Chess Online

Play online chess!

Pages:  1 2 3 4 Next »
From	Message
zorroloco 01-Feb-13, 16:31	maternity leave things that make you go hmmmmmm.... When it comes to the world's maternity leaves report card, not all countries are passing with flying colours. In a report by the International Labour Organization (ILO), the majority of the United States (excluding two states) received a failing grade in providing women and new mothers support entering motherhood. In at least 178 countries around the world, paid leave is guaranteed for working moms, while more than 50 countries provide wage benefits for fathers, according to the ILO. The United States, along with Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Liberia and Lesotho are some of the only countries in the world that provide no type of financial support for mothers, according to a study done by McGill University’s Institute for Health and Social Policy. Maternity leaves aren't simply a matter of time off for childcare -- they can also strongly impact the rest of a child's life. According to a report by non-governmental organization Save The Children, in countries with longer periods of parental leave, children were found to be breastfed for longer and their life expectancy was higher. The group looked at the top developed countries that are succeeding in maternity leave benefits, and which ones continue to lag behind. The country with the longest paid leave topped out at 420 days, while the length of time for countries with the lowest paid and unpaid leaves was around 12 weeks. Here are the maternity leave benefits for 43 developed countries in 2011, from shortest to longest periods of time. Are you surprised by the findings? United States: Length Of Maternity Leave: 12 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: No national program but cash benefits may be provided at the state level. Iceland: Length Of Maternity Leave: 3 Months Percentage Of Wages Paid: 80 Germany: Length Of Maternity Leave: 14 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 Japan: Length Of Maternity Leave: 14 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 67 Malta: Length Of Maternity Leave: 14 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 New Zealand: Length Of Maternity Leave: 14 Weeks Paid, 38 Weeks Unpaid Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 Switzerland: Length Of Maternity Leave: 14 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 80 Belgium: Length Of Maternity Leave: 15 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 82 per cent for the first 30 days and 75 per cent for the remaining period. Finland: Length Of Maternity Leave: 105 Days Percentage Of Wages Paid: 70 Slovenia: Length Of Maternity Leave: 105 Days Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 Austria: Length Of Maternity Leave: 16 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 France: Length Of Maternity Leave: 16 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 Latvia: Length Of Maternity Leave: 112 Days Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 Luxembourg: Length Of Maternity Leave: 16 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 Netherlands: Length Of Maternity Leave: 16 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 Spain: Length Of Maternity Leave: 16 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 Greece: Length Of Maternity Leave: 119 Days Percentage Of Wages Paid: 50 Australia: Length Of Maternity Leave: 18 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: Each parent can take up to 12 months of leave, of which 18 weeks are paid. Lithuania: Length Of Maternity Leave: 126 Days Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 Belarus: Length Of Maternity Leave: 126 Days Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 Moldova: Length Of Maternity Leave: 126 Days Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 Ukraine: Length Of Maternity Leave: 126 Days Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 Romania: Length Of Maternity Leave: 126 Days Percentage Of Wages Paid: 85 Portugal: Length Of Maternity Leave: 120 to 150 Days Percentage Of Wages Paid: Parental benefits paid at 100 per cent for the shorter duration of leave and 80 per cent for the longer option. Estonia: Length Of Maternity Leave: 140 Days Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 Poland: Length Of Maternity Leave: 20 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 Russia: Length Of Maternity Leave: 140 Days Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 Italy: Length Of Maternity Leave: 5 Months Percentage Of Wages Paid: 80 Bulgaria: Length Of Maternity Leave: 135 Days Percentage Of Wages Paid:90 Hungary: Length Of Maternity Leave: 24 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 70 Ireland: Length Of Maternity Leave: 26 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 80 Czech Republic: Length Of Maternity Leave: 28 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 60 Slovakia: Length Of Maternity Leave: 28 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 55 Macedonia: Length Of Maternity Leave: 9 Months Percentage Of Wages Paid: Not found. Norway: Length Of Maternity Leave: 36 to 46 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: Parental benefits paid at 100 per cent for the shorter duration of leave and 80 per cent for the longer option. Albania: Length Of Maternity Leave: 365 Days Percentage Of Wages Paid: 80 per cent prior to birth and for 150 days after and 50 per cent for the rest of the leave period. Bosnia And Herzegovina: Length Of Maternity Leave: 1 Year Percentage Of Wages Paid: 82 per cent for the first 30 days and 75 per cent for the remaining period. Canada: Length Of Maternity Leave: 52 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 55 per cent at 17 weeks for maternity leave, and the additional 35 weeks can be taken by either parent. Wages also depend on province. Croatia: Length Of Maternity Leave: 1 Year Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 Denmark: Length Of Maternity Leave: 52 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 Serbia: Length Of Maternity Leave: 52 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 100 United Kingdom: Length Of Maternity Leave: 52 Weeks Percentage Of Wages Paid: 90 Sweden: Length Of Maternity Leave: 420 Days Percentage Of Wages Paid: 80
tat3225 01-Feb-13, 20:36	I have up to 16 weeks of 100% paid maternity leave. Which sounds great, except it means nothing depending on what I am working on. Someone else cannot just take over what I am doing, depending on what it is of course. I am able to work from home if need be, so my "maternity leave" will probably involve my, bed, my infant, my cell phone, and my laptop. Having said that, I have already accepted that I will need to go to part-time status once I start having kids or perhaps I won't work at all for a certain period of time. I don't really know and my fiancee and I have both agreed that I will decide what I want to do when the time comes. As far as paternity leave goes.....I don't really know if my fiancee has that but he does have a degree of flexibility with his job. But it doesn't really matter. I have choices because he is the one making the $, so he can be as involved as he wants to be but I don't really have any expectations. He really wants to have kids, but I don't really see him changing many diapers or getting up in the middle of the night.
king_0_nothing 02-Feb-13, 00:59	My work allows 12 weeks, but if you want it paid you either have to use vacation time or go on short-term disability. This is pretty atrocious. We recently had a son, and I was able to get 12 weeks paternity leave, but same deal, not paid unless I used vacation... short-term dis was unavailable.
tat3225 02-Feb-13, 08:41	This is actually not okay at all. Honestly I had no idea that most women are dealing with loss of pay just to have a baby.
chaz- 02-Feb-13, 08:44	... it does seem, historically, we have more cultural encouragement to have fewer kids than in years past. Perhaps some of it has to do with anxiety toward overpopulation, the costs of raising children, some preoccupation for earning more money to buy "things," and the value of our free time without the interference of children. It seems there isn't as much of a high demand for maternity/paternity leave (like in Europe); instead, it seems more of an appropriate progressive idea that ... eventually ... needs to be adopted.
zorroloco 02-Feb-13, 08:48	tat is it wrong? should we be subsidizing children? isn't that socialistic? i chose not to have children. why should my wealth get redistributed to people who want to have offspring?
tat3225 02-Feb-13, 09:26	ZL There are tons of changes that can be made on an individual basis regarding maternity leave which have nothing to do with the government. I was not talking about all women in all jobs.
zorroloco 02-Feb-13, 09:57	tat if we require business to pay wages to women w/ young kids,who do you think will pay? how do you get maternity pay without involving the government? either the government pays or the government requires companies to pay. or do you think business will pay voluntarily?
tat3225 02-Feb-13, 10:21	Zorroloco, you don't understand. What is not okay is that the women who are facing this problem aren't advocating for themselves more. The only people who should be doing something about this are those facing this problem. I am not one of those women. Therefore I am saying that it is not okay and sucks for women to lose pay to have a baby. Which does not mean that it is my responsibility to come up with a solution for this problem nor should I go meddling in issues that don't pertain to me. One of the biggest issues women have in terms of earning equal compensation as men and so on...is the fact that most women don't ask for or demand things they want, for whatever reason.
tat3225 02-Feb-13, 10:39	It is completely false and ridiculous, by the way, to assume that conservatives oppose any kind of social spending or legislature that would address something like maternity leave. It is worth noting that democrats have not adopted an issue like this. I wonder why that is..........
rmannstaedt 02-Feb-13, 10:50	yes they will, but ... The statistics in the earlier post are somewhat simplified, at least as regards maternity leave in Denmark. We have a slightly complex system where the mother may take up to 4 weeks of (unpaid) leave before birth and 14 weeks of (paid - but exactly how much depends on the contract with the company, will be from 50% to 100% of salary) leave after birth. The father is also able to go on maternity leave (or paternity, if you want), but only 2 weeks after birth. Again, this is paid (from 50% to 100% salary, depending on the kind of contract you have at work). Now, in addition (!) to the above, the parents may also take a total (freely divided between them) of 32 weeks of paid leave. However, where the maternity leave is paid for by the company, this "parental leave" is paid for by the government, and at lower rate (same as the unemployment benefit). Now, you're probably going to ask: why are the companies agreeing to pay for this, and how do they manage to compete with other companies who don't pay? Well, this is not unique for Denmark; the rest of Scandinavia have more or less the same rules, and none of them have any significant economic problems. Denmark, for instance, is regarded as "safe haven" for investments abroad on line with Switzerland. We are, generally speaking, wealthy. The reason? Keynesian economics, high workforce efficiency, and a flexible and well-managed public sphere which supports the private sector rather than leaving it stranded in desert-like isolation. Companies are willing to pay for the kind of efficiency and stability they experience here. Yes, there are additional costs like maternity pay, but in return they get a dedicated, highly educated and very flexible workforce, good infrastructure, reasonable taxes, and easy access to attractive markets in Scandinavia and the EU. If you're interested you can find some articles about the "Scandinavian model" here: Brief excerpt: www.presseurop.eu Longer article: www.economist.com
tat3225 02-Feb-13, 11:18	"Denmark, for instance, is regarded as "safe haven" for investments abroad on line with Switzerland." oh...."safe haven"...that's what we're calling it?
tat3225 02-Feb-13, 11:31	Wasn't Denmark, less than a century ago, a totalitarian monarchy that didn't oppose Nazi occupation? I wonder what changed since then.
rmannstaedt 02-Feb-13, 11:40	not quite We have been democratic since 1848, and although the Danish army was very small and thus unable to do anything to oppose the Nazis, we did what we could to oppose them after the occupation. The danish resistance movement grew to be quite extensive and rather efficient, during the war. As for the investments - the reason why the Danish currency (Kroner) is extremely strong, and has been that way for several years now, is that we have avoided the major impacts of the financial crisis and have a relatively strong and very stable financial sector - especially as regards pensions and housing investments.
hennybogan1953 02-Feb-13, 11:59	Lose pay to have a baby! WHAT get used to it! I "had" a female baby a while back and HOLY COW did I "lose" pay! Shoes, Boots, hairdressers, clothes, laptops, phones, tablets, dance lessons and associated costumes, build a bear, toys r us, saving for college, cats, dolls, highlights, constant hair color changes, shopping trips, AND SHE WONT EVEN PLAY GOLF anymore!!!!!!!! despite having a great little swing honed since 18 months of age!
proginoskes 03-Feb-13, 08:18	I don't understand why anyone would have an expectation to get paid not to work.
king_0_nothing 03-Feb-13, 08:30	It's the idea that jobs provide good benefits and take care of their employees. I like how so many people side with the corporations and not with the people. It goes hand in hand with vacation time and sick pay, health insurance and 401k... If my job didn't offer any paid vacation, I wouldn't be working there. No one said maternity leave needed to pay 100%, but it should pay SOMETHING.
proginoskes 03-Feb-13, 08:34	WHY *should* it pay something? I'm not saying it shouldn't exit or that it doesn't make for an nice and competitive employment compensation package, but why *should* this occur? What is the fundamental underlying principle and philosophy behind the "*should*?
zorroloco 03-Feb-13, 09:47	josh because it is in societies' best interest that parents raise well-adjusted ans well nourished children. having a stay at home mom breast feeding and present is the most cost effective and practical way to facilitate this. poorly adjusted kids grow up to be troubled and unproductive, if not actually destructive, members of society. poorly nourished children grow up to be adults with expensive health problems. in an ideal world, this would not affect everyone else. we do not live in an ideal world, and it does affect us. therefore, it is in my best interest, even as a man with no children, to subsidize the health and well being of every one's children. it is the same idea behind compulsory universal education.
proginoskes 03-Feb-13, 10:05	jeff Even if I agree that societally it's a good thing that women can stay home and breast feed, both from a family/bonding stand point as well as a public health perspective. Do we also owe anyone anymore than is necessary to facilitate this? Surely you do not think we need to provide for a lifestyle as well. You should expect a pay cut for not working.
zorroloco 03-Feb-13, 10:08	josh owe? no! purely self interest.
king_0_nothing 03-Feb-13, 10:22	A pay cut can be acceptable. No pay whatsoever is not. A lot of the problem here is the attitude of today's workforce; even permanent employees can be treated like temps because everyone views their career as a 'job.' Granted, some jobs are transitional in a wait for something better to come along, but I'm at a company that pays more than any other company in the area, offers better benefits and treats the employees better than most and my co-workers still see a 'job' that is obligated to pay them while they are not obligated to work. Legitimate reasons for missing work -such as maternity leave- are being obfuscated by phony reasons that effectively shield laziness. You can get paid time off for practically anything these days, doctors are willing to operate on you to back up your excuses. And yet the people you would want in your workforce, people who are about to become parents can't get the time off they need to properly bond with and care for their newborns.
pecosbill 04-Feb-13, 19:29	ZL.... <because it is in societies' best interest that parents raise well-adjusted ans well nourished children. having a stay at home mom breast feeding and present is the most cost effective and practical way to facilitate this. poorly adjusted kids grow up to be troubled and unproductive, if not actually destructive, members of society. poorly nourished children grow up to be adults with expensive health problems. in an ideal world, this would not affect everyone else. we do not live in an ideal world, and it does affect us. therefore, it is in my best interest, even as a man with no children, to subsidize the health and well being of every one's children. it is the same idea behind compulsory universal education.> ----------------------- Give me a break. You only support the best interest of children when it politically expediant or someone else has to pay for it! You would never support children if it ran afoul of your sense of political correctness. Gay marriage for example: "The breakdown of marriage in America has already had devastating effects on society, especially on children, without delivering yet another blow to this most fundamental structure of society by eliminating it entirely. If heterosexual marriage is protected, children will at least have the benefits of its stabilizing influence in their surrounding familial relationships. " www.catholiceducation.org
zorroloco 04-Feb-13, 19:41	bill feeble effort. catholiceducation.org? really? a completely unbiased source, i suppose? lol. look. there are literally hundreds of scientifically conducted and peer reviewed studies documenting the short and long term health and social benefits to having a stay at home parent and of breast feeding. show me one that shows how allowing gay marriage has a 'devastating affect on society, especially children.' as for "You only support the best interest of children when it politically expediant or someone else has to pay for it! You would never support children if it ran afoul of your sense of political correctness." besides being rude, it is completely ignorant.
pecosbill 04-Feb-13, 21:20	ZL... ZL: <feeble effort. catholiceducation.org? really? a completely unbiased source, i suppose?> ----------------------- I don’t think you will find any source that is not biased somewhat one way or the other regarding this issue. However, if you look at advisory board for the site you will notice that there are at least 20 college professors. Including ones from the following institutions: University of Texas Emory University Princeton University Marquette University University of Virginia New York University Boston College ZL: <look. there are literally hundreds of scientifically conducted and peer reviewed studies documenting the short and long term health and social benefits to having a stay at home parent and of breast feeding. show me one that shows how allowing gay marriage has a 'devastating affect on society, especially children.'> ------------------------------- 1) So I have to find a study that uses those exact words, hardly a fair standard to set. 2) I grant your position that an infants close contact with the mother is very important. Which begs a couple interesting questions: Can a gay man breast feed a baby? Does the value of parental contact suddenly stop with breast feeding? Is valuable parental contact limited only to women? 3) Actually the problem is that there seems to be a lack of studies when it comes to this terribly important issue, at least when it comes to the courts: “The same courts that demand multi-million dollar environmental studies before allowing someone to so much as dig a hole in the ground "are going to massively reshape the social landscape" without a single study being conducted. And it will do so in spite of mountains of empirical evidence showing the negative effects on society that occur when the family structure breaks down.” www.catholiceducation.org ZL: <as for "You only support the best interest of children when it politically expedient or someone else has to pay for it! You would never support children if it ran afoul of your sense of political correctness." besides being rude, it is completely ignorant.> ----------------------------- LOL… look at the comment you just made. Unless I am able to produce a peer reviewed study demonstrating that homosexual marriage has a 'devastating affect on society, especially children.’ then apparently you are fine with it. I guess really, really bad for children would not be bad enough to challenge your noble desire to normalize homosexuality.
zorroloco 05-Feb-13, 04:29	bill i am fine with it because i cannot see that it harms kids. those who think it harms kids, in my opinion, are simply rationalizing their fear and bigotry against gays. there is no, to my knowledge, research that indicates that the chuldren of gay couples (or any kids) are harmed by allowing gays to marry or raise kids. do you? i believe in freedom. do you? i believe that my belief system should not be the final arbiter of what others get to do. can you say the same?
hennybogan1953 05-Feb-13, 07:48	Could you imagine high school with "parents' who are fruiters! You better be one tough kid ready to fight at the drop of a hat otherwise you are going to be the subject of ridicule and harassment.
chaz- 05-Feb-13, 08:06	... especially from those bullies coming from families who teach their kids intolerance.
zorroloco 05-Feb-13, 08:41	actually my school has quite a few students who are 'out.' and at least one kid whose parents are openly gay. our school is so diverse that kids have learned to be respectful and accepting.
hennybogan1953 05-Feb-13, 09:08	Ya in Washington State! What about Texas or coal country Pennsylvania the home of the rubes!
Pages:  1 2 3 4 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, chess teams, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.