What's Up With U.S. Maternity Leave?

[Merle 458]

It seems to me that, if they chose to, they would be able to, based on other federal mandates. And it also seems to me that constitutional amendments can be and are used to change the powers of the federal government.

It also seems to me that mandating employers pay maternity leave isn't even what I have been arguing for. I've been arguing for a system like the one in my home country, where employees pay into employment insurance on each cheque and maternity is paid out of that. Now, are there going to be times when such a program is not self sufficient? Absolutely. Whenever there is a very large number of people who are unemployed due to economic issues, yes, there will be times when an employment insurance program will run at a deficit.

Whether you like it or not, people are going to continue having babies and unexpected things will continue to occur when people have babies (twins, triplets, maternal injury or death) that make maternity and/or paid parental leave necessary to keep families out of poverty. Would you rather pay 6 months of supporting a deficit in employment insurance after which the parent returns to a job which has been held for them or would you rather pay some combination of increased medical bills for children on state low-income medical plans and WIC and foodstamps for years?

When you support families, they are able to stay out of poverty or spend brief amounts of time in poverty. When you don't support them, you pay for their poverty in the long term. It comes in the form of increased crime rates, health issues that are treated in emergency rooms and the bills abandoned for, food stamps, and various social safety nets. The longterm financial support of a family is much more expensive than a few months' paid parental leave.

That sounds like a good intentioned system until there are more people taking out than people putting in. I don't know if you have noticed or not but almost every entitlement system the government has run is always in a deficit. What is that going to do to future generations? Just to change the subject a little but along the same lines but I don't trust Social Security to be there for me when I retire. So what do I do? I max out my retirement plan so that I won't have to rely on the government still having the money I paid into social security all these years is what I do. Why should having a child be any different? Instead of relying on another government system that will eventually cost EVERYONE, why can't people start putting away money a few years before having kids so they don't have to worry about being in poverty or living off WIC?

[Merle 458]

Your rant on the Constitution is derived mostly from your own misconceptions. I am not sure what the Constitution has to do with maternity leave, if anything at all.

It has to do with states rights vs federal rights just like talking smack about kids holding a gun in a picture has something to say about the second amendment. You can stick your head back in the sand now.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Nailed it.

Nobody is arguing that the Federal Government should or shouldn't do anything. It is hypocritical that those who advocate personal responsibility oftentimes are the ones who believe only the Feds can do anything about everything.

It seems to me that, if they chose to, they would be able to, based on other federal mandates. And it also seems to me that constitutional amendments can be and are used to change the powers of the federal government.

It also seems to me that mandating employers pay maternity leave isn't even what I have been arguing for. I've been arguing for a system like the one in my home country, where employees pay into employment insurance on each cheque and maternity is paid out of that. Now, are there going to be times when such a program is not self sufficient? Absolutely. Whenever there is a very large number of people who are unemployed due to economic issues, yes, there will be times when an employment insurance program will run at a deficit.

Whether you like it or not, people are going to continue having babies and unexpected things will continue to occur when people have babies (twins, triplets, maternal injury or death) that make maternity and/or paid parental leave necessary to keep families out of poverty. Would you rather pay 6 months of supporting a deficit in employment insurance after which the parent returns to a job which has been held for them or would you rather pay some combination of increased medical bills for children on state low-income medical plans and WIC and foodstamps for years?

When you support families, they are able to stay out of poverty or spend brief amounts of time in poverty. When you don't support them, you pay for their poverty in the long term. It comes in the form of increased crime rates, health issues that are treated in emergency rooms and the bills abandoned for, food stamps, and various social safety nets. The longterm financial support of a family is much more expensive than a few months' paid parental leave.

QED.

Your opinion is based on your own assumptions, not on factual data.

It has to do with states rights vs federal rights just like talking smack about kids holding a gun in a picture has something to say about the second amendment. You can stick your head back in the sand now.

Edited November 4, 2014 by JohnR!

[Merle 458]

Nailed it.

J

Nobody is arguing that the Federal Government should or shouldn't do anything. It is hypocritical that those who advocate personal responsibility oftentimes are the ones who believe only the Feds can do anything about everything.

QED.

Your opinion is based on your own assumptions, not on factual data.

I thought this thread was about the U.S. not having a maternity law? Wouldn't that mean the federal government?

[LiliBurd 85]

That sounds like a good intentioned system until there are more people taking out than people putting in. I don't know if you have noticed or not but almost every entitlement system the government has run is always in a deficit. What is that going to do to future generations? Just to change the subject a little but along the same lines but I don't trust Social Security to be there for me when I retire. So what do I do? I max out my retirement plan so that I won't have to rely on the government still having the money I paid into social security all these years is what I do. Why should having a child be any different? Instead of relying on another government system that will eventually cost EVERYONE, why can't people start putting away money a few years before having kids so they don't have to worry about being in poverty or living off WIC?

Guess what? Condoms break, birth control fails, and accidents happen all the time... in fact I'm sure most of us here were not planned in our parents budgets. Most hard working people do not have a kid relying on a government system. In Canada we get 55% of our salary for a year, it still demands sacrifice and budgeting and working things out.

I'm guessing you do not have kids yourself, or maybe you do... The future of any country relies on the kids we have. Like it or not it's a social responsibility to ensure their future and make sure future generations do not have to live in poverty and deal with the consequences that come along with it. Doesn't the fact you are yourself unsure about getting social security make you realize how essential it is for some change to happen in the near future?

[JohnR! 5,495]

I am not the OP. You'd have to ask him/her to confirm your assumption.

I thought this thread was about the U.S. not having a maternity law? Wouldn't that mean the federal government?

Socialist! Communist!

Guess what? Condoms break, birth control fails, and accidents happen all the time... in fact I'm sure most of us here were not planned in our parents budgets. Most hard working people do not have a kid relying on a government system. In Canada we get 55% of our salary for a year, it still demands sacrifice and budgeting and working things out.

I'm guessing you do not have kids yourself, or maybe you do... The future of any country relies on the kids we have. Like it or not it's a social responsibility to ensure their future and make sure future generations do not have to live in poverty and deal with the consequences that come along with it. Doesn't the fact you are yourself unsure about getting social security make you realize how essential it is for some change to happen in the near future?

[LiliBurd 85]

I am not the OP. You'd have to ask him/her to confirm your assumption.

Socialist! Communist!

my bad!

[eieio 1,594]

I thought this thread was about the U.S. not having a maternity law? Wouldn't that mean the federal government?

Yes....but some people get confused.

It is amazing that people believe that the government just prints up more money to fund another new program.

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

That sounds like a good intentioned system until there are more people taking out than people putting in. I don't know if you have noticed or not but almost every entitlement system the government has run is always in a deficit. What is that going to do to future generations? Just to change the subject a little but along the same lines but I don't trust Social Security to be there for me when I retire. So what do I do? I max out my retirement plan so that I won't have to rely on the government still having the money I paid into social security all these years is what I do. Why should having a child be any different? Instead of relying on another government system that will eventually cost EVERYONE, why can't people start putting away money a few years before having kids so they don't have to worry about being in poverty or living off WIC?

Once upon a time I knew a little boy. His parents had saved up for years to have a child. They'd lost two children before he was born, lost them at or just before birth. When he was born, he spent four months in the NICU, fighting for his life. His parents sat by his side and there was nothing they could do other than wait to see if they would lose this child, too. Originally, they had intended that his father work and his mother stay home. With him laying in hospital, fighting for his life, his father decided to spend the time sitting by his son's side. If it weren't for parental leave, his father would have had to spend his work days at home--three hours from the specialist hospital in which his son lay on the brink of death--or the family would have been plunged into poverty as the region in which the family lived had few jobs available and quitting would mean being unemployed for years. Thanks to parental leave, his father was able to spend the time at his son's bedside and have a job to go back to, which was most fortunate as the child did survive but was severely disabled. The family could never have planned for this.

My father had twins, which he could not have anticipated.

My mother has a child who was conceived when she took her birth control pill six hours late, which she could not have anticipated.

I grew up in a village with contaminated water. The water was contaminated in a way that didn't show up on normal testing, so no one knew until formula fed babies began getting mysteriously ill. Several of those newborns spent months in hospital fighting for their lives and their parents were able to take parental leave to be able to focus on their children. This could, again, not have been anticipated.

There was a woman in the town I went to school in who had two children with her husband and they had a planned third child. She died due to complications of childbirth days after the third child was born. Her husband was able to take 37 weeks to get the family sorted out and make alternate childcare arrangements beyond his dead wife, and still have a job to go back to.

Not every child is planned and even when children are planned, unexpected things happen. Giving a parent three, four, five, six months off to deal with the unexpected, while maintaining their job security, protects families and babies, saves lives and prevents longterm dependence on the social safety nets.

[JohnR! 5,495]

And it seems the notion of some sort of legislation is a popular idea....

http://www.uscis.gov/family/family-us-citizens/provisional-waiver/provisional-unlawful-presence-waivers

Paid Maternity Leave Push Underway At U.S. Labor Department

The Obama administration wants to remind Americans that the United States is the only developed country without laws providing paid maternity leave.

A new video from the U.S. Labor Department compares two pregnant women who work full time and share the same due date. One will get 14 weeks of paid leave, because she lives in Germany. The other will get none because she lives here.

"The United States is the only developed nation without paid maternity leave," text in the video states. "In fact, it's one of the only countries without any paid leave."

The video accompanied a Wednesday announcement that the Labor Department is awarding half a million dollars to help three states and the District of Columbia conduct feasibility studies on new paid leave policies.

"Too many working families today can't afford to take the time they need to care for their families or themselves because they lack any form of paid leave," Labor Secretary Thomas Perez said in a release.

The lack of paid leave is something President Barack Obama highlighted last summer. Congressional Democrats have introduced paid leave legislation to no avail, despite the popularity of the idea.

Some workers are eligible for 12 weeks of parental leave thanks to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, but the leave is unpaid and workers are only eligible if they are employed by a big company or a government agency. A 2009 report by the Congressional Research Service found that just 8 percent of private sector employees are offered parental leave.

Once upon a time I knew a little boy. His parents had saved up for years to have a child. They'd lost two children before he was born, lost them at or just before birth. When he was born, he spent four months in the NICU, fighting for his life. His parents sat by his side and there was nothing they could do other than wait to see if they would lose this child, too. Originally, they had intended that his father work and his mother stay home. With him laying in hospital, fighting for his life, his father decided to spend the time sitting by his son's side. If it weren't for parental leave, his father would have had to spend his work days at home--three hours from the specialist hospital in which his son lay on the brink of death--or the family would have been plunged into poverty as the region in which the family lived had few jobs available and quitting would mean being unemployed for years. Thanks to parental leave, his father was able to spend the time at his son's bedside and have a job to go back to, which was most fortunate as the child did survive but was severely disabled. The family could never have planned for this.

My father had twins, which he could not have anticipated.

My mother has a child who was conceived when she took her birth control pill six hours late, which she could not have anticipated.

I grew up in a village with contaminated water. The water was contaminated in a way that didn't show up on normal testing, so no one knew until formula fed babies began getting mysteriously ill. Several of those newborns spent months in hospital fighting for their lives and their parents were able to take parental leave to be able to focus on their children. This could, again, not have been anticipated.

There was a woman in the town I went to school in who had two children with her husband and they had a planned third child. She died due to complications of childbirth days after the third child was born. Her husband was able to take 37 weeks to get the family sorted out and make alternate childcare arrangements beyond his dead wife, and still have a job to go back to.

Not every child is planned and even when children are planned, unexpected things happen. Giving a parent three, four, five, six months off to deal with the unexpected, while maintaining their job security, protects families and babies, saves lives and prevents longterm dependence on the social safety nets.

[Neonred 3,446]

Another reason that small business owners need to be careful who they hire.

I have learned to stay away from young women of child bearing age. Too many issues.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The US is still the biggest economy in the world (just about). Why has this never been addressed?

And it seems the notion of some sort of legislation is a popular idea....

http://www.uscis.gov/family/family-us-citizens/provisional-waiver/provisional-unlawful-presence-waivers

Paid Maternity Leave Push Underway At U.S. Labor Department

The Obama administration wants to remind Americans that the United States is the only developed country without laws providing paid maternity leave.

A new video from the U.S. Labor Department compares two pregnant women who work full time and share the same due date. One will get 14 weeks of paid leave, because she lives in Germany. The other will get none because she lives here.

"The United States is the only developed nation without paid maternity leave," text in the video states. "In fact, it's one of the only countries without any paid leave."

The video accompanied a Wednesday announcement that the Labor Department is awarding half a million dollars to help three states and the District of Columbia conduct feasibility studies on new paid leave policies.

"Too many working families today can't afford to take the time they need to care for their families or themselves because they lack any form of paid leave," Labor Secretary Thomas Perez said in a release.

The lack of paid leave is something President Barack Obama highlighted last summer. Congressional Democrats have introduced paid leave legislation to no avail, despite the popularity of the idea.

Some workers are eligible for 12 weeks of parental leave thanks to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, but the leave is unpaid and workers are only eligible if they are employed by a big company or a government agency. A 2009 report by the Congressional Research Service found that just 8 percent of private sector employees are offered parental leave.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Another reason that small business owners need to be careful who they hire.

I have learned to stay away from young women of child bearing age. Too many issues.

Are you suggesting small businesses don't need to take employment discrimination seriously?

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

Another reason that small business owners need to be careful who they hire.

I have learned to stay away from young women of child bearing age. Too many issues.

so your solution is that women shouldn't have jobs at all? *stares * that's a joke, right?

[Dakine10 5,452]

so your solution is that women shouldn't have jobs at all? *stares * that's a joke, right?

Unfortunately he's not joking. Many small businesses do this, but most don't go posting about it on the internet.