shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on Feb 27, 2013 18:31:04 GMT -5
How does FMLA work? This is something the Slate article got wrong, and I see a lot of misconceptions about FMLA in general, so as a semi-expert on it, let me try to clear some things up. If I were to change jobs today and need FMLA tomorrow, I would qualify, as long as my new employer met the size requirements for having to offer FMLA. You do not need to be working for a new employer for a full year for a new employer in order to qualify for FMLA, as long as you had FMLA coverage at your previous position.
I don't think this is true. Maybe it varies by state? Some states may expand on the FMLA law. Everything I have read says you need to be at that employer for 12 months. Even the DOL website uses that phrase: www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/1421.htm That may be a very recent change. The law used to read "Employees are "eligible" for FMLA leave if they: (1) have been employed by a “covered" employer for at least 12 months, which need not be consecutive;" (http://www.powelltrachtman.com/CM/Publications/Twenty-Things-You.asp)
I know a new version of FMLA law goes into effect on March 8 of this year, and I don't know if that change is part of that legislation or one from earlier.
I should also note that it has been changed to not allow you time off for a parent-in-law
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Feb 27, 2013 19:07:15 GMT -5
Fair enough.
Well, in my defense, a lot of the responses are to the slate article where the woman did fully intend to doing her job. She wasn't necessairly a lightweight. But pregnancy is an unpredictable thing, and just because you were able to do your job to full capacity while pregnant, it doesn't mean that everyone who couldn't is a slacker. Pure dumb luck plays a big part in this. The woman in the Slate article gambled, lost and then proceeded to whine about how women need more protection in the workplace. Had she waited a few months before getting pregnant, she might have had a very different outcome.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 28, 2013 8:05:32 GMT -5
I'm not bitter about how employers treat their employees. I do have an issue when people say they want one thing but claim discrimination or bias when they can't perform to the same standards as everything else. No one thought that - you're bitter about employees daring not to kow-tow to your unstated standards. Interestering, so now you know my thoughts AND feelings? As far as my unstated standards - they are consistent with many of my peers. Is a one-year no preggers anywhere in the ee handbook or orientation materials? I'd bet it's not. Therefore - it is not company policy to brand them as "unreliable" and "selfish" for the rest of their careers? And yet - you do. If you can quote where I've labeled such as tainted for the rest of their careers I'd appreciate it. I seem to recall stating that if anyone took a planned leave their first year of employment I would be unhappy regardless of the reason. Equal outputs for equal inputs, correct?Based on your posting - I can well believe you have a bias against pregnant workers, particularly if they *dare* to become pregnant outside of your *approved* timetable. You can believe whatever you want. The fact is that in many areas it takes a considerable investment to train a new hire. It takes a minimum of 12 months to learn the basics and around three years to become proficient. You take any time off during the first 12 months and you put yourself behind your cohorts and yes, you pretty much guarantee you will be playing catch up for many years if you ever manage to catch up at all. In the field I work in this in a known fact and yet people fight for the few open slots because it pays very well. I can tell you, I wouldn't ever knowingly accept a job with you as my boss, and if I found myself there, I would get out as quickly as I could. Yet surprisingly I have only had one person quite on me, and it had nothing to do with pregnancy or children. I have had many promoted to other areas and several leave to head up their own department at clients. Usually there are two-three staff waiting to join my engagement. I have mentored many younger women (and men) and none of the ones I remain in contact with are complaining about a glass ceiling. If you've been accused of bias or discrimination, I'd suggest that rather than blame everyone else, you maybe think about using it as an opportunity for self-reflection. Cuz it's pretty clear on the other end of your posts that you have some major grudges, and aren't shy about blaming everyone in sight. Nope, never been accused of either. I don't carry grudges - really not worth my energy. However I will call people out when they want to have their cake and eat it too. You claim to be a champion of women but refuse to even acknowledge that some of their behaviours are why they have not progressed in their careers as much as their male peers have.I have been pretty honest about my philosophy with those under me, if you want to get ahead you have to play the business game by their rules (after all, you are the one who wanted to play) and not demand that they change the game to accomodate you. You may disagree with me but in what I've observed women/minorities who break through the glass ceiling (if one even exists) do so because they work harder than everyone else and don't expect any favors.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 21:05:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2013 9:31:48 GMT -5
you know what, Ruhk? I realized that I have been working harder than the others have. Maybe this company employs mostly slackers - I don't know. But it reminds me of why I hate affirmative action so much - I feel like I have to prove that I really deserve my job/accolades and I wasn't just given them because of the organization trying to meet some quota. And that's not fair.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Feb 28, 2013 11:00:07 GMT -5
At 40, I've been working a few years myself. I've only known of 3 men who have taken 6 or more weeks off for illness. All 3 legitimate illnesses, none of which were self inflicted. One had just started a new job and was canned within a year of coming back to work. Another did his job, but since he wasn't a big schmoozer and nobody knew what he did or how he did it, he was cut loose at the next round of layoffs. The third had years of stellar performance at the company. He did end up keeping his job and eventually got promoted.
I haven't known any women who have gotten canned for getting pregnant at the wrong time. I have, however seen plenty of women who were space cadets for over a year due to pregnancy, and they weren't all slackers. So I don't really get that idea that pregnancies are treated worse than other illnesses. Everything I've seen has been the opposite. One reason my father took the government job after getting cancer the first time was because he knew that if he stayed in private industry and got sick again, he'd be kicked to the curb. This is the same guy who got his PhD at 26 --definitely not a slacker and everybody knew it, but he knew how the business world feels about illness.
So when you year someone say that you need to settle into your job and build a track record before causing a situation where you're going to be taking 6-12 weeks off and might be off your game for many months before and after that leave, it just seems like common sense, especially if you've never been pregnant before. Because plenty of guys face much worse consequences than not getting promoted if they happen to get sick on the job, especially when the illness happens shortly after taking a job.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,470
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 28, 2013 11:08:54 GMT -5
That isn't my experience. If you get the job done, no one seems to care if you have a penis. Women just blame their downfall on their vaginas, and then blame men for reacting to their vaginas. I think that type of talk makes us all look bad.[/span]
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 28, 2013 11:25:41 GMT -5
The fact is that in many areas it takes a considerable investment to train a new hire. It takes a minimum of 12 months to learn the basics and around three years to become proficient. You take any time off during the first 12 months and you put yourself behind your cohorts and yes, you pretty much guarantee you will be playing catch up for many years if you ever manage to catch up at all. How would 3 months off lead someone to be years behind? Do you hire a bunch of new hires at the same time & send them through the same training? I could missing something like that would put you far behind. But, otherwise, in my job if I miss 3 months, then I am 3 months behind in experience. I wouldn't fall years behind others due to this. And really, I've been at this for 9 years now. So the totally of ~4 months that I missed due to kids is basically meaningless at this point. I would not be significantly ahead in my career if I had not taken time off, honestly I would be in the exact same position I am now.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 28, 2013 14:37:35 GMT -5
The fact is that in many areas it takes a considerable investment to train a new hire. It takes a minimum of 12 months to learn the basics and around three years to become proficient. You take any time off during the first 12 months and you put yourself behind your cohorts and yes, you pretty much guarantee you will be playing catch up for many years if you ever manage to catch up at all. How would 3 months off lead someone to be years behind? Do you hire a bunch of new hires at the same time & send them through the same training? I could missing something like that would put you far behind. But, otherwise, in my job if I miss 3 months, then I am 3 months behind in experience. I wouldn't fall years behind others due to this. And really, I've been at this for 9 years now. So the totally of ~4 months that I missed due to kids is basically meaningless at this point. I would not be significantly ahead in my career if I had not taken time off, honestly I would be in the exact same position I am now. A lot of what we do in on an annual cycle and there are multiple steps many of which only get done once a year. To really understand how everything is supposed to hang together you have to go through the cycle from beginning to end. The first time you go through a complete cycle you start to understand the mechanics of how the moving peices work as a preparer. The second time/year you go through a complete cycle you start to understand the theory of the moving peices and usually work as a preparer/first level reviewer of other's work. The third time/year through the cycle you can tie the theory down enough that you usually understand it enough to know if something is wrong usually as a second level reviewer (and usually last review before top level manager or partner review). The first year is the hardest because you are introducing concepts which are not taught in college or master's programs. Now if someone misses a few months during their first year they are going to miss one of the key steps and will have difficulty integrating any steps which come after the part they missed. They will not be able to move into a reviewer role the next year but will have to repeat as a preparer. So it's really not until year 4 that they have caught up in terms of responsibility to those who started work/the learning cycle at the same time. We do occassionally have people repeat year one becuase they do not seem to be intregrating the concepts. Those folks also will be behind their peers until year 4. This is key because I work in what is know as an "up or out" culture. If you do not merit a promotion every two-three years you are not considered material to stay there long term and are usually coached out. This is especially true at the lower staff levels where competition is the most intense. A decade ago if you did not make manger within 8-9 years your career at the firm was esentially over. It's relaxed a little but not a whole lot in the past few years. So consider this - about 60-70 percent of the staff are women. Yet only 5 to 20 percent of the partners are women depending on the service area. Is there discrimination at play? I can't say in all instances with certainty that there isn't but I have not observed it directly in action.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Feb 28, 2013 14:47:10 GMT -5
So what's your explanation? That 80 to 95% of your female coworkers are lazy? Or that they've all mommytracked themselves?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 21:05:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2013 14:54:17 GMT -5
So what's your explanation? That 80 to 95% of your female coworkers are lazy? Or that they've all mommytracked themselves? not me - I'm too busy blaming my problems on my vagina.
|
|
shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on Feb 28, 2013 15:37:05 GMT -5
I think what Thyme and TheCaptain are saying is that it is not the fault of men if women don't get promoted. It is only the fault of women. Because penises never cause men to behave badly, but women and those vaginas, OMG are they trouble makers.
But seriously. No, not all men are sexist and the workplace is certainly getting better, but we're not anywhere close to equality yet when it comes to executive level positions, and I just have a hard time believing that of the 25 women who have made it to VP level in my company, 23 of them will "mommy track" themselves out of the ability to become executive VPs. The problem still exists and we don't get anywhere by ignoring it or trying to claim it's all the fault of women and their pesky vaginas.
Do I think there should be quotas- for heaven's sake no. And as far as I know, no matter how many people still like to claim affirmative action is ruining the workplace, quotas are illegal. And if you believe you did not get a job because you were a white man, you have just as much right to sue as you do if you believe you did not get a job simply because you were female or black or whatever. And if you work for a company that has quotas, I believe you could sue them regardless of whether or not you had ever been promoted or held back due to a quota. Quotas just don't exist the way we want to scapegoat them anymore. (And I'm not certain they ever really did exist in the form that so many people claim they did.)
But I do think we need to be conscious of who we are hiring and why and be willing to ask ourselves tough questions every day about our own prejudices.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 21:05:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2013 16:29:17 GMT -5
not me - I'm too busy blaming my problems on my vagina. Hysteria! and you know how they used to cure hysteria back in the day, right??!?!?!
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 28, 2013 18:25:28 GMT -5
So what's your explanation? That 80 to 95% of your female coworkers are lazy? Or that they've all mommytracked themselves? It's hard to put a firm definition on it. Considering the hours and workload almost everyone carries the word lazy seldom comes into play. I do think some of it is mommytracking since a lot of women are not willing to go days at a time with maybe only seeing their kids for 30 minutes or less only in the morning during busy season (there are 5 of these a year that go for weeks at a time). They try to stay away from the assignments that bring this kind of schedule. The problem is these are the engagements that usually get you noticed. The guys seem to have an easier time with this. We talk a lot about mommy guilt but seldom hear about daddy guilt. The rest of it has to do with aggressiveness, or maybe there's a better term? From what I've observed the guys are simply better at marketing themselves. If a project comes up which may be a stretch most guys have no problem convincing themselves they can do it and they persue it. Women I know, who would often do a better job (in my opinoin) hold back because they are afraid of what, I don't know. I know personally I thought wayyy longer than I should have about going after my current position because I was afraid of failing. At some point I had to decide to go big or go home. I have gone for days at a time without spending any waking time with DD (she was asleep when I left home, asleep when I got home). I've missed plays, spelling bees, and classroom parties. Yes I know I will never get that time back but that is the choice my peers and I have made in order to advance in our careers. Most of my peers are men and they are much more comfortable with that choice than my female peers.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 21:05:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2013 18:40:41 GMT -5
Or maybe they want to enjoy their lives while they're still able to do so. You work to live, not the other way around. Not everyone wants to have a career, and they shouldn't be made to feel bad about that.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 28, 2013 18:47:16 GMT -5
Or maybe they want to enjoy their lives while they're still able to do so. You work to live, not the other way around. Not everyone wants to have a career, and they shouldn't be made to feel bad about that. That is what I was thinking. Not everyone has huge career aspirations & that is ok. I certainly don't. Now, anyone that chooses that path can't complain about not getting a promotion or as big of a pay raise or bonus. And they shouldn't get those things since they aren't putting in as much time or work as some others. But, at the end of the day that is a choice we each have to make for ourselves. I prefer a laid back career path because it gives me more of a life (kids or no kids).
|
|