Why Don't American Mothers/Fathers Demand Maternity/Paternity Leave?

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Orionx2
To bad that people that want kids can't work it to were one is home to raise the kid instead of daycare and the school system raising them. Maybe people shouldn't have Kids if they both have to work all the time....

I agree with this sentiment. I don't think the issue is really maternity leave but that so many women feel the need to work. The bigger issue is that so many couples feel that both parents have to work. I've played around with the numbers and if the woman (or man) isn't making more than about $50k per year, there really is no need for them to work when you factor in day care costs, etc. The couple would be better off with the spouse not working.

That's not entirely true.

We thought of that and we ran the numbers. We're close, really close, to my being able to not work, but it just doesn't work out, not even if we drop private schooling and go public which we are unwilling to do for obvious reasons.

We fall just short of meeting out obligations thanks to his student loan burden.

So I need to work to keep us afloat.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Orionx2

My wife is a SAHM...she also homeschools our 12-year-old and is raising our 2.5-year-old without using daycare or babysitters or anything else.

Point being, people can work that out, and often do.

Sure some do but the OP of this thread would not be an issue if most did.

a reply to: Edumakated

You are still harping over this? You haven't noticed that I'm not going to clarify my point there because I've made it obvious that I don't want to talk to you anymore? I already told you you won this 4th grade argument. What more do you want?

Oh I get it! It's been a while since I attended fourth grade so excuse my ignorance here. I forgot that you need to do the traditional celebratory laugh in the loser's face. Do go on and laugh.

I don't know what you've been reading to convince yourself that our EI in Canada is a fair system because they offer mat/pat leave.

Every paycheck they snake a chunk of your pay that goes into a insurance policy that you have to fight for to make a claim for most things.

Mat/pat leave just happens to be one that makes it easier to claim, so essentially you're jumping for joy that the goverment is allowing you to take money out of your savings account that they forced you to pay into.

Meanwhile you'll never see the other tens of thousands you've paid into it to date.

It's blatantly fascist.

They make you pay into an account that you can't access unless you produce spawn or get laid off.

Well, thanks to the few people who were able to give their opinion in a more or less civil and objective manner.

Considering this thread was just asking, "Is paid maternity/paternity leave something you want as Americans?", a few people went a little overboard, as seems to be a theme here.

Note to self, don't try this again.

a reply to: Atsbhct

I don't think arguments becoming heated between a few proponents is a good reason to bough-out.

What do you think is favourable about the Canadian unemployment system?

Last time I checked I've paid them 25,600 and they've paid me zero.

I don't think them giving people their money back because they elected to have children makes it a system that people should demand for in other countries.

a reply to: Atsbhct

I think it's a great idea if your work wants to offer it. As for it being mandated federally, no not so much, unless everyone is paying in. The same should be said for healthcare.

The truth is that big corporations and the government have no need for people to reproduce,there`s nothing in it for them. if the work force drops too low the government and corporations can just import more workers either legally or illegally.
the government and corporations want the same things, so if you stop thinking of the U.S. as a country and think of it as a big corporation you`ll see things more clearly.what`s good for the government is good for corporations and whats good for corporations is good for the government.

a reply to: Atsbhct

Why Don't American Mothers/Fathers Demand Maternity/Paternity Leave?

Based on the responses to your query:

It seems to be because they prefer the taste of crony capitalism.

a reply to: Atsbhct

Plenty of people have it already. It depends on where one works. I'd rather have it that way than have the government demanding it be a certain way, honestly. Such a thing could be cost prohibitive for smaller businesses, and thus any such requirement could drive them out of business, leaving only large corporations. Who wants that, besides the large corporations?

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Orionx2
To bad that people that want kids can't work it to were one is home to raise the kid instead of daycare and the school system raising them. Maybe people shouldn't have Kids if they both have to work all the time....

I agree with this sentiment. I don't think the issue is really maternity leave but that so many women feel the need to work. The bigger issue is that so many couples feel that both parents have to work. I've played around with the numbers and if the woman (or man) isn't making more than about $50k per year, there really is no need for them to work when you factor in day care costs, etc. The couple would be better off with the spouse not working.

Yes!!! This is very true. When I was working, we have ONE child who needed daycare. When we added up the costs for me to work, including the daycare costs, gas for the car, added car insurance cost (since I drove more and lost the infrequent discount), clothing for work, meals away from home, higher taxes, since that pushed us into another bracket; well, we barely cleared $200 a month, during school, and not even that in summer, when the result was actually negative, because of the all-day daycare costs. It simply wasn't worth it. Long hours - twelve a day, from waking and scrambling to get everyone ready and out the door, till I could be home, then home, dinner prep and eating, homework help, and the day was over. Weekends were filled with catching up on laundry and housework. All for what? That was a decent job, full time, and I quit. Add a second kid to the mix, and it's even worse.

Then, you have to account for the stress involved. We had constant issues with the daycare, and it was the better one in the area, and the ONLY one that would cover the hours needed. There was no time to spend with the family, plus the added stress of work, which goes with most any job. With me staying home, we didn't have any financial loss at all, no issues there, and could easily schedule activities to match ONE work schedule, instead of two. Home school, and that gets even easier.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Orionx2

My wife is a SAHM...she also homeschools our 12-year-old and is raising our 2.5-year-old without using daycare or babysitters or anything else.

Point being, people can work that out, and often do.

Good for her! Full time work, too, as I know well, but worth every minute.

a reply to: mastersuper

I can't tell if this is a legitimate post, or the worst attempt at advertising.

originally posted by: TheBulk

It was nice of them, but it shouldn't be required. Why do my personal activities and not working require my employer to pay me for not working? I know you think you're being generous, but it's not your money and forcing people to do what you want them to do with their money is authoritarian.

I thought this was the way it worked too, at first, in France. That is an error.
In this country (and I suspect in some others who have fully pain maternity/paternity leave) it IS your money, and it is not the employer that pays for it.

You pay into social security all the time you are legally employed in your life.
Each paycheck has a run down of how much you have paid into each of the available aides. "Social security", as they use the word, does not refer to retirement only - I mean unemployment, illness, disability, maternity, etc....

You are getting your money back. It does not come through the employer. In fact, the employer does not have to pay your salary at all while you are gone, which makes it possible for them to hire a temp in your place.

a reply to: Atsbhct

In response to the OP-

As an American that moved to a country in which this aid (and much more) was available, I found I had trouble accepting it.

For one, I did not understand how it worked at first.
I was constantly asking, -but what about the poor employers?? How can people just do that to them with no shame?
My tendancy to have more sympathy for those in power than those not become glaringly apparent ( to me and to others around me). As well as my ignorance of how it worked and how in some cases, the employers even profit from these programs.


People thought I was a moron when I would refuse to recieve from these- it was the same as if someone in America had insurance that they paid for monthly, for years, then one day had an accident, in which the insurance was going to cover it... and they refused, saying, no, no... I'll pay out of pocket...
But I could not get it through my head, for a very long time, that this was MY money.

Secondly, it is a matter of pride too.
We are taught from the time we are born that it is most admirable to do things without help. There is shame involved in getting helped. Independance is valued, interdependance is devalued as "herd mentality".

I once had third degree burns which made me unable to walk around, and I was sent a housekeeper and nanny each day to help with my young children and home. She was wonderful, and I had nothing to pay, but it made me so miserable and ashamed I actually literally cried the first few days. I was mortified. I was not only weak and incapable in my mind, but immoral- unethical.

I don't know if other Americans feel these things, but I became aware I had a form of Stockholm Syndrome.
That's how a conspiracy theorist is born....

Double Post
don't know how that happened

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: Atsbhct

Why Don't American Mothers/Fathers Demand Maternity/Paternity Leave?

Based on the responses to your query:

It seems to be because they prefer the taste of crony capitalism.

Or the opposite.

Since Pat/Mat leave in Canada is a mandatory insurance policy that everyone pays into.

Not sure how you could consider that oppositional to crony capitalism.

a reply to: Bluesma

Thanks for sharing this. It definitely gives me an idea for why Americans might not care about parental leave.

Are you more accepting of it now?

a reply to: DeadFoot

Or the opposite.

Since Pat/Mat leave in Canada is a mandatory insurance policy that everyone pays into.

Not sure how you could consider that oppositional to crony capitalism.

Unemployment is a mandatory deduction off of every employee's paycheque in the country. If you're out of a job, you can collect UI until you find work again (or until your UI runs out, whichever comes first). Maternity leave is paid through that same unemployment insurance, in Canada you collect UI when you take pat/mat leave - the employer doesn't pay your wages.

But pat/mat leave is not mandatory either, the choice is up to the parent(s) whether or not they want to take the time off and you also have the choice of when you want to go back to work, you don't have to take the full year of mat/pat leave if you don't want to.

And if you don't work for a living (paying into that unemployment insurance which a portion also goes towards mat/pat leave) you don't get to collect any maternity leave pay... you have to be employed to be able to collect on it.

Nothing is being forced other than the mandatory UI deductions off of an employee's paycheque (even workers in the US have mandatory UI deductions from their paycheques).

Unemployment insurance is a social safety net... it's not crony capitalism at all... employers also have to pay into that mandatory UI pool whether they like it or not.