How it’s funded varies by country: in some it comes from the local SS scheme, in others it’s completely a company benefit, and in others it’s mixed.
It only covers new parents, by birth or adoption. My brother’s girlfriend is on track to adopt a daughter; he isn’t in the paperwork and can’t be, since they’re not married (when she initiated the adoption proceedings, they weren’t even dating). If they were married, both would have access to parental leave during the first months of having her here; since she’s not a newborn, they could spread the leave out more than for a newborn. Now the legal situation is that she’ll get several weeks leave by law when her daughter arrives, and he will get a few days as a company benefit when he co-adopts (assuming the relationship continues well, of course).
I’m all in favor of it, having seen how bad the first few weeks can be. It covers situations which in the US need FMLA-type benefits: your kid spends a few days in NICU? Covered under maternal leave, no need to ask for any special days or document anything. Your kid needs hospitalization within a few weeks of birth? Unless you took all the leave in a lump, you can take some days for that. The toddler suddenly reverts and becomes a nightmare? You can take a pre-approved half-day off if needed, to go speak with his school.
Now, how much? That depends on what the local social system and the company can afford.
And to the people who say “it’s unfair to the childless”: I’m unlikely to ever have children, and I say pbbbbbbth to you! Are you also envious of people who live longer than you do? Of people whose schools were cheaper than yours? Grow up or buy your own island!
Once again, good for society doesn’t mean good for every single person. Yes, it is a good thing.
Youve touched on something that’s really been bugging me lately. Conservatives start shrieking “class warfare!!!” if someone proposes raising the taxes paid by millionaires by 1%. But when someone proposes to correct the 20% inequity or the huge burden of child care borne disproportionately by women, how is that not a “war on women?”
Back to your question, it’s fair that rich pay higher tax rates. It’s fair that childless people pay for public school. It’s fair that conscientious objectors still have to pay for the military. And it’s fair that everyone would pay a little bit to pay for food stamps, family leave, and health insurance for other people. 110% fair.
The idea that “other people’s children do not benefit the childless” is just so incredibly shortsighted I’m amazed there’s people who can sincerely believe it. Do they expect to skip Medicaid altogether, cook and make their own meals every single day of their lives, and perform their own hip surgery?
Sorry, but we need to decide if having kids is a choice or not. If it’s purely a matter of choice, then society is under zero obligation to fund that choice.
I recognize the resentment I sometimes feel towards parental privilege comes from a selfish, eye-rolly place. But your argument isn’t that compelling to me, for the following reason:
I can think of a number of ways to improve the welfare of children, and thus society in general. Like, let’s give tax breaks to businesses that preferentially hire parents. Have a child? You qualify for a free three-bedroom house out in the suburbs, white picket fence and all. We could do what some countries do and give parents cash for every child they have. And throw in free Ivy League education and a car when they turn 16.
We really would have an awesome society, right?
But there would come a point where all this care for the children would become an absurdity, yes? A point where it would no longer be “110% fair” to everyone, where resentment from the childless would be 110% understandable.
Now, I don’t think paid parental leave comes close to being absurd. But I don’t really have a solid grasp on how exactly paid parental leave would benefit society. Is someone willing to provide some facts and figures to substantiate this claim?
Here is a Wiki with a table showing parental leave policies in a number of countries. My daughter in Germany was a beneficiary - not because she became a mother, but because she worked for over a year replacing someone taking the leave. If someone is out for 6 weeks, then those in the office have to pick up the slack. If someone is out for a year, then someone should be hired, temporarily, as a replacement.
I think the problem with the California parental leave is that fathers, and probably many mothers, are not going to take it for fear of falling behind. Here even vacation is bad, since lots of people have tons stored up (including me.) There you are pretty much forced to take it.
That’s a really good point, and I know EXACTLY where you are coming from. When I worked in a big Silicon Valley tech firm, the ethos was sort of: “vacations are for wimps”. If someone were to take off a year to raise a kid, they’d be out of the race. And it was a race. You were either in the race, or not in the race. (Kind of like being on the bus or off the bus. )
Maybe things have changed in the Google/Facebook era, but that’s the way I always saw it.
Any society where ordinary people can’t have children is a pretty crappy society. The very reason why society exists is so that people can better achieve basic common goals, such as raising a family. A society that can’t manage this is a failure.
I think the real conundrum here is that our earnings tend to have an upward curve, with most of us making much relatively little in our early career, and quite a bit in our later career. But for biological reasons, most women need to have kids early in their career. So we really just don’t have a choice but to have kids at a point where financially it probably doesn’t make much sense. The window of time between “makes enough money to easily handle maternity leave and childcare” and “facing sharply reduced fertility and much higher health risks to mother and child” is relatively small for many of us.
I don’t know what the answer is, but humans are remarkably creative people and I think we can surely comeup with some kind of way to balance things. Paid parental leave isn’t the objectively the fairest way to go, but it’s probably the best workaround we have right now.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Youve touched on something that’s really been bugging me lately. Conservatives start shrieking “class warfare!!!” if someone proposes raising the taxes paid by millionaires by 1%.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, horseshit. This is a complete strawman. Class warfare is something so prevalent on this board it’s practically background noise when it comes to talk about sticking it to the rich.
Certainly there are many things that are good for society as a whole and not for the individual. Where all of this about education is coming from I have no idea…I never said I was opposed to education or paying taxes for education. This is a bit beyond that, however. You are asking people to not only pay more but also to pick up the slack in, what I consider an unfair manner, IF we are talking about something extra on top of the leave everyone is entitled to from their job. If we are, then I totally disagree with you that this is a good thing or that people should just suck it up for those who choose to have a kid.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
You have to pay LOT more to educate the kids. We seem to have accepted that as a societal cost, no?
[/QUOTE]
Apples to oranges comparison IMHO. We as a society feel it’s beneficial to educate children. I don’t make someone who won’t have kids pay for this through taxes AND then ask them to work some extra time building the school out in their spare time as well.
Again, if we are talking about advancing leave I’m totally cool with this. But if we are talking about something over and above that you are asking people who don’t have kids or already have had their kids to take a double whammy here…pay more in taxes AND pick up the slack at work for those taking off, all while knowing this is leave THEY will never get. There will be a lot of resentment for something like that out in the real world, at least in the real world I work in. Perhaps it’s an IT thing, but I’ve seen people resentful over FMLA type situations, and that IS something everyone can take advantage of if they need it. This wouldn’t be.
I’d be against a mandate that forces employers to pay for it. People who can’t afford to have kids without forcing the rest of society to pay for them shouldn’t have them. A sound financial backing is a key component to a healthy upbringing and encouraging more people to get on the dole seems like a bad practice.
if someone is making a hiring decision, all other things equal, do you think they pick the person who has a high chance of being absent for long periods of time or the one who doesn’t? Workplaces run lean. Every year each person is expected to do more than they did before. More responsibility, faster output, less errors, etc. the person who can’t do that is the one who will be first to be laid off and the last for a raise or promotion. To those saying that others at the workplace can pick up the slack - if they can then the other person wasn’t really needed.
On top of that it’s a great way to disincent hiring someone over a contract worker. Why take the risk that someone will go on one or three extended periods of leave? That’s a lose lose right there.
I would follow all laws that are applicable but employers know what people cost. Hiring someone in a protected class means added risk. Hiring someone older means higher health care premiums. Hiring younger women means more maternity leave. These aren’t allowed to be decision criteria - do you really think they aren’t?
This is a good point but to me the difference to me is that public education is such a boon to society that it’s worth paying for. I am not convinced that parental leave of more than a few weeks has the same benefits.
I wouldn’t call it “fair,” but rather, “acceptably unfair.” A 100% fair society is almost impossible. But a few dozen injustices here and there are simply the price one has to pay for living in a society with relatively low crime, a decent standard of living, a decent economy, a functional government, an effective police force, etc.
I’m usually not big on grand social programs, but if you asked me to choose between spending $10B on kids and cutting $10B from the military, I’d take the former any day of the week. One key reason we can’t afford this stuff when everyone else seems to be able to is that we spend so damn much on the military (and they don’t).
That’s a false choice. One is not tied to the other. Military cuts can be had and no new grand social program need to grow in its place. The only thing the choice tells us is that you value one over the other - not whether either is worth while.
I agree, and this is probably the only place where I could get away with saying that.
(childless middle-aged woman here)
It should be decided by the individual companies.
I DEFINITELY believe that it should be illegal to fire someone just because they’re pregnant. Some jobs do require changes in duties, and this must be accommodated IMHO.
Maternity leave (and paternity leave, for that matter) empowers women, and helps level the playing field, genderwise, at work. Of course the American Right hates it.
)