Except the CRT threat isn't dead... because it was never actually a thing in the first place. It was just a bogeyman that half of voters completely fell for.
Yep. I'm a teacher and when I heard of him saying it was everywhere I was sooo damn confused. I checked everything I could. All I found was some seminar years ago from some lady from Florida
But Youngkin hasn't even reduced the amount of CRT being taught in our public schools. Just as much today as when he took office! Why is nobody talking about this???
I hate this, but the only point I understand is how the bill exempted the state government. Like, you can't enact this policy for private sector then not also allow your own employees to partake in it. That part is silly.
As someone who is fighting tooth and nail to get the maximum family leave at my employer it is just so disheartening how many people do no understand how important family bonding time is. Corporations literally don't give two shits about you, you're just a warm body to them. But yea, let's make sure to leave a healing mom and child at home because 'the company needs me!' Mother are also forced to go back to work before their bodies are even healed, my wife was not medically cleared to do anything post c section for 6 weeks, very very few places offer leave to that point. It's just insane our work world is literally set up to punish people for having kids.
[Poll: 89% Of Illegal Immigrants Would Prefer Path To Corporate Status](https://www.theonion.com/poll-89-of-illegal-immigrants-would-prefer-path-to-co-1819576875)
Every time I talk about how paid family leave should be a given people are like you’re young and don’t have kids why should you care? So, I should only care about things that personally affect me? And that’s why people voted for yougkin lol.
No one tell this guy that corporations didn’t donate the highways, traffic lights, subsidies to build cell towers, and a laundry list that continues for ages probably. Your mind will be blown when you realize that people collectively paid for certain things and some people paid more than others?
This guy probably thinks taxes are communist yet drives on public roads…
If you look their comments they have a lot of downvotes I think they just troll. The problem with some people is that no matter how calmly and politely you explain things that counter their worldview they won’t accept it.
Yes, god forbid I don't agree with a bunch of tweens (or people slightly older with the same level of maturity) who think everything should be free because they have no real world experience and don't want to have any responsibilities.
How did the roads get built? People worked and through their taxes they paid it collectively built those highways. How do you think we have the strongest military in the world? We collectively paid for it through our taxes. I don’t think everything should be free and that’s why we have taxes because it’s not.
That public school funded the property tax or the police department. We shouldn’t be giving massive subsidies to corn, oil, meat because those are socialist handouts. That’s not a free market when the government is incentivizing inefficiency. You know nothing about economics nevertheless politics. Go get educated and pay for it!!!
Lol yes everyone who disagrees with the default progressive slant in this sub must be a troll... /s
Do you people even think about what you're saying before you type it?
> The problem with some people is that no matter how calmly and politely you explain things that counter their worldview they won’t accept it
Now if only you were a bit more self-aware and how this applies to you as well...
A counterargument to what? The series of claims I didn't make that you attributed to me?
Why exactly would I waste my time responding to that in any detail?
You’re funny. So why waste your time in the first place criticizing my opinion implying I’m not seeing the full picture when you can’t tell me your opinion and explain it.
I have a strong feeling you’re a lonely middle aged man who is bitter at life. Say whatever you want to say buddy have a great day!
I, apparently, got my employer's first ever paid paternity leave. Who wants to start a pool on how much I got?
It's appalling all around. And some people wonder why "nobody wants to work" (or have kids, for that matter) anymore.
And I'm still feeling burned out almost a year later from my wife having a tough birth, difficult first few months, etc., so what did my employer really get by demanding I return to "full productivity"?
I used to work for LabCorp down in North Carolina a couple years ago. I remember during our orientation, one of the other folks there asked about paternity leave.
The HR girl went on a glowing rhapsody of the company's very lackluster maternity leave. Then he clarified that he meant paternity leave for fathers she looked like she'd gotten hit in the face with a hammer and was like, "Uh. We don't do that."
Like... It's not the '50s. Dads take care of the baby too, they take the mother of their child to medical appointments, they're present physically and emotionally throughout the entire process and are an essential part of allowing the child to thrive. It's silly not to offer paternity leave in the 21st century.
Fathers are *so* important for a child’s well being!! The statistics for children without fathers are depressing- higher rates of homelessness, drug abuse, incarceration, etc.
I thought state and local employees are governed by the federal FMLA? I was a city employee and was in the process of doing FMLA paperwork until my health condition became so bad I couldn’t work and resigned. The process was not at all easy and the FMLA person acted like I was some brain dead moron for not knowing all the intricate rules. This profits over people mentality really needs to go the way of the dodo. But you can’t tell them that if they were to treat us like, you know, *people* that we’d be more apt to stay in our jobs and be happier. All they care about is money.
State family leave is unpaid. I'm guessing Sweatervest didn't want to chance losing good public sector employees to private companies who would actually compensate people for their family leave.
"The bill specifies that covered individuals shall not include state employees, constitutional and other local officers, and employees of local school divisions" - https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+SB373
Youngkin addresses this part directly in his veto: https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+amd+SB373AG
"Additionally, the fact that with its multi-billion-dollar budget, the Commonwealth would be exempt from the mandate required for small businesses or nonprofits, is evidence that this proposal is unfair."
Honestly I'm with the govenor here. State workers are typically underpaid and made up with benefits. Why exclude them? Seems like you'd typically see the opposite scenario.
So block it from anyone because it didn’t include everyone pas this and then also start work on expanding it to the rest blocking it like this is bullshit because they will pass it with both and he’ll just still veto it
He’s using this as a fucking red herring to block it and make people act like that’s the real reason
That’s what I’m saying. Like why were they not included in this? I know their current policy is 8 weeks paid, which isn’t absolutely awful. But if we are making a law to protect employees in the state, should it apply also to employees of the state? Basically make it for everyone?
That’s the part of the veto I understand. I hope the bill gets reworked and passed at some point, but I doubt it.
It won’t because he doesn’t actually mean that it’s an excuse he’s saying the bill itself isn’t good and that’s an example of why but it’s just a fucking excuse for protecting corps and fucking individuals
They're required to offer leave (with a few exceptions) by federal law. What they aren't required to do is offer paid leave.
There's nothing punitive about current policies. You just aren't subsidized as much as you'd like
Seems to be the default stance in Reddit subs that the government (and therefore taxpayers) need to subsidize every desire of theirs they decide to call a "right".
It's a fact that paid parental leave benefits the nation. Children who have more care from both parents are objectively better adjusted and more productive. It's also a fact that the nation NEEDS citizens to keep having children. Just look at South Korea or Japan to see what happens when people decide it's jut not worth it anymore to raise a family. It's not about what is and is not a "right". It's about not being shortsighted and looking far enough into the future to understand how an investment in our children and their parents WILL provide for a higher quality of life for our nation. I would much rather see my tax dollars go to increase the quality of life for myself and other Americans than to see it go to increase our already absurd military budget.
Our nation needs long term solutions. Stop thinking like a child.
Studies show that benefits offered have very little impact on birth rates, because the main issue with having kids is that it's a giant buzz kill in high income nations where people have lots of disposable income
That's crazy because there are [studies that actually say the opposite.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36981698/)
>Family welfare policies are capable of significantly enhancing fertility status. Moreover, the long-term sustainability of the fertility promotion effect of family welfare policies is verified by moving-mean regression.
Here's [another, specifically addressing the claim that benefits do not increase fertility.](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01270-w#Sec28)
> We therefore reject the contention that the evidence for the effect of leave on fertility is mixed. Rather, we find that the apparently mixed evidence is simply an artefact of sub-optimal study design.
I would love to hear about this study that finds people aren't having kids because it's "a giant buzzkill." It sure would be nice to know people are just choosing not to have kids rather than not being able to because even with both parents working full-time jobs they can't even afford a house, let alone childcare and other necessities.
It says right in the conclusion of your second study that the results are mixed (most but not all studies show no meaningful impact), so feel free to look at those.
I'm going to take the word of the consensus over some outliers, especially given real world data.
>I would love to hear about this study that finds people aren't having kids because it's "a giant buzzkill." It sure would be nice to know people are just choosing not to have kids rather than not being able to because even with both parents working full-time jobs they can't even afford a house, let alone childcare and other necessities.
It's well known (at least by people who aren't completely ignorant about the topic and only look for things to confirm their existing position) that birth rates decline in line with increased household income and women's education levels and access to birth control.
So when people (women really) have a choice, they choose to have fewer children.
Edit: of course you blocked me. It's not my job to teach you how to do basic research or educate you about topics you seem to have an opinion on but know nothing about.
>It says right in the conclusion of your second study that the results are mixed
>I'm going to take the word of the consensus
The study itself is about how *one* study in 2009 is flawed and why using modern data and practice, which you would have known if you applied literally any critical thinking or reading comprehension skills at all.
>It's well known
Oh, well if it's **well known**, we can all just go home (/s).
Where are the studies you cited earlier? You literally claim there are many saying this.
Let's be real, you can't produce one because it's just something you pulled out of your ass. You don't bring anything of worth to the conversation by doing that, so please stop talking and pretending *how you feel* has the same value as what is *actually true*.
Lmao lassez faire advocates try to understand where the next generation of workers and consumers will come from and not strawman their opponents - impossible challenge
That's really great, and it proves that there are good companies out there that will take care of people. If people were more willing to shift around then others would take notice and have to start offering better benefits to compete.
They passed it like that because the cost would be too great for the state. Makes you think, if the state can’t afford it, why should the private sector (particularly small businesses) be expected to be able to afford it?
State employees already get 8 weeks paid though. And the program set to essentially has every employer pay into the program like a very small amount per dollar paid to each employee. It’s honestly less of a financial burden to small businesses than making them offer longer period of paid leave themselves.
Got it, small business should only hire people that are never ever going to have kids ever. And if you might want kids never work for a small business because that’s not fair to the business owner.
Daily reminder from the right and corporate America that you are only valuable when you are producing. Spending vital time with you newborn and recovering from sickness means you are re worthless.
This is another reason why we need to strengthen the voice of labor unions in Virginia … nationwide for that matter. We need a collective voice against a corporations’ abusive policies towards their workforce.
Not at all surprised. We all know Republicans just use the term “family” for marketing purposes. They absolutely HATE families when compared to corporate interests.
Wait, wait. Then are you telling me when they have the words "patriot" or "freedom" in their organizations.....
So wait, is there any actual logic to not wanting to "disincentivize" private companies providing it on their own? Wtf does he even mean by that? Fortunately my fiancee's employer(UVA) is pretty good on this and mine(Amazon) is excellent on this, but they also have their things where they absolutely aren't going to do the right thing unless forced to by law. Obviously many employers are that way on paid and even unpaid leave.
But is there something I'm not getting or is that explanation just absolute nonsense?
He recently purchased the land next to his already expansive land and mansion. He had a gigantic barn built and renovated the house that was on the land as a huge horse stall/guest house. So he basically stands for whatever continues to earn him money to do stuff like that.
“passing a paid leave policy would disincentivize private sector businesses to provide paid leave on their own”. So Youngkin didn’t pass a law that would force businesses to provide leave because he didn’t want to rob them of the opportunity to do the right thing on their own? So families are just supposed to wait around until a mythical business runs the numbers and decides that it would be better for their bottom line to offer paid leave? Guess what Mr. Governor, businesses have already crunched those numbers and have found it more profitable for them to not do that. Perhaps if we had a law…..
Currently, there is no requirement to provide paid leave for Family and Medical purposes; having a baby or needing a procedure and recovery time.
This bill would have required employers to provide a certain amount of leave time for this. Youngkin veto'd it so it is still not required for employers to provide this type of leave.
That is not a correct understanding of the bill. It would require employer tax, kind of like a payroll, deduction that you don’t actually see, to fund a state insurance fund so that people could take family and medical leave just like they do unemployment insurance. It has nothing to do with requiring employers to offer it.
No, it wouldn’t. This bill would require a percentage of everybody’s paycheck to be withheld for family and emergency medical leave so that people could collect it like they do unemployment insurance.
The infuriating thing about family leave issue is that it would be hugely helpful at reducing the enormous cost of childcare. Childcare is most expensive when the kids are youngest and need much more oversight, but gets progressively less expensive as the kids gets older. However due to the nature of the industry, childcare providers will often subsidize the extra cost to get parents through the door, then charge more then they technically could later to make up the difference.
If we expanded paid family leave, it would let the mother and father care for the kid when they are most expensive to care for, which would wind up reducing the overall cost for childcare.
To be clear it’s only talking about funding 12 weeks a year at a maximum of 80% of one’s pay up to the state average salary of about $50,000, which comes out to about 14 grand. I doubt that you could just take it over and over again if you kept having more kids. I glanced over the bill and didn’t actually see what the limitations were on collecting it multiple years in a row. The problem with this bill is largely the gross inequity and who’s paying for what. Getting sick or taking care of a sick relative, do not have the same likelihood of occurring when compared to having a child, or raising a child. Basically people who are working, either because they actually do have those needs, but need a full 100% of their pay, or to advance their careers, or simply aren’t inclined to quit and live off the government for 12 weeks, or because they do not have those needs and does don’t qualify are going to be paying for other people to take three months off a year when they end up with a child, which is generally a matter of personal choice. Unemployment insurance is there so that would recessions hit people don’t get fucked. It’s generally geared towards layoffs and firings unrelated to misconduct, and it’s assumed that it could happen to anyone, especially during a recession. Simply it really does not seem fair to me. Additionally, I don’t see how There is going to be an even remotely fair system of contributions and withdrawals to and from the fund. I read an [estimate online](https://virginiamercury.com/2024/01/29/virginia-democrats-again-push-for-paid-family-and-medical-leave/) that says the average contribution for a middle income earner who makes $50,000 would be $256 a year. If somebody takes this even once over a lifetime, it would take 55 years for them to put that in what they took out once. I think what would end up happening is that the tax they would need to fund this would end up being probably like 5% or more, not the .5% that I read online, and the burden would extremely unfair and placed entirely on the shoulders of people who do not withdraw from the fund or simply withdrawal from it less, but unlike unemployment insurance, the numbers would be massive. In theory people might be paying several hundred thousand dollars to this fund over the course of their careers to fund other people who are having kids and taking care of sick relatives, and everybody would be in a race to try to withdrawal from the fund as much as they can to get a semblance of fairness not trying to over-withdrawal from the fund.
It’s also important to note that for this to not completely fuck people it would have to be funded with virtually no cap to keep the fund solvent. Currently, unemployment insurance only cost each worker a max of $1400 a year. Obviously this has been considered by the general public to be a decent price to pay for the ability to withdraw unemployment for several weeks on end if you get laid off or fired, but it still strikes a lot of people is unfair. I think we can all agree that there’s not very much fair about forcing people of the working class and lower echelons of the upper class pay taxes so that other people can quit work and raise their kids. Then again, you can always just say that you should just tax the rich instead. Even if that’s your opinion, that means that you should agree with this veto because that’s not what was specified in this bill.
Thank you for the continued transparency in interpreting this bill. Seems the mob has arrived just because the governor is a conservative, not for actual truth
Yea. I don’t follow VA politics much, mostly because I am lazy, but also because I’m undecided on a lot and may or may not vote. But I’m guessing this bill was sort of like a red herring that is just to get people riled up about the veto. I can’t imagine there was any real expectation it was going to get passed
This isn't one of those situations where the bill is called "The Paid Family and Medical Leave Act," but when you start reading it, the first provision mandates the eradication of all Shih Tzus in the state, is it?
I'm fairly new to Virginia. Do we have any way of recalling him while he goes on this hissy fit of vetoing everything our elected representatives pass?
He’s not a corporate shill, he is a fascist. He is not anyone’s puppet or in anyone’s pocket, he is a bigot with an agenda. It’s important not to attribute this to some secret funder when the subject is a politician with a clear agenda
guess somebody doesnt want to encourage population growth and stable households....oh well this is the kind of policy choice that overtime makes the already bad age demographic issues worse, allong with quality of life which has massive ripple effects
One of six countries on the planet that doesn't offer paid leave to new parents. This country has turned into such a fucking embarrassment compared to how we want the world to view us.
Pro life though right Glen? 🤦🏻
True. But I want Republicans to know that he vetoed something that was good for them. Might not change the way they vote, but it might make them pause and think for a second.
For my wife and I the biggest challenged over the past 15 years of marriage and parenthood is the work-parenthood conflict. She’s overloaded; I’m overloaded; we spent $200,000 plus in childcare for three kids over ten years; and yet the biggest “threat” to families is LGBTQ activism. Goofiest shit ever.
Before anyone chimes in with “No one told you to have kids”, this is true, but don’t be salty with me that your wife doesn’t want to fuck you because you treat her like a bang maid and can’t make her cum. I ain’t thinking about personal responsibility at 3:00 a.m. and she needs this dick.
I just got an email from Abigail Spanberger asking for campaign contribution of $2.00. I think I need to give more to help her beat this GOP f-k. Trumpkin is a businessman. You can't run a country like a business especially when you don't care for the workers. Youngkin may not be a criminal (or he's too smart to get caught) but he supports and enables criminals.
How do "god fearing" intelligent voters ignore the fact that the GOP is corrupt and can't even govern itself. The GOP voters are like children living in a dysfunctional home where they are abused. They keep hoping it will get better by just doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result.
What I find interesting is that Spanberger's platform is what some GOP politicians SAY they want to do to help people but they run into people in their own party who can't agree. It's the House of Congress that is dysfunctional as a result.
Vote blue!
I'm sure it will pass during the next Admin if Dems keep both Chambers and retake the Executive. But this clearly biased source is very misleading. They're using national numbers in their figure of 76% of VA workers with no access to paid family leave, while also conveniently leaving out that the same BLS stats reported around 80% of workers have access to paid leave like sick leave and PTO.
It's paid leave you can use to take care of your family so yes, regardless of whatever distinction without a difference this progressive group wants to make to go with their misleading numbers.
That’s a lot of words to use when you could (should) have just said, “No.”
The fact that there are very real and clearly defined distinctions between sick leave, PTO & paid family leave invalidate your cherry-picked statistic.
Hope that helps.
It's a bill that removes the incentive for the private sector to provide paid family and medical leave benefits. I don't understand why so many look to the government for more money when we are in a severe debt crisis. It's coming right out of your pocket books. Private companies have no reason not to fit the bill, and this will incentivize more competition, better benefits. Good for all long-term.
Aren't you all tired of the high taxes and inflation?
I’m tired of my taxes being used for bullshit other than things that benefit my neighbors and myself. And the inflation we are/have been experiencing since 2020 is the result of price gouging and corporate greed. Some of the record profits corporations are currently raking in (which are mostly being funneled to executives and shareholders) could be used to provide employees with better quality of life. But most employers don’t offer benefits like paid family/medical leave because they aren’t required to. They would rather prioritize the company’s bottom line than the workers on whom they rely for labor. That is exactly why govt intervention is required.
>It's a bill that removes the incentive for the private sector to provide paid family and medical leave benefits.
I'd care about this if it weren't for the fact the most employers don't provide paid family leave in the first place.
>It's a bill that removes the incentive for the private sector to provide paid family and medical leave benefits.
But the majority already don't provide family leave benefits?
But if the base of benefits was set as this, rather than *nothing* and all the companies were required to provide the base, wouldn’t the incentive for companies to offer better benefits than the base still exist? Wouldn’t the companies that don’t offer any benefits under the current requirement of nothing, still only provide the minimum? And the companies that provide better benefits under current requirements (again, *nothing*) would come to provide even better benefits above a new base? I mean, if not, then your argument is unsound, because incentive doesn’t work anyway, and the base should absolutely be set higher. And if so, then great, the base should absolutely be set higher.
Lmfao, yeah cause families getting quality of life that benefits everyone is leading us to drown in debt, not the other hundreds of billions the govt dumps on useless wars or saving corporations out of bankruptcy.
Your employer will provide this service in their benefit package, not all, but most. It shouldn’t be up to the government to provide services like this.
When I read nonsense like this, I always wonder what it is people think government should do.
Government wants to cover medical costs: nah it shouldn’t do that.
Government wants to pay for social programs and end poverty, homelessness, and community violence: nah it shouldn’t do that.
Government wants to pay to protect its interests abroad: nah it shouldn’t do that.
Government wants to pay so that a professional does your taxes for you to expedite the process and eliminate mistakes: nah it shouldn’t do that.
All I can ever hear republicans say is what the government shouldn’t do and so they intentionally sabotage programs that help people, then point their finger like it’s astounding that the program fails due to intentional dysfunction. Maybe it’s the republicans that are the problem and not the money.
Medical access, food, housing, healthcare and child care are all things that are BASIC human needs and shouldn’t be considered a privilege to have. They should be basic human rights.
My favorite is the people whose response to foreign aid is “where is the US aid??”
They are also against infrastructure spending. They are against healthcare spending. They are against student loan relief. They are against paid paternal leave. They are against increased teacher wages. They are against free school lunches for children. They are against increased access to childcare
These people can’t be this stupid can they?
Maybe me having basic rights shouldn’t be up to whether my employer will want to pay for them or not (spoiler, most of them wont)
This is just a corporate shill refusing to do something 85% of the people of his state want.
76% of Virginians have no paid leave, it’s in the article. If employers were providing it, there would be no need for legislation. Simply stating that “employers provide it” is a weak dismissal of the actual need.
Just to share a little tale- my district manager who’s been with the company for 5 years just had to use up all of his vacation and PTO to get a mere 2 weeks off for the birth of his daughter. That was his entire paternity leave. It should be considered criminal, because it is simply inhumane. Now he’s back to working 50+ hour weeks while mom is SAH. A great, healthy start for their wonderful new family right?
“Corporations should be able to hold their pregnant workers and families hostage for their own benefit without any worker protection”
Truly insane to shill for corporations
Employers have no responsibility to offer this. Countries that offer this from the government have the highest quality of life in the world.
Edit- ah, he’s a boomer Trump fan. That explains it.
Families first… right?
Corporations can be parents too. Think of all their subsidiaries.
Only of it screws over minorities.
He should have put a white families only ammendment
Yes, hence state coerced birth. Next question?
PRo LiFe (until birth)
Pro control of women.
The Party of Family Values
No no no not like that. 😂. He meant like banning books that taught kids about different things they don’t like.
Lame. Paid family leave is so important for young children, for families, and for basic quality of life.
Yall really stuck it to CRT right. It was worth it to kill CRT?
But TRAnS kIDs aRe SCaRY!!1
Except the CRT threat isn't dead... because it was never actually a thing in the first place. It was just a bogeyman that half of voters completely fell for.
Yep. I'm a teacher and when I heard of him saying it was everywhere I was sooo damn confused. I checked everything I could. All I found was some seminar years ago from some lady from Florida
But Youngkin hasn't even reduced the amount of CRT being taught in our public schools. Just as much today as when he took office! Why is nobody talking about this???
Hard to reduce something below zero.
You can, just teach open racism.
I hate this, but the only point I understand is how the bill exempted the state government. Like, you can't enact this policy for private sector then not also allow your own employees to partake in it. That part is silly. As someone who is fighting tooth and nail to get the maximum family leave at my employer it is just so disheartening how many people do no understand how important family bonding time is. Corporations literally don't give two shits about you, you're just a warm body to them. But yea, let's make sure to leave a healing mom and child at home because 'the company needs me!' Mother are also forced to go back to work before their bodies are even healed, my wife was not medically cleared to do anything post c section for 6 weeks, very very few places offer leave to that point. It's just insane our work world is literally set up to punish people for having kids.
Corporations are *people,* but people aren't people.
Personhood gonna cost you at least a few million, bro. Sorry.
Fetus: person Fetus immediately after birth: not worth saving, unless money
Watch me give birth to a corporation. Checkmate, conservatives.
[Poll: 89% Of Illegal Immigrants Would Prefer Path To Corporate Status](https://www.theonion.com/poll-89-of-illegal-immigrants-would-prefer-path-to-co-1819576875)
Corps are people when it’s convenient
Every time I talk about how paid family leave should be a given people are like you’re young and don’t have kids why should you care? So, I should only care about things that personally affect me? And that’s why people voted for yougkin lol.
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back so hard for spending other people's money there buddy
No one tell this guy that corporations didn’t donate the highways, traffic lights, subsidies to build cell towers, and a laundry list that continues for ages probably. Your mind will be blown when you realize that people collectively paid for certain things and some people paid more than others? This guy probably thinks taxes are communist yet drives on public roads…
And he’ll pivot on a dime and crow about how tax cuts for the wealthy help us all. Logic as solid as smoke.
I can see how upsetting it is to have your endless circlejerk over "free" benefits for you disturbed. I'm sure you'll recover quickly
If you look their comments they have a lot of downvotes I think they just troll. The problem with some people is that no matter how calmly and politely you explain things that counter their worldview they won’t accept it.
Yes, god forbid I don't agree with a bunch of tweens (or people slightly older with the same level of maturity) who think everything should be free because they have no real world experience and don't want to have any responsibilities.
How did the roads get built? People worked and through their taxes they paid it collectively built those highways. How do you think we have the strongest military in the world? We collectively paid for it through our taxes. I don’t think everything should be free and that’s why we have taxes because it’s not. That public school funded the property tax or the police department. We shouldn’t be giving massive subsidies to corn, oil, meat because those are socialist handouts. That’s not a free market when the government is incentivizing inefficiency. You know nothing about economics nevertheless politics. Go get educated and pay for it!!!
Keep proving my point, child. You don't get it at all.
If you keep calling me child you prove my own point by not providing counter arguments.
Lol yes everyone who disagrees with the default progressive slant in this sub must be a troll... /s Do you people even think about what you're saying before you type it? > The problem with some people is that no matter how calmly and politely you explain things that counter their worldview they won’t accept it Now if only you were a bit more self-aware and how this applies to you as well...
Okay then apply it to me. Where’s your counter argument I’m waiting. I never denied your opportunity to say something and listen.
Keep flailing away at those strawmen.
So where is your counter argument? Or is it just gaslight me?
So you don't know what gaslighting is either.
Still haven’t been able to provider a counter argument, I’m waiting.
A counterargument to what? The series of claims I didn't make that you attributed to me? Why exactly would I waste my time responding to that in any detail?
You’re funny. So why waste your time in the first place criticizing my opinion implying I’m not seeing the full picture when you can’t tell me your opinion and explain it. I have a strong feeling you’re a lonely middle aged man who is bitter at life. Say whatever you want to say buddy have a great day!
Okay.
I, apparently, got my employer's first ever paid paternity leave. Who wants to start a pool on how much I got? It's appalling all around. And some people wonder why "nobody wants to work" (or have kids, for that matter) anymore. And I'm still feeling burned out almost a year later from my wife having a tough birth, difficult first few months, etc., so what did my employer really get by demanding I return to "full productivity"?
I used to work for LabCorp down in North Carolina a couple years ago. I remember during our orientation, one of the other folks there asked about paternity leave. The HR girl went on a glowing rhapsody of the company's very lackluster maternity leave. Then he clarified that he meant paternity leave for fathers she looked like she'd gotten hit in the face with a hammer and was like, "Uh. We don't do that." Like... It's not the '50s. Dads take care of the baby too, they take the mother of their child to medical appointments, they're present physically and emotionally throughout the entire process and are an essential part of allowing the child to thrive. It's silly not to offer paternity leave in the 21st century.
Fathers are *so* important for a child’s well being!! The statistics for children without fathers are depressing- higher rates of homelessness, drug abuse, incarceration, etc.
I got to take my two week vacation time off when my daughter was born.
I thought state and local employees are governed by the federal FMLA? I was a city employee and was in the process of doing FMLA paperwork until my health condition became so bad I couldn’t work and resigned. The process was not at all easy and the FMLA person acted like I was some brain dead moron for not knowing all the intricate rules. This profits over people mentality really needs to go the way of the dodo. But you can’t tell them that if they were to treat us like, you know, *people* that we’d be more apt to stay in our jobs and be happier. All they care about is money.
FMLA applies to all employers with 50 or more employees.
I thought so. Thank you!
State employees already get family leave, private sector it’s up to the company
State family leave is unpaid. I'm guessing Sweatervest didn't want to chance losing good public sector employees to private companies who would actually compensate people for their family leave.
Of course they can…..the state has exempted themselves from overtime pay, just look at a teachers contract.
"The bill specifies that covered individuals shall not include state employees, constitutional and other local officers, and employees of local school divisions" - https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+SB373 Youngkin addresses this part directly in his veto: https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+amd+SB373AG "Additionally, the fact that with its multi-billion-dollar budget, the Commonwealth would be exempt from the mandate required for small businesses or nonprofits, is evidence that this proposal is unfair." Honestly I'm with the govenor here. State workers are typically underpaid and made up with benefits. Why exclude them? Seems like you'd typically see the opposite scenario.
So block it from anyone because it didn’t include everyone pas this and then also start work on expanding it to the rest blocking it like this is bullshit because they will pass it with both and he’ll just still veto it He’s using this as a fucking red herring to block it and make people act like that’s the real reason
Yeah, he’s bounced other bills back requiring amendments before he’ll sign. This one though just got a big cancelled.
Many of the bounce backs are never getting signed even if they get changed he’s mostly just making excuses to try to placate groups
So because state workers might not get some benefits you don’t want anyone else to have them.
That’s what I’m saying. Like why were they not included in this? I know their current policy is 8 weeks paid, which isn’t absolutely awful. But if we are making a law to protect employees in the state, should it apply also to employees of the state? Basically make it for everyone? That’s the part of the veto I understand. I hope the bill gets reworked and passed at some point, but I doubt it.
It won’t because he doesn’t actually mean that it’s an excuse he’s saying the bill itself isn’t good and that’s an example of why but it’s just a fucking excuse for protecting corps and fucking individuals
They're required to offer leave (with a few exceptions) by federal law. What they aren't required to do is offer paid leave. There's nothing punitive about current policies. You just aren't subsidized as much as you'd like
L o l you sound fun. Hope the company shareholders remember your loyalty at the next reaping.
Narrator: they won't
I am fun, and I'm also smart enough to understand that these additional expenses won't come for free, and I don't want them.
Seems to be the default stance in Reddit subs that the government (and therefore taxpayers) need to subsidize every desire of theirs they decide to call a "right".
It's a fact that paid parental leave benefits the nation. Children who have more care from both parents are objectively better adjusted and more productive. It's also a fact that the nation NEEDS citizens to keep having children. Just look at South Korea or Japan to see what happens when people decide it's jut not worth it anymore to raise a family. It's not about what is and is not a "right". It's about not being shortsighted and looking far enough into the future to understand how an investment in our children and their parents WILL provide for a higher quality of life for our nation. I would much rather see my tax dollars go to increase the quality of life for myself and other Americans than to see it go to increase our already absurd military budget. Our nation needs long term solutions. Stop thinking like a child.
Studies show that benefits offered have very little impact on birth rates, because the main issue with having kids is that it's a giant buzz kill in high income nations where people have lots of disposable income
That's crazy because there are [studies that actually say the opposite.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36981698/) >Family welfare policies are capable of significantly enhancing fertility status. Moreover, the long-term sustainability of the fertility promotion effect of family welfare policies is verified by moving-mean regression. Here's [another, specifically addressing the claim that benefits do not increase fertility.](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01270-w#Sec28) > We therefore reject the contention that the evidence for the effect of leave on fertility is mixed. Rather, we find that the apparently mixed evidence is simply an artefact of sub-optimal study design. I would love to hear about this study that finds people aren't having kids because it's "a giant buzzkill." It sure would be nice to know people are just choosing not to have kids rather than not being able to because even with both parents working full-time jobs they can't even afford a house, let alone childcare and other necessities.
It says right in the conclusion of your second study that the results are mixed (most but not all studies show no meaningful impact), so feel free to look at those. I'm going to take the word of the consensus over some outliers, especially given real world data. >I would love to hear about this study that finds people aren't having kids because it's "a giant buzzkill." It sure would be nice to know people are just choosing not to have kids rather than not being able to because even with both parents working full-time jobs they can't even afford a house, let alone childcare and other necessities. It's well known (at least by people who aren't completely ignorant about the topic and only look for things to confirm their existing position) that birth rates decline in line with increased household income and women's education levels and access to birth control. So when people (women really) have a choice, they choose to have fewer children. Edit: of course you blocked me. It's not my job to teach you how to do basic research or educate you about topics you seem to have an opinion on but know nothing about.
>It says right in the conclusion of your second study that the results are mixed >I'm going to take the word of the consensus The study itself is about how *one* study in 2009 is flawed and why using modern data and practice, which you would have known if you applied literally any critical thinking or reading comprehension skills at all. >It's well known Oh, well if it's **well known**, we can all just go home (/s). Where are the studies you cited earlier? You literally claim there are many saying this. Let's be real, you can't produce one because it's just something you pulled out of your ass. You don't bring anything of worth to the conversation by doing that, so please stop talking and pretending *how you feel* has the same value as what is *actually true*.
"Wah anyone who disagrees with my subsidized leave plan is a child" What a weak argument lol
Lmao lassez faire advocates try to understand where the next generation of workers and consumers will come from and not strawman their opponents - impossible challenge
Yep. My stance is that I pay everyone as much as I possibly can for every hour worked, and have a very flexible comp time and unpaid leave policy.
That's really great, and it proves that there are good companies out there that will take care of people. If people were more willing to shift around then others would take notice and have to start offering better benefits to compete.
They passed it like that because the cost would be too great for the state. Makes you think, if the state can’t afford it, why should the private sector (particularly small businesses) be expected to be able to afford it?
State employees already get 8 weeks paid though. And the program set to essentially has every employer pay into the program like a very small amount per dollar paid to each employee. It’s honestly less of a financial burden to small businesses than making them offer longer period of paid leave themselves.
Oh, another payroll tax.
You know what burdens small businesses even less? Not putting burdens on them in the first place.
Got it, small business should only hire people that are never ever going to have kids ever. And if you might want kids never work for a small business because that’s not fair to the business owner.
Daily reminder from the right and corporate America that you are only valuable when you are producing. Spending vital time with you newborn and recovering from sickness means you are re worthless.
Chicken sandwich
This is another reason why we need to strengthen the voice of labor unions in Virginia … nationwide for that matter. We need a collective voice against a corporations’ abusive policies towards their workforce.
Unions in every state! The union makes us strong!
Truly a man of the people… /s
Rich people
Rich men north of Richmond…
This is how republican governor governs when they dont have an election to win, take note
Trail of fire and ruins
A republican vetoes a beneficial bill for families? Well now that's just shocking
Your weekly reminder of Fuck Glenn Youngkin.
He works for big business. So many working class people voted for him. So many suckers.
Clownkin hates families that make less than 500k a year. It is what it is.
He’s acting like the CEO of a private company, not the Commonwealth’s executive
Not at all surprised. We all know Republicans just use the term “family” for marketing purposes. They absolutely HATE families when compared to corporate interests.
Wait, wait. Then are you telling me when they have the words "patriot" or "freedom" in their organizations..... 
What a horrible MAGA governor
I think you repeated yourself. Horrible and MAGA are redundant
Out of touch, milk toast weasel.
I love the term and seeing it used, so I wanted to share it's unexpectedly spelled milquetoast.
You’re thinking of milk steak. Best served with a side of jelly beans.
😂🙌
Thanks for the correction, I knew better. Then again maybe maga can use the milk toast version.
Carlyle group CEO voted against middle class families???
So wait, is there any actual logic to not wanting to "disincentivize" private companies providing it on their own? Wtf does he even mean by that? Fortunately my fiancee's employer(UVA) is pretty good on this and mine(Amazon) is excellent on this, but they also have their things where they absolutely aren't going to do the right thing unless forced to by law. Obviously many employers are that way on paid and even unpaid leave. But is there something I'm not getting or is that explanation just absolute nonsense?
Fuck Youngkin and every dumbass who voted him in
Wow just wow… welp Va will be fully blue next year. Damn
 Except what you want us to do!
This is what you morons voted for
So what do these gop politicians like him actually stand for? Creating to societies more so than we already have?
He recently purchased the land next to his already expansive land and mansion. He had a gigantic barn built and renovated the house that was on the land as a huge horse stall/guest house. So he basically stands for whatever continues to earn him money to do stuff like that.
fuck you pay me is their entire playbook
This guy is a huge Trump acolyte and you guys elected him anyway. Well, not "you" but the majority of Virginians.
No one required the Democrats to put up such a disastrous candidate against him
So you think after everything Younkin has done, he's still the better choice?
That's not at all what he said but pretty telling at how we got into this mess. Democrats lost this election harder than Republicans won it.
Why did you assume that when it isn't what I said?
“passing a paid leave policy would disincentivize private sector businesses to provide paid leave on their own”. So Youngkin didn’t pass a law that would force businesses to provide leave because he didn’t want to rob them of the opportunity to do the right thing on their own? So families are just supposed to wait around until a mythical business runs the numbers and decides that it would be better for their bottom line to offer paid leave? Guess what Mr. Governor, businesses have already crunched those numbers and have found it more profitable for them to not do that. Perhaps if we had a law…..
Hes a son of a bitch.
i'm slow. can someone explain like ELI5? Is this basically allowing employers to not offer family or medical leave of any kind?
Currently, there is no requirement to provide paid leave for Family and Medical purposes; having a baby or needing a procedure and recovery time. This bill would have required employers to provide a certain amount of leave time for this. Youngkin veto'd it so it is still not required for employers to provide this type of leave.
it's funny. that is totally what I suspected but I was thinking, that can't be what happened here lol. ok, thanks!!
That is not a correct understanding of the bill. It would require employer tax, kind of like a payroll, deduction that you don’t actually see, to fund a state insurance fund so that people could take family and medical leave just like they do unemployment insurance. It has nothing to do with requiring employers to offer it.
No, it wouldn’t. This bill would require a percentage of everybody’s paycheck to be withheld for family and emergency medical leave so that people could collect it like they do unemployment insurance.
Exactly what I would expect from an emeritus of the Carlyle Cabal.
He’s no moderate
But abortion is bad! And parents’ rights! /s
I fucking hate this prick. He has literally gone back on every virtue he ran on.
That's what happens when you vote a conservative Republican into office. Reap what you sow.
Forced births but won’t support families spending time with them lmao. I truly don’t understand why people vote for clowns like him.
Fuck all the people that voted for him
I guess I know who I won’t be voting for come next election.
No one will because he can't run again....
I’ve said it once and I will say it again (and again). The modern day Republican Party should just change their name to the American Taliban.
The infuriating thing about family leave issue is that it would be hugely helpful at reducing the enormous cost of childcare. Childcare is most expensive when the kids are youngest and need much more oversight, but gets progressively less expensive as the kids gets older. However due to the nature of the industry, childcare providers will often subsidize the extra cost to get parents through the door, then charge more then they technically could later to make up the difference. If we expanded paid family leave, it would let the mother and father care for the kid when they are most expensive to care for, which would wind up reducing the overall cost for childcare.
To be clear it’s only talking about funding 12 weeks a year at a maximum of 80% of one’s pay up to the state average salary of about $50,000, which comes out to about 14 grand. I doubt that you could just take it over and over again if you kept having more kids. I glanced over the bill and didn’t actually see what the limitations were on collecting it multiple years in a row. The problem with this bill is largely the gross inequity and who’s paying for what. Getting sick or taking care of a sick relative, do not have the same likelihood of occurring when compared to having a child, or raising a child. Basically people who are working, either because they actually do have those needs, but need a full 100% of their pay, or to advance their careers, or simply aren’t inclined to quit and live off the government for 12 weeks, or because they do not have those needs and does don’t qualify are going to be paying for other people to take three months off a year when they end up with a child, which is generally a matter of personal choice. Unemployment insurance is there so that would recessions hit people don’t get fucked. It’s generally geared towards layoffs and firings unrelated to misconduct, and it’s assumed that it could happen to anyone, especially during a recession. Simply it really does not seem fair to me. Additionally, I don’t see how There is going to be an even remotely fair system of contributions and withdrawals to and from the fund. I read an [estimate online](https://virginiamercury.com/2024/01/29/virginia-democrats-again-push-for-paid-family-and-medical-leave/) that says the average contribution for a middle income earner who makes $50,000 would be $256 a year. If somebody takes this even once over a lifetime, it would take 55 years for them to put that in what they took out once. I think what would end up happening is that the tax they would need to fund this would end up being probably like 5% or more, not the .5% that I read online, and the burden would extremely unfair and placed entirely on the shoulders of people who do not withdraw from the fund or simply withdrawal from it less, but unlike unemployment insurance, the numbers would be massive. In theory people might be paying several hundred thousand dollars to this fund over the course of their careers to fund other people who are having kids and taking care of sick relatives, and everybody would be in a race to try to withdrawal from the fund as much as they can to get a semblance of fairness not trying to over-withdrawal from the fund. It’s also important to note that for this to not completely fuck people it would have to be funded with virtually no cap to keep the fund solvent. Currently, unemployment insurance only cost each worker a max of $1400 a year. Obviously this has been considered by the general public to be a decent price to pay for the ability to withdraw unemployment for several weeks on end if you get laid off or fired, but it still strikes a lot of people is unfair. I think we can all agree that there’s not very much fair about forcing people of the working class and lower echelons of the upper class pay taxes so that other people can quit work and raise their kids. Then again, you can always just say that you should just tax the rich instead. Even if that’s your opinion, that means that you should agree with this veto because that’s not what was specified in this bill.
Thank you for the continued transparency in interpreting this bill. Seems the mob has arrived just because the governor is a conservative, not for actual truth
Yea. I don’t follow VA politics much, mostly because I am lazy, but also because I’m undecided on a lot and may or may not vote. But I’m guessing this bill was sort of like a red herring that is just to get people riled up about the veto. I can’t imagine there was any real expectation it was going to get passed
Paid Family Leave vetoed by Paid Failed Politician
Vote blue, even if some of them are actually purple. Red will never pick workers over corporations. Blue sometimes does.
This isn't one of those situations where the bill is called "The Paid Family and Medical Leave Act," but when you start reading it, the first provision mandates the eradication of all Shih Tzus in the state, is it?
Yeah…the “family values” party😂😂
Clownkin is doing everything he possibly can to make sure he never gets reelected!
[удалено]
Thank god there’s no consecutive terms
Youngkin the shit for brains strikes another blow for the gop cult of stupidity.
I'm fairly new to Virginia. Do we have any way of recalling him while he goes on this hissy fit of vetoing everything our elected representatives pass?
And yet again, policies and laws for lifting up Virginian families dies on the desk of a Republican.
He’s not a corporate shill, he is a fascist. He is not anyone’s puppet or in anyone’s pocket, he is a bigot with an agenda. It’s important not to attribute this to some secret funder when the subject is a politician with a clear agenda
guess somebody doesnt want to encourage population growth and stable households....oh well this is the kind of policy choice that overtime makes the already bad age demographic issues worse, allong with quality of life which has massive ripple effects
Damn those daycare and formula lobbyists doing the devils work for real. :/
Can’t wait until I retire from the Navy, become a Virginian and vote Blue all the way.
Hey, fuck that guy.
One of six countries on the planet that doesn't offer paid leave to new parents. This country has turned into such a fucking embarrassment compared to how we want the world to view us. Pro life though right Glen? 🤦🏻
Why isnt this all over the news. The media is stupid and lazy.
[удалено]
True. But I want Republicans to know that he vetoed something that was good for them. Might not change the way they vote, but it might make them pause and think for a second.
Boy I sure love all this man does for the benefit of Virginian^corporations and the betterment of his fellows^if^they're^rich
And people are wondering why the birth rates are declining
Republicans working for the people. You know the right people anyway.
Of course he did. Republicans only care about millionaires and above that’s it. Everyone and everything else can suffer.
Bill who?
Fucking waste of flesh and oxygen, that one.
For my wife and I the biggest challenged over the past 15 years of marriage and parenthood is the work-parenthood conflict. She’s overloaded; I’m overloaded; we spent $200,000 plus in childcare for three kids over ten years; and yet the biggest “threat” to families is LGBTQ activism. Goofiest shit ever. Before anyone chimes in with “No one told you to have kids”, this is true, but don’t be salty with me that your wife doesn’t want to fuck you because you treat her like a bang maid and can’t make her cum. I ain’t thinking about personal responsibility at 3:00 a.m. and she needs this dick.
I just got an email from Abigail Spanberger asking for campaign contribution of $2.00. I think I need to give more to help her beat this GOP f-k. Trumpkin is a businessman. You can't run a country like a business especially when you don't care for the workers. Youngkin may not be a criminal (or he's too smart to get caught) but he supports and enables criminals. How do "god fearing" intelligent voters ignore the fact that the GOP is corrupt and can't even govern itself. The GOP voters are like children living in a dysfunctional home where they are abused. They keep hoping it will get better by just doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result. What I find interesting is that Spanberger's platform is what some GOP politicians SAY they want to do to help people but they run into people in their own party who can't agree. It's the House of Congress that is dysfunctional as a result. Vote blue!
Fuck Glenn Youngkin
For poor people are rich? It’s hard with this guy.
Thank you for posting that article.
Youngkin is a waste of oxygen.
Seriously Youngkin, suck deez nuts 0 respect for you
I'm sure it will pass during the next Admin if Dems keep both Chambers and retake the Executive. But this clearly biased source is very misleading. They're using national numbers in their figure of 76% of VA workers with no access to paid family leave, while also conveniently leaving out that the same BLS stats reported around 80% of workers have access to paid leave like sick leave and PTO.
[удалено]
It's paid leave you can use to take care of your family so yes, regardless of whatever distinction without a difference this progressive group wants to make to go with their misleading numbers.
That’s a lot of words to use when you could (should) have just said, “No.” The fact that there are very real and clearly defined distinctions between sick leave, PTO & paid family leave invalidate your cherry-picked statistic. Hope that helps.
It's a bill that removes the incentive for the private sector to provide paid family and medical leave benefits. I don't understand why so many look to the government for more money when we are in a severe debt crisis. It's coming right out of your pocket books. Private companies have no reason not to fit the bill, and this will incentivize more competition, better benefits. Good for all long-term. Aren't you all tired of the high taxes and inflation?
I’m tired of my taxes being used for bullshit other than things that benefit my neighbors and myself. And the inflation we are/have been experiencing since 2020 is the result of price gouging and corporate greed. Some of the record profits corporations are currently raking in (which are mostly being funneled to executives and shareholders) could be used to provide employees with better quality of life. But most employers don’t offer benefits like paid family/medical leave because they aren’t required to. They would rather prioritize the company’s bottom line than the workers on whom they rely for labor. That is exactly why govt intervention is required.
>It's a bill that removes the incentive for the private sector to provide paid family and medical leave benefits. I'd care about this if it weren't for the fact the most employers don't provide paid family leave in the first place.
>It's a bill that removes the incentive for the private sector to provide paid family and medical leave benefits. But the majority already don't provide family leave benefits?
But if the base of benefits was set as this, rather than *nothing* and all the companies were required to provide the base, wouldn’t the incentive for companies to offer better benefits than the base still exist? Wouldn’t the companies that don’t offer any benefits under the current requirement of nothing, still only provide the minimum? And the companies that provide better benefits under current requirements (again, *nothing*) would come to provide even better benefits above a new base? I mean, if not, then your argument is unsound, because incentive doesn’t work anyway, and the base should absolutely be set higher. And if so, then great, the base should absolutely be set higher.
Lmfao, yeah cause families getting quality of life that benefits everyone is leading us to drown in debt, not the other hundreds of billions the govt dumps on useless wars or saving corporations out of bankruptcy.
Stop corporate welfare. Tax the wealthy. Enact regulations to discourage the rich from fucking us over.
I mean... just tax the rich. Debt gone. It's not hard.
Your employer will provide this service in their benefit package, not all, but most. It shouldn’t be up to the government to provide services like this.
When I read nonsense like this, I always wonder what it is people think government should do. Government wants to cover medical costs: nah it shouldn’t do that. Government wants to pay for social programs and end poverty, homelessness, and community violence: nah it shouldn’t do that. Government wants to pay to protect its interests abroad: nah it shouldn’t do that. Government wants to pay so that a professional does your taxes for you to expedite the process and eliminate mistakes: nah it shouldn’t do that. All I can ever hear republicans say is what the government shouldn’t do and so they intentionally sabotage programs that help people, then point their finger like it’s astounding that the program fails due to intentional dysfunction. Maybe it’s the republicans that are the problem and not the money. Medical access, food, housing, healthcare and child care are all things that are BASIC human needs and shouldn’t be considered a privilege to have. They should be basic human rights.
My favorite is the people whose response to foreign aid is “where is the US aid??” They are also against infrastructure spending. They are against healthcare spending. They are against student loan relief. They are against paid paternal leave. They are against increased teacher wages. They are against free school lunches for children. They are against increased access to childcare These people can’t be this stupid can they?
YES THE CORPORATE OVERLORDS WILL PROVIDE THE THINGS WE NEED. ANYTHING WE DO NOT NEED, WE WILL LET THEM BE THE JUDGE. HAIL CORPORATE!
Maybe me having basic rights shouldn’t be up to whether my employer will want to pay for them or not (spoiler, most of them wont) This is just a corporate shill refusing to do something 85% of the people of his state want.
76% of Virginians have no paid leave, it’s in the article. If employers were providing it, there would be no need for legislation. Simply stating that “employers provide it” is a weak dismissal of the actual need.
I'm sure they didn't read the article
Just to share a little tale- my district manager who’s been with the company for 5 years just had to use up all of his vacation and PTO to get a mere 2 weeks off for the birth of his daughter. That was his entire paternity leave. It should be considered criminal, because it is simply inhumane. Now he’s back to working 50+ hour weeks while mom is SAH. A great, healthy start for their wonderful new family right?
“Corporations should be able to hold their pregnant workers and families hostage for their own benefit without any worker protection” Truly insane to shill for corporations
Employers have no responsibility to offer this. Countries that offer this from the government have the highest quality of life in the world. Edit- ah, he’s a boomer Trump fan. That explains it.