RE: Downsizing Maternity Leave: Employers Cut Pay, Time Off
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Downsizing Maternity Leave: Employers Cut Pay, Time... - 6/17/2008 5:13:20 PM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 750
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: relady
quote:
I do not think anyone is entitled to have medical care. There is no basis for saying that seeing a doctor is a fundamental right of mankind. Why should my family and I be forced to pay for someone else's medical care? And some of those people may smoke, drink, etc., things I would not do if I want to stay healthy, yet my money would still have to go into some giant pot to take care of everyone and anyone regardless of their own level of personal concern. Wow, somehow I just really have a terribly hard time imagining these words coming from Jesus' mouth.
Since medical care is not a fundamental right of mankind does that mean that you think that if someone cannot afford needed medical care they should just be allowed to die? Wow. I'm speechless.
You know, I am learning that interacting with you is nothing more than defending myself against the words you put in my mouth. Why don't you get serious and stop simply trying to take outrageous jabs at others.
As far as the hard time imagining? How is that? Doesn't Jesus instruct each one of us to take care of ourselves? Our bodies? Our families? In my opinion, a good portion of the middle class (at least) is going to sink into financial bankruptcy by the time the taxes for this really get done coming in. You honestly think Jesus would want that? And does Jesus want people to help others out of the kindness of their heart or does he want them to be forced to do it?
quote:
quote:
What is your plan for the treatment of the children in this country when by the time they are senior citizens socialized medicine has made it nearly impossible to get care? Just let them die because at least it fixed the problem for a while right now? You are making some really strange assumptions here. Who said anything about only fixing things for a little while? I don't want that. I want some sort of system in place that will work for everyone to at least have basic medical care taken care of. Whether or not I would be in favor of a particular program would depend upon the particulars of that program.
This was a perfectly illogical assumption of you in the same manner you made a perfectly illogical assumption of me. I only changed a few words from your statement to produce mine.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Downsizing Maternity Leave: Employers Cut Pay, Time... - 6/17/2008 5:59:49 PM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 320
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Having lived in the UK [which I love dearly], I can tell you that socialized healthcare in the UK was no laughing matter. People were waiting up to 4 years for life saving surgeries for cancer and heart conditions, and they were dying on those wait lists. The UK certainly wasn't alone in it's socialized medicine problems as there were other European countries even worse off in their healthcare.
Well I lived in the UK for 30 years and I can tell you that cancer patient and heart patients never had to wait 4 years for an operation unless it was something like waiting for a heart transplant where the situation is no better in the USA. There have been long waiting lists in times past, but they were for non-critical issues like hip replacement surgery. Not pleasant for the sufferer by any means, but they weren't dying.
And as a matter of fact, my mother had a bladder cancer operation just a couple of weeks after detection, and my father had a stent just put in a few weeks after they detected he had heart disease. They are both alive today because of speedy, efficient and quality care from the British National Health Service. No only that, but my mother had a fall a couple of years ago and torn ligaments in her shoulder. There *was* a waiting list for the surgery to repair the damage (only 4 months mind) so they decided to pay for the surgery themselves. As school teachers all their lives they are not wealthy people by any means, but because they were able to afford private surgery nonetheless (yes, shock horror, affordable private medicine and insurance is still available in the UK!!) they opted to go private. My father also has diabetes which is being closely monitored by the local NHS doctor and has thus ensured that he hasn't needed expensive health care from any complications that could arise at his age (he's nearly 80s). My mother has to take expensive antibiotics to stave off bladder infections (no cancer though) which would probably be a major drain of their resources if they had to pay for them.
So the caricature of the British NHS you see described in these forums is grossly inaccurate. Sure there are problems, some of them serious, but by and large it functions very well for most people and the vast majority of Brits wouldn't have it any other way -- not even Margaret Thatcher dared to do away with it.
And let's not forget, Americans are playing double to three times per capita for their healthcare compared to the Brits, so private medicine is no bargain. Guess who has to pay for all those uninsured who finally come in with advanced cancer or other serious illness because they didn't have the money to seek early diagnosis and treatment -- that's right, we do, for all 42 million and more! And as I have personally discovered, private medicine is no guarantee of speedy service -- I have had to wait up to 10 weeks for just an appointment with a specialist at times.
And for those of you who don't have a good health insurance plan through work, how many times have you fretted or worried about going to the doctor because of the possible expense, or the possibility of your rates going sky high, or losing the insurance altogether? I know one person who spent years with a bad stomach worrying about the costs of treatment before I persuaded him to go get it checked out. He was lucky -- it was treatable, but if it had been cancer he would have be dead. Having lived with the NHS, with company health insurance, and now with a personal insurance plan, the difference is night and day with the amount of stress and worry it adds to your life. And I am lucky that I don't have a family to support. In the UK nobody goes bankrupt because of medical bills. In the US, up to 500,000 people suffer that fate every year, meaning that every year well over a million people (including spouses and children) suffer through one of the most traumatic live events that can happen to a family. No wonder the divorce rate is so high (financial issues ranks high in the causes of divorce).
I understand that the idea of government administered health care is ideologically repugnant to many people around here, but that does not mean that some form of nationalized healthcare (and there are many to chose from) doesn't work better than our broken-down private system in the USA. Comparing the raw stats of American life-expectancy, infant mortality, and other health indicators with other countries in western industrialized nations. The US is 38th in life expectancy and around 30th in infant mortality. Every nation with some form of nationalized health care is ahead of the US (including Cuba!). Something is badly wrong with this picture.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Downsizing Maternity Leave: Employers Cut Pay, Time... - 6/17/2008 6:28:19 PM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 320
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline
|
By the way, I have just checked the current waiting list stats for the NHS, and literally only a handful of people are having to wait more than 30 weeks for treatment on the NHS today. So forget the "4 year waiting list scare stories". Even if they used to be true (and only for elective surgeries), they are not today:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/nhs-set-to-meet-waiting-times-target-836750.html
Again, it's not perfect, and can be improved upon, but it's far, far from the basket case some would have you believe. By the way, conservatives in Switzerland were adamantly opposed to a nationalized health service before it was adopted in the mid-90s. Today they are ardent supporters, claiming that it has removed an onerous burden from both Swiss businesses and the Swiss populace. Switzerland is one of the most conservative nations in the US (heck, they even own more guns than we do!) and yet they too saw fit to put ideology aside and do what's right for the country overall.
This issue isn't going to go away. The current private health insurance scheme is going to continue being out of reach of more and more of Americans unless something drastic is done. European business is thriving in spite of -- no, in part because of nationalized health care. If the USA is to remain competitive they're going to have to do something similar eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Downsizing Maternity Leave: Employers Cut Pay, Time... - 6/17/2008 6:39:13 PM
|
|
|
thorkraki
Posts: 102
Joined: 6/17/2008
Status: offline
|
I am going to go back to the original topic and talk about maternity leave, or in my case, more specifically, parental leave. We own businesses in Italy and in Denmark. In Denmark (yes, I know it's different in the USA, but I want to explain what we do) we are required to offer parents of a newborn or newly adopted child 52 weeks of leave at full pay. The cost is borne by the employer and the Crown. Fathers take at least 2 weeks, mothers at least 18 weeks, and the rest the two decide themselves.
As a business owner, I have found that making parental leave as flexible as possible helps us retain the absolute best employees. We even find flexible solutions to allow parents to bring infants and toddlers to work with them, sometimes in a group nursery on site, and sometimes just at work with them! People like these benefits, and it helps us keep good workers.
I think that in the USA it varies state to state how much parental leave you get, and whether it is paid. I am thinking about opening a business in the USA. If we do, we will offer the same benefits as we do in Europe.
So here is my question: in your opinion, would having such parental leave be a factor in whether you took or stayed in a certain job?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Downsizing Maternity Leave: Employers Cut Pay, Time... - 6/17/2008 9:09:30 PM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 320
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Well, I'm sure it depends on the age and situation of the people you hire, but sure I think it would very much be a factor. Talking from experience offering an extra week's vacation to new hires (American's only get three for the first 5 years of any new job) would be attractive to a wider range of applicants. I was lucky in that my company gave me credit for years of service in the UK when I came to the US so I only lost about 3 days a year overall. Having to go to three weeks vacation after ten years at five would have been rough 
Benefits are important to employees. Over the last 10 years those benefits, even amongst the best companies like the one I worked for, were constantly being eroded. Pensions, health care, flexibility, vacation time, you name it, they shaved it. The souring of employee attitude to their jobs was palpable (and remember, these are well paid people I am talking about) and there was no doubt that a sense of loyalty to the company was lost because they felt that the company was no longer being loyal to them.
It's tough to gauge the overall effect of cutting or increasing benefits, which is why I think they are such a big target when it comes to cost cutting. You can calculate the amount of money that's immediately saved, but it's very hard to say what the long term downside is to the productivity and morale of the workforce is (and thus it's much easier to ignore).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Downsizing Maternity Leave: Employers Cut Pay, Time... - 6/18/2008 12:03:05 AM
|
|
|
thorkraki
Posts: 102
Joined: 6/17/2008
Status: offline
|
Thanks tacitus (my favorite historian, along with Livy!), for your comments. We have run our businesses for over fifteen years, and we have made a very fine profit all along regardless of the economies of the nations we operate in. It is largely because of the skill and productivity of our employees, and I believe that the reason for their dedication is how we treat them.
It seems to me that you are right from what I hear about erosion of benefits in USA. Western Europe would be back to the revolutions of the 19th century if they tried to go back to three weeks vacation or less! Of course, not all of these countries are models of productivity either.
Maternal or parental leave comes down to such a small amount of money, at least in our case, that the morale problems of cutting it are not cost-benefit effective. Also, it's just a nice thing to do!
Thor
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Downsizing Maternity Leave: Employers Cut Pay, Time... - 6/18/2008 3:08:46 AM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 320
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline
|
No problems, Thor (one of my favorite gods too  )
Good luck with your business whether you decide to expand into the USA or not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Downsizing Maternity Leave: Employers Cut Pay, Time... - 6/18/2008 9:30:10 AM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 1048
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
Keep in mind, Denmark has less people than the DFW Metroplex. There are NO conclusions that can be empirically drawn from their experience and applied to ours. Understand completely. We do have the challenge of being such a large, and diverse, country. They are a very homogenous society. It is different. But that doesn't preclude us from looking at their system and utilizing what WOULD work for us.
quote:
I am thinking about opening a business in the USA. If we do, we will offer the same benefits as we do in Europe. Please open it in St. Louis! 
quote:
Maternal or parental leave comes down to such a small amount of money, at least in our case, that the morale problems of cutting it are not cost-benefit effective. Also, it's just a nice thing to do! You are so correct, however in the U.S. employers who are truly concerned about employee morale are in a shrinking minority.
Tacitus, as always your first post is spot on! Thanks!
< Message edited by relady -- 6/18/2008 9:41:23 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Downsizing Maternity Leave: Employers Cut Pay, Time... - 6/18/2008 9:44:12 AM
|
|
|
thorkraki
Posts: 102
Joined: 6/17/2008
Status: offline
|
I would open a business in St. Louis if it were good for growing olive or grapes! I think that if we do, it will have to be central or northern California because of the climate of the crops we grow.
It is a good point about Denmark being homogeneous. We have not had as much immigration as other parts of Europe. Part of it is because of the Long Night. It's even longer in Norway!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Downsizing Maternity Leave: Employers Cut Pay, Time... - 6/18/2008 12:46:55 PM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1311
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
I'm gone for a few days and you guys are back to socialized medical care again. I've made a thread just for you to continue that discussion. Socialized Medical Care
This thread was about maternity leave.
_____________________________
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
Hosea Project Care Net
Google
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Downsizing Maternity Leave: Employers Cut Pay, Time... - 6/18/2008 1:23:32 PM
|
|
|
Kat_D
Posts: 3178
Joined: 9/2/2005
From: Where We Shake, Rattle & Roll!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
I just don't get this entire concept that if "I" want to have a baby and "I" want to stay at home with him/her for a certain period of time it's "someone elses" responsibility to provide for me the means to do so or hold my job for me?
I just don't get it.
That's my responsibility as an adult and parent to make those types of decisions and arrangements. Not some employer who is trying to earn a living for themselves and protect their working employees and offer their customers goods and services at a reasonable price.
I just don't get it?
I'm wit chu! I don't get it either.
Maybe this will be a good thing. Perhaps some double income parents will realize they can get by without their maternity leave pay if they make better choices and live more frugally...and then one parent may decide they can stay home with their kids permanently.
Well, I can dream can't I?
_____________________________
~Kat
"...And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes...no more death, sorrow, nor crying."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Downsizing Maternity Leave: Employers Cut Pay, Time... - 6/19/2008 3:44:54 PM
|
|
|
PaleHawkWoman
Posts: 330
Joined: 7/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KatMack
Was just reading and interesting study the other day. It showed how the advent of Medicaid and Medicare actually decreased the amount of medical treatment available to the poor. It seems that doctors and hospitals used to offer a great deal of pro bono services to the poor, but once the government paycheck was available, it all dried up. I think that services like healthcare for the poor, welfare, etc belong in the private sector. Imagine how much more money we could give to charities if we didn't have to support so many bloated government programs with our tax dollars and WE actually got to keep it!
--Kat
You're assuming that most people would actually put that extra income into caring for the poor rather than blowing it on themselves. This is America, remember? And for that wag who asked why he/she should be concerned about paying for anyone's healthcare other than his/her own, where is your christian compassion for others who are far less well-off than yourself? Is your idea that if a person cannot pay for healthcare they should die and get out of your way? Should a child die from a ruptured appendix because the parents can't afford medical care? Should a parent die from cancer and leave their children orphaned because they can't afford treatment? Should a man remain unemployable and his family dependent on welfare because of a dislocated shoulder which keeps him from working, or would it be more cost-effective to pay for the surgery and 3months of therapy it would take to get him well and back in the work force? There are 27 million Americans who cannot afford health care and the cost to us in terms of lost labor, more money allocated to social services, and the effects of deprivation on their children is far more costly to our country than providing them with medical care would be.
I am conflicted about providing healthcare to people who've smoked, abused alcohol and/or drugs, or failed to exercise and eat sensibly. More employers at some of the higher levels are requiring employees- and their spouses- to quit smoking, drinking, and to lose weight and get in shape in order to cut health insurance costs and boost employee productivity. These employers are also offering incentives and assistance to employees to meet said health policies and providing an average of 18 months for them to do so. Employees who fail to do so are fired.
There is no system which will please everyone, but we've got to find some relief from the current system before we find ourselves worse off than most third-world countries in terms of availability of affordable healthcare. Either we revamp and improve Medicaid/Medicare, provide universal healthcare, or just let people suffer and die if they can't afford healthcare. The way the economy is going, that could include a great deal more of us in a very short time.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Downsizing Maternity Leave: Employers Cut Pay, Time... - 6/19/2008 4:27:28 PM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 750
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PaleHawkWoman
quote:
ORIGINAL: KatMack
Was just reading and interesting study the other day. It showed how the advent of Medicaid and Medicare actually decreased the amount of medical treatment available to the poor. It seems that doctors and hospitals used to offer a great deal of pro bono services to the poor, but once the government paycheck was available, it all dried up. I think that services like healthcare for the poor, welfare, etc belong in the private sector. Imagine how much more money we could give to charities if we didn't have to support so many bloated government programs with our tax dollars and WE actually got to keep it!
--Kat
You're assuming that most people would actually put that extra income into caring for the poor rather than blowing it on themselves. This is America, remember? And for that wag who asked why he/she should be concerned about paying for anyone's healthcare other than his/her own, where is your christian compassion for others who are far less well-off than yourself? Is your idea that if a person cannot pay for healthcare they should die and get out of your way? Should a child die from a ruptured appendix because the parents can't afford medical care? Should a parent die from cancer and leave their children orphaned because they can't afford treatment? Should a man remain unemployable and his family dependent on welfare because of a dislocated shoulder which keeps him from working, or would it be more cost-effective to pay for the surgery and 3months of therapy it would take to get him well and back in the work force? There are 27 million Americans who cannot afford health care and the cost to us in terms of lost labor, more money allocated to social services, and the effects of deprivation on their children is far more costly to our country than providing them with medical care would be.
I am conflicted about providing healthcare to people who've smoked, abused alcohol and/or drugs, or failed to exercise and eat sensibly. More employers at some of the higher levels are requiring employees- and their spouses- to quit smoking, drinking, and to lose weight and get in shape in order to cut health insurance costs and boost employee productivity. These employers are also offering incentives and assistance to employees to meet said health policies and providing an average of 18 months for them to do so. Employees who fail to do so are fired.
There is no system which will please everyone, but we've got to find some relief from the current system before we find ourselves worse off than most third-world countries in terms of availability of affordable healthcare. Either we revamp and improve Medicaid/Medicare, provide universal healthcare, or just let people suffer and die if they can't afford healthcare. The way the economy is going, that could include a great deal more of us in a very short time.
Why thank you PaleHawk, I suppose I am that "wag" as you say. But before you get so wildy accusatory perhaps you ought to put those reading glasses on and take another look over at my post. I did not say that I one ought to only care about themselves, as you so nicely quoted me as saying, I was asking the question of why people feel that someone else other than themself ought to care more about their healthcare than said person. It is an entirely different question that goes to the entitlement attitude this country has. It has nothing to do with letting people die.
And anyway it strikes me funny that you get so upset at my comment (without even knowing what I said, but either way) and then proceed to inform everyone that you do not feel people who smoke or use alcohol or are overweight should get healthcare. So would you let them die?
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
