U.S. maternal death rate higher than Europe's average

[DeadPoolX 9]

same place they get the money to have only one person to do the job. However it is that particular company makes its money is how they pay their employees. Same as in the US. How does an employer pay someone to temp a job if someone is out on extended medical leave and the first employee is still being paid sick time? Same thing.

I think what Scott is getting at is, why should any company have to pay two employees for the work produced by one?

In other words, if a woman takes maternal leave and the company in question has to pay that AND pay the temporary worker as well, the company is effectively paying two employees when the company only gets work done for one employee. See what I mean?

This is why, in the U.S., maternal leave is generally set at six weeks. Companies can't afford to pay for two employees and get the work done for only one employee for a long period of time. It's just not efficient, productive or effective. Even with a time period of six weeks, U.S. employers cringe when they find out a female employee is pregnant, because they know she will cost them.

I simply cannot imagine how Canadian employers (or any other foreign employer) remains in business if women are allowed to take maternal leave for a year (or sometimes more, depending on the country) with 65% of their pay (again, this varies with the country) when the company also has to pay for another employee to fill the position the previously pregnant woman filled.

If women were allowed to take maternal leave for a year or so here in the U.S., I'd imagine that the government (state and/or Federal) would have to pass a new law mandating quotas, which demand that all employers hire a certain number of women. Otherwise, I could easily see employers doing anything they could to avoid hiring women (of child bearing age) for fear they would cost them and their company money.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, in countries where women are given years paid leave, where does the money come from to pay their salaries while they are gone? And who pays for someone to do their work in their absence?

In Canada you can take up to a year of paid maternity leave at (last I heard) 65% of your regular pay. In a lot of cases an employer will top it up to equal 100%, at least for a few months.

The money comes from taxes basically. We have a system here called EI (employment insurance - read: unemployment insurance). Everyone pays in to it (employees and employers), you can collect it if you are laid off for some reason or quit - say to move to where your spouse is in the U.S. (ie: you can't collect if you quit just because you dislike your job). This is also the program that pays for maternity leave.

Employers pay someone to fill the position while the employee is on leave.

I'm sure all programs such as this are funded through either a similar program or regular taxes - it is how every government funds everything after all.

Ok, so where do the employers get the money to hire two people for the same position?

Well, this could be funded out of the pay gap. Seeing that women earn less than 80% of their male counterparts, it would seem feasible to use that portion of the pay - which is essentially withheld solely based on the employee in question being a woman - to bridge the maternity leave which certainly doesn't account for 20% of a woman's career.

[nivesito 0]

This is why, in the U.S., maternal leave is generally set at six weeks. Companies can't afford to pay for two employees and get the work done for only one employee for a long period of time. It's just not efficient, productive or effective. Even with a time period of six weeks, U.S. employers cringe when they find out a female employee is pregnant, because they know she will cost them.

I simply cannot imagine how Canadian employers (or any other foreign employer) remains in business if women are allowed to take maternal leave for a year (or sometimes more, depending on the country) with 65% of their pay (again, this varies with the country) when the company also has to pay for another employee to fill the position the previously pregnant woman filled.

If women were allowed to take maternal leave for a year or so here in the U.S., I'd imagine that the government (state and/or Federal) would have to pass a new law mandating quotas, which demand that all employers hire a certain number of women. Otherwise, I could easily see employers doing anything they could to avoid hiring women (of child bearing age) for fear they would cost them and their company money.

Well, in Europe the birth rate is really low (I think I read somewhere 1.5 child per women). Women decide to pursue carrier radder then to have children and stay home and government needs to stimulate them. America has a much higher birth-rate than Europe.

I think American economy is loosing a lot with women deciding to stay at home instead of going to work even 6 month after the birth.

[nivesito 0]

I think any women can understand how hard it is to put a 6 week old baby!!! into the day care

[pedroh 21]

same place they get the money to have only one person to do the job. However it is that particular company makes its money is how they pay their employees. Same as in the US. How does an employer pay someone to temp a job if someone is out on extended medical leave and the first employee is still being paid sick time? Same thing.

I think what Scott is getting at is, why should any company have to pay two employees for the work produced by one?

In other words, if a woman takes maternal leave and the company in question has to pay that AND pay the temporary worker as well, the company is effectively paying two employees when the company only gets work done for one employee. See what I mean?

This is why, in the U.S., maternal leave is generally set at six weeks. Companies can't afford to pay for two employees and get the work done for only one employee for a long period of time. It's just not efficient, productive or effective. Even with a time period of six weeks, U.S. employers cringe when they find out a female employee is pregnant, because they know she will cost them.

I simply cannot imagine how Canadian employers (or any other foreign employer) remains in business if women are allowed to take maternal leave for a year (or sometimes more, depending on the country) with 65% of their pay (again, this varies with the country) when the company also has to pay for another employee to fill the position the previously pregnant woman filled.

If women were allowed to take maternal leave for a year or so here in the U.S., I'd imagine that the government (state and/or Federal) would have to pass a new law mandating quotas, which demand that all employers hire a certain number of women. Otherwise, I could easily see employers doing anything they could to avoid hiring women (of child bearing age) for fear they would cost them and their company money.

that's if they pay the mother for those 6 weeks. All businesses will give you the 6 weeks, or even more, getting paid for it, that's a different story.. my wife ain't getting paid those 6 weeks, she's using all her sick days for that

[Scott & Lai 12]

same place they get the money to have only one person to do the job. However it is that particular company makes its money is how they pay their employees. Same as in the US. How does an employer pay someone to temp a job if someone is out on extended medical leave and the first employee is still being paid sick time? Same thing.

I think what Scott is getting at is, why should any company have to pay two employees for the work produced by one?

In other words, if a woman takes maternal leave and the company in question has to pay that AND pay the temporary worker as well, the company is effectively paying two employees when the company only gets work done for one employee. See what I mean?

This is why, in the U.S., maternal leave is generally set at six weeks. Companies can't afford to pay for two employees and get the work done for only one employee for a long period of time. It's just not efficient, productive or effective. Even with a time period of six weeks, U.S. employers cringe when they find out a female employee is pregnant, because they know she will cost them.

I simply cannot imagine how Canadian employers (or any other foreign employer) remains in business if women are allowed to take maternal leave for a year (or sometimes more, depending on the country) with 65% of their pay (again, this varies with the country) when the company also has to pay for another employee to fill the position the previously pregnant woman filled.

If women were allowed to take maternal leave for a year or so here in the U.S., I'd imagine that the government (state and/or Federal) would have to pass a new law mandating quotas, which demand that all employers hire a certain number of women. Otherwise, I could easily see employers doing anything they could to avoid hiring women (of child bearing age) for fear they would cost them and their company money.

Ding Ding Ding! Tell the man what he's won!

Well, this could be funded out of the pay gap. Seeing that women earn less than 80% of their male counterparts, it would seem feasible to use that portion of the pay - which is essentially withheld solely based on the employee in question being a woman - to bridge the maternity leave which certainly doesn't account for 20% of a woman's career.

If this oft-quoted figure is accurate, iow, a woman in the exact same position as a man with the exact same training and experience who puts in the exact same amount of work is getting 80% what the man is getting, then why would an employer hire a man when he can get a woman for the same job for 20% less?

[trailmix 77]

So, in countries where women are given years paid leave, where does the money come from to pay their salaries while they are gone? And who pays for someone to do their work in their absence?

In Canada you can take up to a year of paid maternity leave at (last I heard) 65% of your regular pay. In a lot of cases an employer will top it up to equal 100%, at least for a few months.

The money comes from taxes basically. We have a system here called EI (employment insurance - read: unemployment insurance). Everyone pays in to it (employees and employers), you can collect it if you are laid off for some reason or quit - say to move to where your spouse is in the U.S. (ie: you can't collect if you quit just because you dislike your job). This is also the program that pays for maternity leave.

Employers pay someone to fill the position while the employee is on leave.

I'm sure all programs such as this are funded through either a similar program or regular taxes - it is how every government funds everything after all.

Ok, so where do the employers get the money to hire two people for the same position?

They aren't actually paying two people. Person A goes on maternity leave, they are getting paid 65% of their wages from the Federal Government.

Employer then hires someone to do the work while person A is on leave - they are not paying both at the same time. When person A returns, person B leaves.

And I don't see discrimination for women of childbearing age - although I have heard of a few isolated incidents. If this were true you wouldn't be seeing many women under 50 in the workforce.

[Caladan 19]

So, in countries where women are given years paid leave, where does the money come from to pay their salaries while they are gone? And who pays for someone to do their work in their absence?

In Canada you can take up to a year of paid maternity leave at (last I heard) 65% of your regular pay. In a lot of cases an employer will top it up to equal 100%, at least for a few months.

The money comes from taxes basically. We have a system here called EI (employment insurance - read: unemployment insurance). Everyone pays in to it (employees and employers), you can collect it if you are laid off for some reason or quit - say to move to where your spouse is in the U.S. (ie: you can't collect if you quit just because you dislike your job). This is also the program that pays for maternity leave.

Employers pay someone to fill the position while the employee is on leave.

I'm sure all programs such as this are funded through either a similar program or regular taxes - it is how every government funds everything after all.

Ok, so where do the employers get the money to hire two people for the same position?

The employer doesn't have to. The 65% comes out of taxes. (It works sort of like insurance in Canada: everyone pays in to unemployment/family leave, and you use it when you need it.) The employer can hire a temp worker (probably at less than what the employee would make, so other than the disruption, the balance is in the employer's favor.) Or just not hire anyone at all. It's not like maternity leave is unheard of in professional careers in the U.S.

It hasn't lead to women being kicked out of the workforce.

Both men and women are eligible for it, too. Families can swing it however they want. Maybe the mom stays home for six months and the dad stays home for another six. Maybe they take them both concurrently, or dad stays home the first three months with mom and the she stays home another six.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, this could be funded out of the pay gap. Seeing that women earn less than 80% of their male counterparts, it would seem feasible to use that portion of the pay - which is essentially withheld solely based on the employee in question being a woman - to bridge the maternity leave which certainly doesn't account for 20% of a woman's career.

If this oft-quoted figure is accurate, iow, a woman in the exact same position as a man with the exact same training and experience who puts in the exact same amount of work is getting 80% what the man is getting, then why would an employer hire a man when he can get a woman for the same job for 20% less?

So you are saying that the pay gap is either just the invention of some radical feminist movement or - if it indeed exists - it is justified because women get done less than their male counterparts. Is that the essence of your above statement?

[Lyuba 0]

I bet it is still cheaper to pay 2 employees than pay those huge premiums for health care companies have to pay here. In Russia health care is state funded for example.

[peonyflowers99 4]

Ok now is Switzerland on the row!

In Switzerland since a short time, women can go on maternity leave for 4 months after birth, for this to happen everybody (employees) are having 3% deducted out of the salary, men and women, no matter the gender. By the time i had my kids, it was only 2 months after birth - ridiculous to me- and if any complications occurs before birth, then yes, the pergnant woman can go on sick leave paid 80% from her salary after the first month of absence. Anyway the health system we have in Switzerland is not great either, it is mandatory since 10 years, I mean as mandatory as nobody can live here without a health insurance which cost us for a familly about a quarter or more of the salary, monthly, and as far as reimbursment goes.... geeze just freacking crazy this system you better never get sick, or you get sick and you are RICH!

I know in Europe they are some countries (not the most richest ones) that have better offers for working mothers... Switzerland is the last on the list i see. Also here every child gets at birth a CHF 1000 gift from the govt, and that's it.

Am not going to blame too much my country but I am realistic and I see how it goes in other countries... it is just a shame when a country it is so rich and do so little for the babies... it is just a shame. Poor countries like eastern european countries do more than Switzerland for children, kids, working moms.

So I can compare Switzerland to USA now...

[mawilson 2,133]

So you are saying that the pay gap is either just the invention of some radical feminist movement or - if it indeed exists - it is justified because women get done less than their male counterparts. Is that the essence of your above statement?

No, the pay gap exists because men are better negotiators.

"If a 22-year-old man and a 22-year-old woman are offered $25,000 for their first job,

for example, and one of them negotiates the amount up to $30,000, then over the next

28 years, the negotiator would make $361,171 more, assuming they both got 3 percent

raises each year." (Washington Post)