would you support this paid family leave idea?

[WalterMitty]

would you support a law that would mandate all employers offer up to 12 weeks paid (up to $750 weekly) leave for the birth of a baby, family emergency etc.  the plan would be financed by a mandatory weekly employee premium of $1.50?

[A18]

Hell no. Change your avatar.

[Emsworth]

No. The law would infringe upon the liberty of the worker, as well as that of the employer.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I'd be open to such an idea

[WalterMitty]

Hell no. Change your avatar.

actually, this isnt my idea.  this matter is being debated by the massachusetts state legislature.

i do support it, however.

[A18]

Hell no. Change your avatar.

actually, this isnt my idea.

And?

[Moooooo]

Hmm, Im not sure about the paid part.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Hmm, Im not sure about the paid part.

How is someone who has a family emergency supposed to take advantage of family leave if they cant afford basic expenses during that time?

[ilikeverin]

would you support a law that would mandate all employers offer up to 12 weeks paid (up to $750 weekly) leave for the birth of a baby, family emergency etc.  the plan would be financed by a mandatory weekly employee premium of $1.50?

Admit it, Mitty, you just want to spend more time with your son

Speaking of which... why the lack of pictures?  Are you afraid that your kid couldn't match up to little Louis?

[Frodo]

Most definitely -what could be more pro-family?   

[Hatman 🍁]

I'm all for paternal leave. If it were mandatory it might make employers less likely to not hire women because of them being a hinderance by getting pregnant.

[??????????]

No. The law would infringe upon the liberty of the worker, as well as that of the employer.

^^^^^^^^^

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

I would be willing to consider supporting such an idea IF the businesses could receive a tax credit for providing this service, rather than charge the employee a premium.  This would allow for small (more service related) businesses which employ a large number of working mothers to provide this benefit rather than just those in the white collar sector who's employees can easily afford such to take leave, and who's employer can afford to pay for such a leave.

I am always trepid when I hear proposals to place new burdens on business, but if there were a POSITIVE incentive (such as a 100% tax credit) for ALL of our businesses to be family friendly to their workers, then I see little problem with the proposal. 

If we Republicans want to be pro family and pro business, we ought to consider supporting proposals such as the one I have mentioned (rather than Mitty’s).  I also challenge my fellow pro-lifers, that unless we want more abortions in this country, we should start finding better ways to assist our single (or married) working mothers; this would remove many of the reasons women seek that horrible procedure. 

[??????????]

I would support this if the individual company offered this as an option and the employee had the option to pay in. I do not, however, support the state FORCING companies to do this as that, my friends, is socialism.

[dazzleman]

I don't support making paid leave mandatory.  I think the unpaid leave provided by the Family Leave Act is enough at this point in time.

OTOH, we need to think about how to provide a better work-life balance.  In order to increase our affluence and become more competitive, many Americans have expanded the hours that they work.  Just the fact that many more women with children are working now than a generation ago is a significant expansion of work hours.  In many cases, the advent of communication equipment like cell phones, internet, etc. has blurred the line between work and home, and allowed people to be in touch and on call even when they are supposed to be off work.

I'm not sure that mandating paid leave is really the answer, or really whether anything government can do is the right answer.  But we should be thinking about the issue and the choices that we are making -- we are choosing increased affluence over time with family.  This dovetails with the worship of work that has become increasingly prevalent in our society, both on the left and right (with feminism being an example of work worship on the left).

There is also a conflict brewing in the workplace between those who have children and those who do not.  It seems that many people with children expect that those who don't have children will pick up the slack for them when they have to leave early, take time off, etc.  This is really not an acceptable answer, unless those with children are willing to be paid less.  This effectively is what largely happens, and is the main explanation for the gender gap in wages.

I don't think the answer is socialistic schemes to mandate that some people be paid the same amount for effectively doing less work, but I do think it would be good to broaden people's choices a bit so that they have greater ability, within their personal circumstances, to choose a lighter work schedule.

I don't think we ought to be subsidizing people's personal situations, though.  For example, I don't favor special help to single parents, at the expense of other people, and don't think that we should mandate, effectively, that single parents be paid the same money for less work, because they have a more demanding situation outside work.  That is really not the problem of their employer or fellow employees.

[MasterJedi]

Lower the ammount of weeks by at least half and probably some more and I'd support it.

[Nym90]

I don't support making paid leave mandatory.  I think the unpaid leave provided by the Family Leave Act is enough at this point in time.

OTOH, we need to think about how to provide a better work-life balance.  In order to increase our affluence and become more competitive, many Americans have expanded the hours that they work.  Just the fact that many more women with children are working now than a generation ago is a significant expansion of work hours.  In many cases, the advent of communication equipment like cell phones, internet, etc. has blurred the line between work and home, and allowed people to be in touch and on call even when they are supposed to be off work.

I'm not sure that mandating paid leave is really the answer, or really whether anything government can do is the right answer.  But we should be thinking about the issue and the choices that we are making -- we are choosing increased affluence over time with family.  This dovetails with the worship of work that has become increasingly prevalent in our society, both on the left and right (with feminism being an example of work worship on the left).

There is also a conflict brewing in the workplace between those who have children and those who do not.  It seems that many people with children expect that those who don't have children will pick up the slack for them when they have to leave early, take time off, etc.  This is really not an acceptable answer, unless those with children are willing to be paid less.  This effectively is what largely happens, and is the main explanation for the gender gap in wages.

I don't think the answer is socialistic schemes to mandate that some people be paid the same amount for effectively doing less work, but I do think it would be good to broaden people's choices a bit so that they have greater ability, within their personal circumstances, to choose a lighter work schedule.

I don't think we ought to be subsidizing people's personal situations, though.  For example, I don't favor special help to single parents, at the expense of other people, and don't think that we should mandate, effectively, that single parents be paid the same money for less work, because they have a more demanding situation outside work.  That is really not the problem of their employer or fellow employees.

I agree about restoring the balance between work and family within our lives, and that's why I would support this bill, as I feel it would help to do this. I don't believe that people should be punished for choosing to place family as a higher priority.

The long term solution, however, is to remove the necessity for the primary caretaker of children within the family (usually the woman) to have to work. Better wages, more affordable housing, and better public schools would seem to be the most effective ways to do this.

[A18]

This plan will of course have winners and losers. Why should the losers have to subsidize the family lives of the winners?

[opebo]

I would support this if the individual company offered this as an option and the employee had the option to pay in. I do not, however, support the state FORCING companies to do this as that, my friends, is socialism.

Quite correct, States.  So what? 

urely you realize it is better for your class than the current system.  And I assure you there is nothing more 'free' about the current imposed structure.

[David S]

Hell no. Change your avatar.

Just don't change it to yellow.

[Giant Saguaro]

Most definitely -what could be more pro-family?   

That's a very good point.

And in addition, what Reagan Raider has mentioned has me leaning toward possibly supporting this.

Worth entertaining, give or take a few details.

[Emsworth]

I don't believe that people should be punished for choosing to place family as a higher priority.

Each person is merely being called upon to make a choice: does he or she wish to devote more time to the family, or does he or she wish to continue in the same job? No person is being "punished" for choosing one option or the other.

[dazzleman]

I agree about restoring the balance between work and family within our lives, and that's why I would support this bill, as I feel it would help to do this. I don't believe that people should be punished for choosing to place family as a higher priority.

The long term solution, however, is to remove the necessity for the primary caretaker of children within the family (usually the woman) to have to work. Better wages, more affordable housing, and better public schools would seem to be the most effective ways to do this.

Eric, I don't think it's valid to call the legitimate result of making a choice "punishment."  The fact is, people make these choices on a much broader and more consequential scale every day.  People take jobs that pay significantly less than some other jobs that they could possibly get, or in some cases don't work at all, in order to have more time to spend with their family.  The results of that can't be called 'punishment.'  Taken to its logical extreme, you could be arguing that non-working people should be paid to take care of their families.  I don't believe in this at all.  How you take care of your family is your own private affair, and others should not be called upon to financially underwrite the choices that you make.

As far as the need for 2 wage earners, this has sprung up relatively recently for most families.  The reasons are complex, and have much to do with the fact that taking care of a home was requiring less and less work due to the advent of many machines, and those who previously had that 'job' were getting bored.  Once it became the norm for a high percentage of women to work, the economy adjusted to that, pushing up housing prices and other costs.  It's a cycle in which the practice created the necessity to continue the practice.  This is very common in a free market economy.

How do you propose to bring about more affordable housing, other than a largely increased supply?  And keep in mind that because the majority of people are homeowners with a stake in keeping prices high, there would be a lot of opposition to that.  Not to mention from environmentalists, etc.  It's not an easy thing to put the genie back into the bottle on the issue of housing affordability.

[Nym90]

I agree about restoring the balance between work and family within our lives, and that's why I would support this bill, as I feel it would help to do this. I don't believe that people should be punished for choosing to place family as a higher priority.

The long term solution, however, is to remove the necessity for the primary caretaker of children within the family (usually the woman) to have to work. Better wages, more affordable housing, and better public schools would seem to be the most effective ways to do this.

Eric, I don't think it's valid to call the legitimate result of making a choice "punishment."  The fact is, people make these choices on a much broader and more consequential scale every day.  People take jobs that pay significantly less than some other jobs that they could possibly get, or in some cases don't work at all, in order to have more time to spend with their family.  The results of that can't be called 'punishment.'  Taken to its logical extreme, you could be arguing that non-working people should be paid to take care of their families.  I don't believe in this at all.  How you take care of your family is your own private affair, and others should not be called upon to financially underwrite the choices that you make.

As far as the need for 2 wage earners, this has sprung up relatively recently for most families.  The reasons are complex, and have much to do with the fact that taking care of a home was requiring less and less work due to the advent of many machines, and those who previously had that 'job' were getting bored.  Once it became the norm for a high percentage of women to work, the economy adjusted to that, pushing up housing prices and other costs.  It's a cycle in which the practice created the necessity to continue the practice.  This is very common in a free market economy.

How do you propose to bring about more affordable housing, other than a largely increased supply?  And keep in mind that because the majority of people are homeowners with a stake in keeping prices high, there would be a lot of opposition to that.  Not to mention from environmentalists, etc.  It's not an easy thing to put the genie back into the bottle on the issue of housing affordability.

Ok, I admit that punished may not have been the best choice of words. But my point still stands that the need for multiple incomes has effectively taken the choice away from the person to go off of work for an extended period of time even though it is probably in the best interests of their child that they do so. It is almost always advantageous for the productivity of the worker and for the worker's family for them to take time off in these type of situations, so anything that encourages this and helps to remove the obstacles to making this choice is a positive.

That's what I was trying to say, that people don't really have an effective choice right now, and have to stay at work because they can't afford not to.

Economic development efforts in major cities would go a long way toward helping the problem of not having enough time to spend with one's family. Government incentives like tax breaks to get businesses to come into depressed areas as well as increased crime enforcement in these areas would reduce the need for long commutes thus increasing productivity, saving money on building and maintainance of roads, and be beneficial for the environment.

As far as housing, it certainly is a difficult problem. I know that public housing largely has a negative connotation to it, and this reputation is probably well deserved. But government subsidization of affordable middle class housing by building up in cities rather than out into sprawl is something that I think should be looked into. Combined with my suggestions above, I think this could also be very helpful in turning around previously economically depressed areas.

[dazzleman]

Ok, I admit that punished may not have been the best choice of words. But my point still stands that the need for multiple incomes has effectively taken the choice away from the person to go off of work for an extended period of time even though it is probably in the best interests of their child that they do so. It is almost always advantageous for the productivity of the worker and for the worker's family for them to take time off in these type of situations, so anything that encourages this and helps to remove the obstacles to making this choice is a positive.

That's what I was trying to say, that people don't really have an effective choice right now, and have to stay at work because they can't afford not to.

Economic development efforts in major cities would go a long way toward helping the problem of not having enough time to spend with one's family. Government incentives like tax breaks to get businesses to come into depressed areas as well as increased crime enforcement in these areas would reduce the need for long commutes thus increasing productivity, saving money on building and maintainance of roads, and be beneficial for the environment.

As far as housing, it certainly is a difficult problem. I know that public housing largely has a negative connotation to it, and this reputation is probably well deserved. But government subsidization of affordable middle class housing by building up in cities rather than out into sprawl is something that I think should be looked into. Combined with my suggestions above, I think this could also be very helpful in turning around previously economically depressed areas.

I think that turning around economically depressed areas is a totally different issue than trying to provide an economy that allows people to spend more time with their families.  BTW, in your first paragraph, you sound a lot like a traditional values conservative.  I like that.

The bottom line is that the economy will provide better choices for those who want to spend more time with their families when enough people value it sufficiently to make the choice.  Up to this point, the American people have consistently chosen greater affluence over time with family.  We have developed this worship for work that goes beyond the traditional Protestant work ethic, and it cuts across all political affiliations.  People who are not in motion all the time are looked askance at.  Even housewives feel they must fill every minute carting their kids around to all sorts of pre-arranged (and expensive) activities rather than just letting them entertain themselves.

It's a deep-seated cultural issue, and the solution lies outside the government, in my opinion.