# Perks of Maternity Leave - Without Having Kids???



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Ummm ... so the title says it all. The author doesn't have kids but feels like she should able to take the equivalent of maternity leave (she calls it meternity). She also believes this should apply only to women, or as she puts it



> "But the more I thought about it, the more I came to believe in the value of a “meternity” leave — which is, to me, a sabbatical-like break that allows women and, to a lesser degree, men to shift their focus to the part of their lives that doesn’t revolve around their jobs."


IDK if my wife's experience was different, but I remember when she went on maternity leave it was not a sabbatical, she was stressed out, tired, up frequently feeding our son, etc... How can this author even equate maternity leave to taking a sabbatical? Also, how can you argue that this doesn't quite count for men 

If you want a sabbatical take a sabbatical (Male or female), this is not something a company should be entitled to provide you.



> I was 31 years old in 2009, and I loved my career. As an editor at a popular magazine, I got to work on big stories, attend cool events, and meet famous celebs all the time.
> 
> And yet, after 10 years of working in a job where I was always on deadline, I couldn’t help but feel envious when parents on staff left the office at 6 p.m. to tend to their children, while it was assumed co-workers without kids would stay behind to pick up the slack.
> 
> ...




I want all the perks of maternity leave ? without having any kids | New York Post


----------



## staarz21 (Feb 6, 2013)

I read this article yesterday. I wanted to punch that woman in the face. This entitlement/me,me,me selfish society is going to kill off the human race. Wait and see.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Totally stupid and totally misses the point of mat leave.

And misses what every woman who's taken mat leave needs to face -- the fear that women who don't have kids are jumping in to replace her. Or men, of course.


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

Very poor reasoning. Women who take maternity leave aren't out "finding themselves," they're taking care of babies. Guarantee they have much less "me" time than the writer of this drivel.

The whole thing read like a thinly veiled advertisement for whatever tedious book she wrote. It will strike a chord with a certain subset of the entitlement generation. Me, me, me...it's not fair...someone else has something I don't!

Next phase will be that people without a disability should be able to take extended time off with compensation. After all, it's not fair that these lucky people with diseases and debilitating injuries get to take time off while the poor, healthy stooges keep slaving away, barely able to muster the strength to lift that Starbucks cup to their lips. Mostly for women though. We'll call it Missability!


----------



## cons (Aug 13, 2013)

I'm also inclined to think that this whole comparison was merely a publicity tool to sell a book...


----------



## Shoto1984 (Apr 11, 2009)

While the author of the piece doesn't offer much IMO. There is an interesting debate that can be had on the choice to have children and the consequences of that choice. The fairness of treatment between those who have chosen to be parents and those who have chosen not to be vs. the societal benefits of increasing the likelihood our future generations will be healthy, well adjusted children.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

Looks like entitlements gone amuck. Kids are hard work and those that go on maternity leave are probably working harder than they would if they were at work. Who ever came up with this crazy notion that you should get a free vacation to compensate you for those who went on maternity leave is just plain foolish. My hat is off to all of those parents out there who, like me, daily, gladly sacrifice for their kids!


----------



## ihatethis (Oct 17, 2013)

No matter what, US does not give enough vacation to people who work.


----------



## citygirl4344 (Mar 4, 2016)

Is this for real? I don't understand how she could compare maternity to a break from work.

Maternity leave was the hardest thing I did and both times was terrified that my job would be taken over by someone else.
Everyone is replaceable and you do start fearing that when on Mat leave. At least I did.
I did not "find myself" what I did find (while doing copious night feelings) was that there is some dreadful tv at 2am. Lol



Sent from my iPhone


----------



## cons (Aug 13, 2013)

FMLA protects women (and men) who chose to start a family. For most- maternity leave is unpaid (short-term disability may cover 4-6 weeks at less than 100% during recovery from birth). 

I would love to hear from any mom/dad who has used maternity leave/paternity leave that would agree that it could be described as a sabbatical.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I'm one. I had a week of paternity leave each time. Paid both times plus wife got 8 weeks paid. 

I don't disagree with the premise of the article. A lot of companies give a sabbatical every ten years or so. Let's say I want to bond with my new kitten, I should be given the same benefit.

I'm half joking but I can see why single people could be upset about it. But most companies do have unpaid short leaves so...


----------



## Anonymous07 (Aug 4, 2012)

What "me" time does a woman on maternity leave get? I sure didn't get any. I had a baby attached to my boob almost constantly, was up throughout the night exhausted, and was worried about work would be like when I went back. It was far from relaxing and finding myself. I honestly laugh at the "both sides are valid" argument. Um, no.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Isn't that what long service leave is for?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Holland said:


> Isn't that what long service leave is for?


What's that, Americans asked?


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

john117 said:


> What's that, Americans asked?


You don't get LSL? 

It is paid leave for length of employment. depends on which State or Territory you live in but for eg where I live it is roughly 8 weeks of paid leave for 10 yrs employment with the same company.
Lots of different awards but many can take LSL pro rata after 5 yrs employment.
That is in addition to 4 weeks anual leave, carers leave, sick leave etc.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I only know of my old roommate who had this deal in a semiconductor company. It's not very common this side of the pond...

I have 31 years with the same company... Sigh.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

john117 said:


> I only know of my old roommate who had this deal in a semiconductor company. It's not very common this side of the pond...
> 
> I have 31 years with the same company... Sigh.


31 years, do you get any form of incentive for such loyalty?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Most people in the company are lifers like me, or new hires. We used to have a pension plan, since frozen. 

Lots of fun things to do at work, interns, and so on.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

People are starting to demand, and get 'family leave' when they bring new pets into the home. 


We may have all gone clinically insane.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

I'm picking up a pet gold fish so I will be off work for the next 90 days. you know all the sleepless night and stress when bringing home a brand new baby gold fish. I might have to hire a nanny to help out at first. I think I can apply for a government grant to help pay for the nanny.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

True story... My cousin back in the olde country had a pet goldfish.. One night it was cold so he took the goldfish to bed with him . Not a good idea 

A cat maybe... Now my younger daughter wants a cat for graduate / medical school


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

john117 said:


> Most people in the company are lifers like me, or new hires. *We used to have a pension plan*, since frozen.
> 
> Lots of fun things to do at work, interns, and so on.


Is that like our superannuation ( we get 9.5% super paid on top of weekly wage which gets invested until retirement) or do you mean Govt pension?

How can a company just stop a pension plan? Would be illegal here.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

True story, a coworker had gone on maternity leave and came back, boss greeted her and asked if she had some relaxing time off. This man had 0 kids and was dead serious. The women around just gawked at him as she tore him a new one about not having slept in ages and feeling on the verge of insanity. 

I think we all need balance. A sabbatical is one thing, but it can't be compared with maternity leave. 

Meternutty is more like it.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Holland said:


> Is that like our superannuation ( we get 9.5% super paid on top of weekly wage which gets invested until retirement) or do you mean Govt pension?
> 
> How can a company just stop a pension plan? Would be illegal here.


Not stop, frozen. A company can't say the plan is canceled an then keep all the money. But they can freeze it and say new benefits stop accruing, here is a new plan you may not like as much. Typically they'll go to a 401k type defined contribution instead of defined benefit plan. 

This is going to happen a lot more in the next few years I think. They (central banks) have been suppressing interest rates for almost a decade now, that is working its way in to the formulas which say if your pension plan is fully funded or not. As companies discover they need to be contributing 20% or more of wages to the plan they will get frozen and replaced.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

john117 said:


> Holland said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that what long service leave is for?
> ...


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! EXACTLY. We have NOTHING like that in the US.

I've been in my job for 10 years, and I wanted to take an extended vacation/leave (I have 2 full months accrued) so I could backpack around Europe. I figured, I work for a university, I am constantly putting in extra hours, I've worked here longer pretty much than damn near anyone (my boss included), and the professors get sabbaticals. Why not staff? I feel like I've earned it. I would arrange the time when I was least crucial to office operations, and plan it well in advance so that they were trained to handle stuff in my absence.

I laid it all out for him, this proposal of mine. He looked at me like I had just killed a puppy. He told me the idea was ludicrous, and he can't believe that I even asked in the first place, because I should have known how absurd it was.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

The Author's story is laughable just purely b/c she feels that she, being a female of no kids, is more entitled to this "Meternity" than her male counterpart ...

The topic of extended leave / sabbatical is a tough one. I know at my firm this is simply not possible regardless of tenure. Being a small firm, having an employee out for an extended period of time, especially when trying to run a lean operation, would cause all kinds of operational risks. Based on work experience though, you can get a little over 20 vacation / personal days a year (obviously you cannot take all at once lol).


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

EllisRedding said:


> Ummm ... so the title says it all. The author doesn't have kids but feels like she should able to take the equivalent of maternity leave (she calls it meternity). She also believes this should apply only to women, or as she puts it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you sure that isn't satire? 

I did not even try to stomach reading the whole thing. The last paragraph alone was enough to make me want to find the author and slap her stupid, entitled self silly. Assuming it's possible for her to get any sillier than she already is.

If you want a sabbatical, save your money, risk your job, and take a sabbatical. Don't expect someone else to pay for you to not work and find balance.


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

EllisRedding said:


> The Author's story is laughable just purely b/c she feels that she, being a female of no kids, is more entitled to this "Meternity" than her male counterpart ...
> 
> The topic of extended leave / sabbatical is a tough one. I know at my firm this is simply not possible regardless of tenure. Being a small firm, having an employee out for an extended period of time, especially when trying to run a lean operation, would cause all kinds of operational risks. Based on work experience though, you can get a little over 20 vacation / personal days a year (obviously you cannot take all at once lol).


It's painful. People forget that the reason a company hires an employee is because they need someone to do something. It seems a huge chunk of society has some baseless idea that "companies" are bottomless fountains of money and that if the company does not "give" more and more money to employees - it's because they're evil and greedy. Couldn't possibly be because they can't AFFORD it and remain in business. 

When they are forced to pay for extended leave and other things, and they lay off and higher fewer people in response, again - evil/greedy. Never occurs to some that they simply don't have that much money. And even if they did - they (the employee) are not worth the money if they're not showing up for work.


----------



## optimalprimus (Feb 4, 2015)

Deluxe click-bait there.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

WorkingWife said:


> It's painful. People forget that the reason a company hires an employee is because they need someone to do something. It seems a huge chunk of society has some baseless idea that "companies" are bottomless fountains of money and that if the company does not "give" more and more money to employees - it's because they're evil and greedy. Couldn't possibly be because they can't AFFORD it and remain in business.
> 
> *When they are forced to pay for extended leave and other things, and they lay off and higher fewer people in response, again - evil/greedy. Never occurs to some that they simply don't have that much money. And even if they did - they (the employee) are not worth the money if they're not showing up for work*.


It works perfectly well here, people aren't laid off and companies keep thriving. 

An employee that has given 10 plus years of loyal service is worth the money. It is cheaper to keep employees happy and loyal as opposed to churning them and having to retrain etc. 

I get it now that you guys don't have LSL and not suggesting it would work there but it does work perfectly well here.


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

Holland said:


> It works perfectly well here, people aren't laid off and companies keep thriving.
> 
> An employee that has given 10 plus years of loyal service is worth the money. It is cheaper to keep employees happy and loyal as opposed to churning them and having to retrain etc.
> 
> I get it now that you guys don't have LSL and not suggesting it would work there but it does work perfectly well here.


Well your economy is doing much better than ours at the moment. There are layoffs and downsizing here every time the government puts another financial burden on the back of businesses.

I am a business owner - though I don't have any employees (I use sub contractors only because my work is not steady or profitable enough to pay a salary plus benefits.) - but I know a lot of other business owners, and I know how small the profit margin is for most businesses.

It's not a matter of valuing your employees, it's a matter of trying to keep a business profitable so you can provide a job to people in the first place. 

Especially small businesses where there's only one person who does your job. If the government says that you must give people extended leave, then that business things twice before hiring someone, 

When the government says you have to pay people for more than a month when they aren't even at work, that can cripple some companies. They have to hire someone else to do that work, now they're paying two salaries and probably not getting the work done as well as the person doing it is new with the company so that may also be cutting into profits. 

That means that companies may be afraid to hire women of child bearing years (even though that's discrimination and illegal - good luck proving why some company chose another candidate over you when the economy sucks and hundreds are applying) and it means they have to save in case employees do need a big chunk of time off so that lowers the salary they can offer.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

@WorkingWife - well said. My firm is small as well, and having to provide for some sort of covered extended leave would be a disaster (and I would guess many small businesses would face the same issue). It sounds great on paper but for many it is not practical, and would have a negative impact on profitability (which of course will directly impact compensation to all employees).


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

To quote Hillary Clinton, "we are not responsible for every undercapitalized small business out there".

Also note that FMLA and such are required for businesses of 50 or more employees, not mom and pop type places.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

john117 said:


> To quote Hillary Clinton, "we are not responsible for every undercapitalized small business out there".
> 
> Also note that FMLA and such are required for businesses of 50 or more employees, not mom and pop type places.


I would not classify any place that employs less than 50 as a mom and pop shop


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

True but still they're not subject to FMLA still... 

My wife interviewed at a couple 30-40 person companies and her reaction was "are they joking" or something more vulgar to that effect. 

Not only wages and benefits svck compared to larger firms but job descriptions tend to be very fluid at best, and office politics are lethal. 

Pity she's 57 years old as her new employer (a humongous insurance company) has incredible maternity benefits... And sabbatical leave every 7-8 years.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

john117 said:


> True but still they're not subject to FMLA still...
> 
> My wife interviewed at a couple 30-40 person companies and her reaction was "are they joking" or something more vulgar to that effect.
> 
> ...


Interesting, I went from a large global firm to a small firm (where I still work now), wages are much better. Benefits here are still very good, but especially for smaller firms get increasingly expensive (and a lot of health insurance companies won't even carry small firms).

Also, not being subject to FMLA is one incentive to keep headcount below 50 unless absolutely necessary.


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

First, about the article (which I only skimmed). I agree that maternity leave is an exhausting and hectic time and the woman who wrote that has no clue. She should get maternity leave and be required to live with a new mom and do all of the work. Hey - maybe a buddy system is a good idea! Childless women get maternity leave if they pair with a new mother! 

But really, childless women get a different benefit: their careers. Women without children don't miss as many days due to their children's illness; they can work overtime (no daycare closing time to consider), they can travel (no need to worry about how things work at home when they are gone) and because of all of that are much more likely to climb the ladder at work. It's a sacrifice to be a mother if you are also interested in your career. I was held out of a particular role because my boss was trying to be 'considerate' of the fact I had a child an no husband. All the while i asked for more opportunity and travel because I had a support system figured out. But I didn't get it until I had a new boss.

Another thing childless couples don't think about is the future. When they are old, who will be their doctor, nurse, caregiver, etc? One of their peers' children. It benefits ALL of society, even those who choose to not have children, to support families and maternity leave. Infants bonding with mothers is important both physically and mentally. So if childless people want to age in a world that is filled will well adjusted people who will care for practical (mowing, repairmen, other labor), personal (doctors, nurses, caregivers) and other services needs (pharmacists, transportation, etc.) then they need to realize the importance of maternity leave.


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

@Holland - typical US is two weeks of time off upon hiring or sometimes after completing a probationary period which can often be up to 6 months. Some companies provide service awards, some don't. Those that do usually provide a monetary bonus or gift. My company provides a gift. After 10 years I got a catalog to choose an item from - average price was $250.  I selected a Marc Jacobs watch.

I now get four weeks of vacation and 10 days of 'flex' days off - 6 of which are set by the company - they vary by country (we're international - in five continents) because we get New Year's Day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas in the US plus 4 other days we can use for whatever special day we might observe such as Yum Kippur, Martin Luther King Day, or just time off. Other countries still get the 10 flex days - some are "set" days the office is closed and the remaining are used like vacation time.

I started with 2 weeks of vacation time off; after 5 years of service I got 3 and now I get 4 with over 10 years of service. Max is 5 at 20 years of service. 

My company provides decent health insurance and covers about 80% of the premiums which is pretty good here. They also offer a 401k retirement savings account and matches first 3% dollar for dollar and the next 3% at .50 on the dollar. I max my contributions cause it's free money. No pension where I work. 

My company is pretty standard for a large corporation here as I've worked for several.


----------



## Anonymous07 (Aug 4, 2012)

WorkingWife said:


> Well your economy is doing much better than ours at the moment. There are layoffs and downsizing here every time the government puts another financial burden on the back of businesses.
> 
> I am a business owner - though I don't have any employees (I use sub contractors only because my work is not steady or profitable enough to pay a salary plus benefits.) - but I know a lot of other business owners, and I know how small the profit margin is for most businesses.
> 
> ...


Very true. My aunts restaurant just went out of business and I know of 2 others who just closed their businesses as well because of new requirements that were pushed on them. It's difficult for companies as it is, without putting more stress on them to offer more time off.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Restaurant businesses have been failing since the time fire was invented.. But let's blame regulation for everything


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

john117 said:


> Restaurant businesses have been failing since the time fire was invented.. But let's blame regulation for everything


It's something like 50% of all new restaurants fail/close within5 years of opening. It's a very fickle business.


----------



## Anonymous07 (Aug 4, 2012)

john117 said:


> Restaurant businesses have been failing since the time fire was invented.. But let's blame regulation for everything


Not when the restaurant has been open for *75 years*. 

This was a restaurant opened by my uncle's parents way back when, who then handed it down to my aunt and uncle and uncle's brother. It survived the '09 recession, but closed this last year due to new regulations and increasing minimum wage that they just couldn't keep up with. 

You may want to hold your opinion when you don't know enough facts.


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

john117 said:


> To quote Hillary Clinton, "we are not responsible for every undercapitalized small business out there".
> 
> Also note that FMLA and such are required for businesses of 50 or more employees, not mom and pop type places.


IMO, the government shouldn't be "responsible" for ANY business, period. But what is Hillary even saying when she says that? That it's right for the government to drive small businesses out of business with odious regulations and forced benefits? If the government is "not responsible for" these small businesses, why should they have the right to force them to offer certain salaries and benefits?

And what does "undercapitalized" mean to Hillary? That the business that's doing just fine today does not deserve to survive if it does not have enough money to do what she, someone who has never run a business, has deemed a priority?

*And what are Hillary and the government going to do about all the lost jobs that come from these businesses SHE has arbitrarily decided are "undercapitalized"? *Clearly the employees at these companies could not find a better job or they wouldn't work for them in the first place. 

But since SHE thinks the company is "undercapitalized" and not offering the benefits SHE thinks they should, well, screw their ignorant employees - their jobs suck and they are to stupid to figure that out for themselves. Whoo hooo, the government to the rescue to make sure they have NO JOB instead of a job at a company that is "undercapitalized." 
*

The government can't get enough in taxes out of Americans to give them what they think they should have so they'll just force private businesses to do it. 

Wow, thank you government! That you so much for saving us all from ourselves! We'd be so helpless and lost without the likes of HILLARY CLINTON to decide unemployment is better than working for a company that doesn't have as much money as Hillary Clinton thinks it should have!!!*

Are Small Businesses Really the Backbone of the Economy? | Inc.com


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

Anonymous07 said:


> Very true. My aunts restaurant just went out of business and I know of 2 others who just closed their businesses as well because of new requirements that were pushed on them. It's difficult for companies as it is, without putting more stress on them to offer more time off.


It's really really sad. 

And on top of your aunt's American Dream - there also go the jobs her little restaurant provided. Which is really sad because restaurants provide a lot of entry level jobs that help people get into the work force. The last thing we need is a youth unemployment rate like much of Europe has.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

EnjoliWoman said:


> But really, childless women get a different benefit: their careers. Women without children don't miss as many days due to their children's illness; they can work overtime (no daycare closing time to consider),


NOOOOOO! As much as I too think this article is dumb, please let us not start another battle in the Mommy wars!


----------



## Anonymous07 (Aug 4, 2012)

WorkingWife said:


> It's really really sad.
> 
> And on top of your aunt's American Dream - there also go the jobs her little restaurant provided. Which is really sad because restaurants provide a lot of entry level jobs that help people get into the work force. The last thing we need is a youth unemployment rate like much of Europe has.


Her restaurant had a lot of employees over the years. Many were young and working there as they went to school, but they also had a couple waitresses and cooks who had worked there for 20+ years. The restaurant had celebrated 75 years just the other year. It was kind of a land mark for the area. In order to stay open they would have had to raise prices a lot and it just wasn't competitive to other large chains if they did that, so my aunt and uncle closed it. 

I've seen a lot of local small businesses shut down lately. It's hard to watch, but I also know it's only becoming more tough to own a small business with everything required now. They just can't afford it.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

The funny thing about this whole minimum wage hike, a guy I talk to who owns his own business was telling me that while at work his secretary was talking about how great this jacked up minimum wage would be for everyone. The guy asked her where these companies would make up the difference of labor costs spiking and her answer was that all the owners would just absorb the costs themselves lol. He then explained to her that if the minimum wage hike went through they would most likely either look to reduce staff (including her position) and implement wage freezes. After telling her that he was pretty sure her stance on the matter had changed lol.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

marduk said:


> Totally stupid and totally misses the point of mat leave.
> 
> And misses what every woman who's taken mat leave needs to face -- the fear that women who don't have kids are jumping in to replace her. Or men, of course.


As much as that fear is real, the REAL fear for me was facing an inconsolable baby all day!


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

In my city they're starting to force homeowners tear out their own patios because 'apparently' they were built, 5, 10, 20, years ago oversize in violation to the size of the lot because of some water runoff regulation. We're not talking about parking lots, we're talking about patios. But - BUT - once you are handed ground water runoff beyond your control - there's nothing you can do about it. You can't divert it, you can't drain it, nothing. These are not additions that were built w/o a permit. They were built originally as permitted and signed off by the city. 

Downtown there's a neighborhood called 'Oakwood' of older money homes. A homeowner bought a property, went to the city for 2 years to get a knock down permit. Then another 2 years with the city planner and their own architect to put up a new structure. Got the plans approved, got all the permitting, all the zoning tickets, got approval of all the neighbors for a facade variance. And then started to build. Got 80% complete and one of their d-bag neighbors decided they didn't like it and went to the city for an injunction, somehow got, stopped all work and then got the city to take the homeowner to court to attempt to force them to tear it all down. This wound up in state supreme court after another 2 years and the complainant lost. The building got RE approved with no variations to the plans that were already in process and then the homeowner had to go back find new contractors to finish the last 20% of the build. He had to go to court for 2 years to fight the city that already approved all his work to force them allow him to finish that work according to the permitting they already took the money to allow. But then the city decided that the threshold for completion date was now 2 years in the past and they went after the homeowner for 2 years of back property taxes based on 'delays'. The incing on the cake is that the state and Federal EPA only look to the date that the power meter is switched over and so, a new SEER rating was now in force requiring 2 zone compressors to be changed out for much larger SEER rating units. You can't grandfather 'old' units into 'new' regs. 

If you ever want to know why people commit mass murder go deal with city government, regulations and all that.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

First of all, I'm not a small business person... The line of work i'm in requires very deep pockets to get in, and is very competitive (consumer electronics). Small businesses have a clever idea or two here and there but by and large it's a big business industry. When you compete with the likes of Apple or Sony minimum wage and FMLA are the least of your concerns.

Our biggest concern is customers. Having enough of them, that is. Our products appeal to younger people and lets just say minimum wage of $7.50/hour is not conducive to selling lots of gadgets. Henry Ford figured this 100 years ago.

Having said this, the federal minimum wage has not been raised in forever so it was likely a state or local mandate like Seattle's or NYC that did it. Likewise as a business with under 50 people (guessing) they're exempt from a lot of additional regulations we talked about like FMLA and from my understanding of the ACA restaurants are not exactly 32+ hour week type workplaces...

Lots of well capitalized companies I used to shop have gone under in recent decades, places like Service Merchandise, Comp USA, Cub Foods, you name it. Businesses have to adapt to survive.


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> NOOOOOO! As much as I too think this article is dumb, please let us not start another battle in the Mommy wars!


I don't see my comment as doing that! There are perks and drawbacks to both 'careers'. Neither is better. Both contribute to society. There shouldn't be any wars. The writer's view, however, might!


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

EnjoliWoman said:


> I don't see my comment as doing that! There are perks and drawbacks to both 'careers'. Neither is better. Both contribute to society. There shouldn't be any wars. The writer's view, however, might!


Sorry. I was trying to be funny. I should give that up as a bad habit.


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> Sorry. I was trying to be funny. I should give that up as a bad habit.


I'm the daughter of an engineer. I tend to be literal.  Sorry!


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

So to confirm ... @EnjoliWoman is too literal and @NobodySpecial is not funny :grin2:


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> So to confirm ... @EnjoliWoman is too literal and @NobodySpecial is not funny :grin2:


In my case, it is sad. But true.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

EnjoliWoman said:


> I'm the daughter of an engineer. I tend to be literal.  Sorry!


I am the daughter of an engineer and the mum of a soon to be engineer. It's exhausting :laugh:


----------

