It is a reason. It is only valid for those who put corporate profits above individuals working for those corporations.
I sure hope you aren’t one of them STL
I think it’s one of the reasons. There are probably other qualitative ones as well, some behaviorally based and some perception based. Not saying they’re justified.
I think Sweden is attempting to deal with this by requiring fathers to take a certain amount of leave in order for the mother to get her full leave. It’s like she gets 6 months but she can get a year if the Dad takes 6 months himself. Personally, I think this is a great idea, but I respect that others may disagree.
I proudly proclaim that I put corporate profits above individuals working for those corporations.
Without profits, there are no corporations. And without corporations, there are no individuals working for those corporations. Without work, those individuals have no paycheck. Without a paycheck, those individuals become starving and homeless.
You might say that a world without corporate profits looks a lot like…North Korea.
The corporation should only care about profits, I would agree. But individual managers don’t necessarily have to share that view. I don’t get enough of the profit of my firm to align my behaviour. I treat my people better than pure profit requires because I like to think of myself as a good person. And I think that results in more profit in the long game anyway (at least for myself). Corporations don’t have social responsibility but humans have moral responsibility.
So you’re a syncophant that will sell out your values for a tiny slice of someone else’s profit?
If in a year, I generate x dollars of revenue for my company and another person generate .5x, I should get paid more and they should be paid less. If not, then they are likely receiving a higher rate than me and that is unfair. I have child care expenses too… Why should I subsidize someone else’s?
Wait, so you treat your people better than pure profit? But then you said your way does in fact create the most profit. Long day?
Guessing the article was too long for you?
Most profit for me. Having good relationships covers my ass and provides me long term opportunities. Doesn’t necessarily mean more profit for the firm. And yes, long day, apologies for not being clear.
A lot of small businesses cant afford to foot the bill as GM mentions. although I believe the FMLAhttp://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs28.pdfstates that a covered employer is one who employs more than 50 workers. As far as I know the government has not been offering to compensate small businesses for allowing women to take months of time off. Do you as a taxpayer want to pay for these women to pop out kids?
Like the article says, an individual owner/executive may have his own motives or responsibilities.
However, unlike the bleeding heart progressives of the world, I don’t make it my personal mission to ensure that the government capitulates to my motives. I believe that is just as arrogant as the Christian who tries to enforce biblical beliefs on the whole country.
But since we’re on the subject–my two favorite verses in the Bible are Deuteronomy 8:18 and Luke 12:15.
This thread really should be renamed at this point.
I don’t think maximizing corp profits and having happy employees are mutually exclusive. In fact, if the last decade or so has taught corporate America anything, it’s that they need to consider work/life balance to attract the best talent. Offer the best benefits (to put it simply), get the best people, those most talented people make the corporation the best it can be (maximize profits).
^ but giving people “benefits” and allowing them to have a “work/life balance” is socialist! We should work ourselves to the bone until our dying day and fight vociferously against such commie nonsense
I know you’re being sarcastic to make a point, but I would like to put it out there that I believe it’s the most libertarian thing a company can do. There should be (and obviously there already is) competiton among employers to attract the best people just as there’s competition in the marketplace for consumers. It’s free market capitalism for employment…or something like that.
Who cares how we call it?
I am in
So it seems the choice is North Korea or Dickensian Britain. Neither is particularly enviable.
I had to run out to grab something the other night and had NPR on. They were interviewing a tech executive(it may have been Marissa Meyer, though I doubt it based on her own leave, but I only listened for a few minutes) and she said that they have offered lengthy paid leave but they struggle to get people to take advantage of it out of fear. Fear of others opinions and fear of falling behind from a skill and/or productivity standpoint were mentioned. If my co-workers took paternity leave(or when they o take maternity leave) I’d be jealous, and I’d use my increased workload to negotiate something better come review time, but I’m certainly not going to judge them for using a benefit that is included in their benefits package. Your employer wouldn’t think twice about invoking any provision of your employment agreement, you shouldn’t either.
edit to add: they also talked about how Apple is building a new facility with 10,000 parking spots and no daycare facility. Seems like an oversight.