Paid Maternity Leave - Why?

I've seen a lot of friends linking to articles on social media recently, about how the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that doesn't require employers to offer paid maternity leave to employees.

My first reaction is...so what?

Yes, I'm sure that sounds heartless. But I guess I've never been one to demonstrate my largesse with someone else's money.

Lost in the emotion of this issue, I think, is the notion of getting something for nothing. Why should an employer be forced to pay for an employee who's not working, whatever the reason?

There are many companies that offer some form of paid maternity leave already. I'm guessing their accountants have determined that the company can mitigate the financial loss of paying an employee to be a mother or father instead of working, with the benefits being that it helps the employer recruit and retain good employees. It's a similar notion behind paying for an employee's health/dental insurance, vacation time, and short-term and long-term disability. These are all benefits tacked on top of an employee's salary to help attract and retain high-quality employees.

So why does the government need to bring the force of law and mandate employers offer a perk? Especially now, as the country slowly climbs out of a recession, as the country sees high unemployment (I'm talking about real unemployment, as opposed the number that just measures the people who haven't yet given up looking for a job).  Why does the government need to mandate that employees get paid for having a kid?  Was that in the terms of employment when the employee was hired?

It shouldn't surprise me that the Obama administration should want to invade and nullify the contract, implied or formal, between employer and employee, given the administration's prior disregard for contract law.  I'm just hoping for a little more justification on why businesses should be forced to pay for their employees to have kids, other than lots of statistics about how other industrialized nations offer this and a general railing about the unfairness of the situation.

Wait a minute, who ever said that life was fair?

The thing is, if the government can show studies about how offering this benefit increases employee productivity and retention for employers, if they can show the businesses that offering paid maternity leave has short-term and/or long-term benefits for the employer's bottom line... wouldn't the businesses already be offering paid maternity leave?  The thing is, those studies exist, and some businesses have calculated that they can offer the benefit while staying solvent (Rule #1 of running a business is making sure you stay in business!)

With the Affordable Care Act, the law saw employees laid off or reduced from full-time positions to part-time positions so employers could stay afloat.

Consider this scenario, should paid maternity leave be mandated:  A couple with both people working consider having a baby much sooner, considering now someone else is paying the bills while they are off work, instead of waiting to get a little more savings built up and/or a better paying job so that they can weather the financial hardships of caring for another human being for the better part of 18 years.

So what happens if the business that employs the mother or father folds under this hardship of being forced to pay for this couple, and every other couple who decides to have children earlier?  Now the employer's money is gone, and the new parents are left to fend for themselves before they were ready?  Do they go on welfare?  Does the parent still employed have to find a better-paying job (with the possibility of longer hours away from his or her child), or worse, take a second job?

What about single people?  Or childless couples?  They weren't the same financial drain on the business.  Why should they suffer the economic consequences or this law?

I remember seeing a story a few years ago, about France's unemployment problems, and how French politicians toyed with the idea of allowing an employer to dismiss employees in the first two years of their employment for whatever reason.  Labor laws being what they are in France, it's very difficult to fire an employee, so businesses are reluctant to hire someone who might not be a good fit for the company.  See the law of unintended consequences playing out here?

Anyway, the French politicians considered the legislation, and the population, with their ingrained sense of entitlement, damn near rioted.  They couldn't see past the short-term benefits of having a guaranteed job and see the long-term negative of how the policy served as a barrier to employment in the first place.

Paid maternity leave, forced on businesses by the government.  Just another example of the staggering economic illiteracy you get when the president hasn't demonstrated the business acumen to run so much as a lemonade stand.