I think so!Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Printable View
I think so!Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Ed Schultz reminds me of Francis Buxton. :lol only angrier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
And yes, GGA. There's actual intercourse in hardcore porn. Just want to make that more obviouser.
It appears he does, but not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agloco
Most corporations have had maternity for years now. Just not as a paid benefit, but to use your own accrued vacation time.
Why is she a hypocrite for using an employer provided benefit? I agree it is wrong for the government to require such things, especially if it is a paid benefit. I don't see how her view differs from that. Now to require all places adopt a voluntary benefit other places has is changing it to an entitlement.
You didn't really watch the clip, did you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
She started going on about the benefits of the Family Leave Act.
I did, what did I miss? As far as I know, the act does not require employers to pay for the absence. It's been around for some time now too.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Do you guys give each other points for each display of ignorance?
You and random can have those points today.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I didn't see anything hypocritical. She is not asking for an entitlement of paid leave. The FMLA act requires large employer to provide unpaid leave for having a newborn, and other instances.
Be the ignorant one, and let those telling the story frame it for you.
Question. Wouldn't FMLA be considered more of a civil right action as opposed to an "entitlement"?
And no one has answered my other question.
So she can just leave when she shits out a kid and get her job back when she comes back?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Why should an employer be forced to put up with that?
Are you even serious or just maintaining your "?" quota? I dare you to say that in a room full of women.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Even conservative ones!Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
I don't know what to consider it. I think the requirement to have some is necessary, I think the mandatory time frame is excessive though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Depends on if it's paid leave or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Don't know. Are any of them paid leaves outside of using accrued vacation days?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
I have noticed some people here think they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
It's only larger employers. It's not mandated on business that cannot deal with such transitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Now I agree this shouldn't be necessary. All good employers I have worked for gave their employees good benefits as incentives to work for them, instead of someone else. Still, with a baby, there are instances when the mother must take time off. To make it legally fair, they had to extend that to the father too.
My wife just had to file for federal FMLA under the self-health provision (state FMLA statutes normally only cover pregnancy and relative-health, not self-health).
Wages are not covered, but the employer has to keep contributing to the health coverage and has to reinstate the employee at the end of the LOA.
Yes, so one could say the employer pays, but they pay this anyway when paid or unpaid leave is granted for other reasons. The difference is that this is a leave the employer cannot refuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Fuck, you still haven't watched it have you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
She went out and railed against the Family Leave Act a few years ago, then has a kid and gets all militant in support of it.
Don't shit me by trying to say that if I had asked you about the Family Leave Act before this you would not have pegged it as a gub'mint handout.
Not by the link I saw. That was a bunch of edited stuff. I don;'t know what was snipped together.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
It isn't a handout.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Why would I? I was aware of this more than a decade ago. Now I don't agree entirely with it, but at least women should have their jobs protected in most cases when the employer is large enough that it doesn't really have an impact. I disagree with all cases, but most, yes.
As one of the few in this thread to have given birth, I think the leave for maternity is excessive. Six weeks to recover physically and return to your job in due diligence is enough. If you want to stay out longer to bond with your child-- like I did-- quit your job and stay at home. No one should have to hold your job while you take optional time off for which you have no saved leave. Men should have to use saved leave to take time off, as well. Why should you get extra paid time off because you chose to have a kid. Save up your vacation for when it is born or take time off without pay.
+1