Quantcast
Proposed changes to Maternity Leave - Page 2 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: Proposed changes to Maternity Leave

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    My Ride
    Bicycle
    Posts
    9,269
    Rep Power
    49

    Default

    Originally posted by nickyh
    Having been through a mat leave myself and having a person on my team currently on mat leave, it doesn't really hurt business IMO.

    Businesses make do. There is no added cost to the business.

    My position was backfilled by people doing more / taking on more responsibility. We did hire someone but the position was also long overdue & badly needed, even during the downturn.
    That person is currently on leave, her position was backfilled by a summer student and we have a contract person who we will make a FT employee. Again, my group is lean so we needed an extra hire.

    In this case, the company is saving money. the backfilling and cheaper hires have been beneficial for our G&A. We also don't cover the person's medical / dental while they are on leave. The truth is, companies don't have to keep a position "on hold". If a position no longer exists there is nothing to come back to. I've seen it time and time again. It's not right, but there are ways around it. Just an FYI, if you get laid off after a mat leave, there is no more EI. You've taken your share from the system, move along.

    Coming back after a year off (10months) it was a shock to the brain. I never had brain issues while pregnant, in fact i was a lot sharper, the re-learning curve was pretty steep when i came back but that's why i came back early so it was not a huge shock. I would have loved to take the 18months, and while my family could swing it financially, from a mental perspective it was time. Everyone is different there. Some places won't take babies under 12months, it took me a while to find somewhere who would that I could trust. I've been on the wait list at my company building daycare since I was pregnant, my daughter is nearly 2.


    If it means more money is paid out, so....? People pay into EI for income replacement, it's unfortunate that is lumped in with EI but since they administrator the program it's just that. It's not a lot of income either.
    Maybe it would mean for the next wave, instead of having 600hours being required people need to work more, or they have a sliding scale. If you worked 600 you qualify for 12months, 800hours, 14 months etc. I've seen the forums where the mom is short her hours after getting pregnant with the next one too soon, it drastically impacts the payment / length of time you qualify for.
    Obviously if you are freelance, too bad so sad. if you can't put some of your income away that's on you. Don't make me now pay for you to sit at home.
    Well this is exactly why woman all got the glass ceiling.

    If you advance in your career in any managerial capacity, aka the pyramid climb, you cannot have a baby and expect that you can continue that climb from where you were after mat leave.

    Having a baby usually mean it's a reset. Businesses are not going to forgo managers and executives for a year, if they can, then that position can be eliminated. Peons, sure, you can backfill those or hire temps.

    Now I have seen some businesses (usually smaller ones) do the best to spread the workload but usually having that year off is not kind to your career if you aspire to move upward.

    Originally posted by jwslam

    That's not what I meant. I'm saying that you need to earn things, not just expect free money. If you've contributed zero dollars to EI because you freelance, why are you being paid out?
    It depends on where our society put values on having a follow up generations to pay for the previous one in retirement.

    The population pyramid is getting very top heavy. We will soon have less people working (20-65) to support retired people (65-100).

    It may be wise to promote birth rate if you want to have that support base in the future. All developed world if fighting the same fight, even China.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/china...-policy-2017-1
    Last edited by Xtrema; 03-20-2017 at 04:07 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Moo Town
    My Ride
    (0^oo^0)~
    Posts
    746
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    She said it can be a struggle to bank enough work hours while in school — especially if you didn’t exactly plan your pregnancy.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Highlander
    Posts
    2,561
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Originally posted by Xtrema


    Well this is exactly why woman all got the glass ceiling.

    If you advance in your career in any managerial capacity, aka the pyramid climb, you cannot have a baby and expect that you can continue that climb from where you were after mat leave.

    Holy fuck. Are you kidding me? I didn't realize only women were parents. Interesting how only women are held back, restricted or punished for it though. I bet a dude who had to take a leave for health issues or a family situation would get to come back and continue his climb to the top though.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Red Deer, Alberta
    My Ride
    1995 WRX STi
    Posts
    1,560
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Would he though? If you seriously don't think a year of sick leave would be super detrimental to a rising stars progress, I think you are mistaken.

    At the end of the day, its not a right to have a job. The risk of taking time off for anything comes with the risk of stunted growth. You think someone who asks the boss for a years sabbatical doesn't make a difference?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    2005 F350
    Posts
    860
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Originally posted by Melinda

    Holy fuck. Are you kidding me? I didn't realize only women were parents. Interesting how only women are held back, restricted or punished for it though. I bet a dude who had to take a leave for health issues or a family situation would get to come back and continue his climb to the top though.
    no but it is usually the woman that takes the time off from her job/career to take care of the kid for the first year.

    i am pretty sure that any male taking sick leave for a year, coming back to work and then taking sick leave for another year (or however many kids a family decides to have) is definitely gonna be held back through his career...
    "Make Canada a better place, punch a Canuck fan in the face" - Jim Rome

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Only 15min from Aspen!
    My Ride
    Nothing interesting anymore
    Posts
    8,403
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    18 months is kind of excessive IMO. The only real change I'd like to see with parental leave, is that it eats up a persons EI claim. So if they get laid off a month after returning to work, they don't qualify for any EI at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by DonJuan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Came back to ogle 2Legit2Quit wife's buns...
    Quote Originally Posted by Kloubek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They're certainly big, but I don't know if they are the BEST I've tasted.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    G6
    Posts
    28
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Tik-Tok
    18 months is kind of excessive IMO. The only real change I'd like to see with parental leave, is that it eats up a persons EI claim. So if they get laid off a month after returning to work, they don't qualify for any EI at all.
    I thought that was already the case with maternity leave?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Only 15min from Aspen!
    My Ride
    Nothing interesting anymore
    Posts
    8,403
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Originally posted by Feruk

    I thought that was already the case with maternity leave?
    Sorry, I meant I'd like to see that changed, so if someone does get laid off after returning from maturnity/paternity, they can go on EI without having to rebuild the hours.
    Last edited by Tik-Tok; 03-22-2017 at 07:35 PM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Parked in Baygirl's garage.
    My Ride
    '21 F150 PowerBoost
    Posts
    4,592
    Rep Power
    29

    Default

    Originally posted by Melinda

    Holy fuck. Are you kidding me? I didn't realize only women were parents. Interesting how only women are held back, restricted or punished for it though. I bet a dude who had to take a leave for health issues or a family situation would get to come back and continue his climb to the top though.
    Well, men can't exactly carry a child to term...Not all maternity leave starts at the day the child is born... Which is what I think he was referring to.
    Boosted life tip #329
    Girlfriends cost money
    Turbos cost money
    Both make whining noises
    Make the smart choice.

    Originally posted by Mibz
    Always a fucking awful experience seeing spikers. Extra awful when he laps me.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    My Ride
    Bicycle
    Posts
    9,269
    Rep Power
    49

    Default

    Originally posted by Melinda

    Holy fuck. Are you kidding me? I didn't realize only women were parents. Interesting how only women are held back, restricted or punished for it though. I bet a dude who had to take a leave for health issues or a family situation would get to come back and continue his climb to the top though.
    Same for men if they take any leave of absence, they will get punished as well unless they are already fairly high on top.

    It's a dog eat dog world out there if you are fighting upstream. Business doesn't care about gender or babies. If you take time off, don't expect to continue in the same capacity when someone else take over the reign while you are away.

    Once a business figure out that another person can take over or may even do a better job than you while you are away, you just lost your spot in queue.

    I'm not against women or anything and it's not men vs women. It's just fact of life. I have seen plenty of women lost their spot to other women when they had babies in big corporations and was pissed that now they have to wait for the next opportunity to get back up there. And usually women forgo having kids raises higher.

    It's not fair, but life is never fair as much as we want it to be. We have been poisoned with the thought that you can have it all but in life, one can only do so much without breaking.

    Again, I'm talking about managers and executives. If your capacity is where tire meet pavement, you should have no problem coming back in the same capacity.

    Originally posted by spikerS


    Well, men can't exactly carry a child to term...Not all maternity leave starts at the day the child is born... Which is what I think he was referring to.
    That and the fact there are studies that shows stress during pregnancy is not good for fetus.

    http://www.webmd.com/baby/features/stress-marks#1

    So even when one is carrying to term, having stress is not ideal. So why should they be put into stressful positions.
    Last edited by Xtrema; 03-22-2017 at 10:44 AM.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2018 Audi RS3
    Posts
    373
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    I've debated staying out of this thread because it's attitudes like this in the workplace that put women back who take leave.

    Not that it matters, but I am in a management capacity. I picked up where I left off and have more opportunities opening up for me.
    I know countless other women who are directors of large pipeline companies, senior vp's, and having babies has not impacted them

    Go on now, I'm out.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    A slow bike & an even slower car.
    Posts
    6,336
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    It's a different circumstance if someone has a child vs. someone taking time off for stress/sick/whatever leave.

    Does that point really need to be articulated, or is it obvious enough that it can stand on its own?

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Red Deer, Alberta
    My Ride
    1995 WRX STi
    Posts
    1,560
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by A790
    It's a different circumstance if someone has a child vs. someone taking time off for stress/sick/whatever leave.

    Does that point really need to be articulated, or is it obvious enough that it can stand on its own?
    Ok, so on the flip side, if it is indeed that way, why should it be?

    Time off is time off. If you aren't penalized for taking time off having a kid (Nicky says you aren't) isn't that a good thing?

    Of course, that leads to the question of WHY having a kid is somehow validated as "good" time off, versus the other forms of time off which are completely valid reasons to not be at work. Especially things like a leave of absence where it is planned with an employer, versus "oh, btw, I'm pregnant".

    Just like in the teacher thread about women teachers taking advantage of male students, the suggestion that getting pregnant somehow entitles someone to more validly take time off and not suffer any consequences from doing so is patently sexist against men

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    My Ride
    Bicycle
    Posts
    9,269
    Rep Power
    49

    Default

    Originally posted by nickyh
    I've debated staying out of this thread because it's attitudes like this in the workplace that put women back who take leave.

    Not that it matters, but I am in a management capacity. I picked up where I left off and have more opportunities opening up for me.
    I know countless other women who are directors of large pipeline companies, senior vp's, and having babies has not impacted them

    Go on now, I'm out.
    I have seen your case as well but those are in the minority. And ones who are done having kids will see career back on track. One of my colleague took basically 5-6 years of raising and having kids. Once done she's back and doing great. Although she is in a consulting capacity so it's easier to reintegrate.

    I applaud companies who keep seats warm for returning mothers. Not many do tho. Especially during this down turn.

    Originally posted by A790
    It's a different circumstance if someone has a child vs. someone taking time off for stress/sick/whatever leave.

    Does that point really need to be articulated, or is it obvious enough that it can stand on its own?
    Only mat leave is legally protected. But both would have the same impact, especially early in the career.

    Originally posted by HiTempguy1
    Of course, that leads to the question of WHY having a kid is somehow validated as "good" time off, versus the other forms of time off which are completely valid reasons to not be at work. Especially things like a leave of absence where it is planned with an employer, versus "oh, btw, I'm pregnant".
    I won't go that far. Having kids IS a good time off. It ain't easy raising kids.

    But it takes companies that isn't run very lean to accommodate. I have seen some of my US counterparts that had to return to work 4 weeks after giving birth. Part of it is due to lack of regulation and other part is personal. That's just wrong.
    Last edited by Xtrema; 03-22-2017 at 08:37 PM.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    G6
    Posts
    28
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by HiTempguy1
    Of course, that leads to the question of WHY having a kid is somehow validated as "good" time off, versus the other forms of time off which are completely valid reasons to not be at work. Especially things like a leave of absence where it is planned with an employer, versus "oh, btw, I'm pregnant".
    Do you want successful people to have kids, or just the unemployed white trash?


  16. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    A slow bike & an even slower car.
    Posts
    6,336
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Originally posted by HiTempguy1
    Just like in the teacher thread about women teachers taking advantage of male students, the suggestion that getting pregnant somehow entitles someone to more validly take time off and not suffer any consequences from doing so is patently sexist against men
    "Patently sexist", for the times when calling something sexist just isn't enough.

    Here's the thing: we need babies, right? We need people have kids, so those kids can grow up and assume roles in our society. It's a need that we have as a society. Can we agree on that?

    If so, does it not make sense to encourage people to have children in order to facilitate our society growing and functioning?

    If so, does it not also make sense to protect those people during a brief (but still significant) period of time so that they can do so without worry about whether or not they'll be able to continue to grow in their career once they return to the workforce?

    If not, are you comfortable with immigration becoming an even larger growth driver for Canada?

    Finally, does it not seem sexist to you that women seem to be in the unique position of having to choose between having a kid and progressing their career?

    Let me ask you this: why would you want to disincentivize women to have children?

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    My Ride
    Bicycle
    Posts
    9,269
    Rep Power
    49

    Default

    Anyway, back on topic, it's done deal. 18 months but still with 12 months of money.

    I don't know if this is really an incentive or just more motivation to get back to work. You are talking about 1/3 less monthly payment now to accommodate having that extra 6 months.

    May be it's designed to split the time between parents so both can take less time off work?
    Last edited by Xtrema; 03-23-2017 at 09:04 AM.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Red Deer, Alberta
    My Ride
    1995 WRX STi
    Posts
    1,560
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Feruk

    Do you want successful people to have kids, or just the unemployed white trash?
    You have zero evidence to support that better maternity policies help such things.

    "Successful" people have the resources at their disposal to have kids with zero outside assistance, so the point is moot.

    Also, just because one is successful, does not mean their children will not be pieces of crap. The only thing being successful does (if presumably success = wealth) is give a higher probability that the kids will also have higher wealth... but that comes in many forms, including leaching off the parents.

    Originally posted by A790
    [B]
    It's a need that we have as a society. Can we agree on that?
    The idea that population must continually be in a growth trajectory is a false assumption on your part. Arguably, there is a stable population growth rate that maintains genetic diversity and does not in general see the collapse of society.

    Originally posted by A790
    [B]
    If so, does it not make sense to encourage people to have children in order to facilitate our society growing and functioning?
    There is no way to change birth rates. As the general population becomes smarter (and arguably, due to not being so naive, more selfish), it's clear that having kids directly limits ones personal self in life (at least, with the current way society operates, notwithstanding very successful individuals who have the income to not be limited).

    Originally posted by A790
    [B]
    If so, does it not also make sense to protect those people during a brief (but still significant) period of time so that they can do so without worry about whether or not they'll be able to continue to grow in their career once they return to the workforce?
    No, because it negatively affects a business' interests. Especially for policies that have zero proof of doing what they are intended to do. As I get older, I find I am becoming more libertarian than conservative.


    Originally posted by A790
    [B]
    Finally, does it not seem sexist to you that women seem to be in the unique position of having to choose between having a kid and progressing their career?
    Depends on how you define sexism. A woman can't make the choice whether they are a woman or not (lets keep this on topic mkay? :p ). But they can make a choice as to whether they become pregnant while working.

    So while you may view it as "leveling" the playing field, I view it as woman getting special privilege through nothing besides being born. Hmm, that argument sounds kind of familiar now that I think about it

    I'm all for the general concept of maternity/paternity leave. I believe it has its place. I don't think there is a place to hold someone's job for 18 months, I don't know any small business owner that could deal with that.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    A slow bike & an even slower car.
    Posts
    6,336
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Originally posted by HiTempguy1


    You have zero evidence to support that better maternity policies help such things.

    "Successful" people have the resources at their disposal to have kids with zero outside assistance, so the point is moot.

    Also, just because one is successful, does not mean their children will not be pieces of crap. The only thing being successful does (if presumably success = wealth) is give a higher probability that the kids will also have higher wealth... but that comes in many forms, including leaching off the parents.
    I disagree with your assessment regarding the available evidence. There are a lot of studies that show that familial wealth and social support systems play a fairly prominent role in the success of children.

    Here's one such study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21143271

    "The study findings add to the now critical mass of data showing that parent-child health and well-being is inextricably linked with parental social support. While there is a burgeoning literature on parent training, far less research attention has been given to the development and evaluation of strategies to strengthen parents' social relationships. This is an important direction for future research."

    Now, one study doesn't make a defined position. However, this is not the only study that suggests that families that enjoy more wealth and social support tend to see a greater chance of multi-generational success.

    The idea that population must continually be in a growth trajectory is a false assumption on your part. Arguably, there is a stable population growth rate that maintains genetic diversity and does not in general see the collapse of society.
    I very much disagree. Our economy - nationwide and globally - is based on continuous growth. More production, more consumption. More, more, more. Until the age of automation changes the game completely, currently the best way to add value to an economy is by adding new skilled labour to the workforce.

    AKA, more people.

    However, that wasn't actually the point of my comment. Canada's population is growing regardless of how you view population and the need for growth. The point I was trying to articulate was that if we aren't supporting Canadian families to have children, that growth will come from somewhere else: immigration.
    There is no way to change birth rates. As the general population becomes smarter (and arguably, due to not being so naive, more selfish), it's clear that having kids directly limits ones personal self in life (at least, with the current way society operates, notwithstanding very successful individuals who have the income to not be limited).
    Funny enough, I'd use this exact argument to support my position. If we want to encourage professionally and financially successful people to have kids, we need to do so in a way where their economic potential isn't destroyed because they chose to have a family.

    We want people to have families, right? Do we not want more Canadians that grow up sharing our ideals, values, and experiences?
    No, because it negatively affects a business' interests. Especially for policies that have zero proof of doing what they are intended to do. As I get older, I find I am becoming more libertarian than conservative.
    Your argument is based on a lack of proof, but I suspect that you haven't got any of your own to support your position. I'd be curious to learn more about the impact social programs that support mothers/families have on economic and personal prosperity.

    As I said above, there are a lot of studies out there that speak to these points. I'm going to spend a bit more time reading on the subject.
    Depends on how you define sexism. A woman can't make the choice whether they are a woman or not (lets keep this on topic mkay? :p ). But they can make a choice as to whether they become pregnant while working.

    So while you may view it as "leveling" the playing field, I view it as woman getting special privilege through nothing besides being born. Hmm, that argument sounds kind of familiar now that I think about it

    I'm all for the general concept of maternity/paternity leave. I believe it has its place. I don't think there is a place to hold someone's job for 18 months, I don't know any small business owner that could deal with that.
    Well, first off, I've held jobs for my employees that have gone on mat leave. It certainly wasn't a catastrophe. In each case I hired a temp to fill in the role. My direct experience in this area very much contradicts your statements.

    Granted, it wasn't for 18 months at a time. However, my experiences to date suggest that my businesses would be able to accommodate without significant detriment to operations, profit, etc.

    Regarding women getting special privilege, I disagree. This world isn't us vs. them, and in some areas it makes sense to provide support to people.

    This is where we fundamentally disagree: I want Canadian women to feel confident in their choices as to whether or not they want to have children. It sounds as if you view the act of a woman getting pregnant as something negative, as if they are striking out at their employers by having a child or two. If that isn't how you feel, please articulate your position here. From what I've read in this conversation, your perspective is quite negative regarding women that have kids while working.

    Now, you've already called out that women can't choose to be women (I'm not an SJW, so let's skip the "gender is a social construct" conversation). Do you know what a woman can do that I can't? Have a child. Because of that fact, how is it unreasonable that accommodations are made for women in that area? If the situation were reversed, wouldn't you want to be able to raise a family without damaging your career? I know that I sure would.

    Now, we disagree on the value of kids: I see women that have kids as creating the next generation of Canadians that will enter the workforce, contribute to the economy, and contribute to our success as a country and as a society. I want Canadians to have kids and to raise families, and I want to help them do that.

    So, because I want those things, I see a lot of value in removing barriers from women so they can do so. Maternity leave is one such piece. I'm unsure on the impact that stretching it to 18 months vs 12 would have, but I'm willing to try the model out to see how it does and what the results of it are.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Red Deer, Alberta
    My Ride
    1995 WRX STi
    Posts
    1,560
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by A790

    I disagree with your assessment regarding the available evidence. There are a lot of studies that show that familial wealth and social support systems play a fairly prominent role in the success of children.

    Here's one such study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21143271

    "The study findings add to the now critical mass of data showing that parent-child health and well-being is inextricably linked with parental social support. While there is a burgeoning literature on parent training, far less research attention has been given to the development and evaluation of strategies to strengthen parents' social relationships. This is an important direction for future research."
    Er, do you know what a straw man argument is? Of course you do. So either you are engaging in one, or you did not read my position.

    Do you want successful people to have kids, or just the unemployed white trash?
    My statement was made against this particular question. In fact, you essentially agree with me, FAMILIAL WEALTH is a major indicator. Social support means we, society, pick up the tab for others that don't have said familial wealth. Sorry, but while I do somewhat believe in the concept of "the greater good" and I certainly help my fellow man anytime I can, that doesn't mean I should have to do so under threat of force (aka law). And that goes doubly for supporting people popping out hell spawn.

    Originally posted by A790


    Now, one study doesn't make a defined position. However, this is not the only study that suggests that families that enjoy more wealth and social support tend to see a greater chance of multi-generational success.
    So which is it? Each case (family vs society) support can be used to argue your beliefs, but you don't just get to combine them. One makes up for the other and vice versa.

    Originally posted by A790


    I very much disagree. Our economy - nationwide and globally - is based on continuous growth. More production, more consumption. More, more, more. Until the age of automation changes the game completely, currently the best way to add value to an economy is by adding new skilled labour to the workforce.
    Oh? Japan seems to be trucking along just fine (not great, not amazing, but fine). You talk about "best ways", I am talking about reality and the future. Currently, western civilization is not based upon much growth.

    Originally posted by A790

    However, that wasn't actually the point of my comment. Canada's population is growing regardless of how you view population and the need for growth. The point I was trying to articulate was that if we aren't supporting Canadian families to have children, that growth will come from somewhere else: immigration.
    No it won't, unless we want it to. An easy way to add growth is indeed to simply put "more" into the system, but a BETTER way to add growth is to increase productivity.

    Originally posted by A790

    Funny enough, I'd use this exact argument to support my position. If we want to encourage professionally and financially successful people to have kids, we need to do so in a way where their economic potential isn't destroyed because they chose to have a family.
    Assumption, and really a fallacy on your part. Do we want to do that? We already have a country full of people who won't do some jobs (at least, that is a common refrain on Beyond and from some media resources). In fact, its interesting that you are so concerned with the well-off being supported in having kids so much, when they already can support themselves.

    Originally posted by A790

    We want people to have families, right? Do we not want more Canadians that grow up sharing our ideals, values, and experiences?
    People have families. People will have families, regardless of government policy (government is terrible at forcing most policy, typically its best method is to enshrine things that become normalized in society or that society is accepting of. Forcing policy usually leads to massive backlash and polarization).

    Originally posted by A790
    [B]
    As I said above, there are a lot of studies out there that speak to these points. I'm going to spend a bit more time reading on the subject.
    [b]
    I agree on most certainly needing to study further into this, however, as with some other research that is discussed frequently on Beyond, you can imagine that there wouldn't be much benefit for people to study the negatives of those claims and it would be detrimental for themselves to do so.

    Originally posted by A790

    Well, first off, I've held jobs for my employees that have gone on mat leave. It certainly wasn't a catastrophe. In each case I hired a temp to fill in the role. My direct experience in this area very much contradicts your statements.
    And that's fine. Your one unique case does not make it so. From what I know of your businesses, low overhead, low wage employees. I'm not surprised it wouldn't be catastrophic. I can tell you right now, if the lady who does our corporate contracts (very smart individual) left on short notice, it would be chaos. So sure, for some positions, not so much, for others, certainly. And as mentioned, you didn't have to wait 18 months, or it doesn't even sound like 12.

    Originally posted by A790

    Regarding women getting special privilege, I disagree. This world isn't us vs. them, and in some areas it makes sense to provide support to people.
    To give someone a benefit, a benefit has to be taken from others. It isn't us from them, its having vs not having. Society is not designed (and should not be designed) to remove every negative consequence from the variety of choices life throws at us. And it certainly shouldn't come at the expense of others when it comes down to someone's choice. As I mentioned, it can't be "in some areas", it is either in all areas or not. See previous areas mentioned.

    Originally posted by A790

    snip
    I actually don't care about women having kids while working. Its great if they can swing it Why would that be a bad thing? I literally even said I supported the concept of maternity/paternity leave, so now you are just reading into things however you see fit so it fits your arguments. Kind of beneath you honestly.

    Originally posted by A790

    Do you know what a woman can do that I can't? Have a child. Because of that fact, how is it unreasonable that accommodations are made for women in that area? If the situation were reversed, wouldn't you want to be able to raise a family without damaging your career? I know that I sure would.
    Well sure I would want that, who wouldn't? I also want to be a racecar driver extraordinaire. Should I give up my racing career to have a family? Well, um, yes? If I want a family eventually, the two probably are mutually exclusive unless I become overwhelmingly well off. So I honestly do not see the point in your argument. Women are not forced to have kids (I actually know a lot of couples who aren't having kids, a choice they have made) and I respect that choice, as I do those who do decide to have kids. But one should not be treated any different than the other. There are benefits and consequences to any choice.

    Originally posted by A790

    Now, we disagree on the value of kids.
    Again, you are reading into things, or stating a position I do not have nor have ever made. I think my argument would be formulated around "two adults who want children and desire to do good by them will produce decent offspring, regardless of socio-economic happenstance".

    Can we max-min the situation? Undoubtedly. But should we at the expense of others? And is the benefit actually that great?

    My reaction to the first question is "No, government should stick its nose in as few places as possible" and "I doubt there is much causality between government intervention and success of kids".

    Because if there was that causality, people probably wouldn't be allowed to raise kids in the first place, they'd just go to government ran people raising facilities

    And for the record, Macleans has an interesting article (hardly a bastion of conservative thought). The article is a bit all over the place. What I get from it is that "there are consequences to having kids" regardless of being a dude or a chick, and reaffirms my belief that you have to accept the good (having kids) with the bad (surprise! being away from your job means you miss out on wage growth because you aren't working).

    http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/...otherhood-gap/

    And wow, this research article directly agrees with me, the answer being "we don't know if these policies help".

    It is difficult to measure how maternal employment or the use of parental leave affects children. The biggest problem is that mothers who work or take leave when their children are young are likely to differ from those who do not. For example, Vandell & Ramanan6 show that such employment is more common for women with high levels of education and cognitive skills. Indeed, if working mothers are highly skilled both at home and in market activities, being employed is likely to be correlated with positive child outcomes, even though there is no causal effect per se. Conversely, a spurious negative correlation could arise when women returning to work soon after they give birth are more career‑oriented and have less interest or ability in home production. Eliminating or substantially reducing the biases that result from inadequate controls for these sources of heterogeneity is a key challenge in this area of research.
    http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/pa...ild-health-and

    Edit-
    And of course, while we are trying to stay away from the "identity' and "gender specific" arguments, there is plenty of research to back up mothers having a large impact on their children in early childhood. Because, you know, both from a psychological and physiological standpoint, MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT #shotsfired Therefore, women ideally should stay home from work when children are born, and therefore, their career growth will naturally suffer as they are away from their job.
    Last edited by HiTempguy1; 03-24-2017 at 11:57 AM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Maternity Leave while operating a small business

    By timdog in forum Real Estate / Finance
    Replies: 11
    Latest Threads: 11-06-2015, 03:29 PM
  2. Employment insurance net income? (Maternity leave)

    By Tik-Tok in forum Real Estate / Finance
    Replies: 17
    Latest Threads: 01-06-2015, 04:59 PM
  3. Maternity leave firings becoming more common in Canada

    By urban.one in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 106
    Latest Threads: 04-24-2009, 12:34 AM
  4. Proposed Parking Changes To Hillhurst/sunnyside

    By snowboard in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 11
    Latest Threads: 06-17-2006, 03:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •