Wow, paid maternity leave??

[glenn1]

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?

Sure, but then why would the same people saying that complain if the government acted in pro-business ways that clearly benefit business? Business is already benefiting society by playing its assigned role, what's the role are you taking on as a non-employer to help "support society" for a parent? And no, saying "that guy should do it" isn't taking on responsibility. No matter what, it's not really the place of business to "strengthen society" via employee work policies that pay for maternity leave than it is to "strengthen religion" via work policies that pay for them to religious leave to attend a pilgrimage.

Even if you looked at it from a "pro-social" POV, what is the benefit in allowing parents to spend extensive time away from work *and* allowing them to maintain seniority to compete against the person who had to assume their work during the absence and wasn't a no-show employee?

 

[werepossum]

In a weird way, this thread heartens me because I suspect the militant "anti-breeder" folks (who sound like complete a-holes) should never, and will never, reproduce. THANK YOU.

LOL

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.)

A few months of paid maternity leave? Holy fuck you're generous with other people's money.

...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...

This progressive structuring of society would explain why Canada leads the world in, um . . .

 

[Moonbeam]

Even if you looked at it from a "pro-social" POV, what is the benefit in allowing parents to spend extensive time away from work *and* allowing them to maintain seniority to compete against the person who had to assume their work during the absence and wasn't a no-show employee?

What if the question is what is the advantage of disadvantaging parents in the workplace. Smart and ambitious people wouldn't have any kids, or only fathers would work. In your adherence to a moral theory as an absolute, you destroy the common good. We wouldn't want a work practice that destroys the genetic fitness of a society, now would we.

 

[Moonbeam]

This progressive structuring of society would explain why Canada leads the world in, um . . .

Canada is 10 on the life satisfaction list of countries, The US is 23rd, but it's of the nature of self haters to seek misery.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Canada is 10 on the life satisfaction list of countries, The US is 23rd, but it's of the nature of self haters to seek misery.

Happiness is not a quantifiable metric. We need to lead in something objective, like obesity or incarceration rates or military spending... OK, maybe those aren't the best examples, but I can easily ignore the failures in our education system or growing wealth gap when I gaze with pride at the ever-growing numbers on my stock ticker. Profits; now there's a quantifiable metric. That's what these mothers just don't seem to get; how could you possibly care about something that isn't money?

 

[werepossum]

Happiness is not a quantifiable metric. We need to lead in something objective, like obesity or incarceration rates or military spending... OK, maybe those aren't the best examples, but I can easily ignore the failures in our education system or growing wealth gap when I gaze with pride at the ever-growing numbers on my stock ticker. Profits; now there's a quantifiable metric. That's what these mothers just don't seem to get; how could you possibly care about something that isn't money?

I always hear that the left isn't interested in money, yet virtually every push by the left is to get money from other people. Why is that?

 

[nickqt]

I always hear that the left isn't interested in money, yet virtually every push by the left is to get money from other people. Why is that?

Libruuls libruuls libruuls, libruuls libruuls.

Benghazi.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I always hear that the left isn't interested in money, yet virtually every push by the left is to get money from other people. Why is that?

Virtually every push is to spread the money around as opposed to consolidating it in the hands of a few extremely wealthy oligarchs. That's really not the same as "the left is trying to rob us because they're greedy!" But hey, let's flip that one around; I always hear that the right is interested in the sanctity of life, yet virtually every push is to deny any sort of funding for infants or new mothers (or, for that matter, contraception/abortion/sex-ed to help prevent unwanted pregnancy). Why is that? Every now and then ideology butts up against reality and everyone has a bit of hypocrisy when that happens. But that doesn't mean we can't argue about the relative importance of conflicting ideologies, such as the profit margins of a business versus the importance of parental involvement in the earliest stages of a newborn's life. At the risk of sounding like Helen Lovejoy, "won't somebody think of the children?"

 

[Darwin333]

cant address the issue can you?

So what if everyone else does something, doesn't make it right.


PS. Why do you guys have to set up so many strawman? Could it be that you really don't have a good answer as to why you should force people to support others kids? Kids they have by choice?

No we do have an absolutely great answer, it betters and benefits our society on more levels than I can list. The fact that every other nation has figured this out yet we still haven't astounds me.

If you had your way we would quite literally go extinct, relying solely on a vastly increased immigration just to maintain our population generation after generation. We as a society should not want to have to resort to such measures just to prevent huge negative population growth.

 

[michal1980]

No we do have an absolutely great answer, it betters and benefits our society on more levels than I can list. The fact that every other nation has figured this out yet we still haven't astounds me.

If you had your way we would quite literally go extinct, relying solely on a vastly increased immigration just to maintain our population generation after generation. We as a society should not want to have to resort to such measures just to prevent huge negative population growth.

You have no answer. All you are saying it's that we should do whatever everyone else is doing.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You have no answer. All you are saying it's that we should do whatever everyone else is doing.

Learning from others is a good trait. Saying that we shouldn't do something just because everyone else is doing it is stupid to the point of suicidal.

 

[michal1980]

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.

Hint you are not a conservative. You want to take other people's money and labor and give it to your special interest group, just like a liberal. A conservative would save for their family. And have a plan to provide time off for them. A liberal wants someone else to give them money.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Hint you are not a conservative. You want to take other people's money and labor and give it to your special interest group, just like a liberal. A conservative would save for their family. And have a plan to provide time off for them. A liberal wants someone else to give them money.

Hint, everyone wants to take other people's money and labor and give it to their special interest group. The only real difference between the two sides is who those special interest groups represent.

 

[brycejones]

Hint you are not a conservative. You want to take other people's money and labor and give it to your special interest group, just like a liberal. A conservative would save for their family. And have a plan to provide time off for them. A liberal wants someone else to give them money.

You should right a book or at least a blog.

Posts from Dumbfuckistan seems to be an appropriate title.

BTW are you planning on reproducing?

 

[Moonbeam]

You should right a book or at least a blog.

Posts from Dumbfuckistan seems to be an appropriate title.

BTW are you planning on reproducing?

He has a brain defect and I don't think it's genetic. I think having it was one of two ways to survive being made to feel worthless as a child. He had to be the way he is to survive. Not his fault though he was made to feel it was. That's why he worships self responsibility while not achieving it in reality.

 

[Darwin333]

You have no answer. All you are saying it's that we should do whatever everyone else is doing.

No, if you would have read and comprehended what I said you would have understood that I said we should do what is in the best interests of our society.

 

[michal1980]

He has a brain defect and I don't think it's genetic. I think having it was one of two ways to survive being made to feel worthless as a child. He had to be the way he is to survive. Not his fault though he was made to feel it was. That's why he worships self responsibility while not achieving it in reality.

go fuck yourself asshole.

 

[michal1980]

You should right a book or at least a blog.

Posts from Dumbfuckistan seems to be an appropriate title.

BTW are you planning on reproducing?

What does that have anything to do with that?

 

[brycejones]

go fuck yourself asshole.

Brilliant and well reasoned, I'm sure you've showed him.

 

[Darwin333]

Virtually every push is to spread the money around as opposed to consolidating it in the hands of a few extremely wealthy oligarchs. That's really not the same as "the left is trying to rob us because they're greedy!" But hey, let's flip that one around; I always hear that the right is interested in the sanctity of life, yet virtually every push is to deny any sort of funding for infants or new mothers (or, for that matter, contraception/abortion/sex-ed to help prevent unwanted pregnancy). Why is that? Every now and then ideology butts up against reality and everyone has a bit of hypocrisy when that happens. But that doesn't mean we can't argue about the relative importance of conflicting ideologies, such as the profit margins of a business versus the importance of parental involvement in the earliest stages of a newborn's life. At the risk of sounding like Helen Lovejoy, "won't somebody think of the children?"

Profit margins, as has been proven by something like 90% of Cali businesses either not noticing or happy with the program, won't be affected in any material way. This should be something the government funds via a absurdly small, to the point of being unnoticeable, increase in payroll taxes.

That prevents certain sectors that employ a lot more females than the norm from being hit hard due to multiple people being on maternity leave, it provides the benefit to women working in small businesses who couldn't possibly take on the burden of paying an additional salary without an increase in productivity (think 2-5 employee businesses) and prevents an increase in discrimination against women in large corporations.

As much as I dislike the idea of the government spending even more money and imho I'd much rather reduce other spending to fund it but the above is the easiest and best way to implement it.

 

[michal1980]

Brilliant and well reasoned, I'm sure you've showed him.

You have fun stalking me?

PS found either your picture or one of you lib buddies, always with your arms out looking for a handout.

 

[brycejones]

You have fun stalking me?

Carry your own chalk around?

Are you planning on reproducing?

 

[Darwin333]

Hint you are not a conservative. You want to take other people's money and labor and give it to your special interest group, just like a liberal. A conservative would save for their family. And have a plan to provide time off for them. A liberal wants someone else to give them money.

So "true conservatives" are against all forms of government spending and want a complete end to taxation?

 

[brycejones]

You have fun stalking me?

PS found either your picture or one of you lib buddies, always with your arms out looking for a handout.

Projecting your own life choices again?

 

[michal1980]

Are you planning on reproducing?

Why? You want to carry my child?