Pregnant people in New York would have 40 hours of paid leave to attend prenatal medical appointments under a new proposal by Gov. Kathy Hochul after the state’s legislative session kicked off this week.

The Democrat’s plan to expand the state’s paid family leave policy, which would need to be approved by the state Legislature, aims to expand access to high-quality prenatal care and prevent maternal and infant deaths in New York, an issue that especially affects low-income and minority communities.

The U.S. infant mortality rate, a measure of how many babies die before they reach their first birthday, is worse than other high-income countries, which experts have attributed to poverty, inadequate prenatal care and other possibilities. The U.S. rate rose 3% in 2022 — the largest increase in two decades, according to a 2023 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

  • chitak166@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Do companies have to pay employees for months while they’re not doing any work?

    Or is it the government who allocates taxes to fund maternity leave?

    As a business owner, a woman would have to provide enough value to the company to make up for potentially missing months of work while being paid in order to get hired over a man with no such risk.

    • ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I see you’re operating under the misunderstanding that only women have to take time off of work to care for children. Or maybe you just think that somehow women are having babies all by themselves without men at all.

      WOMEN DON’T HAVE BABIES, FAMILIES HAVE BABIES. EVERY PERSON DESERVES THE HUMAN DIGNITY OF BEING ALLOWED TO CARE FOR THEIR CHILDREN.

      I’m sorry for yelling, but it’s a fucking important. You’re backwards thinking is a key failure of capitalism and a shining example of toxic masculinity.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        We have national maternity leave here, but I recently worked at a company that gave the father 4 months off to be used however they wanted over the next year after their child was born. Was really heartwarming to see them give that extra benefit to help him spend time with the new family.

      • chitak166@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So you’re saying everyone should be hired with the expectation that they will receive months of paid leave for having a child?

        Nothing about this is ‘toxic masculinity.’ It’s how the working world works, lol. You’ll understand that when you’re older.

        • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          We’re saying that entire societies benefit from having parents spend early months/years with their young children. Because society as a whole profits from that activity, that activity should be subsidized by the government.

          And I promise I’m at least as old as you

          • chitak166@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think it’s fine raising taxes on the wealthy so working folks can stay at home with their families.

            My issue is that requiring employers to do that means that it’s impossible to start a business if you don’t already have a lot of excess capital and an established customer base.

            Can Google do it? Absolutely.

            Can an average food truck do it? Absolutely not.

            • ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              If your employer can’t afford to give new parents leave, then one way or another you are being exploited for somebody else’s profit.

              • chitak166@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                What exactly is your point? That every business who can’t afford to pay employees who aren’t working shouldn’t get to operate? Just go ahead and say it, unless you’re afraid it’s a stupid idea and you’re purposefully avoiding admitting it for this reason.

                That’s how you’re literally only left with big name companies like Google and Amazon.

            • roguetrick@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              impossible to start a business if you don’t already have a lot of excess capital and an established customer base.

              If your business cannot support the basic operating costs of the humans it employs, it has no value to society. It’s a parasite that feeds off the welfare spending of the state to enrich it’s owner.

              • chitak166@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                True, but businesses have proven that humans don’t need months off with pay for having children.

            • pedalmore@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The solution of course is having a payroll type tax that funds parental leave. Everyone pays in, and the government pays out so companies, large and small, don’t have to deal with the issue you’re talking about. I’d like my employer to have zero say in things like this, unless they want to go above and beyond. Same for healthcare. Let companies be companies, and let’s use taxes to find societal needs

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Pretty much every regulation like this has a minimum busi ness size it applies to, for exactly this reason

          • NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            If the government is paying for it I am all in.

            Having businesses pay for it will just result in less women getting good jobs.

            • AWildMimicAppears@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Alternatively we can go for mandated parental leave for both parents (not at the same time), which evens out the playing field between genders, men get to spend more time with their infants, and hiring women has no inherent disadvantage for businesses. There are countries in europe going for that - every other solution i can think of leads to a disadvantage for women.

        • FurtiveFugitive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m older. I have kids. I saw the value of getting time off as a father and wished it could have been more. I actually had better time off benefits than my wife though which is pretty disgraceful. No it shouldn’t be on a business to fund families but it is on society as a whole to policy each other up. Like many, many other things, other countries have figured this out and America is WAY behind.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            When my kids were born, I was able to take one week. It came out of my vacation time and I got very little time with my kid, due to the effing mother-in-law who apparently had priority over the Dad. I wish for everyone to meet their kids better than that, both in regards to time off and less toxic maternity

          • chitak166@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Okay. My point is that expecting and requiring every business to be able to pay employees who aren’t working for months at a time is asinine.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Typical fertility rate is a bit under 2, people work about 40 years. This would thus work out to 80 hours of paid sick time over a career . With two weeks standard vacation time, 40 hours a week means 80k hours over a career. If you can’t afford to have an employee subtract 0.1% from their working time over 4 decades you really need to sit down and reevaluate your business. Since you evidently are not capable of staying in business with an employee that is “only” productive 99.9% of the time vs 100%.

      Sure you can come up with situations. A very very small company and it is the busy season where it will suck. But even then no one should be that close to the margin.