Paternity Leave in Sweden - ( 16 months paid leave per child )

[MrObama]

Run time: 09:59 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDcSWqH3Hhs   Posted on YouTube: July 27, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: July 27, 2009 By DU Member: MrObama Views on DU: 2797

 
All working parents are entitled to 16 months paid leave per child, the cost being shared between employer and State. with both mothers and fathers entitled and encouraged to share the leave. The leave can be taken at any time until the child reaches the age of seven.

In line with the Swedish state’s strict policy of promoting sexual equality, mothers and fathers are expected to share the 480 days equally. It is possible for one parent to take up to 420 days of the total leave, but the remaining 60 days are then reserved for the other parent.

When it comes to caring for children, Sweden ranks highest among the worlds wealthy countries, according to a report (2008) from the United Nations childrens organization, UNICEF.

Sweden is the only one which meets all ten of Unicefs recommended benchmarks.




http://www.youtube.com/MrObama

[Mythsaje]

1. Well, here's a great example of what being "pro-life" and "pro-family" REALLY means...

Of course, it's all a plot by those evil Swedes to make American conservatives look like assholes.

:eyes:

[ihavenobias]

3. Exactly.

K & R

[redqueen]

2. So if they used the term "family values", it wouldn't be in a sadly ironic way...

unlike here.

[imdjh]

4. I wonder how it works with large families and production reproduction

[midnight]

5. How can this small County use their resouces for family values,

and the greatest country in the world will not use it's resources on family values?

[ihavenobias]

7. Because

They are "taxed to death" giving no incentive for people to work hard and be productive, etc., etc. That's why their quality of life is so much lower than ours.

Note: ;)

PS---From , sort of on topic:

"...We'd been discussing taxes on the air, what the Danes get for their average 52% tax rate (free college education, free health care, 4 weeks of vacation, being the world's "happiest" country according to research reported on CBS's "60 Minutes" TV show, etc.). I asked him why people didn't revolt at such high tax rates, and he smiled and just pointed out to me that the average Dane is very well paid with a minimum wage that equals about $18 US (depending on the exchange rate from day to day).

Off the air, he made the comment to me that was so enlightening. "You Americans are such suckers," he said, as I recall. "You think that the rules for taxes that apply to rich people also apply to working people. But they don't. When working peoples' taxes go up, their pay goes up. When their taxes go down, their pay goes down. It may take a year or two or three to all even out, but it always works this way - look at any country in Europe. And it's the opposite of how it works for rich people!"..

[MrObama]

12. MY INCOME AND TAXES:

I'm in my mid twenties and a typical middle class Swede with a Ph.D i physics.

monthly numbers:

My income is: 32,700 kr ($4540)
My Income Tax: 8,396 kr ($1140)

Left For Me: 24,304 kr ($3400)

I have no idea what americans are paying but I'm happy and content with my life.

[ihavenobias]

14. I hope you know I was joking!

That's why I had the ;).

But I am interested in average incomes vs taxes in the more progressive countries. Although I imagine it's not "typical" to have a PhD, much less in physics, right?

PS---Those are monthly numbers you listed, correct?

[MrObama]

15. I thought it could be interesting to know

Yeah, I know you where joking :-)

LOL, of course it's not typical to have a PhD.

Yes, the monthly numbers are correct, why are you asking?

How much lower are the taxes in US? Just curious...
:patriot:

[ihavenobias]

16. Here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

I just wanted to be sure I was reading your numbers correctly.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. Do their childless coworkers who pick up their slack get compensated for it?

Or is that considered "discriminatory"?

Note that I'm not opposed to parental leave, but I don't think it should be with pay beyond the time a woman needs to physically recover from the birth. People should not be paid to have children.

[CTyankee]

8. I don't know if it is people being paid to have children as much as it is supporting childhood

health and well being. There is a difference you know.

Look around in our society and tell me we don't "throw away" a considerable number of our children due to poverty and neglect.

To have a strong country, we need to have a strong people. You don't get that thru persistent negligence and poverty. It just doesn't happen...

[Hello_Kitty]

18. This is supporting parenthood, and affluent parenthood at that.

Don't bring up children in poverty to justify bennies for upper middle class parents. If you want to support poor children, let's absolutely fund the things that help them. But don't kid yourself, Walmart and McDonalds will never be paying people over a year's wages to stay home with their kids. They'll just make all their employees part time or contractors. The parents who will benefit from this sort of thing will be the highly educated white collar kind.

[CTyankee]

22. Have you been to Sweden? Do you know how they work and live there?

I think they have a much higher average standard of living than we do in the U.S. Our way is simply unacceptable to them. Don't even bother to bring up Walmart and McDonalds. They have a society that doesn't even deal with those two companies. What you say is "upper middle class" is probably just the class they HAVE, since they don't have such disparity of wages that we have.

Sorry, I have 4 grandchildren who are hostage to the American system. I want the best for those kids. I'll fight for them...

[Hello_Kitty]

24. Exactly. This ain't Sweden.

This is America, and the lion's share of "support for parents" has gone to middle and upper class parents.

And even if it were, I still don't support paying people to have children, unless people who don't have them are offered commensurate benefits. It violates the principle of equal pay for equal work.

[CTyankee]

25. Hmm, that's interesting. I'll just bet the Swedes have a different view of that from yours.

I agree with theirs.

the point you are not getting is that in that society people know that they might be in that situation (parenthood) themselves. So they can understand how it could benefit them. They feel that they are a society, that they rise or fall together.

I don't know about you, but I am going to bet that a society that cares for each other will survive (if we speak in terms of evolution) better than those who don't.

The U.S. is being just stupid on this issue. We will pay economically and it won't be pretty...

[Hello_Kitty]

26. Back in the early 60s when they were debating whether women should get equal pay

Those who supported maintaining the status quo of paying men more argued that "men have families to support!" Leaving aside that there were plenty of single men and women who were supporting families, people realized that it was absurd to pay people for how many dependents they had and not for the work they did. Thus, it became the law to pay women and men equally for the same job.

Do you not agree with the principle of equal pay for equal work? Would you have a problem if employers had to offer childless people paid leave that was equal to what they offer new parents?

And no, not all people "know" they will be parents.

[CTyankee]

39. The loss of women from the workforce is a brain drain on our economy.

There should be a way of supporting them so they can return to the workforce and contribute to society. Children with adequate support are better people than those who are neglected.

I wonder why childless people haven't started some kind of class action legal case in the area of employment law. Perhaps they have and have not made out too well. A lot could be said for the argument that society benefits from having parents stay in the workforce and making accommodations for their parenting. I worked for many years after my kids were grown and so was essentially "childless" but I never felt animosity against women who took maternity leave or my employer who offered it...

[Hello_Kitty]

43. Oh believe me, it's been talked about.

And several companies have responded to the complaints of their childless workers by offering more equitable benefits. The thing is, most of us don't mind pitching in to help out a parent at all. What ticks us off is when it's not reciprocated. Why should I have to get the worst vacation schedule and beg and plead for a day or even an hour off when my coworker who is a parent is always accomodated?

Again, I'm not begrudging parents, at all. I'm just arguing that there should be fairness, and equal pay for equal work. The thing about the comparisons to Europe is that I'm pretty sure childless people over there do get a lot of bennies that are commensurate to what parents get.

[Hello_Kitty]

47. A society that only cares about parents with young children isn't pretty either.

I was reading through this thread again and I just had to add this:

When I was unemployed for a year I found out just how worthless, as a single adult without minor children, I really am. I had to go without health insurance because my unemployment benefits of $874 a month were "too much" to qualify for state health aid. Needless to say, I didn't qualify for food stamps either. Had I one dependent child I could make twice as much (granted, still not a lot of money) and BOTH of us would have full coverage and I'd get help with food. So basically, after years of paying a higher income tax rate than my childed counterparts, and (gladly) paying thousands in property taxes to support the schools, when I could have used some help and support from the community the community told me to fuck off and die because I don't have kids. I will not forget that.

[Stardust]

27. I've been there. It's paradise (and they know it.) We show our ignorance

when we bash socialism.

[donco6]

11. HAHAHAHA! Not on your life.

We childless types exist to serve. Don't you know that by now? :sarcasm:

[Hello_Kitty]

19. Yep. You know that the Clinton admin. tried to make parents a protected class don't you?

He wanted to make it so that "discriminating against parents" was as illegal as discriminating because of race or gender. Companies were going to be required to give parents all the time off they needed for activities with their kids and were going to be prohibited from giving their childless counterparts raises or promotions because they covered from them. IOW, you were going to have to cover for the parents and could not be rewarded for it.

[donco6]

28. It's one thing to cover because I care about kids -

it's quite another to have my nose rubbed in it. "Ha ha! *I* can't stay late and finish those quarterlies tonight, because *I* have a parent/teacher conference! Ta-ta!"

Grrrr . . .

[FunkyLeprechaun]

30. We fill these positions temporarily

If you go on any website, such as the Staffordshire County Council, and look at their jobs page, there'll be a couple that are temporary and in the summary it mentions that the person who is normally in that position is on maternity leave.

Good experience in my opinion and a nice addition to my CV for future jobs.

[bobbolink]

9. Cooperation vs. Competition

I was fascinated with that 3-child tricycle!

The biggest threat to our society is the Rugged Individualism that we are so inundated with. I agree with Alexis de Tocqueville that it will be the downfall of our society.

To see a simple example of how that can be redirected in childhood is great!

[provis99]

10. since native Swedes have negative birth rates,

and immigrants to Sweden have high birthrates, I wonder how the native Swedes feel about subsidizing the births and families of immigrants replacing them in their own country?

Here in the states, we're reluctant to even extend recognition to American born children of illegal immigrants, let alone subsidize the paternity leave of Mexican immigrants.

[Hello_Kitty]

20. There's only a negative birth rate if you think the wrong type of babies are being born.

There's one race, the human race, and thinking that people of your nationality are being "outbred" or should have more babies is nothing but ethnic chauvinism.

I don't mean you when I say that, of course, I'm talking about people who feel that way.

[Robb]

31. I'll tell you who should have more babies

...People who have the opportunity to spend time raising them, as seen in this piece. This is a positive way to do it, and you want to complain because you don't have children? What, no funding for schools either? I don't drive, so screw the roads?? :eyes:

YOU think new moms should head back to work as soon as they can walk back into the fields? Something tells me you don't understand what is required to make empathetic worthwhile people out of babies. There are outliers, but the vast majority of problem adults had poor or no modeling from their parents.

"Ethnic chauvinism" my fanny. You want the birth rate to decline, you educate people worldwide. Part of that starts at birth with parenting.

Besides, if you get eight months with your new baby, you understand what it really takes to do it right. And you aren't going to do it 11 more times.

[Hello_Kitty]

32. I didn't say that. I don't oppose parental leave.

I oppose companies paying people for being parents. I believe in equal pay for equal work. Believe it or not, paid parental leave can be achieved without discriminating against people without kids. Employers can offer ALL employees paid leave which they can use for whatever they want. Maybe one person wants to spend time with a new baby. Maybe another would use it to work on a book or travel. Same goes for benefits. Instead of doling them out based on how many dependents you have employers can offer a cafeteria style plan where people get a lump sum of money to use for a variety of benefits, including health insurance. It may shock you to know that many companies are already doing this. Why? Because they want to retain those childless (and remember, that's not only people who have never had children - it's also empty nesters and non-custodial parents) employees, some of whom were getting fed up with all the bennies and advantages the mommies and daddies were getting and leaving.

There are outliers, but the vast majority of problem adults had poor or no modeling from their parents.

The majority of problem adults come from poverty. The vast majority of subsidies (government and corporate) to parents go to middle class and affluent families. Giving middle class and affluent parents over a year off to bond with their babies will not do a goddamn thing for the poorest and most at-risk members of our society. You're fucking high if you think low wage exploitive employers are going to give their peons a year off with pay for any reason.

Besides, if you get eight months with your new baby, you understand what it really takes to do it right. And you aren't going to do it 11 more times.

Go Cheney yourself with your smug, entitled, "you won't understand what it takes" attitude.

[Robb]

35. "Go Cheney yourself", "you're fucking high"...

:rofl:

You're right, I see it now. It's the persuasiveness of your cogent argument that did it, too. :D

And yes, I'm smug. You don't get it. I didn't either, so don't feel bad about it. And I would've made roughly the same arguments even two years ago.

Poverty does not create bad people, any more than being born rich does. Selfishness, however, and lack of empathy, will. Ask anyone in early childhood development. It crosses every boundary we care to make within the species. Parable time:

Two children witness a third fall off a swing and start bleeding. Both run to their mothers. One drags mom over to help, the other hides behind mom and tries to self-soothe.

Only one of those children will grow up to effect a positive change in society. Care to guess which one has learned over the first several months of their lives they have the complete support of their parent, and every right to express their own emotions to them?

Nothing is more broadly important than early childhood care. And if that means throwing money at it, instead of so I can ride motorbikes through the southwest for six months, so be it. My trip isn't going to help the global society create better people. :hi:

[Hello_Kitty]

38. Typical entitled mainstream middle class white person.

Cloaking your self-interest in moral righteousness and social justice.

And yes, I'm smug. You don't get it. I didn't either, so don't feel bad about it. And I would've made roughly the same arguments even two years ago.

Let me guess, you have a child now. Thus joining the ranks of the most pandered and catered to voting bloc in the country.

Poverty does not create bad people, any more than being born rich does. Selfishness, however, and lack of empathy, will. Ask anyone in early childhood development. It crosses every boundary we care to make within the species.

Right. That's why the vast majority of people in prison come from impoverished backgrounds. I'm guessing the subtext of this nonsensical little statement is the "parenthood makes you a better and less selfish person" canard.

Parable time:

Two children witness a third fall off a swing and start bleeding. Both run to their mothers. One drags mom over to help, the other hides behind mom and tries to self-soothe.

Only one of those children will grow up to effect a positive change in society. Care to guess which one has learned over the first several months of their lives they have the complete support of their parent, and every right to express their own emotions to them?

That makes absolutely no sense, unless you are suggesting that selfishness is innate. Which, oh wait, you kind of already did earlier in the passage with your babble about "early childhood development". So if that's the case, there really was no point to that silly, contrived little parable.

Nothing is more broadly important than early childhood care. And if that means throwing money at it, instead of so I can ride motorbikes through the southwest for six months, so be it. My trip isn't going to help the global society create better people.

Couldn't agree more about the importance of early childhood care, especially for children born in poverty. That's why I'm all for lavish funding of things like Head Start and free preschool. Really, it makes a huge difference in giving them a leg up. You, OTOH, are for throwing money at the parents who least need it: Middle and upper class parents.

[Hello_Kitty]

34. Oh and BTW you are an elitist and an ethnic chauvinist. Big time.

People who have the opportunity to spend time raising them, as seen in this piece.

IOW, people with money and education and the kind of good jobs where employers can offer them generous leave (not the bullshit "part time" and temp gigs most of the working poor are in). Most of those people will just so happen to be white.

[Robb]

36. Yes, those racist Swedes.

Edited to add: I guess you mean it's me that's racist. This is, BTW, hilarious.

[Hello_Kitty]

37. America is NOT Sweden and never will be.

Get that through your thick, entitled, clueless skull. The number one employer in the United States is Walmart. The privileged little white collar world you undoubtedly operate in is not the norm. A very large number of your fellow Americans work at McJobs and their employers are never in a million years going to pay them a year's wages, or part of a year's wages, to stay home with a baby. They'll make all of their workers part time or contractors and lobby Congress to be excluded from having to provide the leave. But you and your spouse would enjoy generous baby leave. How lovely for you.

Oh and BTW, there has been quite a bit of handwringing in places like Europe, Australia, and here in the whiter parts of North America about "declining birth rates". It is racist.

[Robb]

41. I'll just address both of your very clever posts here, for clarity:

You try to put many words in my mouth, and make many very funny assumptions about me....The best part is how by categorizing me with some of these assumptions, you seek to invalidate my viewpoint.

The irony in that would be worth the entire conversation, except for how misguided your work here this afternoon, at least in my direction, is.

If I told you my race, whether I was married or had children, and how much I made per hour, it would go a long way toward softening your attack on me. Which is terrible, because it speaks to the weakness of your argument. Inexcusable, to be blunt, from a so-called progressive.

I will end only suggesting you concentrate less on the inequity of things you think can't ever be changed, or will never happen in a million years, and more on changing them.

If you had asked me a decade or three ago, for example, to predict the year we had a President with more diversity in his heritage than the Osmonds.... :)

[Hello_Kitty]

42. If I am wrong about my assumptions of you

About your race, and especially about your employment, then you are engaging in some rather sad wishful thinking. You are actually arguing for parental benefits that you will probably never enjoy. Like I said, the lion's share of subsidies to parents, both corporate and government, have gone to middle and upper class ones. Child tax credits, family leave, unemployment for stay-at-home parents, employer sponsored health coverage, on site day care centers, free college tuition, etc. - the children of poor and working class parents, for the most part, have not benefitted from any of those things. Lower income parents get EITC, food stamps, and Medicaid, which certainly help blunt the pain of poverty but don't do anywhere near what is necessary to level the playing field. If we were really serious about helping children in this country we would put a massive investment in bringing people out of poverty. But we don't do that. We throw money at suburban parents who don't need it nearly as much, because they vote.

[SeeHopeWin]

13. Right now, my brother in Sweden is on his leave, his wife has been on her's for about 1 year...

They had a baby a year ago...

My brother married a Swede, I married an American!!!

We always talk about moving to Sweden, just got back from a three weeks vacation there...Love the country, love the people there.

[CTyankee]

23. I have a friend who lives there 6 months of each year (summer of course).

She is an American citizen, her husband is Swedish. She has applied and received a legal resident's status because her husband is disabled and needs Sweden's health care (otherwise, he would be up shit's creek). Now she lives half a year here and half a year in Sweden.

If it werent for her husband's Swedish citizenship he would NOT get the health care benefits he receives...

[rollingrock]

17. Forget about time off for the dad, lol

The US doesn't even offer paid time off for the mother, let alone the dad, and its one of the few countries in the world that doesn't offer it. Even Mexico gives mothers 12 weeks of paid maternal leave at 100% pay. China provides 90 days at 100% pay. Canada provides 35 weeks paid leave shared between both parents, with an additional 15 weeks reserved exclusively for the mother. So in Canada the mother alone has up to 50 weeks of paid leave per child at 50% pay. All the European countries have similarly generous plans. In the US, I think California is the only state that has a paid maternity leave plan for mothers but only 6 weeks out of 4 months leave can be paid (at 55% pay). The other states have no paid leave at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

[Hello_Kitty]

33. So how many poor women get to take advantage of that maternity leave at 50% pay?

Probably not many.

[rollingrock]

44. Most women

in the US don't even qualify for the unpaid leave, due to the endless amount of restrictions. for example, only women working for companies with >50 employees can take advantage of federal unpaid leave. in companies with fewer employees, a woman can take unpaid maternal leave but that often means she has to quit her job because there's no guarantee she won't be replaced while she's gone. the system is primitive and barbaric when you think about it.

[Hello_Kitty]

45. And no poor women can take advantage of it.

Few poor women can take advantage of leave that only pays 50%. And once again, low wage employers like Walmart or McDonalds will never pay people for a year to stay home with a baby, or for any other reason. They will make sure they are exempt from it, by hook or by crook. As will most retailers and small businesses. If we passed a generous paid family leave like Sweden, it's a fortunate few that would be able to take advantage of it. Welcome to the New Service Economy ^TM.

[rollingrock]

46. It's hard to imagine

how women in this country are forced to keep working even in the later stages of the pregnancy--to avoid risk losing their job. because they don't get any form of maternal leave, paid or unpaid. and after a woman has the delivery? its right back to work again! no time off for you, slave! not just the poor, but many middle-class women avoid using the full 3 or 4 months of unpaid maternal leave even when they qualify for it because they simply can't afford to, because its unpaid. so they only take off maybe a month or two, if that. few people can afford to take 3 or 4 months off with no pay. but of course it's really unhealthy for the mother and the fetus to take so little time off. and why pregnant women shouldn't be working at all, period!

[FunkyLeprechaun]

21. In the UK it's 6 months for the mum

3 months full pay 3 months half. For the dad it's two weeks.

But it's more than what I hear for the US.

[orleans]

29. that is so wonderful--but i can't fathom how business & government

can actually afford to do this.

[PDJane]

40. different priorities.

[SanchoPanza]

48. Everyone should read UNICEF's findings on child well-being.

http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf

Measures six dimensions of well-being in children (health, poverty, material security, behavioral risks, relationships, and surveys on satisfaction with these metrics from children) in 21 OECD countries. Scandenavia and Northern Europe dominated the top third of the list. It caused a firestorm in the UK, because they were ranked dead last. But not much lower than the U.S., where the study hardly got any traction in government or the newsmedia.

The initial 2007 report was also the first to incorporate more dimensions than child poverty.