Legislation around pregnancy and work

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lara
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lara

Guest
I read one of the other posts about a woman who was given a shorter work contract because of the possibility she was pregnant. I also read the thread about just wages. I’d like to ask if most people think it’s fair to make employers pay a woman’s salary while she is on maternity leave. I don’t know much about how this works, but I can’t see it as fair that an employer gets no work out of somebody and yet has to pay. If a single man wanted to take off nine months to pursue his passion for hang-gliding, wouldn’t the effect for the employer be the same? Isn’t pregnancy just another thing that takes people away from work? Should a pregnant woman really expect money if she’s not working?
 
This has been discussed at length
40.png
Why isn't guaranteed maternity leave a "pro-life" imperative? Social Justice
Mothers who choose life aren’t legally protected from losing their jobs. Aside from taking steps to make deliveries more affordable, shouldn’t maternity leave be an essential part of what it means to be “pro-life”? It’s like we’re all for the babies but nobody seems to care about the mother who’s carrying that baby in her belly or nine months – the family’s expected to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and if they lose their incoming for choosing life…well, too bad, so sad.
Click to expand...
 
Lara said:
I’d like to ask if most people think it’s fair to make employers pay a woman’s salary while she is on maternity leave.
Click to expand...
Yes. Every employer I ever had did this. It’s standard operating procedure. (I would note that it is limited to a certain number of weeks, which varies by employer; it’s usually around 4 months in my experience.)

My current employer also pays the salary of men who are on paternity leave because their wife or partner had a baby.
 
Last edited:
But it’s not like young people don’t know babies cost money. They often have years to save up for the few months they would like to take off. When a person starts up a company, do they really have to put aside so much money for these kinds of things? And if they do, can people really expect a just wage?

I sometimes think of starting companies, such as landscaping or cleaning companies. I would have to learn how to make all sorts of deductions from the employee’s salaries and also pay worker’s compensation (which is for injury) as well as insurance. That’s just the tip of the expenses. I’ll need to buy supplies and equipment.

They now want you to pay for safety training around things like people feeling left out/uncomfortable at work because they’re transsexuals. There are so many costs to starting a business, and now I’ll have to make sure I don’t hire young women likely to get pregnant too? As a self-employed person, I just can’t understand the high expectations of people working. Nobody owes you hours. Nobody has to look out to make sure you’re making enough to live on. That’s your job. I do agree you shouldn’t switch hours on people so they can get other jobs though.

I’ve been living without any safety net for all my adult life. I just don’t get why a man needs paternity leave so he can watch the baby with his wife instead of let her do the work during the day and take over in the evening. And if anybody tells me that that’s incredibly difficult for the mother, my response to that is, “Do you believe a woman can be president?” I am woman, hear me roar, unless there’s a baby in the room.
 
Last edited:
Lara said:
and now I’ll have to make sure I don’t hire young women likely to get pregnant too
Click to expand...
In the USA you would violate both federal and state laws making this your practice.

Your post comes off as harsh. The idea of a woman living cut off from her extended family, close community of friends and just “sucking it up” when she has a new baby makes me wonder, have you ever had children?

Not everyone has the luxury of savings, some of us live from paycheck to paycheck.

Actually, employers do have both legal and moral responsibilities to their employees (this is Catholic doctrine.)
 
I think you have some unrealistic expectations about what you think a couple should be able to do before they have a baby. As TheLittleLady points out, some people simply cannot save up because they live from paycheck to paycheck. She is also correct in that you legally are not allowed to not hire women because they may have a baby in the future.

Men need paternity leave for a variety of reasons, at the very least needing to bond with the baby and helping the mother to cope with physical and potentially psychological issues after the birth.

Yes, I think all women should be entitled to pay if they have a baby.
 
Last edited:
But that’s my point. Does it ever become harsh to employers? Yes I live pay check to pay check, and that’s why I’m thinking of ways to become the employer. I’m thinking of a small investment of under $2000 and I’m not thinking it will be easy with all the legislation. That’s my point. Women, some pregnant, some with chronic health problems, also become employers themselves so why should they have to work so hard when others don’t work and yet get paid, and have a husband to boot who also gets paternity leave?

I don’t live in the States. But I think from what I watch on television, and having visited several States, that big corporations have taken over much of it. Also, it’s too hard to get ahead there because you virtually need a car. Also, you really need a universal health care, which seems obvious and intuitive but very difficult to bring in there. However, it seems you can buy a house for not too much.

To the Little Lady, I would be a good employer, but I’d have a difficult time paying for maternity leave.

edited because I had more time after reading the responses.
 
Last edited:
There was a time when business owners took very seriously their moral obligations to provide their employees with dignified work, with giving to those people a sense of community and pride in their work, with encouraging and providing ways for their employees to feel secure and valued.

Sadly, America has become a nation of faceless corporations where noting matters but shareholder dividends and CEO bonus packages. There are people who work for companies KNOWING the 4th Thursday of every month is layoff day and it is not if but when they will be on a list instead of making a list.

Should you be blessed to operate a business, dedicate that business to a patron saint, read Catholic Social Doctrine wrt to the moral duty of employers. Treat your employees as the most valuable asset you have.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...dignity-of-work-and-the-rights-of-workers.cfm
 
Last edited:
Maternity leave is a benefit of jobs where employees want their employees to be treated well an compensated. They have paternity leave, and enormous flexibility around paying for anything covered in the ADA or FMLA.

The issue of often is among these 3:

A) the pressure to “de career” jobs–ie a part time work force
B) the changing benefits legislation that can turn a good job into a poorly compensated one.
C) cities/states chasing after the next great corporate savior

The government chose to invest in a minimum wage war and not penalizing companies that are welfare supported rather than truly addressing labor laws surrounding salary threshold.

The government has created too may issues by flooding the market with housing vouchers, driving house prices up where putting money into public transit making jobs truly accessible. The government tried to fix healthcare and now some get it for free, but many are paying thousands and thousands more.

By chasing corporations cities and states have stifled creativity, and encouraged an unfortunate centralization of their workforce–always a dangerous thing.

The issue here isn’t paying for other peoples’ life choices but creating a market where a business needs a total benefits package that reflects the needs the desires of those they hire.
 
Last edited:
Lara said:
But it’s not like young people don’t know babies cost money. They often have years to save up for the few months they would like to take off.
Click to expand...
It’s not like all pregnancies pop up right on schedule to couples (as opposed to single moms and those whose husbands or partners decided to leave rather than support their child, or even die before the child arrives) or persons who are making enough money to be able to save several months worth of salary in advance. Many people live paycheck to paycheck - not by choice, but because that is all they are able to do.

You need to live in the real world and meet people where they are, realistically. Your ideas on this are frankly, bizarre.
 
Last edited:
First I think I surprised a few of you because some of you feel companies should pay for things but you don’t realize it’s people on the edge who actually own companies.

And Tis_Bearself, people know from the age of about seven that they are going to one day likely be a parent. Yet you will see teenagers earning money with ne’er a thought for the future spending it on things like Nintendo, makeup etc. Of course pregnancies surprise people but they shouldn’t. If you’re a sexually active female, it happens. So girls especially should be saving up for their futures.

When you walk into fast food joints, there are all sorts of youth spending money on Coke and other things. What’s a few bucks on a drink that’s just water and sugar? And so it continues well into middle adulthood. Money wasted instead of people pooling their resources, sharing lawnmowers, saving for their futures.

We North Americans have a culture that is unsustainable. The U.S. is trillions in debt. Doesn’t that scare you just a bit? Who do you think will bear the brunt of that?
 
Lara said:
And Tis_Bearself, people know from the age of about seven that they are going to one day likely be a parent. Yet you will see teenagers earning money with ne’er a thought for the future spending it on things like Nintendo, makeup etc. Of course pregnancies surprise people but they shouldn’t. If you’re a sexually active female, it happens. So girls especially should be saving up for their futures.
Click to expand...
Seven-year-olds may have an abstract idea that they will be a mom or dad one day, but they have absolutely no idea how to plan that far ahead into the future or even survive without their parents telling them every move to make.

You seem to expect everyone to be capable of the sort of long-term planning and forethought and responsibility that in reality, only a tiny segment of the population is ever going to be able to manage. We cannot throw the rest of the population under the bus for their lack of planning skills, or for situations that may even be caused by circumstances beyond their control that skills would not address.

This also has nothing to do with “the USA being trillions in debt”. Debt on that level is a completely different concept than whether a private employer (which may not even be a US company - my employer is not) pays for maternity leave, and furthermore debt on that level is an extremely complicated topic that I don’t want to discuss at 2 in the morning with someone who appears to have an agenda and is not an economist.

Since like I said I think this is primarily some agenda thread of yours - you don’t like the idea that companies need to pay for maternity leave so you’re looking for people to agree with you - I will now take my leave.
 
Last edited:
Good night. Nobody said you had to partake of this thread. And everyone is capable of long term planning. It’s just that our culture does not support it. And that is what I wish to change.

Parents can help their children plan for the future even at seven. We could have children’s stories about saving money. Now at least, they’re talking about the environment and the build up of plastic. Schools are going without straws to support the environment. If that is possible, don’t you think we can solve other problems? You have to give children more credit. If you’ve ever given a child a problem to solve, they are very eager to find ways to solve it.

Everybody has an agenda. The issue is whether it aligns with God or not. And maybe I am an economist. What do you know about me and why are you so angry? It’s impossible to have a rational conversation with many of you on this site. Do you think that I have the power to change maternity leave laws? Can’t you just be happy stating your view and letting me state mine?
 
Last edited:
Lara said:
If that is possible, don’t you think we can solve other problems?
Click to expand...
Why would you consider maternity pay a problem? In the UK, it’s simply an entitlement for women (and paternity pay for men) which employers have to factor in.
 
Lara said:
First I think I surprised a few of you because some of you feel companies should pay for things but you don’t realize it’s people on the edge who actually own companies.

And Tis_Bearself, people know from the age of about seven that they are going to one day likely be a parent. Yet you will see teenagers earning money with ne’er a thought for the future spending it on things like Nintendo, makeup etc. Of course pregnancies surprise people but they shouldn’t. If you’re a sexually active female, it happens. So girls especially should be saving up for their futures.

When you walk into fast food joints, there are all sorts of youth spending money on Coke and other things. What’s a few bucks on a drink that’s just water and sugar? And so it continues well into middle adulthood. Money wasted instead of people pooling their resources, sharing lawnmowers, saving for their futures.

We North Americans have a culture that is unsustainable. The U.S. is trillions in debt. Doesn’t that scare you just a bit? Who do you think will bear the brunt of that?
Click to expand...
From the age of 7?

Just NO.

Little girls dream of many things, including becoming a sister/nun, jetting off and being a doctor halfway around the world and other things. I know several girls who dreamed of being sisters but it’s looking like they will likely get married.

There is NOTHING wrong with spending on grooming, activities and treats. My brother and his wife choose to live that way and they love it.

I cannot “pool my resources” with my neighbors. What a ridiculous thought. I live in a rural area. A lawnmower that was shared between everyone, if not a onerously expensive industrial model, would likely expire before the year was over.

A fast food meal for my family with coupons is under $10. With that, I can teach my children how to order, behave in public and other important lessons.

And makeup? I don’t wear makeup but I do need pricer hair and skin care products because I can’t use the stuff they make for the average white person. When it comes to the girls they often need more expensive kid version at that.

Teaching children to simply put away money will turn them into greedy skinflints chasing a dollar. Rather that, myself, and all the successful parents I know, teach children to save a portion, give a portion and spend wisely. The choice to buy lego, playmobil, knex and American girl over barbie and dollar store toys.

Children should be taught to save, but not “for their futures” at that age. Saving for big ticket toys, games and activities is appropriate for the 7-13 range.
 
You misread the quote. If kids can help save the environment, by such things as forgoing straws, then they can also think about the future far earlier and therefore not need maternity leave.

When I studied the topic of how you reward your employees at university, there was an emphasis on giving rewards that are not discriminatory. I do question the fairness of giving one person paternity leave and not giving the guy who wants to go hang-gliding for many months the same opportunities.

And if you read my first post, I outlined the reasons I consider maternity leave questionable, ie. a problem.

Sometimes you can love mothers by teaching them skills as they grow up so they don’t have to ask others for money.
 
Last edited:
So, to you and Little Lady, is there something unappealing about preparing for the future? Do people plan little because they want to trust in the mercy of others? Or do they plan little because as people, we should be living in the present, as the line “Give us this Day our daily bread” would suggest. I mean, it doesn’t say, “Give us this year enough stored grain.”
 
Lara said:
So, to you and Little Lady, is there something unappealing about preparing for the future? Do people plan little because they want to trust in the mercy of others? Or do they plan little because as people, we should be living in the present, as the line “Give us this Day our daily bread” would suggest. I mean, it doesn’t say, “Give us this year enough stored grain.”
Click to expand...
I have a problem with telling a 7yo to store up money for her potential children.

I do not have an issue with giving a 7yo saving for something they want and experiencing delayed gratification. In fact, I think that is the smart way to parent.

Small, manageable goals give you the ability to learn how to save. It’s perspective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top