NationStates Jolt Archive

This one issue I got made me curious...

"A coalition of expectant mothers (Mothers 4 Justice) has banded together to demand legislation allowing for six months of fully paid maternity leave."

It made me wonder if maternity leave is really something not self-evident with "foreigners" to even ask such a thing, and out of curiosity I'd like to ask anyone interested in this gibberish to tell how things are handled in their countries?

As for Finland, maternity leave is 7 months, but it ain't that simple. There is also a paternity leave of roughly one month for the father to support the understandably very tired mother. After that there is a "parental leave" that lasts 158 weekdays, and that can be used in turns by the father and mother as they see fit.

Oh... I chose option 3 by the way.

Joona

We don't have paid maternity leave here and no paternity leave to speak of. There's a year of unpaid maternity leave, however.

To my knowledge, there is no mandatory (and by mandatory, I mean legally mandated) maternity leave in the US (as a whole - state laws most likely vary). Depending on where a woman works, I've heard of up to 6 weeks maternity leave being offered. I'm sure some companies offer more, while many companies will offer less.

I've actually never had any experience with a company that has any type of paid paternity leave.

In truth, I've never known a woman who took off more than a week or two total except for a professor who had the good fortune to have her baby right before the Christmas holidays. Because she took off a bit early, I think she got about a month before Spring semester started. I know at least one woman who worked an all night shift, had a baby during the day, went in for a tubal ligation that night, slept a bit, and then got up for another shift helping with other people's babies.

In my opinion, all companies should offer paid maternity and paternity leave, as both parents should have the opportunity to bond with and get used to their new child (not to mention how much work goes into taking care of a very young infant). I don't really know precisely how much time they should both get, but six weeks sounds like enough to guarantee (more would likely be better, but I don't see many companies going for it without being forced somehow).

Mothers:

* Have a right to 4 weeks of leave immediately up to the birth.

*Are legally required to take 2 weeks of leave immediately after the birth, though this is subject to a professional medical opinion.

*Have a right to 12 weeks of leave immediately after the birth.

Men:

*Have a right to 2 weeks of leave within 14 weeks of the child being born.

Both:

* Have a right to a combined 32 weeks of leave, beyond what I specified earlier.

*Up to 13 weeks of the 32 weeks of leave can be saved and used at any point before the child's 9th birthday, though any such saved leave has to be spent in one go.

In general, employers have a right to 3 month's warning by one or both parents, though it depends somewhat on the particulars.

*snip*

So, where is this?

So, where is this?Northern Europe somewhere. I would've told you if I was inclined to. Nice rules though, don't you think?

New Zealand:
* special leave (up to 10 days during your pregnancy e.g. for doctor visits)
* maternity leave (up to 14 weeks - up to 6 before the birth and the balance of the 14 weeks after the birth)
* extended leave (up to 52 weeks, including the 14 weeks maternity leave and including any extended leave taken by your partner - this entitlement may be shared with your partner).

This covers working mothers who have a baby or adopt a baby after working with the same employer for a full year.

Mothers who usually work at least 10 hours a week will receive NZ$375 (~$260US) gross per week for the 14-week period or 100% of their previous earnings, whichever is lower.

This equates to 53% of the nation's average male and female weekly earnings and will cost the NZ Government about NZ$42m a year.

The payment will mean that half of New Zealand's female wage and salary earners will get 80% of their earnings, and about one-third will receive 100%.

Payments can be shared between eligible partners, including same sex partners.

Employees are eligible for maternity leave - paid and unpaid - totalling 52 weeks.


Hong Kong:
10 weeks maternity leave for the mother, at 80% of the employee’s usual wage. The 10 weeks leave start 4 weeks before the expected date of birth.

Duhhhhh... once again I should say to myself: "googlaa, pälli" (google you dickwad). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

Looks like our neighbours have a bit better terms for the mother, but it is interesting to notice that Finland is rather unique in the shared leave amount. Hm, live and learn I guess.

Joona

EDIT: I stand corrected. Damn Svenssons and Cods have it much better. Where do I apply for citizenship? :fluffle:

Maternity leave is such a joke. Think about it, you are forcing business' to pay for an employee they don't have, for the sake of that employee to indulge in her 'right' to push out kids at the expense of another. Furthermore, this only serves to further discriminate women, as any logical business owner would be somewhat hesitant hiring a woman for a job given the possibility of her disappearing for a year, with pay, and demanding a comfy seat when she gets back.

Fuck that.

if you want to have a kid, then you factor it into your budget/schedule, or hire a nanny. If you can't, then maybe now isn't the time for kids. Seriously. Charging it to your boss' tab. :rolleyes:

Canada

You can start maternity leave at eight months pregnant and get a full year, where you get bi-weekly Unemployment checks.

The one year leave can be split evenly between mother and father. Meaning that the mother can take the first six months and then, if she feels up to going back to work, the father can take the last six months.

There is also parental leave, however most take that if they are adopting.

Just after I had my first child, I remember hearing talk about our government expanding maternity leave to two years. That was five years ago and it hasn't happened. I don't think it ever will.

*snip*
In my opinion, all companies should offer paid maternity and paternity leave, as both parents should have the opportunity to bond with and get used to their new child (not to mention how much work goes into taking care of a very young infant). I don't really know precisely how much time they should both get, but six weeks sounds like enough to guarantee (more would likely be better, but I don't see many companies going for it without being forced somehow). In what crazy regard is it the responsibility of the company to ensure sufficient time for a mother to 'bond' with her child, or the father for that matter. Remember, companies exist for the benefit of their shareholders, not their employees. If a woman wants 6 weeks, she should negotiate it into her employment contract when she starts, if she can. If she can't, then that is that, she simply isn't worth that much to them. Imagine. A whole factory full of productionline workers arbitrarily taking 6 weeks paid leave whenever they decide to drop a fetus out of their legs, then their husbands doing the same!

Seriously. Charging it to your boss' tab. :rolleyes:

Ahem... I do believe that in almost all countries it is the government that pays the bill. Welcome to my left-leaning college state. :p

Seriously, IMHO it is one of the duties of the society to ensure a newborn at least a chance to get a healthy bonding with his/her parents. After all, you can think of an infant as an investment for the Government, Inc. if you wanna think all nasty capitalist. :D

Joona

if you want to have a kid, then you factor it into your budget/schedule, or hire a nanny. If you can't, then maybe now isn't the time for kids. Seriously. Charging it to your boss' tab. :rolleyes:
Agreed.

Anyway, for the UK the following will suffice:

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?r.l1=1073858787&r.l3=1074045869&type=RESOURCES&itemId=1074725932&r.l2=1073858926&r.s=sc

Oh, for that note in the Wiki entry that only Swizerland has about "pregnant women cannot be fired"... If that means pregnancy cannot be used as a reason to terminate a work contract, it applies to Finland as well. And I bet for most of the other countries as well.

An interesting little detail in EU is that when residing in another state you can choose whether to use the social security and benefits of your "parent state" or the one where you currently are. This is kinda interesting, because with the amount of Nordic social security and welfare you get along more than well in some of the... um... more southern regions. Not naming any out of courtesy, but excuse me, I am packing and off to the Med :D

Joona

Ahem... I do believe that in almost all countries it is the government that pays the bill. Welcome to my left-leaning college state. :p

Seriously, IMHO it is one of the duties of the society to ensure a newborn at least a chance to get a healthy bonding with his/her parents. After all, you can think of an infant as an investment for the Government, Inc. if you wanna think all nasty capitalist. :D

Joona
Fuck the government, I am no statist. I care not whether a baby benefits the group of gun-toting bandits that label themselves the 'legitimate authority' over these lands.

Which brings me to my next point. Obliging a business to sit around holding it's dick in it's hand 'keeping a guaranteed' spot in the womans job for her is BS as well. Furthermore, getting the government to foot the bill is just as bad, seeing as it then comes from every tax paying consumer in the country. If you want a baby, pay for it yourself, don't expect a wage from me.

In what crazy regard is it the responsibility of the company to ensure sufficient time for a mother to 'bond' with her child, or the father for that matter.

The same crazy regard that leaves it to the company to offer paid leave for sickness - even sickness of the children. A company should not have the ability to keep their employees from leading normal, healthy lives or to adversely affect the development of an infant.

Fuck the government, I am no statist. I care not whether a baby benefits the group of gun-toting bandits that label themselves the 'legitimate authority' over these lands.

Which brings me to my next point. Obliging a business to sit around holding it's dick in it's hand 'keeping a guaranteed' spot in the womans job for her is BS as well. Furthermore, getting the government to foot the bill is just as bad, seeing as it then comes from every tax paying consumer in the country. If you want a baby, pay for it yourself, don't expect a wage from me.I at least partially agree with you, but without doing away with things like property rights, what you suggest would lead to slavery.

Fuck the government, I am no statist. I care not whether a baby benefits the group of gun-toting bandits that label themselves the 'legitimate authority' over these lands.

Well well well. No need to be so rude, Sir. The Nordic welfare state (and it doesn't mean all people are unemployed on welfare) is paid by the people in taxes. If one doesn't like the idea, he can always get the fuck out and move to some... differently thinking country. Like the States. Or Oz. Lotsa Finns there, I hear.

As for me, I am generally happy to get some payback for the insane taxes I pay, although woefully often they are spent for things I'd rather not support. Like Hornets, Leopards, JSDAM missiles and a hopelessly immense government bureaucracy remnant from the Czar rule.

Bah!

Joona

The same crazy regard that leaves it to the company to offer paid leave for sickness - even sickness of the children. A company should not have the ability to keep their employees from leading normal, healthy lives or to adversely affect the development of an infant.
A company does not have that ability. The employees have the ability to do that if they make decision without regard to the terms of their work contract. The *company* does not contribute to the retarded developement of the 'mother-child bond' when the mother cannot spend time with her child due to full time work. rather it is the mother who creates this situation, firstly by having a baby whilst also working a full-time job, and secondly by continuing to do so, rather than renegotiating her work contract (perhaps to part-time) if possible, or changing jobs all together. If she doesn't want to do this, that the resulting situation is a product of *her* own decision. It is not the responsiblity to cater to the self-purported positive rights of every employee it deals with.

In what crazy regard is it the responsibility of the company to ensure sufficient time for a mother to 'bond' with her child, or the father for that matter. Remember, companies exist for the benefit of their shareholders, not their employees. If a woman wants 6 weeks, she should negotiate it into her employment contract when she starts, if she can. If she can't, then that is that, she simply isn't worth that much to them. Imagine. A whole factory full of productionline workers arbitrarily taking 6 weeks paid leave whenever they decide to drop a fetus out of their legs, then their husbands doing the same!
A couple of points:
You might be surprised to know companies also exist for the benefit of their employees - and indeed, only exist due to the benefit they gain from their employees.
Companies that acknowledge and recognise that their employees are humans, with lives outside their jobs, and treat them accordingly (not just as cogs as you appear to do) result in having more motivated employees willing to do extra - which of course benefits the company and it's shareholders.
High morale/Job satisfaction = more productivity = better profits for the company.
Lastly, if a company is hiring according to sex (even leaving aside the discrimination therein), they are reducing the number of potentially suitable employees by 50% (over if they include the partners of women who might become pregnant). This of course can lead them to being forced to hire people not suitable, under-qualified and/or lacking experience if the best applicants is cursed with having a womb located within their persons.
You may also be surprised to know that not hiring the best person available can, and does, affect business, the company, profits and, ultimately, the shareholders. Especially if a rival company is intelligent enough to hire based on ability and not ovaries (or lack thereof).


To sum up: Your company would treat it's workers like shit and have as it's policy not to hire the most competent avaliable, unless they fall within a narrow band of either single, socially-inadequate losers incapable of forming relationships, or ppl too old to breed.

I suggest not the best way to run a company.

I at least partially agree with you, but without doing away with things like property rights, what you suggest would lead to slavery.
Excuse the newspeak, but what I am suggesting would lead to the freedom from slavery (i.e. taxation).

Well well well. No need to be so rude, Sir. The Nordic welfare state (and it doesn't mean all people are unemployed on welfare) is paid by the people in taxes. If one doesn't like the idea, he can always get the fuck out and move to some... differently thinking country. Like the States. Or Oz. Lotsa Finns there, I hear. or perhaps the government should start respecting my self-ownership, and property rights, and start making taxation voluntary for this reason:

As for me, I am generally happy to get some payback for the insane taxes I pay, although woefully often they are spent for things I'd rather not support. Like Hornets, Leopards, JSDAM missiles and a hopelessly immense government bureaucracy remnant from the Czar rule.

Bah!

Joona

Also note I am not in a nordic welfare state, nor was I complaining about them specifically, so much as i was repuditating statism as a whole, for it's abominable disdain for the fundamental human rights of those for which it supposedly stands to represent the interests of. Fuck off and die, I say. if I want something, i'll go and pay for it.

To sum up: Your company would treat it's workers like shit and have as it's policy not to hire the most competent avaliable, unless they fall within a narrow band of either single, socially-inadequate losers incapable of forming relationships, or ppl too old to breed.

I suggest not the best way to run a company.
The efficiency wage hypothesis? Yes. All good points. However, I am sure GPN is not arguing against the fact that a company treating its employees well will be more profitable - especially in the face of competition. Rather, forcing a company to grant maternity leave via government action is what he (and I) are against.

Fuck off and die, I say. if I want something, i'll go and pay for it.

My point was that I indeed pay. I also pay for my fellow man, and he pays for me. You might consider it as insurance. And as you might have noticed, I certainly don't think the system is perfect. Far from it. And I did not resort to barking at the one you prefer.

So maybe you could kindly refrain from such slurs as "fuck off and die" if that was meant personally? If that was meant generally to the society model you so despise, that's fine. In fact sometimes I almost agree.

Joona

The efficiency wage hypothesis? Yes. All good points. However, I am sure GPN is not arguing against the fact that a company treating its employees well will be more profitable - especially in the face of competition. Rather, forcing a company to grant maternity leave via government action is what he (and I) are against.
well, you put it rather more eloquently than he does.
What is wrong with granting Maternity leave?
Seems to me that most arguments against can be (and were) levelled against paid holiday and sick leave. Companies were forced to adopt those, and came out ok afterwards. Western civilisation did not collapse because people were getting paid not to be at work for several weeks a year.

Indeed Maternity leave can benefit a company.
If a woman takes said leave, true the company needs to keep their position open for them. But then they do this while the person is on holiday. Generally just by hiring a temp for that time, or perhaps by internal coverage.
If the woman had to quit her job upon becoming pregnant, the company would be forced into spending time and money searching for, advertising, interviewing, recruiting and training a new person.
Instead the company gets the person back who has proven to have the necessary skills, experience and knowledge to perform in that particular job. For some positions, this a lot of value.

A couple of points:
You might be surprised to know companies also exist for the benefit of their employees - and indeed, only exist due to the benefit they gain from their employees. No, by definition, a company exists to serve the interests of it's shareholders. If serving the interests of it's shareholders means entering business contracts with individuals trading their time and skills for money, than so be it, but only if it benefits the shareholders. As an accessory, the employees will also benefit from such a contract, as a beneficial contract is usually the only way to convince someone to devote their skills to your business. However, their benefit is just that, an accessory. An accessory to the fact that the sole reason they have an employment contract with the company is for the company to benefit it's shareholders. Pure and simple.
Companies that acknowledge and recognise that their employees are humans, with lives outside their jobs, and treat them accordingly (not just as cogs as you appear to do) result in having more motivated employees willing to do extra - which of course benefits the company and it's shareholders. better yet, companies that treat their employees as the most valuable respource they have (i.e. Human resources), will obviously take whatever economically viable and reasonable steps to ensure that the said resource remains as valuable as it is. So, for a trained skilled professional, to a company job motivation is key to the quality of their output. As such, you might expect quite a few workers benefits written into their contract, perhaps even if the employee did not even ask for such benefits. For the good of the company. However if the employee pushes a button all day long in a factory, the significance of that workers quality of external life is diminished to the company, who just needs someone to push a button. If it was cheaper, they'd probably train a monkey to do it. But it's not.
High morale/Job satisfaction = more productivity = better profits for the company. with certain types of employee, yes. If this is the case, then I'm sure that kind of employee can negotiate their quality of life into their work terms with ease.
Lastly, if a company is hiring according to sex (even leaving aside the discrimination therein), they are reducing the number of potentially suitable employees by 50% (over if they include the partners of women who might become pregnant). This of course can lead them to being forced to hire people not suitable, under-qualified and/or lacking experience if the best applicants is cursed with having a womb located within their persons. So the comapny has to make an informed decision. Balance their marginal benefits against their marginal costs. That is to say, they need to compare hiring someone who is qualified but may screw them economically, and hiring someone who won't. If they can do the latter with no consequence, they will, if however all of the qualified people happen to be soon-to-be-expecting women (as if), then they will have to decide which is worse: hiring someone who will disappear for half a year, with pay, only to turn up demanding her job back, or hiring someone who may be less qualified, but will forseeably meet the minimum requirements of their employment contract. I wonder which they'd pick (with maximising shareholder equity in mind)?
You may also be surprised to know that not hiring the best person available can, and does, affect business, the company, profits and, ultimately, the shareholders. Especially if a rival company is intelligent enough to hire based on ability and not ovaries (or lack thereof). I think you'll find it is not so m,uch sexual discrimination as it is discrimination based upon likelyhood to fulfill the terms of their employment contract. Also remember this situation is only created by compulsory maternity leave. If there was none, companies would no longer have anything to fear in hiring a woman.


To sum up: Your company would treat it's workers like shit and have as it's policy not to hire the most competent avaliable, unless they fall within a narrow band of either single, socially-inadequate losers incapable of forming relationships, or ppl too old to breed.

I suggest not the best way to run a company. To sum it up, my company would base it's decision on maximising shareholder capital, and endeavour to do whatever could be done to ensure this. If the needs of unreliable workers coincide with this, then this they will provide for. However, I sincerely doubt that it would coincide thus, and instead they would opt for 'safer' qualified alternatives whenever possible due to the un natural and discriminating effect of legislated maternity leave.

well, you put it rather more eloquently than he does.
What is wrong with granting Maternity leave?
Seems to me that most arguments against can be (and were) levelled against paid holiday and sick leave. Companies were forced to adopt those, and came out ok afterwards. Western civilisation did not collapse because people were getting paid not to be at work for several weeks a year.
Nothing is wrong with it if the company does so out of a realization that it's in its self-interest to do so. If some companies do so in order to boost employee loyalty and out-compete less efficient rivals as a result, this will cripple their the latter. This is in fact an argument an employee (perhaps in liaison with other employees) could marshall in favour for such policies being adopted by the corporation. What I am not in favour of is forcing a company to do so via legislative measures.

Excuse the newspeak, but what I am suggesting would lead to the freedom from slavery (i.e. taxation).Taxation isn't slavery. It's simply the fee for membership of a society. No different from a fee for a golfclub membership. And as with the goldclub, as long as you're a sane adult your membership is voluntary. At least in theory.

Your suggestion would lead to a very few or just one owner of everything, who'll be in a position to deny and bestow resources as it fits them/him/her. For all practical purposes, that's slavery.

My point was that I indeed pay. I also pay for my fellow man, and he pays for me. You might consider it as insurance. And as you might have noticed, I certainly don't think the system is perfect. Far from it. And I did not resort to barking at the one you prefer. my brash manner is not directed at you, Joona. Nor, when I say "fuck off and die" and die am I addressing you, but rather addressing the situation as a whole, perhaps focussing specifically on statism. Not because you prefer it, but because I do not.

So maybe you could kindly refrain from such slurs as "fuck off and die" if that was meant personally? If that was meant generally to the society model you so despise, that's fine. In fact sometimes I almost agree.

JoonaRight, yes above. Terribly sorry if i did not make myself clear. I get a bit stroppy towards the state. Anyhow, I also believe in contributing to my fellow man. Voluntarily. Not under threat of imprisonment. I would be most enthusiastic in subscribing to the benefits of a localised philanthro-capitalist social capital firm. Alas, as long as the government maintains a monopoly on such things, and forces me to contribute to it, I shall have to deal with whatever they tell me to deal with, right?

well, you put it rather more eloquently than he does.
What is wrong with granting Maternity leave?
Seems to me that most arguments against can be (and were) levelled against paid holiday and sick leave. Companies were forced to adopt those, and came out ok afterwards. Western civilisation did not collapse because people were getting paid not to be at work for several weeks a year. I think one would find, for the interest of worker stability, and keeping competitive in the labour market, the above forms of leave would be offered to the vast majority of jobs on the market even without legislation commanding it thus. Maternity leave, however, in my opinion crosses the line of economic efficiency for most businesses, particularly when coercively applied universally to all workers, regardless of their worth to the company. Furthmore it discriminates women as being of a higher liablity to a firm than men, leaving woeful results.


Indeed Maternity leave can benefit a company.
If a woman takes said leave, true the company needs to keep their position open for them. But then they do this while the person is on holiday. Generally just by hiring a temp for that time, or perhaps by internal coverage.
If the woman had to quit her job upon becoming pregnant, the company would be forced into spending time and money searching for, advertising, interviewing, recruiting and training a new person.
Instead the company gets the person back who has proven to have the necessary skills, experience and knowledge to perform in that particular job. For some positions, this a lot of value. Or they could just not permit her to do so in the first place, and look for someone who won't if she does.

In what crazy regard is it the responsibility of the company to ensure sufficient time for a mother to 'bond' with her child, or the father for that matter. Remember, companies exist for the benefit of their shareholders, not their employees. If a woman wants 6 weeks, she should negotiate it into her employment contract when she starts, if she can. If she can't, then that is that, she simply isn't worth that much to them. Imagine. A whole factory full of productionline workers arbitrarily taking 6 weeks paid leave whenever they decide to drop a fetus out of their legs, then their husbands doing the same!

meh. If a ceo can get paid 210 million for failing to do his job, I don't see a problem with helping the female employees.

Companies don't exist for the shareholders. If they did then the board of directors wouldn't be the first ones paid off when a company folds.

Taxation isn't slavery. It's simply the fee for membership of a society. No different from a fee for a golfclub membership. And as with the goldclub, as long as you're a sane adult your membership is voluntary. At least in theory.

Your suggestion would lead to a very few or just one owner of everything, who'll be in a position to deny and bestow resources as it fits them/him/her. For all practical purposes, that's slavery.
No time, must go. later.

Taxation is slavery becaus.. argh. look it up in my history.. *runs out door*

you guys have to say Sweden rules

480 days (16 months) (80% up to a ceiling the first 390 days, 90 days at flat rate) - shared with mother (minimum 60 days)

for both parents

Indeed Maternity leave can benefit a company.
If a woman takes said leave, true the company needs to keep their position open for them. But then they do this while the person is on holiday. Generally just by hiring a temp for that time, or perhaps by internal coverage.
If the woman had to quit her job upon becoming pregnant, the company would be forced into spending time and money searching for, advertising, interviewing, recruiting and training a new person.
Instead the company gets the person back who has proven to have the necessary skills, experience and knowledge to perform in that particular job. For some positions, this a lot of value.

The difference between holiday and maternity leave is the length of time, if you are off for a week your work can just sit on your desk while if you are off for 6 months your employer needs to find someone else to do the work during that time (either that or they are fairly overstaffed and need to shed some employees...) and temporary employees are rather expensive due to recruitment costs, training costs and higher wages paid to staff on short term contracts.

On the other hand - in the current job market this is not so much an issue. Unskilled jobs tend to have such a high turnover that the employer will probably just hire a new employee on the basis that by the time the woman returns in 6 months time someone else will have quit, and many skilled professions are recruiting 100% of the time anyway so will be hoping to keep the replacement after the woman returns from leave. However for small companies this is more of an issue as their staff size could change by a huge portion if two women got pregnant at the same time.

Of course - the best way to prevent employers discriminating against recruiting women due to fears over losing a member of staff for several months would be to give men an equal paternity leave.

In Italy it is about 24 months for mothers. If the mothers chooses not to go on maternity leave, the father can go in her stead.

Governments should not be involved with this at all.

It is a private matter, properly left to whatever (if any) agreements that employer and employee can come to.

Governments should not be involved with this at all.

It is a private matter, properly left to whatever (if any) agreements that employer and employee can come to.

That's funny.

No woman would ever be terminated for having children right?

Businessmen are not the example to run societies.

No, by definition, a company exists to serve the interests of it's shareholders. If serving the interests of it's shareholders means entering business contracts with individuals trading their time and skills for money, than so be it, but only if it benefits the shareholders. As an accessory, the employees will also benefit from such a contract, as a beneficial contract is usually the only way to convince someone to devote their skills to your business. However, their benefit is just that, an accessory. An accessory to the fact that the sole reason they have an employment contract with the company is for the company to benefit it's shareholders. Pure and simple.

This is going a wee bit OT, but you need to get your head out of the 80s. No successful business operates these days with the metality that shareholder satisfaction is its primary goal. A modern firm must satisfy the needs of its stakeholders to be successful, which can include suppliers, distributors, customers, government agencies, NGOs, the local community, standards agencies, employees, directors, managers, lenders and shareholders. The idea that a company should behave simply to satisfy the needs of its shareholders is counter productive to actually serving the needs of its shareholders.

For example, when deciding a location to invest in capital which will provide employment, the shareholders will be best served by finding somewhere that the workforce can work exploitatively low wages, say a third world country. While this will lead to higher profits, it is also likely to lead to criticism from charities and will probably lower the firms reputation with suppliers, customers and lenders, and could even discourage further investment from shareholders. However, opting to invest their capital in a domestic area with high unemployment is likely to attract praise from the community and the government, advancing the reuptation of the company as a whole.

Sorry for going off on a tangent, but as a student of business it annoys me when someone simplifies the extremely complex role of a business into 'its all for the shareholders'.

That's funny.
How so?

No woman would ever be terminated for having children right?

I don't know if that's what would happen or not.

I simply don't care.

It's irrelevant.

Businessmen have the same rights as the rest of us--including the right to freely associate and the right to decide who is and is not allowed on property he/she owns or (in the case of a corporation) is entrusted with.

I'm not sure of the maternity leave policy in the United States- but I'm guessing it's not so generous and lenient.

But I really think it is important- not just for the parents but for the children as well. So much rapid learning and development occurs in the first year of life. This is a time when the child needs proper care, and stability the most. The infant has heard it's mother's voice before it was actually born and has been used to that.

Early childcare is important as well I think. The mother doesn't necessarily need to stay home- but I think there should be low cost childcare provided. At around age 2 is when a child acquires language the fastest and needs to be in a good environment to foster that. 18-24 month olds engage in problem solving through experimentation- and that won't work if they're in a chaotic environment or just plopped in front of the TV. Being with others will help for sharing and taking turns and all that jazz. Yet, the US lags behind in this professional childcare- or at least it's availability to everyone.

Early childcare helps, not only the parents and the child but also the economy. Many of the mothers that would otherwise quit their jobs, now go to work and make a living.

Okay, this is kind of a ramble on childcare instead of maternity leave but oh well.