It’s time may have come. Trump is getting ahead of the idea. The rats would have jumped on it to show how we hate women. He’s already cut enough government regulations. He can make it a win win.
No.
Coworkers have to double up on their own work and don’t get paid. Too many times, the parent takes the leave time and pay but never returns to work so that entire time of holding the position open was a waste of time for the company. It’s the parents’ responsibility for having the baby, not the company’s.
No.
Is paid family leave a good idea? Sure.
Is a federal mandate requiring a privately owned company to provide paid family leave a good idea? Absolutely not.
Imagine a small company with 20 employees has 3-4 women get pregnant, 2 people have death in the family and one adopts a baby. That’s almost a year and a half of full pay for one employee with zero productivity.
I daresay that many 20 person companies cannot afford that level of largesse.
If they can and choose to offer it as a benefit to encourage good employees, great.
Personally, I’ve never had to consider a family leave. We had our kids, I took a week or so vacation and went back to work. My wife was a stay at home mom.
Companies are required to keep a job open with unpaid family leave and that’s fine, but your employer should not be forced to pay your expenses of having a child.
I thought the enviros said there were too many people in the world? Why would people support facilitating having children? I’m being sarcastic but people continue to invite the government more and more into their lives. Big mistake.
No!
No!
When my wife got pregnant, she simply quit her job. That's pretty much what should happen. The company she worked for would have gladly hired her back later and they actually called her a couple times after the baby was born asking her if she wanted her job back but she decided to stay out of the workforce until our children were all in school.
I may be wrong, but I didn’t take Trump’s comment in the SOTU as an omen.
He may very well have been referencing his desire to make such an option ATTRACTIVE to employers, not a MANDATE.
There is a difference between INCENTIVES and REQUIREMENTS.
I am betting Trump would go for the former—it allows for creative applications and freedom for the entrepreneur.
Every benefit comes with a cost, both to the company and the employees that work there.
Is paid FMA worth every employee losing a week of vacation every year and 3 sick days?
Mostly women will be taking paid FMA, but every employee will pay for it.
No.
This issue is more than just having a need for it or not. Leave, period, is geared toward vacation time that is normally consistent with the outside world. It figures to about two weeks a year to three depending on rank and position. But it’s a two fold problem.
Because of the mission and manpower shortfalls, planning and getting leave can be very difficult depending on what’s going on. I got so much leave during my tenure because I couldn’t take it due to job needs that I was forced to take the minimum at the end of the year or when I could during the next year.
Many jobs in the military are one deep because the people who pay the bill don’t want to spend too much so they can get reelected and anyone getting leave in the chain effects everyone in it to cover. The work continues whether Col. Important is there or not. He/she has a leave problem also. And when Uncle Sugar started forced leave over 90 days in hand prior to the end of the year with justification, it can get sticky. Prior to that you could have more on the books. That’s when two or more disappear and the job continues. Justification is it actually was not available to use it during the year. (Almost impossible to justify) So, you lose it.
I sold leave back once. Once is all you can sell back in your career. I did, however, have the max leave amount on the books for terminal leave when I retired military. So for the last four months of my career there I was pretty much on leave, mine and closing work to retire when I wasn’t on the job the last month. I was authorized a week to go to my selected new home to find one, but I settled in the area so it wasn’t used. So when I walked military, I was zeroed out on the books. For civil service, I was out of leave due to illness when I was retired medically.
So, as you can see, the perks have always been there properly used if they could be used. All the family leave will do is give the military member a guarantee that leave to help the spouse, or have a child, or handle a family emergency is protected and available. This is not a lot different that the outside world. It just takes better care of the member. Lord knows we are gone a lot anyway and have babies born, or deaths happen, or family business go vital when we’re deployed. At least for a major need when we can be there, we will have some protection. We can’t just say okay, you won’t give me the leave, I quit! We go to jail for that. The outside world loses a job. So there are goods and bads to the thought.
rwood
Since most companies give 2 weeks vacation plus sick time, why can’t one just forego time off and save that for maternity leave every 3 years. If one doesn’t like that option save enough money to cover the leave prior to getting pregnant.
Unfortunately family medical leave is not just for pregnancy. I know someone who uses it to transport a parent to dialysis and back even though there are other family to do that and other resources. This person works in state government in a useless job so no actual work is affected.
Paid leave should never be government mandated. Sorry Ivanka.
It is ludicrous for employers to have to pay staff for weeks' worth of unproductive time just because the employee had a baby. If women want to compete against men in the workplace, then they have to play by the same rules.
And no, the answer is NOT to pay "paternity leave." That is simply pandering to the lowest common denominator.
One point in favor- there are some who say that Americans, in particular, *my* kind of Americans (employed, law abiding, tax paying, English speaking) don’t have enough kids.
I kind of like the idea for those who actually contribute and intend to raise solid citizens. As with everything else, it should be only for those who aren’t mooches.
NO!!
Anything that reduces productivity of the employee -- and by extension, the employer -- is going to have a serious down side.
I run my own business, and I only employ contractors and outside vendors for the work I need to get done that I can't do myself.
It's high time we realize that a full-time employee is one of the biggest drags on the efficiency of almost any business operation.
The 10th Amendment is a good idea.
The whole of progressivism is not.
That was Ivanka’s idea. She’s a bleeping liberal and her dad is throwing her a bone so she’ll go back to New York.
Leftists may want to look how things turned out in France Greece Italy.............