Jump to content

Is Maternity Leave a Form of Employee Discrimination...?


Recommended Posts

USMCHokie

I was just reading a random article about Yahoo's CEO boosting the amount of maternity leave granted new mothers. Are the benefits afforded new mothers a form of discrimination against employees who don't bear children while employed? Is it a form of discrimination against male employees who can't bear children? Should these employees be entitled to the same paid leave and benefits?

 

And why would people cry discrimination if an employer chooses not to hire a woman of child-bearing age so that he wouldn't have to deal with paying for an employee that contributes nothing while she's on maternity leave? It just seems ironic that someone would cry discrimination because an employer did not want to give them preferential treatment (i.e., discriminate against those who don't bear chlidren).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people allowed to not hire employees with other types of medical risk (race, age, weight, family history, etc), so that they won't have to deal with paying for an employee that contributes nothing while he/she is on leave for other medical issues?

 

No?

 

Why should pregnancy be any different?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
USMCHokie
Are people allowed to not hire employees with other types of medical risk (race, age, weight, family history, etc), so that they won't have to deal with paying for an employee that contributes nothing while he/she is on leave for other medical issues?

 

No?

 

Why should pregnancy be any different?

 

The protected classes in the US are race, color, national origin, religion, age, sex, and disability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Canada, we have Parental leave. The couple decide whether to split the leave or have one person take all the leave.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I

 

And why would people cry discrimination if an employer chooses not to hire a woman of child-bearing age

 

The protected classes in the US are race, color, national origin, religion, age, sex, and disability.

 

You have your age and sex right there...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Feelin Frisky

If it's discrimination it's justified, acceptable and traditional. In this day an age where people are screwed out of pensions, take cuts in pay, have to pay way more on health insurance premiums and so forth, the continuation of paid maternity leave is a precious thing. I worked in a firm for almost 20 years and saw many women go on maternity leave and get showered with gifts. I admit a little envy because no one fussed over me like that but I never took it as discrimination. I hope no one tries to challenge this because there are already too many heartless businesses who would be gleeful about taking away this time-honored privilege.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
USMCHokie
In Canada, we have Parental leave. The couple decide whether to split the leave or have one person take all the leave.

 

Right. In the US, we have paternity leave too. But what about those individuals (men and women) who elect not to have a child while employed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Right. In the US, we have paternity leave too. But what about those individuals (men and women) who elect not to have a child while employed?
Since the children of this generation will be supporting social security of old farts, including those who've elected to remain childless, exactly what's your point?
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
USMCHokie
You have your age and sex right there...

 

Actually, I should have added the caveat, the age protected class only applies to those 40 years and older.

 

"The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits employment discrimination nationwide based on age with respect to employees 40 years of age or older. The ADEA also addresses the difficulty older workers face in obtaining new employment after being displaced from their jobs, arbitrary age limits."

 

It's purpose is to prohibit older individuals from being discriminated against in favor of younger employees.

 

And gender does not apply here because paternity leave is also often granted to the father. And there are women who don't bear children while employed, yet they are not afforded these benefits. So gender is not the basis of discrimination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So unless employees can prove irreversible vasectomies, hysterectomies or medical conditions causing sterility or they're past their fertility years, how would an employer be guaranteed that they're hiring child-free individuals?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
USMCHokie
Since the children of this generation will be supporting social security of old farts, including those who've elected to remain childless, exactly what's your point?

 

Maternity leave is a form of preferential treatment of a very particular group of individuals. Yet when this preferential treatment is taken away or does not exist at a company, you have outcry that said company is discriminating against new mothers for not providing preferential treatment that essentially discriminates against everyone else.

 

I find it odd. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since the children of this generation will be supporting social security of old farts, including those who've elected to remain childless, exactly what's your point?

 

Maternity leave is a form of preferential treatment of a very particular group of individuals. Yet when this preferential treatment is taken away or does not exist at a company, you have outcry that said company is discriminating against new mothers for not providing preferential treatment that essentially discriminates against everyone else.

 

I find it odd. :confused:

Refer to above post. Does this mean that childless individuals should automatically be disqualified from receiving any social security?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
USMCHokie
So unless employees can prove irreversible vasectomies, hysterectomies or medical conditions causing sterility or they're past their fertility years, how would an employer be guaranteed that they're hiring child-free individuals?

 

They don't. They simply don't offer paid leave and other benefits. At least in the US, the only legal requirement for qualified individuals is that employers grant the employee leave and have the position open for her return. There is no requirement for paid leave or retained benefits, and the employer is free to hire someone else to fill the gap while she is away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
USMCHokie
Refer to above post. Does this mean that childless individuals should automatically be disqualified from receiving any social security?

 

How does Social Security work in Canada...?

 

In the US, the system does not take into account at all the number of children you have... "Theoretically," (:laugh:) you pay into it while you are employed. So those who do not meet the employment requirements in their lifetime (i.e., they did not work enough and therefore not contribute enough) are disqualified from receiving social security benefits. Children have nothing to do with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the US, the system does not take into account at all the number of children you have... "Theoretically," (:laugh:) you pay into it while you are employed. So those who do not meet the employment requirements are disqualified from receiving social security benefits. Children have nothing to do with it.
This makes no sense at all. Any idea how social security works in the U.S.?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
USMCHokie
This makes no sense at all. Any idea how social security works in the U.S.?

 

Do you...? :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
USMCHokie
Apparently a lot more than you do and I'm Canadian.

 

:laugh:

 

 

-----

Link to post
Share on other sites
skydiveaddict
Refer to above post. Does this mean that childless individuals should automatically be disqualified from receiving any social security?

 

 

What does having children have to do with receiving ss benefits?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The protected classes in the US are race, color, national origin, religion, age, sex, and disability.

You forgot gender [or sexual orientation].

 

Also, the race part doesn't always apply.

If you're white, you are SOL.

 

Over here women get 1yr of maternity leave paid for by the state at 75% of wage, the employer has to keep the job open for her so they can only hire a temp.

2yrs at 50% pay and the employee can look for a permanent fill.

Edited by Radu
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
USMCHokie
What does having children have to do with receiving ss benefits?

 

I think the point she's trying to make is that the money young people contribute are directly paying for the benefits of old people, which is essentially true at this point. And without young people, there is no more social security. So she attempts to make the connection that bearing children is a "contribution" to social security, and those who do not make this "contribution" should not be entitled to benefits...benefits they are actually entitled to based on their monetary FICA contributions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
USMCHokie
You forgot gender [or sexual orientation].

 

Gender is in the list as "sex." And sexual orientation is not a protected class in the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gender is in the list as "sex." And sexual orientation is not a protected class in the US.

 

You mean you can get fired in the US for being gay ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
USMCHokie
You mean you can get fired in the US for being gay ?

 

Why do you think we had to have all those policies (e.g., "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the military)?

 

It was an executive policy designed to circumvent the lack of legislation preventing the discharge of service members based on sexual orientation. And now, you have an executive policy allowing gays to openly serve, another effort to circumvent lack of legislation protecting gays from being discharged on the basis of sexual orientation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maternity leave and Paternity leave are not government mandated rights, i.e. paid leave. What the US says is if you are pregnant you fall into the rights of FMLA and ADA. So your position is protected while you are out for a multiple array of medical reasons and or accommodation.

 

Some companies agree to put in maternity and/or paternity leave which will give time off for an individual that is having or adopting a child and will consider it paid leave.

 

It is not discriminator as not having children is not a protected class so those that do not qualify are not protected. It is a preferential benefits like other benefits such as stoke options, executive benefits, etc. A company is not required to offer equal benefits for all employees, they are expected to not discriminate negatively against one on a protected class. They can discriminate positively towards those in a protected class.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...