djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2012 23:06:17 GMT -5
We can improve on our approach but ours is one that's better than most countries. your opinion. mine is that our approach SUCKS....ARSE.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Feb 7, 2012 23:26:29 GMT -5
FMLA - 12 weeks off.
65% of employers offer STD
STD covers giving birth as a short term disability.
You get the same answer, just via the private method instead of the government tit. Nothing wrong with that, IMO.
I'm going to choose a private based solution to goals that are largely shared by most people every time over government solutions. Government solutions, in most countries, get the citizens and the country in trouble.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2012 23:32:33 GMT -5
FMLA is UNPAID, fep. it is totally, 100% different than the French PAID system. not 80% different. not 97% different. 100%.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2012 23:34:04 GMT -5
FMLA - 12 weeks off. 65% of employers offer STD STD covers giving birth as a short term disability. STD only covers your time in the hospital. it does NOT cover 12 weeks, NOR does it cover 16 weeks. and STD is OPTIONAL. none of the three companies i own have it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2012 23:34:57 GMT -5
I'm going to choose a private based solution you can do that in France as well. there is no law requiring you to choose the public system. it is interesting that both you and lone mentioned choice. where is MY choice for a public system? where is MY choice to have my wife stay at home with our child for the first precious four months of his life, without having to worry about whether we can "afford" that? yes, it really is about choices. and priorities. we make bad ones, imo. at the national level we put the good of ourselves over that of our most precious assets: our kids. MY OPINION. obviously not widely shared.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2012 23:38:34 GMT -5
if she works, she is. of course. my point is this- what does it say about OUR priorities when mothers have to go back to work to pay for their kids, rather than spending time with them? Yes, our priorities are messed up. But I ask, why do people have children that they can't afford to stay home with? this is an expensive place to live. it might be a good time to point out that over half of abortions are conducted for ECONOMIC reasons. if we had 16 weeks of paid leave for working moms, how much would that reduce abortions?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2012 23:47:24 GMT -5
this is an expensive place to live. it might be a good time to point out that over half of abortions are conducted for ECONOMIC reasons. if we had 16 weeks of paid leave for working moms, how much would that reduce abortions? I don't think it would reduce it by much at all. I think those opting for abortions are doing it for more serious reasons. Good question and maybe someone here has a better answer. the top three reasons why women have abortions ALL have to do with money. the #1 reason is that "it would change my life in an unplanned way". this is another way of saying "would make me a mom rather than having a career". the second reason is "i can't afford it". that one is self explanatory. third reason, at 50%, is that "i don't want to be a single mom". that is pretty much a combination of the first two. clearly the 16 weeks would address the second leading cause of abortions. whether it would address the other two, i have no idea.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2012 23:55:00 GMT -5
the top three reasons why women have abortions ALL have to do with money. the #1 reason is that "it would change my life in an unplanned way". this is another way of saying "would make me a mom rather than having a career". the second reason is "i can't afford it". that one is self explanatory. third reason, at 50%, is that "i don't want to be a single mom". that is pretty much a combination of the first two. clearly the 16 weeks would address the second leading cause of abortions. whether it would address the other two, i have no idea. "I can't afford it" would mean to me that she couldn't afford to raise it, not so much she couldn't afford to take off the first 16 weeks. I'm getting tired so maybe I misunderstood. maybe. who knows. all i know is that giving moms 16 weeks to be with their newborn is pro-mother and pro-child. i would be proud if the US did the same thing.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Feb 7, 2012 23:56:59 GMT -5
Might want to go double check that statement and then go and edit your post for the incorrect portions of the post. You're right that STD is optional, both through the employer or to buy it on your own. It's great that we have choices in this nation and live with the consequences of our own actions & choices. If someone puts a priority on STD, then they can purchase it [if it's not covered / offered through their employer]. If you were a better employer, you'd offer it ...then again, I guess your superior salary to your competitors gives your employees the choice to buy it on the open market - again, great that your employees have the choice. Or is STD covered by the state of CA?? www.edd.ca.gov/disability/disability_insurance.htmI'm surprised you don't offer it if you're in a manufacturing / dangerous field. What happens if there is a real disability for one of your employees? In some industries, I'd think that would be an important benefit to give.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 7, 2012 23:57:00 GMT -5
WRONG! 16 weeks more than the US. there is NO PAID maternity leave requirement here. We get a year up here, as well. The company pays X number of weeks, then maternity unemployment benefits kick in. I took a year off when I had my son. No, I didn't have to work at a daycare or volunteer at a school. It's just better for kids if mom stays home for a while, to breastfeed, bond, etc. It's available to either parent.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 8, 2012 0:08:25 GMT -5
Do you have maternity unemployment benefits down there?
|
|
gavinsnana
Senior Member
If we forget we are One Nation Under God, then we are a Nation gone under. Ronald Reagan
Joined: Oct 13, 2011 11:02:40 GMT -5
Posts: 3,201
|
Post by gavinsnana on Feb 8, 2012 8:59:49 GMT -5
We get a year up here, as well. The company pays X number of weeks, then maternity unemployment benefits kick in. I took a year off when I had my son. No, I didn't have to work at a daycare or volunteer at a school. It's just better for kids if mom stays home for a while, to breastfeed, bond, etc. It's available to either parent. I totally agree. I wish all parents would stay home with their kids all the time. I agree Lone.. its sad that most are not able to do this. I took off as much as I could, then took 2 years off .. glad I did. I didn't put them in a day care until they were 3.. Grandma watched them mostly. Thank God for family..
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 8, 2012 22:35:16 GMT -5
Might want to go double check that statement and then go and edit your post for the incorrect portions of the post. why not just tell me where you think i made my error, rather than playing Find Waldo with me?You're right that STD is optional, both through the employer or to buy it on your own. thank you. It's great that we have choices in this nation and live with the consequences of our own actions & choices. If someone puts a priority on STD, then they can purchase it [if it's not covered / offered through their employer]. If you were a better employer, you'd offer it if i were a better employer, i would have to deal with lines forming in the street to get into my place, rather than just a steady stream of calls from people with crappy employers....then again, I guess your superior salary to your competitors gives your employees the choice to buy it on the open market - again, great that your employees have the choice. Or is STD covered by the state of CA?? www.edd.ca.gov/disability/disability_insurance.htmI'm surprised you don't offer it if you're in a manufacturing / dangerous field. What happens if there is a real disability for one of your employees? In some industries, I'd think that would be an important benefit to give. if there were a disability, there is SDI.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 8, 2012 22:38:18 GMT -5
WRONG! 16 weeks more than the US. there is NO PAID maternity leave requirement here. We get a year up here, as well. The company pays X number of weeks, then maternity unemployment benefits kick in. I took a year off when I had my son. No, I didn't have to work at a daycare or volunteer at a school. It's just better for kids if mom stays home for a while, to breastfeed, bond, etc. It's available to either parent. my breasts don't work so well.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 8, 2012 22:40:18 GMT -5
maybe. who knows. all i know is that giving moms 16 weeks to be with their newborn is pro-mother and pro-child. i would be proud if the US did the same thing. It would be good if the mother were to pay back the benefit in some way. Are we back to square one here? she can pay back the benefit by raising the kind of child that doesn't end up jacking my car. that should be enough for anyone, imo. if it is not enough for you, i understand.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 6:13:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2012 23:44:49 GMT -5
What would you consider paying back the benefit, lonewolf? Returning to the workforce and advancing professionally to a higher tax bracket? Saving your employer the cost of training a replacement?
|
|
nllsq
Initiate Member
Joined: Aug 14, 2011 15:15:50 GMT -5
Posts: 93
|
Post by nllsq on Feb 9, 2012 23:14:44 GMT -5
Because people vote on a variety of issues. Democrats support programs and ideas that hispanics and african-americans find appealing like liberal immigration policies, welfare, medicaid and affirmative action.
Yes, self serving policies that others must pay for. I agree with you. Ditto
|
|
ungenteel
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 20:26:26 GMT -5
Posts: 560
|
Post by ungenteel on Feb 12, 2012 18:21:03 GMT -5
"Why Do They Vote Democrat?"
Because repubs are creepy social Darwinists and because repubs agitate class warfare between the middle classes and the lower classes
|
|
vandalshandle
Senior Member
Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump...
Joined: Oct 12, 2011 20:34:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,005
|
Post by vandalshandle on Feb 12, 2012 18:28:21 GMT -5
So, I am hearing from the conservatives a resounding, "DO NOT RAISE TAXES!", while at the same time demanding that the government seal our borders. I guess that means that they are willing to do that job for the government for free as volunteers.
That is a scary thought!
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 12, 2012 20:15:13 GMT -5
No, what we say is bring our troops home and protect our borders. Then start rounding up the illegals and sending them back.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 12, 2012 20:39:44 GMT -5
No, what we say is bring our troops home and protect our borders. ... always in the details I am always interested in the details of this proposal. Are we talking just the southern land border? Are we talking both southern and northern land border? Are we talking all or part of both coasts? Are we talking both urban and rural areas? How far from the physical border are we handing to the military to patrol? Does it change for urban and rural areas? Are we talking any airports with international flights? Are we talking dirt airstrips beyond the border area? What would be the rules of engagement? Would it be the same for urban and rural areas? Would the military be involved direct or only indirectly with drug enforcement? We have done an excellent job in our nation's history to minimize military involvement in civilian law enforcement. I see potential dangers in that regard if we decide to have them take over one (immigration) or two (drug enforcement) permanent missions within our borders.
|
|
vandalshandle
Senior Member
Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump...
Joined: Oct 12, 2011 20:34:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,005
|
Post by vandalshandle on Feb 12, 2012 21:25:42 GMT -5
zib, I am a patrolman for the Sheriff's Auxiliary Volunteers in my community. One of the first things that you learn in the course that I had to take is that the training and function of soldiers as compared to police duties are almost 180 degrees different. Soldiers are trained to kill. Police are trained to enforce the law without killing, if at all possible. If you want border patrol similar to the way Germany protected the Third Reich, then go ahead and use soldiers trained to kill to guard the border. Personally, that is not the kind of country in which I want to live.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 12, 2012 21:41:54 GMT -5
No, what we say is bring our troops home and protect our borders. Then start rounding up the illegals and sending them back. There is that pesky little matter of law that prohibits U.S. Military forces from enforcing civilian laws in the U.S. Even the National Guard would likely be prohibited if this immigration enforcement were defined as a federal mission, I believe. Do you have a workaround for that, or doesn't it matter?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 6:13:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 21:44:29 GMT -5
shoot anyone that complains about it.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 12, 2012 21:49:13 GMT -5
shoot anyone that complains about it. Effective, I guess. (But don't say it too loudly. A lot of right-wingers would immediately start work on making it policy.)
|
|