What are companies supposed to do when their employees become mothers?
Offer a nice, lengthy maternity/paternity leave policy and give the new parents plenty of time to adjust to their new lives, and then make sure their jobs are still available to them (barring some crazy circumstance) when they return.
OTOH, for a parent returning from leave, I don't think it's necessarily the case that you should expect everything to be as it was, when you return. The company, and the world, don't just go "on pause" while you're out. The business has to continue to adjust and adapt the reality it operates in, so if your direct reports have been moved, your project cancelled, shuffled, re-budgeted, your responsibilities re-distributed, etc., then I think you just have to accept that. But the company obviously should make an effort to get you back into a productive position as soon as possible.
I feel like society through the government should either pay this bill or be willing to accept what a company does in its financial interest.
Having a baby is a choice, unlike cancer (excepting rape cases or whatever). How about people just don't have babies unless they are able to handle the financial implications of doing so? Why should somebody else be on the hook to pay because you decided to have a baby?
Having a baby is a choice but society benefits financially more than the parents do. Children are going to make their employer, the government, hell 7-11 and Walmart, way more money then they will ever give to their parents.
We have laws that force parents to send their kids to die for society and none to reimburse them for the $250K they spent on the kid. I feel that helping out a family for a year should be a shared responsibility.
Perhaps you downvoters would care to actually share your opinion? Do you disagree with my assertion that having a baby is a choice? If so, I'd like to hear your justification for that.
Or do you disagree that the ethical thing for companies to do, is to offer a generous maternity/paternity leave policy?
Sure, having a baby is a choice, but it's also a universal human right -- and like the other rights, society needs to protect those. It protects them in some cases by putting obligations onto employers. That's why "someone else should be on the hook".
A society where rights become secondary to the unrestricted pursuit of profit is not a good society.
Sure, having a baby is a choice, but it's also a universal human right -- and like the other rights, society needs to protect those.
I think we have different definitions of what a "right" is. A "right" in my book, is "something you don't need to ask permission to do". So yeah, I agree that having a baby, in and of itself, is a right. But, I disagree that the exercise of that right then automatically creates a burden on me, or you, or anybody else, to support the new baby.
That doesn't mean that you, or I, or anyone else in particular, won't sometimes - if the means are available - help a less fortunate person who is struggling to feed their child or what-have-you. And I personally am FAR more sensitive to the needs of children than I am to adults. But there's a big difference between what someone will do, if asked, because they believe it is right, and the idea that they are obligated to do those things.
A society where rights become secondary to the unrestricted pursuit of profit is not a good society.
As far as I'm concerned, your rights are your rights, and profit doesn't even enter into the equation. But, again, we probably have a different idea of what a "right" is.
That may not match the definition in your book, but their book is bigger and is written with the blood of multiple wars and genocides. I think society in general, and I in particular, expect companies to honour that definition and stand up to the obligations it engenders in them.
That may not match the definition in your book, but their book is bigger and is written with the blood of multiple wars and genocides.
So it's right just because the UN say so? Sounds like an appeal to authority to me. But anyway, it's kind of a moot point, because we're never going to get 100% agreement on this stuff. The divide over positive/negative rights alone is too sharp and to ingrained in people's psyche. And the UN document is a muddled-up mishmash of both kinds of rights. There's some good stuff in there' but a lot of it is total hokum as well. shrug
I think society in general, and I in particular, expect companies to honour that definition and stand up to the obligations it engenders in them.
I don't see any particular reason that companies (or anyone else) should adopt the UN's doctrines over any other.
My view is hardly "peculiar". It's actually quite common, and the divide I speak of is an old and bitter philosophical debate among people who care about this sort of thing. As for the UN, no, I don't think I'll be changing my position just because "they're big". Imagine the world we'd live in if everybody adhered to that kind of thinking.
It's not the view used to judge human rights cases or build international law upon. And if not the control of might, it would be interesting to - somewhere else - talk about the foundations you would rest society upon.
Offer a nice, lengthy maternity/paternity leave policy and give the new parents plenty of time to adjust to their new lives, and then make sure their jobs are still available to them (barring some crazy circumstance) when they return.
OTOH, for a parent returning from leave, I don't think it's necessarily the case that you should expect everything to be as it was, when you return. The company, and the world, don't just go "on pause" while you're out. The business has to continue to adjust and adapt the reality it operates in, so if your direct reports have been moved, your project cancelled, shuffled, re-budgeted, your responsibilities re-distributed, etc., then I think you just have to accept that. But the company obviously should make an effort to get you back into a productive position as soon as possible.
I feel like society through the government should either pay this bill or be willing to accept what a company does in its financial interest.
Having a baby is a choice, unlike cancer (excepting rape cases or whatever). How about people just don't have babies unless they are able to handle the financial implications of doing so? Why should somebody else be on the hook to pay because you decided to have a baby?