Mock

Today on the radio I heard one company is giving maternity leave to married gay couples. It made me chuckle and shake my head.

I forgot about the turkey baster and Chinese girls. And the tender feelings.

Since they adopt or have donor babies I think they are entitled to a paternity leave like anyone else. If a company only gives paid maternity leave to pregnant women, however, then I think only pregnant women should be entitled to that. But as far as giving a notice ahead of time that you'll be taking time off when the baby comes then I don't see why gay couples should be any less entitled than straight.

I never got time off when my kids were born. The wife did, but I didn't. I understand why the woman that has just went through child birth gets some time to recover, but the spouse that does nothing but pass out cigars , no. Don't mater to me if it is a old school couple, a couple carpet lickers or a couple pole smokers. If you didn't squat and drop that kid, No Time Off For You.

My husband never got time off either. He never even made it to the hospital with my first daughter until an hour after she was born. But if a company does give paternity leave to the male spouse of a pregnant woman than I think gay people should be entitled to it too.

(10-29-2015, 11:45 AM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]My husband never got time off either. He never even made it to the hospital with my first daughter until an hour after she was born. But if a company does give paternity leave to the male spouse of a pregnant woman than I think gay people should be entitled to it too.

That I agree with.

(10-29-2015, 11:45 AM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]But if a company does give paternity leave to the male spouse of a pregnant woman than I think gay people should be entitled to it too.

Me too.

And, if both spouses work, I think the spouse who will be the primary caregiver is entitled to maternity leave in accordance with company policy, which is typically a little longer duration.

There's a big push by the Democratic nominees to nationalize paid maternity, paternity, and vacation leave like the rest of the developed world. I see the benefits and support that push, as long as the durations are reasonable.

But, as a business owner, honestly, it could really hurt my bottom line.

As a small business owner we allow everyone who works for us to take unpaid vacation time as long as the duration is reasonable and they give prior notice. I don't think I should be forced to pay for it, however, whether it's for a pregnancy or a cruise to Jamaica. I've never received a paid vacation from any of my employers and I don't feel they should be obligated to give me one.

I can understand one person from the marriage staying home but not both. Most companies give med leave for awhile usually not paid unless they have disability insurance and the other person has to use vaca pay.

I think this is one of the things that pisses off us straight guys. We work all the way up to and sometimes through our kids births and then have to right back to work. So the gays come along and they want equal rights, ok, you got equal rights. But the way it works out is they get a better deal than we did, which seems like Special Treatment. ANd if we bitch about we are Homophobes, thats not right.

I didn't hear the radio interview, but I don't think they're asking for special rights?

While gay couples now have the same marriage rights and benefits as other married couples under the law, not many employers who offer paid maternity/paternity leave to hetero couples offer it to gay couples, is my understanding.

I think if a business doesn't offer it to straight couples than gay couples shouldn't be entitled to it either. I think if a business does offer it to straight couples than gay couples should also be entitled to it. I think if a business only offers it to pregnant women than only pregnant women should be entitled to it. It's quite simple. Myself, I wouldn't give any of the bastards a paid leave.

(10-29-2015, 05:28 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]Myself, I wouldn't give any of the bastards a paid leave.

Damn it Sally, I like you more and more every time you post.

(10-29-2015, 05:28 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]I think if a business doesn't offer it to straight couples than gay couples shouldn't be entitled to it either. I think if a business does offer it to straight couples than gay couples should also be entitled to it. I think if a business only offers it to pregnant women than only pregnant women should be entitled to it. It's quite simple. Myself, I wouldn't give any of the bastards a paid leave.

I agree with you that it should simply be a matter of applying the same benefits equally to all employees/parents of the company, gay or straight.

But, part of the issue is Leave policies that focus on mothers aren't always equally applied to gay men who will be primary caregivers to surrogate babies, and paternity leave isn't always equally applied to female spouses of lesbians who have babies.

I have read about some companies moving from “paternity” and “maternity” leave though. Instead, they're switching to gender-neutral policies like “parental leave” and separating the time available to women to recover from birth from the time granted to the “primary caregiver”—male or female—to promote bonding. I see that as more of a benefits equalizer than a special privilege for gays.

For larger corporations with high profits and more ability to cover the duties of those on leave with current staff, those kinds of paid employee Leaves are more viable, and probably helps them to maintain good morale and and attract top notch employees with a kick-ass benefits package. Some of those larger and high-tech highly-profitable companies are the ones that have moved to paid parental leave already, based on what I've read.

Anyway, I support the push for more paid Leaves to U.S. employees conceptually. As a small business owner, I wouldn't want to see it be mandatory for all employers though; I think it could hurt some small businesses to the extent that closure would be required and thus contribute to more unemployment.

I would not like the Feds involved either. It should be a business decision not a federal mandated thing. France tried lower working hrs (under 40) and a few other things that just screwed them in the end.
Some companies depending on the employee layout might actually benefit from it, but my original shake my head thing was because if 2 guys married expect maternity leave they ought to at least feel some friggin pain first. I'm evil and isensitive like that.

(10-29-2015, 06:38 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]But, part of the issue is Leave policies that focus on mothers aren't always equally applied to gay men who will be primary caregivers to surrogate babies, and paternity leave isn't always equally applied to female spouses of lesbians who have babies.

I think policies that focus only on mothers are more for medical reasons than care giving or bonding reasons. The purpose of the mother taking a leave of absence is to prepare for birth, give birth, recover and return back to work shortly after. If a business already has that policy in place then I don't think they should have to change it to accommodate non-pregnant gays or heterosexuals.

I'm not suggesting that a non-pregnant primary caregiver be given medical maternity leave.

Maternity leave has different components in some companies, or is based on a combination of medical + caregiving/bonding time.

I agree with the companies that are affording gays the same caregiving/bonding time that they give to mothers, even if the primary caregiver didn't give birth.