It encourages a woman to stay in the work force instead of plan on staying at home while children are growing up. I'm speaking from logic, not study. Logic is that society is better off when work doesn't overwhelm life.
Logic is that society is better off when work doesn't overwhelm life.
If true, as I would agree that it is, it applies to men as fathers too.
“Logic is that society is better off when work doesn’t overwhelm life.”
That’s not logic. That’s your opinion.
“or staying at home while children are growing up”
Now that’s logical.
Society is better off when woman stay at home and raise their children, instead of working to make extra money to buy a bunch junk the family doesn’t need. (Single mothers and the cost of living, let’s not go there.) That’s my opinion.
The topoi/topic here is the workplace, not `social engineering’/society. Saying people are treated as parts or robots otherwise is bad rhetoric and unhelpful to the discussion.
Workplace productivity and employee morale suffer when women can take off one-quarter of a year, leaving their coworkers to do their jobs.
Even worse, their jobs are held for them; then, as someone above pointed out, they decide they like not doing what they wouldn’t do if they weren’t being paid and turn in their notice after three months of leisure. That happened where I worked.
Paying them while they are vacationing—like furloughed federal workers—will only make this invidious treatment of workers worse in its effect on the world of work as a subset of society.
Another feel-good law? Fewer laws and regulations, not more!