First, if you chose to have a baby, why should your employer have to pay for it.
Not only does it make running a business harder when an employee is suddenly
gone for months - but you have to have the job open for them when they
return.Second, do you really want to make women less attractive as
potential hires. If she is young, a person looking to hire is going to say -
ok, she will probably have 4 kids. That will mean I have to pay her 1-3 years
worth of wages she is not working. So if she is applying for a $60,000 a year
job, she is going to cost me $60,000 to 180,000 more than a man, on top of the
headache of filling her position while she is gone.Third, I have
heard complaints from managers at companies that do provide paid leave. She
shows up, works 6 months and then takes 6 months of maternity leave - only to
decide to stay at home once the maternity leave runs out.
I like the old system best: get married (choose carefully), have children, stay
home mother (your children need you). I have heard it called the "dmba"
system: date, marry, baby, ADIOS!The alternative system has been
catastrophic for society but, if needs must, I hope your children have devoted
and physically strong grandparents.
The most important job for a mother is in the home period.
There is a BIG difference between wanting to work and having to work. I wish the 'must work' moms could have this paid time off---and the
'choosing to work because I want a career and/or social interaction all day
with adults more than I want to stay home and raise my baby' people could
somehow be separated from the other kind of moms and not get it. I
just think it ingenuous for a woman who 'wants' to work-- and
doesn't financially need to-- to pretend she cares so much about spending
time with her baby. She COULD spend all the time in the world with
her baby if she wanted-she could give up her job......other women who are
compelled to work aren't so lucky to have that choice.
And in some related news: Riding the momentum from the #resistance, Planned
Parenthood is 'going on the offense'. Planned Parenthood will announce
on Tuesday a new campaign to help expand access to reproductive health care
state-by-state. The nonprofit is working alongside state lawmakers, advocates
for reproductive rights and partners -- such as the Oklahoma Coalition for
Reproductive Justice, Latino Memphis in Tennessee and the Michigan Progressive
Women's Caucus -- to push reproductive rights policies in more than a dozen
states and DC this week. The organization, its partners, policymakers and
activists plan to advance initiatives in all 50 states by the end of the
year."This really is growing out of an unprecedented grass-roots movement
across the country," Danielle Wells, Planned Parenthood's assistant
director of state policy media, told CNN. "People are mobilizing, organizing
and fighting back on behalf of their health and rights. We are channeling that
energy into action, and really going on the offense. Now is time for us to unite
together and expand reproductive health care." Great for all the women
who've reproductive health care resources restricted/denied recently.
This article is just an advocacy piece by the liberals at the DN and not news.
Why is this article listed in the US and World news section?
Why don't they come out and say, we are pushing aside self reliance and
promote public reliance. Liberals and social engineers never quit, especially
when it comes to other people's money. Why don't they show or relate
how they have given paid leave to their employees and the benefits their
businesses enjoyed. Chances are, that would never happens.
@Miss Piggie:"So, naturally, men get paid at a higher rate than women.
After all, wage rates are based, in large measure according to time on the
job."It is strange and puzzling that those who gripe about women
being paid less than men do not consider the fact that men, across the entire
workforce, are on the job longer than women. Why? Because women take time off
to have children. OR they wait to enter the workforce til they have raised
their family. An important factor of wage computations is how long an employee
has been on the job.
Susan Storm: "So do we love families? Or do we worship capitalism?"Oddly, you think that supporting paid and mandatory maternity leave for
both parents (which assumes that both parents will continue to work outside the
home after the birth of their child and allow someone else to raise their child)
is the thing supporting strong families. And that not paying people who chose
to have children while working is "worshiping capitalism"... in my mind
(and I would say many, many people still) it's exactly the other way
around.Having a parent at home raising the children is what supports
families and family values. Feeling the pressure to "Keep up with the
Jones'" and have both parents working outside the home so that they can
have better this and nicer that is the thing driving the "worship of
capitalism". Sure, there have been times when my husband and I have thought,
"wouldn't it be nice if we had a little extra money to do x,y,z."
But, having me at home each and every day when our children leave for school and
get home from school (and me helping at school) has been a far better "value
for our money" than any extra we would get from me being at work all day!
@I Choose Freedom (and others) - I'm in the same boat and totally agree. If
a person wants paid maternity leave as an employment benefit, then I'm 100%
open to having that conversation with them - it's one of the options as we
negotiate terms of employment. And if I were to give that as a benefit, it would
- of necessity - come in exchange for a lower salary.It's not
about greed. It's math - that money has to come from somewhere.I'm already required by law to hold a person's job for them when
they go on maternity leave, which means that while they are away I have to pay
someone to do their work and disrupt many others to deal with it. It's not
fair, but it's a compromise that we can get behind because we do really
care about that person and their new baby.But then - on top of all
of that - to have the government step in and force me to pay that person to not
work? That becomes really difficult. Let me sort out that benefit for those that
really want it, instead of forcing me to lower everyone's pay so that I can
build into my budget enough to survive the chance of some number of employees
taking paid maternity leave each year.
@Susan Storm RE: "So do we love families? Or do we worship
capitalism?"...---Now that's a false-dichotomy. And I hope
your smart enough to realize that. It's not one or the other.You can love families. And not worship capitalism.You can accept
the realities of capitalism... and still love your family.Not
mutually exclusive. Not even co-dependent.I love my family. And I
understand the realities of a pay-check, and running a business. It
doesn't have to be one or the other, all-or-nothing. That's a wrong
way to look at the world we live in.Having babies is great.
It's what life is all about. Getting somebody to pay you for it... is
not.I'm OK with maternity leave. We already have it.I'm OK with FLMA (we already have it).I'm OK if Congress
increases the amount of maternity leave, as long as the government pays for it
if they mandate it.We could do this through a tax deduction for the
business to help them pay an employee who's not actually working for them
(Note: They may have to hire someone else to do that work, thus paying two
people for the same amount of work).Just because I don't agree
with you... doesn't make me evil or something.
smcloud"Not everyone has a stable partner, not everyone has a
problem-free delivery or newborn, not everyone has family around to step in and
help. "Right, and those people should set themselves up
financially and otherwise to ensure they can take care of their child(or pay for
someone else to do it) if they choose to have a child.But dont make
me pay for your decision to have a kid. I dont have a say when soemone else has
kids so they shouldnt have say on my finances to pay for that kid. They wanted
the kid, not me.
I choose freedom"No one stepped in and guaranteed that I would
have the funds necessary to run my business. Why should you have a guarantee at
someone else's expense?"Amen and amen.And I
imagine you being the good and responsible person you are, you would be opposed
to taxpayers coming in and guaranteeing your business succeeds. Well
said my friend! Socialism is evil and doesnt work
@I Choose Freedom. I whole-heartedly agree. My spouse and I had three
successful small businesses, with a combined total of 25 full- and part-time
employees. It would have been disastrous to run those if we would have had to
give months off for an employee (paid or unpaid). If we had two employees out
at the same time, we would have had to bring someone else on. Training for our
businesses took several years for someone to be up to speed. When
these kinds of mandates are considered, it's obvious that the legislators
don't have a clue about small businesses.
Re: SMcloud - Sandy, UT @ Feb. 13, 2018 1:22 p.m."I read the
comments and am ashamed at what a heartless and selfish group this is."I started my business just over 10 years ago. I put my life savings at
risk to do so. I now have eight employees that rely on this business to give
them a paycheck every two weeks. I cannot count the number of sleepless nights I
have had as I have risked every thing I have to make this business work. It is
easily in the thousands!There are many small businesses like mine
that take enormous risks to start a business and provide employment for others.
And you call me heartless and selfish because I don't want to take on an
additional burden that is someone else's choice. A burden that could very
easily destroy everything I have worked so hard to build!Everything
that has value has a price. Children have value and they have a price too. If
you want to have a child, like I wanted to have a business, you must be willing
to pay the price. No one stepped in and guaranteed that I would have the funds
necessary to run my business. Why should you have a guarantee at someone
else's expense?This feel-good socialism would be a disaster for
Not everyone has a stable partner, not everyone has a problem-free delivery or
newborn, not everyone has family around to step in and help. I read
the comments and am ashamed at what a heartless and selfish group this is. Don't you see that these laws would protect your children when they
have your grandchildren? These laws benefit society as a whole. God forbid we
make things easier for workers instead of always thinking of the bottom line.
Every other first world country does this. It doesn't cause the economy
crashing down. They look at the US like we are still in the industrial age with
children working as chimney sweeps and poor houses.We as a society
talk all the time about how important families are. How important it is to have
stable homes. THIS is part of it. We need to start making policies that align
with our values.So do we love families? Or do we worship capitalism?
What about maternity leave from your church callings? Is this a big thing in
other wards like it is in mine?
I am all for allowing people time off for the birth of a child, and if an
employer wants to pay for the leave that's great too. That said, no
employer should be required to provide paid leave for the birth of a child. I am
tired of government intruding in every aspect of our lives.It amazes
me the entitlement mentality that exists in our society today. Free college
education, paid paternity leave, etc. There is no such thing as free - somebody
pays for it.
I'm think paid maternity/paternity leave is a fine benefit. So too is a
generous amount of vacation time. Ditto low cost health insurance, 401(k)
matches, pensions, subsidized passes for mass transit, and free gym
memberships.These are all good things.The best thing of
all, however, is a fat paycheck that the employee can spend however s/he
likes.At the end of the day, an employee brings a certain amount of
value and no employer can afford to spend more than that in salary/wages and
benefits.Personally, I've come to the conclusion that the best
benefit is the highest salary possible with the option to take unpaid time. I
can save my money and take time off. I can buy whatever I like, with my money,
without worrying about what my employer likes or doesn't like.Mandating paid maternity/paternity leave will reduce compensation in some
other area.I'm very much in favor of taking time with a new
baby. I actually favor taking at least 6 years and raising the child full time
until he starts school. If others choose differently, they should not expect
anyone else to pay for their decisions.
Taking extra time with your newborn - Good.Putting a gun to someone
else's head and forcing them to pay for it - Bad.
" — including a bill now being proposed at the Utah Legislature,
HB156, that would provide six weeks of paid, job-protected leave..."Strange... it doesn't take six weeks of leave to birth a baby. It
takes years to birth and care for children. The proper way is for the mom to
not only birth the child, but to stay home with the child(ren) until they are
raised and can take care of themselves.
@2 bits:"I agree you should take time off when you have a
baby."And I also agree. Most, if not all employers give their
employees sick and vacation leave with pay. That should be enough time to have
a child. Any more time needed to have a child and raise it should not be
charged to the employer.And another thing... Everyone seems to think
women are paid less than men... And they are. The reason is fairly simple...
men are on the job more than women because women have the children and are the
primary caregivers in their young lives. So, naturally, men get paid at a
higher rate than women. After all, wage rates are based, in large measure
according to time on the job.
Sure, this becomes a possibility AFTER my 13 kids were born...can I take time
What an outstanding question Password posed. Please read it and reread it. So
not only will you have to pay your child's nanny to take six weeks off, you
will also have to take six weeks off yourself again to care for your child.Doesn't anyone else tire of the nanny state and big government
always trying to get bigger? Do any workers out there tire of working and
paying for the vast amount of people sitting at home on welfare? I keep hearing
"The United States is the only country . . . . . . " blah blah blah. I
say good for The United States resisting going down the socialist path.
I agree you should take time off when you have a baby. In fact... you should
probably plan to stay home with that baby for several years and raise it, if you
plan to have a baby.My kids worked on their savings and their
finances until they could afford to live on one income before having
children.They practiced living on one income for several months (and
saving the 2nd income) to see if they could make it. It took time, but after
raises and job changes it was possible (not easy). Now they are so happy they
decided to find out if they could live on one income before committing to a
baby, and then figuring out they couldn't stay with the baby and had to
turn it over to somebody else while they went back to work.It's
hard I know. And not everybody can do it. But if you possibly can... it's
the best situation for the baby. You kind of owe it to the baby to stay with
it and take care of it's needs if you bring it into the world. I know
others will do it for you (for money)... but really that's something you
should do yourself. If you can.Every company I've been at gave
mothers maternity leave (paid). Fathers took PTO or FLMA
If you want to have a baby - great. But you should pay for it. Demanding an employer pay his employee for their choice to have a child is
I am all in favor of this legislation. Maternity and paternity leave. Both.
Time spent by Dad and Mom at home with their newborn children is far more
valuable than any time spent at work. Just my opinion.
A proper maternity leave system is a good thing all round. It's not
socialism, or horrible somehow because the mother has to work. Why is our
family values society so void of them?
Socialism...but spoken longer and dragged out.
Question? What happens when the person you hired to raise your new baby needs
to take time off from raising your new baby to have a new baby? Do you then
have to pay the person hired to raise your new baby for the time she needs off
to care for her own new baby? Inquiring minds want to know!
six weeks wont make it any easier woman to leave their child at the point
either and than what - six months - a year - my wife stayed home with all five
of our children - she works now that they are all in school - we didnt buy our
first house till we were in our 30s and we sacrificed a lot of things - you can
make a choice to work and thats ok if you want to - or stay at home and take
care of your children - but i shouldnt have to pay for you to do so - no one
paid my wife to take care of our children - I know thats not the popular view
anymore but I still have two children at home a senior and a 6th grader so im
not that old -
I find it interesting so much focus is on the birth and a short period after
when child rearing is a much, much more long term affair. I salute all
dedicated mothers and fathers.