally goes like this:
Manager: "[REDACTED - let's call her "Betsy"] is of course on maternity leave, and I notice her reports and analyses aren't finished. Our deadline is next week. I really need some of you to stay this weekend and finish it up."Worker #1: "No problem! I could use the overtime!"
Manager: "Let me check the budget; we may be close to tapped out for reporting."
Worker #2: "Well, if Betsy wasn't doing this stuff before she left, she must have been doing Client Q's work, and that budget should still be there, right?"
Worker #3, under breath: "She was looking at baby web sites instead of working."
Manager: "Yeah, there's no more budget, but the work has to get done. Come on, we all have to be team players here."
A month later, Betsy shows up and parades her baby around the office. The manager coos over it. Everyone else squeals and gagas and tells her how AMAZING she is. Workers #1 and #3 begin to realize that, in effect, she stole her time off from them.
Does it always play out that way? No, it does not. But in my experience, it has more often than not, in my professional milieu. That's anecdotal, and, like I said, in cases where Betsy gets her ducks in a row, then goes on leave, then comes back and kicks ass, well, then, she IS amazing and deserves that raise.
One program (can't remember where, but I think it was in the States--Massachusetts?) allows maternity/paternity leave for an adopted child up to the age of 21 or something, IIRC.
III. Eligibility For Leave Under the MMLA (Massachusetts Maternity Leave Act)
A female employee is eligible for maternity leave under the MMLA if:
A. She has completed the initial probationary period, if any, set by the terms of her employment; or, if there is no such probationary period, has been employed by the same employer for at least three consecutive months as a full-time employee; and
B. she is absent from such employment for a period not exceeding eight weeks for the purpose of:
giving birth; or
adopting a child under the age of 18; or
adopting a child under the age of 23, if the child is mentally or physically disabled; and
It doesn't allow for paternity leave at all, actually, but it does throw in disclaimers that employers who allow maternity leave and not paternity leave may find themselves in violation of federal EEOC guidelines.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A month later, Betsy shows up and parades her baby around the office. The manager coos over it. Everyone else squeals and gagas and tells her how AMAZING she is. Workers #1 and #3 begin to realize that, in effect, management stole her time off from them.
Fify.
Divide and conquer. It's an old trick, my friend.
And if I question why, I'm a monster who should be exiled from civilization.
THAT'S not why I want you exiled from civilization. :P
As to the thought of population control v. maternity leave, I don't think the arguments are terribly related. Well, at least not in my neck of the woods.
Women generally get six to eight weeks off for maternity leave, and men sometimes get one to two. I don't really see that as incentive to have a baby. For people who see that as their tie-breaker/decision-maker to "breed", well... I don't know what to tell you. That's just silly. I have no statistics to back me up, but I can't see that being a large portion of the population.
I'm kinda dicey on imposed population control, but I do think that slowing down the birth-rate is something we as a civilization need to examine and plan for. I also think we need to look into how we use our leisure time and how we consume resources in this world, too.
But maternity leave and reasonable population growth (or the reasonable lack there-of) aren't mutually exclusive, to my mind. Leave for mothers is more about quality of life and looking out for children's welfare, than it is about incentivizing "breeding". Helping existing parents be better parents.
Even at zero population growth, or reduced population growth, there will still be babies, and parents will nned to care for them. (Unless of course, there are NO babies, and then civilization dies off anyway. Because of the no babies.)
Ha! Trust our beloved Comrade Goblin de Galt to put it all into perspective!