Paid Maternity Leave - Good for Women?

[Brian Blackwell]

It's wonderful to be able to have a child without concerns about finances looming over your head. Women especially, but men too, have a lot to deal with at this time, and paid maternity leave can be a comfort.

It's a great kindness when offered willingly by company owners who value families, and I believe that a righteous society would gladly do this at every opportunity, assuming its within their means. But what about mandatory paid maternity leave, legislated by the state? What effect does this have, particularly on women's rights issues?

If, as a company owner, I must pay you, even though you're contributing nothing to the business, I am in a very difficult position. If I have numerous women working at my company, I can't help but see them as red flags of potential hardship. My male employees aren't going to ask for a month's pay without working, but my female employees may.

Larken Rose gave an apt analogy: Imagine walking into a grocery store, filling your cart, and when you go to check out, the manager comes over and says, "Our cashier is out on maternity leave. To cover this cost, you will have to pay for all these items in your cart, but you can't take them, you have to leave them here". You have to pay the same amount you usually would, but you get absolutely nothing for it. Wouldn't you be less likely to go to a store with this policy?

Doesn't this have the necessary result of dissuading owners from hiring women in the first place, especially in important positions where they can't afford to lose them for a month, no less to pay them the high salary those positions command during that lost time? Isn't it natural and rational for an owner to devise ways to hedge against this hazard, like maybe paying women less to begin with, so if they take leave it doesn't hit their bottom line quite as hard? Is this sort of legislation really good for women?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Young women will be hit hardest. They will just hire men and older women.

 

[harmonica]

same in the military--they want fairness--but then they don't

 

[OldLady]

I remember the tail end of the days when this was an open topic in job interviews. They tried creative ways to chat you up and figure out if you were married (sure to get pregnant, then) had kids, etc., even though they weren't supposed to ask.
It is a part of what Affirmative Action equalized; I believe you're right that employers shied from hiring women of a certain age because they figured they'd get pregnant and leave. Now they are asking to get pregnant and be paid for being out.
I can see an employer's point. I can also see women's point, which is it isn't our fault Mother Nature made us the ones who carry the babies, but there you are, and why should our perfectly normal and natural decision to want children have to truncate or end a career? A lot of women who are serious in their careers are NOT having children due to this, and it seems an unfair price to pay. It's your life--you only get one. Children are important to a lot of people. If you are a woman, it can still be a career or motherhood option, though.

 

[harmonica]

I remember the tail end of the days when this was an open topic in job interviews. They tried creative ways to chat you up and figure out if you were married (sure to get pregnant, then) had kids, etc., even though they weren't supposed to ask.
It is a part of what Affirmative Action equalized; I believe you're right that employers shied from hiring women of a certain age because they figured they'd get pregnant and leave. Now they are asking to get pregnant and be paid for being out.
I can see an employer's point. I can also see women's point, which is it isn't our fault Mother Nature made us the ones who carry the babies, but there you are, and why should our perfectly normal and natural decision to want children have to truncate or end a career? A lot of women who are serious in their careers are NOT having children due to this, and it seems an unfair price to pay. It's your life--you only get one. Children are important to a lot of people. If you are a woman, it can still be a career or motherhood option, though.

..they do the same for screening/phone interviews for men
..ask ''innocent'' questions to screen out the ones they don't want --and the questions are not all work related

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It's wonderful to be able to have a child without concerns about finances looming over your head. Women especially, but men too, have a lot to deal with at this time, and paid maternity leave can be a comfort.

It's a great kindness when offered willingly by company owners who value families, and I believe that a righteous society would gladly do this at every opportunity, assuming its within their means. But what about mandatory paid maternity leave, legislated by the state? What effect does this have, particularly on women's rights issues?

If, as a company owner, I must pay you, even though you're contributing nothing to the business, I am in a very difficult position. If I have numerous women working at my company, I can't help but see them as red flags of potential hardship. My male employees aren't going to ask for a month's pay without working, but my female employees may.

Larken Rose gave an apt analogy: Imagine walking into a grocery store, filling your cart, and when you go to check out, the manager comes over and says, "Our cashier is out on maternity leave. To cover this cost, you will have to pay for all these items in your cart, but you can't take them, you have to leave them here". You have to pay the same amount you usually would, but you get absolutely nothing for it. Wouldn't you be less likely to go to a store with this policy?

Doesn't this have the necessary result of dissuading owners from hiring women in the first place, especially in important positions where they can't afford to lose them for a month, no less to pay them the high salary those positions command during that lost time? Isn't it natural and rational for an owner to devise ways to hedge against this hazard, like maybe paying women less to begin with, so if they take leave it doesn't hit their bottom line quite as hard? Is this sort of legislation really good for women?

I agree 100% that such things should not be mandated by law, it is not the govt’s business.

I disagree that with the grocery store example though. Literally hundreds of companies have found that offering paid maternity leave is beneficial to them in the long term.

If a company has spent years investing in an employee and that employee is a valuable asset it is cheaper in the long run for the company to pay that person for 16 to 20 weeks than to start all over again from scratch.

Younger women have always had to overcome the notion by an employer that they might get pregnant at any time.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Slade3200]

It's wonderful to be able to have a child without concerns about finances looming over your head. Women especially, but men too, have a lot to deal with at this time, and paid maternity leave can be a comfort.

It's a great kindness when offered willingly by company owners who value families, and I believe that a righteous society would gladly do this at every opportunity, assuming its within their means. But what about mandatory paid maternity leave, legislated by the state? What effect does this have, particularly on women's rights issues?

If, as a company owner, I must pay you, even though you're contributing nothing to the business, I am in a very difficult position. If I have numerous women working at my company, I can't help but see them as red flags of potential hardship. My male employees aren't going to ask for a month's pay without working, but my female employees may.

Larken Rose gave an apt analogy: Imagine walking into a grocery store, filling your cart, and when you go to check out, the manager comes over and says, "Our cashier is out on maternity leave. To cover this cost, you will have to pay for all these items in your cart, but you can't take them, you have to leave them here". You have to pay the same amount you usually would, but you get absolutely nothing for it. Wouldn't you be less likely to go to a store with this policy?

Doesn't this have the necessary result of dissuading owners from hiring women in the first place, especially in important positions where they can't afford to lose them for a month, no less to pay them the high salary those positions command during that lost time? Isn't it natural and rational for an owner to devise ways to hedge against this hazard, like maybe paying women less to begin with, so if they take leave it doesn't hit their bottom line quite as hard? Is this sort of legislation really good for women?

Nice post! It’s also worth noting that several states support paid leave through their disability programs. I’d also support a tax right off or credit for maternity/paternity payments companies make to their employees if that doesn’t already exist

 

[Timmy]

Ban having children!

 

[Timmy]

It's wonderful to be able to have a child without concerns about finances looming over your head. Women especially, but men too, have a lot to deal with at this time, and paid maternity leave can be a comfort.

It's a great kindness when offered willingly by company owners who value families, and I believe that a righteous society would gladly do this at every opportunity, assuming its within their means. But what about mandatory paid maternity leave, legislated by the state? What effect does this have, particularly on women's rights issues?

If, as a company owner, I must pay you, even though you're contributing nothing to the business, I am in a very difficult position. If I have numerous women working at my company, I can't help but see them as red flags of potential hardship. My male employees aren't going to ask for a month's pay without working, but my female employees may.

Larken Rose gave an apt analogy: Imagine walking into a grocery store, filling your cart, and when you go to check out, the manager comes over and says, "Our cashier is out on maternity leave. To cover this cost, you will have to pay for all these items in your cart, but you can't take them, you have to leave them here". You have to pay the same amount you usually would, but you get absolutely nothing for it. Wouldn't you be less likely to go to a store with this policy?

Doesn't this have the necessary result of dissuading owners from hiring women in the first place, especially in important positions where they can't afford to lose them for a month, no less to pay them the high salary those positions command during that lost time? Isn't it natural and rational for an owner to devise ways to hedge against this hazard, like maybe paying women less to begin with, so if they take leave it doesn't hit their bottom line quite as hard? Is this sort of legislation really good for women?

How about a (typically) male analogy .

There are laws that prevent companies for firing men who join the national guard and run off to their service time . Some places I believe they may even get paid leave.

Do you agree with those laws ?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's wonderful to be able to have a child without concerns about finances looming over your head. Women especially, but men too, have a lot to deal with at this time, and paid maternity leave can be a comfort.

It's a great kindness when offered willingly by company owners who value families, and I believe that a righteous society would gladly do this at every opportunity, assuming its within their means. But what about mandatory paid maternity leave, legislated by the state? What effect does this have, particularly on women's rights issues?

If, as a company owner, I must pay you, even though you're contributing nothing to the business, I am in a very difficult position. If I have numerous women working at my company, I can't help but see them as red flags of potential hardship. My male employees aren't going to ask for a month's pay without working, but my female employees may.

Larken Rose gave an apt analogy: Imagine walking into a grocery store, filling your cart, and when you go to check out, the manager comes over and says, "Our cashier is out on maternity leave. To cover this cost, you will have to pay for all these items in your cart, but you can't take them, you have to leave them here". You have to pay the same amount you usually would, but you get absolutely nothing for it. Wouldn't you be less likely to go to a store with this policy?

Doesn't this have the necessary result of dissuading owners from hiring women in the first place, especially in important positions where they can't afford to lose them for a month, no less to pay them the high salary those positions command during that lost time? Isn't it natural and rational for an owner to devise ways to hedge against this hazard, like maybe paying women less to begin with, so if they take leave it doesn't hit their bottom line quite as hard? Is this sort of legislation really good for women?

How about a (typically) male analogy .

There are laws that prevent companies for firing men who join the national guard and run off to their service time . Some places I believe they may even get paid leave.

Do you agree with those laws ?

An employer cannot fire someone for Guard service, but they don't have to pay them.

 

[Timmy]

It's wonderful to be able to have a child without concerns about finances looming over your head. Women especially, but men too, have a lot to deal with at this time, and paid maternity leave can be a comfort.

It's a great kindness when offered willingly by company owners who value families, and I believe that a righteous society would gladly do this at every opportunity, assuming its within their means. But what about mandatory paid maternity leave, legislated by the state? What effect does this have, particularly on women's rights issues?

If, as a company owner, I must pay you, even though you're contributing nothing to the business, I am in a very difficult position. If I have numerous women working at my company, I can't help but see them as red flags of potential hardship. My male employees aren't going to ask for a month's pay without working, but my female employees may.

Larken Rose gave an apt analogy: Imagine walking into a grocery store, filling your cart, and when you go to check out, the manager comes over and says, "Our cashier is out on maternity leave. To cover this cost, you will have to pay for all these items in your cart, but you can't take them, you have to leave them here". You have to pay the same amount you usually would, but you get absolutely nothing for it. Wouldn't you be less likely to go to a store with this policy?

Doesn't this have the necessary result of dissuading owners from hiring women in the first place, especially in important positions where they can't afford to lose them for a month, no less to pay them the high salary those positions command during that lost time? Isn't it natural and rational for an owner to devise ways to hedge against this hazard, like maybe paying women less to begin with, so if they take leave it doesn't hit their bottom line quite as hard? Is this sort of legislation really good for women?

How about a (typically) male analogy .

There are laws that prevent companies for firing men who join the national guard and run off to their service time . Some places I believe they may even get paid leave.

Do you agree with those laws ?

An employer cannot fire someone for Guard service, but they don't have to pay them.

But They are required to hold a job for potentially years. Is that fair? Versus paying a mother who is going to be back to work within a few weeks.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's wonderful to be able to have a child without concerns about finances looming over your head. Women especially, but men too, have a lot to deal with at this time, and paid maternity leave can be a comfort.

It's a great kindness when offered willingly by company owners who value families, and I believe that a righteous society would gladly do this at every opportunity, assuming its within their means. But what about mandatory paid maternity leave, legislated by the state? What effect does this have, particularly on women's rights issues?

If, as a company owner, I must pay you, even though you're contributing nothing to the business, I am in a very difficult position. If I have numerous women working at my company, I can't help but see them as red flags of potential hardship. My male employees aren't going to ask for a month's pay without working, but my female employees may.

Larken Rose gave an apt analogy: Imagine walking into a grocery store, filling your cart, and when you go to check out, the manager comes over and says, "Our cashier is out on maternity leave. To cover this cost, you will have to pay for all these items in your cart, but you can't take them, you have to leave them here". You have to pay the same amount you usually would, but you get absolutely nothing for it. Wouldn't you be less likely to go to a store with this policy?

Doesn't this have the necessary result of dissuading owners from hiring women in the first place, especially in important positions where they can't afford to lose them for a month, no less to pay them the high salary those positions command during that lost time? Isn't it natural and rational for an owner to devise ways to hedge against this hazard, like maybe paying women less to begin with, so if they take leave it doesn't hit their bottom line quite as hard? Is this sort of legislation really good for women?

How about a (typically) male analogy .

There are laws that prevent companies for firing men who join the national guard and run off to their service time . Some places I believe they may even get paid leave.

Do you agree with those laws ?

An employer cannot fire someone for Guard service, but they don't have to pay them.

But They are required to hold a job for potentially years. Is that fair? Versus paying a mother who is going to be back to work within a few weeks.

5 years, max.

 

[dblack]

It's wonderful to be able to have a child without concerns about finances looming over your head. Women especially, but men too, have a lot to deal with at this time, and paid maternity leave can be a comfort.

It's a great kindness when offered willingly by company owners who value families, and I believe that a righteous society would gladly do this at every opportunity, assuming its within their means. But what about mandatory paid maternity leave, legislated by the state? What effect does this have, particularly on women's rights issues?

If, as a company owner, I must pay you, even though you're contributing nothing to the business, I am in a very difficult position. If I have numerous women working at my company, I can't help but see them as red flags of potential hardship. My male employees aren't going to ask for a month's pay without working, but my female employees may.

Larken Rose gave an apt analogy: Imagine walking into a grocery store, filling your cart, and when you go to check out, the manager comes over and says, "Our cashier is out on maternity leave. To cover this cost, you will have to pay for all these items in your cart, but you can't take them, you have to leave them here". You have to pay the same amount you usually would, but you get absolutely nothing for it. Wouldn't you be less likely to go to a store with this policy?

Doesn't this have the necessary result of dissuading owners from hiring women in the first place, especially in important positions where they can't afford to lose them for a month, no less to pay them the high salary those positions command during that lost time? Isn't it natural and rational for an owner to devise ways to hedge against this hazard, like maybe paying women less to begin with, so if they take leave it doesn't hit their bottom line quite as hard? Is this sort of legislation really good for women?

It's not good for women who don't plan to have children.

 

[dblack]

Ban having children!

It's more like banning not having children.

 

[BluesLegend]

What a load of crap, my company offers paid maternity leave for BOTH parents and considers it a benefit and cost of doing business. Those who would only hire men and older women to avoid paying their fair share of maternity leave you cheap bastards are just shoving your costs off onto other businesses. You employ the husband while someone else picks up the tab for their wife's maternity leave.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ban having children!

Why bother when you can just kill them prior to birth

 

[RDD_1210]

When you get tired of bashing on immigrants and gay people, it's time to move on to women. What a wonderful website this is.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Men want maternity leave too. They call it family leave. I don't think anyone should get paid for taking time off.

 

[dblack]

What a load of crap, my company offers paid maternity leave for BOTH parents and considers it a benefit and cost of doing business. Those who would only hire men and older women to avoid paying their fair share of maternity leave you cheap bastards are just shoving your costs off onto other businesses. You employ the husband while someone else picks up the tab for their wife's maternity leave.

Why should companies pay for their employees to have children?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What a load of crap, my company offers paid maternity leave for BOTH parents and considers it a benefit and cost of doing business. Those who would only hire men and older women to avoid paying their fair share of maternity leave you cheap bastards are just shoving your costs off onto other businesses. You employ the husband while someone else picks up the tab for their wife's maternity leave.

This display of entitlement is shocking coming from you.

No man or woman is entitled to my money but my family.

I have no problem with freely offered benefits but forcing someone to further pay for your sexual escapades is complete bullshit. First your birth control, now your bills...what's next your kids first car?

Ridiculous