• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama pushes for paid family leave

I'm seriously suggesting that paid parental leave following childbirth is something that a society should be interested in providing to its citizens.

I don't believe that to be as ridiculous a statement as you seem to think it is.
 
To be clear, this is a purported "right" to be paid not to work. We already protect the job itself. This is just the right to a paid vacation. I guess I missed that in the ol Constitution.

The OP link states it's the administration's position to shift the language from a privilege to a right.
 
I'm seriously suggesting that paid parental leave following childbirth is something that a society should be interested in providing to its citizens.

I don't believe that to be as ridiculous a statement as you seem to think it is.

A company should be interested in providing it to employees as a way to draw the best talent. A country should not be subsidizing this.
 
Also the language surrounding the topic is interesting as well. It's a "vacation" from work but it's not a vacation from life. I think most can tell you that being home on paternity/maternity leave is just as exhausting as work - or at the least in the same ballpark. We really, really minimize the "work" that is put in raising children as just being something that shouldn't particularly be valued in the country and economy while working "out in the real world" is given top priority. I guess that's a natural derivative of being an extremely capitalistic society but I'd be interested in seeing a shift in the work/home balance. Just my take though.
 
A company should be interested in providing it to employees as a way to draw the best talent. A country should not be subsidizing this.

Isn't part of the problem with American culture that companies aren't interested in incentivizing their best talent to be active fathers?
 
Isn't part of the problem with American culture that companies aren't interested in incentivizing their best talent to be active fathers?

Is it the responsibility of the federal government, with our tax dollars, to make up for that shortcoming?

No, it's not.
 
A company should be interested in providing it to employees as a way to draw the best talent. A country should not be subsidizing this.

Or requiring it. If a company doesn't care about doing it to attract top talent, then they shouldn't be forced to do so. It should be up to them.
 
Also the language surrounding the topic is interesting as well. It's a "vacation" from work but it's not a vacation from life. I think most can tell you that being home on paternity/maternity leave is just as exhausting as work - or at the least in the same ballpark. We really, really minimize the "work" that is put in raising children as just being something that shouldn't particularly be valued in the country and economy while working "out in the real world" is given top priority. I guess that's a natural derivative of being an extremely capitalistic society but I'd be interested in seeing a shift in the work/home balance. Just my take though.

This is nonsense. Nobody minimizes the amount of work involved in rearing children. Nobody is saying that parents taking time to be with their kids in their first few weeks/months is not a noble cause. What they are saying is that it shouldn't be subsidized by federal tax dollars.
 
Or requiring it. If a company doesn't care about doing it to attract top talent, then they shouldn't be forced to do so. It should be up to them.

Would the top talent take off time when their child is born? You all seem to suggest they wouldn't.
 
Also the language surrounding the topic is interesting as well. It's a "vacation" from work but it's not a vacation from life. I think most can tell you that being home on paternity/maternity leave is just as exhausting as work - or at the least in the same ballpark. We really, really minimize the "work" that is put in raising children as just being something that shouldn't particularly be valued in the country and economy while working "out in the real world" is given top priority. I guess that's a natural derivative of being an extremely capitalistic society but I'd be interested in seeing a shift in the work/home balance. Just my take though.

Well fuck it, why should anybody work at all? I should be able to sit home all day, pump out kids whenever my seed feels like it needs sowing, and collect checks from whatever company is out there. It's my goddamn right as a human being, feed me Seymour.
 
numbers has a kid?
 
Would the top talent take off time when their child is born? You all seem to suggest they wouldn't.

Yeah, most of them have 9 months to prepare for it so are smart enough to budget their otherwise applicable vacation accordingly. Why should I get more paid vacation than the guy next to me because I chose to have a kid?
 
This is nonsense. Nobody minimizes the amount of work involved in rearing children. Nobody is saying that parents taking time to be with their kids in their first few weeks/months is not a noble cause. What they are saying is that it shouldn't be subsidized by federal tax dollars.

Plenty of people do this there's a substantial amount of literature out there discussing this related to the FLMA and for similar statutes in other countries. We spent a month reading through them in one of my employment law classes. Maybe nobody on here is saying that but plenty of people say this and make arguments in this favor.
 
Back
Top