Paid Family Leave Discussion (derail from fertility decrease)

[Rhea]

So... summing up, AOC talked badly about a good policy.
Get out the pitchforks.

How on earth do you get that from what I said?

Rhea, I did not even say I objected to the leave. I object to the rhetoric around it,

AOC talked badly about a policy that you don’t object to.
Get out the pitchforks.

 

[Metaphor]

Rhea, I did not even say I objected to the leave. I object to the rhetoric around it,

AOC talked badly about a policy that you don’t object to.
Get out the pitchforks.

I didn't say I did not object to it either. I object to AOC speaking about it as if there were no cost.

EDIT: For the avoidance of doubt, I object to a government policy where a worker can join a company and immediately take paid parental leave of 3 months duration and the company is forced to pay their ordinary wage or salary, and take paid parental leave for all future fertility events which the company is also forced to pay for.

 

[Jayjay]

Just for comparison, this is how a brand spanking new parental leave reform is going to look like in Finland:

- 6.5 weeks off for the mother for giving birth (i.e. doesn't apply to adoptions)
- 16 weeks each for both parents minimum
- 21 weeks to be split between parents however they see fit
- Single parents can use both parents' quotas

Parental leave can be taken anytime until the child is 2 years old, except for the birthing part obviously.

 

[laughing dog]

It violates my sense of fairness. But, if it pleases you, and evidently it does, you can call it 'jealousy'. But my feelings about it are not the point.

Nonsense. It appears they are driving it.

I did not say that. I said there's no upper limit.

There is an upper limit - no one can have infinite children. There is a practical one.

No, that is not the case of vacation leave. Everybody gets vacation leave and it is paid out to you if you don't use it. Vacation leave is built in to your paycheck. The worker has already paid for it.

Sorry, I have never worked for an institution that paid for unused vacation leave. You either used it or lost it. I know companies that permit accumulations of unused vacation time up to a limit. Once that limit is reached, there is no more vacation time accrued.

Sick leave is different. Sick leave is not meant to be regularly taken. Sick leave is also built in to people's paychecks, though it is not evenly taken up.

But of course there is a crucial difference between sick leave and parental leave. Being sick is a misfortune that nobody should want and is generally not planned, and does generally not require three months to resolve. Becoming a parent is an event that somebody chooses.

Anyone familiar with actual life knows that people can need sick leave for more than 3 months, that people generally do not have children, and becoming a parent is not necessarily an event somebody chooses.

Do you need to increase your work with no additional compensation? If you do but you don't mind, why do you think everybody should or does share your mindset?

Yes I do because as you say, the work has to get done. As for your mindset question, it doesn't matter. Life happens, and sometimes we have to just deal with it. Of course, for some reason, you feel we have to share your mindset on this matter. Hmmm.

The same way that society has decided to pay for things that society wants: tax money. If society thinks somebody ought get three months off work because they are a new parent, then society should pay the wages of that person. (Of course, if a workplace wants to do it without being forced, I don't have a particular objection, still bearing in mind that I know somebody is paying the price).

One of your objections is that someone else has to do the work of the person on parental leave or the work does not get done. That still holds if taxes are used to pay the wages of the person on parental leave. So, either you have not really thought this out or your objection about the work being done by someone else (or not getting done) is really bogus.

 

[Metaphor]

Just for comparison, this is how a brand spanking new parental leave reform is going to look like in Finland:

- 6.5 weeks off for the mother for giving birth (i.e. doesn't apply to adoptions)
- 16 weeks each for both parents minimum
- 21 weeks to be split between parents however they see fit
- Single parents can use both parents' quotas

Parental leave can be taken anytime until the child is 2 years old, except for the birthing part obviously.

I presume this is paid at a flat rate by the government to the parents, and not by employers.

 

[Metaphor]

Nonsense. It appears they are driving it.

I could equally say AOC's kumbayah feelings drive her policy. I don't support or oppose policy based on whether I personally stand to benefit.

Sorry, I have never worked for an institution that paid for unused vacation leave.

I'm sorry you live in America, then.

You either used it or lost it. I know companies that permit accumulations of unused vacation time up to a limit. Once that limit is reached, there is no more vacation time accrued.

You can be forced to take vacation leave in Australia, but you cannot lose accumulated leave owing to you if you stop working. How extraordinary that that isn't the case in America.

Anyone familiar with actual life knows that people can need sick leave for more than 3 months,

Yes they can, but then I did not say they couldn't. When people run out of sick leave in Australia, they must take leave without pay.

AOC's policy would mean that people who run out of sick leave have no further recourse (sick leave is renewed only as you earn it), but if somebody has another baby, they'll get another three months paid leave.

that people generally do not have children, and becoming a parent is not necessarily an event somebody chooses.

I don't know what 'that people generally do not have children means', but it is true that men do not have the legal right to opt out of parenthood.

Yes I do because as you say, the work has to get done. As for your mindset question, it doesn't matter. Life happens, and sometimes we have to just deal with it. Of course, for some reason, you feel we have to share your mindset on this matter. Hmmm.

Quite the opposite. You are the one who thinks the government should force companies to pay parents three months leave, not me.

One of your objections is that someone else has to do the work of the person on parental leave or the work does not get done. That still holds if taxes are used to pay the wages of the person on parental leave. So, either you have not really thought this out or your objection about the work being done by someone else (or not getting done) is really bogus.

This is grossly disingenuous.

I do not object to somebody else doing the work if they are compensated for it. I object to an individual employer shouldering the financial burden or pressuring the remaining employees to do the work uncompensated.

I do not object to general tax revenue paying for parental leave at minimum wage if society has decided that parents need three months leave.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Just for comparison, this is how a brand spanking new parental leave reform is going to look like in Finland:

- 6.5 weeks off for the mother for giving birth (i.e. doesn't apply to adoptions)
- 16 weeks each for both parents minimum
- 21 weeks to be split between parents however they see fit
- Single parents can use both parents' quotas

Parental leave can be taken anytime until the child is 2 years old, except for the birthing part obviously.

Why wouldn't the time off be allowed for adoption?

 

[lpetrich]

I didn't call the policy good. I didn't call it bad. I said there was a price to be paid--which AOC ignores completely. I also think AOC's illustration of her policy is a classic example of her cosseted, white collar privilege, though worse--AOC is the boss but her company doesn't need to make a profit, she doesn't have any KPIs, and her worker budget does not vary with the viccisitudes of the market.

I had to look up KPI. It means Key Performance Indicator.

This sort of weepy nonsense makes children seem like an intolerably expensive indulgence, something like mansions or yachts or caviar. Some people treating children like that likely explains the low fertility in many industrialized countries.

You do realize your imagination reflects more about you than it does about reality. Really, anyone can imagine anything.

Not true. AOC does not seem to be able to imagine life outside her current pampered experience.

...
But you were right about one thing: although the feeling is not 'jealousy', the parental leave that AOC has described is unearned and uncontrolled and appears to me to violate principles of fairness. There's literally no upper limit. ...

What would count as "earned"?

 

[laughing dog]

I could equally say AOC's kumbayah feelings drive her policy. I don't support or oppose policy based on whether I personally stand to benefit.

Sure Jan.

You can be forced to take vacation leave in Australia, but you cannot lose accumulated leave owing to you if you stop working. How extraordinary that that isn't the case in America.

What happens in Australia is irrelevant to the discussion about AOC's ideas for the USA. Moreover, your observation is ever more irrelevant because in the USA you can lose vacation leave even while your work because there is no federal law about this. Apparently in Australia there are federal laws imposing rules on how Australian businesses can operate of which you approve. Hmmm.

AOC's policy would mean that people who run out of sick leave have no further recourse (sick leave is renewed only as you earn it), but if somebody has another baby, they'll get another three months paid leave.

AOC has no proposed policy, so you are describing a figment of your imagination.

I don't know what 'that people generally do not have children means',

Really, you don't understand the notion that in general, people do not have children?

but it is true that men do not have the legal right to opt out of parenthood.

It is also true that women do not always have the legal right to opt out parenthood is restricted.

Quite the opposite. You are the one who thinks the government should force companies to pay parents three months leave, not me.

That is grossly disingenuous on multiple levels. I am critiquing your emotion-driven petty critiques. I have advocated this policy. And, you do think the US government should adopt your views on this matter if and when AOC proposes legislation.

 

[Jayjay]

Just for comparison, this is how a brand spanking new parental leave reform is going to look like in Finland:

- 6.5 weeks off for the mother for giving birth (i.e. doesn't apply to adoptions)
- 16 weeks each for both parents minimum
- 21 weeks to be split between parents however they see fit
- Single parents can use both parents' quotas

Parental leave can be taken anytime until the child is 2 years old, except for the birthing part obviously.

I presume this is paid at a flat rate by the government to the parents, and not by employers.

I'm not a parent so I haven't researched this topic that well. It's not a flat rate, but it is paid by the government (either directly to the parents, or to the employer that in turn pays the worker's salary).

Why wouldn't the time off be allowed for adoption?

I meant the parents who are adopting. They don't need time off to go to the hospital or recover from birth. If you are giving your child up for adoption, then obviously then you do get that part.

 

[Metaphor]

I had to look up KPI. It means Key Performance Indicator.

This sort of weepy nonsense makes children seem like an intolerably expensive indulgence, something like mansions or yachts or caviar. Some people treating children like that likely explains the low fertility in many industrialized countries.

Not true. AOC does not seem to be able to imagine life outside her current pampered experience.

...
But you were right about one thing: although the feeling is not 'jealousy', the parental leave that AOC has described is unearned and uncontrolled and appears to me to violate principles of fairness. There's literally no upper limit. ...

What would count as "earned"?

Earned in the same way all other leave is earned.

For example, I get 4 weeks of annual leave a year, calculated and credited monthly.

You don't get 4 weeks credited on day one of your job and you don't get to take annual leave for three months and there is a defined upper limit.

 

[Metaphor]

What happens in Australia is irrelevant to the discussion about AOC's ideas for the USA. Moreover, your observation is ever more irrelevant because in the USA you can lose vacation leave even while your work because there is no federal law about this. Apparently in Australia there are federal laws imposing rules on how Australian businesses can operate of which you approve. Hmmm.

Hmmm indeed. You wrote that sentence as if I you had the notion that I have a blanket disapproval of federal laws operating on businesses, which I have never said and do not believe.

Really, you don't understand the notion that in general, people do not have children?

Yes, I don't understand the notion. Most people have children, which is why the global population is increasing.

That is grossly disingenuous on multiple levels. I am critiquing your emotion-driven petty critiques.

You're not doing any such thing. You attributed an emotion to me and I told you your attribution was both wrong and irrelevant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I rarely see other people in this shop and I hope his business picks up. I hope it picks up enough to where he could actually hire others. But let's say he reaches that threshhold: being able to hire somebody instead of working 70+ hours each week on his own. If he reaches it and he hires somebody who then promptly takes three months off, he'd be obliged to pay for that person and then he'd either have to replace them or work the hours he'd hoped to regain himself. And, of course, it is illegal for him to enquire or hint about family/carer plans at interview. He might consciously or unconsciously hire people he knows are less likely to be carers (young men, for example, compared to women of childbearing age). Or he'd take the first person on as a casual rather than part time, so that benefits like family leave simply do not accrue to them. Or he'd be unlucky and the first person he hires claims family leave and drives his business to the edge.

At least here we have the sense not to apply the FMLA to small businesses for this very reason. (And I think we go about it wrong. Paying them isn't much of an issue--it's unpaid leave but they stay on the health insurance. However, it's not really how big the business is, but how many people do that sort of job. If you have 20 burger flippers and a few managers the FMLA doesn't apply but you would not be appreciably inconvenienced if a burger flipper took time off to have a baby. However, if you have 100 widget makers and one person who maintains widget-making machines you're going to have quite a problem if that maintenance person takes time off for a baby.)

 

[laughing dog]

Hmmm indeed. You wrote that sentence as if I you had the notion that I have a blanket disapproval of federal laws operating on businesses, which I have never said and do not believe.

No, you approve of laws that increase costs on business in the case of vacation leave but not parental leave, even though the underlying principle of increasing costs are the same.

No, most people do not have children.

You're not doing any such thing. You attributed an emotion to me and I told you your attribution was both wrong and irrelevant.

Sure Jan. Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Metaphor]

No, you approve of laws that increase costs on business in the case of vacation leave but not parental leave, even though the underlying principle of increasing costs are the same.

Even though I explained it to you quite thoroughly, you've managed to not understand.

Employers in Australia are forced to provide vacation leave to their permanent (ongoing) employees, but not their casual employees or contracted staff. The person who benefits from vacation leave (the employee) also bears the cost: their annual wage/salary already takes into account vacation leave. Unused vacation leave can be accumulated (though you can be forced to use it) and it can be cashed out as well.

The kind of family leave AOC has implemented in her office is not like that. If you never go on family leave you are not entitled to its cash equivalent. Or you could use it three times in three years. The people who bear the cost is everyone else, not the person on leave.

Australia also has compulsory employer-provided super contributions, but the employee is bearing the cost (passed on in lower wage growth than would otherwise be). That's fine: that's how it was designed.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'm not a parent so I haven't researched this topic that well. It's not a flat rate, but it is paid by the government (either directly to the parents, or to the employer that in turn pays the worker's salary).

Why wouldn't the time off be allowed for adoption?

I meant the parents who are adopting. They don't need time off to go to the hospital or recover from birth. If you are giving your child up for adoption, then obviously then you do get that part.

That's mildly offensive. The recovery time is meant to allow birth mom and dad to bond with new baby. This is needed for biological families and adoptive families. In the US, such a law that discriminates wouldn't be allowed.

 

[laughing dog]

No, you approve of laws that increase costs on business in the case of vacation leave but not parental leave, even though the underlying principle of increasing costs are the same.

Even though I explained it to you quite thoroughly, you've managed to not understand.

Wrong as usual.

[
Employers in Australia are forced to provide vacation leave to their permanent (ongoing) employees, but not their casual employees or contracted staff. The person who benefits from vacation leave (the employee) also bears the cost: their annual wage/salary already takes into account vacation leave. Unused vacation leave can be accumulated (though you can be forced to use it) and it can be cashed out as well.....

Under no normal circumstance can be employee be viewed as bearing the cost of the vacation leave. More importantly, the gov't is forcing the employer to bear the cost of the vacation pay - either the expense or the cost of the undone work or the cost of hiring a replacement. It must be a terrible burden for small businesses.

The idea that the cost to the employee is lower than "normal" wage growth is economically illiterate.

 

[Metaphor]

Under no normal circumstance can be employee be viewed as bearing the cost of the vacation leave.

Of course they are. Are you under the impression that government can legislate free bennies for all? Are you under the impression that when a universal requirement is imposed on the labour market that employers do not pass on the cost of that?

More importantly, the gov't is forcing the employer to bear the cost of the vacation pay - either the expense or the cost of the undone work or the cost of hiring a replacement. It must be a terrible burden for small businesses.

The employer bears the cost of managing leave across its workforce, sure.

The idea that the cost to the employee is lower than "normal" wage growth is economically illiterate.

The idea that you don't think that employers pass on the cost is kumbayah fantasy.

 

[Toni]

I'm not a parent so I haven't researched this topic that well. It's not a flat rate, but it is paid by the government (either directly to the parents, or to the employer that in turn pays the worker's salary).

Why wouldn't the time off be allowed for adoption?

I meant the parents who are adopting. They don't need time off to go to the hospital or recover from birth. If you are giving your child up for adoption, then obviously then you do get that part.

That's mildly offensive. The recovery time is meant to allow birth mom and dad to bond with new baby. This is needed for biological families and adoptive families. In the US, such a law that discriminates wouldn't be allowed.

I admit that I struggle a little bit with the notion of new fathers getting the same parental leave as new biological mothers. A pregnant woman can have a distressed pregnancy and be placed on bed rest for weeks prior to birth. This does NOT mean that she needs less time to physically recovery from childbirth or to adjust to the new child(ren), etc. Time off for medical appointments related to pregnancy, or for medical needs that might arise from a pregnancy should not come out of parental leave. I also feel that there should be a medical leave portion in addition to parental leave. Recovery from pregnancy and childbirth is separate from caring for a newborn and all the adjustments that welcoming a new child of any age into the family requires.

I 100% agree that fathers deserve parental leave as much as mothers do. It's better for the child(ren) and mother and family. It increases productivity as new parents are less likely to need to take time off in an unplanned way because of needs to take care of young child(ren). It's also better for the employer because it tremendously builds employee loyalty (reducing the amount of retraining necessary) and satisfaction. I believe that it should apply to ALL employers/employees, and I believe it should be government subsidized, at least for small employers.

 

[Toni]

Of course they are. Are you under the impression that government can legislate free bennies for all? Are you under the impression that when a universal requirement is imposed on the labour market that employers do not pass on the cost of that?

But you just described paid vacation as part of employee compensation (post 35). Presumably you recognize that other benefits: medical (common in the US) and life insurance (offered by many employers), educational/training benefits, pension/other retirement plans, etc. are part of employee compensation? Presumably in Australia, costs of employee compensation are part of any corporations costs of doing business and as such figure into how and how much businesses are taxed?