Quiz: What did 53 percent of companies offer in 2020 and only 35 percent do now?
This is according to a survey from the Society of Human Resources Management (SHRM), which also found drops in paternity leave policies and cut the number of weeks of paid leave while not eliminating it.
This doesn’t seem suitable for the workforce, especially since the US falls behind its European counterparts in paid parental leave. But, since businesses are doing this, there should be at least a little logic behind why they’ve chosen to cut parental leave programs. Here are some theories:
To keep reading, click here: Worried about Recession? Companies Cut Paid Maternity Leave
3 thoughts on “Worried about Recession? Companies Cut Paid Maternity Leave”
It’s hard to imagine that a program that’s rarely used would produce significant cost savings if cut. However, cutting such a program might cost an organization more in terms of a loss of good will and a reduced competitive advantage in employee recruiting and retention.
What I think is causing this issue is the number of Paid Time Off days being required by labor laws, already. I think that any paid time off day coverage should be addressed under a list of usages depending on the needs of the individual using the paid time off. The only thing needed for HR paperwork is for the individual to make the request and fill out the paperwork for whatever time factor.
Now what I don’t understand is why people avoid taking paid time off when available and rather “save” the time to use or take the cash payout if those specific paid time off usage have an end date( some places start the total of days available each fiscal year). Perhaps it has to do with how the specific company attitude towards staffing needs and having enough staffing to meet the business needs which may need more employees than their labor budget, making employees hesitant to use paid time off for fear of losing their jobs to return to if they take an extended paid time off.
Extended paid time off by employees should already have plans of action in place including the cost of hiring temporary employees. What this article is questioning is why are companies decreasing the paid time off classified as strictly parental leave unnecessarily when all that is needed is continue the amount of paid time off available and classify how it is per individual use. The companies already have placed the funds as part of their labor costs.
Is that a “worried ab out the recession” response? Or a “we think we’ll be able to get away with it if unemployment goes up because of a recession” response?
Comments are closed.