My Socialist leaning Sherbro's, help me understand this one?

[MayhemMonkey]

From @Gunny post it sounded like he was talking about a mother staying home for a few years to raise the kid until they started school.

I added a quick edit

 

[MikeMcMann]

BUT IT'S NOT FAIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

these idiots need to put 1/2 a thought into what they want.

Say women magically got raises and promotions while on maternity leave to keep up with their peers who don't miss work. The moment business slows down and it's time for cuts they are the first ones out the door because they are unqualified and overpaid.

its not even just raises and promotions.

This about leveling up (or down) career earnings such that women who do take Mat Leave do not earn less ('child penalty') than those who work consistently through that period.

So in my office example with the gal who has taken 3 full '1 year' leaves in 5 years with us, she would get level up pay to equal the pay of the guy who never took holidays and was working every shift of over time and weekends he could get.

Basically if you converted it to an hourly rate she would need to be paid about 3 times more than him per hour for the hours they each put in for her to gross the same pay.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

I added a quick edit

lol no problem. I mean if you apply for a job and you end up being the best candidate and get the job, more power to you, but we can't be forcing companies to promote women because they took time off from work to raise their kids.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I’m certainly no socialist but I think your friend’s point has some merit. First, I assume we can all agree that attentive, present mothers are vastly important for children’s development and, by extension, society at large. Well my personal observation in business is that many of the most competent and conscious women are the exact type that is most likely to pause their career to attend to children. The problem is that when they try to reenter their career they are not only placed at the bottom of the totem pole, they are placed there as a middle aged individual. Meanwhile many less competent people who may have neglected parental responsibilities have been promoted multiple times. Point being, it’s not only a matter of fairness. It’s also a problem in missassesing talent and ability.

You are conflating very different issues.

If the person who takes pregnancy leaves is INDEED better and more valuable, all things considered, and somehow is paid less and looked past that is just incompetent managers. Incompetent mangers can and will make that mistake with all groups and not just mothers.

Normalizing out incompetent managers, I think your post struggles to find any merit in her post. See my prior post and address how any business could address a situation like that and how that would be fair to the person who chooses to be a workaholic.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

lol no problem. I mean if you apply for a job and you end up being the best candidate and get the job, more power to you, but we can't be forcing companies to promote women because they took time off from work to raise their kids.

nobody is forcing anyone, not even Im for forcing companies to hire mothers who take maternity leave. Im just in favour of them recieving the promotions if they deserve them. Thats all

 

[Gutter Chris]

Why do you use the word 'penalized' there.

If I choose in my first 5 years of my career to take 3 years to go travel and another person decides to be a workaholic in those same 5 years, then I am not penalized by making less. I might even be happier and more balanced in my life despite living longer.

I think simply characterizing this issue as 'women being penalized' is drinking the koolaide and accepting political rhetoric.

To compare a vacation to ensuring the survival of society and raising a child is fucking retarded and its insulting that you would say some dopey shit like that then talk about the koolaid

One is something that you need people to do and is getting harder and harder to do

The other is play time


So how is it not a huge penalty that to even have a child is going to take you out of work for a good chunk of time ? its not their fault they gotta carry it and recover and we arent even talking about raising it here just getting the hatching over with and we dont even have maternity leave laws to allow them to do that

Someone drank the koolaid fella but it wasnt me

Wheres your family values at ?

 

[Headkicktoleg]

nobody is forcing anyone, not even Im for forcing companies to hire mothers who take maternity leave. Im just in favour of them recieving the promotions if they deserve them. Thats all

Yeah anyone who is qualified for a promotion should get it, in fact my mom told me she got a promotion while on maternity leave with me. Just from the OP it seems this lady he was talking to thinks something should be done to make sure people who leave work "keep up" with people who don't.

 

[Gutter Chris]

What do you think when both parents choose to stay at home after having a child instead of going back to work at menial jobs for similar money?

I think PATERNITY leave should be the law of the land and that both parents by law should have paid time off for at least a period

Im as pro family and pro passing pro family laws and tax credits and such as you can get .

The decline in birthrates and demand for third worlders concerns me and i am well aware that stable families create stable societies and we are getting further and further from that imo

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Yeah anyone who is qualified for a promotion should get it, in fact my mom told me she got a promotion while on maternity leave with me. Just from the OP it seems this lady he was talking to thinks something should be done to make sure people who leave work "keep up" with people who don't.

thats why I think proper employment rights and paid maternity/paternity leave is the solution.

its the fairest solution to it imo. But I certainly wouldnt be in favour of forcing companies to promote unsuitable people to high up positions just because theyve had a baby lol

 

[MikeMcMann]

To compare a vacation to ensuring the survival of society and raising a child is fucking retarded and its insulting that you would say some dopey shit like that then talk about the koolaid

One is something that you need people to do and is getting harder and harder to do

The other is play time


So how is it not a huge penalty that to even have a child is going to take you out of work for a good chunk of time ? its not their fault they gotta carry it and recover and we arent even talking about raising it here just getting the hatching over with and we dont even have maternity leave laws to allow them to do that

Someone drank the koolaid fella but it wasnt me

Wheres your family values at ?

Neither of that matter to the employer.

You own a small business that employees 3 people. In the last 5 years 2 of them have worked every available hour and taken on all over time available and made $X.


the third has taken off a total of 3 years in the same 5 years (whether for pregnancy leave or personal time like vacation) and the reason does not mean sweat fuck all to the business. THEY ARE NOT PAYING THEM ALL THE SAME MONEY.

You are trying to use a logical fallacy to appeal to emotion.

no one denies society needs children. the question is, in my example should the employer be FORCED to pay the one who takes 3 years in 5 off to have children the same money as they are paying the other 2?

no crying about 'need for children' changes that basic question.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

thats why I think proper employment rights and paid maternity/paternity leave is the solution.

its the fairest solution to it imo. But I certainly wouldnt be in favour of forcing companies to promote unsuitable people to high up positions just because theyve had a baby lol

I agree with you, US needs to do better with maternity leave.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

I think PATERNITY leave should be the law of the land and that both parents by law should have paid time off for at least a period

Im as pro family and pro passing pro family laws and tax credits and such as you can get .

The decline in birthrates and demand for third worlders concerns me and i am well aware that stable families create stable societies and we are getting further and further from that imo

you would like the EU

Parental leave
Under the EU legislation in this area, men and women have equal rights of at least 18 weeks' parental leave for each child.

There are also rules protecting them against dismissal if they take parental leave, as well as a right to return to the same, or a similar, job.

https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/eu-laws-maternity-rights-and-parental-leave

 

[Gutter Chris]

Neither of that matter to the employer.

You own a small business that employees 3 people. In the last 5 years 2 of them have worked every available hour and taken on all over time available and made $X.


the third has taken off a total of 3 years in the same 5 years (whether for pregnancy leave or personal time like vacation) and the reason does not mean sweat fuck all to the business. THEY ARE NOT PAYING THEM ALL THE SAME MONEY.

You are trying to use a logical fallacy to appeal to emotion.

no one denies society needs children. the question is, in my example should the employer be FORCED to pay the one who takes 3 years in 5 off to have children the same money as they are paying the other 2?

no crying about 'need for children' changes that basic question.

Yes I think the employer should

Having babies is just part of society and I dont think you can punish women for being the gender that has to deal with being pregnant and if you allow employers to discriminate against women in that way theres a good chance some will

Im not sure if the employer should shoulder the entire burden of the mother being off or if there should be some form of ubi and tax credits which i have mentioned already

 

[MikeMcMann]

To compare a vacation to ensuring the survival of society and raising a child is fucking retarded and its insulting that you would say some dopey shit like that then talk about the koolaid

One is something that you need people to do and is getting harder and harder to do

The other is play time


So how is it not a huge penalty that to even have a child is going to take you out of work for a good chunk of time ? its not their fault they gotta carry it and recover and we arent even talking about raising it here just getting the hatching over with and we dont even have maternity leave laws to allow them to do that

Someone drank the koolaid fella but it wasnt me

Wheres your family values at ?

And again I would ask why you use the word 'penalty'.

is money all that matters? Career? What if we can show that people who tend to have more life balance (family, kids, less work) are typically happier and live longer than hard driving workaholics without balance? If that is true, as many studies show how are they being 'penalized' unless we assume people have a RIGHT to equal pay and equal career trajectories.

it is a false premise and political talking point to use the word 'penalty' there when you could just as easily call it a benefit they are receiving. Again unless you think money is the only reward.

And for the record I admire folks who find balance in family and work and don't prioritize the cash rat race above all else so my family values are fine. I just don't those people are being hard done by when they choose that and make less money as a consequence.

 

[Gutter Chris]

you would like the EU

cept the no free speech no legal guns and no legal marijuana would make me not like it at all

But that doesnt mean a broken clock isnt right twice a day my man

 

[sub_thug]

I think PATERNITY leave should be the law of the land and that both parents by law should have paid time off for at least a period

Im as pro family and pro passing pro family laws and tax credits and such as you can get .

The decline in birthrates and demand for third worlders concerns me and i am well aware that stable families create stable societies and we are getting further and further from that imo

I'm all for paternity leave and maternity leave. I think that like many benefits, this is a way that you can attract and retain good talent. I'm less inclined to pass laws about it because not all businesses are created equal. If you work for a large business, you should expect a certain kind of benefits, including parental leave. If you work for a small employer with <10 employees, then losing one member of your team for a while and still needing to pay them can hurt badly. But some people prefer to work for small businesses versus big businesses for other reasons.

100% on board with pro-family tax credits. It incentivizes stable families to have kids, and yes, we need more of that.

 

[Gutter Chris]

And again I would ask why you use the word 'penalty'.

Because it is a huge penalty to loose your career and all that money because you had a child and have to take all that time off . It isnt fair to the employer either but its biology and there isnt a way around it.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

cept the no free speech no legal guns and no legal marijuana would make me not like it at all

But that doesnt mean a broken clock isnt right twice a day my man

give us time.... give us time lol

you can forget about the guns though

 

[Headkicktoleg]

Because it is a huge penalty to loose your career and all that money because you had a child and have to take all that time off . It isnt fair to the employer either but its biology and there isnt a way around it.

So if Karen and Bob start at the same time then Karen has two kids and is out for a total of a year over 3 years. Over that same 3 years Bob never leaves and gets promoted you think Karen should be promoted as well regardless of if she's qualified?

 

[sub_thug]

Neither of that matter to the employer.

You own a small business that employees 3 people. In the last 5 years 2 of them have worked every available hour and taken on all over time available and made $X.


the third has taken off a total of 3 years in the same 5 years (whether for pregnancy leave or personal time like vacation) and the reason does not mean sweat fuck all to the business. THEY ARE NOT PAYING THEM ALL THE SAME MONEY.

You are trying to use a logical fallacy to appeal to emotion.

no one denies society needs children. the question is, in my example should the employer be FORCED to pay the one who takes 3 years in 5 off to have children the same money as they are paying the other 2?

no crying about 'need for children' changes that basic question.

You really get at the heart of it here.

Society needs children, so the government decides to pass the economic costs associated with children onto the business instead of passing those costs back onto the parents. It certainly seems like odd logic. It's not great that the parents are eating the costs themselves, but really, who should absorb the costs for their kids? It's a hard position to argue out of.