I don't understand you here. He is focussed on the question of what should be required of employers. The question of why and how she became family primary caregiver and he the office workaholic, or vice versa, is none of the employer'e business. Is that what you are saying?
It is and it isn't.
It is the choice of the parents if or whether either becomes the primary caregiver of the child. Childcare choices might affect the employer--or might not, depending on choices available to the parents and how they are utilized. I have co-workers with young children, both parents working full time, and no childcare needed because parents have deliberately chosen to work different shifts to avoid daycare costs, or because there is extended family who are willing and able to provide care as needed, including completely covering the parents' work shifts. Most people don't have those options, however.
The policies of the employer do affect to some degree, and may entirely be the primary reason that either parent becomes a primary caregiver. Unpaid parental leave has the effect of almost always shortening the time a parent spends with a newborn child--and recovering from the physical effects of pregnancy and childbirth and sometimes, how a parent deals with the medical needs of a child who was born prematurely or has other serious medical needs.
In almost every case I am aware of, the lesser paid parent is the parent more likely to take more time off, switch to part time hours or to leave the workforce altogether if costs for caring for the child (monetary and otherwise) are not met or exceeded by employers' policies. Why stay at a job when it costs you more to work than not to work?
Paid parental leave allows the mother to better physically recovery, better establish breast feeding, which is a serious benefit to the infant, and for either/both parents to help establish a wake/sleep/eat routine that works for child and parents who are working. This results in parents/workers who are less stressed or distracted, better rested and generally more productive at work. It also fosters a strong sense of loyalty to the employer. This generally translates into an employee who is more dedicated and more loyal--the employer is less likely to need to replace the employee and can avoid all of the costs associated with hiring and training a replacement. In my workplace, those costs can be considerable.
My employer is moderately generous for a US employer in terms of paid parental leave. It's inadequate but better than average for the US. The shortcomings of parental leave have translated into parents returning to work very soon after childbirth when a child has a serious medical issue that is keeping the child hospitalized, and in one case, very soon after the death of a newborn, while this child's twin was hospitalized for some weeks. When children were hospitalized, parents split their leave and took some after their child came home from the hospital. While the ability to split leave is a good thing, the fact that US parental leave norms gave parents little choice but to return to work very soon after giving birth to a child who had serious medical needs is pretty harsh and hardly in anyone's best interests. I could be wrong but I don't think that this happens in Europe. Or maybe not Canada, either.
There has been discussion of the employer bearing an undue burden by accommodating paid parental leave, which many posters here seem to think is very expensive and cuts into an employer's profit margin. However, all HR costs: medical and other insurances, PTO, medical and parental leave, etc. costs figure into the cost of doing business in general and also reduce the overall tax burden to the employer.
An employer's benefits package affects that employer's ability to attract and retain employees. While my employer's policies are generous for my region, they are only moderately so compared with many employers in the US. The US lags seriously behind most employers in Europe, I believe, in terms of benefits, hours, etc.
I'm long past the need for parental leave or maternity benefits. None of this will affect me personally. I still think it is right and fair and better for employee, for employer, for society as a whole and especially for the child or family member with serious medical needs--for generous leaves to be allowed and for an employee taking such leaves to not be penalized in terms of job status or security in response to such leaves.
Society--including employee, children, and employer--all benefit from having employees who are healthy, well rested, and not stressed to the breaking point. People are happier and are less likely to need expensive social services provided for them if the stressful root cause is avoided altogether.
