Choice and paid leave

[rd_kent]

This being the "choice" board and all, I thought I would ask the following question:

What is the deal with paid and unpaid leave? It is a womans choice (for now, and lets hope it stays that way) to have a child, so if she does, why should an employer be compelled to give paid leave?

[librechik]

1. that's unfair. Let's give that job to the government, instead of employers.

It is for the common good of the country that we pay taxes, draft people, vote, etc. The country as a whole (i. e, "the government") needs to be more involved with the well-being and survival of its citizens, instead of foisting that job off on employers in the same way we stupidly do health insurance, a practice which does no good and adds to the cost of everything.

[Warpy]

3. Correct, civilized countries have state paid maternity leave

anywhere from six months to two years, and paid day care after that. Late pregnancy, childbirth and caring for a new infant are all considered both temporary disability plus service to the state.

Here the risk and sacrifice are unrecognized and unpaid.

[Bjornsdotter]

9. My cousin and his partner

...both got 18 months, with about 80% of their pay.

With the next child, my cousin (the dad) will be off for almost 2 years with the same pay.

It's shameful how it's treated here.

Cheers

[sandnsea]

2. To support future consumers

If God had created women first, birthing would be valued and brute force would be ridiculed. Which is actually the way the world should be.

[Scout]

4. why are they compelled to give ANY kind of paid leave, if not maternity/paternity? n/t

[Kerrytravelers]

5. Why should we punish women for their choices?

Are we headed back to this argument again?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=217x3924

[iverglas]

6. I don't understand the question

why should an employer be compelled to give paid leave?

Are employers somewhere in the US compelled to give paid maternity leave??

Hell, as I understood it, there are places in the US where employers aren't even compelled to give paid vacation. And even where I'm at, employers aren't compelled to give paid sick leave.

What usually happens is that a union bargains working conditions -- or an employer offers working conditions that are such as will attract employees -- and they might include paid maternity leave.

On the other hand, up here we have what's called parental leave, which is available, separate from a short maternity leave period directly associated with late pregnancy and the early post-delivery period, to either parent. Parents can work it out as they like, and they receive Employment Insurance benefits, not from the employer, but from the EI fund (which is self-funded from employer and employee premiums, not tax-funded).

We do have compulsory paid vacation leave here. (Two weeks/year, or 4% of annual pay.) Why on earth should an employer have to pay an employee to go mountain climbing in Peru, or to loll around the back yard drinking beer??

Strange, isn't it, the things that otherwise civilized societies force poor long-suffering employers to do.

You'd almost think it had been decided that there was a social benefit in doing these things, and that the costs should be spread around ...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. You say "the costs should be spread around".

I think that one can make a case that the costs should be born by the parents, on the grounds that they're the primary beneficiaries, and a rather stronger case that the costs should be born by the state, on the grounds of a) social benefit of children entering the workforce and b) the interests of the child in having its parents around.

I don't think one can make a case that the costs should be born by the employer more than by any other taxpayer.

For one thing, doing so would make employing those likely to have children unattractive compared with employing others, leading to increased discrimination.


As far as I know, the US doesn't offer any paid leave to either parent, but it's unusual in doing so.


If I were setting up a system, it would probably be along the lines of about 10 weeks leave for both parents, and a further 20-40 for one or the other (possibly with an option for both to work part-time), with the employer not having to pay anything but the state paying all salary up to some level (e.g. £20-30,000), and a proportion of any amount above that.

[iverglas]

21. so I just noticed this ...

I don't think one can make a case that the costs should be born by the employer more than by any other taxpayer.

And of course you noticed that what I was talking about in the post you replied to had nothing to do with employers bearing costs.

The "paid leave" I was talking about -- the paid leave that exists in Canada -- is part of the employment insurance scheme. Premiums paid into the scheme are paid by both employers and employees.

Obviously, employers consider EI premiums they pay when setting wages, just as employers in the US consider the multiple times higher health insurance premium contributions they make for employees when setting wages.

It's debated whether such a scheme should be considered a general welfare scheme or part of employment insurance, certainly. For now, it's part of the plan of insurance against job loss for people who qualify through employment, i.e. there is no guaranteed annual income-type scheme for parents in general.


For one thing, doing so would make employing those likely to have children unattractive compared with employing others, leading to increased discrimination.

Yes, and ve haf vays of dealing with that.

In any event, the same EI premiums are paid for every employee, and the EI fund, not the employer, pays the income replacement during the leave. Obviously, if employers were required to pay employees who weren't working for 40 weeks or so, they would be prone to discriminating.

Again, I wouldn't imagine anyone is proposing such a thing.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. No, I didn't notice that - my apologies.

I misread your fourth paragraph.

For what it's worth, though, as far as I know (although I may well be wrong), here in the UK the cost of maternity leave is born by the employer, not the state. In Sweden, it's certainly born jointly. I think the Canadian system is clearly a better one, but it's not universal.

So it's far less out of the question than you appear to think.

[noamnety]

23. correcting misinformation

In the UK: "Statutory Maternity Pay is paid by employers to eligible employees and reimbursed by HM Revenue and Customs."

http://www.eoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=19389

[joshcryer]

7. My take is because without paid leave women *don't* have the choice to have a child.

At least, socially responsible women wouldn't chose to have a child because it would be irresponsible to quit ones job or be cut back in the industry because of their absence. It's basically saying, "You're socially responsible, you are intelligent, capable of working at this business which gives maternity leave, thus you can rest assured that if you have a child you will not be maligned."

But as the poster above me, I don't know of any laws or mandates *requiring* businesses to give paid leave. It's merely a social construct that has popped up in some areas of our society.

So while I somewhat understand the question you are asking, this is more about social responsibilities and taking care of one another, and potentially giving women choices which they didn't have before (if a woman is afraid of losing her job she wouldn't necessarily have the choice to have a child).

I'm all for "paid maternity leave" across the board. But then, I'm against work (another topic), so maybe I'm silly for even saying that. :D

[MountainLaurel]

10. An excellent point

n/t

[PDenton]

16. I think the state should not subsidize child-rearing

And force that subsidy-burden onto employers? If you choose to have children, do it on your own time. Maybe if we lived in a world without 7 billion people, I would feel differently.

[Iris]

8. Employers are not compelled to give paid leave.

The FMLA just ensures that a woman can have 12 weeks of UNPAID leave without fear of losing her job. Most people I know save up vacation and six days and are able to at least get some of the 12 weeks paid.

[Warpy]

11. Gee, who benefits from her risk, discomfort, and labor

in bringing a worker for the next generation into the world?

Enlightened governments realize they are the beneficiaries and provide stipends for mothers to do this very important work at least until the child is six months old; others like France are even more generous.

This country seems to feel that bringing a child into the world and raising it is some silly, self indulgent hobby of women. Since it is essentially a useless avocation, it is unworthy of support at any level.

Get it?

[iverglas]

12. query, though

... stipends for mothers to do this very important work ...

Why women?

As I noted, Canada provides the time, at the employment insurance payment rate, and parents may divide it up between themselves as they choose. As long as both parents were already employed and contributing to the EI fund. If the woman wasn't previously working, for instance, the man would still be able to take the full amount of EI parental leave. Not that it would likely be financially a good move in that situation.



http://www1.servicecanada.gc.ca/en/ei/types/special.shtml#Parental3

Maternity benefits

Maternity benefits are payable to the birth mother or surrogate mother for a maximum of 15 weeks. To receive maternity benefits you are required to have worked for 600 hours in the last 52 weeks or since your last claim. You need to prove your pregnancy by signing a statement declaring the expected due or actual date of birth.

The mother can start collecting maternity benefits either up to 8 weeks before she is expected to give birth or at the week she gives birth. Maternity benefits can be collected within 17 weeks of the actual or expected week of birth, whichever is later. ...

Parental benefits

Parental benefits are payable either to the biological or adoptive parents while they are caring for a new-born or an adopted child, up to a maximum of 35 weeks. To receive parental benefits you are required to have worked for 600 hours in the last 52 weeks or since your last claim. ...

Parental benefits can be claimed by one parent or shared between the two partners but will not exceed a combined maximum of 35 weeks. ...

Parental benefits for biological parents and their partners are payable from the child's birth date, and for adoptive parents and their partners from the date the child is placed with you. Parental benefits are only available within the 52 weeks following the child's birth, or for adoptive parents, within the 52 weeks from the date the child is placed with you, unless your child is hospitalized.

... When determining how you and your partner want to take advantage of your parental leave several choices can be made, here are some examples:

Example 1
You and your partner are sharing parental benefits, you can take the time together, the 35 weeks would be shared between the two of you.

Example 2
You may want to go back to work after your maternity leave is finished and let your partner take the full 35 weeks.

Example 3
You may only want to take a few weeks of parental benefits and then return to work, while your partner takes the remaining time choice.

Example 4
You may decide to go back to work after you have taken a couple of weeks of parental leave. Then, a few weeks later you realize you would like to be home with your child. You can still use the weeks of parental benefits you have left as long as the weeks you take do not exceed the 52 weeks since your child's birth or placement with you for adoption.

[Warpy]

13. Gee, I've just never see a man go through pregnancy,

childbirth, and at least six months of lactation.

Let me know when that happens, though, and maybe I'll be a little more sympathetic to paid leave for a pregnant daddy.

[iverglas]

14. gee, I wasn't actually meaning to start a fight

so I guess it's good that I'm not actually seeing any matter for one in your post.

Nobody said anything about leave, paid or otherwise, for pregnant daddies. And what would this six months of lactation, that you talk of men not going through, have to do with the "pregnant", that you talk not being sympathetic about in the case of daddies, anyhow? They seem kind of mutually exclusive to me.

Lactation isn't actually a disability such as to prevent a woman from holding employment. Then there are women like my sister -- who did everything under the sun (under the care of her midwives) to get breastfeeding to work, and it was just a hopeless and extremely painful cause.

Maybe you noticed that the Canadian provisions include 17 weeks of *maternity leave*, which are available only to pregnant women/women who deliver, within a certain period on either side of the delivery date, in addition to the 35 weeks of *parental leave* that can be divided up as the partners choose.

Or, as I noted, can be used by whoever is the sole employed partner. My sister's partner used at least some of the time himself and could have used all of it, because she was not eligible for EI when she had her second kid.

If a woman *chooses* to return to work relatively early after delivery -- or if she has less job security than her partner (EI pays the income replacement, it doesn't guarantee job security; that's a matter for collective agreements or individual bargaining) and so may have to return to work earlier -- then her partner can take time at home. Allowing time-sharing could mean the difference between losing a job and keeping a job, for some women.

Choice being what it's all about, I thought. There wouldn't be any *choice* for a new mother if the only choice available under a part-pay leave arrangement, if the parents wanted/needed to have one parent at home for the first 9 months (in the case of the Canadian scheme), were for HER to stay home. That would make maternity leave just one more way of reinforcing all of the problems women already suffer in the workplace -- insecurity, fewer opportunities for training and advancement, and so on.

Parental leave means that women who have children have the choice of returning to work if their partner spells them at home for part of the leave period. It can also benefit employers, in a global sense, if two people take short leave periods rather than one person taking a long leave period.

Oh, and of course then there are adoptive parents. No delivery or lactation there, but parental leave nonetheless, in recognition of the same need for care and adjustment. Actually, it was a father challenging the discriminatory nature of the earlier provisions -- leave for adoptive fathers but not for biological fathers -- that helped get what we have today.


spelling typo fixed

[WildClarySage]

15. I agree 100% with paternal leave! What a great idea!!!

I wish we'd had it after I delivered last year via c-section. Hubby took his entire 3 weeks vacation (in early January!) to be with me while I recovered and it was hard. Also very hard later in the year when we had no vacation time left.

FYI- I do know a non-biological mom who breastfed. Her partner gave birth to their twins. It's not impossible, just very hard to establish in the beginning.

[PDenton]

17. quite the contrary

Most people in the US face strong pressure to have children. Especially in red states. There are also extensive subsidies for child rearing that should not exist, in a world filled with 7 billion people. Wheather it is paid leave, tax credits, or even the ridiculous number mommy-parking spaces in front of grocery stores that are never filled.

And it is interesting that you are using the language usually reserved by people who believe that the State owns peoples bodies. Human beings, being free, are not obligated to produce anything for the state or society as a whole, much less little baby-workers-to-be, nor should they be pressured or persuaded to do so. Again, maybe if the US had a shortage of workers, but we don't. Instead, the US birthrate is well above replacement levels; the population is increasing. I don't see how a secular, rational society can put so many subsidies into child rearing.

[Book Lover]

20. Please learn a bit before you speak again

My six week post-pregnancy leave was unpaid. I have never seen a parent-reserved parking space. Other than federal tex credits, I would like you to identify any five of these "extensive" subsidies I receive as a parent. I would be happy to know of them.

And the total average replacement rate in the US in 2005 was 2.1. That is unequivocally not "well above replacement levels".

I assure you, I personally am sympathetic to the cause of population control and planned parenthood. Indeed, that is why I have only one child. But your runaway rhetoric only hurts our common cause.

[uppityperson]

24. I was going to reply but see you are no longer amongst us.

Was hoping you would post more and become more obvious. You did. No further comment needed.

[Katherine Brengle]

19. How about basic human decency and respect?

Does a father lose his job for having a child? No.

Therefore a mother should not either.