by T. GISKI

Created on: March 23, 2009

Even though I think it would be absolutely wonderful to get paid while on maternity leave, I do not think that making it a law or requirement should be enforced. Nor, do I think it is justifiable to mandate a company to be liable for the woman's decision to raise a family. So, my answer would be NO, I do not think that women should be paid for their maternity leave.

While bonding and recovery are primary reasons for the maternity leave (all excellent and completely valid reasons to leave work, may I add.), the woman cannot expect to be paid for her time spent at her newest job: being a mother. An employer is under no obligation to pay any other employee who is pursuing their interests, or other careers, or other "dreams" of theirs. Many people will see this as a female rights issue. Some may see my view as an anti-feminist stand. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I am indeed in support of equal pay for men and women in the same position, as well as in the woman's right to work (if she so desires) and to make a living equal to that of her male counterparts. That is my point exactly. If a woman wants to be treated equally, she cannot EXPECT to be paid for scheduled time away from her job just like a man would not be paid for scheduled time away from his job. In all fairness, one would receive the maternity time off and be able to return to her position, much like a male employee would return from his sabbatical.

I whole-heartedly support the notion that women should be able to both raise a family AND work, if that is what they choose to do, or are perhaps obligated to do because of their personal financial situations. And, I do not think that the decision to have a child should affect the woman's employment. The job should be hers when she decides to come back to work. However, I do not think it should be the employer's financial responsibility to pay her while she is out of the office or out of the workforce. The employer will either have to temporarily replace her and pay for the temporary worker's salary, or they will face a loss in productivity which indirectly results in a loss of profits (no matter how small.) So, in essence, the fact that she is on leave has already put a financial "burden" of sorts on the company she worked for before her child was born.

If the company decides that it is in their best interest to pay their women employees for their maternity leave, as a perk of sorts, or benefit of employment with their company, then by all means, the employee should take advantage of that program. It would be a wonderful rule to have in the company's benefit plan for those employers that can financially afford the burden and who wish to keep their employee's happy and excited about working for their company. Looking at it from a standpoint of a smaller company, or a local-business owner, or a service-industry such as a restaurant, it may not be a financial realty to provide such a luxury. Thus, my reason for saying "no" to paid maternity leave lies in the law REQUIRING the paid leave.

Nature provides a wonderful nine-month preparation period an opportunity for the woman to save and budget for her up-coming maternity leave. I also believe that by saving and preparing before the baby arrives, she is truly readying herself for the monetary sacrifices she will have to make in the future as her child gets older.

Learn more about this author, T. GISKI.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.