Con actually don't really like families after all

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 15:03:28 GMT -5 druidp said:

May 14, 2012 14:54:20 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Telling people just to hope their employers are good and pro-family does absolutely nothing to actually support families. And we know that without regulations, there will always be some employers with extremely anti-family positions. Thus, without any pro-family policies by the government, there will always be a segment of society working in those anti-family jobs.

I wasn't trying to communicate that hoping for that type of employer is all you have, and I'm very sorry your current employer fails to see the value of supporting this area. And I do agree with regulations that guide employers to do so... but even that's not going to stop companies out there from being essentially shitty to their staff.

I get the uproar against the shitty companies. But I still don't support more or expanded regulation on those companies to force them into policy implementation. More effective regulation? Sure. But call me crazy, I do have hope that the free market can and should eventually call those businesses to account and incur consequences onto them for not having a good balance of staff care/consideration in addition to their pursuit of growth and viability.

You're crazy.

I love that you're trying. And if this theory worked in practice, I'd be all for it too. But the free market can't and won't resolve this. It just won't. And it's crazy to expect it to. My boss's clients don't have any obligation to me, the employee. They will continue to give their business to my boss if he can provide a cheap and quality product. That I get subjected to abuse and punishment behind closed doors because my uterus has an occupant is none of their concern.

Someday I'll find a new job, and sure, my boss will suffer for it temporarily. But not enough to drive him out of business.

[2vermont]

May 14, 2012 15:13:27 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

May 14, 2012 15:12:19 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I am totally for a very much down sized military. I think the Clinton defense budget is pretty much the only thing from his Administration that I'd like to see re-implemented (well, and the income tax rates). That would decrease defense spending by 14%. If that makes me anti-military, I'm cool with that.

OMG, you hate my husband and by extension me! I'm now going to post lots of gifs instead of discussing your point further.

BUT thats the point Sibil! Why is anyone saying that cons are anti-family just because they don't wish to fund certain programs? And yet saying the same thing from the other side is clearly ridiculous??
Definitely NOT consistent at all.

[teflep]

May 14, 2012 15:13:27 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

May 14, 2012 15:12:19 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I am totally for a very much down sized military. I think the Clinton defense budget is pretty much the only thing from his Administration that I'd like to see re-implemented (well, and the income tax rates). That would decrease defense spending by 14%. If that makes me anti-military, I'm cool with that.

OMG, you hate my husband and by extension me! I'm now going to post lots of gifs instead of discussing your point further.

Well, since sbp is less biased than the op, I'd say the discussion would be much more rational. Add in that defense is often a sacred cow, being anti-military in order to get the budget in line is a lot less stone-worthy.

[Deleted]

Here's the thing. I don't expect the cons to automatically support or agree with all of the 'pro family' policies they are currently against. But movement on SOME issues would be a start. For example - supporting laws that would protect a woman's job post-baby would not be a significant govt expense. Using employment insurance to fund some maternity leave as in other countries could be examined. Laws to prevent discrimination against pg women are free.

I don't think it's an 'all or nothing' scenario many of you seem to be pouncing on. There are economic benefits to stable families and it would be worthwhile to look at ways to support the family without it being a socialist/welfare state.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 15:15:54 GMT -5 druidp said:

May 14, 2012 15:08:42 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Please explain. Just taking the issue of maternity leave, for example. Let's assume that I get pregnant, but because I can't afford to have a baby right now anyway, I place the baby for adoption. I still need some time to physically heal, right? Under the law right now, my employer does not have to hold a position for me while I recover. What would be a more effective - but not expanded - way to make sure that if I got pregnant, I would have a job to return to after giving birth?

FMLA does not in fact cover this?

And you may flame me for asking but: why is your company responsible for your personal choices? Was any attempt made to discuss the situation with your employer and see what could be worked out?

Anecdote warning: I ask this because I found out I was pregnant exactly two days before interviewing for my current job that I really wanted. I decided to wait until I was at 12 weeks to tell my boss that in six months I'd be gone for 6 weeks. I had no FMLA accrued, and no STD, so it was going to suck no matter what. Thankfully, she agreed to hold my job for me AND in conjunction I worked my ass off up until I left (which also happened to be two weeks early since I had to be put on bed rest). But no, she was not required to hold my job for me - and if she had changed her mind, I'd have had to find a job elsewhere.
Call me crazy, but I don't see why any of that was the responsibility of her or the company.

FMLA only applies to employers with a minimum of 50 employees. Ironically, the vast majority of law firms are not covered by this law. So no, I am not protected. I am not discussing my reproductive plans with my employer because in 30 years, I don't know of a single associate who's had a baby while working here. I hope to be out of this shitshow as soon as possible. We are dealing with Grade A assholes. And like I said, I am trying to find a new job. I've been applying since six weeks after I started here.

Again, I'm not saying that there is a one-size-fits-all way of supporting families. But you don't see how it might strike someone like me as disingenuous for the GOP to call itself pro-family when its policy position is that my employer can fire me if I can't return to work within one week of giving birth? Surely you can see why I would not feel that my family was "supported" by GOP policies? My plans are to wait to have a child until I obtain new employment, but when you couple the above with the GOP platform of overturning Roe v. Wade, exactly how do GOP policies support me in the event of an unplanned pregnancy?

[cookiemdough]

May 14, 2012 15:15:02 GMT -5 2vermont said:

May 14, 2012 15:12:19 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I am totally for a very much down sized military. I think the Clinton defense budget is pretty much the only thing from his Administration that I'd like to see re-implemented (well, and the income tax rates). That would decrease defense spending by 14%. If that makes me anti-military, I'm cool with that.

But I guess my point is that I can see how someone can not want to fund something (or in this case quite as much) and still support it. I wouldn't call you "anti-military".

Okay but for things that do not require government funding, why is this not supported by both parties? I get maternity leave is a whole different ball of wax, but why is there no agreement on something relatively easy to deal with like breastfeeding which needs nothing but small changes in regulation. The government doesn't need to fund anything. I would think this would be one of the easier things to take up policy-wise and no company is going to face financial ruin by the small changes necessary.

[KateAggie]

May 14, 2012 15:18:02 GMT -5 2vermont said:

May 14, 2012 15:13:27 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

OMG, you hate my husband and by extension me! I'm now going to post lots of gifs instead of discussing your point further.

BUT thats the point Sibil! Why is anyone saying that cons are anti-family just because they don't wish to fund certain programs? And yet saying the same thing from the other side is clearly ridiculous??
Definitely NOT consistent at all.

Ditto 2V...but also

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 15:21:25 GMT -5 @lauriergirl28 said:

Here's the thing. I don't expect the cons to automatically support or agree with all of the 'pro family' policies they are currently against. But movement on SOME issues would be a start. For example - supporting laws that would protect a woman's job post-baby would not be a significant govt expense. Using employment insurance to fund some maternity leave as in other countries could be examined. Laws to prevent discrimination against pg women are free.

I don't think it's an 'all or nothing' scenario many of you seem to be pouncing on. There are economic benefits to stable families and it would be worthwhile to look at ways to support the family without it being a socialist/welfare state.

Right. It comes down to mandating that businesses treat women fairly, and incur some kind of cost as a result.

The point is, cons can be pro business or pro family in this context. But you can't have it both ways. You can't say you're the party of the family, but prioritize the right of business to fuck women over however they choose every single time.

[msmerymac]

May 14, 2012 15:15:54 GMT -5 druidp said:

May 14, 2012 15:08:42 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Please explain. Just taking the issue of maternity leave, for example. Let's assume that I get pregnant, but because I can't afford to have a baby right now anyway, I place the baby for adoption. I still need some time to physically heal, right? Under the law right now, my employer does not have to hold a position for me while I recover. What would be a more effective - but not expanded - way to make sure that if I got pregnant, I would have a job to return to after giving birth?

FMLA does not in fact cover this?

And you may flame me for asking but: why is your company responsible for your personal choices? Was any attempt made to discuss the situation with your employer and see what could be worked out?

Anecdote warning: I ask this because I found out I was pregnant exactly two days before interviewing for my current job that I really wanted. I decided to wait until I was at 12 weeks to tell my boss that in six months I'd be gone for 6 weeks. I had no FMLA accrued, and no STD, so it was going to suck no matter what. Thankfully, she agreed to hold my job for me AND in conjunction I worked my ass off up until I left (which also happened to be two weeks early since I had to be put on bed rest). But no, she was not required to hold my job for me - and if she had changed her mind, I'd have had to find a job elsewhere.
Call me crazy, but I don't see why any of that was the responsibility of her or the company.

If it's not in the best interest of the company, well, it's not in the best interest of the company. That doesn't mean it's not in society's best interest or the government's best interest for her to keep her job, so she is not overburdening the UE insurance system or other social welfare systems she might qualify for, which would be even less funded than normal if many women were in the same situation. It's better for her to have a higher stream of income in order to increase developmental and educational opportunities for her child, thereby turning him or her into a well-adjusted and productive citizen. It would be very burdensome to find a new job as a brand new mother (major childcare issues with the unpredictability of interviews and lack of income).

None of this is to say that a company should take pity on a new mom. But if we had, in this country as a whole, LESS unemployment, longer, paid family leave, and more investment in family time and child development in general, you can't argue that we'd be worse off.

Oh, and 2V, again, I don't think SBP would be running as a war hawk, and then voting to decrease DOD spending, you know?

[Deleted]

Also, I'm re-affirming harpys point that FMLA is not the answer.
I've read a number of studies that estimate that something like 50% of all workers in the US are NOT covered by FMLA, so the protections offered by FMLA are totally irrelevant.

It isn't about asking anyone to bankroll my maternity leave. I, and I'm certain many others, am perfectly capable of and happy to save up a few months of pay to cover a leave of absence before planning to have a child. However, I should never have to choose between having a child or getting fired. That's awful!

[Deleted]

And one of my biggest concerns about maternity and breastfeeding policies is that 50% of more of women would not be eligible for these policies if they are implemented. I would also think that those who are not covered would probably be most in need of them.

IMO, the most effective way to implement them on a wide scale for the people who could use them most would be to put it in the hands of the government and that's not an option I can support as I think the precedence it would set could lead to not so good things.

[chichimi]

May 14, 2012 15:32:06 GMT -5 @missusbee said:

Also, I'm re-affirming harpys point that FMLA is not the answer.
I've read a number of studies that estimate that something like 50% of all workers in the US are NOT covered by FMLA, so the protections offered by FMLA are totally irrelevant.

It isn't about asking anyone to bankroll my maternity leave. I, and I'm certain many others, am perfectly capable of and happy to save up a few months of pay to cover a leave of absence before planning to have a child. However, I should never have to choose between having a child or getting fired. That's awful!

But since no employee would be covered, this doesnt target pregnant women. Are you suggesting that all employers be bound by FMLA, costs be damned or that all employers be willing to give maternity leave? If its the former, it would absolutely stifle hiring and if its the latter, how do you think this would effect the hiring of women of reproductive age?

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 15:30:14 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I think her point is that FMLA is not paid.

No, my point is that it doesn't even APPLY to me. My employer is not legally required to give me UNPAID time off and hold my job if I need to be away for medical or family reasons.

So if I have an unplanned pregnancy, I could theoretically lose my job if I have to take too much time off for doctor's appointments, if I go on bedrest, or if I need time off to physically recover from birth. I don't understand how that is a pro-family policy.

Take the OP's title out of it. To my knowledge, the GOP does not want to extend FMLA protection any farther. I'm not claiming this is anti-family. But certainly we can all agree that it's a stretch to call that a pro-family policy.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 15:32:44 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Clinton's defense budget is not still in place. I suspect that two very protracted and unfocused foreign wars is responsible for the uptick in PTSD and suicide rates. I mean, if there's been an uptick, its correlated with an increase in funding, not a decrease. Unless you're trying to say that PTSD and suicide was higher in the 90's when the budget was LOWER than it is now, but I don't think it was.

No, what I'm saying is that the massive rounds of base and hospital closures and the farming out of different aspects of the military to civilian contractors has had a negative effect on military personnel as a whole that was not rectified by a later increase in spending.

I wish I could find a source but it's been said rather frequently that a pre Clinton sized military would have had an average deployment turn around time of almost four years. We can go round and round over whether or not Bush should have okay'd the wars but imo, troop strength shouldn't be one of the biggest deciding factors in whether we ought to.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 15:36:17 GMT -5 @chichimi said:

May 14, 2012 15:32:06 GMT -5 @missusbee said:

Also, I'm re-affirming harpys point that FMLA is not the answer.
I've read a number of studies that estimate that something like 50% of all workers in the US are NOT covered by FMLA, so the protections offered by FMLA are totally irrelevant.

It isn't about asking anyone to bankroll my maternity leave. I, and I'm certain many others, am perfectly capable of and happy to save up a few months of pay to cover a leave of absence before planning to have a child. However, I should never have to choose between having a child or getting fired. That's awful!

But since no employee would be covered, this doesnt target pregnant women. Are you suggesting that all employers be bound by FMLA, costs be damned or that all employers be willing to give maternity leave? If its the former, it would absolutely stifle hiring and if its the latter, how do you think this would effect the hiring of women of reproductive age?

I'm certain that businesses could make a lot more money if they were able to hire children for labor, require 15 hour workdays and not give anyone break time to eat or pee. That does not make it the ethical thing to do. Nor does it have any positive societal impact.

[Deleted]

Now that we've sort of clarified where I'm coming from, I'll ask the question again. druid said: "But I still don't support more or expanded regulation on those companies to force them into policy implementation. More effective regulation? Sure." So what more effective - but not expanded - regulation would be pro-family for an employee like me, who is not protected by FMLA?

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 15:35:09 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

And one of my biggest concerns about maternity and breastfeeding policies is that 50% of more of women would not be eligible for these policies if they are implemented. I would also think that those who are not covered would probably be most in need of them.

IMO, the most effective way to implement them on a wide scale for the people who could use them most would be to put it in the hands of the government and that's not an option I can support as I think the precedence it would set could lead to not so good things.

Totally anecdotal, but in Canada most of our mat/child care benefits actually favor lower income individuals. I qualify for NO tax credits, benefits, etc. which Im just
Fine with because others need it more. For example you can get a 'baby bonus' which Is a monthly cheque or expenses based on income but it's reduced to 0 around the 45k of family income mark.

Now - there is universal protection for discrimination based on pg, and your job is protected for a year. People love it because a temp worker gets a job fr a year, woman is protected. Win win.

[chichimi]

May 14, 2012 15:40:43 GMT -5 @missusbee said:

May 14, 2012 15:36:17 GMT -5 @chichimi said:

But since no employee would be covered, this doesnt target pregnant women. Are you suggesting that all employers be bound by FMLA, costs be damned or that all employers be willing to give maternity leave? If its the former, it would absolutely stifle hiring and if its the latter, how do you think this would effect the hiring of women of reproductive age?

I'm certain that businesses could make a lot more money if they were able to hire children for labor, require 15 hour workdays and not give anyone break time to eat or pee. That does not make it the ethical thing to do. Nor does it have any positive societal impact.

Its not about just making money. Weve already determined that businesses of enough employees have the capacity to abide by these rules. Its the smaller employers that would have hardship and I dont think its work risking their existence over mat leave. If they cannot employ anyone, its even worse than not being able to handle employees taking off for 12 weeks.

[druidp]

May 14, 2012 15:41:22 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Now that we've sort of clarified where I'm coming from, I'll ask the question again. druid said: "But I still don't support more or expanded regulation on those companies to force them into policy implementation. More effective regulation? Sure." So what more effective - but not expanded - regulation would be pro-family for an employee like me, who is not protected by FMLA?

Sorry, I was choking down some non-vomit-inducing food and putting the kid down for a nap.

I think if we can answer this, we should seriously start a campaign. Not kidding.

I think the crux of it would lie in coming up with policies that benefit both employer and employee... an employer benefits from a healthy, happy and consistent work force, while an employee benefits from a reasonable, accommodating, and viable company that won't tank while they're employed there.

Perhaps this would come back around to companies working outside of the box a bit: the work day not being confined to 8am-5pm, creating more rotating and/or time-sharing work schedules which would still provide full benefits, perhaps coming up with creative ways to cover a mom on maternity leave while she's out, but also providing a way for that time to be "made up" or compensated when she returns so there's not a huge expense in supplying the temporary support for her absence?

Although already you can see this is all contingent on areas beyond the realm of a company's control: health care costs, labor restrictions, etc. FMLA may not go far enough as it stands, but I agree that if it were implemented across the board - no exceptions - it might put smaller companies between a rock and a hard place to comply yet remain viable.

And also it comes back to the question of support. I think it's absolutely in a company's best interests to support a solid employee, not just with a paycheck and group insurance but also to assist their home life and happiness. They may not be directly responsible for the latter, but they can absolutely impact it. Just as an employee is not directly responsible (typically) for the rise and fall of their company, but they absolutely impact it.

So... It's not in me to look at this as a "my company had better support my family choices." Rather I see it as an "I'll be an excellent employee, live my life and make my choices, and hopefully I have picked an employer that scratches my back in return. If not, I need to move on as I can." I think you and I likely digress on this last point, but there you go.

[Deleted]

druid, I appreciate your response, but I feel like you didn't really answer the question. The crux of the OP is that the GOP claims to be pro-family but doesn't support pro-family policies. What I'm asking is what are the pro-family policies that the GOP supports that would be, as you say, more effective without increasing regulation? Are there any such policies that the GOP is or would support at the government level? Or is the plan just to leave it to the free market? If it's the latter, how is that pro-family?

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 16:17:02 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

May 14, 2012 15:36:17 GMT -5 @chichimi said:

But since no employee would be covered, this doesnt target pregnant women. Are you suggesting that all employers be bound by FMLA, costs be damned or that all employers be willing to give maternity leave? If its the former, it would absolutely stifle hiring and if its the latter, how do you think this would effect the hiring of women of reproductive age?

Let's just cut to the chase. FMLA is not maternity leave. It is a cheap imitation. Telling someone that they can have 12 weeks of unpaid leave from a job that they can't afford to be gone from is not maternity leave. It's a cruel joke.

The saddest part is, I'd be happy to have it. Because its far better than what I have.

[basilosaurus]

Druid, it sounds like you're saying that if it came down to the government having to support what's good for a business vs what's good for a family if there was a conflict of interest, you'd like them to support the business. Is that accurate?

[Deleted]

What I don't understand is that if maternity leave is SO burdensome on companies, including small companies, then why does it work in almost every other country in the world?

[druidp]

May 14, 2012 16:32:22 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

Druid, it sounds like you're saying that if it came down to the government having to support what's good for a business vs what's good for a family if there was a conflict of interest, you'd like them to support the business. Is that accurate?

No, I don't think it should be business over family. If I'm for anything, I'm for responsibility - on the part of a business, or a family, or an employee, or an employer. It's not perfect, never will be since people are always part of the equation, but I favor it over socialism or over-regulation.

What I'm asking is what are the pro-family policies that the GOP supports that would be, as you say, more effective without increasing regulation? Are there any such policies that the GOP is or would support at the government level? Or is the plan just to leave it to the free market? If it's the latter, how is that pro-family?

I would hazard a guess that the GOP would support few policies at the federal government level, favoring instead to bring it to the state/local levels. I'll answer that I don't know what alternate policies are out there right now that might be better than FMLA, and I think it'd be great if some were offered up. I would also hazard a guess that the default answer of the GOP right now is the free market, which leads me to your last question: how is that pro-family?

I think this is getting compartmentalized too much. It has turned into a "you're either pro-business or pro-family, so which is it?" I also think everyone is seeing "free market" and instantly thinking, "Shit, that's just fine for businesses, but what about me?" When instead it is far broader than that - the ideal free market (which yes, I know, is not ideal at this time in this country) should work to make both employer and employee free to find their sustenance and success as best they can, suffer the consequences if they abuse it, and experience success if it is well used.

I don't know if I answered your questions. I may never, if we have very divergent definitions of the free market, which I think might be more likely since I was already called crazy on here for positing that the free market ever could and did work.

[basilosaurus]

May 14, 2012 17:56:30 GMT -5 druidp said:

I don't know if I answered your questions. I may never, if we have very divergent definitions of the free market, which I think might be more likely since I was already called crazy on here for positing that the free market ever could and did work.

I'll just take this snippet here. Do you think we had a free market before the civil rights legislation of the 60s? Before the FMLA of the 90s? Before the labor laws of the early 20th century?

I think I get what you're saying in theory, but the reality is that business and family (or fill in another group addressed by regulation) will be in conflict as history shows us. What, if anything, should happen then? To me, saying "let the free market work," especially if it entails not regulating business, is a pro-business stance. And at times, being pro-business will come at the cost of citizens. That's why it's an either/or. At some point, government has to choose which to regulate b/c the reality is they're not going to coexist naturally all the time.

[redheadbaker]

May 14, 2012 17:56:30 GMT -5 druidp said:

I think this is getting compartmentalized too much. It has turned into a "you're either pro-business or pro-family, so which is it?" I also think everyone is seeing "free market" and instantly thinking, "Shit, that's just fine for businesses, but what about me?" When instead it is far broader than that - the ideal free market (which yes, I know, is not ideal at this time in this country) should work to make both employer and employee free to find their sustenance and success as best they can, suffer the consequences if they abuse it, and experience success if it is well used.

Talking about the "ideal free market" reminds me of a conversation I had with S.O. about "the average baby." It doesn't actually exist.

The "ideal free market" you describe has never existed, which is why we need pro-family programs and regulations.

It never existed in the past (see slavery, child labor, etc.), so I have no reason to believe that if we let it go on its own, it would get there someday (nor do I think it would be ethical to find out).