Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Hello_Gorgeous1985 t1_j2d22gz wrote

Reply to comment by ABena2t in We all know the answer but I've several questions by Violet_weeb

American, right? The rest of the world understands.

Where I live it's 15 weeks given to the person who has given birth. Then there is Also 40 weeks of parental leave which can be shared between both parents. The government employment insurance program provides 55% of your regular pay for the duration of that time. You also have the option to extend that 40 weeks to 69 instead at a reduced rate of 33%.

Private companies can also set their own policies with regards to parental leaves and payment (above and beyond). However, they are legally required to allow parents to take the leaves mentioned above and Your job must be available when you return.

Here you go: https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_008009/lang--en/index.htm

6

ABena2t t1_j2d2kov wrote

must be available? after 69 weeks? how is the possible? or how can that be expected? what if the company slows down and does lay offs? they can't lay you off bc you had a kid? and they're going to have to fill that position while you're gone. So you leave for over a year and they hire and train someone else. depending on the job, training someone can take a lot of time, effort, and money. So you put all that into a new employee - and then you come back, now you gotta lay off that person who took your job? even if the new person is better?

crazy scenario - you're on paternity leave. bring someone else in, they get pregnant and go on paternity leave, now you bring a 3rd person.. lol. you're supposed to keep all these people on and pay them all bc they had babies? I'd think this law would keep employers from hiring women quite honestly. who wants to deal with that?

−1

Hello_Gorgeous1985 t1_j2d2xd6 wrote

Tell me you've never heard of a short-term contract without telling me you've never heard of a short-term contract.

>I'd think this law would keep employers from hiring women quite honestly. who wants to deal with that?

Uh...That would be discrimination, and we have laws for that too. It actually keeps women in the workforce because they don't have to quit their jobs to care for their infants...

More than 120 countries in the world offer parental leave. The US is the only major country that doesn't. There's a reason for that.

For the record, the person in the scenario you've described wouldn't qualify for paid parental leave because they're on a short-term contract.

7

ABena2t t1_j2d443r wrote

The States might not offer parental leave but we do have laws against discrimination. That doesn't mean discrimination doesn't take place. It happens all the time. I'm not saying that it's right.

and you consider 65 weeks or whatever it was "short term"

−1

Hello_Gorgeous1985 t1_j2eraqe wrote

It's a short-term position because you know when it's ending and that you won't be staying there long term. When you apply for the position it is advertised as being a parental leave. You know how long it will be.

I'm not going to continue to debate this with you because your comments have been sexist from moment one. The rest of the world knows that proper parental leave is necessary We also know that it takes more than 12 weeks for a person to recover from giving birth and that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the non-birthing parent taking leave also. In fact, it should be encouraged.

I'm done.

2