NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, so this is inspired by the 'Maternity Leave A Must, Say Mothers' issue.

Why should companies be required to provide maternity leave? Why should they have to pay a worker a wage over a period where they are getting nothing in return over something that was the person's choice to do [have the baby].

I really want to be sympathetic here but I can't think of a logical reason for paid maternity leave that is REQUIRED by labor laws. Can someone give me a reason?

Because pregnancy has been grounds for firing or replacement in the past?

Alright, so this is inspired by the 'Maternity Leave A Must, Say Mothers' issue.

Why should companies be required to provide maternity leave? Why should they have to pay a worker a wage over a period where they are getting nothing in return over something that was the person's choice to do [have the baby].

I really want to be sympathetic here but I can't think of a logical reason for paid maternity leave that is REQUIRED by labor laws. Can someone give me a reason?

If there's no maternity leave, mothers will get very angry at their employers. If there's no maternity leave, there's no paid vacation either. Everyone else will get angry. People start to strike, no profit gets made by the companies because no goods and services are being produced. Companies go under. We all get really poor and become communists.

Part of a contract to get a skilled worker maybe? Some workers aren't easily replaceable, remember. At least this way you'll still get 'em back in six months time.

As far as I am aware, companies don't pay maternity leave around here. Do companies pay materinity leave where you are? What effect does it have?

One of the drawbacks of requiring companies to pay maternity leave would be that they would be less likely to hire women. If instead the government gives some money out of give tax revenue towards people who have babies, then you can boast your population without discouraging companies from employing women. Of course, if you want more people you could also make your country more attractive to immigrants.

Because pregnancy has been grounds for firing or replacement in the past?
Yeah, it certainly has. Though it is still the person's choice to have a baby. Other decisions that an employee made which had an adverse affect on the companies output and profitability are fireable offences. Though that's becoming less and less due to unfair dismissal laws [which I feel are good but have been taken too far]

If there's no maternity leave, mothers will get very angry at their employers. If there's no maternity leave, there's no paid vacation either. Everyone else will get angry. People start to strike, no profit gets made by the companies because no goods and services are being produced. Companies go under. We all get really poor and become communists.
No paid maternity leave doesn't mean no paid vacation. Also I think that's a bit extreme.

Part of a contract to get a skilled worker maybe? Some workers aren't easily replaceable, remember. At least this way you'll still get 'em back in six months time.
I understand why a company would CHOOSE to offer certain skilled workers maternity leave, especially as part of a contract, to ensure they return to the company when they are ready to come back to work. Should this make it compulsory [spelling?] though?

No paid maternity leave doesn't mean no paid vacation. Also I think that's a bit extreme.


If you're not going to pay a woman to look after a baby why would you pay for her to go off and enjoy herself for six weeks?

As far as I am aware, companies don't pay maternity leave around here. Do companies pay materinity leave where you are? What effect does it have?

One of the drawbacks of requiring companies to pay maternity leave would be that they would be less likely to hire women. If instead the government gives some money out of give tax revenue towards people who have babies, then you can boast your population without discouraging companies from employing women. Of course, if you want more people you could also make your country more attractive to immigrants.

Some companies certainly pay it [not sure if it is all or not] though I'm not sure if it's because of government labor laws or because of union laws. I mean they pay it to all workers [usually as long as they've worked there for a minimum time period] not just certain ones by choice.

I see what you mean about the draw back. Though equal employment laws should ensure a fair amount of women get hired regardless, businesses can often get around those. Here, we do pay people for having babies though, $3,000 a pop.

If you're not going to pay a woman to look after a baby why would you pay for her to go off and enjoy herself for six weeks?
With paid vacation time, it's more to do with not being allowed to work someone 52 weeks a year [unless they a casual but that's a whole other situation]. This goes for everyone across the board.
With maternity leave, a woman decides to have a baby. Why should the company be responsible for the choice she mde? Also, there is no offset [generally] for men in the situation.

With paid vacation time, it's more to do with not being allowed to work someone 52 weeks a year [unless they a casual but that's a whole other situation]. This goes for everyone across the board.
With maternity leave, a woman decides to have a baby. Why should the company be responsible for the choice she mde? Also, there is no offset [generally] for men in the situation.

Point taken.

Companies should have to pay it, but only if it was part of the agreement between the employer and the employee. The government should not force companies to pay it if they don't want to.

Because pregnancy has been grounds for firing or replacement in the past?
So what? Why not? They're currently trying to use smoking as grounds to fire people (to reduce healthcare costs). Pregnancy is valid grounds to fire someone.

Point taken.
The thing about the offset for men was reaching a bit though. At least the woman does have to go through child birth and look after the baby. Anything paid leave you gave to a guy, well he wouldn't really be using the time for anything productive.

Though if I owned a company, any guy who squeezed a watermelon out his ass.....I'd give him a few months off with full pay. If only out of respect.

So what? Why not? They're currently trying to use smoking as grounds to fire people (to reduce healthcare costs). Pregnancy is valid grounds to fire someone.

Pregnancy or actually giving birth and looking after the child, thus missing work?

Just being pregnant really isn't grounds for dismissal when it doesn't affect your work.

Pregnancy or actually giving birth and looking after the child, thus missing work?

It is quite obvious that the point applies to women who choose to give birth, reduce her performance for the first few months of their pregnancy (never has a woman done the same amount and quality of work during pregnancy as she did before). Behind the ball when she comes back after months off etc...

Just being pregnant really isn't grounds for dismissal when it doesn't affect your work.

It is a very rare woman for whom pregnancy does not affect their work.

It is quite obvious that the point applies to women who choose to give birth, reduce her performance for the first few months of their pregnancy (never has a woman done the same amount and quality of work during pregnancy as she did before). Behind the ball when she comes back after months off etc...



It is a very rare woman for whom pregnancy does not affect their work.

True it does often [though not always, especially depending on the type of work] have a negative affect on the woman's productivity but hardly to the point where it is an offence worthy of termination.

I could move to a house next to a busy road and not get as much sleep as I used to, thus coming to work tired and becoming less productive. I can't be fired for moving houses. I can be fired if it affects my work in a significant way but only a slight decrease is acceptable.

Alright, so this is inspired by the 'Maternity Leave A Must, Say Mothers' issue.

Why should companies be required to provide maternity leave? Why should they have to pay a worker a wage over a period where they are getting nothing in return over something that was the person's choice to do [have the baby].

I really want to be sympathetic here but I can't think of a logical reason for paid maternity leave that is REQUIRED by labor laws. Can someone give me a reason?
In my opinion, special maternity/paternity leave should NOT be required of employers, for men or women. However, I believe it is in the best interests of most companies/employers to offer paid leave for women who must take time off to give birth, because I believe they will attract superior employees if they do so.

In my opinion, special maternity/paternity leave should NOT be required of employers, for men or women. However, I believe it is in the best interests of most companies/employers to offer paid leave for women who must take time off to give birth, because I believe they will attract superior employees if they do so.

Are you male or female, for that matter are there any females who have/will respond to this out there?

As for what you said, I agree. It makes sense. I still feel bad denying maternity leave though.....*sigh* I'm just a big softy.

I can give you a partial answer--it's because pregnancy has been historically used as a way to control half the population, and requiring companies to cover maternity leave, whether paid or unpaid, is a way of ending that discrimination. I can't say how effective it's been, but I've got no major gripe with the practice. As far as I know, in the US, paid maternity leave is usually pretty short, assuming the company offers it at all, but there's a federal provision for unpaid family leave, which is for more than just maternity--it can cover sick parents, kids, etc. and all it does is require that your employer hold your job for a certain period of time. I remember that when it passed, Rush Limbaugh bloviated for weeks about how it was going to destroy the business community--he was wrong on that one too.

Are you male or female, for that matter are there any females who have/will respond to this out there?

As for what you said, I agree. It makes sense. I still feel bad denying maternity leave though.....*sigh* I'm just a big softy.
I'm female, and I don't feel bad denying maternity leave. I just feel that employers will be better off if they offer it, since a great many well-qualified women won't consider working for employers who don't offer it.

If men were the ones who got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament, and maternity leave would never be questioned.

If men were the ones who got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament, and maternity leave would never be questioned.
Except that women would be in charge, and the roles would probably just be reversed, and we'd be hearing women talking about how dumb masculinism is.

True it does often [though not always, especially depending on the type of work] have a negative affect on the woman's productivity but hardly to the point where it is an offence worthy of termination.

Whether or not a particular situation is ‘worthy of termination’ is besides the point. That pregnancy can, and should be able to be used as, grounds for termination is the point.

I could move to a house next to a busy road and not get as much sleep as I used to, thus coming to work tired and becoming less productive. I can't be fired for moving houses. I can be fired if it affects my work in a significant way but only a slight decrease is acceptable.

That can be solved with an ultimatum. "Move, get more sleep or you are out." And depending on the area, like say Texas, you can be fired for no reason at all.

If men were the ones who got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament, and maternity leave would never be questioned.

:rolleyes: which is exactly why such wonders as 'he said I'm sexy, fire him' actually result in men getting fired.

Whether or not a particular situation is ‘worthy of termination’ is besides the point. That pregnancy can, and should be able to be used as, grounds for termination is the point.
Let me get this straight--are you actually saying that a company ought to be able to fire a woman because she gets pregnant? I'm just checking.

If men were the ones who got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament, and maternity leave would never be questioned.

If this turns into an abortion thread, I'm holding you responsible. As for your post, yes we men are arseholes. Ofcourse it would be questioned still, by me!

Whether or not a particular situation is ‘worthy of termination’ is besides the point. That pregnancy can, and should be able to be used as, grounds for termination is the point.



That can be solved with an ultimatum. "Move, get more sleep or you are out." And depending on the area, like say Texas, you can be fired for no reason at all.

It's entirely the point. You shouldn't be able to be fired without a valid reason. Being pregnant is not a valid reason UNLESS it affects you're work significantly. That ultimatum is fine IF it affects you're work SIGNIFICANTLY. Slight decreases cannot be valid grounds for termination unless it's over a sustained period of time or you're under contract to maintain a specified level of productivity. Otherwise anytime you had an off day, you could be fired.

Texas is wrong.

Alright, so this is inspired by the 'Maternity Leave A Must, Say Mothers' issue.

Why should companies be required to provide maternity leave? Why should they have to pay a worker a wage over a period where they are getting nothing in return over something that was the person's choice to do [have the baby].



I'd like to know how exactly getting pregnant is a choice. I mean people can try to get pregnant. But you make it sound like it's not easy to accidently get pregant. A lot of women just suddenly find themselves pregnant.

Most people treat pregnancy as a medical issue. The reason it's required by law now is because there are a lot of companies/people who would fire a woman for such a "medical disability" because they weren't required to do anything.

Most maternity leave's are unpaid. Another issue is single parents now. What is a mother going to do if she's the only support for the child and the company won't hold her job for her?

I'd like to know how exactly getting pregnant is a choice. I mean people can try to get pregnant. But you make it sound like it's not easy to accidently get pregant. A lot of women just suddenly find themselves pregnant.

Most people treat pregnancy as a medical issue. The reason it's required by law now is because there are a lot of companies/people who would fire a woman for such a "medical disability" because they weren't required to do anything.

Most maternity leave's are unpaid. Another issue is single parents now. What is a mother going to do if she's the only support for the child and the company won't hold her job for her?
Just remember: in America, GETTING pregnant may be something that happens by accident, but STAYING pregnant is a choice. Women can choose what to do if they find themselves pregnant, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to face the full consequences of that choice.

I'd like to know how exactly getting pregnant is a choice. I mean people can try to get pregnant. But you make it sound like it's not easy to accidently get pregant. A lot of women just suddenly find themselves pregnant.

Most people treat pregnancy as a medical issue. The reason it's required by law now is because there are a lot of companies/people who would fire a woman for such a "medical disability" because they weren't required to do anything.

Most maternity leave's are unpaid. Another issue is single parents now. What is a mother going to do if she's the only support for the child and the company won't hold her job for her?
Thanks--I was wondering when someone would mention this point. Women don't always get pregnant by choice--sometimes accidents happen, and sometimes pregnancy gets forced on them, and do we really want a company to have the power to investigate a woman's life to find out if her pregnancy was planned or accidental or forced upon her? Come on--be reasonable about this.

Just remember: in America, GETTING pregnant may be something that happens by accident, but STAYING pregnant is a choice. Women can choose what to do if they find themselves pregnant, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to face the full consequences of that choice.

I don't see why companies should be allowed to force women to decide whether to keep a pregnancy or not.

Just remember: in America, GETTING pregnant may be something that happens by accident, but STAYING pregnant is a choice. Women can choose what to do if they find themselves pregnant, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to face the full consequences of that choice.
Not for long, if the right-wing has its way. More and more, women are being told what they can and cannot do with their bodies, and should a woman really have to choose between having an abortion and keeping her job? Hell, in some parts of the country, women are having trouble getting prescriptions for the pill filled at their local pharmacies--you want to tell those women that they've got a right to terminate a pregnancy, and that they could even be forced to choose between keeping a baby and keeping a job? Give me a break.

I don't see why companies should be allowed to force women to decide whether to keep a pregnancy or not.
They aren't. I believe they should be allowed to tell a woman that she will not be permitted to take maternity leave without consequences. She may choose to keep the pregnancy anyway, if she wishes, but I don't believe the company is obligated to guarantee her paid leave or continued employment if she makes that choice.

Not for long, if the right-wing has its way. More and more, women are being told what they can and cannot do with their bodies, and should a woman really have to choose between having an abortion and keeping her job? Hell, in some parts of the country, women are having trouble getting prescriptions for the pill filled at their local pharmacies--you want to tell those women that they've got a right to terminate a pregnancy, and that they could even be forced to choose between keeping a baby and keeping a job? Give me a break.
I believe in 100% freedom of choice, at any time and for any reason. I realize I may not have made myself clear on this, but my opinion on maternity leave is only valid if the right to choose is protected. If women are not given the right to choose abortion, then all employers should be forced to guarantee full pay maternity leave for at least one year, and full paid paternity leave for at least 6 months. If women don't have the right to choose, then employers shouldn't either. However, if women have the right to choose then employers should have the right to choose.

They aren't. I believe they should be allowed to tell a woman that she will not be permitted to take maternity leave without consequences. She may choose to keep the pregnancy anyway, if she wishes, but I don't believe the company is obligated to guarantee her paid leave or continued employment if she makes that choice.
That's extortion, pure and simple. The company says, you either do what we want or we'll take something of value from you. It's attitudes like that that make me surprised that women have ever gotten anywhere in this country, and I know you're female, which is why I'm even more surprised.

I believe in 100% freedom of choice, at any time and for any reason. I realize I may not have made myself clear on this, but my opinion on maternity leave is only valid if the right to choose is protected. If women are not given the right to choose abortion, then all employers should be forced to guarantee full pay maternity leave for at least one year, and full paid paternity leave for at least 6 months. If women don't have the right to choose, then employers shouldn't either. However, if women have the right to choose then employers should have the right to choose.
Okay--that makes a bit more sense. You're talking about a reality that doesn't exist and won't anytime in the near future. I was talking about the facts on the ground as they are now. I still disagree with you, but that position is more reasonable.

Yeah, this is all based on the assumption that abortion is and will remain legal. When I said that it is the woman's choice, I was refering to her having the baby and keeping it, not just being pregnant with it as I realise that isn't always planned.

That's extortion, pure and simple. The company says, you either do what we want or we'll take something of value from you. It's attitudes like that that make me surprised that women have ever gotten anywhere in this country, and I know you're female, which is why I'm even more surprised.
If this is extortion, then it's extortion when a company says "we are looking for employees to put in 40 hours per week." They are saying "we have certain requirements for employment, and if you do not satisfy them we will not hire you or keep you as employee." I think that's fair. As long as women know these rules when they sign on with an employer, I see no problem whatsoever.

That's extortion, pure and simple. The company says, you either do what we want or we'll take something of value from you. It's attitudes like that that make me surprised that women have ever gotten anywhere in this country, and I know you're female, which is why I'm even more surprised.

Extortion? The woman is an employee of the company. What are they taking of value from her? Her job? The company provides her that job in return for her work, when she makes a choice that affects her productivity it will ofcourse change the company's decision on weather to continue to give her that job or not.

Extortion? The woman is an employee of the company. What are they taking of value from her? Her job? The company provides her that job in return for her work, when she makes a choice that affects her productivity it will ofcourse change the company's decision on weather to continue to give her that job or not.
Exactly. I would choose not to work for a company that refused maternity leave, but that's my choice. If another woman chooses to work for a company that refuses maternity leave then she must accept the consequences of her choice. I don't see anything unfair about that.

If this is extortion, then it's extortion when a company says "we are looking for employees to put in 40 hours per week." They are saying "we have certain requirements for employment, and if you do not satisfy them we will not hire you or keep you as employee." I think that's fair. As long as women know these rules when they sign on with an employer, I see no problem whatsoever.
And what if the employer changes the rules after the employment has started? They're within their rights, after all. You seem to be looking at this as though the employee and employer are somehow equal bargainers in this deal--they aren't. The company has all the leverage, and is generally unafraid to use it. All the worker has going for him or her is the fact that the government can step in and lessen the amount to which a company can fuck him or her over, and if he or she belongs to a union, then there's one more small layer of protection. That's it. If you really want to give that measure of control of your life to an employer, go right ahead. not me--no thanks.

Extortion? The woman is an employee of the company. What are they taking of value from her? Her job? The company provides her that job in return for her work, when she makes a choice that affects her productivity it will ofcourse change the company's decision on weather to continue to give her that job or not.And if the company is the only game in town? Or if there are other factors that tie the person to the area and limit job opportunities? This isn't a fair bargain companies are driving here--it's their way or fuck you very much, we've got fifteen people ready to take your place. I don't know how much time either of you has spent in the lower ecehelons of the work force, but trust me, it hasn't been enough. It just isn't as simple as you make it out to be. Most people aren't fortunate to have companies bidding for their services, and just because they're not in that position doesn't make them any less valuable to society as a whole.

It's entirely the point. You shouldn't be able to be fired without a valid reason. Being pregnant is not a valid reason UNLESS it affects you're work significantly. That ultimatum is fine IF it affects you're work SIGNIFICANTLY. Slight decreases cannot be valid grounds for termination unless it's over a sustained period of time or you're under contract to maintain a specified level of productivity.

Pregnancy happens to be a sustantied period of time. Nevermind that you have no authority, claim or in a position to make a judgement, on what is and is not a 'signficant' affect.

Otherwise anytime you had an off day, you could be fired.

People in my telemarketing job were fired on the spot for not answering their phones when its ringing. The same thing happens at plenty of sales jobs.

Texas is wrong.

Texas is right. You do not have a 'right' to employment. If the company is losing money, wants more profit, whatever, they can fire you to do so, for no reason other than that they want to.

And if the company is the only game in town?

Sucks for you. You picked the town. The company. And you decided that it was worth it. Now that you want to change the situation the company doesn't have to bend to your will.

Or if there are other factors that tie the person to the area and limit job opportunities?

Sucks for you.

This isn't a fair bargain companies are driving here--it's their way or fuck you very much, we've got fifteen people ready to take your place.

Life's not fair. Shouldn't be fair. Isn't meant to be fair. If they've got 15 people to replace you, sucks to be you. Why should those 15 people be denied a job while you get the rules bent for you?

I don't know how much time either of you has spent in the lower ecehelons of the work force, but trust me, it hasn't been enough. It just isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

:rolleyes:

Most people aren't fortunate to have companies bidding for their services, and just because they're not in that position doesn't make them any less valuable to society as a whole.

LOL. 'fortunate.' People work extremely hard to become a commodity that companies bid for their services. It has nothing to do with 'fortunate.' Further if someone is not in that position they are most definitely less valuable to society as a whole. There is a reason why Hawkings can get paid thousands of dollars to give a lecture and why no one wants to listen to Joe Schmo fast food worker down the street.

And if the company is the only game in town? Or if there are other factors that tie the person to the area and limit job opportunities? This isn't a fair bargain companies are driving here--it's their way or fuck you very much, we've got fifteen people ready to take your place. I don't know how much time either of you has spent in the lower ecehelons of the work force, but trust me, it hasn't been enough. It just isn't as simple as you make it out to be. Most people aren't fortunate to have companies bidding for their services, and just because they're not in that position doesn't make them any less valuable to society as a whole.

I've spent plenty of time in low-level jobs. Hell, I used to work at McDonalds! A company is not resposible for a person not having more marketable skills. A company exists to be profitable and while yes they should be regulated as not to commit crimes, use unfair trade practices, unfairly exploit their workers etc havign to provide mandatory maternity leave is going too far and undermining the very point of the company having employees.

Also, what about the person who doesn't have a job in the town? Rather than a position opening up when another person decidesto have a baby, that position is protected.

Pregnancy happens to be a sustantied period of time. Nevermind that you have no authority, claim or in a position to make a judgement, on what is and is not a 'signficant' affect.



People in my telemarketing job were fired on the spot for not answering their phones when its ringing. The same thing happens at plenty of sales jobs.



Texas is right. You do not have a 'right' to employment. If the company is losing money, wants more profit, whatever, they can fire you to do so, for no reason other than that they want to.

Damn. I thought I was pro-business. You humble me, sir.

As for me not being able to determine was is 'significant' or not, you're right. It should be left up to the employeer, as it is their business. However, and even though it might be more compassion than logic on my part, workers should have some form of job security. I feel that it is an exploitation of your workers [and bad business] to fire your workers at will rather than with sufficient reasoning. I mean, half the reason their is regular and casual workers is because casual workers receive an increase in pay in return for lower job security and company benefits [holidays].

Sucks for you. You picked the town. The company. And you decided that it was worth it. Now that you want to change the situation the company doesn't have to bend to your will.


You sound like someone I know who says that people who live in areas that are high risk for certain natural disasters have no reason to be upset when said natural disaster destroys their home.

Why should the individual be completely ignored for the sake of business? People don't have an equal amount of agency when it comes to moving, getting certain kinds of educations, or certain types of jobs.