Topic: Maternity leave- who's stupid idea was this?
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #6,084
Women should get paid... for taking time off?
Yea, yea, some employers want to offer it. That's their choice.
But legally mandated? lolwat
It's not the employers fault you are preggo.
This just makes it harder for women to get jobs anyway :\
Yea, yea, some employers want to offer it. That's their choice.
But legally mandated? lolwat
It's not the employers fault you are preggo.
This just makes it harder for women to get jobs anyway :\
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #105,685
I agree that employers should be required by law to reasonably accommodate an employer who becomes pregnant, but months and months of paid vacation is ridiculous. That's borderline extortion. While I respect a woman's right to get pregnant, OP is correct that they can't make it an employers responsibility. OP is also correct that it would make it harder to get a job. Employers would be less inclined to hire someone who they think might become pregnant if they're legally required to pay them on maternity leave.
Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 43 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #105,686
Hmh, what?Maybe being and Eurofag has clouded my senses, but you habe it backwards.
Like... completely.
This rule encourages women to get a job in the first place, because otherwise they'll
simply depend on their families all the
e time, work too long and potentially injure yhe child.and be forced to stay in a relationship they don't want, simply for the money.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,688
Yes and Women should have about 7 years of pay with all tyme paid
It would solve many of society problems -- after all its the women who raise the kiddlets.
More love and less cereal killing, including the killing of corn flakes on daily basis.
It would solve many of society problems -- after all its the women who raise the kiddlets.
More love and less cereal killing, including the killing of corn flakes on daily basis.
Nega !34Kas0OdzM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,700
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,702
@OP
If you had a wife, you'd appreciate her still getting income to support you both despite being unable to work.
@105,685 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Do a reality check. Business survive just fine under maternity leave laws.
If you had a wife, you'd appreciate her still getting income to support you both despite being unable to work.
@105,685 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Do a reality check. Business survive just fine under maternity leave laws.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,714
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,715
@105,686 (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)
It may encourage women to look for a job but it discourages employers from hiring women, so that gain is meaningless.
It may encourage women to look for a job but it discourages employers from hiring women, so that gain is meaningless.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,746
@105,714 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
I'm not going to have a debate with you, you piece of shit. All you do is troll.
I'm not going to have a debate with you, you piece of shit. All you do is troll.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,788
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,819
@105,702 (E)
> If you had a wife, you'd appreciate her still getting income to support you both despite being unable to work.
Who wouldn't appreciate free money? However, there is always the other side of it: someone has to pay for it.
You would not appreciate trying to run a business and having to pay someone for absolutely nothing.
> Do a reality check. Business survive just fine under maternity leave laws.
Businesses survive just fine with the occasional shoplifter as well, doesn't make it just for the shoplifter to take either.
> If you had a wife, you'd appreciate her still getting income to support you both despite being unable to work.
Who wouldn't appreciate free money? However, there is always the other side of it: someone has to pay for it.
You would not appreciate trying to run a business and having to pay someone for absolutely nothing.
> Do a reality check. Business survive just fine under maternity leave laws.
Businesses survive just fine with the occasional shoplifter as well, doesn't make it just for the shoplifter to take either.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
The Truth !!vSp31CfSr joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,821
Lol, OP's right.
There is no reason to pay nobody nothing if they are not working, maternity leaves are sexist, classist and inconstitutional if mandated by the state.
There is no reason to pay nobody nothing if they are not working, maternity leaves are sexist, classist and inconstitutional if mandated by the state.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,831
@previous (The Truth !!vSp31CfSr)
> There is no reason to pay nobody nothing if they are not working
wat
> maternity leaves are sexist, classist and
WAT
> inconstitutional
WAT
@105,685 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> Employers would be less inclined to hire someone who they think might become pregnant if they're legally required to pay them on maternity leave.
WAT
@OP
> It's not the employers fault you are preggo.
> fault
... wat?
Wat?
> There is no reason to pay nobody nothing if they are not working
wat
> maternity leaves are sexist, classist and
WAT
> inconstitutional
WAT
@105,685 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> Employers would be less inclined to hire someone who they think might become pregnant if they're legally required to pay them on maternity leave.
WAT
@OP
> It's not the employers fault you are preggo.
> fault
... wat?
Wat?
Nega !34Kas0OdzM replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,839
Unrelated image, because the sheer amount if WTH AM I READING is simply too great.Oh well.
Nega !34Kas0OdzM double-posted this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,840
Mindblast !!4IKKtS9GG joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,846
Exclusive maternity leave (without an equivalent paternity leave option) punishes employers for being egalitarian.
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 4 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,847
Why all this hate over a woman getting paid to have some time with the newborn.
Every Government male employee in every country on Planet Earth is a layabout, who does little work for Gov pay. So what is the difference if they get paid to be lazy at work and a women who has given birth, gets some pay and can even be a bit lazy.
Every Government male employee in every country on Planet Earth is a layabout, who does little work for Gov pay. So what is the difference if they get paid to be lazy at work and a women who has given birth, gets some pay and can even be a bit lazy.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,849
@105,846 (Mindblast !!4IKKtS9GG)
I think that we should offer paternity leave as well for as long as the father is one of the child's primary caregivers.
I think that we should offer paternity leave as well for as long as the father is one of the child's primary caregivers.
Nega !34Kas0OdzM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,851
Deckard Cain !xhERPesk0k joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,852
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,854
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,932
@105,847 (Syntax)
> Why all this hate over a woman getting paid to have some time with the newborn.
Because there is another side to it. The employer is forced to pay, and yet is not responsible for the child, and does not get labor for his money.
I'd love free money too, free money is great. However in reality "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch", someone ends up paying for it.
> Why all this hate over a woman getting paid to have some time with the newborn.
Because there is another side to it. The employer is forced to pay, and yet is not responsible for the child, and does not get labor for his money.
I'd love free money too, free money is great. However in reality "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch", someone ends up paying for it.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,936
Something for you too consider.
Imagine someone you know has a baby, and you found out you would be the one paying. Does that seem fair to you? When you say "it's unjust", people say in disgusted tones:
> Why all this hate over a woman getting paid to have some time with the newborn.
Wouldn't that annoy you? Everyone focusing on her side, and completely ignoring what you have to do? Hell, you probably empathize with the mother and child, but at the very least shouldn't everyone in the community chip in, instead of forcing you to alone to do it?
For those of you who don't change your minds: How about you lead by example? Why don't you find someone and start paying them money because they had a baby? This is exactly what you are advocating for, and it would be hypocritical for you to not do this.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Katerina Shcherbatskaya joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,946
@105,932 (A)
@previous (A)
The vast majority of maternity leave programs are not directly paid for by the employer.
@previous (A)
The vast majority of maternity leave programs are not directly paid for by the employer.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,948
@105,936 (A)
> This is exactly what you are advocating for, and it would be hypocritical for you to not do this.
You really are a complete fucking idiot.
> This is exactly what you are advocating for, and it would be hypocritical for you to not do this.
You really are a complete fucking idiot.
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,960
@105,932 (A)
I am an employer and in the past the manager and even CEO of many employees. I was responsible for the bottom line. Still am.
So yes I have paid out plenty and almost all the new moms returned to work and were even more productive. However yes on occasion they had to take off of work re kid issues. I would rather live in a society that makes Motherhood easy where moms raise kids as best they can when having to work for a living. After all the future cereal killers will be from pissed off moms.
I am an employer and in the past the manager and even CEO of many employees. I was responsible for the bottom line. Still am.
So yes I have paid out plenty and almost all the new moms returned to work and were even more productive. However yes on occasion they had to take off of work re kid issues. I would rather live in a society that makes Motherhood easy where moms raise kids as best they can when having to work for a living. After all the future cereal killers will be from pissed off moms.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 34 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,981
@105,685 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Are you fucking stupid? Yes, of course you are. You are talking out of your ass again.
There is no law mandating paid maternity leave in the United States. None. Many companies offer it as a benefit, but it is not required.
What there is is short-term disability, which is available to all employees provided they meet the criteria -- not just women, and not just for pregnancy. It is not "months and months," you dumbfuck, it is usually six weeks (varies by state) and companies have the option of making employees pay for short-term disability insurance coverage.
There is also Family and Medical Leave, which is completely unpaid and has fairly strict requirements (time of employment, size of company, etc.) before an employee is even eligible. Many women on maternity leave use up some of this UNPAID time and it is called maternity leave, but perhaps they should inform you that they're not being paid for it, so you don't get the wrong idea? (Similarly, it's common for women to use sick days, vacation days, and other earned personal time off -- available to any employee -- as part of their maternity leave.)
There is NOTHING that requires employers in the U.S. to pay for maternity leave, besides their own goodwill and the crazy idea that, every once in awhile, a female employee may actually make a decent enough employee that her employer wants her to stick around.
Just a suggestion: perhaps read up on something before spouting off about it? Literally every time I see your name, you're spouting off some bullshit theory about why women are bitches and the law hates men and your stupid fucking facial hair, etc. And no one calls you on it. I'm beginning to think it's just that no one bothers to read your bullshit.
Can't really blame them for that.
Are you fucking stupid? Yes, of course you are. You are talking out of your ass again.
There is no law mandating paid maternity leave in the United States. None. Many companies offer it as a benefit, but it is not required.
What there is is short-term disability, which is available to all employees provided they meet the criteria -- not just women, and not just for pregnancy. It is not "months and months," you dumbfuck, it is usually six weeks (varies by state) and companies have the option of making employees pay for short-term disability insurance coverage.
There is also Family and Medical Leave, which is completely unpaid and has fairly strict requirements (time of employment, size of company, etc.) before an employee is even eligible. Many women on maternity leave use up some of this UNPAID time and it is called maternity leave, but perhaps they should inform you that they're not being paid for it, so you don't get the wrong idea? (Similarly, it's common for women to use sick days, vacation days, and other earned personal time off -- available to any employee -- as part of their maternity leave.)
There is NOTHING that requires employers in the U.S. to pay for maternity leave, besides their own goodwill and the crazy idea that, every once in awhile, a female employee may actually make a decent enough employee that her employer wants her to stick around.
Just a suggestion: perhaps read up on something before spouting off about it? Literally every time I see your name, you're spouting off some bullshit theory about why women are bitches and the law hates men and your stupid fucking facial hair, etc. And no one calls you on it. I'm beginning to think it's just that no one bothers to read your bullshit.
Can't really blame them for that.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
pierieliepiepielo joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #105,992
itt: lolamerica
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 39 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,036
@105,948 (G)
> claim someone (not parents) should pay mother for time off working
> name call when asked to be the one.
Hypocrite!
> claim someone (not parents) should pay mother for time off working
> name call when asked to be the one.
Hypocrite!
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,038
Katerina Shcherbatskaya replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,056
@106,036 (A)
If you work and live in a civilized country (not the US), you're already paying for maternity leave through social security taxes.
If you work and live in a civilized country (not the US), you're already paying for maternity leave through social security taxes.
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,060
@106,036 (A)
> claim a person is equal to a business
> flawed analogy
The girl doesn't work for me and I won't have potential profit from paying a bit now in order to keep her as an employee later. Idiot.
> claim a person is equal to a business
> flawed analogy
The girl doesn't work for me and I won't have potential profit from paying a bit now in order to keep her as an employee later. Idiot.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,084
Compelling argument. @105,746 (E)
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,089
Debate triangle - name calling is the lowest form of Argument.@105,788 (G)
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,100
@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
> focus on name calling, claim name calling is argument
> ignore other point which is actually the argument
> focus on name calling, claim name calling is argument
> ignore other point which is actually the argument
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,108
You did.not think your other argument wqs convincing so you appended the weakest argument. This shows your lack of good judgement@previous (G)
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,133
Mindblast !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,185
@105,981 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
> There is no law mandating paid maternity leave in the United States. None. Many companies offer it as a benefit, but it is not required.
When did he refer specifically to the US?
> There is no law mandating paid maternity leave in the United States. None. Many companies offer it as a benefit, but it is not required.
When did he refer specifically to the US?
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 32 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,220
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,228
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Well, it is common in European nations (and other places too) for paid parental leave to be a state mandate. AFAIK, though, it's always state-supported and not a requirement that's placed against individual employers to pay for this.
To your point, I don't know of anywhere where employers are required to pay for people not to work specifically because they're pregnant. The government, yes, but that's not what Broseph said.
Well, it is common in European nations (and other places too) for paid parental leave to be a state mandate. AFAIK, though, it's always state-supported and not a requirement that's placed against individual employers to pay for this.
To your point, I don't know of anywhere where employers are required to pay for people not to work specifically because they're pregnant. The government, yes, but that's not what Broseph said.
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,231
@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
I actually had never known that some people were against maternity leave.
I actually had never known that some people were against maternity leave.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,237
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Yeah. It's such a backwards view to take. I mean, really? You want women to lose their jobs because they decide to have kids? I don't get it at all.
Yeah. It's such a backwards view to take. I mean, really? You want women to lose their jobs because they decide to have kids? I don't get it at all.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,240
@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
It's something that's necessary for the human race to continue! Give parents time to produce the next generation of people.
It's something that's necessary for the human race to continue! Give parents time to produce the next generation of people.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,243
@106,185 (Mindblast !!4IKKtS9GG)
Well, find me a country where employers are required to pay for maternity leave, then? I'm not being combative at this point. I honestly know of no such place. To my knowledge, every country that has decided maternity leave is important enough to legislate, actually pays for that leave out of taxpayer money. There is no 'punishment' against the private sector for hiring women.
It's a common-enough misconception in the US to think that employers are required to provide maternity leave, and Broseph so commonly just totally fucks up his interpretation of US law in his quest to prove how poorly treated men are, that I was pretty sure he was doing so here. If he actually thought this was the way things work in, say, Sweden, well then he's somehow even dumber than I thought (!).
Well, find me a country where employers are required to pay for maternity leave, then? I'm not being combative at this point. I honestly know of no such place. To my knowledge, every country that has decided maternity leave is important enough to legislate, actually pays for that leave out of taxpayer money. There is no 'punishment' against the private sector for hiring women.
It's a common-enough misconception in the US to think that employers are required to provide maternity leave, and Broseph so commonly just totally fucks up his interpretation of US law in his quest to prove how poorly treated men are, that I was pretty sure he was doing so here. If he actually thought this was the way things work in, say, Sweden, well then he's somehow even dumber than I thought (!).
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,284
@106,060 (G)
If it's good for the business they wouldn't need to be forced to do it.
Common sense, where did you put yours??
If it's good for the business they wouldn't need to be forced to do it.
Common sense, where did you put yours??
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,287
taxpayer funded is even worse...
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,289
@106,243 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)> Well, find me a country where employers are required to pay for maternity leave, then?
OWK
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,290
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 39 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,313
the employer and employee are both parties to an employment contract. Taxpayers are not. @previous (A)
Mindblast !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,317
@106,243 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
> Well, find me a country where employers are required to pay for maternity leave, then?
I think there are a few here.
> Well, find me a country where employers are required to pay for maternity leave, then?
I think there are a few here.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 43 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,359
@105,981 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
> There is no law mandating paid maternity leave in the United States. None. Many companies offer it as a benefit, but it is not required.
I didn't say there was. I was just agreeing with OP about the problems it could cause if it were. I agree with just about everything else you said in your post.
> Just a suggestion: perhaps read up on something before spouting off about it? Literally every time I see your name, you're spouting off some bullshit theory about why women are bitches and the law hates men and your stupid fucking facial hair, etc. And no one calls you on it. I'm beginning to think it's just that no one bothers to read your bullshit.
No where in my post did I say anything about women being bitches or abusive. Also, I have about 1900 posts on here, just since January, and almost none of them mention the things you say they mention. Maybe it's you who doesn't read any of my posts and you only see what you want to see. You seem to be the only one who's really bothered by me.
> There is no law mandating paid maternity leave in the United States. None. Many companies offer it as a benefit, but it is not required.
I didn't say there was. I was just agreeing with OP about the problems it could cause if it were. I agree with just about everything else you said in your post.
> Just a suggestion: perhaps read up on something before spouting off about it? Literally every time I see your name, you're spouting off some bullshit theory about why women are bitches and the law hates men and your stupid fucking facial hair, etc. And no one calls you on it. I'm beginning to think it's just that no one bothers to read your bullshit.
No where in my post did I say anything about women being bitches or abusive. Also, I have about 1900 posts on here, just since January, and almost none of them mention the things you say they mention. Maybe it's you who doesn't read any of my posts and you only see what you want to see. You seem to be the only one who's really bothered by me.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,362
@106,243 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
No where in my post did I say anything about it being unfair to men. You're putting words in my mouth and clutching at straws.
No where in my post did I say anything about it being unfair to men. You're putting words in my mouth and clutching at straws.
Nega !34Kas0OdzM replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,381
Intelligent, informed debate.
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 57 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,431
another quality Nega post! @previous (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,434
Broseph is right.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,489
ITT: serious fucktardism
It's not "maternity leave," it's family leave. Family leave includes mothers and fathers.
It's not "maternity leave," it's family leave. Family leave includes mothers and fathers.
windrunner !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,490
@106,431 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
> another quality Nega post!
Thank you child; I am doing my best to give this board nothing but pure gold whenever I visit. :3
> another quality Nega post!
Thank you child; I am doing my best to give this board nothing but pure gold whenever I visit. :3
(Edited 34 seconds later.)