Maternity/Paternity Leave

Quote: terapined

For some the most successful companies
Acquiring talent and keeping talent is the key to a profitable business.
I worked for American Express
Retaining talent was key to keeping profits up
That's why they have 20 weeks full pay, Mom and Dad
Its a key benefit that helps retain the most talented employees in the world to stay with the company
This is a business looking to stay competitive now and in the future

Yes, I agree with that. That's whatever you did at American Express. I don't think too many grocery store deli clerks rise so far above others in terms of adding value to the company that the same concept would apply.

Quote: rxwine

Probably true, that even if single people can work more hours, parents with children and bills to pay, are more stable in the long run to a company.

Every year
Amex had an employee survey
A lot of questions
One important question management wanted to know the answer
"Would you recommend working at American Express to a friend and why or why not"
Again, keeping talent a key to success
Good companies know that
The way Amex looked at it
Generous maternity leave pays for itself by helping retain the best talent in the country insuring profits

Quote: Mission146

4.) The parents aren't being deprived of anything. Nothing is being withheld from them. By way of their own decisions, they have limited their own ability to go out and acquire goods and services....there's nobody out there saying, "By virtue of the fact that you had a kid, you are no longer permitted to buy an expensive automobile."

With this one, I was thinking of parents, or a single parent living at the bottom level of society with the least means, and in the case of a single parent the least time for work and childcare, getting hits to sustainable living by attempts to cut benefits to bare bones. It's like a punishment that may damage the kids as well.

I don't know if there is an easy way around it. While most people don't like rewarding bad choices, it's difficult to do it without affecting the children. I don't have a good solution. Or a satisfying one, anyway.

Quote: rxwine

Probably true, that even if single people can work more hours, parents with children and bills to pay, are more stable in the long run to a company.

I think that you'd actually be surprised. We're getting REALLY politically insensitive now, but in my experience as a manager or a supervisor (in four different places and three different industries), give me:

1.) Single Childless Women

2.) Single Childless Men

3.) Older Women---Marital Status Not Relevant

4.) Older Men---Martial Status Not Relevant

5.) Single Women with Kids

6.) Married Men with Kids

7.) Married Women with Kids

In that order, but of course, that's based on a limited sample size and would also focus on the most important quality in the employees under me---attendance. Single and older people really don't call off very often, single women without kids almost never call off. Single women with kids couldn't really afford to call off, so that was something of a rarity. The ones who were still married and with both parents working could afford to call off if they didn't have sick time, with women doing it more frequently than men.

But, yeah, having kids is definitely going to be a liability (not politically correct, but true) to many employers. With paid leave, you're more expensive....having kids at all, you're less reliable.

Whatever the AMEX job was, I tend to think attendance might not have been particularly important, "The work can be made up the next day," sort of thing...rather than a place that pretty much can only operate if enough people are present.

Quote: Mission146

I think that you'd actually be surprised. We're getting REALLY politically insensitive now,

Hah ha, people often don't like my opinions anyway. Makes little difference.

Quote:

but in my experience as a manager or a supervisor (in four different places and three different industries), give me:

1.) Single Childless Women

2.) Single Childless Men

3.) Older Women---Marital Status Not Relevant

4.) Older Men---Martial Status Not Relevant

5.) Single Women with Kids

6.) Married Men with Kids

7.) Married Women with Kids

In that order, but of course, that's based on a limited sample size and would also focus on the most important quality in the employees under me---attendance. Single and older people really don't call off very often, single women without kids almost never call off. Single women with kids couldn't really afford to call off, so that was something of a rarity. The ones who were still married and with both parents working could afford to call off if they didn't have sick time, with women doing it more frequently than men.

But, yeah, having kids is definitely going to be a liability (not politically correct, but true) to many employers. With paid leave, you're more expensive....having kids at all, you're less reliable.

Whatever the AMEX job was, I tend to think attendance might not have been particularly important, "The work can be made up the next day," sort of thing...rather than a place that pretty much can only operate if enough people are present.

Noted. I googled it. Whether factual or not Mr Google says married men are preferred by employers. Could be employers aren't following the real data?

Quote: rxwine

Probably true, that even if single people can work more hours, parents with children and bills to pay, are more stable in the long run to a company.

Yeah, this is a fair point. We were really more about attendance than long run, so like I said in my first response to this, it depends on the company.

What we really needed in these places, first and foremost, was good attendance. There wasn't a single person in the entire building (myself included) that wasn't completely expendable. They simply aren't particularly important positions or jobs that are particularly hard to do...you mostly just need bodies and minimum competency.

I don't know if it's something that these Far Left people advocating for this stuff haven't ever worked jobs like this, but I have, the employees have almost zero value other than the fact that they are physically there. If one of them quits, I'll have someone fully trained and in that position three days later who is just as likely to be better at the job than the one who quit, or worse, but it's a crapshoot. I guess the really young College student Far Left idiots mostly haven't had jobs at all, so they certainly wouldn't know anything about it. I've been working since I was ten, formal employment since fifteen. Worked a full-time job AND a part-time job while in college full-time...it's not hard.

Quote: rxwine

Hah ha, people often don't like my opinions anyway. Makes little difference.

Noted. I googled it. Whether factual or not Mr Google says married men are preferred by employers. Could be employers aren't following the real data?

Don't get me wrong, that's quite possible. I was referring only to my personal experience in management, which like I said, is based on a limited sample size of employees. If I had been asked to participate in the survey and it was an option, then my choice for the ideal employee would be any woman of age 25+ who is single and doesn't have any kids.

Also, my reasoning for this is based specifically on attendance---which was the most important quality at every single one of these places. Married men with school age kids were not ideal when it comes to attendance, in my experience. Maybe they were more, 'Dedicated,' to the job...I wouldn't really know. I had a few married men with kids under me at different places, but I don't really recall any of them being remarkably good at their jobs.

Quote: rxwine

With this one, I was thinking of parents, or a single parent living at the bottom level of society with the least means, and in the case of a single parent the least time for work and childcare, getting hits to sustainable living by attempts to cut benefits to bare bones. It's like a punishment that may damage the kids as well.

I don't know if there is an easy way around it. While most people don't like rewarding bad choices, it's difficult to do it without affecting the children. I don't have a good solution. Or a satisfying one, anyway.

What is she being deprived of or having withheld from her? The fact that she didn't get married, got divorced, or the father of the kids is not a good provider? I really don't see how other men and women should be responsible to shell money out to cover for that, unless they think the societal cost/benefit analysis makes it worth it.

And, in any event, she still chose either to get pregnant...or, at a minimum...NOT to have an abortion.

If abortion were actually made illegal, then my position on the childcare thing would totally flip the other way. I obviously don't wish for children to grow up in less than ideal situations, but it is what it is.

I guess I can't go that far. If a bad choice results in almost anything other than a kid, I can go with the "deal with it" much easier. Depends on the situation though.

Quote: rxwine

Hah ha, people often don't like my opinions anyway. Makes little difference.



Noted. I googled it. Whether factual or not Mr Google says married men are preferred by employers. Could be employers aren't following the real data?

When I was hiring young men for apprenticeships (women were only a blip then) my preferred candidate was someone who was married and had kids on the way. They were dependable unlike the young single guys that were still in party mode everynight. No male maternity leave then.

Maternity leave in Canada is 1 year and paid by the government. The employer must keep the job open for them to come back to. If they are retiring to be a mom they don't get the leave. Of course what happens is they always say they are coming back but it is 50/50 if they do. The poor employer of course can't hire anybody permanently during that year. Really hard on small companies.