I find it incomprehensible why paid maternal leave would be mandatory.
Why should companies (in particular the ones who hire women) be forced to pay for the life choices of their employees? And why maternity specifically, as opposed to all sorts of other life choices?
So women have the opportunity to give birth and raise children in a safe, welcoming society, so you have a healthy population and grandkids around to pay for elderly social services? Is 'paying it forward' anathema?
You are aware that it's not the company that pays the wage compensation during the maternity leave?
At least here in Germany, you get 60% of your salary (up to an upper limit) for 12 months (14 if both parents take part of the leave) _from the state_.
These schemes are usually designed in such a way that they are either cost-neutral or beneficial to companies that employ women.
You are aware that there are still costs for keeping non-producing employees around, right?
For example, either their work goes undone, or else you need to hire someone who might become superfluous if they return. In the meantime their skills might atrophy or they may become unnecessary (but getting rid of them in this case is legally risky).
(The latter is not hypothetical - I know of a specific case, namely a large but shrinking company that is firing everyone who is either below average or has been pregnant recently. )
There are costs for using humans to do your work. Sometimes they get sick, sometimes they get pregnant, sometimes they have a super-productive day and sometimes they don't.
I don't think companies should be obligated to give people the choice to vanish from the workforce and return a year later to an equal or better job.
I would also enjoy the option to take a year off and have a job when I return (for other life choices than having children), I just don't see why my employer should be obligated to hold my job open.
I'm not prescribing what the duration should be, surely there is some middle ground between zero and a year.
Where I am currently living (NL) it is a few months (three I believe), happily paid for by the taxpayers. Where I lived before (US-CA) it was a few weeks of partially paid leave, paid by the employer.
I'm also not completely convinced that the weeks surrounding a childbirth are the most productive working weeks.
Reproduction of the species is not a "life choice." Our stock is all worthless if there's no generations of 18-35 year olds to provide a consumer and worker base into the future. What's the market cap of Facebook in a world where all the 13+ year olds that ever will exist are already born?
To me, this a key differentiating point between conservatives and libertarians. Following the libertarian position here has caused conservatives to undermine a key core pro-family policy position.
Assuming increasing fertility is your justification for maternity leave, will you change your position if I show you data suggesting that maternity leave has little effect on fertility (among first world nations)?
I didn't say anything about increasing fertility. I was responding to your comment: "Why should companies (in particular the ones who hire women) be forced to pay for the life choices of their employees?"
Parenting isn't a "life choice." Reproduction of the species is a basic function of society. Our economic system is deeply dependent on the assumption of at least stable if not growing population. Companies benefit from people who perform that basic function, and therefore it isn't wrong to force them to pay for benefits like parental leave. Otherwise, companies have an incentive to free-ride.
I seem to be unable to apply the principle of charity to your views in a useful way, so I'm going to need some help here to understand what you are trying to say.
If an activity is, in aggregate, "a basic function of society", then at the individual level it ceases to be a choice? Your argument seems to be "Reproduction...is a basic function of society -> Parenting isn't a life choice", but I cannot figure out the intermediate steps.
Also, I still don't understand why you discuss reproduction of the species. Maternity leave does not encourage reproduction, and the evidence I've seen suggests negligable social benefits. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2348505 Free-riding suggests a situation where a good or service is underprovisioned if people can choose not to provide it. But as the evidence shows, reproduction will be provided at the same rate regardless of maternity benefits. So your use of the term "free-ride" must be referring to something besides the obvious. Can you explain?
People can and do choose to do, and others choose to not do it. How is it not a "life choice"?
Reproduction of the species is a basic function of society.
If it was purely a function "of society", then it would be a social choice, not a personal one, who would do it and how. So I think that it is pretty clear that -- in Western society at least -- while there may be social aspects to reproduction, it is not generally viewed first and foremost as a "function of society". I personally think that's a good thing, but YMMV.
Our economic system is deeply dependent on the assumption of at least stable if not growing population.
That's certainly an argument for why it ought to be a preferred and encouraged life choice.
Comments
I find it incomprehensible why paid maternal leave would be mandatory.
Why should companies (in particular the ones who hire women) be forced to pay for the life choices of their employees? And why maternity specifically, as opposed to all sorts of other life choices?
So women have the opportunity to give birth and raise children in a safe, welcoming society, so you have a healthy population and grandkids around to pay for elderly social services? Is 'paying it forward' anathema?
Why should companies who hire a larger number of women bear a disproportionate portion of these costs?
You are aware that it's not the company that pays the wage compensation during the maternity leave?
At least here in Germany, you get 60% of your salary (up to an upper limit) for 12 months (14 if both parents take part of the leave) _from the state_.
These schemes are usually designed in such a way that they are either cost-neutral or beneficial to companies that employ women.
You are aware that there are still costs for keeping non-producing employees around, right?
For example, either their work goes undone, or else you need to hire someone who might become superfluous if they return. In the meantime their skills might atrophy or they may become unnecessary (but getting rid of them in this case is legally risky).
(The latter is not hypothetical - I know of a specific case, namely a large but shrinking company that is firing everyone who is either below average or has been pregnant recently. )
So you support firing someone who is pregnant?
There are costs for using humans to do your work. Sometimes they get sick, sometimes they get pregnant, sometimes they have a super-productive day and sometimes they don't.
I don't think companies should be obligated to give people the choice to vanish from the workforce and return a year later to an equal or better job.
I would also enjoy the option to take a year off and have a job when I return (for other life choices than having children), I just don't see why my employer should be obligated to hold my job open.
I'm not prescribing what the duration should be, surely there is some middle ground between zero and a year.
Where I am currently living (NL) it is a few months (three I believe), happily paid for by the taxpayers. Where I lived before (US-CA) it was a few weeks of partially paid leave, paid by the employer.
I'm also not completely convinced that the weeks surrounding a childbirth are the most productive working weeks.
Reproduction of the species is not a "life choice." Our stock is all worthless if there's no generations of 18-35 year olds to provide a consumer and worker base into the future. What's the market cap of Facebook in a world where all the 13+ year olds that ever will exist are already born?
To me, this a key differentiating point between conservatives and libertarians. Following the libertarian position here has caused conservatives to undermine a key core pro-family policy position.
Assuming increasing fertility is your justification for maternity leave, will you change your position if I show you data suggesting that maternity leave has little effect on fertility (among first world nations)?
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...
I didn't say anything about increasing fertility. I was responding to your comment: "Why should companies (in particular the ones who hire women) be forced to pay for the life choices of their employees?"
Parenting isn't a "life choice." Reproduction of the species is a basic function of society. Our economic system is deeply dependent on the assumption of at least stable if not growing population. Companies benefit from people who perform that basic function, and therefore it isn't wrong to force them to pay for benefits like parental leave. Otherwise, companies have an incentive to free-ride.
I seem to be unable to apply the principle of charity to your views in a useful way, so I'm going to need some help here to understand what you are trying to say.
If an activity is, in aggregate, "a basic function of society", then at the individual level it ceases to be a choice? Your argument seems to be "Reproduction...is a basic function of society -> Parenting isn't a life choice", but I cannot figure out the intermediate steps.
Also, I still don't understand why you discuss reproduction of the species. Maternity leave does not encourage reproduction, and the evidence I've seen suggests negligable social benefits. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2348505 Free-riding suggests a situation where a good or service is underprovisioned if people can choose not to provide it. But as the evidence shows, reproduction will be provided at the same rate regardless of maternity benefits. So your use of the term "free-ride" must be referring to something besides the obvious. Can you explain?
People can and do choose to do, and others choose to not do it. How is it not a "life choice"?
If it was purely a function "of society", then it would be a social choice, not a personal one, who would do it and how. So I think that it is pretty clear that -- in Western society at least -- while there may be social aspects to reproduction, it is not generally viewed first and foremost as a "function of society". I personally think that's a good thing, but YMMV.
That's certainly an argument for why it ought to be a preferred and encouraged life choice.
I am not sure about Canada, but in most of Europe not the company but the state (= tax payer) pays for the cost of the maternity leave.