Chipping Away at Family Leave

deadmosquito

soulsinging wrote:

so any woman who gets pregnant should summarily be fired? women should be forced to choose between pregnancy and their job/career?

NO, i didn't say or imply that. i personally think that the current family leave is fine the way it is. she SHOULD be guaranteed her job when the leave is over. i just don't think that paying someone who isn't at work is the right thing to do.

decides2dream

deadmosquito wrote:

NO, i didn't say or imply that. i personally think that the current family leave is fine the way it is. she SHOULD be guaranteed her job when the leave is over. i just don't think that paying someone who isn't at work is the right thing to do.

what should be done then?



not directed at you, just thoughts in general...it amazes me how some seem to think it is unnecessary, or shouldn't be expected, etc. if we are truly to be supportive of families...to want to progress, etc....it IS simply the right thing to do. we live in a dual income society...for most, it is a necessity. if one wants families to exist, we need to be supportive of such. hell, i don't have children, don't plan to...but i absolutely think it's a good idea. we need children, our future leaders, taxpayers, etc...it all comes around. supporting families, which as VG pointed out isn't simply just about maternity/paternity leave, but also caring for sick family members...is what a civilized society should be about at the VERY least.

soulsinging

deadmosquito wrote:

NO, i didn't say or imply that. i personally think that the current family leave is fine the way it is. she SHOULD be guaranteed her job when the leave is over. i just don't think that paying someone who isn't at work is the right thing to do.

so if this is a single mother, how is refusing to pay her any different from putting her out on the street? 3 months is a lot of time to not pay rent. even if she's married, most people need 2 incomes to survive.

justam

It's interesting to realize that there is a tendency in this country to place companies and business rights ahead of the health of the majority of citizens of the country.

It seems almost equivalent to caring more about machinery than living creatures. I know companies aren't machinary, but they are given protections and they aren't living beings like the employees. It seems backwards to me.

To protect non-living entities and harm the living workers...and not just a FEW workers, it's the majority of people who aren't being valued.

Abookamongstthemany

justam wrote:

It's interesting to realize that there is a tendency in this country to place companies and business rights ahead of the health of the majority of citizens of the country.

It seems almost equivalent to caring more about machinery than living creatures. I know companies aren't machinary, but they are given protections and they aren't living being like the employees. It seems backwards to me.

To protect non-living entities and harm the living workers...and not just a FEW workers, it's the majority of people who aren't being valued.

I know what you mean. It's truly sad.

justam

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I know what you mean. It's truly sad.

:(

deadmosquito

soulsinging wrote:

so if this is a single mother, how is refusing to pay her any different from putting her out on the street? 3 months is a lot of time to not pay rent. even if she's married, most people need 2 incomes to survive.

why is it the business' responsibility to pay her rent if she's not working? why is she having a child if she's that close to not being able to survive? doesn't the potential mother bear any responsibility to ensure her financial security before she makes a baby?

i mean, i know i'm coming off callous(sp?) here, and i don't really mean to, but having a baby is a decision. getting cancer or some other sort of debilitative illness is generally unforeseen, and not chosen, and thus, the family and medical leave act SHOULD offer compensation in those cases. but i don't see why money should be given to someone who chooses to have a child.

Abookamongstthemany

deadmosquito wrote:

why is it the business' responsibility to pay her rent if she's not working? why is she having a child if she's that close to not being able to survive? doesn't the potential mother bear any responsibility to ensure her financial security before she makes a baby?

Let's just hope no set of bad circumstances ever befall upon you. Karma can be a bitch.

Last Exodus

decides2dream wrote:

it's truly sad. :(
and i have to say, firsthand knowledge...the fed government is the FIRST to try and deny their workers such rights if they can. i could go on and on...but i won't.

however, in regards to the thread topic...it really IS scary that many consider us 'the' baramometer of presonal freedoms and such, and yet we ARE so far behind other industiralized countires to such issues as this. obviously, they manage to remain productive and adjust...why can't we ever learn from other models?

I actually was forced to choose between my government job and caring for my dying father. I was utterly shocked at how the government abused the law as it did. Now I gladly spend my time fighting the government for a living.

deadmosquito

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Let's just hope no set of bad circumstances ever befall upon you. Karma can be a bitch.

i edited my post to reflect my feelings regarding unforeseen illness like cancer; i apologize for not fleshing out that part of the argument beforehand.

also, i don't oppose business' offering PAID maternity leave as an benefit, but i don't think the government should mandate it. it should be something that a business can choose to offer, at its own expense.

Ebizzie

Many companies (meaning their insurance providers) do offer short-term and long-term paid disability. I'm not positive but I'm fairly sure that pregnancy is covered.

So, once again, we're looking at taking care of those in the lower classes. I personally don't believe it's right to require a private company to pay maternity leave. They are forced under the law to adhere to equal opportunity employment practices, yet at the same time we want to essentially punish them (via leave dollars) for hiring women between the ages of 18 and 45. That's crap, you can't have it both ways. It's one or the other, either they have the choice NOT to hire women to protect themselves from maternity costs or they have the choice to hire women and refuse to pay for maternity leave.

I despise welfare, but this is one of those times when welfare is in the best interest of society. Take away the checks from those blatantly cheating the system (illegals and cheaters) and apply that money to a program for maternity leave. Pay women $1400/month for 4-5 months starting about a month before their due date. In cases where they are medically unable to work earlier in their term, they'd qualify for early payments. The money is there, it's just a matter of our government putting their money where their mouth is.

know1

soulsinging wrote:

how christian of you... put women out on the street for having a child.

Once again reading something into it that's not there. My comment was not condoning businesses for not providing leave. It was encouraging employees to leave those businesses without leave high and dry without employees. I stated that those who want to offer leave would be more attractive to employees.

I guess it's OK to be judgemental of someone who claims to be a Christian. Just don't let the Christian start judging you, huh?

Heatherj43

I used the FMLA when I first got sick. I did not get paid time off, but I did not have to worry about losing my job. I am very glad it existed. Actually, the law held me a position for a year. I also got short term disability, but that only covered 20 piad days. My long term disability turned me down. I fought them, but I never got it...the US gov. found me disabled to this day, yet my insurance, that I paid into, turned me down. An R.N. at their company made the decision, in spite of lots of doctors reports. I kept asking "since when can RN's practice medicine?".

farfromglorified

justam wrote:

It's interesting to realize that there is a tendency in this country to place companies and business rights ahead of the health of the majority of citizens of the country.

Huh? What business right is being put ahead of what citizen right here????

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Huh? What business right is being put ahead of what citizen right here????

the business's right to higher profits is being placed ahead of human dignity and respect for child-rearing and family values.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

the business's right to higher profits

That's not a right. There's no right to "high profits" in this country, thankfully. Ask the thousands of businesses that go under every day here in America due to their losses.

is being placed ahead of human dignity and respect for child-rearing and family values.

Human dignity??? Where do you find dignity in demanding payment from someone for zero effort?

Child-rearing and family values??? Did those things not exist before the Family Leave Act? Did that piece of paper invent them?

Look, I'm all for paid maternity and paternity leave. It's something, as a business owner, that I'm proud to offer my employees without a single string attached for as long as they reasonably request it. But please don't talk to me about "dignity" or "family values". If I, for instance, got married tomorrow and had a kid, how would you feel if I withheld the salaries of my workers to pay for it??? Would there be "dignity" there? Would there be "family values" there?

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

That's not a right. There's no right to "high profits" in this country, thankfully. Ask the thousands of businesses that go under every day here in America due to their losses.



Human dignity??? Where do you find dignity in demanding payment from someone for zero effort?

Child-rearing and family values??? Did those things not exist before the Family Leave Act? Did that piece of paper invent them?

Look, I'm all for paid maternity and paternity leave. It's something, as a business owner, that I'm proud to offer my employees without a single string attached for as long as they reasonably request it. But please don't talk to me about "dignity" or "family values". If I, for instance, got married tomorrow and had a kid, how would you feel if I withheld the salaries of my workers to pay for it??? Would there be "dignity" there? Would there be "family values" there?

there is dignity in treating people like they and their needs matter. that someone who has put in a lot of work to help make you wealthy needs time to recover from a physically and emotionally draining process and get back on their feet and ensure their child's health and well being. to tell them that they needs to choose between that and their paycheck deprives them of the respect and dignity that they deserve as a human being. to fire someone summarily for having a child is sickening, and taking away medical leave is firing these women in everything but name. it's a disgusting practice.

these things existed prior to the act, but there were 2 crucial differences between now and then: 1) women in the workplace was not widely accepted and 2) you could still support a family on one income then. now women are in the workplace and need to be to support a family.

if your business is going to go under becos of that paid leave, you can fire her. that's firing for just cause. but otherwise, it is not a matter of making your business work. it is a matter of you being more concerned about your bottom line than treating your workers humanely. that and about half the people pushing for this repeal are doing it not to protect businesses but as an underhanded attempt to force women back into the kitchen where they think they belong. but you support people's right to deprive others of their rights, becos the right prejudice is more important to protect than the right to childbirth right?

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

there is dignity in treating people like they and their needs matter.

Hehe....so how does that apply to your law that just creates a blanket enforcement on business owners, regardless of "them and their needs"?

that someone who has put in a lot of work to help make you wealthy needs time to recover from a physically and emotionally draining process and get back on their feet and ensure their child's health and well being. to tell them that they needs to choose between that and their paycheck deprives them of the respect and dignity that they deserve as a human being.

to fire someone summarily for having a child is sickening. and taking away medical leave is firing these women in everything but name. it's a disgusting practice.

these things existed prior to the act, but there were 2 crucial differences between now and then: 1) women in the workplace was not widely accepted and 2) you could still support a family on one income then. now women are in the workplace and need to be to support a family.

if your business is going to go under becos of that paid leave, you can fire her. that's firing for just cause. but otherwise, it is not a matter of making your business work. it is a matter of you being more concerned about your bottom line than treating your workers humanely. that and about half the people pushing for this repeal are doing it not to protect businesses but as an underhanded attempt to force women back into the kitchen where they think they belong. but you support people's right to deprive others of their rights, becos the right prejudice is more important to protect than the right to childbirth right?

Soulsinging, someday you'll probably realize that the right to prejudice stems from exactly the same things that the right to childbirth does. And if you want to take away one from someone, don't be surprised when that someone takes away the other from you.

Look, practically speaking you're probably entirely right on the motives issue. Most of the people opposed to this law are probably opposed to it for backwards social reasons or simply those who seek to protect businesses from any intervention while hypocritically supporting that intervention elsewhere. But I'm not concerned with their motives since I'm not going to be helping them. I'm concerned with my own motives, my own business, my own families and friends affected by these situations.

You're trying to make a blanket value statement above that says that business owners "owe" soon-to-be mothers and fathers their jobs or their paychecks or whatever, simply because they've had a baby. This is fraught with logical problems:

First, you want to pretend that every employee "contributes to profits". That's not true, just like not every executive "contributes to profits". There are people in my own business who are economic costs to me, and are only here because I believe they have potential to be otherwise. If one of them requested family leave, I'd grant it, but I certainly wouldn't grant it because they've "contributed to my profits". They haven't.

Secondly, you've linked the act of one person having a baby to a financial obligation of another person unrelated to the choices of the first. That's simply ridiculous. If I pushed you or others here hard enough on this issue, you'd fall back to the same old "we're a society" or "human have to work together" positions that would, in essence, justify the very example you ignored in my previous post -- withholding paychecks from people because I had a baby.

Is it disgusting to fire a woman for having a baby? In most cases, of course (the only justifiable case would be one wherein the baby or the act of childbirth made future job performance impossible). But is it not also disgusting to hire a woman simply because she had a baby? Should mothers be given preferential hiring treatment simply because they're mothers, even in positions where having a child is completely irrelevant to performance? I would certainly hope you'd have a problem with legislation that forced hiring quotas on companies instructing them to hire 90% mothers. Yet you're justifying that as well with your arguments.

The fact that there are now more women in the workplace is completely irrelevant to the morality of these choices. It's either right or it's wrong, regardless of scale. Certainly having a greater proportion of female employees is going to make this more of an issue, but it doesn't change the fundamental morality. Before FLA, billions of men and millions of women throughout history had to make choices between work and family, just like they have to make choices between everything else in their lives and family. After FLA, those same choices still exist, except now men and women have the ability to use government force to push the costs of their choices onto others in society. FLA will not and cannot make for a society that will value families more, or magically increase "human dignity". Those qualities stem from personal moral choices, and FLA, at best, simply pushes the costs of those choices elsewhere and, at worst, pretends those choices do not exist or are irrelevant to their effects.

Once again, society is going to deem their employment a "right" and in the process attempt to take true rights away from a sector of that society. And, in this case, they're playing a direct game of logical russian roulette. If it is their "right" to demand employment regardless of economic effort, merit or value and regardless of the personal will of the employer, they simply open the door for those employers to one day demand employees regardless of economic effort, merit, value and regardless of the personal will of the employees.

baraka

ffg, there are severals federal laws & guidelines 'imposed' on employers such as the minimum wage, etc. Do you feel that all laws and guidelines 'imposed' on companies should be 'done away with'? Do you feel that all business owners have the same moral code as you and should be able to run their companies unchecked?

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

ffg, there are severals federal laws & guidelines 'imposed' on employers such as the minimum wage, etc. Do you feel that all laws and guidelines 'imposed' on companies should be 'done away with'?

I think laws and guidelines "imposed" on companies that would not be acceptable to the citizens imposing them if they were imposed upon those very same citizens should certainly be done away with.

Again, if anyone here is ok working for no pay when their employer has a child, or if anyone here is ok with their employer declaring that they have a "right" to the employee's labor, regardless of the employee's will, I'll allow a consistency that addresses my arguments above.

Do you feel that all business owners have the same moral code as you

Of course not. I also don't feel that all mothers or father as the same moral code as me or each other. I'm not looking to force my moral code on anyone. I'm simply asking to be free to act out my own.

If soulsinging, or you, or anyone else wishes to start a company and give mothers or father indefinite leave for child-rearing, I'll fiercely support your rights to do so.

should be able to run their companies unchecked?

No. Every employer runs checked by their employees and their customers. It's inherent to the system. I'd ask you what checks exist on these employees when they can simply use the armed force of the government to extract their will from their employers?