Enforced paid maternity leave? No, thank you.

The Boston Globe reports that America "lags behind" other nations in having a nationwide policy of paid family leave -- that is, that we are behind other countries in forcing those who don't have children to subsidize those who do.



In California and New Jersey, paid leave is "financed entirely through small payroll tax contributions by workers." Well, "contribution" is just a euphemism for "money taken without the consent of the person who earned it." Why should those who are single and childless fund paid leave for those who choose to have a child? Why should those who stop at one kid have to pay for those who have three or four? They shouldn't, of course; no one is his brother's keeper, and those who want a child should be prepared for the financial implications, rather than placing some of the burden of their choice on the shoulders of others.



I'm sure the far-lefties would prefer that paid parental leave be financed, not by payroll taxes, but by simply forcing businesses to offer it (why shouldn't those evil corporations have to pay for everything?). What such people fail to realize is that not only are they violating rights (of employers to offer employment on whatever terms are mutually agreeable to themselves and employees), but that childless employees will still pay the price for paid parental leave, in the form of lower salaries than they would receive in a free market. Who knows but that employers might be less likely to hire women of childbearing age, in hopes that their costs for paid leave will go down?



Ah, says the lefty, but we have laws to prevent discrimination. Well, those are bad, too -- it is absolutely an employer's right to hire according to whatever bias he chooses (although, if he's irrational enough to have a bias that has no basis in fact, he's probably not going to be successful enough as a business owner to be making that much of a difference in the job market anyway). I've always had a suspicion that the fact that it's illegal to ask certain questions in a job interview (age, whether the employee has children or intends to have them, etc.) only hurts job applicants -- especially women, one of the groups such laws are intended to protect. Example: I'm a woman in my early thirties, and I look approximately my age. Suppose I'm interviewing for a job. The employer isn't allowed to ask me whether I have children or whether I have plans to have any. So instead of asking me and getting a forthright answer from me ("yes, I am married, but my husband and I do not plan on having children for another two to three years"), the employer is likely going to look at me, see that I'm a woman, recognize that women are more likely than men to take an extended leave upon the birth of a child (or to miss work to care for a child who's already there), and make an assumption. Perhaps he'll bypass me in favor of an equally qualified man or older woman, simply because those people look less likely to choose a child's needs over an employer's needs. (More likely, given that my industry is small enough that everyone knows everyone else, he'll call as many former coworkers of mine as possible off the record -- but this isn't possible in many industries.)



I don't want to pay for other people's choices, nor do I want anyone else paying for mine. When it comes time to have a child, if I can negotiate paid leave because I am of such high value to my company that they consider it an investment in my future at the company, I'll take it. I don't want it on the terms of other workers being forced to pay for it, or because some anti-discrimination law caused my employer to hire me despite preferring someone else who's less likely to ask for such a perk.