Maternity leave: Is it really necessary?

A lack of a decent maternity leave policy just increses the incentive to abort. Not suprisingly, the anti-abortion folks are often the same people that are against making maternity leave better.
 
If I remember my HR training correctly, I think there are maybe 5 states, plus San Fransisco, that offer extensions to the Family Leave Act, which cover more part-time employees, or smaller companies. Other than that, you're basically at the mercy of your employer.

If you're an employee who has anything resembling leverage in the workforce (i.e some sort of education), you are likely going to get some kind of unpaid maternity leave. Companies that actually have to try to recruit talent get a major backlash if they don't offer it.

For the retail/warehousing/waitress gigs of the world, you're SOL.
 
I'm just as surprised Canada offers 50 weeks. That's most of the year!

Canada doesn't really offer 50 weeks.

It's part of the same employment insurance that other unemployed workers use, it's only 55% of your salary to a max of $485/week, and there's only 15 weeks of actual maternity, the other 35 are split parental leave.
 
If so, then the employer policy is probably something you have to take into account when looking for a job as a woman.

I can kinda understand the employers fear of having to pay for an employee that suddenly decides to get a child and leaves for half a year on full pay ... but that's what you have maternity insurance for.

Still ... to dump the risk completely on the employers and employees instead of having a legal/social framework for dealing with a joyous fact of live is cold.

in Australia we are just bringing in a national scheme (read as just have or are just about to??) but many companies already have one...
1. they say it helps attract the best applicants
2. they say it saves them on rehiring and training costs
maybe the mythical hamburger flipper dose not fit in this catergorey... but most white collar services jobs, teachers, nurses, public servants etc. would... so given the fact that western women are more likely to put off having children it would actually be in the employers interest to retain the knowledge ,training and recruiting costs put into the employee, in the company as well as improve the moral/loyalty of other employees(women) to the company
 
A lack of a decent maternity leave policy just increses the incentive to abort. Not suprisingly, the anti-abortion folks are often the same people that are against making maternity leave better.

Well, yeah. Pro-life only refers to the pre-born. Once the kid is born, it and its mother are on their own.

I haven't seen many claiming to be pro-life who actually care about the already-living.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

A seemingly complete list of countries and their paid maternity & paternity leave. Even Saudi Arabian and Afghanistan women are treated better on this particular issue than american mothers are. o_O

This excerpt says it all:
Only four countries have no national law mandating paid time off for new parents: Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, and the United States.[3] In the U.S., the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) mandates up to 12 weeks of (potentially unpaid) job-protected leave, including parental leave, for many American workers. Subnational laws also vary; for example the U.S. state of California does mandate paid family leave, including parental leave for same-sex partners.
 
Australia didn't have one till last year. So America isn't that far behind.

Graffito said:
maybe the mythical hamburger flipper dose not fit in this catergorey...

You need to have worked 10 out of 13 months prior, and have worked at least 330 hours in that 10 month period. The average hamburger flipper does.
 
I'm just as surprised Canada offers 50 weeks. That's most of the year!
The exceptional position fo Canada in that graphic is by no means based on an exceptional position in reality, but rather on that graphic being a complete fecal matter of propagandism and/or amateurism.
 
The exceptional position fo Canada in that graphic is by no means based on an exceptional position in reality, but rather on that graphic being a complete fecal matter of propagandism and/or amateurism.

hmm... let's check on their propaganda:
If I am eligible to receive EI benefits, how much can I expect to receive?

We cannot tell you exactly how much you will receive before we process your application. For most people, the basic rate for calculating EI benefits is 55% of your average insurable weekly earnings, up to a maximum amount. As of January 1, 2012, the maximum yearly insurable earnings amount is $45,900. This means that you can receive a maximum amount of $485 per week.

How long will I receive EI maternity or parental benefits?

EI maternity benefits can be paid for a maximum period of 15 weeks. You cannot receive EI maternity benefits beyond 17 weeks after the expected or actual week of childbirth, whichever of the two is later.

EI parental benefits can be paid for a maximum period of 35 weeks. The payments must be made within 52 weeks of the week your child was born or the week your child was placed with you for adoption.
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/maternity_parental.shtml#much
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/maternity_parental.shtml#long

Looks like the graph just added maternal leave and parental leave together which is permissable if the father doesn't take parental leave. Or in other words, the graph is accurate.
 
Agreed, why should a corporation get the free pony of limited liability? There needs to be some responsibility that comes with that.
 
"Because they are job creators!" o_O
___________________
The next American republic will be a Christian Fundamentalist Kleptocracy.

The sooner to kickstart the rapture, the better.

Palin/Bush
2016
 
Wikipedia said:
On the purely free market, such individuals would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations.

In other words, they're not obliged to have any trade-offs because the Government's just formalising something which they would be able to do anyway.
 
Actually, the default would be not to have limited liability, whereas the default now is government sanctioned limited liability which causes creditors to have to get the shareholders on the hook on a contract-by-contract basis rather than the owners of the enterprise having to start at the negotiating disadvantage. The free pony is the government sanctioned change in the default starting point.
 
Australia didn't have one till last year. So America isn't that far behind.



You need to have worked 10 out of 13 months prior, and have worked at least 330 hours in that 10 month period. The average hamburger flipper does.
thats good to know... although supportive of maternity leave ... its not something i follow that closely and remember some hiccups bringing in the legislation
... was just considering that they are nearly all young people and the boss can take some comfort that the age of mothers is going up...
the older ones are exactly the type of employee that training and recruitment costs have been invested in... hence of value to retain. the occasional teenage pregnancy is not going to create many difficulties for fast food chains anyway

Despite the recent increase in fertility rates, Australian women are continuing to delay child-bearing. The median age at child-bearing increased from 28.3 years in 1990 to 29.8 years in 2000, then to 30.7 years in 2010. Since 2003, the median age at child-bearing has experienced little variation, remaining between 30.5 and 30.8 years. Over the last 20 years there has been a fall in the fertility rate of teenagers, from 22.1 babies per 1,000 teenage females in 1990 to 15.5 in 2010 (graph 7.18). Conversely, the fertility rate of women aged 40–44 years has almost tripled, from 5.5 babies per 1,000 women in 1990 to 14.8 in 2010. Fertility rates decreased slightly for all age groups under 35 years between 2009 and 2010, and increased for women aged over 35 years
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1301.0Main+Features512012

just done some checking ... its a pretty lack luster scheme we got... compared with what some companies were offering before anyway
http://www.familyassist.gov.au/payments/family-assistance-payments/paid-parental-leave-scheme/
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

A seemingly complete list of countries and their paid maternity & paternity leave. Even Saudi Arabian and Afghanistan women are treated better on this particular issue than american mothers are. o_O

This excerpt says it all:

Countries that believe the woman's place is in the home have policies allowing them to stay in the home more, the world is amazed.
 
Countries that believe the woman's place is in the home have policies allowing them to stay in the home more, the world is amazed.

I'm actually amazed... Afghanistan has a higher % payment (100%)than Australia (min wage equiverlant) in getting women back to work...and even quicker than Australia (90 days as oposed to the possible 52weeks here)
 
Back
Top Bottom