Every worker deserves the same opportunity to spend time with their children.
The government wouldn't be forcing any father to do anything. The government would be forcing companies to provide all workers the privilege of time off for parenting. A father who didn't want to bond with his children could use the time off to go fishing, take up woodworking, watch youtube videos, or work on a side-business.
> People are offered leave, that's good, if they don't want to take it, it's none of anyone's business really
Hum... wouldn't that depend on why you're not taking them?
Say you're not taking them because of social pressure?
Say you don't want to take them because doing so will put you up for promotion before your co-workers who do?
Say you don't want to take them because it result in a loss of money (if say employer offers reduced pay only)
And maybe others. But I feel some of those reasons call for further discussion. Like, it shouldn't be that you don't take them due to social pressure, lower pay, or to get ahead. None of these seem equally fair to all employees.
If you really just really were someone whose favourite thing to do is go to work day in, day out, then ok sure. It be hard to argue against that, but like... really?
"wouldn't that depend on why you're not taking them?"
No, definitely not.
You've made no argument here.
It's not the company or the government's business why someone would want to take family leave - or not - same for vacation time, or where someone would go, or what they do frankly.
Unless it's illegal or really adversely affecting the company, or obviously if the company is trying to 'suppress' people from taking vacay etc..
Forcing vacations and such things, to achieve some kind of ideological and probably unscientific premise is a bridge too far.
It could be seen as workers rights, that's my point.
If the company is promoting those who don't, that can be seen as retaliation against those who do.
If companies don't provide adequate pay for employees who have a child, it can be seen as punishment for those who bear the burden of children for all others.
And if you're not taking them because of social pressure, well then it's a vicious cycle, since no one takes them due to pressure, and now it invalidates the point of giving them in the first place. So possibly something needs to be done to break the cycle.
Etc.
I'm not saying any of this is reason enough to push for enforcement or anything like that. But it's also not simply a matter of "not being anyone's business". For example, it can very much be my business if I want to be able to take some time off, and not lose out to my co-workers on the next promotion just because I wanted to take some time to take care for my new born. Same could be said for sick leave or other.
So I guess we could reframe the debate in terms of:
Is it fair for a man who would like to take some time to care for his new born, that doing so could hurt his career? And off course, that asks a greater question: Do we want to promote fatherhood and give incentives for people to have kids and care for them properly? Or would we rather incentivize full time careers with little to no downtime and complete dedication to work?
The government wouldn't be forcing any father to do anything. The government would be forcing companies to provide all workers the privilege of time off for parenting. A father who didn't want to bond with his children could use the time off to go fishing, take up woodworking, watch youtube videos, or work on a side-business.