Sure, it does. The men in power don’t have to worry about this, because their wives handle all of it.
:smack:
I do sometimes wonder how many of the men who take “paternity” leave actually spend it at home, taking care of the wife and kids, and how many of them use it to party every night, spend every waking moment playing video games or watching pornography, or otherwise treat his wife like a live-in babysitter. :dubious:
This is like people who say, “I wonder how many people on welfare spend it on actual necessities, and how many spend it on frivolous products.” If it’s not right to judge how someone spends welfare funds, then how is it right to judge how a man uses paternity leave?
No, it’s not.
I don’t think most of them do that, BTW. The ones who do probably wouldn’t be interested enough in the kids to bother asking about a LOA anyway.
It wasn’t so many years ago that men who requested any time off for this purpose other than the day the baby was born (and sometimes not even that) would have been laughed out of the office, and maybe even told not to bother coming back if he did take time off.
It’s not a false choice when the objection is “we can’t afford it”, which seems to be a key objection being raised. Sure, there are genuine philosophical questions one can raise, but I’m not addressing that. Yet. This is similar to the objection raised earlier about it not being fair to people who don’t have kids-- if you’re OK with public funding of education, what is your objection to public funding of maternity/paternity leave?
Wait, you think quiverfull women work?
Yet another thread where conservatives complain about a proposal working just fine in the socialist hellhole of Europe, yet don’t ask themselves even once why the citizens said countries aren’t champing at the bit to destroy all these wallet draining programs if they’re so horrible.
It isn’t a straw man if one can cite conservatives who actually state that minor tax increases on the rich is “class warfare.” Come to think of it, I wonder how many of those conservatives also have stated that they think the “war on women” is a liberal fabrication…
In Canada, the employee on leave is paid from the federal Employment Insurance fund, which is maintained by contributions from the employees and the employer. It doesn’t come out of general tax revenue.
The employer is responsible for hiring a substitute worker and paying that worker’s salary, for the duration of the leave. Since the employer is not paying the salary of the employee on leave, the financial cost of the leave for the employer would be limited to any training needed for the substitute.
That’s not how it’s done in Canada. The employer does not pay the employee on leave, only the substitute worker. Since the employer is not paying the employee on leave, the salary cost would be the same (or possibly even some savings to the employer, if the salary for the employee on leave was higher than the salary for the substitute)
[QUOTE=XT]
Leaving aside the cost, how is it fair to people who don’t have and don’t intent to ever have kids, or those who already have kids?
[/QUOTE]
Well, in Canada, it’s run as part of the Employment Insurance program, which everyone pays into, and everyone potentially benefits from. You lose your job, you get EI for a certain period, based on your contribution history. You get laid off because you work in an industry that is seasonal in nature, you get EI benefits until the jobs start up again. You have a child, you get parental leave.
Not everyone is likely to use every type of EI benefits in the course of their work career, but most people will likely use one or another type of EI benefits at some time.
It’s a benefit that we all pay into as employees, and all potentially take the benefit from.
If it’s run through an Employment Insurance program, it’s not the “dole.” Employee eligibility is based on having made the required amount of contributions, from the employee’s pay cheque. And, having a system like this, based on one’s contributions, is in fact part of the sound financial backing that prospective parents can take into account.
Well, in Canada, contract employees have the same EI contribution rights as term employees, and will be making contributions from their salary, so I don’t see an incentive to hire contracts over term.
That’s what human rights laws are for. If an employer discriminates in hiring on the basis of sex, they’re liable to pay compensation to individuals who were not hired as a result.
In the UK the employer pays for maternity leave (up to 52 weeks, with 2 weeks mandatory, or 4 if you work in a factory) but the money paid out is deducted from the employer’s tax and National Insurance contributions, so no extra cost is actually incurred.
In the UK a short period of maternity leave is mandatory. You simply have no choice as to whether you take it.
We spend a trillion dollars fighting bullshit wars that ultimately provide zero strategic benefit to us or our allies. I’m sure we could find the money if we wanted to.
Maybe we should do away with schools too? Or hospitals, since they are unfair to people who aren’t sick?
That’s a simplistic view of the world. I would think we would not want to create a scenario where a significant number of women (or men) must choose to drop out of the workforce.
Your system would make sense if we didn’t live in a society where it required a significant amount of investment of money and time to develop the skills to enter the workforce in a meaningful way.
Or maybe we treat having kids as a normal part of society instead of treating it as some hobby or other distraction that renders someone useless to their 1%-er overlords?
Are we talking about men or a college freshman here?:rolleyes:
I like the idea but I dont see how a small company, say less than 10 people, afford to have an employee gone for such a long time while they are still paying them?
Also I’ve seen where many childfree people begin to resent those parents who get this time off.
But still I favor the idea.
One issue that comes up there, what if the “substitute” person is found to be better at the job than the person they are replacing? Might the person on leave be handed a pink slip upon returning?
No. Labour standards laws require that the employer keep the job open for the employee on leave.
I’m for it.
From a conservative point of view, family is a priority; a sacred institution. Taking care of family is a priority. Having a working dad and a stay-at-home mom in a straight, traditional, nuclear family is a conservative ideal (but not an economic reality). They believe women are a bit different than men and have a unique biological role. They should make it easier for women to fulfill that role as much as possible.
So having an extended time for the primary parent, the mom, to take full care of an infant in is line with that philosophy.
If conservatives really want to live their values, their policies should reflect those ideals.
as mentioned above, it depends how the system is set up. In the Canadian system, the employee on leave is paid from the EI fund, not the employer, so that’s not a cost to the employer.
i’ve been in the work force for over 25 years and I’ve never heard any such grumbling, just feelings of good will that So-and-So is having a baby.