There's all sorts of ways to do it. I have not seen any proposals in my country. If this example you're giving is like Workman's comp in my state then I'm against it because that's funded by the employer. If it's funded by the employees then fine but good luck selling that politically.
You didn't address his point. In which state is it mandated?
As such, the entire cost of unemployment insurance would be shared between employees and employers alone (though the federal government continues to be responsible for any annual surpluses and deficits). In 1996, the name of the program was also changed to Employment Insurance (EI). This was intended to reflect the programs primary objective of promoting employment in the modern economy and labour force, and to move away from the image of supporting unemployment.
states where maternity/paternity income is funded by the employment insurance that those workers pay into from their preceding employment. Not a mandated wage while on leave for business to pay.
yet they are are very successful still with manufacturing and all other economic and social measures. even with paternity leave let alone maternity. especially germany and other central and nothern european countries. explain that one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/eurozone-unemployment-may-2013_n_3527873.htmlLONDON -- Unemployment across the 17 European Union countries that use the euro hit another all-time high in May after the previous months' figures were revised down, official data showed Monday.
Eurostat, the EU's statistics office, said the eurozone's unemployment rate rose 0.1 percentage point in May to the new all-time high of 12.1 percent. That's a new record for the region following the revisions as April's original 12.2 percent estimate was amended to 12.0 percent.
The figures will make sobering reading for the region's politicians as they gather in Berlin this week to tackle the problem of youth unemployment nearly one in four people aged under-25 in the eurozone are out of work.
Across the eurozone, there were 19.22 million people unemployed, 67,000 higher than the previous month a closer look at the figures show that Italy was largely behind the increase.
Even though the monthly rises outside of Italy were relatively modest, analysts still expect unemployment in the eurozone to continue to rise as the region remains stuck in recession that started in late 2011.
And likewise a society depends on the revenue, taxes and jobs those businesses provide, milk them dry and the society eventually collapses,
One example repeating itself allover the country is the bankruptcy and failure of many municipalities because they continually increased spending without regard to the constantly eroding middle class and their businesses that supported them.
Nothing in your post contradicts or disagrees with anything that I said.
What is the obsession with struggling businesses?
It isn't possible, nor desirable to attempt to, to design the laws and rules of society around the effect that something may or not have on a struggling businesses.
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.Unless it's optional for employers to pay into this then by definition it's "mandated".
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.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.
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.
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.
I think a lot of this is the common liberal extremist mindset... That society needs to pay for each others' mistakes, that we shouldn't have any personal accountability.
Ah yes, all children are mistakes.
the common conservative extremist mindset.
How illuminating.
So maternity leave is just welfare.
Mistake is a poor word selection. After all in the liberal mindset all "mistake" children would be aborted
Is anybody here really arguing against maternity leave itself?I'm sure those of you who are opposed to Maternity leave (because you think its a scam, sexism, st00pid, w/e) are also opposed to nursing rooms in the workplace. We have 2 of them, private rooms for mommy and baby.
I'm sure those of you who are opposed to Maternity leave (because you think its a scam, sexism, st00pid, w/e) are also opposed to nursing rooms in the workplace. We have 2 of them, private rooms for mommy and baby.
Since I am sure, none of you can phyiscally give birth to a child...you don't understand the importance of having the mother be with the child for those first few months of life. Newborns are especially needy and if Dad is not available round the clock for that (obviously because he is doing a man's work, some of you would say) the Mother NEEDS to be there for that child.
Some of you are just jerks, really. Calling maternity leave a scam? Giving ML is paying for someone else's "mistake"?
Sometimes, I think all some of you people have is this forum, because personally, I think I'd find more personality and character in a raisin than in some of you and I am not sure if people out in the real world could stomach much of the negativity some of you seem to have about everything and everybody.
Well said, but I think it's worse than that for the USA as we are the world's policeman and a LOT of our government spending goes to defense. Unless we are prepared to turn over that role to Red China, we'll have our additional entitlement spending on top of that.It's all well and good doing these comparisons to very socialist societies / governments, but you're completely failing to take note of something that is extremely relevant.
It isn't free. Not even for the common person.
One of the best ways to see what the gov't overall "TAKES" in order to provide "FREE" health care, is to look at what percentage of a countries GDP it sucks up currently.
In the USA, US tax revenue takes up approximately 27% of GDP.
That sounds like a lot, doesn't it?
So you want a system like Britain?
Sure. 39% please.
France? 44.6% please.
Denmark? 49% please.
Even in Canada - 32.2% please.
So the closest of these to the US would represent 18% more revenue for the government. The farthest (Denmark) would represent 80% more revenue.
So yeah, you can have what the Joneses have, but you're going to have to pay for it.
A fact of life - NOTHING IS FREE
Every single poster that says 'xxx has free universal healthcare' is either an idiot or a liar, take your pick.
Edit : I miscalculated Canada's increase - it's 18%, not 10%.
As an employer, why should I suffer a financial hit because YOU MADE A CHOICE to have sex???
Then agin this entitlement generation thinks that someone else should always pay their way.
Another person angry at the average American, because he/she gets in the way of his personal prosperity.
Bottom line is the money has to come from somewhere. If the strong independent wimminz can do anything men can only better, they can devise a method of providing paid maternity leave without pulling money off other people who had nothing to do with her getting pregnant.
And why should anyone be entitled to get in the way of my prosperity?