Wow, paid maternity leave??

[nickqt]

Yeah, it can't possibly be co-workers who are forced to pick up the slack when a peer goes out on maternity leave for months at a time. It's always 100% about Daddy Warbucks trying to stick it to the proles and gain another $100 bill to light his cigars with.

You believe shareholder ROI is more important than the children of our society being given time with their mother and father.

You can talk about cigars and money all you want, but it's that simple.

Other societies offer 100x as much support of familes than our society, and most of those societies have far less crime, child abandonment, and other shit-tier statistics as the US.

It's funny how in order to provide maximum freedom and maximum profit, everything else is subservient to that, including our societal functioning as a whole.

Otherwise, we'd find the money. Easily.

Our culture is warped. People complain about any number of "moral decline" symptoms, blame parents, blame teachers, blame teachers unions, blame everyone they can. But then come to the defense of maximum profit which is why we can't afford to help the "breeders" who are in fact shitting out the next generation of workers, health care providers, etc, that will one day BE this country.

Heaven forbid someone's IRA be worth a few dollars less if it means that we help out future Americans.

I believe the children are the future, unless they get in the f-ing way of me being worth a few dollars more.
-Should be the new motto on US money

All hail M̶a̶m̶m̶o̶n̶ FreeMarket™

 

[blastingcap]

I believe the children are the future, unless they get in the f-ing way of me being worth a few dollars more.
-Should be the new motto on US money

All hail M̶a̶m̶m̶o̶n̶ FreeMarket™

Irony: the value of investments depends on future generations. For instance, current college grads are having a harder time building savings and paying off college debt than previous generations. This has delayed household formation/marriage and homeownership rates. In fact if they continue to have trouble accumulating wealth, then unless foreigners step in, the price of American assets should go DOWN (adjusted for inflation).

If you didn't understand that, here's a simple example: how much is a home worth today? You guess based on comparable home sales in the recent past, among other things. But what if tomorrow everybody on the planet except you died? What's the worth of the home then? Zero. There aren't any buyers left. You can squat in the home or whatever but the concept of price is meaningless since there are no buyers or sellers if you are the last human alive.

Now, maybe you don't care and want to screw over the next generation of Americans, and figure that foreigners will buy up American assets. If that happens, is it a good thing? Would you still want to live in a U.S. if it were owned by Saudi Arabia? Is it possible that you are being shortsighted with an attitude like that?

Food for thought for militant anti-breeders. And that doesn't even get into the social benefits of stronger families (less psychological issues, juvenile deliquents, etc.)

So stop bitching and moaning about the mere prospect of spending a little bit of money for family bonding time. Buy one fewer squadron of F-22s or something. You won't miss the F-22s, but families--and your investments--will benefit.

P.S. For those bitching about how coworkers who go on leave means more work for you, why are you blaming your coworkers instead of your employer for not hiring temps or working with everyone to smooth out the transition? Raising kids is expensive and hard work, but you want to stick working families with 100% of the burden even to the detriment of society and even your own investments? Unreal.

 

[michal1980]

You believe shareholder ROI is more important than the children of our society being given time with their mother and father.

You can talk about cigars and money all you want, but it's that simple.

Other societies offer 100x as much support of familes than our society, and most of those societies have far less crime, child abandonment, and other shit-tier statistics as the US.

It's funny how in order to provide maximum freedom and maximum profit, everything else is subservient to that, including our societal functioning as a whole.

Otherwise, we'd find the money. Easily.

Our culture is warped. People complain about any number of "moral decline" symptoms, blame parents, blame teachers, blame teachers unions, blame everyone they can. But then come to the defense of maximum profit which is why we can't afford to help the "breeders" who are in fact shitting out the next generation of workers, health care providers, etc, that will one day BE this country.

Heaven forbid someone's IRA be worth a few dollars less if it means that we help out future Americans.

I believe the children are the future, unless they get in the f-ing way of me being worth a few dollars more.
-Should be the new motto on US money

All hail M̶a̶m̶m̶o̶n̶ FreeMarket™

Irony: the value of investments depends on future generations. For instance, current college grads are having a harder time building savings and paying off college debt than previous generations. This has delayed household formation/marriage and homeownership rates. In fact if they continue to have trouble accumulating wealth, then unless foreigners step in, the price of American assets should go DOWN (adjusted for inflation).

If you didn't understand that, here's a simple example: how much is a home worth today? You guess based on comparable home sales in the recent past, among other things. But what if tomorrow everybody on the planet except you died? What's the worth of the home then? Zero. There aren't any buyers left. You can squat in the home or whatever but the concept of price is meaningless since there are no buyers or sellers if you are the last human alive.

Now, maybe you don't care and want to screw over the next generation of Americans, and figure that foreigners will buy up American assets. If that happens, is it a good thing? Would you still want to live in a U.S. if it were owned by Saudi Arabia? Is it possible that you are being shortsighted with an attitude like that?

Food for thought for militant anti-breeders. And that doesn't even get into the social benefits of stronger families (less psychological issues, juvenile deliquents, etc.)

So stop bitching and moaning about the mere prospect of spending a little bit of money for family bonding time. Buy one fewer squadron of F-22s or something. You won't miss the F-22s, but families--and your investments--will benefit.

P.S. For those bitching about how coworkers who go on leave means more work for you, why are you blaming your coworkers instead of your employer for not hiring temps or working with everyone to smooth out the transition? Raising kids is expensive and hard work, but you want to stick working families with 100% of the burden even to the detriment of society and even your own investments? Unreal.

 

[glenn1]

You believe shareholder ROI is more important than the children of our society being given time with their mother and father.

You can talk about cigars and money all you want, but it's that simple.

Other societies offer 100x as much support of familes than our society, and most of those societies have far less crime, child abandonment, and other shit-tier statistics as the US.

It's funny how in order to provide maximum freedom and maximum profit, everything else is subservient to that, including our societal functioning as a whole.

Otherwise, we'd find the money. Easily.

Our culture is warped. People complain about any number of "moral decline" symptoms, blame parents, blame teachers, blame teachers unions, blame everyone they can. But then come to the defense of maximum profit which is why we can't afford to help the "breeders" who are in fact shitting out the next generation of workers, health care providers, etc, that will one day BE this country.

Heaven forbid someone's IRA be worth a few dollars less if it means that we help out future Americans.

I believe the children are the future, unless they get in the f-ing way of me being worth a few dollars more.
-Should be the new motto on US money

All hail M̶a̶m̶m̶o̶n̶ FreeMarket™

Then why not cut out the middleman and have the government hire women directly for the purposes of having children. At least that makes rational sense and makes you defend your assertion on its merits and costs rather than having a scapegoat like "shareholders" to take you off the hook for it.

 

[MrPickins]

John Oliver opened this can of worms again. Not a fan of breeders so it got me whipped into a frenzy. Now I know how Fox News viewers always feel.

You should call your parents and thank them for being "breeders".

Why are you setting up strawman?

People shitting kids had many choices before shitting out that kid didn't they?

First they could have chose to not have sex.

Then they could have chosen to have unprotected sex.

The also could have chosen to have other forms of birth control.

Then given that you liberals love killing kids, err wait, you like 'choice' they could have aborted that kid.

And those are choices just related to not having a kid.

There are many more that could be made if you wanted kids.

How about being married?
How about saving money so that you could take time off when the kid is born?

Etc etc.


Yet once again you on the left just go back to that same old story. Why not have someone else pay for my shit?

You act like the only people that would benefit from this are welfare queens. You realize this would be a big help to all working mothers, right?

Look, I'm a fiscal conservative, but even I see that the long-term benefits here would outweigh the costs.

 

[PricklyPete]

Not only does my company offer paid maternity leave, but they now offer 4 weeks of paid paternity leave that I will surely be taking this year.

 

[glenn1]

You should call your parents and thank them for being "breeders".




You act like the only people that would benefit from this are welfare queens. You realize this would be a big help to all working mothers, right?

Look, I'm a fiscal conservative, but even I see that the long-term benefits here would outweigh the costs.

No one is arguing the benefits, although some are arguing the means. Lots of things people do could create long-term benefits but should we mandate employers give paid time off for them? Maternity leave, volunteer work, mentoring kids, earthquake relief in Nepal - who the hell would ever do the actual work? Everything sounds like a great idea when you don't expect to pay for it because you mandate someone else do so, but I can see no reason why the "rich shareholders" are those appropriate people.

 

[PricklyPete]

Not only does my company offer paid maternity leave, but they now offer 4 weeks of paid paternity leave that I will surely be taking this year.

Also, when my wife had twins last year, her company (tiny graphics company) kept paying her for a month even though she told them she was leaving. So while we have a long ways to go, I think US companies are starting to get it.

 

[Whiskey16]

...but should we mandate employers give paid time off for them?

A stupid and often flat-out scaremongering lie. Quite unsurprising.

As hears ago, unscrupulous and dishonest ideologues such as yourself, glenn, choose to ignore that many states with maternity/paternity leave offer payment based upon the EMPLOYEES contribution into to federal or provincial/state Employment Insurance funds.... Not your categorical lie of only employers being on the financial hook.

Children and the health of their raising are societal concerns and therefore warrant the support of government legislation and the use of Employment Insurance funds to retain the health of the employment for their return to the workforce.

 

[Whiskey16]

No one is arguing the benefits, although some are arguing the means. .... but should we mandate employers give paid time off for them?

To counter and exemplify glenn's choice of argumentative dishonest bluster:

...originally posted 07-02-2013, 10:35 AM

The Globe and Mail

Maternity leave basics: Canada vs. the U.S.

Maternity and parental benefits provided for the birth or adoption of a baby varies wildly from country to country. The United States is part of a very exclusive group – but not for the reasons you might suspect. It shares the spotlight with Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Liberia and Lesotho as one of the only countries in the world that doesn’t mandate some type of paid maternity leave for new mothers according to a study done by McGill University’s Institute for Health and Social Policy. In fact, when compared to its northern neighbour, the U.S. maternity leave policy is embarrassingly sparse.

Here are some of the big differences between the two countries.

Canada

The Canadian government mandates both a leave and a benefits component, the latter being administered by provincial employment insurance plans. Depending on the length of employment history and the hours worked, new mothers can take between 17 and 52 weeks of leave from their jobs. Their employers are required to accept the employees back into their jobs, or the equivalent, at the end of the mandated leave at the same rate of pay with the same employment benefits.

On top of mandating maternity leave, the government offers paid leave for
one or both parents through Canada’s employment insurance plan. A pregnant employee or new mother can take a paid maternity leave of up to 15 weeks. Either the mother or father can take 35 weeks of parental leave after the baby is born or adopted. The parents can share the leave however they choose. If eligible for the program, the benefits equal 55 per cent of the parent’s average weekly insurable wage, up to a maximum of $485 per week. For low-income families, the rate of benefits can increase to up to 80 per cent, with the same maximum of $485 per week. Employment insurance benefits are taxable in the same way as wages.

United States

In the U.S., the picture for families-to-be is very different. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) signed into law in 1993 requires employers to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for several medical conditions, as well as the birth of a baby. If the mother has pre-birth complications, she may be able to take part of the leave under the medical component. Before the law was enacted, the U.S. had no laws requiring that employers provide any leave. There are still gaping holes in the FMLA, however. It exempts small employers, defined as those having fewer than 50 employees. Some states have their own version of the FMLA and have an even lower threshold for employer exemption.

..

The Bottom Line

The U.S. has one of the poorest support systems for pregnant women and new mothers in the world. The Canadian system, on the other hand, provides at least a partial ongoing income for almost a year to give families time to adjust to the new addition, as well as a guarantee of re-employment after a lengthy leave.

In terms of funding for a Canadian worker's EI bank, the legislation if for the employers to collect a portion of the employee's earned wages and to pass that along as that worker's EI contributions to Service Canada. The Employment Benefits entitled to that worker are based upon what they have contributed over the year before they submit for EI services.

Service Canada

3. What is EI premium rate for me [employers]?
As of January 1st, 2013,employers will pay a premium rate of $2.632 per $100 of each employee's earnings, up to the annual maximum insurable earnings of $47,400 for each employee. The maximum contribution amount of each employee is $1,247.57.
For employees working in Quebec, employers will pay a premium rate of $2.128 per $100 of each employee's earnings, up to the annual maximum insurable earnings of $47,400 for each employee. The maximum contribution amount for each employeeis $1,008.67.


4. What is the EI premium rate for my employees?
As of January 1st, 2013, for each employee, youneed to deduct $1.88 for each $100 of your employee's salary, up to the maximum insurable earnings of $47,400. The maximum contribution amount for each employee is $891.12. For your employeesworking in Quebec, you need to deduct $1.52 for each $100 of your employee'ssalary, up to the maximum insurable earnings of $47,400. The maximum contribution amount for each employee is $720.48.

In Canada, that 2.632% per $100 of wages paid by the employer to Service Canada's Employment Insurance is a legislated component and costs of an employees wage.

For a comparison, here is the legislated cost to employers in the USA:

SOURCE

Costs are Truly Shared by Federal and State Government
Operating as a federal-state partnership, UC is based on federal law, but administered by the states. The UC program is unique among U.S. social insurance programs in that it is funded almost totally by either federal or state taxes paid by employers.

Currently, employers pay federal unemployment taxes of 6.2 percent on the first $7,000 earned by each of their employees during a calendar year. These federal taxes are used to cover the costs of administering the UC programs in all states. In addition, the federal UC taxes pay one-half of the cost of extended unemployment benefits (during periods of high unemployment) and provide for a fund from which states may borrow, if necessary, to pay benefits.

State UC tax rates vary from state-to-state. State UC taxes may be used only to pay benefits to unemployed workers. The state UC tax rate paid by employers is based on the state's current unemployment rate. As their unemployment rates go up, the states are required by federal law to raise the UC tax rate paid by employers.

Upon the issue of maternity/paternity paid leave in Canada, the entitlement and source for funding is Employment Insurance. One works to receive it. Trade Apprentices may collect from their paid into fund while in school, a newborn infant also entitles one of the parents insured leave to care for their child. To not do see is viewed as a greater immediate and long term burden plus cost upon society.

This is not a route for a paid vacation by your employer. The rampant and fully on ignorant ideology expressed in this forum is quite repellent and a reflecting disgrace upon the socially retarded state that is the USA. As evident from the OP and the rare decently cited following posts, it is evident that the USA is detrimentally regressive and chooses to bear unnecessary social and health costs for its health. You in the USA choose to keep yourself left behind and in the relative developmental dark, down with states such as Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Liberia and Lesotho...

 

[blastingcap]

A stupid and often flat-out scaremongering lie. Quite unsurprising.

As hears ago, unscrupulous and dishonest ideologues such as yourself, glenn, choose to ignore that many states with maternity/paternity leave offer payment based upon the EMPLOYEES contribution into to federal or provincial/state Employment Insurance funds.... Not your categorical lie of only employers being on the financial hook.

Children and the health of their raising are societal concerns and therefore warrant the support of government legislation and the use of Employment Insurance funds to retain the health of the employment for their return to the workforce.

I have "glenn" on ignore. It's obvious why.

 

[MrPickins]

Not only does my company offer paid maternity leave, but they now offer 4 weeks of paid paternity leave that I will surely be taking this year.

I'd be fine with unpaid paternity leave.

I just had a daughter, and my 2 weeks of vacation time isn't really enough to help my wife recover from the c-section. Luckily for me, I have family that can help.

 

[glenn1]

To counter and exemplify glenn's choice of argumentative dishonest bluster:

...originally posted 07-02-2013, 10:35 AM


In terms of funding for a Canadian worker's EI bank, the legislation if for the employers to collect a portion of the employee's earned wages and to pass that along as that worker's EI contributions to Service Canada. The Employment Benefits entitled to that worker are based upon what they have contributed over the year before they submit for EI services.

In Canada, that 2.632% per $100 of wages paid by the employer to Service Canada's Employment Insurance is a legislated component and costs of an employees wage.

For a comparison, here is the legislated cost to employers in the USA:



Upon the issue of maternity/paternity paid leave in Canada, the entitlement and source for funding is Employment Insurance. One works to receive it. Trade Apprentices may collect from their paid into fund while in school, a newborn infant also entitles one of the parents insured leave to care for their child. To not do see is viewed as a greater immediate and long term burden plus cost upon society.

This is not a route for a paid vacation by your employer. The rampant and fully on ignorant ideology expressed in this forum is quite repellent and a reflecting disgrace upon the socially retarded state that is the USA. As evident from the OP and the rare decently cited following posts, it is evident that the USA is detrimentally regressive and chooses to bear unnecessary social and health costs for its health. You in the USA choose to keep yourself left behind and in the relative developmental dark, down with states such as Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Liberia and Lesotho...

We're not talking about Canada dumbass. The link in the OP was about the UK system and it's employer paid. I have only minor problems with the Canada system which is basically an extended disability policy, mainly that workers on leave continue to accrue seniority which is completely unfair IMHO.

 

[jackstar7]

May the short-sighted someday take the long view.

 

[CitizenKain]

Its obvious glenny and mickyboy are simply too stupid to understand this.

 

[Ronstang]

Ah the conundrum of being a modern day employer. Young men these days are children so women make better employees but if they are mission critical you have to worry about them getting pregnant and leaving you in a terrible situation. Thank you feminists for mucking up a system that worked great for thousands of years.

 

[fskimospy]

Ah the conundrum of being a modern day employer. Young men these days are children so women make better employees but if they are mission critical you have to worry about them getting pregnant and leaving you in a terrible situation. Thank you feminists for mucking up a system that worked great for thousands of years.

I'm interested to hear how women will be blamed for this, haha.

 

[blastingcap]

Ah the conundrum of being a modern day employer. Young men these days are children so women make better employees but if they are mission critical you have to worry about them getting pregnant and leaving you in a terrible situation. Thank you feminists for mucking up a system that worked great for thousands of years.

If it's mission-critical then you'd be a foolish employer to rely so much on one person. If that person quits for another job (2 week notice--less notice than you'd get with a pregnant woman), gets in an accident, dies, etc., then what? Also, pregnancy and maternity leave tend to be short-term, not like long-term immaturity. You work around such things, like you would work with the employee to schedule a long vacation.

 

[dank69]

A few months of paid maternity leave is in both the societal and the mother's interest. Helping new parents adjust, breastfeed, care for kids, etc. helps them bond and reduces problems later on. Does the aphorism "an ounce of prevention is worth an ounce of cure" mean anything to you? You want a kid to get a good start out on line so he doesn't wind up being mentally crazy or a criminal later on.

But noooo you would rather pay 10 times more money later on to incarcerate or treat a kid than to pay for a couple of weeks of lousy maternity leave and facilitate parental bonding. We spend practically nothing on these kinds of programs and $$$$$$$ on the military. Half the federal discretionary budget goes to freaking Dept of Defense, but you can't spare anything to raise the next generation of Americans? Seriously? http://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ Since you care so little about the next generation, why not end K-12 education while you're at it? It's those evil "breeders" "taking" money from you again, omigosh. If you wanted to have a kid, you should have saved up the $$$$$ to feed, clothe, AND educate the kid, instead of asking for govt handouts! Waaaa!

(For those who can't understand sarcasm, the lifetime productivity of a kid is expected to outweigh the expense of K-12 education and govt retirement programs like social security, though not necessarily including medicare and such as healthcare expenses spiral out of control. But that's another topic altogether.)

Michal never progressed past the stage where he could control his urge to eat the one cookie in front of him in order to get a second cookie in five minutes.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

If it's mission-critical then you'd be a foolish employer to rely so much on one person. If that person quits for another job (2 week notice--less notice than you'd get with a pregnant woman), gets in an accident, dies, etc., then what? Also, pregnancy and maternity leave tend to be short-term, not like long-term immaturity. You work around such things, like you would work with the employee to schedule a long vacation.

Clearly you don't employ anyone. Once you work for me, I literally own you. I can't have you running off and pretending your "life" is more important than the work you do to make me money.

 

[dank69]

Yeah, it can't possibly be co-workers who are forced to pick up the slack when a peer goes out on maternity leave for months at a time. It's always 100% about Daddy Warbucks trying to stick it to the proles and gain another $100 bill to light his cigars with.

Yeah, my coworker is out for the next 3 months so now I have to post twice as much! Fuck!

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Michal never progressed past the stage where he could control his urge to eat the one cookie in front of him in order to get a second cookie in five minutes.

That's not impatience, he's just doing his part to discourage childhood obesity. Two cookies? Get outta here, fattie.

 

[glenn1]

Clearly you don't employ anyone. Once you work for me, I literally own you. I can't have you running off and pretending your "life" is more important than the work you do to make me money.

How dare you think that. Employers aren't there to make products people use and turn a profit, they exist solely to serve as the vehicle to fund whatever social goals a progressive can come up with. Doing business is simply a distraction from helping create long-term societal benefits.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Doing business is simply a distraction from helping create long-term societal benefits.

The correct answer is that business is simply a vehicle to create long term societal benefits. Otherwise why would we allow them to exist at all?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

How dare you think that. Employers aren't there to make products people use and turn a profit, they exist solely to serve as the vehicle to fund whatever social goals a progressive can come up with. Doing business is simply a distraction from helping create long-term societal benefits.

If conservatives are going to continually tout the importance of business as the reason for American excellence, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect businesses to operate in pro-social ways that clearly benefit society. Bitching about women being bad employees because they have the gall to want children is the most anti-social load of horseshit I can think of. If you truly think that your profit margin is more important than your employees, you're an awful human being. And, apparently, an excellent businessman. Is that truly the behavior we want to reward and encourage to strengthen our society?