Why should the federal government legislate this, and not the states? What could possibly grant Congress the authority to force such a thing upon all private enterprises in the land, and wouldn't it open the door to federal laws for virtually everything argued to be for the general good?
Why should it be left to the states when there is an argument to be made that because of interstate commerce you need to implement a mandate at the federal level if you are to avoid a race to the bottom?
What is wrong with federal laws for the general good? The EPA and FDA fall under that very idea. Would you rather have food and drugs managed at the state level? We've already seen what happens if environmental concerns are managed at the state level [1].
As a non-american, this kind of argument is really crazy for me. This isn't an economic discussion, but one about which kind of society we want to live. We always read all American politicians talking about the importance of the "Family", but the richest nation in the World can't afford their fathers to spend a dozen of days with their newborns?
Indeed; I've been thinking the same for a lot of time. The way the economy is treated in most media and political speech, even here in Europe, is almost machiavellian: everything is about the economy, nothing actually matters except it, whichever additional benefit is only collateral to the real thing; and of course, whichever damage caused is justified by the supposed greater good, so suck it up. Somehow we have forgotten that economy is the means and life (both as individuals and as a society) is the end, not the other way round.
> This isn't an economic discussion, but one about which kind of society we want to live.
Its both -- indeed, decisions about which kind of society we want to live in are usually economic decisions (as they are decisions about the preferred rules for distribution of scarce resources.)
When I was a U.S. government employee I took 34 days of paid paternity leave when my daughter was born and 28 days when my son was born two years apart.
The notion that the U.S. doesn't have paternity leave is totally unfounded. In fact, the U.S. Government as an employer has pretty damn strong maternity/paternity leave policies.[1] I know of many private companies that also have great maternity/paternity leave policies.[2]
People seem to want the government to mandate the private sector implement these policies, however the U.S. Code is not structured in a way that encourages restrictions on private companies in this way.
>People seem to want the government to mandate the private sector implement these policies, however the U.S. Code is not structured in a way that encourages restrictions on private companies in this way.
This is basically false. There is nothing about the structure of the U.S. Code that is hostile to mandates on private employers, and in fact the content of the U.S. Code already includes wage/hour/leave mandates on private employers.
It doesn't include paid parental leave mandates for private employers, but there is nothing structurally that supports the current mandates but would need to be changed for that specific mandate. Its just that federal decision-makers haven't adopted that specific policy.
There's a lot more than just maternity (or paternity) leave holding back Japanese women: the cultural expectation remain that women are there to pour cups of tea, marry eligible salarymen, and drop out and rear their kids while said salarymen work insane hours.
My wife (MBA, ex-Microsoftie, etc; not your average "office lady") briefly worked for a super-old-school Japanese trading company in Australia. Her boss wanted her to go on a business trip to suppliers in Japan with a client; HQ held out as long as they could (because what would the suppliers think if they sent a woman?), but eventually gave in because there was nobody else suitable. So they called up all the employees and proudly announced: We're sending a woman to Japan, for the first time ever! Everybody, a round of applause at how progressive we are!
So when was this? In the 1970s, perhaps? Nope: 2011.
12 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 42.3 ms ] threadWhat is wrong with federal laws for the general good? The EPA and FDA fall under that very idea. Would you rather have food and drugs managed at the state level? We've already seen what happens if environmental concerns are managed at the state level [1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain#History_of_acid_rain_...
Its both -- indeed, decisions about which kind of society we want to live in are usually economic decisions (as they are decisions about the preferred rules for distribution of scarce resources.)
The notion that the U.S. doesn't have paternity leave is totally unfounded. In fact, the U.S. Government as an employer has pretty damn strong maternity/paternity leave policies.[1] I know of many private companies that also have great maternity/paternity leave policies.[2]
People seem to want the government to mandate the private sector implement these policies, however the U.S. Code is not structured in a way that encourages restrictions on private companies in this way.
[1]http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/leave-adm...
[2]http://www.workingmother.com/best-companies/ibm-9
This is basically false. There is nothing about the structure of the U.S. Code that is hostile to mandates on private employers, and in fact the content of the U.S. Code already includes wage/hour/leave mandates on private employers.
It doesn't include paid parental leave mandates for private employers, but there is nothing structurally that supports the current mandates but would need to be changed for that specific mandate. Its just that federal decision-makers haven't adopted that specific policy.
The structural process of changing the U.S. Code is not conducive to encourage restrictions on private industries.
That's just the lawmaking process. Which produces new and altered restrictions on private employers all the time.
My wife (MBA, ex-Microsoftie, etc; not your average "office lady") briefly worked for a super-old-school Japanese trading company in Australia. Her boss wanted her to go on a business trip to suppliers in Japan with a client; HQ held out as long as they could (because what would the suppliers think if they sent a woman?), but eventually gave in because there was nobody else suitable. So they called up all the employees and proudly announced: We're sending a woman to Japan, for the first time ever! Everybody, a round of applause at how progressive we are!
So when was this? In the 1970s, perhaps? Nope: 2011.