Hacker News Reader

Comment by todd_whitehead | Hacker News Reader

Why should someone be paid for adding nothing of value to a company (by being on maternity leave)?

At the simplest level, because we the people design laws that allow the company to exist. Without our consent, these invented human things called companies would have no legal standing. So, because we say it should be so.

Same reason someone should be taxed to fund the police even if said person can afford a private security guard.

Social good.

I largely agree now -- in fact I think that women and men (since it's the 21st century and all types of people go on maternity leave) should be able to go on paid maternity leave. The leave will be funded by all corporations for social good -- no point in limiting it to the one the person worked for, since a person on maternity leave contributes equally to all of them. Paid maternity leave is a human right, like clean drinking water and fast internet, and I demand corporations provide us with it!

I think you're being sarcastic but if not, I agree with you.

Most developed countries (the USA being the most notable exception) have some form of paid paternity leave as well, ranging from just a few days, to the same level as maternity leave: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

Where the state provides some or all of the financial assistance for parental leave, one could argue that it is already funded by all corporations, as it would be derived from tax income.

Agreed, everyone who decides to parent a child should get some time off to help raise that child. It would strengthen society.

(And if every company were obligated to provide it, none would have a short-sighted competitive advantage over those who chose not to provide it.)

Why should the company provide maternity benefits and not the state? I don't think it's fair for some three person startup to go bankrupt because employee #1 got pregnant and continues to draw down salary while staying home.

Indeed, the European standard is that it is paid by the state, rather than the employers.

We support a common police force because it makes sense that government has a monopoly on force. If private security forces did the job of police, that person or persons employing the private force would be a society unto themselves, not a part of the same society as the rest of us, and when conflict developed between their police and the common police (or the police of a 3rd party -- another private security force), then we would be at war. In other words, you don't understand why everyone in society supports the police.

If the person is adding value while not on maternity (or paternity) leave then it would be worthwhile to pay them while they are gone so they come back and continue working for you. If you don't do it, some other employer probably will, and they may choose to work for the employer with better benefits instead.

It's the cost of participating in a job market where children are reared better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com