Maternity benefits do not harm big companies with hundreds of employees. But a small business with 1 - 3 employees may be already in a weak condition. If it has to give maternity leave and money to a woman in a crucial role, it may become bankrupt. So when the business has to hire and train an employee for a crucial role, what is it likely to decide? Will such decisions help or harm employment of women? An alternative in my openion is to calculate what percentage of total wages of a business are given to women. The businesses giving low percentage to women should be taxed extra and the money obtained can be given to women giving birth and also to businesses that have to give maternity leave to women for the loss in production they suffer. This seems more fair and also encourages employment of women. Some people believe if you can not attack an argument, attack the person. Please do not do that with me. What are the potential problems and benefits with my ideas?
Foofa2020-04-18T19:40:09Z
That very argument is the reason private sector companies in the US aren't compelled by law to offer maternity leave. This is also why women in certain jobs have to leave those jobs in order to have a baby.
We don't let businesses slide if they can't afford their license fees, the rent for their storefront, or insurance. Why should we let them slide on the largest and most important expense they have - payroll and benefits for their employees? Could it be because ONE type of payment goes to corporations and the other goes to WORKERS?
Lots of small businesses went bust when they abolished slavery, too. "A lot of jobs were lost." Boohoo. If you don't have enough money to stay in business *and* treat your people decently, you don't have enough money to BE in business.
And it's not society's job to bail you out at the expense of your employees. And after the recent U.S. stimulus bill, I'd like to tattoo THAT backwards on Trump's and Pelosi's foreheads, so they have to read it every time they look in the mirror.
Feminists want women to receive a large extra paid benefit that hurts a company that men don’t receive, yet be treated equally. Well, thats not equal. Some companies will be less likely to hire such individuals.
Or we could implement a single-payer improved-Medicare-for-All healthcare system so that businesses can focus on payroll and incentives, not healthcare.
Yes, most people will have an increase in taxes, but healthcare premiums, deductibles, copayments, and out of pocket expenses will be eliminated with the outlawing of duplicative coverage from health insurance companies - SAVING all but the wealthiest Americans money overall.
As a bonus, people won’t have to worry about how they will afford healthcare for their family every time their employer changes their health insurance plan, or if they lose their job or change their employer. They can just seek care instead of figuring out where they are allowed to be treated and weighing their health vs their money. This will give employees more leverage to negotiate better wages too.
Be wary of politicians promoting increased ACCESS to healthcare. Millions of Americans have health insurance and still can’t afford to get the treatment they need.