The marriage penalty tax

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2015 11:09:40 GMT -5 Angel! said:

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.

Here nobody qualifies for STD unless they've been with the company for a year and you have to burn up all sick/vacation time before it kicks in. 

[steph08]

I took off 8 full weeks for maternity leave. First week - PTO. Second-sixth weeks - covered 60% by short-term disability, supplemented with PTO. Seventh-eighth weeks - PTO.

I felt awesome after I gave birth without any pain meds - I could have worked sitting from the hospital bed.

Then I got home and my blood pressure was still high so I got put on meds, my boobs were the size of my head and hurt, my vagina muscles would somehow have cramps and spasms, and I would cry every afternoon for two weeks about something minor (as my DH put it "What happened? Did a bird fly by the window?").

My boss probably would have loved to have me come into work!

Let's not kid ourselves that women don't need time off to recuperate from having a child. And I think I have a higher pain tolerance than most.

[whoisjohngalt]

I'd be curious to know how US compares to other countries in terms of mental and physical health of new mothers.  to the countries where women have more time to heal after giving birth

[swasat]

Its like zib saying that they paid no maternity benefits to their female employees....and then wondering why they could never get or retain any "good" hard working employees.

It goes both ways people!! You be sucky to your employee...you bet your a$$ you will get sucky employees.

[Lizard Queen]

I've noticed that there is an attitude among some groups that having children is not important, or maybe as important as taking a vacation.  They seem to think that children are a net negative to society.  i happen to think having children and raising them well is of utmost importance to the future of society (and to folks stuck in nursing homes--chances are it's the younger crowd that will be taking care of you!)

There is also this attitude that having a life outside of work is not important, so that you must have face-time at work all week in order to "earn your keep", if you will.  I don't see the problem with everyone being allowed to flex their hours around a life outside of work, whatever that may be.  To the extent that that is only allowed for parents to attend to children is wrong.  Childless folks should be allowed to have lives outside of work and flex around outside activities as well as the parents.

What I hate is this attitude that you must be chained to your desk M-F, 8-5 or more in order to be a productive citizen, unless you are independently wealthy and then we won't tax you as much on your investment earning as we would if you were actually working for a living. (And please don't go into the double-taxation tirade.  This country was founded, not upon income taxes, but on corporate taxation.  We could go back to that set up.  No income taxes at all--only tax businesses!)

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2015 11:10:53 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

It's cheaper for companies and society to have longer leave for women who just gave birth.  My guess is that the percentage of women willing to go back to work is much higher after 8 weeks than before.  Training people and bringing them onboard isn't cheap if they have any sort of skill.

I wish I could find the link, but I saw one article that verified that a larger % of women return to work if you give them more paid time after the birth.  It almost sounds counter-intuitive.

I had DS in early November and 6 weeks later I had enough vacation/paid Christmas holiday time that I really needed to be in the office for only 2 days through the end of the year.  My boss, bless him, offered to cover for me if I wanted to stay home but I figured it was a good way to ease back in, so I came to work.  I was fortunate, though- no other small children at home, DS slept reasonable hours for a newborn, and no postpartum depression or other complications, so I felt ready to go back. 

[swasat]

Jan 29, 2015 11:23:13 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

Jan 29, 2015 11:10:53 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

It's cheaper for companies and society to have longer leave for women who just gave birth.  My guess is that the percentage of women willing to go back to work is much higher after 8 weeks than before.  Training people and bringing them onboard isn't cheap if they have any sort of skill.

I wish I could find the link, but I saw one article that verified that a larger % of women return to work if you give them more paid time after the birth.  It almost sounds counter-intuitive.

I had DS in early November and 6 weeks later I had enough vacation/paid Christmas holiday time that I really needed to be in the office for only 2 days through the end of the year.  My boss, bless him, offered to cover for me if I wanted to stay home but I figured it was a good way to ease back in, so I came to work.  I was fortunate, though- no other small children at home, DS slept reasonable hours for a newborn, and no postpartum depression or other complications, so I felt ready to go back. 

Yep. I can speak for myself. Both times I have given birth, my bosses have been super understanding. I got 6 weeks maternity leave and extended that 6 more weeks of FMLA without pay. No one batted an eye. I was so greatful for the support I recieved from my group, when I got back to work after completeing 12 weeks of vacation, you couldn't find a more productive employee than me.

And I firmly believe in passing the good deed forward. Many a times I have allowed my employees to have whatever time they need to settle their lives. No, I DO NOT DISCRIMINATE between men and women. In fact, right at this moment an Indian guy who works for me is back in India catering to the accidental death of both his parents. In addition to 3 days of bereavement leave the company offers, I arranged for 3 extra days of condolence leave for him, all of which he gets paid for. He will be gone for at least 4-5 week and none of the women in the team are cribbing about it.

Not all of us people who take the benefts offered to us are crappy, entitled and thinking-only-about-ME-ME-ME people.

[swamp]

Jan 29, 2015 10:30:00 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Jan 29, 2015 10:23:18 GMT -5 yogiii said:

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 was a blubbering wreck after kids.  I worked from home about a week after giving birth, but I was no way emotionally prepared to go into the office.

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2015 10:30:00 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Jan 29, 2015 10:23:18 GMT -5 yogiii said:

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 think that depends.  I really did have a lot of physical issues after my first. 

But, women aside, what about the baby?  In my state it's not even legal for a licensed daycare to take in a baby under 6 weeks.  Where are these moms supposed to the still pink with cone heads and umbilical stump creatures off? 

[swamp]

Jan 29, 2015 11:38:51 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Jan 29, 2015 10:30:00 GMT -5 The Captain said:

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 think that depends.  I really did have a lot of physical issues after my first. 

But, women aside, what about the baby?  In my state it's not even legal for a licensed daycare to take in a baby under 6 weeks.  Where are these moms supposed to the still pink with cone heads and umbilical stump creatures off? 

With Gramma who is retired, perfectly healthy, lives next door, and is willing to watch the baby for free.

[swasat]

Jan 29, 2015 11:38:51 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Jan 29, 2015 10:30:00 GMT -5 The Captain said:

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 think that depends.  I really did have a lot of physical issues after my first. 

But, women aside, what about the baby?  In my state it's not even legal for a licensed daycare to take in a baby under 6 weeks.  Where are these moms supposed to the still pink with cone heads and umbilical stump creatures off? 

I can tell you what the offered suggestion would be from the haters

"If the maternity leave policies change, so will the daycare policies." Cascading effect and all that

[Sam_2.0]

FWIW - my employer is also fairly understanding when it comes to needing time off for sick pets too. Although the guy who asked for 3 days bereavement leave for a bird was laughed at But generally they will let us flex time around to be able to drop off pets at the vet, or take a car in to get the oil changed. Shoot, my boss used to meet me at the oil change place to pick me up & take me in to the office, and then she would take me back over my lunch break. That was nice

[yogiii]

Jan 29, 2015 11:57:57 GMT -5 Sam_2.0 said:

FWIW - my employer is also fairly understanding when it comes to needing time off for sick pets too. Although the guy who asked for 3 days bereavement leave for a bird was laughed at But generally they will let us flex time around to be able to drop off pets at the vet, or take a car in to get the oil changed. Shoot, my boss used to meet me at the oil change place to pick me up & take me in to the office, and then she would take me back over my lunch break. That was nice

It sounds to me like you're enjoying your time at work/interacting with your co-workers a little too much.  What's next, you'll leave your cube to have lunch!

[Sam_2.0]

Jan 29, 2015 12:00:36 GMT -5 yogiii said:

Jan 29, 2015 11:57:57 GMT -5 Sam_2.0 said:

FWIW - my employer is also fairly understanding when it comes to needing time off for sick pets too. Although the guy who asked for 3 days bereavement leave for a bird was laughed at But generally they will let us flex time around to be able to drop off pets at the vet, or take a car in to get the oil changed. Shoot, my boss used to meet me at the oil change place to pick me up & take me in to the office, and then she would take me back over my lunch break. That was nice

It sounds to me like you're enjoying your time at work/interacting with your co-workers a little too much.  What's next, you'll leave your cube to have lunch!

LOL, I actually eat at my desk most of the time because I spend my "lunch" break pumping. But on Fridays I like to go out to eat with my grandpa if he's available, and they've never said anything about me taking long lunches to do that. Probably because most management-level employees take long lunches on Friday

[yogiii]

LOL, pumping

[tskeeter]

Jan 29, 2015 4:16:20 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 29, 2015 1:59:59 GMT -5 @aj said:

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 think one of the problems with our education system is that we spend more resources and effort on the students least likely to suceed academically than we do on the students most likely to demonstrate significant academic achievement.  Much of the additional cost generated by the education system over the past 50 years is funding for programs for the mentally and emotionally challenged, for children for whom English is a second laguage, and for academic low achievers (think No Child Left Behind and the increased emphasis on the idea that every kid should go to college).

About a year ago I found a US Department of Education study that concluded that since the late 1950's/early 1960's the number of grade school and high school students has increased about 20%.  During that same period, the number of teachers has doubled.  (Makes you question the concerns about class size, doesn't it?).  And the spending on education has increased exponentially.

So, if we've got more teachers per student and we are spending more on education that ever, why don't our students do better on tests used to compare  country to country?  Well, years ago, we used to pretty much abandon any child that had significant learning disabilities.  Today, we try to provide that child as much education as they can grasp.  Often at a very high annual cost.  In my home state, the average per pupil spending is about $10K per student per year.  Now consider the cost to educate a child with significant learning and physical disabilities.  Rather than going to school on a bus with 60 other children, a specially equipped bus may be required.  The special equipment will incease the cost of that bus, compared to a standard school bus, because the handicapped bus will essentially be a custom built vehicle.  And the handicapped bus will only be capable of transporting 6 - 10 students.  In addition, the student may require a school district provided transportation aid to help get them to and from school.  Once at school, rather than being in a classroom with 24 other children, the disabled student may share a teacher with one or two other childen.  In some cases, class sizes will be bigger, depending on the needs of the students.  But, in general class sizes for the disabled will be a fraction of the size of a normal class.  Then the student may require an educational aid.  And a personal assistance aid, to help them with meals, toileting, and the like.  And the needs of certain disabled students may dictate that qualified nursing staff be on site during the time the student is at school.  So, where most students will require 1/25th of a teacher and 1/60th of a bus driver, a disabled student may require a staff closer to four people, at a cost of $150K - $200K a year in compensation, benefits, equipment, and facilities.

Another factor is that for the past several decades, the US has accepted immigration of large numbers of people with very poor educations from around the world.  The Vietnamese, Laotians, Somalis, and Mexicans are some of the larger groups of immigrants.  I used to work with a fellow who was raised in Mexico until he was a teenager.  When asked to translate a document into Spanish, he told the person making the request that his education in Mexico ended at third grade and that he did not read Spanish.  He told me that his education was typical for the part of Mexico he grew up in.  When these children get into US schools, not only do they frequently require assistance to learn English, but they often have no reading skills at all.  This means they require a lot of remedial assistance and may experience more learning challenges than are experienced by a child whose parents both read and speak English as a first language.  I bring parents into the discussion because, as a resident of an area with a large population of Mexican immigrants, local studies show that the education of children of immigrants progresses at a pace comparable to the pace of children whose parents are not immigrants until after third grade.  At that point, the pace of the children of immigrants falls off dramatically because the education of the child now exceeds the education of the parents, and the parents are no longer able to help the student advance educationally.  The education systems of countries with much smaller immigrant populations, or countries that accept only well educated, wealthy immigrants do not exerience the challenges faced by the US education system.  For example, a Canadian government study on the academic performance of the children of immigrants found that the children of immigrants have a higher high school graduation rate than the children of native born Canadians.  The study attributed the achievement gap to the measurably high level of educational achievement among the immigrant parents than is the norm in the Canadian population over all.  Obviously, Canada has not been importing poverty and illiteracy along with it's immigrants.  

[The Captain]

So someone who is calling for policies to be fairly and equally applied are "haters"

Really? 

And somehow this conversation has gotten off track.  FMLA covers unpaid leave for family reasons for EVERYONE.  STD for a medical leave does apply equally as well for medical events, but I've pointed out that in many cases there is no PHYSICAL reason you can't return to a desk job in less than 6 weeks.  That is where I see the inequity. 

So let me state this clearly (if I haven't before) FMLA (unpaid) leave is somewhat fair because you can use it for any reason.  Paid STD beyond what is needed for physical necessity is where I see some unfairness.  Peeps can get pissed at me all they want but several folks here admitted they were physically capable of returning to work in less than 6 weeks after birth.  The fact that you get more than what is needed for a physical recovery some have admitted was for bonding as well as daycare issues - guess what - that's not medical and non medical reasons are not available to get paid leave (STD) for non-mothers.  That is what I'm calling out as inequitable.

We have a co-worker who's kid tried to commit suicide.  They have to come to work because they need a paycheck, but emotionally they're having a hard time dealing with it (yes they've taken some FMLA). 

What makes their situation different from the new mom who's an emotional wreck but fine physically? 

Change the relative involved above from a child to a spouse and call the person childless - why are they less worthy of a benefit that is available for mental well being/bonding only to a select demographic?

[tskeeter]

Jan 29, 2015 10:25:43 GMT -5 cronewitch said:

I am all for giving parents tax breaks if they are anywhere near poor. Most people have some kids so it evens out over a career. It is like older family members helping the younger ones. When a young family has a couple of tots they usually are trying to get career going and buy a house and pay daycare so the toughest time in their life financially. When kids are older they have no or less daycare, houses are bought already and careers started then they can pay more taxes. If we didn't give breaks to the young families some would have poverty so couldn't get a house or decent transportation and food and daycare so many women would quit working. Then when the kids were older she wouldn't have job skills and they could be poor for life.

I watched my little brother be poor. He joined the navy and got married at 18 and at 20 and 22 had children. They were poor his wife took in babysitting or worked low paid jobs but they got a little house. Then he quit the navy after 9 years moved home and got a house. Wife was a housewife kids in elementary school and work was very slow only 10 weeks one year. Wife decided to go to college but almost had to drop out until my parents paid one semester tuition for her. Sometimes they didn't have very basic things like antifreeze for the truck after a radiator repair so had to drain it every night so it didn't freeze. They had to use a food bank. I did buy them a gallon of antifreeze once and some peanut butter, mom and dad gave them cases of TP and paper towels for Christmas. But they got over being poor, work picked up, she graduated and became a teacher, son left home, they got a new nice house, daughter left home. Now son is 45 daughter 43 and they have a huge home, newer vehicles, pensions and SS. They can afford cruises and all kinds of vacations and summer property. Much better to give them tax breaks to get started then charge more now when they are richer.

Crone, why would you encourage people who can't support their children to have even more children?  I'm sure that you've observed that the incidence of poverty among large familes happens at a much higher rate than it does among small families.

If families choose to assist their family members, I think that is appropriate and admirable.  It's what we do in my family.  But to expect complete strangers to pay the expenses associated with the choices a family member made doesn't strike me as appropriate.

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2015 12:57:25 GMT -5 The Captain said:

So someone who is calling for policies to be fairly and equally applied are "haters"

Really? 

And somehow this conversation has gotten off track.  FMLA covers unpaid leave for family reasons for EVERYONE.  STD for a medical leave does apply equally as well for medical events, but I've pointed out that in many cases there is no PHYSICAL reason you can't return to a desk job in less than 6 weeks.  That is where I see the inequity. 

So let me state this clearly (if I haven't before) FMLA (unpaid) leave is somewhat fair because you can use it for any reason.  Paid STD beyond what is needed for physical necessity is where I see some unfairness.  Peeps can get pissed at me all they want but several folks here admitted they were physically capable of returning to work in less than 6 weeks after birth.  The fact that you get more than what is needed for a physical recovery some have admitted was for bonding as well as daycare issues - guess what - that's not medical and non medical reasons are not available to get paid leave (STD) for non-mothers.  That is what I'm calling out as inequitable.

We have a co-worker who's kid tried to commit suicide.  They have to come to work because they need a paycheck, but emotionally they're having a hard time dealing with it (yes they've taken some FMLA). 

What makes their situation different from the new mom who's an emotional wreck but fine physically? 

Change the relative involved above from a child to a spouse and call the person childless - why are they less worthy of a benefit that is available for mental well being/bonding only to a select demographic?

I think what you're missing is that most doctors won't clear someone to go back to work before 6 weeks and if you're out on STD you can't come back without a doctor's ok.  so the woman may feel fine and want to go back but her doctor won't clear her.

[Deleted]

Funny this topic comes up and my boss has called in yesterday and today because his son is sick and I'm getting rode like a rented mule (and yes I know I'm posting but the excel files we use can take a min to process complex transactions so I'm essentially twiddling my thumbs waiting)

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I think what you're missing is that most doctors won't clear someone to go back to work before 6 weeks and if you're out on STD you can't come back without a doctor's ok

If you're on FMLA you can't come back without a doctor's clearance either. Most doctors WILL NOT clear you to go back to work in 2 weeks. And no I cannot doctor shop till I find on that will, HR required it be the same doctor/clinic who originally signed off on my paperwork.

Then I would have had to petition HR and present a case that I was fine to come back and no I won't sue you. Which I can't prove so good luck getting the petition approved.

HR would have shit kittens if I had tried to come back before 6-8 weeks. They wouldn't even allow me to so much as email my boss while I was on leave for fear I would sue for some reason or another. Both me AND my boss would have lost our jobs if I had snuck back in before at least 6 weeks.

I don't think you're understanding. I wasn't out for 6 weeks for poops and giggles. I was out that long because that is what the medical community and company HRs have set as the standard time you need to be out in order to be considered medically fit to return to work.

As far as short term disability, my employer doesn't offer it AT ALL.  So no pay for me if I do not have PTO to cover it.

If a company does offer it and covers post partum recovery time then that is their decision.  For whatever reason he business decided it was a perk worth extending.  If you don't like it don't work for that company or petition for change in policy.

I agree it's not "fair" but I don't see why an employee should be bashed because they used a benefit that is extended to them by the company.   Bash the company for offering the perk in the first place.

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2015 13:20:10 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

I think what you're missing is that most doctors won't clear someone to go back to work before 6 weeks and if you're out on STD you can't come back without a doctor's ok

If you're on FMLA you can't come back without a doctor's clearance either. Most doctors WILL NOT clear you to go back to work in 2 weeks. And no I cannot doctor shop till I find on that will, HR required it be the same doctor/clinic who originally signed off on my paperwork.

Then I would have had to petition HR and present a case that I was fine to come back and no I won't sue you. Which I can't prove so good luck getting the petition approved.

HR would have shit kittens if I had tried to come back before 6-8 weeks. They wouldn't even allow me to so much as email my boss while I was on leave for fear I would sue for some reason or another. Both me AND my boss would have lost our jobs if I had snuck back in before at least 6 weeks.

I don't think you're understanding. I wasn't out for 6 weeks for poops and giggles. I was out that long because that is what the medical community and company HRs have set as the standard time you need to be out in order to be considered medically fit to return to work.

but how does that work if you're using FMLA to take aging parents to appointments?  you don't need to be cleared to go back to work.

[zibazinski]

Jan 29, 2015 11:20:48 GMT -5 swasat said:

Its like zib saying that they paid no maternity benefits to their female employees....and then wondering why they could never get or retain any "good" hard working employees.

It goes both ways people!! You be sucky to your employee...you bet your a$$ you will get sucky employees.

I said we could not afford maternity coverage when we first started our company. We couldn't afford to subsidize maternity leave, either. We were a fledgling business. Once we were established, we had both. We never had an issue with getting and retaining good professional employees. im sorry if it seems cruel and unfair to you that we didn't hire women of child bearing age until we could afford to subsidize their choices. But making our business viable was more important than being PC.

[ArchietheDragon]

Jan 29, 2015 13:22:24 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Jan 29, 2015 11:20:48 GMT -5 swasat said:

Its like zib saying that they paid no maternity benefits to their female employees....and then wondering why they could never get or retain any "good" hard working employees.

It goes both ways people!! You be sucky to your employee...you bet your a$$ you will get sucky employees.

I said we could not afford maternity coverage when we first started our company. We couldn't afford to subsidize maternity leave, either. We were a fledgling business. Once we were established, we had both. We never had an issue with getting and retaining good professional employees. im sorry if it seems cruel and unfair to you that we didn't hire women of child bearing age until we could afford to subsidize their choices. But making our business viable was more important than being PC.

or legal

[cronewitch]

Jan 29, 2015 13:03:43 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Jan 29, 2015 10:25:43 GMT -5 cronewitch said:

Crone, why would you encourage people who can't support their children to have even more children?  I'm sure that you've observed that the incidence of poverty among large familes happens at a much higher rate than it does among small families.

If families choose to assist their family members, I think that is appropriate and admirable.  It's what we do in my family.  But to expect complete strangers to pay the expenses associated with the choices a family member made doesn't strike me as appropriate.

Because almost no young people can fully afford children, not just more children but any children. My brother only had two but it is hard to provide even food and housing to them when you are poor. Tax breaks don't make people have more children but might help them keep a roof over themselves while paying to feed the ones they have. I am not in favor of large families for poor people but think when they have one or two it is still a few years of poverty even if they have pretty good jobs. Not all families can help the young parents and not all people have families. Fewer people will have families in the future since we have many only children of single parents it won't take much to leave them with nobody if they have a mom die and no grandparents.
I don't know what tax breaks we give them now but if they get a couple thousand off for having a kid in daycare or a thousand for another exemption I am for it, it isn't forever.

[zibazinski]

Yup, but in the late 80's you could opt out of maternity coverage, which we did to make insurance affordable for a new business to make it. Remember, we still had paper applications then, too.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

but how does that work if you're using FMLA to take aging parents to appointments

I'm not sure how it works with aging parents. I'd have to ask my dad since he just went thru it. I'd assume he had to provide some sort of paperwork to show he needed more time than the normally approved PTO.

I was just saying my company doesn't offer short term disability. So there was no benefit to me staying home 6-8 weeks, I didn't get any goodies from my company to stay home that long.

I was required to because that's what the medical community deems the amount of time I need to be considered medically fit to return to work. HR goes by that, not if I feel like I can come back to work or the expectation of others that I hurry up and get back to my job.

It's considered a medical condition whether people agree with that or not. Since I was out of work for a medical reason I could not return until I got approval. It is nearly impossible to get approval to return to work before 6 weeks after birth, HR doesn't want to risk something happening and the employee turning around and suing.

I'm assuming the STD policies work the same way.  The medical community has deemed it takes 6 weeks to recover from vaginal birth and 8 weeks for C-section.  So the policies pay accordingly.  

It's not women milking the system.  If I could have I probably would have returned earlier, but HR would have skinned me alive.  By the time I fight with my doctor, fight with HR and collect all the paper needed to get approved I'd probably have hit the 6 week mark.

[Cookies Galore]

Where I work, employees can bank unused sick, vacation, and personal time into a personal emergency bank (35 hours) and disability bank (unlimited). If someone needs time off for whatever physical or mental need they can use that bank to get paid out full salary. I know my pregnant coworkers use any time they have toward maternity leave before STD (if needed) kicks in. Many of my male coworkers also use whatever time they have for paternity leave. I'm hardly ever sick so I bank roughly eight sick days a year and I currently have 38 days in my disability bank. It's nice to have but I'm glad I haven't had a need to use it.
Hubs and I are child-free for life and I really don't give a shit how much time my coworkers take off for maternity/paternity leave. I don't feel slighted in the least. We have plenty of benefits offered that I am currently not using and may never use.
I've left work early to get my hair done. Maybe the breeders should get all pissy with me because I leave work for things that are cooler than kid stuff. :-p

[ArchietheDragon]

Jan 29, 2015 13:33:06 GMT -5 Cookies Galore said:

Hubs and I are child-free for life

Are you sure??    The world needs more hipsters. 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I've left work early to get my hair done. Maybe the breeders should get all pissy with me because I leave work for things that are cooler than kid stuff

I do that too.

I'm going to miss the leave benefits here if I end up going to another company.

I currently have 6 weeks vacation, a week and a half sick, a week of floating holiday and however many banked holidays.  That's what I've accumulated over the course of 5 years here.  I'd have more sick but I burned most of it on maternity leave two months ago.

It's nuts. Since I am the sole employee in the lab I tend to use it to take a half day or a Friday off here and there. Being gone for a week or more is too much of a PITA.