Maternity Leave Policy - Discrimination?

[xylene]

But there is no law to that effect,

That is an unjust situation. DUH.

Hence why the OP is justufied in resenting this pathetic policy., and one isn't looking to upend capitalism by lamenting its existence...

 

[Taxing Matters]

I'm in the Wall Street Journal comments section I guess.

"You're a socialist." You're pathetic.

I did not say that you are a socialist. I said that your position on this particular issue seems to be the socialist one that everyone should get exactly the same pay and benefits regardless of position. On other issues you might not take the socialist position. I don't know your entire world view so I can't comment on that.

You have not yet disagreed that you seem to believe that is how employees ought to be treated — everyone getting the exact same pay and benefits regardless of position. If I am wrong on what you believe, please do correct me and tell me how you think employees ought to be compensated. I only have what you have said here to go by after all. Do you or don't you think companies are justified paying employees more and giving them better benefits for being in more challenging/difficult/in demand positions? If they are justified in doing that, then why is the optics of doing it so bad for you? I really am trying to understand where you are coming from here rather than merely being argumentative.

However, I will call you out on this: calling me "pathetic" is uncalled for. I think kind of personal insult has no place here. I didn't launch any personal attack or insult against you. I've disagreed with your positions, but have done so respectfully. I would hope you would do the same. IMO that personal attack reflects badly on you. Do you really need to stoop that low to try to make your case?

 

[justalayman]

I never said that, not even suggested it. And that's some hyperbolic nonsense btw.

I do know that an employer offering maternity leave benefits needs to offer them equitably, without gross differences in how they are dispensed, because 2nd class motherhood is a sad and pathetic thing to defend.

Pay and compensation are highly regulated in the interest of the public good. That's not socialism. Not even close.
But accusing someone of that is a sad, weak and feeble argument.

Pay and compensation are highly regulated...????

Say what? We live in a capitalist society. Your pay is whatever you can convince your emploiyer you are worth.

If,your statement were true we wouldn’t have the income disparity we have now.

 

[xylene]

Your pay is whatever you can convince your emploiyer you are worth.

Minimum wage and overtime, for example. I just you forgot about those.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Perhaps I'm an atheist or some otherwise anti-American buzz word du jour.

Strive for more.

By the way, you might be surprised that I don't consider being socialist or atheist or holding any other non violent beliefs "anti-American". American values in my mind center on freedom of speech, press, religion, and thought as well as support and respect for democracy. We can disagree on our views, but everyone is entitled to believe what they want. It is in debating our differing views that we can hopefully reach a consensus on what laws and rules we will live by.

 

[xylene]

everyone getting the exact same pay and benefits regardless of position.

You are pulling this 'everyone gets the same pay' thing out of thin air. That's YOUR boogeyman.

Yes, I do beleive an employer that offers a maternity benefit that exceeds what is required by law needs to administer that equitably (note not precisely equally) across employees. Because allowing 2nd class motherhood is not in the common interest and not in the compelling state interest. It should be changed in law. Given the political movement towards greater regulation of and mandatory provision for maternity benefits this is hardly some outlier position.

 

[cbg]

It is YOUR opinion that it is "unjust" for there to be differing benefits. It does not happen to be mine.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Minimum wage and overtime, for example. I just you forgot about those.

I would not call minimum wage laws "highly regulatory." They set a very minimal requirement. Above that, employers are free to set their pay and benefits as they see fit, including having large disparities between the highest employees in the company and the lowest.

 

[cbg]

Both groups the OP describes gets the same amount of time off. Both groups get the time paid (not required at this time by either state or Federal law). There's simply a difference in how that pay is funded. How is that "2nd class motherhood"?

 

[Taxing Matters]

You are pulling this 'everyone gets the same pay' thing out of thin air. That's YOUR boogeyman.

Ok, so does that mean you are ok with say, paying attorneys more than support staff? Giving the attorneys better benefits (apart from maternity benefits, apparently) than support staff? I'm still not clear what lines you are drawing.

Yes, I do beleive an employer that offers a maternity benefit that exceeds what is required by law needs to administer that equitably (note not precisely equally) across employees. Because allowing 2nd class motherhood is not in the common interest and not in the compelling state interest. It should be changed in law. Given the political movement towards greater regulation of and mandatory provision for maternity benefits this is hardly some outlier position.

Ok, at least that is specific. You believe that at least this one benefit ought to be the same for all employees, then, correct? I disagree with you about that, as I don't see this issue as one of a "compelling state interest" or common interest. My own belief is that it is not the obligation of society or employers to pay for people to have kids. Indeed, I think the argument can be fairly made that the world has too many people already and we ought not be encouraging increasing the population. That said, I do respect your views on this even though I do share them.

 

[justalayman]

Minimum wage and overtime, for example. I just you forgot about those.

That is not what I would consider highly regulated in a way that would have anything to diminish wage and benefit disparity.

 

[justalayman]

You are pulling this 'everyone gets the same pay' thing out of thin air. That's YOUR boogeyman.

Yes, I do beleive an employer that offers a maternity benefit that exceeds what is required by law needs to administer that equitably (note not precisely equally) across employees. Because allowing 2nd class motherhood is not in the common interest and not in the compelling state interest. It should be changed in law. Given the political movement towards greater regulation of and mandatory provision for maternity benefits this is hardly some outlier position.

is that the only benefit that you believe should be equal among employees?

 

[xylene]

is that the only benefit that you believe should be equal among employees?

I can't speak to every possible benefit or configuration of compensation. You are asking to exact some 'principle of equal benefits' from me. I don't know. Related to this thread, If they are highly gendered and create second class mothers.

If an employer had a policy of allowing executives dedicated time off to be with their children for school event but not for the proles... That would be unjust.

I do know that maternity leave is a highly gendered issue and extending it to one class of mother over another is not right.

 

[xylene]

My own belief is that it is not the obligation of society or employers to pay for people to have kids.

Then why is it importatn that employers be allowed to do so for their top class of employees/

 

[justalayman]

I can't speak to every possible benefit or configuration of compensation. You are asking to exact some 'principle of equal benefits' from me. I don't know. Related to this thread, If they are highly gendered and create second class mothers.

If an employer had a policy of allowing executives dedicated time off to be with their children for school event but not for the proles... That would be unjust.

I do know that maternity leave is a highly gendered issue and extending it to one class of mother over another is not right.

There is nothing gender related in this original question. Lawyers (without regard to gender) have a different benefit policy than non-lawyers. It is a class difference unrelated to gender.