I am just amazed. I have been living in Europe and other places in the world where paid maternity leave up to 3 or 4 months (sometimes even a year) is considered a right of every working woman without any doubt. It is just hard for me to understand how you do not have a decent and paid maternity leave in the US as a law requirement for every employer! So, this is my proposal: a one day of strike, all working women in the country, and no shopping, no eating out... just for one day, to claim a right that is fundamental, that is recognized to other women in the world!... (my other idea was a bit more extreme: a whole, nation-wide, non-sex strike!)
2007-03-27 15:32:43 · 8 answers · asked by mmsc 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No,I wouldn't join you.
Why should an employer have to pay because a woman CHOSE to have a child? If you can't afford to take time off from work to have a child,don't have one.If it is that important to you,then find an employer that offers that benefit. Something like this would put small companies out of business.
2007-03-27 17:19:42 · answer #1 · answered by Jan 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't understand where you get the idea that paid maternity leave is a "fundamental right." Is it somewhere in the Bill of Rights or our Constitution and we missed it? I think that if I were to go on strike over any issue that I would consider a "fundamental right" it would be health care for every American over paid maternity leave. BTW, if living in Europe was so great, why aren't you still there?
2007-03-27 22:39:36 · answer #2 · answered by Emily Dew 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
.Actually, I'm quite liberal and I wouldn't. I work for a small business and truth is my employer did pay for a small amount of maternity leave so I was lucky. Still, I don't believe it is a fundamental right. It especially doesn't seem appropriate in light of the way Americans "choose" to conduct business. I would, however, favor some sort of action regarding a national daycare solution.
2007-03-27 23:11:03 · answer #3 · answered by ChiKristin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would depend on where the money was coming from to finance the paid time off. Would the employer or the gov't (taxes) pay for the item? Is there a limit or can anyone have as many babies as they want and continue to be financed? Would adoptive parents receive the same benefit? Would males receive any paid time off since they may want to bond with their newborn as well? I would have to hear all of the complete details first before I decided one way or another.
2007-03-27 22:43:14 · answer #4 · answered by Mariposa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I would not join this rally. If every employer in the country was forced to pay women for 3 to 4 months in order to exercise their fundamental right to bear a child, every other employee would pay the price--in reduced wages, reduced benefits, etc. It is a woman's fundamental right to bear children, not to have the employer pay for her to take time off to do so.
2007-03-27 22:44:25 · answer #5 · answered by legaleagle 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What good are you doing your employer if you are not at work? Why is it his/her responsibility to keep money going into your houshold when you aren't working?
Here's and idea. Why not take a little responsibility for yourself and save some money if you know you are going to have to be home. Oh that's right, how much taxes does European governments charge? Up to 51% in Denmark?
You europeans are sooo lazy!
2007-03-27 22:44:02 · answer #6 · answered by Voice of Liberty 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
DESTROY THE WORK PLACE IN AMERICA,
In France this is one of the laws that has ruined the work place, they fire everyone just before eligibility for all these forced benefits. its ruined quality and productivity.
MARXISM ON THE MOVE.
2007-03-27 22:41:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. Having children is a personal choice and employers should not finance that choice.
2007-03-27 22:37:30 · answer #8 · answered by vegaswoman 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋