Another Thing the US Will Not Do

Remove all ads!

The group Human Rights Watch (based in NYC) released a report today, stating that the US is "decades behind" most developed nations when it comes to paid maternity leave. Evidently, 178 nations give paid leave for women having babies, and the US is not one of them. (The FMLA does allow 12 weeks of unpaid leave for new mothers.)

Other notable nations on the list with the US include Swaziland (I don't even know where the hell that is - I suppose it's in Africa somewhere, but it would take me a while to find it on the map) and Papua New Guinea (I do know where that one is). Let's just say that if you're on a list with Swaziland and Papua New Guinea, it is almost always a dubious accomplishmnet.

Link.

So just out of curiosity, since I imagine a good portion of the SP community is from one of the 178 countries that do offer paid leave for new mothers (and evidently there are also 50 countries that give paid leave to new fathers), how long do you get?

 

The government compensates for a three month period a certain percentage of your wage, but most collective agreements (over 80% of the Finnish workforce is within the bounds of a collective agreement) stipulate that the employer pay full wage for that period. After the three month period the government also allows a "careleave" when you receive a standard compensation not bound to the wage you had in employment. This leave can last until the child is three years old. The employer cannot legally fire you during the three month period or during your careleave.

We also have the option of a paid leave for fathers up to eighteen days.

 

I've often wondered about that -- if a woman wants a baby she should be prepared to pay for it -- why should her employer, or the government -- pay her for NOT working? I can understand in the case of a medical issue that she had no control over, but she (and her partner, of course) DO have control over this. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

My company doesn't offer paid maternity leave. Hell, my contract has changed twice in the last year, and that was because laws were changed that FORCED the company to improve things slightly.

 

I'm just saying that if 178 different countries found a way to make it work, it cannot be that difficult. (Note, that you can just as easily use that exact reasoning for any government/employer sponsored benefit. SS, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, etc. Hell, you could use that excuse for vacation time.)

 

I think you are. Since having a family and children is generally considered a good thing, it's quite understandable for society to subsidize having children. It's way better than than forcing the woman have an abortion for financial reasons if you ask me.

I don't necessarily believe that the company should pay for it, but the government should support having children. Especially since the population in here is shrinking and growing older.

 

I think you are confusing the terms "Cannot" with "Will Not".

I believe it was John Smith of the Jamestown VA colony who said "If you don't work, you don't eat." I know they used to teach that in school and it used to mean something. To some people it still does.

 

Your grammar is more accurate. I'll change the title, but I don't think it changes the overall point I'm making.

 

I had to look it up but you get 480 days of 73% of your salary when a child is born to be divided between the parents. I couldn't find it on a quick search but I think that each parent has to take at least a third of those days with one third to be done with as they please. It is also illegal to discriminate based on parental leave. This means that your salary should follow your workmates and you are not allowed to get rid of or not hire someone based on upcoming childbirth. Mm, I can imagine you like the sound of this Snook

I am curious though, you do not consider taking care of a newborn as working? I also love LKD's use of "if a woman wants". Getting a child is a completely womanly issue? On a personal level I am not too keen on this as I have no children and I think it will be a while until I get one but the entire west is in dire need of them not to mention that it is a major hindrance for equality to not have it. I guess Snook likes his women chained to the stove popping out a baby every year while he is a manly man pulling in the big money.

 

I see the typical anti-woman crowd on SP is out in full force on this one, which was completely predictable. You guys never fail to disappoint me.

Really? And what did they "teach" you about John Smith and Jamestown in school, Snook? That it's just a meanlingless platitude? or that it occurred within an historical context? You care to enlighten the rest of us about that context? I thought not. What disgrace that is.

Yes, it would appear the upper class had get a bit down and dirty. It must really suck to an ass-wipe for the rich. But I wouldn't know. I probably would have put them in the stockade, just as I would the useless, good for nothing leaches, who populate coporate boardrooms these days. Women who are PG, and who bear children for unappreciative fools are worth far more than those parasites. Many of you owe more than just gratitude for the hell they went through to populate this clueless nation, but you also owe them your standard of living and maybe your very jobs. Why? Consider the two parent working household for a moment, and what it would mean if half the work force decided the hell with it, they would rather go back to being just moms again, rather than having to perform both tasks. That would shrink the economy quite a bit I would think, and would probably lower the standard of living and cost many jobs. Most societies have a sense of what a steady stream of population means, but not here it would seem. Hence the reason they take care of their families rather than just the coporate fat cats at the top.

But what would John Smith think? I can't say for certain, but I do know that he expected the rich to lend their fair share of work, even in the fields [forget the country clubs where they usually hang-out]. I suppose he may have wanted to get the women who were PG out tilling the fields and such, regardless of their conditions.

You see Jamestown almost didn't make it; they barely survived. So while Snook wants to make this quote apply in this context, he can't. Because some of us did "learn about Jamestown in school." Nice try, Snook.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smith_(explorer)

Funny how some things never change.

 

The US government may not make it mandatory, but a lot of companies offer maternity leave, and a growing number of them offer paternity leave as well.

While looking stuff up on this topic, I came across this.

 

Oh, you don't have to, it's just one of those little things that presumably help a couple when they decide if they want to have a baby. Presuming they actually have a discussion - and most do, either before they go for conception or afterwards, when they think if they can keep the fetus - money and time are important factors, and a lot of families would have problems losing the earnings one of the parents brings. Paid maternity leave deals with that, and alleviates the job loss risk, which would mean further loss of income for one parent. Essentially the state subsidizes birth rate, and given how low birth rate is a problem in most industrialized countries, that might be a fairly good idea. The way it relates to employment means that it targets working couples, which goes some way to address the "welfare queen" school of arguments. Most governments pay for worse things, I believe. As a bonus, it probably goes some way to reduce abortions (some of which are done because the mother doesn't think she can afford the child) somewhat, which I think should be kosher for everyone .

 

In a country where it is illegal to allow your child to starve or freeze to death, the government should provide money.

 

Paid maternity leave is decent here, but some other countries (Scandinavia, I guess) have a nicer system.

In Holland, a pregnant woman gets 4 weeks before the delivery and 3 months after. Fully paid. A man's paid leave is somewhat crappy: 2 days fully paid. So the pregnant mother has to hurry and right after the birth, a father should quickly announce the born child to the civil customer service centre. There are plans to change these 2 days into 2 weeks.
Also, like many countries with healthcare insurance, we get something called Postnatal Care. (Funny. Here it's called "kraamzorg". When I use my PC's translation program, it's translated to "Market Booth Care"... Uh-huh!)

 

Well, that's really not that surprising. First of all assuming at least half the workforce are men, they really don't expect to get paid time off. I took a week off when my son was born, but it was taken from accumulated leave time. Men certainly don't need extended time off before or after the birth of a child. Furthermore, of the women in the company - if they are typical of most women - aren't having babies every year. So it's natural to suppose that some things would be more important in the greater scheme of things.

I too would rank things like opportunities for advancement, and flexible workplace arrangements over parental leave, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to have, and it doesn't mean it has to be an either/or choice. Maybe it's American exceptionalism talking here, but I think we should be able to do better than Swaziland and Papua New Guinea.

 

No no Aldeth, that is commie talk. Everyone should take care of themselves, helping people out only encourages slacking off and we dont want that do we? If a couple wants a child they damn better be ready to take the consequences and if that doesn't suit them they can move to Kuba or North Korea and join the other commies!

 

I'm coming at this from the perspective of a small business owner, not a large conglomerate. If I have a small business with small margins, I would hazard it's pretty tough to pay maternity to a woman who is not there providing labour for me. That doesn't make me an "anti-woman" person, it makes me someone trying to run a business.

In addition, while I understand very well the benefits that having children provides to a nation, there is a part of me that would rather keep the money I make so I can use it for the raising of my own children rather than paying taxes so other people can have kids. I'm not totally opposed to helping people (and I don't go around calling people commies!) but the ideas of self sufficiency and personal responsibility are important to me.

On another note, I did mention in my original post that it was a choice that the woman and her partner make. But I reiterate -- it is a choice, and people should count the cost of their decisions before just acting and then expecting society to provide them with resources.

Now, a big company that wants to attract good workers will likely include as part of their benefits package time off. I have no trouble with that. That's just good business. But I have difficulty with the idea of the government forcing all companies to do it.

I don't know all the details but I do know that here in Canada, when a woman has a baby, she has to work for a certain number of hours in order to qualify for maternity leave and the attached government funding. A girl who I work with picked up an extra job when she found out she was pregnant in order to get as many hours as possible in order to qualify for the maximum possible payments. I think that's fair enough -- at least she has to meet a threshold in order to access taxpayer money.