[maxerickson]

I didn't miss it at all, your point doesn't hold water, lots of companies provide great health insurance to their employees so the "socialism" thing doesn't really explain anything about them not providing other benefits.

[brightball]

The biggest is that asking a company to provide parental leave means asking a company to pay somebody that they hired to do a job to not be there.

That means either, your value is low enough that you can be gone for that long without your company missing you OR that they have to pay somebody else to fill in for you with the knowledge that they'll be let go once you get back. Depending on what kind of work you do, this is no small task.

The types of companies who can afford to do this type of thing essentially boil down to subscription style, giant companies where the absence of any employee won't really effect anything from a business or customer standpoint...who also happen to be rolling in money.

If they're willing and able to provide that benefit...GREAT!

But different businesses provide significantly different cash flow models. Different businesses can't have their valuable employees AWOL for 52 weeks while paying them and somebody else to fill in for them at a higher rate.

You have to be in a money printing market position to even think about something like that.

[limeyx]

This seems like a pretty short-sighted view of the issue. Take a look outside the US for many ways this can be and is done

[brightball]

If it's via government program it can be done for everybody. Via business, the challenges are as mentioned above.

[foota]

The difference is that many Americans believe (I do not) that socialism benefits only lazy people who haven't worked hard. That is why they don't see a company providing benefits as socialism, because they think those people deserve it.

[boomboomsubban]

It's not a benefit in other countries, it's either a socialized system or a legal requirement.

[mikestew]

Did you miss the word "universal", then? Because what you describe does not fit that definition.

[st3v3r]

Their point does hold water, given that as soon as you decide not to work for the company, you're SOL. "Universal" would imply that I get it regardless of what company I work for.

[tkxxx7]

I think our thread grandparents were referring to the decisions of country/government itself ("Canada has x"), not specific U.S. companies