51–60 of 485 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it possibly make the world a better place if fathers were forced to not work?! Forcing someone to stop working would likely piss a lot of people off, and would generally hurt the companies these fathers work for.
The first few weeks can be really difficult for parents, having both of them free of work can be beneficial for the couple and the child.
Meanwhile in Germany people get 14months paid leave. Where neither parent can take more than 12.
Before people think that this policy is all roses, a close friend of mine is the CEO of a multi billion dollar international business. They don’t hire anyone from France because the French government makes it so difficult to fire a bad hire. Maybe you could argue that the French are better off without them, but people love working for them and they have great pay and benefits. I’m sure there are a number of companies…
Somehow companies are getting by just fine paying all of that leave in Europe (in fact, government pitches in too). It's just the kind of world you want: more disparity and lots of poverty in exchange for a lottery ticket to wealth or a solid baseline and fewer economic tophits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is enough time to have another kid. I have 12 so far. If I lived in Sweden, I wouldn't have to work. I could keep it going for decades. It's odd that Swedes aren't taking full advantage of the situation.
Most swedes don't want so many kids.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it possibly make the world a better place if fathers were forced to not work?! Forcing someone to stop working would likely piss a lot of people off, and would generally hurt the companies these fathers work for.
Mandating 40 weeks off strikes me as excessive, but I think there are reasonable arguments for mandating 2 weeks or a month - it's hardly an unprecedented imposition. Forcing people to not work is a common strategy for addressing systemic issues. For example, many bankers are required to take a contiguous 2 week vacation at least once a year as an anti-fraud measure.
The restriction on employers is that the parent on leave must be able to resume their employment after leave unless their position has been removed entirely, and even so that can cause problems for employers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well we can’t do anything about employers You can, indeed, mandate equal practices by employers and enforce that requirement.
The problem is smaller employers, which simply can't afford to shoulder the burden of paid maternity leave for 1 of their 10 employees. You can set up a graduated system like the UK has, where all employers have to pay and can reclaim a variable amount. But one way or another, any benefit the government won't foot the bill for is a benefit many parents won't get.
Meanwhile the Swiss people voted to have two weeks of paternity leave instead of one day. The icing on the cake is that the actual initiative asked for four weeks but the parliament made a counter-proposal of two weeks after which the intiative committee withdrew their proposal of four. 60% of the voters were in favor. Two weeks in one of the highest gdp per capita countries of the world. Two. Measly. Weeks. It was j…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Biology tends to be structurally sexist as well. The only solution is to essentially force fathers to stop working as well during this time. This is equality of outcome.
> The only solution is to essentially force fathers to stop working as well during this time That isn't the only solution, but it's one that could work and would make the world a better place.
It really irked me that here in Canada the options were generally skewed towards mothers remaining home. You can split 40 weeks of parental leave, but many employers won't provide parental benefits and those that do often only provide parental benefits to mothers. For instance, my employer at the time provided wage top-up for women on leave but nothing for men. Just one of _many_ structually sexist policies in societ…
A good start would be outlawing negative scoring of candidates due to gaps.
For every gap there's missed yearly/quaterly reviews, there's missed opportunities for promotion, and there's a stall in your compensation growth overall. When you come back to work you typically come back at the wage you left.
> Studies have shown that paternity leave can set the tone for fathers’ long-term relationships with their children and families. Children whose fathers took at least two weeks of paternity leave reported feeling closer to their dads even nine years later, according to a joint study of sociology professors at Ball State University and Ohio State University, which also found that paternity leave is linked to lower div…
It’s a totally different story with 2 or more children. Your toddler won’t be quite as accommodating to the schedule of a newborn. Having two parents at home makes it much easier to manage a newborn, erratic sleep schedules, and other children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The father should be able to choose when and how he bonds with his children. It isn’t for the state to decide the fathers work schedule that is best for him to raise a child. That’s government overreach. It’s one thing for the government to say you may stop working. It’s another thing entirely for them to force you to do so.
Every worker deserves the same opportunity to spend time with their children. The government wouldn't be forcing any father to do anything. The government would be forcing companies to provide all workers the privilege of time off for parenting. A father who didn't want to bond with his children could use the time off to go fishing, take up woodworking, watch youtube videos, or work on a side-business.
I mean, you can do these things with your kids.