[chaosbutters]

what about people that'd don't want children? Where is our (full/part) paid time off? This is the same problem restaurants have with smoke breaks. You have to give equal breaks to non-smokers.

It seems the simplest solution would just be to offer X% paid time off per Y yrs of service regardless of children/no children with the rule the employee gives the company Z months notice. That way male/female parents can figure out who stays home with kid and childless workers get the same benefit. It is basically like a sabbatical university professors get to go refine their skills. Employees get a certain amount of time/pay to go do 'life' things based on service.

[reverend_gonzo]

The time after a child is born is not a vacation in any reasonable definition of the word.

You want paid time off that's government mandated? Go break your leg. You'll get that time off, and it'll be about as enjoyable as maternity/paternity.

[hopler]

Broken leg isn't government paid time off, you can work with a broken leg.

[rootusrootus]

You misunderstand. The benefit is not to the parents, it is to the children.

[kgwgk]

Then another solution is to make illegal for both parents to work at the same time. The child will then benefit from the company of one of them.

[rootusrootus]

And cut the household income by half, which defeats the point.

The gov't wants more, and healthier babies, they are not concerned that non-reproducing adults consider it unfair.