barbos
Contributor
What if woman takes $20k, freeze eggs and then gives birth anyway?
I think you know perfectly well what it means; I don't think you're stupid enough to not see the difference between someone coming up with an idea on their own, and being pressured into it from above.
That pressure isn't supposed to transgress into people's personal lives.
Then you must not get around much.
You're entertaining a fantasy in which I said there's no price. All I'm saying is that said price doesn't have to be a nightmare if companies do the right thing; and that it is worth paying.
If that's really your concern, why not introduce a system where a company pays parental leave only if their size/profits top a certain line, with the rest caught by the government? Everybody wins.
That's ridiculous.
Wow, really? Giving people who need to take care of their children the time off to do that is giving them 'special treatment'?
Is it special treatment to give the sick days off from work too?
What kind of Victorian capitalist nightmare would you like to live in?
What if woman takes $20k, freeze eggs and then gives birth anyway?
No-one comes up with an idea on their own then, because there are always influences.
If you mean employers have no legitimate interest in dictating what their employees should be doing in their personal lives, I agree. But if you mean employers have no legitimate interest in having full time workers who do not take leaves of absence, I don't agree. It's a brute fact.
I know three women who took it, and none of them took it broken up.
We obviously differ on whether it is right to be sexist, heterosexist, and ageist, to accommodate those wishing to take parental leave.
Frankly, yes it is a concern. I don't think the employee of Sally Housecoat deserves leave any less than the employee of a multinational with a gold-plated parental leave policy. But the government should pay for all of it. Welfare is not the job of a corporation.
If corporate taxes were abolished, corporations could keep more profits. Then either they could lower prices, or increase employee remuneration, or pay higher dividends to shareholders.
Higher dividends to shareholders means those shareholders will pay more tax.
Yes, it is. I don't think I could have said it more plainly, actually. Of course it's giving them special treatment. By definition it's special treatment.
Clearly not. Everyone gets sick and everyone gets allocated the same number of sick days each year.
You mean, one where I don't want to see people discriminated against by parental status?
You advocate discrimination wholesale: you want (new) parents to have special treatment, and the devil with the rest of us.
Influence and pressure are two very different things.
These two statements are in direct contradiction with each other on this issue.
Besides, so what if an employer has a 'legitimate interest' in having full time workers who do not take leaves of absence? They'd have a legitimate interest in having unpaid slave labor too, but we sure as hell won't let them.
Like I said, you must not get out much.
Of course , thinking that women have a right to parental leave makes me sexist (note that I've actually also said fathers should have the same right), heterosexist (even though I'd be in favor of giving leave to gay couples adopting infants as well), not to mention biased against old people (or child laborers, I guess... who knows what the hell you're trying to say at this point)
Right, because of course corporations are going to lower prices or increase worker salaries
Right, because the kind of people who are rich enough to own enough shares for higher dividends to make a difference
are also the kind of people who don't have a proven trackrecord of hiring armies of lawyers and accountants to figure out loopholes so they don't have to pay the taxes they'd otherwise owe. Yep, here on bizarro-world, the first thing out of a rich man's mouth when he pays his taxes is 'please sir, is there any way I can pay some more?'
"How dare they force us to give them special treatment?! We should just force women to keep working right until that baby pops out!
And then ignore said baby so they can keep working! Work work work. Ooh, better yet, how about we find some way to convince them not to have babies at all! Yeah! I mean, fuck women right? I mean, no that sounded wrong. I meant of course, those horrible people, forcing us to give them special treatment! Down with women!"
So, someone forced to take time off from work due to some sort of... biological cause... is allowed to...
But someone forced to take time off from work due to some sort of... female biological cause... is not?
Giving leave to new parents so they can take care of their infant child does NOT discriminate against people who don't have kids. Are you like, a crazy person?
No, I just want you to develop a little thing the rest of us call empathy. Also sanity. Sanity would be nice.
No-one comes up with an idea on their own then, because there are always influences.
That pressure isn't supposed to transgress into people's personal lives.
If you mean employers have no legitimate interest in dictating what their employees should be doing in their personal lives, I agree. But if you mean employers have no legitimate interest in having full time workers who do not take leaves of absence, I don't agree. It's a brute fact.
Then you must not get around much.
I know three women who took it, and none of them took it broken up. Not that it's relevant anyway; taking it in chunks introduces different problems of continuity.
You're entertaining a fantasy in which I said there's no price. All I'm saying is that said price doesn't have to be a nightmare if companies do the right thing; and that it is worth paying.
We obviously differ on whether it is right to be sexist, heterosexist, and ageist, to accommodate those wishing to take parental leave.
It would make everyone better off. There are three groups of people who pay a corporate tax: it's either customers (who pay higher prices than they would have if there were no tax), or employees (who could be better remunerated if the corporation gets to keep more profits), or shareholders (who pay taxes twice: once when the money was in the corporation, and again when it is paid out as a dividend, on their personal tax returns).
You may not have any sympathy for the latter, but shares form a large part of most people's retirement savings (at least in Australia they do). Any taxes that a customer has to pay (in the forms of higher prices) is in general going to be regressive. And it isn't clear to me why employees should be paying the price, either.
If corporate taxes were abolished, corporations could keep more profits. Then either they could lower prices, or increase employee remuneration, or pay higher dividends to shareholders. Higher dividends to shareholders means those shareholders will pay more tax.
Wow, really? Giving people who need to take care of their children the time off to do that is giving them 'special treatment'?
Yes, it is. I don't think I could have said it more plainly, actually. Of course it's giving them special treatment. By definition it's special treatment.
Is it special treatment to give the sick days off from work too?
Clearly not. Everyone gets sick and everyone gets allocated the same number of sick days each year.
I am horrified by maternity leave policies, although not for the reasons you seem to. They should apply to both parents, not just one, so that we don't reinforce the cultural stereotype of woman being the only caregivers.
I agree that if you're going to give people money to breed, the very least you can do is not discriminate by sex.
Exactly why you should give money to people to breed, or people who have recently bred, I'm sure I don't know. People have bred without cash incentives for at least 100,000 years, and they're breeding too fucking much.
Actually, I believe there are plenty of studies which indicate that employers as well as employees are much better off if employees take time off for vacations, etc. In fact, in some areas, it is considered pretty important to take more than a couple or more weeks of vacation. One example is the sabbatical in academics.
Further, I also know people who have taken family leave (FMLA in the US) in various forms to accommodate the need to care for sick children, sick partners and sick parents.
Really? So, people should not get medical leave to recover from medical events like heart attacks or serious illness? News flash: giving birth requires some period to recover physically.
.Cough, cough: Walmart enjoys enormous profits and treats most of its employees like shit. So do any number of other large corporations in the U.S
It's not special treatment if it's offered to any employee anymore than medical leave is special treatment for those who become ill and need time off to recover.
Well, no: not everyone gets sick. I know people who have NEVER taken a sick day, including some who should have (thanks for that flu, btw). At my job, vacation and sick days allotted depend on position and number of years worked as well as whether you are full time vs part time.
Repeating the meme of "paid for by everyone else" is not helpful. People on leave are either replaced by temps or they are not. If they are replaced by temps, the temps are simply doing work for compensation - there is no extra unpaid work onus on them. Yes, the employer ponies up the compensation, but clearly the employer considers that an investment with a future payoff - it is not some sort of unexpected pure cost. If the person on leave is not replaced, it is possible that that person's work is simply foregone - again a form of investment by the employer.But you're not proposing people take parental leave as accrued sick leave. You're saying they should get extra leave, paid for by everyone else.
So, basically the defense is that bearing children is analogous to involuntary sickness.
This offered benefit is not an entitlement but compensation - these women are WORKING to get it.
It certainly does count as non-cash remuneration -- the companies in question were not mandated to provide it.
It's just an unfair one that discriminates against most of their employees.
I am not talking about accrued annual leave. You get annual leave whether you have children or not, although annual leave is nowhere near as much as some gold-plated parental leave.
Also, annual leave accrues according to how long you've worked somewhere. Parental leave does not 'accrue'; if you don't have children, you don't get it. If you have five children, you get it five times.
Annual leave is paid for by the employee taking it throughout the year. Parental leave is paid for by all other employees not taking parental leave. There's a real difference.
Further, I also know people who have taken family leave (FMLA in the US) in various forms to accommodate the need to care for sick children, sick partners and sick parents.
I too have taken leave to care for a sick parent, but it came out of my sick leave, and it wasn't 16 weeks of paid leave.
Really? So, people should not get medical leave to recover from medical events like heart attacks or serious illness? News flash: giving birth requires some period to recover physically.
But you're not proposing people take parental leave as accrued sick leave. You're saying they should get extra leave, paid for by everyone else.
.Cough, cough: Walmart enjoys enormous profits and treats most of its employees like shit. So do any number of other large corporations in the U.S
Right.....so? What was your point?
It's not special treatment if it's offered to any employee anymore than medical leave is special treatment for those who become ill and need time off to recover.
Medical leave is accrued as you work for an organisation, like annual leave. How much parental leave you get is not; it doesn't bear any relation to how long you've worked, but rather when and how often you have a fertility event.
Well, no: not everyone gets sick. I know people who have NEVER taken a sick day, including some who should have (thanks for that flu, btw). At my job, vacation and sick days allotted depend on position and number of years worked as well as whether you are full time vs part time.
So, basically the defense is that bearing children is analogous to involuntary sickness.
So, basically the defense is that bearing children is analogous to involuntary sickness.
Do you think all pregnancies are planned?
6. When on parental leave, you are working your tail off caring for a child. It's not vacation.
They are not getting anything. They are giving up being a parent at their preferred time in order to benefit the company.
The company is merely paying the cost of the procedure that allows the women to do this favor for the company.
It is no different than when an employee attends a conference to sell the employers wares and benefit the company. The employer pays for the cost of this benefit to themselves.
If these women were getting a $20k cash bonus for not having kids, even if they didn't freeze their eggs, then you'd have a point. But you don't.
\The truth is that it doesn't affect a man's performance in the same way. This is a cultural and societal gender role that hasn't shifted yet... if it ever does. Women are still the primary caregivers for children. When both parents work, it still ends up being the female that puts the children's needs before the needs of her career, while the man puts the needs of the career first. If the child is sick, it nearly always ends up being the mother who stays home. If there's a project that needs to be completed, and a kid that needs to be picked up, the mother will usually end up choosing the child where the father will choose the project. Perhaps some day that will change, but right now that's how it is.
6. When on parental leave, you are working your tail off caring for a child. It's not vacation.
I didn't claim it was a vacation, but you're being paid while doing nothing productive for your employer.
Imagine there was 'marathon training leave'. Let's say it was 6 weeks of paid leave if you were registered in a semi-professional level running marathon. No-one would argue that training for a marathon is doing nothing, but someone who is training for a marathon is not engaged in productive work for their employer. Do you think the people who did not take the marathon training leave (because they're not in a marathon) might legitimately be upset about this kind of leave?
I didn't claim it was a vacation, but you're being paid while doing nothing productive for your employer.
Imagine there was 'marathon training leave'. Let's say it was 6 weeks of paid leave if you were registered in a semi-professional level running marathon. No-one would argue that training for a marathon is doing nothing, but someone who is training for a marathon is not engaged in productive work for their employer. Do you think the people who did not take the marathon training leave (because they're not in a marathon) might legitimately be upset about this kind of leave?
No, why would I be upset? I could always decide to train for a marathon. .
Employers do get benefits from granting generous leaves to employees. They are able to use their benefits package as a recruiting tool so that they can choose among the best employees. They get employees who feel valued and in return are more likely to be loyal to their employer: why look around if you are happy where you are? The employers also have the benefit of employees who are better rested, less stressed and less distracted.
My employer offers a number of benefits I will never use. So what? Why should I resent their availability for those who want or need them?
No, why would I be upset? I could always decide to train for a marathon. .
Employers do get benefits from granting generous leaves to employees. They are able to use their benefits package as a recruiting tool so that they can choose among the best employees. They get employees who feel valued and in return are more likely to be loyal to their employer: why look around if you are happy where you are? The employers also have the benefit of employees who are better rested, less stressed and less distracted.
My employer offers a number of benefits I will never use. So what? Why should I resent their availability for those who want or need them?
Because you're paying for them, and training for a marathon is a personal indulgence. If that's what you want to do, do not ask your fellow workers to pay the price for you. And no, you can't always 'train for a marathon'. The entire point of my example was that training for a marathon does not suit everyone and is indeed something that some people cannot do or are grossly unsuitable for.
Paid leave is not free. Someone is paying the price. When leave is selective (that is, not everyone takes it, like sick leave/parental leave), the price is paid by the people that don't take the leave. Indeed, in time-critical industries, when an employee has a sick day, other employees simply have to pick up the slack without compensation. (And if it's with compensation, the employer has to pay).
Since my training for a marathon example didn't gel, how about 'sex tourism' leave? The company pays for up to 6 weeks of leave if you take a holiday as a sex tourist, visiting emerging economies for cheap sex. Would you feel resentment at such leave being granted? After all, you can take it if you want to.
No, why would I be upset? I could always decide to train for a marathon. .
Employers do get benefits from granting generous leaves to employees. They are able to use their benefits package as a recruiting tool so that they can choose among the best employees. They get employees who feel valued and in return are more likely to be loyal to their employer: why look around if you are happy where you are? The employers also have the benefit of employees who are better rested, less stressed and less distracted.
My employer offers a number of benefits I will never use. So what? Why should I resent their availability for those who want or need them?
Because you're paying for them, and training for a marathon is a personal indulgence. If that's what you want to do, do not ask your fellow workers to pay the price for you. And no, you can't always 'train for a marathon'. The entire point of my example was that training for a marathon does not suit everyone and is indeed something that some people cannot do or are grossly unsuitable for.
Paid leave is not free. Someone is paying the price. When leave is selective (that is, not everyone takes it, like sick leave/parental leave), the price is paid by the people that don't take the leave. Indeed, in time-critical industries, when an employee has a sick day, other employees simply have to pick up the slack without compensation. (And if it's with compensation, the employer has to pay).
Since my training for a marathon example didn't gel, how about 'sex tourism' leave? The company pays for up to 6 weeks of leave if you take a holiday as a sex tourist, visiting emerging economies for cheap sex. Would you feel resentment at such leave being granted? After all, you can take it if you want to.