Moms are turning to crowdfunding to help pay for maternity leave

[Arianrhod]

And the title of the thread has nothing to do with unions

There's more on this page than a thread title. It's called discussion. If you're no longer interested in participating, why are you still posting?

 

[koshergrl]

So...not only should we pay women to have sex with losers who refuse to marry them, and pay for the children they have with those losers, and not only should we provide unemployment for those who get laid off by employers who can no longer afford to keep people year round because of the punitive effects of minimum wage, mandatory insurance etc....but we should also force employers to pay employees who get knocked up to sit at home for as long as they like, just like they are actually working.

What could go wrong. Progressives are mentally ill retards.

 

[Arianrhod]

So...not only should we pay women to have sex with losers who refuse to marry them...

What does that have to do with paid maternity leave?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know...........the military gives women up to 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, and the fathers can get up to 6 weeks.

And, that is the United States military.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And the title of the thread has nothing to do with unions

There's more on this page than a thread title. It's called discussion. If you're no longer interested in participating, why are you still posting?

Your little etiquette lesson was off topic as well so maybe you should practice what you preach

 

[Arianrhod]

And the title of the thread has nothing to do with unions

There's more on this page than a thread title. It's called discussion. If you're no longer interested in participating, why are you still posting?

Your little etiquette lesson was off topic as well so maybe you should practice what you preach

The sidebar on unions was not off-topic.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And the title of the thread has nothing to do with unions

There's more on this page than a thread title. It's called discussion. If you're no longer interested in participating, why are you still posting?

Your little etiquette lesson was off topic as well so maybe you should practice what you preach

The sidebar on unions was not off-topic.

I stopper reading after you started telling me how to comport myself so as not of hurt your oh so sensitive feelings

 

[Arianrhod]

And the title of the thread has nothing to do with unions

There's more on this page than a thread title. It's called discussion. If you're no longer interested in participating, why are you still posting?

Your little etiquette lesson was off topic as well so maybe you should practice what you preach

The sidebar on unions was not off-topic.

I stopper reading after you started telling me how to comport myself so as not of hurt your oh so sensitive feelings

That's entertaining.

 

[dblack]

No, I'm not. I'm questioning the notion that some workers get special exemptions and protections, and some don't. Corporatism is wrong.

I'm not sure how your second sentence (with which I agree) follows from the first.

Corporatism is interest-group politics, where power and privilege is distributed to factions based on political clout.

I get that part. But it seems to me that unionizing workers would give them some power to negotiate with the people in the executive suite and mitigate the inequities. Otherwise you end up back in the 19th century.

Nope.. all we can do is go forward in time. Again, what you long for is corporatism, and I'm adamantly opposed to it. Government should protect the rights of all individuals equally, regardless of which 'bargaining unit' they belong to.

Where did you get the notion I'm pro-corporatist when virtually everything I post says the opposite?

Corporatism isn't what you think. I saw in interesting article on Salon a while back that suggested the word be retired, because no one wants to use it correctly. So, apparently you aren't the only one who is confused. Did you read anything at that link?

 

[Arianrhod]

I'm not sure how your second sentence (with which I agree) follows from the first.

Corporatism is interest-group politics, where power and privilege is distributed to factions based on political clout.

I get that part. But it seems to me that unionizing workers would give them some power to negotiate with the people in the executive suite and mitigate the inequities. Otherwise you end up back in the 19th century.

Nope.. all we can do is go forward in time. Again, what you long for is corporatism, and I'm adamantly opposed to it. Government should protect the rights of all individuals equally, regardless of which 'bargaining unit' they belong to.

Where did you get the notion I'm pro-corporatist when virtually everything I post says the opposite?

Corporatism isn't what you think. I saw in interesting article on Salon a while back that suggested the word be retired, because no one wants to use it correctly. So, apparently you aren't the only one who is confused. Did you read anything at that link?

Numerous specialized definitions all saying essentially the same thing: "Humans tend to form groups."

 

[dblack]

Corporatism is interest-group politics, where power and privilege is distributed to factions based on political clout.

I get that part. But it seems to me that unionizing workers would give them some power to negotiate with the people in the executive suite and mitigate the inequities. Otherwise you end up back in the 19th century.

Nope.. all we can do is go forward in time. Again, what you long for is corporatism, and I'm adamantly opposed to it. Government should protect the rights of all individuals equally, regardless of which 'bargaining unit' they belong to.

Where did you get the notion I'm pro-corporatist when virtually everything I post says the opposite?

Corporatism isn't what you think. I saw in interesting article on Salon a while back that suggested the word be retired, because no one wants to use it correctly. So, apparently you aren't the only one who is confused. Did you read anything at that link?

Numerous specialized definitions all saying essentially the same thing: "Humans tend to form groups."

Well, it's more than that. It's government that distributes power to competing interest groups. In particular, it's government where our rights are based on which group we belong to.

 

[Arianrhod]

I get that part. But it seems to me that unionizing workers would give them some power to negotiate with the people in the executive suite and mitigate the inequities. Otherwise you end up back in the 19th century.

Nope.. all we can do is go forward in time. Again, what you long for is corporatism, and I'm adamantly opposed to it. Government should protect the rights of all individuals equally, regardless of which 'bargaining unit' they belong to.

Where did you get the notion I'm pro-corporatist when virtually everything I post says the opposite?

Corporatism isn't what you think. I saw in interesting article on Salon a while back that suggested the word be retired, because no one wants to use it correctly. So, apparently you aren't the only one who is confused. Did you read anything at that link?

Numerous specialized definitions all saying essentially the same thing: "Humans tend to form groups."

Well, it's more than that. It's government that distributes power to competing interest groups. In particular, it's government where our rights are based on which group we belong to.

Well, if we're going meta, we can define "government" as "any overarching authority." Start with parents and teachers and go from there.

I doubt you'd say authority qua authority is wrong; it just depends on who the authority is, appointed by whom, and whether or not that authority can be replaced or escaped from.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Hey dblack,

I can't see your "opponents" posts, but do get you are arguing with an idiot.

Can you tell me what corporatism has to do with the OP.

I'd be curious.

 

[AsherN]

Civilized countries have maternity leave. Most are funded from the government's unemployment insurance funds. The only 'burden' on the emp;loyer is that the job is granteed upon the woman's return. Canada gives 12 months. EI payments are just abut minimum wage.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Civilized countries have maternity leave. Most are funded from the government's unemployment insurance funds. The only 'burden' on the emp;loyer is that the job is granteed upon the woman's return. Canada gives 12 months. EI payments are just abut minimum wage.

So, if a country does not have maternity leave...it is uncivilized ?

 

[Arianrhod]

Civilized countries have maternity leave. Most are funded from the government's unemployment insurance funds. The only 'burden' on the emp;loyer is that the job is granteed upon the woman's return. Canada gives 12 months. EI payments are just abut minimum wage.

This is where you'll come up against the knee-jerk "doctrine" of American Exceptionalism which, if you examine it closely, translates as "If we didn't invent it (or at least believe we did), we won't utilize it, because we're not like anyone else, especially when it comes to emulating things that make other countries' citizens' lives so much less arduous because Amurika, **** yeah!"

It's entirely motivated by ignorance and emotionalism, and you can't make a dent in it. Best you can do is showcase it for the thinking American who will gradually distance him/herself from the Looney Tunes, as they're doing even as we speak.

 

[koshergrl]

Civilized countries have maternity leave. Most are funded from the government's unemployment insurance funds. The only 'burden' on the emp;loyer is that the job is granteed upon the woman's return. Canada gives 12 months. EI payments are just abut minimum wage.

This is where you'll come up against the knee-jerk "doctrine" of American Exceptionalism which, if you examine it closely, translates as "If we didn't invent it (or at least believe we did), we won't utilize it, because we're not like anyone else, especially when it comes to emulating things that make other countries' citizens' lives so much less arduous because Amurika, **** yeah!"

It's entirely motivated by ignorance and emotionalism, and you can't make a dent in it. Best you can do is showcase it for the thinking American who will gradually distance him/herself from the Looney Tunes, as they're doing even as we speak.

You sound like an elitist asshat.

 

[Arianrhod]

Civilized countries have maternity leave. Most are funded from the government's unemployment insurance funds. The only 'burden' on the emp;loyer is that the job is granteed upon the woman's return. Canada gives 12 months. EI payments are just abut minimum wage.

This is where you'll come up against the knee-jerk "doctrine" of American Exceptionalism which, if you examine it closely, translates as "If we didn't invent it (or at least believe we did), we won't utilize it, because we're not like anyone else, especially when it comes to emulating things that make other countries' citizens' lives so much less arduous because Amurika, **** yeah!"

It's entirely motivated by ignorance and emotionalism, and you can't make a dent in it. Best you can do is showcase it for the thinking American who will gradually distance him/herself from the Looney Tunes, as they're doing even as we speak.

You sound like an elitist asshat.

Based on your previous post in this thread, you seem to think only unmarried women have babies. Why is that?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Civilized countries have maternity leave. Most are funded from the government's unemployment insurance funds. The only 'burden' on the emp;loyer is that the job is granteed upon the woman's return. Canada gives 12 months. EI payments are just abut minimum wage.

This is where you'll come up against the knee-jerk "doctrine" of American Exceptionalism which, if you examine it closely, translates as "If we didn't invent it (or at least believe we did), we won't utilize it, because we're not like anyone else, especially when it comes to emulating things that make other countries' citizens' lives so much less arduous because Amurika, **** yeah!"

It's entirely motivated by ignorance and emotionalism, and you can't make a dent in it. Best you can do is showcase it for the thinking American who will gradually distance him/herself from the Looney Tunes, as they're doing even as we speak.

You sound like an elitist asshat.

Or a handout seeking moron.

It just does not seem to register that people in America like living in houses and driving cars (not living in high rise apartments and taking mass transit all over the place).

But the left is bound and determined to get us there.

 

[AsherN]

Civilized countries have maternity leave. Most are funded from the government's unemployment insurance funds. The only 'burden' on the emp;loyer is that the job is granteed upon the woman's return. Canada gives 12 months. EI payments are just abut minimum wage.

This is where you'll come up against the knee-jerk "doctrine" of American Exceptionalism which, if you examine it closely, translates as "If we didn't invent it (or at least believe we did), we won't utilize it, because we're not like anyone else, especially when it comes to emulating things that make other countries' citizens' lives so much less arduous because Amurika, **** yeah!"

It's entirely motivated by ignorance and emotionalism, and you can't make a dent in it. Best you can do is showcase it for the thinking American who will gradually distance him/herself from the Looney Tunes, as they're doing even as we speak.

You sound like an elitist asshat.

Or a handout seeking moron.

It just does not seem to register that people in America like living in houses and driving cars (not living in high rise apartments and taking mass transit all over the place).

But the left is bound and determined to get us there.

Weird because I live in a house and have 2 cars. Yet my wife was able to take mat leave for both our kids.