General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumswhat do childfree/childless people get instead of "parental leave?"
I think it's great that all the Democratic candidates are pushing for paid family leave in order to bond with the new child or take care of a sick family member. But how is this going to be implemented in a way that is not unfair to nonparents? I have heard of similar benefits offered as part of a package in a cafeteria style menu. So if you don't have kids and are not planning to have kids, you could use a gym membership, or parking vouchers, or extra vacation, or what have you. But if the government is going to mandate new parents be allowed to have paid leave to bond with their children, where does that leave the non-parents who might want to volunteer at an animal shelter, work for the environment, or do something to contribute to society other than having a child?
i'm not down on paid family leave, and I'm not trying to pit people with children against people without children. I'm interested in genuine ideas about how this could be implemented in a way that is fair to everyone. Having children is a choice that not everyone makes. But paid leave is a benefit, that if it is going to be implemented, should be equally applied to all workers . How does this get solved fairly if the government is going to get involved with it?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Look at it as an investment in your future if you don't have kids.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)it's the same rationale that justifies putting good money into our public schools, and keeping up the ballfields, and having good enrichment programs in the school system. But if the government is going to force employers to allow pay leave for parents, there's going to need to be some kind of equivalent benefit offered to nonparents. otherwise I would imagine this could end up backfiring both in terms of the government support and backlash against companies that don't offer equal options.
trof
(54,256 posts)It's not a 'reward' for parents.
It's for the kids.
OK, I'll put it this way: As a non-parent, your benefit is not having the responsibility of raising kids. No doctor bills, no orthodontist's bills, fewer groceries, smaller housing needs, no clothing for them, no college tuition, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
It takes a hell of a lot of money to raise one or more children.
There's your bonus and then some.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)sue and Joe work for the same company, do the exact same job, and have the same pay and benefits structure. Except Sue also gets eight or 10 weeks of paid maternity leave when she has a baby. Joe gets no such leave in order to take care of something that he wants to take care of, nurture a relationship that is important to him, or pursue some dream of his. When that time off is translated into dollars, Sue ends up getting a higher compensation package than Joe. The fact that sue chooses to spend tons of money raising a child is the result of the choice she made to have a child. It shouldn't take away from Joe's compensation for doing the same job at the same company.
edit.. i do understand...extra expenses, good of the community, etc. but i still think it comes down to a question of fair distribution of benefits.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Although he wouldn't need near as much as the woman who had the child, I would think (or hope) in that situation that most men would want to be there to help for a week or two after the birth.
As for the OP I'll address that one in a separate post.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Many businesses would not hire women for fear of them having babies and becoming "less productive."
Having a child is not a "life choice."!its the basic business of our species. Those children will support you when you retire.
This is false equivalence city. Parental leave is not free time, and "something else you care about" isn't even close to the burden of parenthood unless you go do emergency trauma surgery or something with your leave time. Taking care of your pets or hiking the Appalchian Trail don't count.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and making judgements about what is or should be important to people is avoided by a general leave system. people get the leave..parents can use it for parenting, other for other efforts.
and your concern about not hiring women is still valid,...now some companies don't want to hire women of reproductive age because they know they might have to pay for a worker who might be out on extended leave
so a "everyone gets leave" policy might actually help to prevent discrimination in hiring against these women.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)The "basic business of our species" would only be the case if we weren't thinking, reasoning beings with access to contraception.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)It is the biological imperative for every species.
You deny science,
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Science gives us the means to make that choice stick in cases where we slip up. We have a choice, which means that people who have kids made a conscious choice to do so. Thus, the consequences of that choice are on them and no one else. You want to have kids? Fine. Own that choice. Don't look at the rest of us like we owe you anything. We don't.
The money that I saved in my life will support me, not someone else's children....
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)population pyramid that is the result on an aging society.
Old age benefits require the support of a younger, economically active population.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)although for ecological reasons, I don't think it's a bad thing if we start slowing the growth of the population.delicate balance though because older people need to be taken care of, but we don't want unchecked growth either.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)1.86 children per woman. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/24/is-u-s-fertility-at-an-all-time-low-it-depends/
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)at least ecologically.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)I have no problem with this. We are so far behind the rest of the world in terms of prioritizing children and allowing new parents to spend time with their new babies without losing all their pay and/or risking their jobs.
This is about a better society, not about me me me me....
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)But it's a lot more than that -- I just like walking down the street and seeing happy people. This is one way to help in that respect.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)to make up for the fact that I have no kids in school. I pay my property taxes just like everyone else.
I find it sad that this is seen as controversial. It is a basic necessity in a modern society and we really are so far behind our so-called peers in terms of stuff like this (paid maternity/paternity leave, paid sick time, vacation time, etc).
And the more psycho-social aspect you mention is important too. What does it say about our culture that we can't seem to prioritize happiness and security when it comes to the most basic aspects of life?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)or are you some kind of a selfish POS?
I'd sorta feel happier myself if people who are better off than me were not constantly demanding my money.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Only dad didn't ask for other people to pay her for staying at home.
I might have grown up to be happier too if sadistic bullies didn't take pleasure in insulting me.
And I was happier until people started proposing that my married co-workers get paid to stay at home, while I, who am already cursed by being single and childless, have to work for my money.
Injustice tends to piss me off.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)feel better now?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)but you seem to be sharing insults with me rather than money.
If you are trying to make people happy, you are doing it wrong.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)you seem to think it's unfair for your tax money to be used to support a benefit for some folks without a corresponding benefit for yourself. I'm simply pointing out that.....
1-You don't fund the entire of the government, state and federal, by yourself.
2-There is much worse that your tax dollars get spent on.
3-None of us receive line item veto power, and if I did, stopping family leave would be way down on my list. Right down there with SNAP, unemployment, etc...(I mean, why should I help paid for unemployment if I don't plan on being unemployed?)
If you feel as if I'm looking down on you, it's just because the idea of resisting a good idea just to save a couple of dollars is beneath me. But have a great day anyways!
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)And when I am being asked to pay for something that benefits people who are better off than me, yes I think that is unfair.
1. I never said I did, but this proposal is to increase my taxes to give benefits to other people, other people who are sometimes far better off than me (even in financial terms)
2. so? Two wrongs don't make a right. Perhaps instead of increasing my taxes, we could find common cause in eliminating some of those worse things and then maybe those breeders could get there free stuff, only NOT at my expense (although, yeah, if 90% of the class gets an ice cream cone, how exactly do you expect the rest of the class to feel about that even if they aren't being asked to pay for the ice cream?)
3. we do, however, get free speech, which is what I am using to oppose what I see as an unfair idea, and I get my power to vote in an election - to vote against people who propose unfair plans.
A good idea?
Here's how I see this good idea. We have a group of 100 people and somebody proposes, well why don't we all chip in an buy gasoline - for 80% of us.
As a member of the 20%, in fact as a member of TWO 20%s. First, I am among the poorest 20% of this country. So I really do not like being told to contribute money for the 80% who are better off than me. I mean the proposal is not - we all chip in to buy gasoline for the people who cannot afford gasoline. Nope. Some of the people getting the free gasoline in this proposal - they are driving lexuses.
Further, I am living in a time when politicians have already tilted the tax field towards parents. A couple with two children and an income of $45,000? They pay less in federal income taxes than I do on an income of $14,000. I could see it coming to. When the child tax credit first started it was only $200, not THAT big of a deal, but sure as excrement I knew that politicians - of both parties - would fall all over themselves to increase it. And now it stands at $1,000 per kid.
But what the heck, why shouldn't I favor a $1,000 tax break for a parent who makes $40,000 and why not throw in free health care for their kids too?
Well, it's not really free. I get to help pay for it.
w0nderer
(1,937 posts)I think most programs (especially ones that are good for the group)
in the US need to be 'sold' in a selfish way
i Support healthcare for all because it means you won't come to work sick and get me sick
i Support School for all because it means you'll get a better education, better pay, and pay more taxes (equalizes tax burden)
and so on
sad but selfishness is such a part of many people that it's the only way i've found to explain 'socialist' programs so that people click
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)A parent was with a 3 month old? How? I'd agree if a parent actually raised their kids , but I can't see how the first three months accomplishes a 'better kid'. Anyway, give all employees 3 months paid leave after working for a year if fairness is the goal.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)will trickle down to me?
Somehow?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)It'll be like living in Denmark.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that next - and happier - generation, will be less likely to break into you house.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)to protect me from the threat of being robbed in the future.
Okay.
I guess that makes sense.
At least for the people running the protection racket.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I guess one can see it that way.
I see it more as an investment in our youth/families ... just as increasing household incomes or providing healthcare prove positive outcomes for affected youth.
On another note, I've noticed a pattern ... you seem to oppose anything that does not immediately and/or directly benefit you, even as it provides positive outcomes for the larger society.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)well "free" except for the part where I am expected to pay for it.
And as far as your red herring. Well if there is one pattern, then there would seem to be another pattern. A pattern where my supposed political allies expect me to be part of the team as the water carrier. One who carries water for ideas that never seem to benefit him.
Don't you think that a person in that situation might wonder - why am I part of this coalition again?
The OP was NOT against the family leave idea. All it said was - what about giving something to single childless people too - instead of just demanding that they carry water for the breeders?
The response? Fuck them, they can just carry water, the benefits will trickle down to them too.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Where have I heard that before ...? (Donald Trump and republicans in general)
Funny ... that is EXACTLY what I have been saying! Only ...
My question has been why they continually tell me they are my allies.
Bettie
(16,092 posts)sound just like the denizens of the tea party...it is odd isn't it?
Seems like some would prefer the '50's model where women get fired as soon as they are found to be pregnant and men never, ever, take a single day off, even the day their child is born.
Or, they just want a lot of extra vacation time because...well, just because.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)most pronounced, where white men were just happy, secure in the workplace AND at home ... whereas, non-white males, were less secure in all of society.
Not just because; but, because someone else "got something that I am not!!!!!"
Next up: "Why should I pay property taxes that fund schools? I don't have any school aged kids!"
Bettie
(16,092 posts)or exclusive privilege.
Time was even the lowest paid white man was considered to be worth more than anyone else, women, persons of color, or any other group.
Now, they have to live in a world where they are not automatically considered "better" by virtue of their skin color and gender and it pisses them off.
Oh, and I have heard many, many conversations about how terrible it is that property taxes help pay for schools.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that and a romanticizing of the past because one was not affected by the negatives in that past.
In a sense, the (straight) white male worker got hit with a double whammy ... at the same time as society shifted towards equality of opportunity, they began to be treated like every other worker class.
Bettie
(16,092 posts)has been really hard for many to reconcile.
To most of them having everything be "equal" means "give me more, because that's how I want it".
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Or, "Okay ... Let's be fair. Let's fight to make everything equal ... starting tomorrow ... and I get to keep my equal share! What????"
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)I am advocating that everyone get personal leave time to spend on whatever is important to them. Parents can spend it parenting, and nonparents can spend it tending to their other relationships or to some other endeavor.
why is the addition of fair compensation of paid benefits to everyone so threatening to some people here?
randys1
(16,286 posts)Not "somehow." In the specific form of the next generation producing and paying taxes to support you in old age.
Selfish is stupid too.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)I always say there are only two necessary jobs: mother (or parent) and farmer (or hunter). The rest of us, certainly people who don't have children by selfish choice, are parasites.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)food and progeny are important. But really? Parasites?
There are many necessary jobs.
My own for example. Would you like to see what my workplace would look like in six months if nobody was cleaning it? I don't think it would be pretty - at all.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)that people advocating that some people get free stuff paid for by me - that I am the selfish one.
Uhm, they are the ones trying to take stuff.
And I could really give a crap about the old age argument.
First, there is no guarantee that I will reach it.
Second, the next generation is gonna work, produce and pay taxes whether their parents get free stuff now or not. The argument is somehow that they are going to produce MORE if their parents get free stuff now than they would under the old system, and thus that the benefits to me would be greater than my costs.
That sounds to me like trickle down. Where group A gets tangible benefits now and everybody else is told - these benefits will trickle down to everybody.
For some reason that is an argument that people in group A believe much more than people who are not in group A.
Funny how that works.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)like a republican.
Parental leave is "free stuff?" No, patenting us the highest form of service to society. You should consider "paying for it" a social duty of the highest order even if you"choose" not to have children.
That is how every hominid society has worked throughout evolutionary history or we wouldn't be here.
Everyone contributes to raising the young, one way or another. Or they are a sociopath.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)like a person without compassion for me.
What the fuck makes you think I CHOSE to not have children?
That is offensive in the highest order. Fucking A sonofabitch bullfucking shit.
Yes, you pissed me off when you said that.
I not only wanted to be a father, I wanted to be a step-father. Shit, I volunteered to help raise and support somebody else's kid. Volunteered? I practically crawled fifteen miles over broken glass and begged.
There I was putting $500 into my ex-girlfriend's daughter's college fund and the banking lady said to me - "well, being a single parent is hard".
Well, apparently that single parent decided it was better than being married to me.
But yeah, when you get paid for not working, that is the very definition of free stuff.
Yet I seem to live in a society that expects me to do all of the paying while I get none of the benefits. Doubtless being a slave is the highest social duty there is.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)Great answer.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)there were people for whom a family obligation does not exist. Those people have just as much right to invest in their communities or to have time away from work. That's why I like the cafeteria style arrangement. People who are planning to have the kids can pick that as one of the benefits and people who don't or don't have family can choose something else.
Chemisse
(30,809 posts)It's a huge and exhausting, round-the-clock job to care for an infant.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)perhaps a non parent would like a chance to exhaust themselves taking care of an elderly person in the community, or saving the rainforest, or whatever. i think they should have that option.
cabyio
(9 posts)And it is a choice you make. Essentially time away from work for child rearing purposes is deemed worth the loss of productivity, which is fine. But is that fair to people who do no have kids. They never get that giant chunk of subsidized income. The parent gets to still get paid while they are doing something they WANT to do. Why shouldn't the non-parent get the same benefit.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)It's called supporting the communal good.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)My neighbor on the same insurance as me racked up 50k in insurance bills this year- i didnt spend anything- really, by my math, my health insurance company needs to buy me a new 50 thousand dollar car.
It's only fair, right?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)it barely covers peoples costs when they're sick, and it provides no wellness incentives for people who want to stay healthy and practice preventive care. We all pay for insurance so that at the time we need it, it's there. those who choose not to purchase can assume the risk of potentially paying all the medical bills if they get sick.
but yes, there are people who believe that insurance companies should, and some do, build in points based on health practices. So smokers pay higher premiums because they were higher risk, and so forth. But the whole insurance system needs to go anyway in my view
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)If you want to "do away" with that, fine, but what you're arguing for is essentially a libertairian every person for themselves approach.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and I'd like to shitcan the entire insurance system. I do realize that healthy people pay for the sick, but since no one knows when they're going to be sick, we are all potentialy able to count on that benefit and anytime although hopefully ideally no one would have to.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Is a fools errand.
"No one knows when they're going to be sick"? Baloney. People make all kinds of choices which can be statistically linked to increased health care costs- they're overweight, they ride motorcycles, they smoke, they have sex with multiple partners, etc. we could go down the endless road of attempting to quantify and compensate/charge people for their various risk factors, but such a project would be massive and, to my mind, ultimately futile.
If one is truly committed to the philosophical underpinnings of a SPHC system, they should accept that one of the costs of dealing with health insurance universally is that no, it's not always going to be totally "fair". Sometimes i will pay for you because you need more than i do.
And the principle is the same with parental leave. Whether or not "childfree" people believe it or they think parents are all off having a big parent-party, line danicng and drinking margaritas while the kids snooze in a giant communal playpen, the fact is it addresses a real and unique NEED.
So, deal with it. It's not something you need, so it's not something you get. Sorry.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)if I remain healthy, then that's a benefit I will enjoy which is worth much more than any compensation I would get through the system if I were to be sick.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Mine offers plans that do things like refund the copay for a preventative visit or for some number of mental health visits. They cover things like accupuncture, gender reassignment surgeries and approved 165k in surgery for me last year in less than a business day. They offer services for having medical professionals reach out to serve as pseudo caseworkers to help people be accountable on goals. They fund research into medical advancements.
Not all insurance companies are evil.
The Netherlands has insurance companies, in a plan that is fairly similar in a lot of ways to the ACA, and rank highest in health care in Europe.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)they are not all evil? i never knew
phylny
(8,379 posts)Insurance paid for all but about $3,000 (so they paid in excess of $40,000). There's also incentives to exercise well, be at a good weight, live a healthy lifestyle.
REP
(21,691 posts)I took FMLA time for my own illnesses when I was working. I don't have children and I wasn't married at the time.
Chemisse
(30,809 posts)And, like with medical insurance, anyone could need it at any time.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Thank goodness for FMLA.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)glad you got to have time with her
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)It was devestating but the time with her to the end was wonderful. It's been two years next month so it does stop sending daggers to the heart.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and i know when the time comes, i wont be prepared as much as i think now i will try to be.
peace to you
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)It is good you were able to spend time with her. I wasn't working at the time my dad died, but spent the last three weeks after he had a stroke (and not his first either). I was also trying to figure out if he pulled through how I was going to take care of him. If I had been working, I would have wanted the time off to be with him.
Ilsa
(61,694 posts)Can FMLA also be applied to necessary leave to care for aging parents, especially when our country has no long term care program?
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)(My question was rhetorical to the OP.)
Sanity Claws
(21,846 posts)Parental leave is a subset of family leave. It could be used to take care of parents or spouses.
JustAnotherGen
(31,813 posts)That's why I'm gung ho. My company was pretty flexible when my dad was dying - but I would have loved to take just a solid month /6 weeks with him that last month he was alive. Instead NJ to WNY - 3/4 days - then back at work in NJ 3/4 days. Back and forth.
Everything I'm reading in all platforms is FAMILY leave.
MerryBlooms
(11,767 posts)to care for my (first) husband when cancer was ravaging him. I was gone for 4 months... helped with payroll and staffing, but did that from home without pay, but had my job when I was ready to return, and I was grateful. It's a shame we as a country, don't value care-takers whether in regard to children, elderly or the dying.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)one of the unfortunate ravages of unchecked capitalism imo is the devaluation of life and relationships.
sorry about your first husband
MerryBlooms
(11,767 posts)I hope when the day comes and you take advantage of the Family Leave Act, it's for something positive and not negative.
Take care
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Hepburn
(21,054 posts)MerryBlooms
(11,767 posts)Excellent point, and disappointed to see just two others acknowledged.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)has to step away from du, yes?
I think the idea of family leave is fine as long as childless get time to take care of their family, however one defines it.
paid leave is a type of compensation. if some workers get it but other workers do not, that is a compensation issue. i am advocating a more even type of compensation be afforded to people who will never end up having kids and therefore never choosing to take paid parental leave.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)What to childless people have that they need extra time for?
In many instances, it may be the only time the parents get with the child for extended time. They may not have the luxury of vacation and this gives them some time.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)I really doubt and hope that you meant it that way, but even asking this question is terribly hurtful to people who don't have children. It suggests that tending to one's child is the only thing worth taking significant time off from work to do. There are lots of things including caring for other family members, investing in a personal project or something to do with one's own health, taking a sabbatical, or investing in significant volunteer work that benefits the community. Those are only a few examples of something that people might want time for. Having children is a choice. And while I support parents having time to bond with new children, it is unfair to suggest that people without children don't have anything that's worth significant investments of their time. Family leave is a benefit offered to those who chose to have children. Equal access to a similar benefit needs to be offered to those who didn't choose to have children.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)If you don't have a child, you don't need the extra time.
How do you tell an employee they can't work if they have a child?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)besides having a child. those that need the time for that purpose should have it. But people should not be afforded extra paid time off just because they made a choice to have kids, while the rest of the workforce keeps trudging on without the additional paid time off to do other things that might be meaningful to them.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Or have elderly parents that you have to care for.
And the elderly parents are NOT a choice. They had you so you need to care for them when they need it.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)and benefits coverage to anyone who needs to care for elderly parents, have a baby or get sick enough themselves that they cannot perform their jobs. We all have that.
We are talking about the PAID maternity leave that is offered by many companies, 6 or 8 weeks where the new parents are paid to stay home for the first few weeks of their child's life.
The suggestion is for that paid leave to be extended for other situations besides new parenthood. Like, say, you haven't taken a maternity leave in 15 years, but your child is having a crisis with drug abuse and you need to take off a few weeks to work on it. Or you get an illness that is serious, but you can't afford to take the UNPAID time to tend to it that the FMLA offers. Or you need to do renovations to your house so you can bring those elderly parents - the ones that we don't understand about - to come and live with you, and you have the know-how to do the building yourself and you can't afford to hire someone else to do it.
There are many perfectly legitimate situations where those who do not have children, or those who are not at the time of life where we are giving birth, might legitimately need to a month or two, but we currently can't afford to do it without pay. All of the situations I have outlined are as essential to the well-being of the family as is the situation of new parents. So why are we limiting it to the one situation? The option to take off six or eight weeks with pay, maybe twice every fifteen years, for issues like these, seems to me like a great idea.
It is a compensation issue. We compensate some employees for this kind of thing, but we don't compensate others.
And "I think it is probably impossible for you to understand if you are not a parent" is a dumb cop-out of an argument. By that logic, it is impossible for you to understand what others are saying BECAUSE you are a parent, so you are equally at a loss as those you are dismissing. This, "you just can't effectively engage in this conversation" approach is silly.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Like you're endowed with some sacred mystical knowledge just because you managed to procreate.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)It's not like having a puppy.
And yes, unless you EXPERIENCE it, you may not be able to understand it.
Chemisse
(30,809 posts)It is a tough and tiring job to take care of a new baby.
In addition, parents have time commitments to their children after work - every day, and sometimes through the night, for many years. Childless people have all that time to themselves to pursue things that are meaningful to them.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)if one gets paid time "away from work" (lets not call it "off" to be a parent, that translates into dollars. nonparents should get the same offer to be away from work with pay to pursue something important to them which may not involve having children.
Chemisse
(30,809 posts)Which benefits all of society and ensures the existance of a future generation, costs them dearly.
It is a HUGE fiinancial, emotional, and physical investment that couples make. All of society should support them in this venture.
It's not a workplace benefit; it is a societal benefit - one that can't even begin to repay couples for what they put into the job of parenting. Perhaps people without kids don't understand. Parents are essentially working 2 jobs - for years and years! It is really a huge personal sacrifice, when looked at from that vantage point.
Those couples who don't care to make that sacrifice shouldn't then get the same benefits as those who do.
If you really want time off for yourself, save all that money that you would have spent on children, and fund it yourself!
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but i do think we all benefit from a healthy work force where both parents and nonparents get a chance at a work life balance and time away from work to pursue things meaningful to them as well as society.
we have our priorities screwed up in this country when dollars and profits are valued over quality of life, imo.
Chemisse
(30,809 posts)What's good for society and for children and for struggling parents is of no consequence to you if you can't get in on it too.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)some ideas are difficult to translate in depth in an online forum
have a nice evening
cabyio
(9 posts)How do you know that a child will be a benefit to society? For all we know it could be a drain on society. Only take, give nothing back.
Also you act like people have kids to serve society. What a load of bullshit. People have kids because they WANT to. Not because of some lofty ideal. They choose to enter into this awful thing known as parenthood and somehow expect people who don't to support them.
dog_lovin_dem
(309 posts)+100
Squinch
(50,949 posts)Overpopulation is a major source of the climate change that is threatening us all. Our world is overcrowded and our resources are stretched to the breaking point.
That being said, once those children are born, I do feel that I - a childless person - have a social responsibility to help ensure they are raised to be productive and healthy.
However, my support is for the children, not the parents who chose to have the children.
The parents did CHOOSE. Presumably they knew they would be making those sacrifices you speak of, they weighed those sacrifices against the benefits they thought would be getting by having children, and decided that the benefits outweighed the sacrifices. So no one owes you anything because you decided you would be better off having children than not.
I do wholeheartedly agree that we need to make sure the children in our society are cared for, and I devote my professional life to that effort but I certainly don't think I owe you anything for having given birth to those children. No one needs to repay you for anything.
It is time off, from the job that you are being PAID to do. Doesn't matter if you busting your ass doing something else or sitting on the couch. Time off.... is.... time off.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)not to pay for school supplies, not to pay for swim classes, not to go to all the birthday parties, not to buy new clothes every 6 months as your daughter is growing like a beansprout...
Need I go on LOL
Get over yourself-
You don't have to worry about your kid getting hurt at gym class today now do you?
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)If having children is such a never ending trauma without benefits, then one should rationally choose not to procreate in the first place.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)the leave is to benefit them.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)have a nice day.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Someone suggested it's not a personal choice for the child. You disagreed with them. So someone asserted the opposite argument which you said was never suggested. Um, was suggested the moment you disagreed with the first poster. YOU suggested it.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)its pretty obvious they do not.
i may have disagreed on another point, but not that one.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)Can be used for your parents if need be...I'm hoping. Having or not having children doesn't mean you don't have family.
Rebubula
(2,868 posts)No one except you is pitting anyone against anyone.
I do not have kids....never wanted them. They are a huge investment of time, effort and heart. I think (not trying to be snarky towards parents) that NOT having kids is benefit enough.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)that by choice of not having children, there is an automatic increase in time and cash available to the non-parents. But after tax breaks they are now currently available to only parents, a big chunk of paid leave that is not gonna be available to nonparents is going to seem pretty unfair.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)Do you apply the same standard to pregnancy???
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)pregnancy includes potential medical issues, and most women work through their pregnancies.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)paid for college and for people getting free education? How do you even it out with people who owe school loans with people getting free education?
You don't.
I don't have kids and I am for paid family leave which is also for taking care of parents and siblings who need care.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)ret5hd
(20,491 posts)ret5hd
(20,491 posts)ret5hd
(20,491 posts)ret5hd
(20,491 posts)In short, I agree with you.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)They're just going to have to deal with a little on-screen violence, excessive vulgarity, and being told to close their eyes when what my 11-year-old daughter calls "boob scenes" happen.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I was watching Sonny and Cher.
As I remember it, the 'boob scenes' were pretty spectacular.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Clearly I need at least two weeks of EXTRA paid vacation every year to clean this place up.
My married siblings shudder with horror at my house.
I have to point out that as a single guy I do everything - I do all of the shopping, all of the cooking, all of the dish washing, all of the home repairs, all of the grass cutting, all of the snow shoveling, all of the dog walking (and feeding and bathing and trips to the vet) and so on and so on. Oddly enough, it takes about the same amount of time to shop for one as it does for two or three or four.
I seem to remember my parents, who had five kids, tended to put us to work. We cleaned the basement every Saturday. As the oldest son I did a whole bunch of snow shoveling and grass cutting. All of us kids took turns loading the dishwasher and setting the table. My sisters did some of the vacuuming and laundry.
Not only that, but I have to pay MORE for basic services. Here's my water bill. I used 748 gallons last month - I paid for 1,500. Trash bill - $15.40 a month. Hey, if I had a family of four in my house I would probably produce 3 times as much trash. How much would I pay? - $15.40 a month. So two single people would be paying $30.80 a month, but if they move in together, they can cut their bill in half. Same with utilities. The gas company basically charges me about $15 per month - for nothing. Same with the electric company. It is pretty clear to me that a billing system like that is a better deal for larger users (like say a family of four or five) than it is for smaller users (like say a single, childless person).
But it's cool. I have no kids so I am expected to subsidize everybody who does - for the good of society, of course.
blm
(113,044 posts).
get the red out
(13,462 posts)But I have benefited from my work-place's policy of allowing me to use my own, generous, sick leave to take my elderly mother to doctor's appointments, and take off some when my husband was in the hospital. As long as it is acknowledged that people generally have "families" whether they directly include offspring or not, that is fair.
When I get bothered a bit is when people without children are over-looked as if we don't exist or are less-than people with children.
Unfortunately discussions like this one often end in people dividing into groups and facing off.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)that's why I think just calling it leave and offering it as an option to choose from is the best way to go. Some people might think that it's worth taking time to care for a sick pet or to work on a cleanup the ocean project.
paid leave is not something that should be afforded to some individuals in greater quantities just because they chose to have a child in my opinion. The benefits package could be adjusted so that parents can get their time with the kids, and nonparents can get time to do something else.
and I agree that sometimes there is animosity between people with children and people without. That's why a fair application of this benefit would really be good for everybody.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)get the red out
(13,462 posts)but honestly, I was afraid to say it.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)I have no children, and the last time I had a dog dying, I ran out of vacation, took the time off anyway, and was demoted. My dogs come before anyone else, not unlike what parents feels for their children.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and that's why an unqualified paid time off benefit would be best for everyone. It would not require any of us to justify why we want the time off or what we have to do with it.
i'm sorry to hear about your dog, and I'm sorry you were demoted even though what you did was absolutely commendable. That's why this benefit should be available to everyone equally.
demwing
(16,916 posts)but I've had both children and dogs. I loved my dogs, but there is absolutely no comparison between being a parent and being a pet owner. I feel awkward even having to state this.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)But this idea that one's animal companions are "sorta like" or "not unlike" kids - a frequent argument from childfree people - is really insensitive in the other direction. It's infuriating, really.
Sometimes, I think they just say it to get under the skin of people with children (or as I call us, the childrich).
Newsflash to people who say shit like this: your pets, or animal companions, or whatever you want to call them are NOT like children. It's not close. The more you say they are, the less credibility you have.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)because I don't have kids, I have dogs. I don't care who has or doesn't have kids. I have dogs and they mean everything to me. So we're different. Doesn't mean one of us is right and one of us is wrong. Just different.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)it's about the idea that we all have things we want to invest time in that are meaningful to us. For some it's their children for others it might be their pets, for others it might be community volunteering. If we're going to get paid time off from work to pursue things that are meaningful to us, it should be a benefit option that we can all choose from whether or not we plan to have children. And for those that don't have children they can choose another benefit. It's not complicated.
Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I was commenting on the "not unlike what parents feel for their children" portion of the previous poster's post, which is nonsense, and hurtful.
Many of us who have kids have also had pets, by the way. I know very well what it feels like to care for and lose an animal companion.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)in order to feel love and care about another type of being or another type of issue. No one is at least I'm not trying to take away from the love the parents have for their kids. But all of us love something even those of us who don't have children and our care and attention and time needed should be respected as well.
demwing
(16,916 posts)In 2009, my 9 year old son died due to cancer. No pet loss could ever compare.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)parent of a nine year old myself, I send my regards and thoughts and good vibes to you. I'm not sure I could survive.
demwing
(16,916 posts)thank you
Bettie
(16,092 posts)We lost our first at birth...it is really the worst pain a person can endure.
I've also lost beloved pets and it is extremely sad, but not the same at all.
demwing
(16,916 posts)it is soul crushing
Prism
(5,815 posts)It's hard, but survivable. When I think of my niece or nephew. Forget it. My entire family would be done.
Thoughts and hugs to you.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Sorry for your loss Huge Loss. For me, it's the worse pain I've experienced including the pain I've felt from my own divorce, death of my mother and death of my several dearly loved labs by magnitudes of 100 gazillion. It's a hole that will never fill.
demwing
(16,916 posts)And you survive by the sheer will to move forward.
6 years later, and I'm a total wreck each time his birthday passes. And Christmas. And Halloween. Ah damn.....
This is his picture, his name was Ian, but he liked the name John, which--we told him--is a variation of the same name
One day soon, he will be gone longer than he was alive, and it won't matter.
forthemiddle
(1,379 posts)That can be used in one big block to equal the paid family leave?
Would that be on top of the regular vacation you already get?
I kind of like this idea. LOL. After all my son is all grown up, and both of my parents died in the last two years.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and honestly I don't care what you do with your paid time. that is the point. You can cruise around the Bahamas. You can work in a soup kitchen. My only point was that people should not get differential benefits based on life choices as to whether or not they had children.
forthemiddle
(1,379 posts)I love the idea of a block of time that can be used at my discretion.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)raising a child is important, but so is taking care of a sick friend or family member or pet, helping to spearhead the towns new soup kitchen, or spending time with dying people in hospice who have no one.
demwing
(16,916 posts)my challenge was simply in comparing parenting to pet ownership...
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)we risk making value judgments, which I'm not saying you're doing, but some might. We all love who we love and many of us have people in our lives who are not blood relatives but nevertheless feel like family. And some have pets who are their family. I like to think were all big enough and the tent is big enough to support love and care, whatever form it comes in.
expecting a slew of replies including cheesy songs, Mary Poppins links, and perhaps a reference to Toto or the yellow brick road.
petronius
(26,602 posts)not unlike my cat, who also sometimes seems able to figure out when I'm doing something just to mess with her...
Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)I understand that and have no problem at all with your opinion. You will never understand my feelings about dogs. It's ok, it's not important that I be understood.
I have no chemistry with children, I have no maternal instinct with them. My family is full of mental illness, alcoholism, substance abuse and a myriad of other inheritable diseases. Surely my offspring would suffer and I felt it selfish to do that. Obviously my parents were lacking and passed that on to me, since I don't have the ability to enjoy children. They didn't either. You do what you know.
Dogs have always loved me no matter what, something I didn't have as a child. People have never understood that part of me. They can't, they didn't live my childhood. I accept that.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)What you said hit home as I feel the same way. People that don't have kids are often painted as selfish, but there is an instinct that can't be denied if someone does not think they should have children. I've felt that way since I was young and promptly did something about that to make sure I never have kids. I think if more people who did that (especially men) that we would have a lot less screwed up children in this world.
Personally I think my parents should not have had children. While some may feel that is a strong statement to make about their parents, it certainly doesn't mean I don't love them. My mother had two children and my father three and all of us have very similar issues.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)about how victimized people are for not having children.
it's just not so.
take care of the kids, help their parents raise them well, it's for the good of all.
it benefits me because i live in the world they'll eventually run.
Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)but I don't consider myself a victim? If I'm misunderstanding your post, I apologize.
I just want time off to take my dog to the vet for a humane ending and not be demoted or worse.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)for leave that is provided to take care of a child.
if you are jealous of the leave that is provided to care for a child, then you are in fact, feeling victimized that this child is getting something you cannot.
the leave is not a "gift" to the parent, but something that would be provided to them so that they have more time to care for the child that they are responsible for raising, in fact, if they neglect that responsibility, the child may be taken away, and/or they may be jailed.
as for other types of leave, most of us support guaranteed vacation time and sick/disability leave/family leave. if those things were granted, then you'd have leave time to care for your pet friend/companion.
by the way, i think if your pet is medically necessary, then you might be able to use sick leave for its medical care.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)regarding pto as it exists now. no jealousy here. A person or a couple makes a choice to have a child. Then they want time off to spend with that child. That's fine. But there are lots of other worthy reasons to have time away from work. And people who don't make the choice to have children should not have to work weeks longer in a given year because they made a different choice. A menu option, cafeteria style, with paid parental leave as one of its benefits, with other benefits swapped in for non-parents would solve the problem.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)because many are recommending that leave be provided so that parents have more time to care for that child.
you're either jealous of the child because such care (that you no longer need) would be provided via some limited amount of leave time.
or you're jealous of the parents who would get limited leave time, not to goof off or do things for themselves, but to take care of the child.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)not once in this thread have I said they shouldn't have the time. I am suggesting that there are other activities worth investing time into besides the rearing of children, and for people who make different choices, they should also get time off to pursue those activities that are meaningful not only to them, but could be a betterment to society.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and when they have a baby, you should get 6 weeks to not care for it or have anything to do with it.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)that is negotiated as part of their contract and the contract shouldn't necessarily be negotiated differently because one person chooses to be a parent and one person chooses not to be a parent. Whatever they do with the time is entirely up to them.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)that if the government and/or employer provides an extra 4-6 weeks when they have or adopt a child, you would oppose that?
that's called being against parental leave.
Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)I believe in privacy. I'm not envious of people with sick kids, sick parents, or sick spouses, it sucks. Life happens while trying to keep a job. Any other line of thinking would be unrealistic.
I took off 3 days in March when my husband had a knee replacement. Someone had to cover at work for my absence. I've done the same. It's just part of life.
The boss who demoted me was wrong, but I was dumb for giving her a reason to do so. I didn't care, my dog needed an end to his suffering and I was willing to take the hit I knew was coming.
I was a sick kid, but my mom didn't work and had a car to take me to the doctor. If she would have had to work, she would have taken time off too. I understand people are going to have times where family is put above a job, which it should be.
I would agree that my dogs are necessary for my well-being, but this incident was in 1978. You know, when wearing dead, skinned mink on their backs was fashionable and necessary for status.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i wont even get into that issue....
but i think the beauty of "personal leave" is that it gets to stay personal. no one has to answer questions about a kid, a spouse, a dog, etc. privacy is maintained and everyone gets the time for what they need.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)people should not get benefits differently than other people based on their life choices. we all have things that are important to us, for some its children, for others other things. I'm just advocating for basic fairness no victimhood.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)how many times do we have to explain this?
are you actually resenting that leave would be granted to benefit a child?
are you actually jealous that a child would get time with their parents?
the mind boggles.
demwing
(16,916 posts)this is for the benefit of the child, not the parent.
Somethingtosay
(10 posts)I think family leave is a great thing, but I want my employer to provide me with the same benefits my peers receive. If you take the logic that the benefit is for the child, then it's really no stretch to say those without children have to cover all evening hours, weekends, etc as work should be arranged so parents can be home with their children. I totally agree with the idea of providing a cafeteria plan of benefits so everyone is compensated on the same scale - these are private business for the most part, and not federal programs like SS, Medicaid, etc where the government is "giving" a benefit based on societal good
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)After all, they get special financial benefits you don't.
Fair is fair.
Somethingtosay
(10 posts)But someone receiving disability is not doing the same job for the same employer - I consider a safety net for those who need it indispensable, but you are not making an apples to apples comparison.
Snow Leopard
(348 posts)Know that the leave would always be to the benefit of the child? It's not like all parents are 'good'
sammythecat
(3,568 posts)and your own unique experience being a pet owner.
I know a lot of people that put alot more effort and love into their pets than most people do for their kids. Breeders suck..
snooper2
(30,151 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)no one is forced to have kids. If they want to have them, then they should have options to take time off from work. But people who don't make that choice shouldn't have to work extra days or months of the year when they have other things that they may want to spend time doing that may be just as valuable to them or meaningful to them as having children. simple fairness.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)You want a tax credit because homeowners get one and you don't
You want a rebate on your car even though it isn't electric?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i'm talking about evening out a benefit that is afforded to some based on a life choice that isn't afforded to others. There's an easy way to equal it out. It's not complicated.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It's a false equivelency. People are more important than other things.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)are important to us, that's why a general leave policy would be the most fair. For people who have kids, their kids are going to be most important. For people who don't, other relationships might be important or community projects or whenever.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I don't think that they are inthe same category as people. I'm not completely unsympathetic, but I don't support this proposal.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Bettie
(16,092 posts)because they need chemotherapy, do you get more vacation because Joe in accounting has cancer?
Few people have a baby every year. Most of the ones that do are not in the workforce.
So, how many weeks of vacation do you need a year for your "volunteer work"?
Six weeks for each co-worker who has a child, a week for the dad who actually takes some time off for the birth of a child, then there's Joe with chemo, out for several weeks, so you get a few weeks for that, because, well, if Joe gets time off, you certainly feel short-changed that you didn't get the same amount of time. Oh, and then Debbie's mom died and she took time to take care of her before she died, so you get those weeks too.
Heck, you may never have to work a day again!
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i am merely suggesting that leave should be broadend and more equally available since there are many issues and needs that are important in addition to having kids..
Bettie
(16,092 posts)that you require extra vacation time each and every time a co-worker needs time off for a life event.
Cancer is a life event. Taking care of a dying parent is a life event. Having a baby is a life event.
You are coming off as a very small and petty person.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)between a terrible illness and a life choice?
wow.
Bettie
(16,092 posts)And you are the one who is whining that you don't get precisely the same amount of time off as everyone else.
Do you even realize what a contemptible person you are coming across as? How small it is to demand that you get six weeks of vacation for each time someone else has a baby?
And the point is that you are just being pigheaded about the whole thing. You are just whining because you perceive someone as getting something you aren't and it is disgusting.
You are acting like a teabagger.
What's next? Demanding that you get WIC too because those danged women and kids are taking your stuff? Oh, you can also rant about your taxes and how you hate paying for schools because you don't have any kids, so they should take that off your tax bill and only let you pay for stuff you approve of.
I'm done. There is no point in even trying to get you to see anything beyond the end of your nose.
You are just whining for the sake of whining.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)suggestions of the OP rather than the things you are making up in your head.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)to each employee is more fair than a chunk of time that is only available to some employees.
I suspect you understand that he isn't saying that he wants time off each time everyone else gets time off.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)just advocating for equal compensation regardless of parental status.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)since i am advocating not for a reduction of benefit for parents, but an expansion of a similar benefit to nonparents.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)it is offensive to suggest that there might be other good reasons besides a baby to need a month or two off from work.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)on other forums, it is quite a contentious issue, esp when dealing with who gets priority for telecommuting arrangements, friday afternoons off, or a reduced holiday schedule. not to mention the paid leave itself.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)"Well, you don't have kids, so you already have all kinds of benefits that we don't have."
Not sure what that has to do with the present discussion, though.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)are a direct result of the difference in lifestyle. but when it comes to tax credits, etc., nonparents and singles lose big time.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I don't know if the idea is workable or not, but I can't understand some of the nasty posts in this thread. Some people think children are important to everyone and other people don't.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)When dealing with the subject of childlessness, I think SOME who have children never considered the option of childlessness, and though they will never admit it, they wish they HAD considered it. I think some of this hostility comes from that place. It shows itself whenever there are discussions about having children versus not having children.
The other thing you can always count on happening in these discussions is that someone will say, "You can't really have this discussion, because you don't understand what it is like to have children." The ones who say that don't seem to realize that THEY will never understand what is like NOT to have children, so if their logic holds, they are incapable of having the discussion too.
And the other thing that always shows up is that there will be an undercurrent with a lot of comments that suggests that it is selfish to be childless. I think my decision to be childless was one of my most unselfish and most responsible acts.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I sometimes wonder if it is just plain jealousy on the part of those with children, who probably envy the childless and certainly don't want to seem them getting any more benefits than they think they have.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)I am amused by his confidence that he knows what is needed and not needed by people he has never met. I am also reminded of the Republican comments to the effect that no one needs welfare because everyone is wealthy enough to have a microwave. It's basically the same thought process at work: "I am the one who will decide what you need, without knowing anything more about you than the single fact that you do not have children/do have a microwave."
Squinch
(50,949 posts)discretion is a good idea.
I have no children, so I don't get any childcare leave. If I get cancer, I have to use my banked sick time, and if that runs out, I have no other options. So if I had a chunk of a few months that I could use at my discretion, either to have a child or tend to my illness, that seems fair. At the moment, I have the option of leave if I have the child, but not if I have the cancer.
Also, no one is suggesting that each person gets time off every time a coworker has a child. The suggestion is that everyone gets one chunk of time that they can use at their own discretion, either for childcare or another reason of their own. It's not unreasonable.
One more point: I have picked up the slack at work through umpteen maternity leaves. Another cost to those of us who don't take maternity leave is longer work hours on a regular basis when our coworkers go out to have babies. I have never objected, but be aware that but I am paying that price for them.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and i didn't even want to get into the post return issues of sick kids, soccer games, telecommuting schedules,and who gets priority for holidays off, all of which often get afforded disproportionately to parents. a chunk of time, when translated into dollars, means that paid parental leave equals higher compensation for those individuals. an equivalent option for childless/childfree would lead to a better working environment for all and probably more cooperation and less turnover.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)use the FMLA if the illness renders us physically incapable of performing the tasks of our jobs.
I am sure that there are many cancers, for example, where people are still able to drag themselves into the office every day, but where a break from the stress and effort of work for a while would help with their recovery. If your suggestion were available, they would have that time.
You're taking a lot of grief from many hysterical posters who seem to fear that you are going to steal their wallets or something, but I think this is a very good idea.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)that i am not trying to TAKE AWAY a benefit from parents but rather to ADD an equivalent benefit for people who choose not or cannot become parents.
not sure why that is upsetting when im not advocating for less but rather more. more is not usually met with significant resistance and angst.
i am truly baffled.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)As another person who has had to pick up extra work for the maternity leaves of others, I do think that there should be some chunk of time available to all people who may need it. Whether it's for having a child or tending to a sick parent, sibling or significant other. Volunteer service and things like that might be pushing it, but if its for an important life event, I think it should be available to all.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)insurance and job protection while we are out for major illnesses and maternity. But many companies offer a separate PAID leave for maternity. I think that's a distinction a lot of posters are not getting, and they think the OP is talking against the FMLA, which clearly he is not.
I agree with the OP, though, as you and I have agreed throughout this discussion, that the paid maternity leave benefit would be a good thing to extend to all employees who might have life issues of their own to deal with other than having a child that might require time off that is not covered under FMLA. A two month period that you can take, say, twice in ten years, would be a great idea.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Granted what I am talking about is different than what the OP is talking about because he/she is talking about that vs. parental leave, instead of time to volunteer as a separate issue.
Some companies already do this. Certainly we need people in our nation to volunteer more, but that discussion would be an entirely different thread.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)If not, then the comparison falls through.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)My boss rolled her eyes so far back into her head that I thought they would get stuck there permanently, but approved it.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)she was a total asshole "You should plunge yourself into work for your grief" who made me prove the wake and funeral were out of town in order to take the day off (during which I did still work a couple of hours). I was floored at what an asshole she was.
When my cat was very sick, she told me to take all the time I needed.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i've often heard it the other way around.I like the idea of general paid time off that doesn't require us to justify to our bosses why we need the time off. If we get X number of days, then we ought to be able to just take them.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)what's important to them or what should be important to them or who to care about or how much to care about them. That's why blanket leave is better, because no one has to justify the reasons for having the time off.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Longer leaves for unusual situations should be justified, because they're hard for most workplaces to plan around and staff for.
I get all choked up when the ASPCA commercials come on but when the starving children commercials come on I am just annoyed.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)That is something that has always bugged me, albeit on a low level.
There should be some sort of way to take a few extra vacation days or something.
ETA - I completely agree with Holly Hobby's post above.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)I don't have a car so shouldn't be taxed for roads.
I don't go to school so shouldn't be taxed for schools?
It's for the betterment of society.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)What is it with this "what's in it for me" approach to the world?
Myrina
(12,296 posts)Seriously. Why have we become such a "What about me? I want MINE or you can't have yours!" society.
Jeez.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Action_Patrol
(845 posts)laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Lotsa tax subsidies for the oil companies
Facility Inspector
(615 posts)better for the planet.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)Facility Inspector
(615 posts)what do you have to offer other than insults?
Any actual ideas?
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)I wasn't insulting.
Your idea is for people to stop having kids in a thread about someone that doesn't think it's fair that they don't get an equivalent to fmla.
Your idea to help the planet is to not procreate. We have people trying to make abortions illegal AGAIN, want to make contraceptives hard to get to allow pharmacists to deny plan B based on moral grounds and your first step is to come at me and say people should save the planet by not procreating?
Holy shit.
RandySF
(58,776 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)My current employer gives us 21 days a year in paid sick leave. I wasn't sick a single day last year. Many of my coworkers were sick all 21 days...and then some. Because paid sick leave is a benefit, is it unfair that it's used more by some than by others?
The answer, IMHO, is that it's not unfair. Sick leave, like parental leave, is an available benefit. Whether or not you use it is up to you, but it should be available to everyone. Being childfree means that you've made the choice not to avail yourself of that particular benefit, but it doesn't change the fact that you HAVE the benefit available for your use if you wanted it.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)so everyone gets X number of days of paid time off per year. Whether they use them to take vacation, whether they use them because they're sick, or whether they Bank them for another year is up to them. That way people who are sick often can use their days as they need to, and people who don't use sick time still get time away from work. And the company doesn't have to be asking 20,000 questions to determine if you're really sick enough to stay away from work, so it preserves people's privacy.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)One of my previous employers had a PTO system and it was freaking awful. One of my coworkers had health issues and she wasn't able to take a single day of vacation in the entire three years I worked with them. Why not? Because she was forced to use her PTO days while she was out for surgery and chemo. Under the PTO model, every day you are out sick or are out seeking medical treatment is one less day that you are allowed to take off for personal time or vacation. It encourages people to come to work sick so they'll avoid depleting vacation days, and penalizes employees with health problems.
Vacation time is vacation time. Sick leave is sick leave. Merging the two into a generic "paid time off" concept is a horrible idea. I'll never again work at a company that uses it.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Sick is sick and vacation is vacation.
If I'm home sick it definitely ain't a vacation!
I'm lucky where I work we can telecommute. There's a woman with kids, and so if she has to stay home with one she just telecommutes that day.
Lonusca
(202 posts)money for those sick days.
If you leave a company with sick days on the books, they pay you for them. As you say - it is a benefit.
You may be able to accrue more than 21 days a year in paid sick leave (which is by far the most generous leave I have ever heard of). So you could have 2 or 3 years worth of time on the books.
Under California law, sick leave does not need to be paid out.
And yes, my current employer is fairly generous with sick leave. We get 7 paid sick days a year with no questions asked, and 14 additional paid sick days a year with a doctors note.
Lonusca
(202 posts)Sick Leave is a liability on the books. It does not just disappear if you have paid sick leave.
What you have sounds like someone who does not follow a rigid policy or law. CA does have mandatory sick leave. In which case you may also want to consider an employment attorney.
Skittles
(153,150 posts)unless they have a truly serious illness, who is sick that often?
xmas74
(29,674 posts)She was still in elementary school. She has a virus that she couldn't shake and it involved multiple trips not just to her doctor but to the ER with a transfer to Children's Mercy. I'm a single parent and she wasn't even ten at the time-someone had to be with her at all times.
That was a horrible year.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)People without kids aren't. If the government is going to go out of its way for something, it's going to do so for parents before people without kids. Same reason why married couples get more than single adults or non-married couples.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Sorry, that argument isn't solid.
KT2000
(20,576 posts)one must realize that children are the future. Forming strong bonds early in life greatly enhances the child's future. That is something worthwhile for everyone including those without children.
If one wants to take an entirely selfish approach, then consider who will be paying for Social Security during their working years so the older generation can draw on it.
I don't have children and don't feel that I am owed something to replace paid family leave. Healthy families are the bedrock of our society.
onenote
(42,700 posts)needs to be matched by a different government benefit for another group.
The tax code creates a special exemption for the blind. What do people who aren't blind get to match that tax benefit?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)having kids is.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Iris
(15,652 posts)You could argue it's for the family but the leave is intended for the employee. You can also take leave to take care of your sick or dying parents. It's not for the parents. It's for the employee that must struggle with work-life balance.
onenote
(42,700 posts)but there is no exemption for the deaf.
And if one was created, what about other disabilities? Should they all have an exemption? Should they all be the same?
The point is that choices are made when government benefits are created and there isn't a offset to every choice made.
If I decide to give money to charity, I get a deduction. If I give spend that same amount of money supporting a non-tax exempt organization, like a political party, I don't. Where's the matching benefit for folks who don't give their to charity but instead give it to a political candidate or organization?
It would be an endless slippery slope if every benefit had to be matched by some other benefit.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)those who don't have kids against those who do, but that attitude of "it's a choice" is very insulting and does pit one group against the other.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)calling it a life choice is not meant to be insulting, just an acknowledgement that some people expand families through children and some people don't. It's a difference that doesn't make one option better than the other. I'm not trying to say there's anything wrong with having kids. I'm just saying that people should get equal benefits from an employer that aren't determined by their particular choice in this matter.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)welfare programs and conservatives say well they chose to have those children.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and of course the child welfare system benefits children and families in poverty, which is what is civilized country should do. Which is also why I support a paid family or parent leave program. I also just happened to support including a benefit to non-parents who could use that paid time off to benefit their community or their family members who don't happen to be their children.
kcr
(15,315 posts)If children aren't properly cared for, society is harmed as well. That is most certainly not a lifestyle choice.
Maybe rich people should get to whine about and receive matching funds for their yachts for every penny spent for social welfare programs. Hey, fair is fair.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but rather expand it to a "personal leave" type benefit so nonparents can care for others or do something meaningful to them. parents and children can continue to have bonding time.
kcr
(15,315 posts)It's effectively taking it away unless you somehow think the political and corporate climate has changed, and budgets are sky high.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)under the right leadership. europeans get waaaaay more vac time as well as medical and family leaves. their tax structure is different and their priorities are different.
if they can do it we can too, sure it will be a tough pill for the oligarchs to swallow, but too bad for them.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Response to restorefreedom (Reply #245)
Chemisse This message was self-deleted by its author.
Chemisse
(30,809 posts)So in a way, people who have children are giving to our collective future. This is a great way to support them and help ensure their children grow up to be productive adults. It's an investment, just like public education.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but i also think that we all benefit when all workers are given options for a better work life balance. i bet its better for companies, too, if they put aside their greed long enough to do the math.
Chemisse
(30,809 posts)Parents and their children really need this time to invest in the most important job they will ever have in their lives.
People who don't need it for this incredibly important reason should not try to sabatoage it for parents by asking for time themselves.
Because that will never happen! What company can afford to give everybody 6 weeks off whenever the whim strikes? Even giving this time for parents is opposed by many.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)lets say every employee gets 6 weeks (as an example) of "personal leave" per year, or every two years, whatever. the parents can use it the same way they did before, and nonparents can use it for whatever personal endeavor they choose.
just as society benefits from healthy parents and children, it benefits from healthy workers who have a work life balance. under the right leadership, i do believe our priorities as a society can change for the better.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)You certainly don't have to have one. Will you die if you don't have a child? No. What if someone thinks they will be a godawful parent? Those people can make a choice not to have a child. I have made the choice not to have a child. I certainly could have had one (prior to making that choice a permanent one). There is another person up thread who stated that she also did not want to have a child. She is making a choice. If two people love each other and want to have a child, then that is a choice. There is nothing wrong with either of those choices, but they are just that. What would you call having a child, an accident?
Now at the same time I'm not advocating what the OP is advocating for and I haven't yet responded directly to the OP (though I will after I go through the thread). That is quite separate from my response to this post.
TBF
(32,050 posts)But keep playing
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)everyone get so much paid time off per year. the the people who are sick can use it without having a lot of questions asked about their health, and the people not sick get to take time away from work anyway. A lot of companies are not separating sick time and vacation time anymore.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)not sure why you have his logo.
haele
(12,647 posts)Okay, this sounds like frivolous grousing to people who don't have leave at all, but putting all leave in one box really is for the company's benefit rather than the employees benefit. PTO has been used as an excuse to cut the amount of time off employees used to get, by making all time off cumulative and ensuring that it's difficult to accrue enough hours to actually have a vacation or take a trip unless you've been with the company long enough or are at a more managerial/executive level.
My current company has a "PTO" policy. Depending on if you're salaried or not and how long you've been employed, my company currently gives either 120 hours (or 15 days - Tier 1 Benefits) or 152 hours (or 19 days - Tier 2 benefits) until you hit 20 years with the company, then it's 200 hours (25 days) across the board, because if you've been with the company, you should be at Tier 2.
While that seems a great deal now-a-days, my first couple non-military employers would give us a cumulative 80 hours a year "roll-over" vacation leave - which became a cumulative 160 hours after you were vested (5 years), and every three years after, they added 10 hours. So after 20 years, you would be collecting a total of 310 vacation (7 3/4 weeks) a year, vice the 200 you would be collecting at my current employer.
We could also cash out our leave at 320 hours, the point we were required to "use or lose" if we wanted to "bank" vacation hours. was great for single people who might not be as interested in the time off as they might be for the occasional bonus to put in savings or buy a large ticket item with.
While it might have seemed be a bit hard on a new employee or if you cashed out, they also wanted to ensure that the employees were covered for health if they were running short.
Every year, employees got an additional "Beginning of the year" block of 80 hours medical time off (true, a doctor's note was required for anything over 16 consecutive hours/2 days). While it did not roll, an employee could donate it into the next year's emergency medical pool to cover people with additional medical or family conditions that would not be covered under disability (like pregnancies, child/spousal care, or adoptions) and did not have enough vacation to use.
That was because the companies felt they were invested in their workforces. We would also be offered short term/long-term disability packages that could kick in after the use of 40 hours of sick leave to keep employees paid instead of taking LWOP (Leave without Pay) if they were sick or injured enough that they couldn't work for a significant period of time.
And those companies were the same size as the company I'm current working with - mid-sized, with between 10K - 20K employees.
In most situations, vacation plus sick leave tends to be much more equitable in the long run; the onesy/twosy sick hours usage for running yourself (or family members) to the doctor, or for a morning migraine didn't count against PTO leave you could otherwise be taking or banking for a family trip or potential "need to take a month off to settle something" situation.
I ended up with quite a bit of money on banked leave back in the day, which ended up helping out with several emergency situations.
With the "PTO covers everything" benefit packages I've had since 2004, I've been lucky if I average 24 hours on the books for the past 10 years, between doctor's visits and being sent home from work for a day or so because I picked something up from the kid or grand-kid, and I "might be contagious". If I had sick hours, even just 40 hours a year, I'd have a lot more PTO hours available for, say, visiting my out of state widowed and somewhat luddite Mother once a year to help her with the updates and maintenance she needs on all the electronic equipment around the house, all the things Dad and some of his reserve center buddies used to do.
That trip (we drive; cheaper than flying) would require at least 50 available hours even if taken over the occasional three-day weekend.
But I just can't seem to save up enough because there's always a cluster of family doctor's appointments or "gotta take a few hours off" emergencies that come up right when I've nearly saved 40 hours...
Haele
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)I know people who do very well with the PTO bucket, but I'm sure it depends on each person's individual circumstance. And I have no doubt that a company will do anything it can to try to screw the worker a lot of extra time off and pocket more money.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Not good.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)in a divided system, where people get the payout for unused sick and vac time. but most employers while having to pay out vacation time, force you to forfeit your sick time unless you are actually sick enough to use it. If they paid out for that that would seem to be fair to me, and that way people who need more sick time will still get their vacation too.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)did you miss that part?
also, it is fair, because it would be available to anyone who becomes a parent.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but having children is a life choice. And people who don't make that choice might make other choices that require investment of time and they deserve to have time away from work too.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)well if you foster a child, or something equivalent, where you are the guardian of that child, go for it, i'd support giving you an equivalent amount of leave for doing so.
or do you want it parental/child leave for a purpose unrelated to caring for a child?
Iris
(15,652 posts)The parents of an employee are not the employee but the employee can also take leave to care for ill or dying parents. The purpose is to allow people to handle life issues while still maintaining employment.
FSogol
(45,480 posts)pay for the public schools.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)as I am to pay for public libraries that I may or may not visit, or roads that I may or may not drive on. Having children is a very personal life choice. People who make that choice should certainly have options when it comes to time away from work. But people who don't make that choice may have very worthy reasons as to time off that they need from work. It should be part of a menu option, if you have kids you get the time off for your kids, and if you don't have kids you get the time off or something else or you can swap it for another benefit. I really don't see the issue.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)I was prepared to give you some benefit of the doubt upon reading the OP. I am oh so tired of these worn out canards but occasionally someone does happen along who means well but asks this sort of thing anyway because they just don't know any better.
On reading the entire thread though it is clear you don't WANT to understand. You have your opinion and that's that. OK, have fun with it, but don't expect to be taken seriously.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)in which people get to choose what they need based on the life they plan to live?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)like a certain poster used to do?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Laffy Kat
(16,377 posts)During their parental leave. I was exhausted pretty much 24/7 during my leaves. I got so run down with the first baby I got shingles. Hubby still went to work (he didn't get paternal leave and probably wouldn't have taken it if he had). Believe me, it's no walk in the park.
stranger81
(2,345 posts)The characterization of parental leave as "time off" really rubs me the wrong way. No one who has ever cared for a newborn would call that "time off." It's work. It's harder work than the work I get paid to do by my employer. In no way, shape or form was my maternity leave "time off" or a "vacation." Returning to my paid place of employment looked like a vacation after that.
Laffy Kat
(16,377 posts)I also administered hospice care for my elderly aunt. She was bed-ridden and demented. Again 24/7 with little uninterrupted sleep. I worked my butt off for eight weeks before she died. I took good care of her and was happy I was able to take the time off, but was so tired that by the time she died I felt nothing. It was just over.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)The only way to continue the human race is for some of us to have children. The only way to have a healthy society, is to see that those children receive care. It's a win win.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and in nine cases out of 10, hopefully that best care is at the hands of their own parents. I just think that nonparents also should have options for time off to invest in their communities.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you will care, full time for a child?
there, that's "fair" right?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)volunteer hospice work? suicide hotline? There are lots of worthwhile things to do that help the community. Caring for children is not the only thing, not to mention there were lots of people who do a great deal of volunteer work with children.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)4-6 weeks per year?
for anything you want.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)every country that has guaranteed vacation time also has *in addition*, parental leave.
so you can have your vacation time in significant amounts and parents can have their vacation time.
and children get extra time to be with their parents via parental leave, on top of the vacation time.
you wanna get in on that? have a kid, adopt a kid, foster a kid. there are lots of kids that need good parenting or need a good parent.
when the law passes, take responsibility for a kid and take the extra leave society will provide you to do a better job parenting.
it's that simple.
deal?
or do you just want the leave in addition to vacation time to devote to car washing and whatnot?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)that having a kid is the only worthwhile expenditure of one's time that bettors the community? Most of the child free people I know spend tons of time volunteering in their communities.if they got some extra time off from work to spearhead a major community project or something of that sort, or you tell me that's not worthwhile either ?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)are you asking for child leave to do something unrelated to child care?
have, adopt or foster a child if you want the leave should it become available through the law.
i realize when i tell you that if you want the leave, to have or take responsibility for a child, you get quiet.
because then you see that the proposed law is 100% fair TO YOU.
there are lots of other kinds of leave that should be available to people for the purposes you state but child/parental leave is not one of them.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)so people can use it for the things that are important to them and they don't have to go through a song and dance routine to justify it to their employers. It would seem that everyone benefits from this.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)to care and be responsible for their children.
*again* WHY do you have the Bernie logo when the claptrap you're posting is in opposition to his positions?
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Canadian here. I get 2 weeks. Minimum by law. No mandatory 4-6 weeks here. We are as bad as you in most ways with labor laws. However, most companies around here offer far more, plus sick days plus 'flex' days. My mom, for instance, gets roughly 7 weeks total if you add up everything. My 2 weeks is rare around here, but it's an American run company so not surprising. Most people just work at my company to gain experience and then off they go.
Anyhow.
While neither here nor there, I'm also a single parent. 10 days vacation is pathetic. I basically have to work overtime and take the time off in lieu just so I have enough hours off a year to take my kids (and myself!) to various appointments. And my kids are very healthy and rarely need doctors - I can't imagine what those single parents with special needs kids do. At my company, we also have to take vacation time even for doctor ordered tests and appointments. I had a mammogram and then a biopsy and had to take vacation time for that. That took about 6 hours off my vacation time total between the various appointments (and I went back to work right after my biopsy, with a big ol'bandage on my boob - lol, and a lot of pain - not so lol).
And I have no idea how women deal with only 6 weeks off for mat leave. With my first child my cesarean scar had opened up and become infected at 5 weeks postpartum and I was still walking hunched over for several weeks after that, then I developed a kidney infection and pleurisy. Add to that a colicky baby and leaking boobs and I cannot imagine the hell on earth it would have been to return to work at that time. It's absolutely inhumane. 1 year is the amount here in Canada. And everyone here is fine with it. Maybe it's because we believe in the common good, and we love our health care and realize that not everyone has the same needs at the same time, and that it's not all about mememememe.
Also, economically, it has created a special 'niche' for some people. For instance, most women take the full year off for mat leave. Their employer has to find a replacement for that year (can't just get some other person to cover for 6 weeks) so they advertise for a temporary replacement. Some people I know like to take a temp job, work for a year, then take some time off before the next 'gig'- it's usually other moms, whose kids are older, and they are not the main breadwinner. When you think about it in economic terms - there is now someone else working for a year that otherwise wouldn't have been, plus the person on mat leave is still receiving benefits - that's 2 people making money and spending it. It's like its own little economic stimulus.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)is better in some ways but similar to the us in some ways. the "just work we don't care about you" seems to be a byproduct of rampant capitalism.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)I was diagnosed with a serious chronic illness a few years back. (I am fine now.) When I was diagnosed, I was pretty sick, but still able to perform the functions of my job, so I could not use FMLA to take time off. I used up my sick time, but would love to have had the option to take off some more time, 3 or 4 weeks, to tend to my health and get good at the new things I needed to do to deal with the condition. Instead, I had to do those things while also dealing with the stress of work.
I have never taken a maternity leave, and I have picked up the slack for many other people's maternity leave, working extra hours on a regular basis. Is it so wrong for me think that it would have been nice if I had the option to take that time when I needed it, even if it was not because I had a baby?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)eShirl
(18,490 posts)it's win-win
Prism
(5,815 posts)I'm fine with it.
Anything that gives children their best chance is our responsibility as citizens. When we're old and gray, those kids are going to be making the decisions that impact us. We should be invested in their well-being.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)Swaziland, Lesotho, Papua New Guinea, and the United States, has figured out how to be OK with mothers taking some weeks to heal from childbirth and/or surgery and nurse their newborn without a problem. Surely, the citizens of this great country can find a way to do the same.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)give women more opportunity if care benefits are given to both men and women.
Yes.
And it is unbecoming of the OP to post that he is somehow deprived by a law proposed to help children.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)"what's in it for me, if I dont have kids" is right-wing thinking.
Similar to "why do I have to pay school taxes, if I don't have kids?" or "Why should I be paying for someone else's health care, if I'm not sick?".
Sid
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and I'm happy to support town functions with my taxes. But having children is a life choice, and while people who make that Lifechoice should have time to spend with new children, people who make other choices should also get time off to spend on things that are meaningful to them. I'm not advocating against family leave, but rather a comprehensive menu plan where people can choose benefits based on their needs
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Gidney N Cloyd
(19,833 posts)I think parental leave and paid sick days are wonderful investments in society and I'm not making any demands for comps, but honestly I do get a little tired of always being the guy left behind covering for the moms and dads.
It really cuts into my DU time.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)because maternity/family leave is about a year, and the government pays for it through unemployment insurance, the company is free to hire someone on a temp basis for a year. As I mentioned up thread it has created a little employment niche for some people. When leave is only a few weeks/months, it doesn't seem worth it to some companies to hire someone for such a short period of time and train them etc. It's more feasible if the timeline is for a year.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)No doubt, many people who decided to not have children also complain about paying school taxes. However...
Paid parental leave incentivizes labor market attachment for women both before and after birth, affecting GDP and national productivity, as the workforce is larger. Paid parental leave incentivizes childbirth, which affects the future workforce. This is particularly critical with an aging workforce or countries with Sub-replacement fertility, as children are the future workforce and their earnings will support social security and pensions.*
(*Identity Economics: How Our Identities Shape Our Work, Wages, and Well-Being, by Akerlof)
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)not the least of which is that most of us went to public school and benefit ourselves from that system. So paying into it is only fair for everyone. But getting time off with pay for one life choice and not getting any additional time off for a different life choice seems inherently unfair.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)See edit: objective academic sourced. Your premise is lacking relevant information
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Otherwise I get all the diseases when students are forced to come in sick, since their parents can't stay home with them.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)then take the leave.
very simple.
at that point, you will see that the law's purpose is not for *you* but for the child.
mind you, there should be other laws that grant all people vacation time and sick leave and family leave.
but the child leave is intended to be in addition to those.
LexVegas
(6,059 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,338 posts)alarimer
(16,245 posts)This, I think is the fundamental unfairness. The people left behind need to do extra work (unless temps are hired) but are not compensated for it, usually.
But I think the most fair way is to make a bucket of leave and put everything in it. You get x number of weeks/months and can use it for anything.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)I have referred to it as the cafeteria menu, but it's basically similar. It seems inherently fair, but for some reason people have accused me of being jealous unfair and not caring about the future of our society, none of which is true. And I agree with you that often times the people left in the workplace have to pick up the slack are usually not compensated.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"but for some reason people have accused me of being jealous unfair and not caring about the future of our society, none of which is true..."
Most likely, because you're purposefully ignoring responses which invalidate your original premise.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)about offering people a menu of benefits including parental time off or family time off, or time off for other purposes. Or for that matter even non-time benefits such as compensation. Depending on their needs and their plans, people can pick from the menu the benefits that serve them best. What is wrong with that?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)" tell me what is unfair..."
I haven't said anything is unfair. However, let's revisit Core Logic 1301, shall we? X can be fair. Y can be fair, too-- but X's fairness does not invalidate Y's concomitant fairness.
Think rationally.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)I am suggesting that the ultimate fairness would be to have a menu of choices that people can pick from based on the life they plan to live. Those who choose not to have children might choose to invest in the community in other ways.seems pretty fair to me.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)As above (purposefully ignored), child leave incentivizes labor market attachment for women both before and after birth, affecting GDP and national productivity ("seems pretty fair to me" to use the tired bumper-sticker).
Please, think rationally. You're thought process is focused on you rather than the whole.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)to all people, regardless of their life choices. And speaking of rationality, where is my tax credit because I'm not producing a child thats going to consume a great proportion of the worlds resources or contribute to climate change in a first world country?
Bettie
(16,092 posts)Will serve your purpose. Women will be forced to go back to work after their 2-4 weeks of paid time off are exhausted, because, lets be realistic, companies are not going to give more time off, they would simply shrink family leave time.
So, there would be no actual family leave, only using up all your vacation/sick time to have a baby or take care of a sick relative.
Yes, you would get the same time off and you'd get to gloat about how you went on vacation when Sally is still exhausted from giving birth and having to send a 3 week old newborn to day care.
Oh, and I'm sure that every time she needs to pump breast milk, you get a break too, in order to keep things fair.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)is not what i am talking about, but rather the months (in some cases) of bonding time after. people may need to spend time with a dying parent, or someone in the community who is a friend with no one, family can mean many things.
if a family chooses to have a child, great. they should have time. but for others whose family needs might be different, they should have time too
i have not thought about the breast milk issue in some time. but i have heard grumbling from people (not du)
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Cancer patients have it too good! It just encourages more people to get their lumpy tits and weird moles tested.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)last time I checked, no one voluntarily signed up to have cancer. it's an illness, not a life choice. Having children is a life choice.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Smoking causes cancer. Smoking is a life choice.
And... is having a children a choice in every case? Or merely the cases convenient to your premise?
REP
(21,691 posts)It can be any illness one's doctor says is serious. For me, even a cold is serious enough to be kept home and qualify as an FMLA leave; for someone who's less, erm, defective, that threshold might be the flu.
(Not arguing your actual point - it just seems as though a lot of people have no clue about how FMLA actually works.)
Bettie
(16,092 posts)good point and I'm LMAO.
GoCubsGo
(32,080 posts)up at 3 AM, dealing with a screaming baby who needs feeding, changing, has colic, is teething, or whatever. I don't have and never wanted kids, and on the surface, not getting paid leave like that sucks. But, I'd MUCH rather spend the time at work than have to be home with a newborn, having to constantly deal with shitty diapers, laundry and everything else that comes with them. I'd rather spend my time with my colleagues, and quite frankly, I'd rather work. I don't feel like I'm losing out on anything, as long as I don't have to take up all of the slack of my co-worker being gone, without being somehow compensated for it in some way. As long as my workload isn't being doubled because of it, I don't care. Just let me have some comparable leave if my cat gets sick, or my dad or one of my siblings need me to take care of them.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)One of the reasons I proposed what I propose is because many employers won't want you to get time off if you for a cat or if something else happens or if you want to do a volunteer project in the community. They probably will not be on board with it. That's why a big bucket approach where people can choose what they want their time off for would seem to work best.
GoCubsGo
(32,080 posts)that staying home with a newborn for months on end is not exactly a vacation. In fact, it can be mind-numbing. Keep that in mind, and all of the perceived unfairness disappears. Now, if you want to talk employers who give the promotion (with higher pay) to the person with the kids, while passing up the childless employee, because the one with the kids "needs the money more", that's another story...
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)as far as promotions go, i have seen it go both ways. sometimes the parent is overlooked because it's assumed that they won't be as available. And sometimes the parent is given a promotion because they have to "provide for their family".
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Your turn may come when a spouse or elderly parent is ill and you require time off to fulfill your family needs or duties. It all evens out in the end.
It does equally apply to all workers. It doesn't mean each worker must get the same amount of time off or dollars .
And let's remember than women already earn less than men who are in the same jobs. And nobody in the office pool cares about that (except women). So if they take a few months off to get their child off to a good start, ....
*Note: now that more and more gay couples are starting families, this is also an issue for all genders.
MerryBlooms
(11,767 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
Marr
(20,317 posts)I would expect time spent away to take care of a child to be taken into consideration if I'm up for a promotion against a parent. I'm simply a better employee.
They've set their priorities and that's fine.
Throd
(7,208 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But .....WHAT DO WE GET?!?!?!
You get the knowledge that your call to not have kids was probably the right one.
RandySF
(58,776 posts)There's still plenty of guilt heaped upon on when we have to stay home and take care of a sick kid.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)no one said it's a goodie, but people who make different life choices than having children should also get time off to invest in communities in ways that are meaningful to them just as people who have children find it meaningful for them to have children.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)so there you go.
most of us support both types of leave.
okay, problem solved?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)so happy day.
Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)Please, spend 12 hours each day taking care of someone who cannot take care of themselves--a relative, a parent, a neighbor, etc.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)I don't know how old you are, but it would be a tremendous benefit if your husband, your sibling, or your parents could take the time from work to take care of you in your extended convalescence. It would be to their benefit that not only they will get paid, but also that their employer recognizes the importance of this sort of family/social work and counts it among the things the employer provides to the employees.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but for those who have no family obligations, perhaps there are other ways they would like to invest their energy into the community.
Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)You should stop trying to convert something which is reserved in order to give people flexibility into luxury time for you. You pay into social security, medicaid, and unemployment. You may think you will never use those things; you might resent making those payments. The policy, though, must be indifferent to what you think you need now. It must protect instead the ability to use it in the future.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and I don't think that community betterment is a luxury which is what I hope people would do with some extra time off. With some people abuse it? Of course. For most of the people I know that don't have kids spend a ton of time volunteering and might even do more if they had a little bit of extra paid time off from work.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)"I deserve time off to care for my sick cat, too!"
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but nice try!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Im not the only one here who made those observations.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Myrina
(12,296 posts)Bettie
(16,092 posts)is to tell people who wish to have children that they may not do so and still be in the workforce, because people without children feel slighted by them. So, no kids if you are going to work.
You say you don't mean to pit people with children against people without children, yet that is precisely what you are doing.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)As an added bonus, you didn't have to pay the massive expenses of raising a child in order to tax that child to pay for your Social Security and Medicare.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)from others, including the reality that sometimes extended leaves make it even harder than it already is for womens careers
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/upshot/when-family-friendly-policies-backfire.html?_r=0
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-problem-with-netflixs-unlimited-parental-leave
http://www.forbes.com/sites/carrielukas/2015/04/20/childless-womens-perspective-missing-from-work-family-balance-debate/
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)or adopting or fostering a child?
many children need the care and if the law is passed, you can fairly get this leave by taking responsibility for a child.
the law is completely fair because you can make yourself eligible.
now why are you unwilling to commit to do so to get the leave should this proposal become law?
meet the requirements, get the leave. why wouldn't you be willing to do this?
you won't say.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)to anybody. But it seems that many who do CHOOSE to have a child feel that they are entitled to benefits that others who have chosen differently or who by no choice of their own have a different life circumstance are not entitled to. I really would've thought Democrats would've been more evenhanded on this issue and would be advocating for everyone to get paid leave to pursue childcare or other worthwhile endeavors.
kinda disappointed for a discussion board that seems to value fairness and equity.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)...if you're not going to have, adopt or foster a child.
I'm telling you how to fairly get the leave that you want to be included in (if/when it becomes law).
But you don't want to do those things and you want "parental" leave without being a parent.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)don't call it parental leave, just call it leave. For the parents it will be parental leave, for others it will be a leave for some other reason that honestly employer doesn't even need to worry about.
you were the one that pressed me about why wouldn't have a kid or adopt to get the benefit that's the only reason I address the question.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)say 4-6 weeks as European countries do.
*and* parents got an additional amount of time for care of a child when born or adopted.
then you would not object?
good compromise? can we agree on this?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)would be fair and should be negotiated as part of her benefits package. if there's a medical issue than that needs to be treated as a medical issue and is a separate matter.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)do you think maybe that child needs her or the father at home for a period of time after being born?
you just told me in another post that you support paternal, family and medical leave.
and here you're saying, she should get parental leave if she can negotiate for it.
the CATO institute agrees with you on the negotiation part.
there is NOTHING progressive about what you're posting.
I do not even believe your support of Bernie is genuine, to many "tells" that reveal libertarian economic beliefs.
this is not about expanding leave to other categories, this is about undermining government required leave across the board.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)there are many things in life worthy of human investment. i think they should be invested in. all choices, including the choice to become or not to become parents, should be respected.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and government required family and medical leave?
yes or no.
after that crack about the "mom should negotiate some time off as part of her benefits package", i think i'm reading something from the Heritage Foundation.
so here's your chance to dispell that.
government required leaves or not?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)you mean that individuals are entitled by law to sick, vac and family time,
well duuuhhhhhh!!what do you think this post has been about all this time? as for the negotiation, different parents probably want different time off. if they want more than the standard (whatever it is), why not negotiate for more? and if mom only wants the standard package, and a childless person needs time for a personal issue, that should be included as well.
i am not sure we even disagree
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I think most would agree that men who have a newborn should have some time off to help his family.
Iggo
(47,549 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Yeah, yeah, I know boo hiss.
But it's the truth.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but as you can see even without going there, I've been accused of everything from being a bad citizen to being selfish of children whose parents stay home with them. But you bring up a good point. A lot of places don't hire temps to pick up the slack, so that work it's heaped on the people who are left.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and still get everything done without much disruption.
In the USA, it means long nights and weekends for those who have to pick up the slack.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I think it really depends on the job situation, doesnt it?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)my wife gets it much worse--she works as a lawyer for an NGO supporting poor people--you can imagine what that staffing situation is like.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)(And the FMLA has been the law of the land since 1993 or so, right?)
Youve got a pool of lawyers and law professionals, and if one takes off for kid leave, everyone else has to crank it up to 11?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and we almost never leave the office
and there's that billable hour thing.
For her employer, each attorney has several dozen individual clients, with court appearances throughout the city, each department around 5-8 lawyers,
So there's not only the time spent doing the work, but getting up to speed on a case, . . .
it sucks for her a lot more than it does for me,
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Just because the payback is not immediate does not mean there is no payback.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and those kids, once grown, will benefit from their participation in it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And you didn't even have to pay the ~$250k it costs to raise a child from conception to 18.
Paid for by their generation's kids and grandkids.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)There's some pre-payment for Social Security, but on average recipients get out more than they paid in.
The programs rely on a lot of younger people paying for benefits for older people. No younger people, no benefits.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and Medicare for my entire working life to support my parents' generation.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Why is it about only balancing your account?
You also save about $500,000 by not raising the average two children from birth to 18. That not enough of a bonus?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that's the way the system is designed, as you noted (though query whether this makes those programs welfare programs instead of savings/retirement programs).
The bonus would be appropriate if people who did more work got paid more. Having kids is a choice, doing the work at the office is not.
The extra $500,000--a reward for not contributing to climate change.
People who don't have kids are never a very popular demographic.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Well...there's not much savings...
And those kids presumably have some obligation to help their parents in their old age. But in addition, they are helping you. And this apparently makes you put-upon.
Not actually clear that you are contributing less. Childless people do more of things like flying off on vacations, which burns more carbon than staying home cleaning up various bodily fluids.
Well, we have examples like me getting covered in vomit repeatedly this week (the 2 year old's sick) while my coworker is on vacation in the Caribbean for the 3rd time this year.
Not to difficult to measure that and figure out who's got the easier time. Yay biological drive to procreate!
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)Skittles
(153,150 posts)we are always having to cover for them
MineralMan
(146,287 posts)Children need extra care sometimes. Parental leave is for parents, so they can provide that extra care when needed. Child-free people have no such demands on them, so there's no need for any equivalent.
It's not a matter of equality. It's a matter of needs. Now, a company could create a personal leave policy, I suppose, to balance things and make parental leave a part of that, but I don't think that is an essential thing.
Or, it could be called "family leave," so any employee could take leave to assist parents or siblings who had a problem that needed personal care by an employee, but the equation still wouldn't balance out.
Kids have all sorts of issues that are unique to their age. They get sick. They have issues that need to be dealt with by parents, rather than some stranger.
So, if I'm working for a company and my co-worker has kids who need extra care, my co-worker has my blessing to go take care of things. I'll pick up the slack, if necessary. No equal leave is required on my part. I don't have kids, so I won't have to deal with those problems. That's good enough for me, frankly.
Somethingtosay
(10 posts)I'm sticking to equal pay for equal work, more pay for more work.
MineralMan
(146,287 posts)I think it goes this way: "From each, according to abilities; To each, according to needs." That's both biblical and a core value of communism. It applies in all sane societies. Children and the elderly, along with the disabled, are supported by the entire society. We were all once children, will some day be aged, and may be disabled at any time.
This is the principle of all societies I call civilized.
Somethingtosay
(10 posts)I can't agree with that, but I'm also not a communist. I believe in a safety net, but not being paid based on what the state feels I'm worth, rather than equal compensation.
I do respect your opinion, though
MineralMan
(146,287 posts)in General Discussion. You might find the expanded version of interest:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027279896
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Kaleva
(36,294 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Because your drawing on any of that depends on the tax payments from those in the workforce. Workers now are paying for retirees drawing now, the generation behind you will pay your way.
And you get those workers into the workforce paying your way without having to lift a finger for the 18-21 years it takes to raise them and get them into the workforce.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)KitSileya
(4,035 posts)After all, they don't have the ordeal of having a new child in the house. Just make sure that parental leave is not all the mother's, and that if the parent is a single parent, they can assign someone else to take the second parent leave if they have someone who will help with baby (grandparent, family friend etc.)
Make sure that everyone gets proper sick leave - days you can use at your own discretion, and doctor-mandated sick leave that doesn't count towards the former.
Make sure that everyone gets the right to family leave, a certain number of days every year, to be used by people with elderly parents, and other sick family members to whom they have a responsibility.
That is what we have in Norway. As a childfree adult without a partner, I was very glad a friend could get the day off to accompany me to out-patient surgery where I had to have someone watch over me the first night in the hospital hotel. My parents would have had to fly in from a different part of the country, or I would have had to be admitted, so it saved money to let my friend have the day off.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)Or take care of friends with no children or family. The second occurs to me since my sister has spent a lot of time over the last twenty years helping friends of hers that had medical problems or were aging and that had no family (or no family that could or would spend the time). She's supervised care at nursing homes and in hospice. She's worked at their jobs so they could have time for treatment once they used up all their sick and vacation time. She's made sure they got sufficient nursing care, food and clothing once they were home. She's helped arrange their funerals, sorted and disposed of their possessions when there were no family members willing to do it.
Some of this she's done since she retired but she also did it long before that, sometimes using her own vacation time to help her friends.
This isn't all she does with her life - she has her own active hobbies that have earned her national recognition in scientific fields and she volunteers with various groups, putting in lots of hours for their events. But if she were not helping other people, she'd have double the time available for doing the things she'd rather spend time on.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)So, parents, enjoy your family leave; I'll be at the office getting ready to retire early.
Blasphemer
(3,261 posts)As long as the concept of family is generously applied. "Family" leave should include close friends, pets, and the individual themself and not be limited to blood relations. As a childless person, I've needed personal time due to grief and mental health issues, which I believe comprehensive paid workers' leave should include. That said, I wouldn't have a problem if the initial law was limited to children and blood relations. I know it will be a journey to get us to where the rest of the industrialized world is, and I do believe in giving special attention to the next generation. Especially as I have seen my relatives who have children struggle and be forced to make almost impossible decisions while trying to do what's best for those children. I also do not believe there is such a thing as absolute equity. Nor that their needs to be. If someone I worked with had a child, special needs relative, mental health crises, deaths of loved ones while I had none of the above, I would be perfectly fine if that individual received the time to care for themselves and their family that they needed. I would need no comparable compensation because I would have no need for it. I would hope we can care for those in most need without feeling owed by the system in some way.
dembotoz
(16,799 posts)paycheck?
fewer doc bills?
lower food costs??
fewer worries that your child is ok?
concerns about your kid wanting to marry WHO?
list goes on and on
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)Isn't that enough?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)A week off to care for my cat while he deals with a nasty hairball problem"
I want to know if whiskers is going to be paying into my social security fund.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)not be paying into Social Security. But he also won't be contributing to global warming and using resources at the rate of a person living in a first world nation. But I decided not to even open that can of worms. Until now
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)with your OP.
Of course you didn't.
And it's not even February.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but i not the one who brought up whiskers to begin with
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)and arguments on other WW2 bombings, where people jump in to say "US=bad guys"
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but I thought that was apropos for circumcision.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)that seems a fair deal to me.
also depending on how it's worded, you could take time to take care of sick and dying parents/spouse/brothers etc.
although people comparing kids to pets in this thread are exemplifying the stereotype that childfree people are inherently selfcentered
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Seems only fair. I mean, why should i be discriminated against just because i dont need my chest cracked open?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Xyzse
(8,217 posts)Isn't that enough?
Vinca
(50,267 posts)" . . . or take care of a sick family member." That could be grandma, a spouse, a parent or a child. It would be nice to have that option (and I'm childless by choice).
Pisces
(5,599 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i tend to agree.
Pisces
(5,599 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)pediatricmedic
(397 posts)The parents don't get any extra sleep, relaxation, or rest from this benefit. This benefit is for the welfare of the child and not the parent.
Wanting benefits for non parents is very selfish. If you want to be equivalent, then non parents should be forced to go work in a nursing home or daycare for 6 hours after a normal days work.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)with a paid benefit of time is contribute to their community. Lots of childless people I know spend tons of time doing volunteer work.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)extra vacation time. If someone who doesn't have a child has a sick parent or grandparent or uncle or niece they need to take care of then they should be able to take family leave but I do not support just turning it into vacation time. We do need more paid vacation. Just like family leave we are behind the rest of the world in paid vacation time as well, but they are two separate issues. Family leave should only be used for taking care of family in my opinion.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but then we get into the sticky situation of what defines a family. Is it just mother father children? Siblings grandparents? People who are "like family" but are not biologically related? Pets? Someone in the community who needs help but isn't related to us? the teacher who was "like a mother to us" Who is dying of cancer and has no one to help her? I think it forces us into a situation where we have to justify to our employer what relationships are important to us, and leaves them with the option of deciding which should be important to us. I think a less defined leave policy would allow people to take time off and not allowing the employer to determine what family relationships are most meaningful to us.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)and got demoted for it. I think that person should have been able to take off work without being penalized for it.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)of course, i guess it helps to remember that the heads of corporations are usually heartless bastards that are only thinking of profit. Another reason to hate capitalism imo.
Skittles
(153,150 posts)I feel like I have no time and all I have is a cat - how people with kids do anything, heck, more power to them
also, any investment in children benefits us all in the long run, yes?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)I am not advocating against this benefit. I'm suggesting that people have other relationships, beings, and investments, that are worth spending time doing, and perhaps they should be getting paid leave as well.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)It's about the overall benefit to society. As cliche as it sounds, children are our future. We all should want them to be well parented and well educated for the future of our society. I say that as someone with no children.
Why do you feel you need to be compensated for a benefit you don't need? Do you feel the need to be compensated for disability payments if you aren't disabled?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)most parents I know are parents by choice. And there's a lot of work that needs to be done in this country that could be done if people had more time to invest and volunteer. A childless person with some paid time off might go to the rain forest.Or start a soup kitchen, or spend time with somebody dying in hospice who has no one.
those things are all important, just as taking care of a small child is important.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)and many employers include it with sick and or family leave. But we live in a country where workers are not even guaranteed sick leave if their employers don't wish to pay it. It was not too long ago that women could be fired for becoming pregnant and taking time off to give birth. I don't object to a mandate for family leave, but I think guarantees for sick leave and parental leave should come first. I also don't think such family leave should be denied to people with children, as a quid pro quo for the childless, but dependent on need.
No individual needs to have a child, but without many doing so the human race would be extinct. I see these reforms as about the collective social good, not a series of individual benefits. Your idea that you should "get" a gym membership or some similar perk in exchange for reforms for a more just society is IMO an unfortunate way to look at it.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)to assist other family members or some community project as opposed to a gym membership or a vacation. I realize there is a long way to go before anything like this would even be possible. But I don't think that it hurts to go to the edge of thought sometimes on these issues. even though most corporate masters would choke on their words to offer any kind of community beneficial leave.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)since you won't be using parental benefits? it could be part of the compensation package.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...wondering how other non-parent people thought about it.
I'll think of it as the school-tax-thing. Happy to do my part.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and lots of ways to invest in society even if we don't have family. I was hoping maybe this will be a conversation about that, and how a leave could be used in other Noble ways besides rearing children.
speaking for myself only, I don't have an issue with paying local taxes that support the school system. I went to public school and I'm happy to pay back into it.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)..the compensation on a national scale, then mathematically, give a childless person (couple) a remuneration package.
They could give that to a charity or perhaps decline it for days off. As far as what to give society, that's a choice for people on a daily basis. I give a lot to society...just don't say much about it on this forum.
Personally, I feel the parents who have children are already in trouble. They need all the help they can get.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and most of the people I know that don't have kids do give a lot to society and the community. And I agree the parents do need help and I think they should get it. and I certainly wouldn't want parents to come back to work sleep deprived because that could be dangerous depending on their job.
REP
(21,691 posts)I'm Childfree. I used FMLA when I was too sick to work - kidney infections, flu, other illnesses that didn't include me being pregnant.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)It applies to EVERYONE. There's no real conflict here - giving birth/taking care of a newborn aren't really relaxing, stress-free activities anymore than caring for a seriously ill loved one* or yourself.
*though FMLA also applies if you need to drive a spouse/SO/family member to a procedure/outpatient surgery that requires anesthesia/sedation or they otherwise are unable to drive themselves
Ilsa
(61,694 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)Whether they're in a terminal decline or have an acute illness, parents qualify as "family members."
Bucky
(53,998 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)Demonaut
(8,914 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Strongly.
He supports sick leave, not the hybrid bucket thing you propose.
I keep asking you about Bernie but you won't answer.
I am beginning to suspect that even though I'm a Hillary supporter, that I'm a stronger Bernie supporter than you are, because I support his positions.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)who both support family leave. but since you asked, i support bernie for a number of reasons, but there are four that top the list
money is the most corrupting influence now in the political process imo as resulting from citizens united and seriously threatens our democracy. bernies position on this is well known.
another huge threat to our country is the transfer of wealth upwards. bernies position on this is clear too.
not getting into wars of choice but working with the world community to solve problems. again, bernie is not a hawk.
climate change... nuff said.
and for the bazillionth time, I SUPPORT FAMILY, MEDICAL, AND PARENTAL LEAVE. I do not believe i am an ogre for suggesting that some type of equivalent leave or benefit for nonparents is a nice idea.
and if you are that much of a bernie supporter, why not make it official and support him in the primary?
REP
(21,691 posts)FMLA applies to EVERYONE. If a single or married Childfree person gets sick, that person can take FMLA time. Same is true to take care of a spouse, domestic partner, or family member.
It isn't a super fun vacation parents get - most of the time, a woman is giving birth, which isn't exactly painfree or easy and requires some recovery time. Both parents are home with a shrieking bundle of need that must be fed every two hours and vomits, craps and pees constantly. And cries. And smells like spoiled milk. Somewhere in their house is a bucket of used diapers. None of that sounds the least bit like fun or relaxation.
Pool Hall Ace
(5,849 posts)The rest of this thread has been useful for filling up a couple of Bingo cards!
REP
(21,691 posts)The FMLA is one of the best things that ever happened to American workers - with or without children, married, single or living with an SO. I'm always surprised that people don't know it applies to them, when they get sick, or when a family member does and needs care (or even a ride to a procedure that requires sedation).
You know I'm about as militantly Childfree as it's possible to be - I've been sterilized twice, for fucks sake - and that is perhaps why I have no delusions that maternal/paternal leave after the birth of a child is some sort of luxurious vacation. No matter how happy someone is about the birth of a child, and even if there is no PPD, no tearing from birth to recover from, etc - taking care of a newborn is exhausting. Additionally, even though I find infants uninteresting, they're still helpless human beings and need round-the-clock care, and their parents are the best people (usually) to provide them that care.
I see posts like this as yet another worthless attempt to pit worker v worker and women v women. That's just playing into the hands of the real enemies, which are unreasonable working conditions and employers. Why do we just accept that workers - all workers - get so little time off? That we're being worked longer and harder for less money and fewer benefits? That's worth getting pissed off about, not that a post-partum woman gets to take some time to recover and care for her infant.
mainer
(12,022 posts)Or EMT or fireman or police officer? Without those kids, whom SOMEONE ELSE is working hard to raise, you would have no services in your old age.
Plus those kids will pay for your Social Security.
So just feel lucky you're getting the future benefits from those kids -- without having to put in the time to raise them.
ileus
(15,396 posts)bassboats, BMWs, iphones....ect
get the red out
(13,462 posts)Many childfree people can't afford any of that. Stereotypes about any group of people create misinformation and prejudice.
I am not saying that I oppose parental leave but am very tired of assumptions about the childfree.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)stress and strife between employees and employers, as well as between employees themselves.
Ilsa
(61,694 posts)It would qualify under FMLA. Not everyone is an orphan, with zero family.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)"That's not fair" is what one sibling says about another who gets a different privilege, gift, responsibility.
Is it "not fair" that I have to pay taxes for things I don't believe in?
FLMA is "fair" in that it applies to all eligible employees. I worked for myself and am not covered, so should I yell that FLMA isn't "fair"?
http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/
Twelve workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for:
the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child within one year of birth;
the placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care and to care for the newly placed child within one year of placement;
to care for the employees spouse, child, or parent who has a serious health condition;
a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job;
any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employees spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a covered military member on covered active duty; or
Twenty-six workweeks of leave during a single 12-month period to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness if the eligible employee is the servicemembers spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin (military caregiver leave).
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i think you should get some kind of write off or something if you need to take time off if your business suffers because of your absence.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)breaks in the tax code.
Singles aren't really organized to defend themselves and make demands.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)to keep the tax issue out of it, never mind the extra uncompensated work and hours some people have to work to cover for missing parents.
i really thought a more inclusive type benefit would be well received by this group. oooops.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)cain't get no respect!
With population being sufficient you'd think they'd be handing singles medals! Instead it's just guilt trips all around and the assumption that singles are just out there having fun and aren't really the contributors to society that families are... ah well.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)More money for themselves rather than spending most income on the kid?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)dilby
(2,273 posts)Parents getting extra time with their children is not a vacation.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but it also is not the only important issue that people have in their lives, esp those with no kids
dilby
(2,273 posts)There is already something to cover it, vacation, sick, fmla. The same stuff parents with kids have access too.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)about the feelings of some childless/childfree people about different benefits in the workplace, including paid leave.
it is very unfortunately titled, but the article itself is well written imo and explains a bit of what i was trying to get at in the section about paid leave
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2010/11/12/Parental-Guidance-Why-Your-Co-Workers-May-Hate-You
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)or *gasp* use the resources society gives them to help make their child's lives better.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)its an unfair system is all
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)As evidenced by this post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7279005
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)sheesh, seems i have heard that somewhere before....
oh yes on practically every political discussion here!
xmas74
(29,674 posts)Spouse needs surgery-take off to care for him/her.
Mom has cancer-take off to care for her.
Dad broke his hip-take off to care for him.
Brother in a nasty car accident-take off to care for him.
From what I understand the paid maternity would apply to not just maternity but to sick immediate family. The most common for that length of time would be maternity leave but it could encompass other things, such as what I listed above. People without children would benefit from that time in other ways, even if they don't see it at the time.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)for the kinds of situations you describe would he helpful. in fact, i know someone who is using vac time to help a sick family member, but it might not be enough. something like this would help her out a lot.
xmas74
(29,674 posts)is actually family leave. Family leave will benefit the childless. It can be used with other immediate family members.
Honestly, if someone who is childless DOESN'T need to take family leave, they shouldn't complain. They should be thankful that nothing happened that family leave was needed. Most instances outside of childbirth for leave aren't for happy situations and unfortunately you might not know ahead of time when you need to use it.
Family leave is beneficial to all, whether they ever plan on using it (such as childbirth) or not.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i am talking about dedicated paid maternity leave, the equivalent of which is not offered as part of the compensation of nonparents. i don't know how common it is compared to family leave.
xmas74
(29,674 posts)It's uncommon enough to not worry about it. Family leave, which will benefit nearly everyone, is oftentimes referred to as maternity leave, because it's the most common use of the leave.
I've never worked at a place that offered exclusive maternity leave. It was always part of a family leave package.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)yet 75% of your posts are from the past 90 days and it appears 90% of your posts are from this year.
with all that's gone on in the 11 years you've been here, something must really be motivating you to finally post this year, post a lot.
you should tell us about that, help let people get to know someone who's been here a very long time, better.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)it feels like the country is at a crossroads and at serious risk of losing our democracy for good. and this year, we have the koch brother and others taking advantage of the cu ruling like never before. money grubbing is at an all time high in politics, and as much as i loathe trump, i despise even more the concerted effort by owned pols to drum him out of this primary. i hated the iraq war and am afraid we are going to end up in more wars where we imo do not belong.
it feels not like an election between the dems and repubs, but between the oligarchs and the people, between corporate rule and the freedom of the people to actually elect their own leaders. people often say "THIS election is the most important one" and after all the elections i have lived through, it kinda feels that way this time.
is that what you had in mind?
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)DU rules say address the issue not the poster. We certainly have people who lurk most of the time. You may not agree with what the OP is saying, but your insinuation is nasty.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I say that as a child-free person. We get the world...being a DINK is where it's at.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Dorian Gray
(13,493 posts)as much as they like.
And they get to go grey much much later.
JHB
(37,158 posts)kcr
(15,315 posts)But the fact is everyone was a child once, cared for by someone. It's a shame there's no way to to make such changes retroactive because time doesn't work that way. It's also true that it isn't just for childcare. It can also be used to care for any family member who needs it. So, just because you don't have children, don't think you may never need it down the road. But if childless/childfree people insist on having equivalent time just for whatever, it will kill it, and then we'll never have this progress.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)of including non kid family members because many people will have to do that at some point.
kcr
(15,315 posts)The FMLA isn't only for children, for example.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Deadshot
(384 posts)I should be allowed to get time off to tend to family, SO, or myself without having to blow through what precious little vacation time I have or the meager sick time I have.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)We are always expected to pay more, and get paid less - because of the children.
Talk about equal pay. My employer kicks in $737.76 for a single person, pays $1,027.25 a month for a couple, and $1,135.80 a month for a family. That looks to me like an extra $398 a month in pay.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)whether it is actual pay or insurance benefits, there is a definite differnce in compensation. some places, far too few, are trying to even things out.
jmowreader
(50,555 posts)I can see all the good this will do.
I can also remember all the times I wouldn't mind working weekends and holidays because I didn't have kids, of being passed over for promotion because "Joe has kids and needs the money more than you do (then having to do Joe's managerial duties because Joe knew how to delegate but not to do), of being asked to design company parties with lots of activities for families but none for singles...
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)its as if singles/dinks don't have lives outside of work, certainly not anything "really important." employers are starting to realize the family friendly workplace is very single/dink unfriendly. telecommuting, for example, needs to be offered based on whether or not it fits the position and maybe based on seniority, not based on who has kids at home. But families with kids have formed a very powerful lobbying group, and they have successfully gotten employers to implement a lot of changes favorable to them. Nothing wrong with having a work life balance and that's healthy, but it has to be a worklife balance that everyone can participate in.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)Which flies in the face of all the political hand-wringing about unwed mothers and population problems.
Why not reward people for opting to end their own family lines? Their sacrifice is benefiting the greater community.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)librechik
(30,674 posts)believe me, you are getting the better deal.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)*most* of the time when a child turns out to be a productive adult, their parents have invested quite a bit of money into that child. The parents shoulder the majority of the financial burden, but the benefits are also to society. Consider parental leave as a bit of an investment by society as well for the future benefits.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)"I don't have kids so why am I paying school taxes?" talking point, and I say that as someone who is childfree...
B Calm
(28,762 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Fairness doesn't require that everybody receive every conceivable benefit anyone else might need, or directly gain from everything we do as a society.
We all benefit when people's needs are met. We suffer as a society when people resent or resist efforts to provide necessary help on the basis they, personally, don't think they need that kind of help at the moment.
One of the worst examples we've seen of that thinking lately is when men rage that women's health needs cost more and thus that's "unfair" that everyone contribute equally to the costs of health care. Followed to its conclusion, it's basically a complaint that women exist, and a suggestion that maybe we shouldn't encourage that?
That's not how civilization (or fairness) works. We don't each receive an identical, direct benefit from everything we do to to make things work. You may not have kids in school, but you want the kids around you educated so you can live in a better world. You may live in a fireproof house, but you still want someone to help the neighbors if their place bursts into flames. The young don't need much healthcare, but expect it to be there when they're older.
Conservatives screw up their rationale in this way all the time. They don't use public transportation, so no one should have it. They're not afraid of crime because they live behind gates, so why fund the police? Their kids go to private school, so public schools can rot.
We have to take a longer, broader of view of the kind of world we need to live in. Asking "But what do I get?" about everything misses the point.
You get to live in a civilization where we see to our needs as a whole, and cooperate to that end.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but there is a difference between paying local taxes thst support schools and libraries and watching a coworker, perhaps more than once, take several weeks leave to be with a kid, while perhaps that coworker is picking up the work slack and not getting chunks of time to nurture a relationship or endeavor that is important to him or her. the worklife balance is for everyone not just people who decide to have kids. everyone benefits when workers of all life circumstances are not overly stressed and feel valued in the workplace.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)There are a whole host of benefits that married folks or folks with kids get that us single folks don't. It's all part of the social engineering that tries to push people into 'fruitful marriages'.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)that benefit parents/dinks. since more people are single and/or childless than ever before in this country, it would behoove employers and the govt to provide more incentives and benefits to those people, since so many of them are in the workforce.
neglecting the work life balance for everyone but parents is a risky option for businesses imo. will lead to more stress, more sick time, and more turnover, all of which probably cost more than just giving people more time off.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Or, people that aren't sick instead of "Sick Leave"?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)nearly everyone is affected by them. having children is a life choice. certinaly for a time, post pregnancy is a medical issue as well, but to have weeks and weeks of time home with the kids should be balanced with some kind of equivalent benefit for those who do not choose to have kids but have other relationships/endeavors that are important to them.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)childless need no such help. This policy just offsets a bit of the difficulty - the childless are still way ahead.
Note that if a family member becomes ill, this policy will help the childless as well.
If you aren't having to cope with a baby, there is no reason to tax other people to help you. But if your spouse gets ill, your parent becomes ill - you may end being profoundly glad for this policy.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)to get him to the doctor or other appointments and even for his funeral when that time came was squeezed out of vacation time or had to be made up if I could arrange that.
It isn't what the time is used for that is the problem but the dictation of the value of our connection to another person that is a problem. My uncle was as close to a father as I had and he had no one else to care for him, that relationship should not have been blown off. I couldn't even get a bereavement day to bury a man who helped raise me and who I cared for when he got up in years and sick, I resent society for blowing off that relationship to be honest.
Same goes for friends in my opinion too and certainly no one should have to get married to care for their mate, if you are legitimately providing care for someone sick then it should be eligible for paid leave.
I've got a life long friend that is still unmarried and unlikely to have children, who is going to be there for him? As far as I'm concerned that man is my brother we have been friends since we were children, would it be vacation to help him through chemo? Apparently so in many people's eyes.
I also after some thought have no opposition to folks using some time to do real and documented community service if they don't have obligations in that vein the help is often desperately needed. Working on a house for Habitat for Humanity or feeding folks at the soup kitchen or tutoring kids has societal value.
Let's call it Family and Community Leave and make it as comprehensive as our real world connections to each other. It seems the right thing to do to me. If the leave is for the benefit of another it seems to me to be in line with with the original concept but with a little bit of a broader view.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Maybe each person could name their own persons?
I think "family" leave laws are usually worded pretty comprehensively.
I think people should be able to take leave for anyone for whom they are "next of kin".
Chemisse
(30,809 posts)They get to NOT have their career derailed by childbearing.
They get to NOT have to leave at a moment's notice when the day care calls.
They get to NOT have to lose time for doctor appointments.
They get to NOT spend a huge fortune on clothes, food, toys, etc.
They get to NOT have to spend hours in the workplace bathroom pumping breast milk.
Warpy
(111,247 posts)Have you ever been the full time caretaker of a dying parent?
Trust me, going to work to collect your paycheck is one hell of a lot easier than either of these 24/7 "paid leave" activities.
Count your blessings and quit complaining that other people are getting time off work that you don't get. You're the one getting the bargain.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)just suggesting that it is an issue of fair compensation and thst nonparents could make productive and worthwhile use of time away from work.
Warpy
(111,247 posts)However, we do need to emulate the rest of the developed world with mandated month long vacations for every worker. One or two weeks don't do much good, at all.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)barely replenishes the outpour of energy, yes europe has the right idea.
i heard someone from europe talking to someone and he said that when you meet someone new, you rarely ask "what they do for a living." it might come up eventually but they focus the conversation on other aspects of life and don't define themselves by their career or occupation.
refreshing.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)It improves the lives of children and their families.
Sometimes rhinos are not a out the individual. Sometimes, they are about building a better society.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and i am happy that my taxes support good schools, roads, and libraries
elleng
(130,865 posts)Governor OMalley supports providing up to five years of caregiver credits that would increase the 35-year wage base for those who spend an extended period of time providing full-time care for children, elderly parents, or other dependents. In practice, current methods of calculating benefits penalize workers, most often women, who take extended time off to care for their families.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i hope with only three candidates now we get to hear more about it in the next debate.
elleng
(130,865 posts)and I sure hope we get to hear about it and people LISTEN!
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)if i said i didn't have occasional thoughts of support for martin. if i were to ever stray politically, it would be him. but i have been for bernie since before he even ran so its hard to imagine switching. but i want to hear what everyone says right up until voting day....ok well i don't want to necessarily hear the same amount of verbiage from everyone, but i will just leave it at that.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)My snark response. ..what do childless people get? A good night sleep.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and the parents i know bust ass every day. i am glad some of them can have this benefit. i wish we as a society could restructure our priorities and put lives over profits. maybe someday.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)or a day at the gym?
I remember the day I brought my child home from the hospital after being born. About 5 o'clock in the afternoon, I recall saying to myself- "I'm ready for his real parents to come and get him now." Only problem, I was his real parent.
And spending your time in a hospital or nursing home visiting and taking care of your elderly parents isn't exactly like a sunny day on a tropical beach either. If you think it is, I invite you to join me this Sunday when I have to visit my mother who is having herself a nice big pitty party and refusing to engage in her rehab after back surgery last week. It'll be a blast!
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i do think that all of us have relationships and endeavors that are meaningful to us (and sometimes to society, too) and that the greedy oligarchy needs to, by law if necessary, understand that a proper work life balance for everyone benefits everyone, including likely their bottom line if they bothered to do the math.
healing thoughts to your mother.....
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I appreciate it.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)tandot
(6,671 posts)It is part of family leave and mostly unpaid. Once you've used up your sick leave and vacation time, you get unpaid leave ... the only plus is that you don't have to worry about losing your job.
I had to take unpaid leave to take care of my dying mom this August. Just six years ago, I had to take parental leave to take care of my preemie son who was in the NICU for 2 weeks, while I could hardly move because of a slipped disk in my back. I needed back surgery just to be somewhat functional so I can take care of my son.
I'd gladly give you any of those leave days if that would spare me the anguish of going through any of that. Be thankful that you don't need to take that kind of leave. It is not a walk in the park and all fun
Even before I had my son or had to take care of my dying mom, I've NEVER envied anyone for getting that kind of leave.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)hope you and son are better
i actually support a more expansive PAID system for all different types of care and personal matters.
this country has its prorities screwed up imo
best to you and family,
tandot
(6,671 posts)My son is now 6 and is doing better. I still haven't caught up on restoring my sick leave because he gets sick every so often. Also, my husband has a heart condition and I had to spend many nights in the ER. And, with a child who comes home with a cold bug or stomach bug, it is just a matter of time until the whole family gets sick. So, I essentially never accumulate any sick leave because I have to take off so much. I am very fortunate that I have a boss who went through the same thing and is very understanding.
I understand that some people think it is unfair because they don't get all that leave. But, it is unpaid leave for having to deal with all the mental and physical anguish. I truly could do without that
I totally agree that the US sucks when it comes to taking care of its citizens. I was born in Germany and lived there until I was 30. I never had to worry about health insurance or anything. Maybe we paid a little more taxes, but that was just part of the deal. The nation benefits as a whole if people have a better standard of living and are healthier.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i do hope we change our collective (meaning the greedy corporate creeps) priorities about this and be more like germany in that regard.
we can do better than making people work sick or never get vaca or worry about whether to work or take care of a sick kid.
peace
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)of being childless.
Maybe they should be exempt from school taxes too?
How about exempting them from paying into health care costs for others' children? After all other people's kids are not their problem.
Having and raising a child is harder work than any job. I'm fine if instead of parental leave you prefer to support a guaranteed income from public funds for any stay at home parent.
Otherwise the question this post asks is just clueless about how this society thing works. I envy my childless colleagues' easy lives. (I pity them for not knowing the profound joy of parenthood however, their choice of course). If they want parental leave they should need to spend that time teaching poor kids or some other sacrifice. Parental leave is not a damn vacation.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)not from me anyway, although i have heard people grumble (not on du)
interesting idea about the public income. i actually like that and i would like to see more of an americorps model applied to more types of community work, including caring for others who are not family, care of abandonded animals, and environmental work. i do believe that people who want to be good parents should get tools and help to do so. i also think all workers need a healthy work life balance and that monetary value (ie salary) needs to be assigned to work that has not traditionally been afforded it.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)tha the whining childless person who complains about not getting parental leave (as if that's a vacation?!!!!!!!) is actually saying the same thing as the childless person who doesn't think they should pay school taxes.
It's completely selfish. And it ignores that the reason we exist as animals on planet earth is to make babies, again it s expected some people won't, but everyone needs to chip in and help. It takes a village? That means you work a little harder to make up for someone else's parental leave.
Believe me they are working harder than you anyway. Anyone who has not had a new baby and a full time job has no f'ing idea what "hard" even is.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)taxes get diviied up for all kinds of things, some we as individuals utilize, and some we don't. no whining here..it is simple compensation math. a paid leave is a benefit that can be translated into dollars, and when one employee gets it and one doesn't then it becomes differential compensation between parents and nonparents for the same job. i am all for the benefit, but i would like leave options to be expanded to nonparents so they can have a chunk of time to invest in something that is important to them, and perhaps society. it is not selfish to expect and want fair pay for the same work...it is what women have been fighting for for eons.
all people, whether parents or not, have relationships and endeavors that they nuture and are important to them. and many kidless people do a lot of volunteer work and community service. why should they not get a compensation benefit that some get just because they decided to become parents? (and i never once called it a vacation you can check every comment i made in this post)
give everyone leave and let them use it as they see fit. the parents can continue to use it for their needs, and the nons can use it for something else. no one is trying to take away your benefit...why do you care if nonparents also get an equivalent or similar benefit to use for what is important to them?
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)sub.theory
(652 posts)Spare me the martyr routine for a decision you freely made. You chose to have kids. Don't be blaming everyone else and going on about how easy they have it. People without kids have rights too and they should have the exact same rights to take time off for whatever they deem worthy of it - just like you did when you CHOSE to have children.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)If everyone can't benefit from a rule, gift, law etc., then NO ONE should benefit from that rule, gift, law.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i do think that all workers should get a proper work life balance, whether or not they choose to become parents.
sub.theory
(652 posts)You're absolutely right. Paid maternity leave and other perks enjoyed by those with children are indeed sticking it to those without children. The childless have to pick up the slack at work and pay increased taxes without any reciprocity, unlike other parents. I agree with you that something should to be done about it. There needs to equality.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)in the thread, thst would put the benefit either on the government, the company, or some combination. i like the idea of everyone getting personal leave of x weeks. parents can do the parenting, and kidless can do other things, and no one at work has to ask about the details of why/how we need the leave. everyone just gets it.
sub.theory
(652 posts)Everyone would be entitled to a certain amount of fully paid sabbatical leave they may use for any reason including maternity leave. That seems entirely fair to me. Everyone can invest that time in whatever they feel is most valuable.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but they hate sick time, vac time and a living wage, so i guess best not to look to them for the gold standard.
Iris
(15,652 posts)There are tons of benefits to the rest of society when we support families. I don't have children but I strongly believe in paid parental leave.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)completely. i also believe that society does best when all workers get time for a work life balance and personal time to invest in other areas of life. for some that may be parenting. for others, different investments, caring for other relatives, community involvement, etc.
Lyric
(12,675 posts)Nobody says, "What's best for society?" All anyone wants to know is "What's in it for ME?"
That whole thing where JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"? He wasn't bullshitting and he wasn't spouting meaningless drivel. People who have children sacrifice their time, energy and wealth in order to carry on the next generation--to the benefit of ALL. Having children and caring for them is much, much more difficult and complicated than it was for our grandparents. Each decade that goes by places more and more obstacles in the way of having and raising children, and the stakes get higher as well. Is it so much to ask that we honor those who undertake that beautiful duty to society with a few benefits to make the burden easier to bear, without bitterness and resentment and demanding to know "Where's MINE?"
Having and raising children responsibly is an act of love for society that not everyone can or will take part in. It's not just some flippant recreational privilege that people do for fun--only jerks treat having children like it's something that people do solely for selfish pleasure. The fact is that the whole future of the nation depends on the people who have children and raise healthy families. If you choose not to participate yourself, you could at least refrain from resenting the few benefits that parents receive in order to make raising a family a little less difficult.
sub.theory
(652 posts)In a world on the brink of climate catastrophe, with a population far beyond sustainable, and with an entirely uncertain energy future perhaps NOT having children is actually the best thing for our planet. Maybe those who don't have children are giving the greater gift.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)about what's best for society, for children, for the raising of children and are arguing vociferously against the OP's attitude.
i agree with everything else you said, but i feel like your statement about everybody thinking the same way as the OP dismisses the nearly 500 responses to the OP that take him to task.
Lyric
(12,675 posts)Not the people in this thread.
Oh, by the way--remind me on FB, Rhythm found a picture she thinks you'll like
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)emsimon33
(3,128 posts)Not having children is also a decision.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)'Cause when you have no children of your own and your siblings do, parental care falls on you.
Further, believe me, taking care of a newborn, a sick spouse, or dying elderly parents is "no time off."
Finally, as far as parental leave, that the next generation of children has a good start in life benefits us all in the end.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)yes i understand completely about the situation with parental care, living it now.
i would like see MORE endeavors treated as worthy of paid time away from work, a lot of importsnt things need doing and many of them don't turn a profit, so they are not paid a salary. I think that is a shame.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)There are many children in orphanages and foster homes, give them to a childless person who wants parental leave.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but because they want to be parents, not to get leave.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)I said if you want the leave, most of us support a law, that when the law passes, you or any other childless person can have a child, adopt a child or foster a child and can have the leave.
But you keep playing games with this.
I don't think you're sincere at all on the issue of leave based on your posts on this subject and also based on the questions you won't answer.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)we don't disagree on that, whether the child is biological or adopted. What I am suggesting is that there is a differential compensation between parents and nonparents if paid leave is translated into dollars and parents get it while nonparents don't. It is differential compensation for the same job between parents and non parents. So I support a system where everyone gets paid leave and parents can use it for parenting and nonparents can use it for other things. I'm not advocating to take anything away from parents, so why are you so upset about the possibility of non-parents getting personal leave to do something else? It's a question of differential compensation, and offering personal leave does away with that.
you do you realize I am advocating for more benefits, expansion, rather than less, or restriction. Usually advocating for more is not met with such strong emotion, since most people except for Republicans think the benefit should be expanded. I don't get the problem.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)While I have nothing against your argument, you seemed to hit a "third rail" issue from the responses.
As many have pointed out, rightly so, family leave applies to all family including spouses and parents.
I am also childless accept the fact that those who choose to have children need the time off to take care of their child, especially after they are born. I think fathers should be allowed some time off to help after their child is born to bond and help take care of their child.
My hope would be that if people take good care of their children, we have fewer kids growing up with serious issues which leads to them being put in prison. Mental health is something we need to be particularly concerned with in terms of children because left unchecked leaves society with young adults and adults who may be a danger to themselves and others.
As to the issue of volunteering, I would address that separate from this issue. I certainly advocate that all employees should have some time each month to volunteer as that helps make our society better. Mixing the two issues though doesn't make much sense.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)it is one of the reasons a general leave policy could help...no questions asked, no value judgements by employers.
I think our priorities are collectively major screwed up in this country, mostly becsuse of greedy corps. we should pay people who want to spend their time feeding the homeless, taking care of the abandonded animals, and cleaning up the environment. unfortunately, monetary value is usually assigned to a task only if its result is making MORE money. that is messed up imo.
and fwiw, i would be in favor of moving towards a basic income system, but i will deal with that in a different op, perhaps tomorrow.
riversedge
(70,196 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i also think much important work is too, such as feeding homeless or taking care of abandonded animals, and those tasks, like parenting, aren't assigned a salary because they are not moneymakers for any company. i would like thst to change.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)This is an interesting question and childless people shouldn't be ignored.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)KentuckyWoman
(6,679 posts)I have no problem with paid family leave and should cover all caretaking scenarios. Childless people have sick spouses, elderly parents etc that need care as well.
Also, when someone takes parental leave often their work is divided amongst the other employees. At the hourly level overtime pay often, but not always, kicks in. For salaried it most often results in unpaid overtime and bad feelings.
It's fine if they want to move the work temporarily to other people in the business. But pay for the extra work......
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)I have read that some European countries, the companies typically hire temps to cover the missing worker so the other workers don't get overburdened.
TheManInTheMac
(985 posts)From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)they have other family members, parent spouses nieces nephews pets and other community projects or personal projects that they might like to invest their time and energy in. Those other investments are not less worthy just because the people did not decide to have children. I think personal leave for everyone benefits everyone, because society is now filled with workers who are not burned out or discriminated against based on their parental status, and discrimination based on parental status goes both ways, so it protects everyone.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Geez.
Hekate
(90,645 posts)What do able bodied people get out of buildings and sidewalks that built to handicap accessible standards? What do child free people get out of good public schools and affordable colleges?
We are either a community that supports each other -- or we are not.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i also think everyone benefits from a workplace where everyone gets enough leave to invest in whats important to them. another societal good as i see it.
coyote
(1,561 posts)They don't get non-parent leave. However they do get 6 weeks vacation... Perhaps you can work that angle instead of. Parent-leave vs. nonpareil-leave.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)of some significant amount. male and female parents can use it to bond with a new child and kidless can use it for some other endeavor. it might help reduce discrimination if everyone gets the same "personal leave". employers might not be inclined to avoid hiring females of reproductive age concerned that they will be out on leave instead of doing company work. kidless will have time to invest in other relationships and projects. both groups i imagine would be more productive and satisfied, reducing sick days and turnover and saving money for the company.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Living wages, sick time and vacation, fair overtime regulations... lots of adjustments that should be made to the current system that would help ease the burden of doing the right thing in regards to our sisters and bros who decide to have children.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)esp when we have people barely getting any vac time, and if they have to do additional work (without additional compensation) while another is on a leave that they will not get, it can add so much strife. if everyone is getting appropriate leave time and is being paid overtime for the extra work, it would likely stop being an issue at the workplace.
Hekate
(90,645 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)than we get here. i honestly don't want to know what ayn rand says. she probably advocates firing people if they get a flu and can't come to work.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)For one.
Quit with this.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)again, not taking any benefit away from parents. advocating that all workers get leave time to invest in important relationships and endeavors. advocating for MORE, not LESS.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Of people having sick days when you are not sick?
Of having long term disability when you were not in a car accident?
Grow the fuck up.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)just advocating for equal compensation unaffected by parental status for ALL workers.
have a nice evening
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)You don't get a paid year off to dick about.
Sorry.
Grow up.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)do tons of volunteer work
there are many ways of participating in community
there is a lot that needs doing in this country that doesn't get paid because it makes no money. all workers should have leave options to invest in their own way, whether it is by having kids or investing elsewhere. no one here is advocating that parents lose their option, just adding an option for nons to be able to invest their energies, too. it would actually help parents, because employers would not be biased against hiring females of reproductive age, afraid they would be out on leave. if all workers got leave, the employer has no incentive to avoid hiring women, because once the leave is taken, the reason does not matter. win win as i see it.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Ino
(3,366 posts)to make up for the missing coworker.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)ReallyIAmAnOptimist
(357 posts)There's a cost to society when children are not nurtured as they should be by their parents. So paid family leave is an investment in a good and just society, and YOU/we all benefit from that. I'm a 56 year old woman who has never given birth. I have two step-children with my second husband, which we got full custody of six months after we got married (2006). The children were 12-years-old (son) and 14-years old (daughter). How would have my step-children's lives been if I had approached that situation as, "what's in it for me"?
The world will be a better place when we start asking "what I can do for others" more, and worrying about what we're "getting" less.
Hekate
(90,645 posts)....to go around, and they live in fear they will not get all they think is coming to them. Every libertarian I have ever had the misfortune to meet has approached life this way.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)suggesting we add a leave benefit for the kidless so they can invest in people and endeavors meaningful to them. society also benefits when workers are less stressed and rested, and when people have significant time to do work that is traditionally not paid, which they could do during extended leaves.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,174 posts)care of any family member. For example, I continued to work full time while caring for my mother, and didn't quit working until 2 months before she lost her battle with breast cancer. I was incredibly fortunate that my boss continued to pay me, but most people aren't so lucky.
I'm also childless, and I don't mind paying property taxes to school districts because we are all better off with an educated populace.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)this country is waaaaayy behind regarding quality of life and the work life balance for parents and nonparents. corporate greed and unchecked capitalism has a lot to do with that imo. as for taxes, i am happy to pay for good schools, libraries, and roads even though i may not use all of them myself. frankly, i would be much more interested in opting out to pay for america's next war of choice, but that ain't gonna happen.....
Whoa_Nelly
(21,236 posts)Since when has anyone here ever been down on new parents having leave time?
This is something someone would post over on FR...not here...or at least, it used to be that way.
Color me DU Disappointed.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)am not, for the zillionth time, down on parents getting leave. am suggesting that nonparents ALSO get leave to invest in what is important to them.
adding, not subtracting.
Rond Vidar
(64 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)MountainLaurel
(10,271 posts)My office has about 25 people. In the past 2 years, perhaps 3 could have used parental leave. But meanwhile at least 15 have had to take repeated and lengthy leave to deal with ill, elderly parents, spouses, or even other close family members (e.g., my husband's aunt wouldn't fall under the official definition of family under FMLA, but we are the nearest relatives physically and we are very close emotionally).
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)because it covers everything and each of us can decide what is important to us.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)We also get angry glares and harumphs when we ask to enjoy a meal out or a movie in relative peace and quiet. Or to have an office be a place of business instead of a damned day care.
The cult of the child really has us by the short and curlies.
Edit: Seems like this thread needs this.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but your observations about getting the crappy holiday schedules and the like are a too common issue.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)destructive.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)I don't believe there is any inherent reason why the human species has to continue to exist just because it does now. Certainly the level of destruction that humans are causing the planet is a good reason for us to try and let the population self reduce over time imo.
krawhitham
(4,644 posts)How very republican of you
Well you get a better society because the next generation grew up with parents and not a video screen
You also get to work with people that are not always pissed off because they never see their kids, which I would think would make for a better working environment for YOU which is all you really care about (YOU).
But hey, Lets spin this a different way why should someone else be punished because you decided not to have a family
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)no one is suggesting taking away parental leave. i am pointing out that paid, dedicated parental leave is a paid benefit, that if not offered as equivalent to nonparents, causes a differential compensation between parents and nonparents for the same job. that needs to be rectified by offering everyone personal leave to do what is important to them.
and as for working with pissed off people, what about the people who know they are receiving less compensation for the same job,get the "pleasure" of working holidays because people with kids "need" them off, get to cover when coworkers are off because someone has the sniffles or there is "an important recital", i guess the needs and feelings of those people don't matter?
and as for the republican comment, I actually think this is quite democratic. My suggestion means that everybody gets a significant personal leave, no questions asked. People who are parents can use that time for their parenting, and nonparents can use that time for other relationships or endeavors that are important to them. Parent child relationships are not the only important relationships in the world that need tending to, and parenting is not the only worthwhile activity that happens in the world either. People need time to invest in all kinds of things that are important to them and all kinds of relationships. I really don't get why this is a problem for so many people, I'm advocating for MORE paid leave not less.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)I am a non-parent, and my wife and I have chosen to remain child-free. I do not feel entitled to any similar benefit, as it is simply a benefit for those who choose to have children.
I should pay school taxes, even though I will never have a child who goes to school. It is a part of the social contract that I have with my neighbors, city, township, county, state, and country. I have an obligation, as a home-owning individual to do my part for society, even though I choose not to take part in certain aspects of it.
I also feel that my co-workers are entitled to take this time off to bond with their offspring. I also have a similar social contract with them. They are responsible for raising productive members of society, and this I feel will aid in building stronger families, and in turn stronger people. The care and time being afforded to these new parents and their children I feel will benefit society as a whole (of which I am a member). The benefit to society will not be immediate, and I know that we live in a "ME, ME, ME, NOW, NOW, NOW!!" society, but tough cookies if you feel you should get something similar in return because someone else is getting a specific benefit. The benefits of such a program to society as a whole will take time, however it should prove to be a positive venture.
It should not be applied equally to all workers. It should be applied equally to all workers who are having children.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)You're a beautiful person.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)so I have not read much about it. I wouldn't worry to much about this issue, because it will never pass the U.S. House.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)if a parent is given three months of pay leave and a nonparent is not given an equivalent leave, then when the leave is translated into dollars, it means that the parent is differentially compensated based on the parental status, and it means they are paid more than the nonparent. If they are doing the same job and have the same compensation package, then the nonparent should be given a personal leave of the same duration to spend on whatever is important to them. it's a matter of simple fairness in the workplace. I've no problem with parents taking significant time off to be with their children, but people who don't have children also have important relationships and things that they want to tend to. They need time off as well.