There is no simple way to prevent family-friendly policies from backfiring, researchers say. One idea is to make sure that employers do not have to finance them. As in Chile, they will often pass the burden to employees. The three American states — California, New Jersey and Rhode Island — that offer paid family leave finance it through employee payroll taxes, for example.

It seems strange that we acknowledge the desire and need to provide for the elderly with social security, but not for the newly born or their parents.

It's unsurprising that business do not want to shoulder the costs for maternity leave. Why should they? Employers are not our keepers, they are someone that we have a working arrangement with. Making employers shoulder the cost puts women at a disadvantage.

Maternity leave is an ideal function for government. It is a service that improves the quality of our society which comes at a cost. IMO it the money should come from the general tax fund, not a payroll tax. Maternity leave is not an employer benefit. It is a characteristic of a civil society.

Grendel:

I have two problems with maternity leave. One is that the planet is already overpopulated as it is, and maybe we shouldn't be encouraging people to reproduce. Perhaps it's not such a bad thing that people have to choose between having a child and keeping a job. The other, of course, is that these kinds of policies are usually aimed at mothers only, and it doesn't seem fair to me that fathers should be excluded, especially since it's also their money that goes to fund them.

    Elsewhere in Europe, generous maternity leaves have meant that women are much less likely than men to become managers or achieve other high-powered positions at work.

I'm not sure how anyone could have expected a different result, honestly. Assuming that two employees, one female and the other male, are equally competent and the woman chooses to take a year off to care for her newborn baby, why would the company reward her and not the man with a promotion? Naturally the employee who shows greater commitment to the success of the company is going to get the promotion.

This isn't a matter of sexual discrimination, since women are given the same opportunities as men, and sometimes more (for example in the cases where paternity leave is not an option), and it's their choices that affect their career negatively. It's also worth noting that some countries require big companies to meet a certain quota of women in upper management positions (I think the number is 40%), so once again, men are discriminated against in the name of equality.

- The MRA dude :^)


posted 3251 days ago