Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Jan 29, 2015 10:26:50 GMT -5
It is a lot easier to say that if you are benefiting from others that are helping to defray the cost of educating your children. I don't mind helping to pay for an educated populous that is ready for the workforce but each year the schools here ask for the max tax increase which is always higher than inflation and test scores are getting worse. I also have an issue with teachers/administrators salaries growing by more than inflation each year and their lucrative pensions, a benefit I have to help pay for but don't get myself. Maybe it's the state I live that has the most underfunded pension system in the county that has me a bit jaded though I should be long gone before the hammer drops on that one. I get what you are saying. We all benefit from an educated society so taxes should find out schools. Where I take issue is the salaries/benefits that the teachers and administrators are paid. In our area, the teachers salaries are far above the average, especially when you factor in the hiurs they work. Administrators do work a full year and their salaries are high but not as far out of line. We keep throwing money at the schools but our kids keep losing ground I work in a school and am thinking of getting my masters to teach. Starting salary is 40K...after 10 years of teaching my salary would be 50K. I don't know about you, but I don't think someone with a masters and 10 years' experience making 50K is obscene. Even with all the breaks it still doesn't seem like "too much." And teachers (at least good ones) work tremendous hours during the school year. I'm currently tutoring math PT and I realistically put in 30 minutes of prep for every 60 minutes of teaching I do. I run a weekly 1hr after school math club and that's easily 2-3 hours of prep as I design games and plan/correct homework. Our principal makes 105K and works LONG hours. I wouldn't take that job for that pay for anything. Now, I'd say easily 1/3 of teachers at my school should be let go. I hate the union with more passion than you. But that's another subject for another day.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 12:23:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 10:27:24 GMT -5
Waiting for a guy to comment on the fitness of someone to go back to work after pregnancy, I will seriously go make some popcorn if that happens. : )
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,379
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 29, 2015 10:27:30 GMT -5
fairness is for children and fairy tales.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Jan 29, 2015 10:28:13 GMT -5
Look, I'm not saying having a kid isn't a major physical event, it is. BUT for the majority it doesn't take weeks or months to be able to physically return to a desk job (now a physically demanding job is different - but most women don't do those). What I'm asking for is fairness to everyone, regardless if they choose to have kids or not. That and emotional honesty from those who want maternity leave as to what it's really for. I look at my friends and co workers who have had more than one kid. They go home with an infant to care for and 1-2 small children on top of that and somehow manage. Now tell me that's easier than working a cushy desk job and I'll call you a liar to your face . Then you need to petition physicians or metlife to lower STD for pregnancy to two weeks. I'm arguing for fairness too. They said 6 weeks, 5 of which I got paid for 1 I had to use PTO, that's what I got, it's what anyone would get.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jan 29, 2015 10:29:28 GMT -5
I don't think anyone has said they agree with medical leave (or other) benefits being provided in a discriminatory manner. I certainly don't. If you're recovering from a medical event or need to see a doctor, use sick time or FMLA. Your specific ailment or procedure shouldn't matter.
But if the doctor recommends you wait 2 weeks after birth before driving, 6 before returning to work, whatever -- why not abide by their wishes? I'm assuming the "paid incentive" you refer to is short-term disability? I don't know about your experience with it, but mine wanted documentation up the wazoo that I could not perform the functions of my job during the time I was receiving STD pay.
Unless the person is a crappy employee anyway (in which case I don't see any point in keeping them around), I'd rather them take a little extra time to fully recover rather than force themselves back to work when it can cause complications. Again, this goes for any ailment.
|
|
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 Jan 29, 2015 10:30:00 GMT -5
Oh HELL YES! Better living through chemistry. I have nothing to prove (plus my doc didn't want to risk me having an asthma attack). and I won't deny there was a great deal of...discomfort for a few days. But like I said, desk job, DH exiled to the guest bedroom, everything was good. Cause let's get real, you can have a baby without one. I did it twice! You're more of a woman than I am (cause I can't say you have bigger balls, we don't have a feminine equivalent) . But this isn't really about who is tougher than someone else. I'm just trying to point out that most women don't need 6 weeks to physically recover from a non-surgical birth to return to a desk job. Women (and increasingly men) want it for emotional reasons, which is an entirely different matter.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Jan 29, 2015 10:34:08 GMT -5
Cause let's get real, you can have a baby without one. I did it twice! You're more of a woman than I am (cause I can't say you have bigger balls, we don't have a feminine equivalent) . But this isn't really about who is tougher than someone else. I'm just trying to point out that most women don't need 6 weeks to physically recover from a non-surgical birth to return to a desk job. Women (and increasingly men) want it for emotional reasons, which is an entirely different matter. I will end on that high note . I really do think we're talking the same thing but it seems you hate pregnant people.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 12:23:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 10:35:07 GMT -5
If we think paid leave for family events is important I would propose a payroll tax that would support it on a federal level. You build up a "bank" that you can draw down from. Say one or two weeks for every 5 years worked. You can draw from your bank when you have enough accumulated for ANY reason (sabbatical, adopting a puppy, having a kid, caring for a relative). THAT would be fair to all in my book. Where is all this paid leave for family events? I want to sign up! There was the STD, but that was a whopping 6 weeks at 60% and the first two weeks were an unpaid waiting period. People here are taking STD all the time for other medical stuff. Not sure why a birth wouldn't qualify.
|
|
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 Jan 29, 2015 10:36:49 GMT -5
You're more of a woman than I am (cause I can't say you have bigger balls, we don't have a feminine equivalent) . But this isn't really about who is tougher than someone else. I'm just trying to point out that most women don't need 6 weeks to physically recover from a non-surgical birth to return to a desk job. Women (and increasingly men) want it for emotional reasons, which is an entirely different matter. I will end on that high note . I really do think we're talking the same thing but it seems you hate pregnant people. And exactly how do you come to that conclusion? I've been arguing for fairness and emotional honesty, it would seem you favor discrimination?
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Jan 29, 2015 10:38:07 GMT -5
I will end on that high note . I really do think we're talking the same thing but it seems you hate pregnant people. And exactly how do you come to that conclusion? I've been arguing for fairness and emotional honesty, it would seem you favor discrimination? Ah, I could go on and on with you. Your unnecessary epi is inflating my medical premiums. You are the worst!
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,070
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jan 29, 2015 10:38:32 GMT -5
I could have gone back to work in 2 weeks, my employer would not have allowed it. It's considered standard that you be out 6-8 weeks, that's what has been decided legally what you need to be considered fit to go back to work.
It would have been an uphill battle to get approved to come back earlier. I would have had to get my doctor to agree to it, petition HR and then have paperwork out the wazhoo documenting that coming back to work that early wouldn't result in complications I could come back and sue the company over.
I suppose I could have fought so I could prove to everyone that all women who take 6-8 weeks off are whining moochers, but it seemed like more headache than it was worth.
Plus I'd like to point out that most daycares WILL NOT take an infant that is not at least 6 weeks old. There is ONE daycare in the city here that will take 2 week old infants and it is EXPENSIVE that young.
If you have parents who can watch your children that long or find someone to babysit in your home for 4 weeks at a reasonable cost more power to you. But most people don't have that luxury and you can't take a baby to work for 4 weeks at most jobs either.
A lot would have to change in order to make it so everyone can go back to work five minutes after they have a baby.
|
|
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 Jan 29, 2015 10:38:58 GMT -5
If we think paid leave for family events is important I would propose a payroll tax that would support it on a federal level. You build up a "bank" that you can draw down from. Say one or two weeks for every 5 years worked. You can draw from your bank when you have enough accumulated for ANY reason (sabbatical, adopting a puppy, having a kid, caring for a relative). THAT would be fair to all in my book. Where is all this paid leave for family events? I want to sign up! There was the STD, but that was a whopping 6 weeks at 60% and the first two weeks were an unpaid waiting period. People here are taking STD all the time for other medical stuff. Not sure why a birth wouldn't qualify. MPL - what I'm proposing is a national level payroll tax that is banked into an "individual" account and can be drawn on for any reason. I think that would be more fair than forcing employers to put in policies that favor some employees over others (or said another way - discriminates against some).
|
|
swasat
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 13, 2011 9:34:28 GMT -5
Posts: 3,735
|
Post by swasat on Jan 29, 2015 10:40:22 GMT -5
It seems to me some of you here are just SO anti anything-welfare, that you will not even listen to scientific, logical, medical or created-by-nature differences.
|
|
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 Jan 29, 2015 10:41:41 GMT -5
And exactly how do you come to that conclusion? I've been arguing for fairness and emotional honesty, it would seem you favor discrimination? Ah, I could go on and on with you. Your unnecessary epi is inflating my medical premiums. You are the worst! ....annnnnnnnnnnd? I've only had one child - I would think the cost of a pregnancy/childbirth outweighs an epi....(said in true humor). Taking the same argument further, we've both cost the childless people more in premiums - they're the ones who should be pissed at us!
|
|
Bob Ross
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:48:03 GMT -5
Posts: 5,883
|
Post by Bob Ross on Jan 29, 2015 10:44:37 GMT -5
Have you looked at the examples in that article? For the most part, the greater your income disparity, the greater the benefit from filing jointly. You probably DON'T have a marriage penalty because of the difference between single vs. married rates. Have YOU looked at the examples in that article? My personal situation is best explained by example #5 (though not with the income amounts of #5 and we don't have kids) and also detailed in the latter example in the section titled "the worst scenarios". So
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Jan 29, 2015 10:45:04 GMT -5
Ah, I could go on and on with you. Your unnecessary epi is inflating my medical premiums. You are the worst! ....annnnnnnnnnnd? I've only had one child - I would think the cost of a pregnancy/childbirth outweighs an epi....(said in true humor). Taking the same argument further, we've both cost the childless people more in premiums - they're the ones who should be pissed at us! I really thought I got you with the epi but you just keep finding more wrong with me. You're right, two kids is such a strain on the system. Would you like to discuss the 9k/year in property taxes I was paying before I had kids?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 12:23:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 10:52:22 GMT -5
So you started back working two weeks after giving birth like I did? Shit, I was deep cleaning my house three days after giving birth to my third. You aren't the only one that's resumed normal activity after having kids rather quickly. But I don't go around saying There's got to be something wrong with all women because they don't poop out a kid, sling them on their backs and go back to work two hours later. And, frankly, I SHOULD have cut back on work after the last peanut. I wasn't sleeping hardly at all for a year. I wouldn't drive sometimes because I didn't trust my reaction. I was afraid I was going to harm someone else. That's how bad it was. But I didn't. Because you know, whole breadwinner and kids wanting to eat thing. That's kinda my point. OTOH most women I know are physically capable of returning to a desk job a few weeks after a non-surgical birth (and yes - a C-section is major surgery). Yet when you create a paid incentive to take 6 or more weeks off suddenly that becomes the benchmark and we throw out the whole "bleeding from the vagina" hysterics. Get over it, it's what our bodies were designed to do. Don't try making 6, 10, or even weeks maternity leave a medical necessity, it's really not in a majority of the cases. The Mom's want time to spend home with the baby, which is an entirely different thing. Now Dad's are clamoring for the same thing. If a segment of the population gets a benefit that is denied to another segment, that is discriminatory, and that is what I have an issue with. I wanted a few weeks (unpaid) home with DD so I took a little under 5 weeks under FMLA. DH took two weeks (also unpaid) after that so he could spend some time with her. We knew for months before she arrived it would be unpaid so we planned and saved to cover the income shortage. If we think paid leave for family events is important I would propose a payroll tax that would support it on a federal level. You build up a "bank" that you can draw down from. Say one or two weeks for every 5 years worked. You can draw from your bank when you have enough accumulated for ANY reason (sabbatical, adopting a puppy, having a kid, caring for a relative). THAT would be fair to all in my book. who are all these people getting paid for their maternity leave? with my first, it was 6 weeks from birth but STD didn't kick in until after 4 weeks - and I didn't have 4 weeks of leave so I had a number of weeks unpaid. with my 3rd I had changed jobs so wasn't eligible for ANY paid leave so had 12 weeks unpaid.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jan 29, 2015 10:53:11 GMT -5
Wait.... So women should go back to work immediately following having a baby? But I thought that baby bonding time was necessary for its physical and emotional development - not just because Mom/Dad want to keep smelling that New Baby smell. Is this the same board that complains that kids aren't raised by parents enough?
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jan 29, 2015 10:53:59 GMT -5
That's kinda my point. OTOH most women I know are physically capable of returning to a desk job a few weeks after a non-surgical birth (and yes - a C-section is major surgery). Yet when you create a paid incentive to take 6 or more weeks off suddenly that becomes the benchmark and we throw out the whole "bleeding from the vagina" hysterics. Get over it, it's what our bodies were designed to do. Don't try making 6, 10, or even weeks maternity leave a medical necessity, it's really not in a majority of the cases. The Mom's want time to spend home with the baby, which is an entirely different thing. Now Dad's are clamoring for the same thing. If a segment of the population gets a benefit that is denied to another segment, that is discriminatory, and that is what I have an issue with. I wanted a few weeks (unpaid) home with DD so I took a little under 5 weeks under FMLA. DH took two weeks (also unpaid) after that so he could spend some time with her. We knew for months before she arrived it would be unpaid so we planned and saved to cover the income shortage. If we think paid leave for family events is important I would propose a payroll tax that would support it on a federal level. You build up a "bank" that you can draw down from. Say one or two weeks for every 5 years worked. You can draw from your bank when you have enough accumulated for ANY reason (sabbatical, adopting a puppy, having a kid, caring for a relative). THAT would be fair to all in my book. who are all these people getting paid for their maternity leave? with my first, it was 6 weeks from birth but STD didn't kick in until after 4 weeks - and I didn't have 4 weeks of leave so I had a number of weeks unpaid. with my 3rd I had changed jobs so wasn't eligible for ANY paid leave so had 12 weeks unpaid. I got 6 weeks paid maternity leave then I took FMLA at 2/3 pay. I'm gonna be sad when I leave my job.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Jan 29, 2015 10:54:40 GMT -5
That's kinda my point. OTOH most women I know are physically capable of returning to a desk job a few weeks after a non-surgical birth (and yes - a C-section is major surgery). Yet when you create a paid incentive to take 6 or more weeks off suddenly that becomes the benchmark and we throw out the whole "bleeding from the vagina" hysterics. Get over it, it's what our bodies were designed to do. Don't try making 6, 10, or even weeks maternity leave a medical necessity, it's really not in a majority of the cases. The Mom's want time to spend home with the baby, which is an entirely different thing. Now Dad's are clamoring for the same thing. If a segment of the population gets a benefit that is denied to another segment, that is discriminatory, and that is what I have an issue with. I wanted a few weeks (unpaid) home with DD so I took a little under 5 weeks under FMLA. DH took two weeks (also unpaid) after that so he could spend some time with her. We knew for months before she arrived it would be unpaid so we planned and saved to cover the income shortage. If we think paid leave for family events is important I would propose a payroll tax that would support it on a federal level. You build up a "bank" that you can draw down from. Say one or two weeks for every 5 years worked. You can draw from your bank when you have enough accumulated for ANY reason (sabbatical, adopting a puppy, having a kid, caring for a relative). THAT would be fair to all in my book. who are all these people getting paid for their maternity leave? with my first, it was 6 weeks from birth but STD didn't kick in until after 4 weeks - and I didn't have 4 weeks of leave so I had a number of weeks unpaid. with my 3rd I had changed jobs so wasn't eligible for ANY paid leave so had 12 weeks unpaid. Thank you. The people getting paid are the ones who paid into STD, either via their employer or subsidized by their employer, with whatever rules the plan came with about how long you have to wait etc. They aren't just "maternity" benefits, they are STD benefits.
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Jan 29, 2015 10:58:29 GMT -5
Birth is a medical event for the mother. Even if you feel fine, your body is still healing and adjusting for awhile. They recommend waiting 6 weeks to return to exercise and sex because you are still healing, not because you need time to bond with your baby. That is why you are also advised not to return to work until 6-8 weeks afterwards. Same as any other major medical procedure.
|
|
swasat
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 13, 2011 9:34:28 GMT -5
Posts: 3,735
|
Post by swasat on Jan 29, 2015 10:58:45 GMT -5
That's kinda my point. OTOH most women I know are physically capable of returning to a desk job a few weeks after a non-surgical birth (and yes - a C-section is major surgery). Yet when you create a paid incentive to take 6 or more weeks off suddenly that becomes the benchmark and we throw out the whole "bleeding from the vagina" hysterics. Get over it, it's what our bodies were designed to do. Don't try making 6, 10, or even weeks maternity leave a medical necessity, it's really not in a majority of the cases. The Mom's want time to spend home with the baby, which is an entirely different thing. Now Dad's are clamoring for the same thing. If a segment of the population gets a benefit that is denied to another segment, that is discriminatory, and that is what I have an issue with. I wanted a few weeks (unpaid) home with DD so I took a little under 5 weeks under FMLA. DH took two weeks (also unpaid) after that so he could spend some time with her. We knew for months before she arrived it would be unpaid so we planned and saved to cover the income shortage. If we think paid leave for family events is important I would propose a payroll tax that would support it on a federal level. You build up a "bank" that you can draw down from. Say one or two weeks for every 5 years worked. You can draw from your bank when you have enough accumulated for ANY reason (sabbatical, adopting a puppy, having a kid, caring for a relative). THAT would be fair to all in my book. who are all these people getting paid for their maternity leave? with my first, it was 6 weeks from birth but STD didn't kick in until after 4 weeks - and I didn't have 4 weeks of leave so I had a number of weeks unpaid. with my 3rd I had changed jobs so wasn't eligible for ANY paid leave so had 12 weeks unpaid. You will never convince some people though. We are expected to defy all natural consequences and all our contribution to the society, monetary or otherwise, and be a workhorse. And then once the baby has to go on formula, or develop some condition, the same people will come back and figer point for the mother not doing her maternal "job" properly. One can never win
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Jan 29, 2015 11:00:46 GMT -5
who are all these people getting paid for their maternity leave? with my first, it was 6 weeks from birth but STD didn't kick in until after 4 weeks - and I didn't have 4 weeks of leave so I had a number of weeks unpaid. with my 3rd I had changed jobs so wasn't eligible for ANY paid leave so had 12 weeks unpaid. You will never convince some people though. We are expected to defy all natural consequences and all our contribution to the society, monetary or otherwise, and be a workhorse. And then once the baby has to go on formula, or develop some condition, the same people will come back and figer point for the mother not doing her maternal "job" properly. One can never win Maybe if there was a place for men to pump it would be more equitable. Pumping is just such a joy in the first place ...
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,070
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jan 29, 2015 11:01:08 GMT -5
I had to use accumulated PTO to cover my leave. If I had not had any all 6 weeks would have been unpaid.
There is no "paid maternity leave". The FMLA policy is the same for everyone regardless of the reason you're out. I just happened to utilize it because I was pregnant. If I'd had a heart attack same rules would have applied.
|
|
NoNamePerson
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 26,210
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
|
Post by NoNamePerson on Jan 29, 2015 11:01:53 GMT -5
And you wonder why I have stayed single for the last 32 yrs - to avoid the marriage tax Pffft...it's really because no one can handle all your hawtness. But I'll take the compliment!!!! And wishful thinking on my part!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,070
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jan 29, 2015 11:02:10 GMT -5
Maybe if there was a place for men to pump it would be more equitable I think that employers would run into the problem of men ending up taking a lot more "pumping" breaks than we do.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jan 29, 2015 11:03:21 GMT -5
I guess our government jobs are better in some ways I am a parent but I would wholeheartedly disagree with any company that provides more benefits to those with children than those without. I really don't think that is the norm, though, at least not in this region. If you are an hourly or salaried employee and use up all your paid time off, you can take FMLA if you really need to care for a sick child/parent/etc., but you won't be getting a paycheck. Just for the sake of discussion let's explore that statement a little... Take out the word "company" and replace it with "tax system" and I think you have the gist of what some peeps are trying to say and I agree with them. Society should not be forced to subsidize my choice to have a child. Why people think the ability to breed should get them extra perks is completely beyond me (such as those who are whining for paternity leave now for gosh sakes - I mean really? - what would we give the childless people - puppy leave?) Do you also disagree with the subsidization of people with expensive mortgages? Those that purchase electric vehicles? Farmers? And so on...
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Jan 29, 2015 11:03:27 GMT -5
Maybe if there was a place for men to pump it would be more equitable I think that employers would run into the problem of men ending up taking a lot more "pumping" breaks than we do. I was thinking the same
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 12:23:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 11:09:22 GMT -5
I had to use accumulated PTO to cover my leave. If I had not had any all 6 weeks would have been unpaid. There is no "paid maternity leave". The FMLA policy is the same for everyone regardless of the reason you're out. I just happened to utilize it because I was pregnant. If I'd had a heart attack same rules would have applied. Yes- I try to explain this tactfully to people who refer to it as "maternity leave". You adopted a baby? Too bad- you didn't give birth so you need to use vacation or take unpaid FMLA time. You give birth to a baby who spends the first 6 weeks in the hospital? Medical leave is over, honey (unless you had a C-section in which case you get 2 more weeks). Pick up the baby, take him/her to daycare and show up in the office.
Most of the "maternity leave" in the US is postpartum disability leave, plain and simple, and the same sick leave policies apply to childbirth as to any other condition.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jan 29, 2015 11:09:40 GMT -5
So you started back working two weeks after giving birth like I did? Shit, I was deep cleaning my house three days after giving birth to my third. You aren't the only one that's resumed normal activity after having kids rather quickly. But I don't go around saying There's got to be something wrong with all women because they don't poop out a kid, sling them on their backs and go back to work two hours later. And, frankly, I SHOULD have cut back on work after the last peanut. I wasn't sleeping hardly at all for a year. I wouldn't drive sometimes because I didn't trust my reaction. I was afraid I was going to harm someone else. That's how bad it was. But I didn't. Because you know, whole breadwinner and kids wanting to eat thing. That's kinda my point. OTOH most women I know are physically capable of returning to a desk job a few weeks after a non-surgical birth (and yes - a C-section is major surgery). Yet when you create a paid incentive to take 6 or more weeks off suddenly that becomes the benchmark and we throw out the whole "bleeding from the vagina" hysterics. Get over it, it's what our bodies were designed to do. Don't try making 6, 10, or even weeks maternity leave a medical necessity, it's really not in a majority of the cases. The Mom's want time to spend home with the baby, which is an entirely different thing. Now Dad's are clamoring for the same thing. If a segment of the population gets a benefit that is denied to another segment, that is discriminatory, and that is what I have an issue with. I wanted a few weeks (unpaid) home with DD so I took a little under 5 weeks under FMLA. DH took two weeks (also unpaid) after that so he could spend some time with her. We knew for months before she arrived it would be unpaid so we planned and saved to cover the income shortage. If we think paid leave for family events is important I would propose a payroll tax that would support it on a federal level. You build up a "bank" that you can draw down from. Say one or two weeks for every 5 years worked. You can draw from your bank when you have enough accumulated for ANY reason (sabbatical, adopting a puppy, having a kid, caring for a relative). THAT would be fair to all in my book. What paid incentive? For most employers FMLA is only covered by vacation or sick time accrued. Some get a little STD, but it usually isn't for the whole 6 weeks, nor does it fully replace salary. And STD is an insurance program, money is paid in & anyone that qualifies can collect should they be out of work for a bit.
And you can say it isn't a medical necessity, but a lot of doctors won't sign for you to return to work until 6 weeks (mine wouldn't). I am guessing there is a lot more to the recommended 6 weeks that just having you bits & pieces recover....bonding with baby, getting into a routine (waking every 2 hours), breastfeeding, etc.
|
|