Paid family Leave?

[lilpixieofterror]

???

Viewing children as a burden and an expense is a personal issue? Those are one root cause for abortions!

Getting an abortion is also a personal issue, but that argument is rejected by many Christians. Yes, I believe abortion is a personal issue, but also one which the Church has much to say. And I do believe that the laws on permissive abortion are a catastrophe.

Openness to life is not the same as "quiverfull".

Why do you need the government to negotiate your work benefits?

[Sparko]

Here is government "support" for family leave gone completely haywire. This is ridiculous.

Finland's Women-Led Government Has Equalized Family Leave: 7 Months For Each Parent

Finland's government, led by 34-year-old Prime Minister Sanna Marin, has announced a new policy that will grant nearly seven months of paid leave to each parent, for a total of 14 months of paid leave. The pregnant parent also can receive one month of pregnancy allowance even before the parental leave starts.

Parents will be permitted to transfer 69 days from their own quota to the other parent. A single parent will have access to the allowance for both parents.

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/05/80305...e=facebook.com

Over a year's worth of paid leave? Nuts. By that time they could have another kid, then another, and never have to go back to work and still get paid.


From the same story:

Sweden has Europe's most generous leave policy, offering 240 days per parent. Many of those days can be transferred to the other parent, but 90 of them cannot. That means that families wanting to maximize the leave would both take significant time off.

[simplicio]

Why do you need the government to negotiate your work benefits?

Not sure what you mean by that. The government negotiates many things in our lives.

In fact I demand the government negotiate several policies about abortion which have the enthusiastic support of pro life groups.

[simplicio]

Whether to have children or not is a personal issue. Whether you kill those that are already alive is not.

Whether a couple decides to have children or not, and for what reasons is none of anyone's business. If they feel having children would be a burden then they shouldn't have them. It's their decision. Raising children is a huge responsibility.

There is a culture of life, and a culture of death. I take it you don't see a problem with today's culture of death as long as it stops short of of actually killing, because you post as if that is what you believe.

The culture of death is not pro life at all, even if one refrains from abortions.

[lilpixieofterror]

Not sure what you mean by that. The government negotiates many things in our lives.

In fact I demand the government negotiate several policies about abortion which have the enthusiastic support of pro life groups.

And what does that have to do with work benefits? If a company wants the best and brightest, they will adjust their work benefits to give them that edge.

[simplicio]

Here is government "support" for family leave gone completely haywire. This is ridiculous.

Finland's Women-Led Government Has Equalized Family Leave: 7 Months For Each Parent

Finland's government, led by 34-year-old Prime Minister Sanna Marin, has announced a new policy that will grant nearly seven months of paid leave to each parent, for a total of 14 months of paid leave. The pregnant parent also can receive one month of pregnancy allowance even before the parental leave starts.

Parents will be permitted to transfer 69 days from their own quota to the other parent. A single parent will have access to the allowance for both parents.

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/05/80305...e=facebook.com

Over a year's worth of paid leave? Nuts. By that time they could have another kid, then another, and never have to go back to work and still get paid.


From the same story:

Sweden has Europe's most generous leave policy, offering 240 days per parent. Many of those days can be transferred to the other parent, but 90 of them cannot. That means that families wanting to maximize the leave would both take significant time off.

If that is posted in support a the view against paid leave, it is an argument through appealing to the extreme, the absurd.

The three proposals of the OP are nothing like that.

[Sparko]

There is a culture of life, and a culture of death. I take it you don't see a problem with today's culture of death as long as it stops short of of actually killing, because you post as if that is what you believe.

The culture of death is not pro life at all, even if one refrains from abortions.

How the heck do you get that from what I wrote? Do you just make up replies in your own head and pretend you read them on tweb? Is that why you argue with everyone?

You are

[Sparko]

If that is posted in support a the view against paid leave, it is an argument through appealing to the extreme, the absurd.

The three proposals of the OP are nothing like that.

The easiest way to force companies to pay for family leave would be for the state to pass a regulation making providing some sort of short term disability for workers paid for by companies over a certain size. Say companies with more than 50 employees have to provide 1 month of paid leave in cases where FMLA is involved.

My company does that. Basically here is how it works:

If you are out up to 12 days, it is unpaid, but you can bank your vacation days up to 12 days to repay yourself.

After 12 days, the company will kick in short term disability, out of their own pocket to pay you 60% of your salary. You can use additional vacation days if you have them to make up the difference, so you could use 3.2 hours of vacation time per day to make it back to 100%.

After 3 months (the limit of FMLA) you could go on long-term disability through another insurance plan that costs me like $6/month. That would continue to pay me 60% of my salary until I reach retirement, at which time social security kicks in. Long-term disability is not taxable so 60% would be pretty close to my take-home pay now after taxes and such.

[demi-conservative]

The easiest way to force companies to pay for family leave would be for the state to pass a regulation making providing some sort of short term disability for workers paid for by companies over a certain size. Say companies with more than 50 employees have to provide 1 month of paid leave in cases where FMLA is involved.

My company does that. Basically here is how it works:

If you are out up to 12 days, it is unpaid, but you can bank your vacation days up to 12 days to repay yourself.

After 12 days, the company will kick in short term disability, out of their own pocket to pay you 60% of your salary. You can use additional vacation days if you have them to make up the difference, so you could use 3.2 hours of vacation time per day to make it back to 100%.

After 3 months (the limit of FMLA) you could go on long-term disability through another insurance plan that costs me like $6/month. That would continue to pay me 60% of my salary until I reach retirement, at which time social security kicks in. Long-term disability is not taxable so 60% would be pretty close to my take-home pay now after taxes and such.

Why should the government interfere in labour markets?

[Sparko]

Why should the government interfere in labour markets?

They already do. They make companies pay unemployment insurance.

[demi-conservative]

They already do. They make companies pay unemployment insurance.

That's avoiding my question. Should they, or shouldn't they?

[Sparko]

That's avoiding my question. Should they, or shouldn't they?

I don't know. I was just answering how they could. I personally wouldn't work at a place that didn't if I had a choice. I mean if I were unemployed and that was the only job I could get, then yeah but otherwise no.

So I do think that companies SHOULD provide some sort of paid time off.

And I am glad that they are forced to paying unemployment insurance - I have had to use that before too. So maybe yeah, they should have to pay for short-term disability too.

[demi-conservative]

I don't know.

Okay.

And I am glad that they are forced to paying unemployment insurance - I have had to use that before too. So maybe yeah, they should have to pay for short-term disability too.

Them being forced to means the government is interfering with *dramatic music* the free market.

If the government should 'interfere' in some ways, then why is it bad for it to interfere?

[Sparko]

Okay.



Them being forced to means the government is interfering with *dramatic music* the free market.

If the government should 'interfere' in some ways, then why is it bad for it to interfere?

Because we don't have a completely free market. Sometimes government regulations are needed to prevent a runaway train.

Paying for FMLA really helps companies in the long run. That's why my company pays for it. Keeps a valuable employee from having to go elsewhere or starve. They put a lot of time into training employees, and don't want to lose them just because they have a child or medical emergency. The way the free market should work is that any company that doesn't pay for sick leave would go out of business because employees would not work for them. But it doesn't work out that way. So maybe a little push by the government isn't such a bad thing.

[demi-conservative]

Because we don't have a completely free market. Sometimes government regulations are needed to prevent a runaway train.

That's what I wanted to get at.

Paying for FMLA really helps companies in the long run. That's why my company pays for it. Keeps a valuable employee from having to go elsewhere or starve. They put a lot of time into training employees, and don't want to lose them just because they have a child or medical emergency.

For some companies, yes. Many companies would find it more efficient to just fire and rehire, and see the government's interference as leading to inefficiencies.