• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Women should be given 12 month's paid maternity leave

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
12 months is too short in my opinion. Let start off with 3 years and see how that go, then may be we will work with 18 years since children need there mother.


I'm in Canada and women that work for large corps & government type jobs get to have their 12 months, and they always seems to bitch & complaints about their place of work. While women in retail or part time jobs rarely take more than a few months off work because they can't afford the time off, and they seems to appreciates their employment more. IMHO, it also seems to be similar trend for the men as well.

I'm a strong believer of planing that people should save and plan to have children and only do so if their finances are in place. People shouldn't produce ofsprings if they can't afford it mentally/finacially and then expects supports from the public.

IMHO, a large part of life is making decisions for yourself, and life would be less meaningful if everything is given to you and the decision processes is taken away.
 
weflyhigh said:
A lot of you are saying that it is the woman's responsibility. This is obviously true since it is her child. But, should we not help unemployed/poor/disabled(from an action of his/her own; i.e. car accident, dangerous sport, etc.) people. Those unemployed people should have been responsible to have saved enough in case of their lost job. The poor people should have been more responsible with their money earlier in life. The disabled people should have been more responsible with their bodies.
The fact is that we do pay for these things already, for the greater good. I personally do not support most (any?) government handouts, but they are accepted policy currently. There has to be some good reason behind them?
Click to expand...

Disability, that's hard to plan for. Unemployment, everybody runs a risk of losing a job and need help so everybody pays a little bit towards it. Poor? There are some people that legitimately in trouble but there are plenty milking the system. We haven't been able to weed out the real people in need from the lazy bums, you can't expect any new program from being any better.

While losing a job or getting disabled can't be something you can necessarily plan for having a baby is 100% controllable. Between just keeping your legs closed or plenty of methods of effective birth control no one HAS to have a baby. If they want the kid they have to be willing to pay for the costs.
 
12 months paid? no, that is simply too expensive for most companies to fork over.

I think it would be fair enough if the company allows the woman to telework from home part time if possible, while taking LWOP after their sick leave (if any) is spent.
 
I whole heartily agree. This will force employers to hire less women so men like me can secure a job more easily. Its a win win. Women get the moral victory while men reap the rewards.
 
12 months leave?! Man, that would be abused.

Have a kid...get 12 months.

During that 12 months pop another one out....12 more months.

3 months max.
 
I say give them 2 months of paid maternity leave for every full year they've worked for the company. 3 years worked = 6 months paid leave. Less than 1 year worked = S.O.L.

This would help prevent women who know they are already pregnant from applying with a company just to get free money.
 
weflyhigh said:
Let's debate.

I think that corporations should be required to give pregnant women 12 months of paid maternity leave so that they can properly care for themselves and their newborn.

- Children do significantly better when a mother is actively present during their first months of life.
> This goes deeper, with other mother-child bonds.
- The law would only equal the playing field within corporations.
> This would just be like any other labor or safety law.
>> For example, air bag laws require modern cars to have air bags installed standard. This obviously means increased costs for both the company and the consumer, but the overall benefits outweigh that.
- Birth is a natural part of life and women should have their lives dramatically disrupted due to natural occurrences.
> Obviously, some restrictions would be placed on the law.
>> For example, the maternity leave benefit would not be activated until a year after the job is offered. That way a woman would not look for a job knowing she is already pregnant.
- This is already a successful policy in other countries. Is the United States behind other countries? We are one of the wealthiest countries, it can be done.


Woman should not be entitled to 12 months of paid maternity leave.
- The health benefits for the child/mother are not too significant to warrant 12 months of paid leave.
- If companies were required to implement paid maternity leave policies, they would hire less women to avoid the extra costs. This would only further female discrimination.
- What benefits do men get?
- If too stressed, or for other reasons, women might purposefully get pregnant to get an entire year off from work.
- What should the company do to replace the woman in the mean time?
> Should the company pay two people for that year to perform the work of only one.
>> Surely that extra money is not worth the benefits from the extra leave time?



Personally, I think that 12 months paid leave seems like a lot. Unfortunately for me, I have to argue the opposite. SO, let's get a discussion going - I'm actually kind of interested. I'll argue in favor of 12 months.
Anyone know anything about the success of this policy in other countries?
Click to expand...

Let me throw this one out, if companies have to pay for 12 month maternity leave, will they discriminate against women when hiring because now 1) they have to pay for 12 month leave and 2) the position could be vacant or hard to fill if specialized up to 12 month 3) they need to find a temp to fill the position for 12 month 4) they have take the woman employee back after 12 month leave and get her up to speed after such long time off.

Even if companies don't discriminate against women on paper, do you think they will do it using other excuse just to avoid those costs? What do you think this is going to do to women's role in the work place, ability to get promoted, or be treated as equal? Do you think a company would want a CEO, CFO, COO that can go on leave for 12 month? Do you think management is going to factoring in the possibility of the person take on 12 month leave when promoting her to a important position?

I think this will work against women in the work place if implemented.
 
RaistlinZ said:
I say give them 2 months of paid maternity leave for every full year they've worked for the company. 3 years worked = 6 months paid leave. Less than 1 year worked = S.O.L.

This would help prevent women who know they are already pregnant from applying with a company just to get free money.
Click to expand...

So if they worked 60 years, they get 10 years paid vacation. 10 *40,000 median American salary =400,000 dollars. How kind 😛
 
rchiu said:
Let me throw this one out, if companies have to pay for 12 month maternity leave, will they discriminate against women when hiring because now 1) they have to pay for 12 month leave and 2) the position could be vacant or hard to fill if specialized up to 12 month 3) they need to find a temp to fill the position for 12 month 4) they have take the woman employee back after 12 month leave and get her up to speed after such long time off.

Even if companies don't discriminate against women on paper, do you think they will do it using other excuse just to avoid those costs? What do you think this is going to do to women's role in the work place, ability to get promoted, or be treated as equal? Do you think a company would want a CEO, CFO, COO that can go on leave for 12 month? Do you think management is going to factoring in the possibility of the person take on 12 month leave when promoting her to a important position?

I think this will work against women in the work place if implemented.
Click to expand...

Since there is no paid maternity leave currently, when many women get pregnant now-a-days, they will simply stop working. Finding a new job along with taking care a new household might be just too difficult, when simply working would not be.
Assuming women are equally as capable as men, then hiring a man over that women would mean you are sacrificing quality. The company (society) would be better off in the long run if women were kept around even during pregnancy. It also gives them incentive to continue to work after the parental leave is over.


Also, unemployment is under 10%. Women make up around 46% of the American workforce. That leaves only like a 5-7% shift that would even be possible assuming men were hired over women entirely? Am I thinking of that wrong? Makes sense to me.

Perhaps you are saying a form of ladder would be created where men are on the top rungs and then women on the bottom (and only because there are no males available for the those)? I think that is a little absurd considering how women have proven themselves over the past decades.
 
I have a question for you guys that I would really like answered:

Currently, there are thousands of people collecting unemployment from the government. If a woman goes on paid maternity leave, that means a job is created. Could that job not be filled temporarily by someone currently receiving unemployment checks?
Now, the government is paying for that person to fill in for the mother and the company is taking 0 financial loss.

Now we have healthier/smarter/safer babies who will grow up and use less resources, etc. and make the country an overall better place?
 
weflyhigh said:
I have a question for you guys that I would really like answered:

Currently, there are thousands of people collecting unemployment from the government. If a woman goes on paid maternity leave, that means a job is created. Could that job not be filled temporarily by someone currently receiving unemployment checks?
Now, the government is paying for that person to fill in for the mother and the company is taking 0 financial loss.

Now we have healthier/smarter/safer babies who will grow up and use less resources, etc. and make the country an overall better place?
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure that we would produce better result if we paid women to have children. It would make more sense that we educates people and stop pushing consumerism so that 1 income can comfortably raise a family.

Equality doesn't necessarily mean over doing things to the point of destruction of family value and bankruptcy.
 
Honestly, I don't think it sounds like that bad of an idea. However, certainly not at 100% of their base salary.

After all, if they're home watching the rugrat, they don't need to hire a babysitter/daycare. So, for the first kid, perhaps reduce their salary by 30%. 2 kids cost more to send to daycare than just one - 2nd kid within 5 years, salary reduced by 50%; etc. This would serve as a disincentive to keep popping out kids. (Some actuary can hammer out the exact percentages.)

And, I'd let the actuaries predict whether this would have an overall positive effect on the economy. I can't remember what the exact length of time was, but statistically, it's something like this: "You have 4 years to raise your child." Regardless of whether it's 4 years or 6 years... it was some short amount of time. The meaning is more obvious looking at the latter years that children typically live at home. By the time they reach high school, their values are pretty much set - there aren't a lot of drastic changes in life-direction. 5th and 6th grade teachers can already tell you which children will have promising careers, and which children are most likely to end up on welfare or in jail. All those things are formed early in a child's life.
 
weflyhigh said:
A lot of you are saying that it is the woman's responsibility. This is obviously true since it is her child. But, should we not help unemployed/poor/disabled(from an action of his/her own; i.e. car accident, dangerous sport, etc.) people.
Click to expand...

People who get laid off or become disabled can't plan out for it in the long term. Woman who decide to have a baby can plan on out for it.
 
And men should be given 2 at the same time when late in the pregnancy. Fair is fair. You can't imagine the stress I was under.
 
weflyhigh said:
Since there is no paid maternity leave currently, when many women get pregnant now-a-days, they will simply stop working. Finding a new job along with taking care a new household might be just too difficult, when simply working would not be.
Assuming women are equally as capable as men, then hiring a man over that women would mean you are sacrificing quality. The company (society) would be better off in the long run if women were kept around even during pregnancy. It also gives them incentive to continue to work after the parental leave is over.


Also, unemployment is under 10%. Women make up around 46% of the American workforce. That leaves only like a 5-7% shift that would even be possible assuming men were hired over women entirely? Am I thinking of that wrong? Makes sense to me.

Perhaps you are saying a form of ladder would be created where men are on the top rungs and then women on the bottom (and only because there are no males available for the those)? I think that is a little absurd considering how women have proven themselves over the past decades.
Click to expand...

While entry positions and low level positions can be easily filled with people without prior knowledge of the position or special skills, top level positions and high paying positions usually cannot. and the higher level the position is, the more costly and problematic it is for the company to find temporary replacement for the position.

I don't know how much experience you have in the real world, especially with higher level management or specialized positions. So I don't know if your opinion that this 12-month maternity leave won't impact women's ability to get promoted to senior position comes from real experience or just surfing the web, but my view comes from years of experience working with senior level management and consulting experiences. The possibility of a senior position become vacant for 12 month, having to find a TEMPORARY replacement for a senior position, is a huge problem for any company and this will seriously impact women's ability to move up the career ladder. "Capability" is a very subjective matter and the possibility of leaving your post for 12 month at a senior position is a serious draw back to this measurement of capability.

While unemployment is high right now, but the unemployment rate at senior or specialized high paying position is not. It is still very competitive and hundreds of men and women go for everyone of those openings. If you force companies to give 12 month paid maternity leave while there is no such constraint for male applicants, you are giving serious handicaps to women going after those high positions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top