Paid Maternity Leave: Yes or No?

[Calapsia]

Okay, so I've been thinking about something and I would like to know others' opinions about it.

Last night I saw a video about how businesses in Sweden are required to give 480 days of leave for new parents, 90 of which have to be taken by the father.
A lot of people complain about how the US doesn't require companies to give even women paid maternity leave.
My question is, why should businesses have to pay for workers that aren't working for a long period of time?
Like, I get sick leave, because sickness isn't a choice and chances are the sick person will be back working within a few weeks.
I'm in favor of the idea of unpaid maternity leave, because the company would then be able to pay a temporary worker and allow her to resume her position when she's ready.
I feel like forcing companies to pay women for maternity leave would make them a liability, and thus lead to higher unemployment for them.

This is just my take on it. If you have a different opinion or something to contribute, I'd love to hear it.

[Dooom35796821595]

They should get a reasonable amount of time, for the later weeks of the pregnancy and the first several weeks of the child's life. Beyond that it should be subsidised by the government. Males should also get the same, since equality and what not.

[Ashmoria]

wow

90 days of paid maternity/paternity leave is fine.

480 days is 310 that ought to be paid by the government if they think it is worth the expense.

[Community Values]

Probably not. There seems to be actual discrimination when companies are forced to pay maternity leave, as companies wouldn't hire women if they were forced to pay their maternity leave, or even let them take a 90 day break. Any such choices should probably be made by the business itself.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Yes. Mommys need to take care of babies.

[United Marxist Nations]

I think the state should probably provide provide the expenses for childcare. Not just because of my religious views (which encourage the idea of stay-at-home mothering), but also out of practicality. Raising future taxpayers is expensive, so the state should provide some help with the job.

[Southerly Gentleman]

Probably not. There seems to be actual discrimination when companies are forced to pay maternity leave, as companies wouldn't hire women if they were forced to pay their maternity leave, or even let them take a 90 day break. Any such choices should probably be made by the business itself.

True, all the hottest American companies have paid maternity leave.

Edit: also, I dont think Sweden will be so lenient to mothers once it's an islamic republic.

[Greed and Death]

2 weeks, however if the company provides atleast two weeks vacation and allows women to take from next years vacation if they have already expended theirs before becoming pregnant then 0 weeks maternity leave is required to be in compliance.

[Chessmistress]

My question is, why should businesses have to pay for workers that aren't working for a long period of time?
Like, I get sick leave, because sickness isn't a choice and chances are the sick person will be back working within a few weeks.
I'm in favor of the idea of unpaid maternity leave, because the company would then be able to pay a temporary worker and allow her to resume her position when she's ready.
I feel like forcing companies to pay women for maternity leave would make them a liability, and thus lead to higher unemployment for them.

This is just my take on it. If you have a different opinion or something to contribute, I'd love to hear it.

Companies shouldn't pay women for maternity: women's maternity isn't a company's business.
The state have to pay for the maternity.

[Rahul Raghuraman]

(parental) Leave = Great
Even Trump can agree on that!

[Dooom35796821595]

My question is, why should businesses have to pay for workers that aren't working for a long period of time?
Like, I get sick leave, because sickness isn't a choice and chances are the sick person will be back working within a few weeks.
I'm in favor of the idea of unpaid maternity leave, because the company would then be able to pay a temporary worker and allow her to resume her position when she's ready.
I feel like forcing companies to pay women for maternity leave would make them a liability, and thus lead to higher unemployment for them.

This is just my take on it. If you have a different opinion or something to contribute, I'd love to hear it.

Companies shouldn't pay women for maternity: women's maternity isn't a company's business.
The state have to pay for the maternity.

Why should the state subsidise a private employees pay?

[United Marxist Nations]

Companies shouldn't pay women for maternity: women's maternity isn't a company's business.
The state have to pay for the maternity.

Why should the state subsidise a private employees pay?

The state benefits from rearing children; that much is undeniable.

[Dooom35796821595]

Why should the state subsidise a private employees pay?

The state benefits from rearing children; that much is undeniable.

And companies benefit from the children that were raised. So both parties have to share the cost. That's why companies have to pay for sick leave.

[Gig em Aggies]

I would say no because a company should decide on its own terms as to the length and whether or not it should be paid or not. most businesses in the US do not have a big enough bank account to allow all new moms or dads paid leave or even un paid leave. here's how I think it should be

Any company under 100 employees who has an employee that gives birth to a baby shall provide the option of either 7 weeks of either paid or un paid leave to the new mother, if un-paid leave is chosen then for the duration of the woman's absence the company shall hire a temp worker so productivity and profits are not lost. if paid leave is chosen then the state shall pay for 30% the company 30% and the federal government 40%. Any company over 100 shall provide the same benefits but they cost shall come out of the companies own pocket unless they request help from the state or federal government.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

I mean, it's essentially prolonged sick leave. I think a company should have to pay maternity leave as a linear function of time after the leave has begun, based on the salary or wage of the employee; such that two weeks after the baby is delivered, the paid leave has tapered off.

[Fartsniffage]

The state benefits from rearing children; that much is undeniable.

And companies benefit from the children that were raised. So both parties have to share the cost. That's why companies have to pay for sick leave.

Only to a point, and then the govt. takes over.

[Arcipelago]

I agree that long periods of leave, especially paid leave, doesn't make sense for a company. However, I do believe that pay, leave, ect. should be a matter handled between employers and employees without much outside involvement.

[Giovenith]

The way to balance discrimination possibly caused by maternity leave is to grant an equal amount of paternity leave. Then neither sex is more likely to leave than the other.

A woman cannot just hop right back on her feet and get back to work after having a baby, it's just as much about her physical recovery as it is bonding with the child. Working again too soon can seriously injure her, just like if you've just had surgery. What, is supposed to never have kids? You can't just have a kid early and then find work either, not in this day and age, young adults need to support themselves and most of them are going to have kids eventually. Should she quit her job, choose between her career or children while men can have both? How is that equal opportunity?

I don't feel sympathy for companies whose panties get in a twist over humans being human and not robots. People need breaks, they work to live not live to work, and they especially work to support children. Unpaid parental leave is a shitty, greedy thing that opposes reality.

[Dooom35796821595]

And companies benefit from the children that were raised. So both parties have to share the cost. That's why companies have to pay for sick leave.

Only to a point, and then the govt. takes over.

Exactly, which is why the company should pay for the time where the employee can't work, and the government can cover the rest with a benefit instead of a pay check.

[Cetacea]

Edit: also, I dont think Sweden will be so lenient to mothers once it's an islamic republic.

well then maternity leave would be permanent so stay-at-home mothers wont have to worry about working ever again


anyway, 16 months seems somewhat an excessive expectation, 90 days seems fair, even 180 shared between both parents as they see fit (ie one parent could get the whole 180 days if she wants them)

[Nilla Wayfarers]

The way to balance discrimination possibly caused by maternity leave is to grant an equal amount of paternity leave. Then neither sex is more likely to leave than the other.

Completely forgot to include this in my opinion.

[Socialist Nordia]

I support Paid maternity and paternity leave for everyone having a child, so yeah.

[NERVUN]

Let's see here, we can have paid leave to allow for physical and mental recovery, allowing a woman to bond with her child stress-free of trying to find newborn child care, worry about work, health issues, etc, and allow fathers the same, thus maintaining a healthy, happy, and productive workforce that allows you to retain your trained talent...

Or we don't, because... making men and women have to chose putting food on the table and their children is somehow a good thing?

[Risottia]

Probably not. There seems to be actual discrimination when companies are forced to pay maternity leave, as companies wouldn't hire women if they were forced to pay their maternity leave, or even let them take a 90 day break. Any such choices should probably be made by the business itself.

Iirc, the rate of female unemployment in Sweden is lower than in America.

[Frank Zipper]

For a long time employers thought it was blindingly obvious that giving people in labouring jobs breaks would make them less productive. They were wrong.

If a company has invested in someone, through training etc,. and they want to retain their skills, then maternity/paternity leave is a reasonable business cost. Recruiting good replacements can be a great expense to businesses.

That said, I think in all likelihood, the vast majority of people in the near future won't have a single employer, they will get jobs through an agency instead. In which case there will be a lot of strife as employment law adjusts to the new situation. The worry is that people will lose a lot of rights and benefits in the process. Think Uber drivers and delivery couriers.