615
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
615 points (98.0% liked)
News
23287 readers
1707 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The US, the last western country lacking maternity leave. Compare that to what other countries do, providing months of maternity leave.
It's a shame the entire country doesn't have it, but many states including New York do already. One advantage of a federal system I guess.
Here's a summary of parental leave by state if curious.
https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/maternity-leave-laws-by-state/
There really should be a national requirement though.
Except it's unpaid.
The Federal FMLA is unpaid yes. Many individual states have their own paid leave policies though. The link I posted shows you the policies in each state.
If I counted correctly, there are 4 states that require paid leave. Another 6 where nothing is mentioned pertaining to paid/unpaid. And 22 states that don't mandate any leave at all...might be 23 since Kansas is just left blank.
In other states, you may or may not get leave (unpaid) depending how many employees there are at your job.
We really do suck in the US.
I don't disagree, just getting that info out there so if you're in one of the 10 states or the district of columbia that does have it, you know to access it. I've heard from people in states that have it that just assume they didn't since there's no national program.
This one's a map which makes it easier: https://onpay.com/hr/basics/paid-family-leave-by-state
The map is also nice because it shows which states have passed laws that will be taking effect in the future. Looks like 6 more on the way.
Don't be harsh. They have to give all their money to Israel. There is very little left for US citizens.
Regardless of the implications of what happens with the aid that's given to Israel, it's a tiny slice of the federal budget. It has absolutely zero to do with why we don't prioritize taking care of our citizens' health.
Don't forget Ukraine. And we have military bases everywhere. All on the backs of the common folk.
The difference is that defending Ukraine actually has value for the Western world.
Israel is an albatross around the neck of everyone supporting it.
Amazing how people don't understand the dynamics of a proxy war with Russia, but let me explain it. Russia wants to invade our allies, and if they attack a NATO country (which they absolutely want to, Ukraine was geographically in their way) it would cost us so much more money and lives. Fighting this proxy war, and defeating Russia, is the the absolutely cheapest and best possible outcome for US interests (i.e. the US is not doing the fighting, it's supply a fraction of what the US was absolutely going to have to spend if Russia was successful).
Now funding Israel's land grab n' genocide is a whole other thing, just as us funding the house of Saud (the guys who have spare billions laying around to bride presidents...).
Israel has great importance to US imperial interests. If you're making a moral argument, there's no comparison between Ukraine and Israel, but from a strategic/imperial perspective, well, still different, but there's solid justification in both cases.
Please go into detail what these interests are. I want sources too and not general statements like "we need a strong ally on the middle east"
Four off the top of my head would be the Suez Canal, Intel fabs, Gulf Arab oil, and Iran's aspirations for regional power & nuclear tech. I'm sure you could come up with hypotheticals about why Israel, specifically, is not the ideal ally, but it's what we've got.
Defensive vs offensive wars, not comparable
From a moral perspective...
Chiming in from Canada, wife and I are about to go on parental leave for our first child. I'm taking 3 months, she's taking 18.
I work with a lot of American vendors from Canada and we recently all said congrats and goodbye to a project manager on the vendor side who was taking her mat leave. When I came back from vacation I was surprised to see her in the weekly meeting... she had less mat leave than I have vacation.
My wife and I (Canadian & American Ex-Pat) did the same thing, but she took 9 and I took 3. It was one of the best and most meaningful times of my life. It allowed me to bond with my daughter in a way I hadn't gotten to.
Do companies have to pay employees for months while they're not doing any work?
Or is it the government who allocates taxes to fund maternity leave?
As a business owner, a woman would have to provide enough value to the company to make up for potentially missing months of work while being paid in order to get hired over a man with no such risk.
I see you're operating under the misunderstanding that only women have to take time off of work to care for children. Or maybe you just think that somehow women are having babies all by themselves without men at all.
WOMEN DON'T HAVE BABIES, FAMILIES HAVE BABIES. EVERY PERSON DESERVES THE HUMAN DIGNITY OF BEING ALLOWED TO CARE FOR THEIR CHILDREN.
I'm sorry for yelling, but it's a fucking important. You're backwards thinking is a key failure of capitalism and a shining example of toxic masculinity.
We have national maternity leave here, but I recently worked at a company that gave the father 4 months off to be used however they wanted over the next year after their child was born. Was really heartwarming to see them give that extra benefit to help him spend time with the new family.
So you're saying everyone should be hired with the expectation that they will receive months of paid leave for having a child?
Nothing about this is 'toxic masculinity.' It's how the working world works, lol. You'll understand that when you're older.
We're saying that entire societies benefit from having parents spend early months/years with their young children. Because society as a whole profits from that activity, that activity should be subsidized by the government.
And I promise I'm at least as old as you
I think it's fine raising taxes on the wealthy so working folks can stay at home with their families.
My issue is that requiring employers to do that means that it's impossible to start a business if you don't already have a lot of excess capital and an established customer base.
Can Google do it? Absolutely.
Can an average food truck do it? Absolutely not.
If your employer can't afford to give new parents leave, then one way or another you are being exploited for somebody else's profit.
What exactly is your point? That every business who can't afford to pay employees who aren't working shouldn't get to operate? Just go ahead and say it, unless you're afraid it's a stupid idea and you're purposefully avoiding admitting it for this reason.
That's how you're literally only left with big name companies like Google and Amazon.
If your business cannot support the basic operating costs of the humans it employs, it has no value to society. It's a parasite that feeds off the welfare spending of the state to enrich it's owner.
True, but businesses have proven that humans don't need months off with pay for having children.
The solution of course is having a payroll type tax that funds parental leave. Everyone pays in, and the government pays out so companies, large and small, don't have to deal with the issue you're talking about. I'd like my employer to have zero say in things like this, unless they want to go above and beyond. Same for healthcare. Let companies be companies, and let's use taxes to find societal needs
Pretty much every regulation like this has a minimum busi ness size it applies to, for exactly this reason
If the government is paying for it I am all in.
Having businesses pay for it will just result in less women getting good jobs.
Alternatively we can go for mandated parental leave for both parents (not at the same time), which evens out the playing field between genders, men get to spend more time with their infants, and hiring women has no inherent disadvantage for businesses. There are countries in europe going for that - every other solution i can think of leads to a disadvantage for women.
Agreed.
I'm older. I have kids. I saw the value of getting time off as a father and wished it could have been more. I actually had better time off benefits than my wife though which is pretty disgraceful. No it shouldn't be on a business to fund families but it is on society as a whole to policy each other up. Like many, many other things, other countries have figured this out and America is WAY behind.
When my kids were born, I was able to take one week. It came out of my vacation time and I got very little time with my kid, due to the effing mother-in-law who apparently had priority over the Dad. I wish for everyone to meet their kids better than that, both in regards to time off and less toxic maternity
Okay. My point is that expecting and requiring every business to be able to pay employees who aren't working for months at a time is asinine.
Typical fertility rate is a bit under 2, people work about 40 years. This would thus work out to 80 hours of paid sick time over a career . With two weeks standard vacation time, 40 hours a week means 80k hours over a career. If you can't afford to have an employee subtract 0.1% from their working time over 4 decades you really need to sit down and reevaluate your business. Since you evidently are not capable of staying in business with an employee that is "only" productive 99.9% of the time vs 100%.
Sure you can come up with situations. A very very small company and it is the busy season where it will suck. But even then no one should be that close to the margin.