Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jan 29, 2015 15:27:29 GMT -5
Ok, so what if someone (a MAN!) breaks a leg and the Dr. says 2 weeks STD but the person feels fine to go to work after 1 week. Are you policing them too if they take the full 2 weeks? Along the same lines who or what defines FINE ? Your definition of "fine" maybe vastly different from my definition of "fine". Are we to set up a government committee that polices who is "fine" enough to get back to work? Some policies are made to be "general" because there is no size that fits all. Medical leave is one such category. I would guess that although many women may feel physically fine to go back after 2 weeks, many need the full 6 weeks to feel up to going back. Every mom is different, every kid is different, & every birth is different.
I also think you can't just focus on how someone feels physically. Someone's mental state is also a medical issue. Just because a women can physically sit at a desk doesn't mean she is ready to mentally handle the stress of a two-week old baby who isn't sleeping, trying to breastfeed/pump, and working 8 hours/day. Being mentally ready for work is IMO just as important as being physically ready & both are health concerns.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 14:24:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 15:38:15 GMT -5
Sam814 nailed it.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 29, 2015 15:46:16 GMT -5
Isn't FMLA unpaid leave? People would cut their pay by 20%?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,070
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jan 29, 2015 15:53:11 GMT -5
Isn't FMLA unpaid leave?
Depends on the employer. Under law employers with 50+ employees are obligated to give you 12 unpaid weeks.
But they can decide individually to create policies concerning pay. I've heard of some companies paying. Others allow you to use PTO, have STD policies or a combination of the tree.
I have the option if I have it to use my paid leave time during the 12 weeks. If I burn thru it and I still have time on the clock whatever remains is unpaid.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 14:24:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 15:59:29 GMT -5
There are also employers with STD, say you take 12 weeks of FMLA at 85% STD, you are only out 2% of your total salary.
|
|
swasat
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 13, 2011 9:34:28 GMT -5
Posts: 3,735
|
Post by swasat on Jan 29, 2015 16:02:53 GMT -5
Looks to me all the grievances against FMLA being aired here are company related problems. Company and their implementation of FMLA problems. Not FMLA problems per se. In my entire work career I have not worked anywhere that took FMLA so lightly. FMLA leave also needs to be in "chunks". Not a day here, a day there. A day here or there is covered by vacation and PTO policy, NOT FMLA.not true....lots of people use it for chemo, parent care, etc. and prefer to use FMLA without burning their vacation days or they could be out of PTO at that point. Ok. Maybe. Not in my experience, but I am no expert so I will accept that I might be wrong. At all my employers FMLA has to be documented though. You cannot just call and say you are taking FMLA for that particular day. It needs to be filed and approved. Other employers might implement it differently.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 14:24:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 16:07:16 GMT -5
not true....lots of people use it for chemo, parent care, etc. and prefer to use FMLA without burning their vacation days or they could be out of PTO at that point. Ok. Maybe. Not in my experience, but I am no expert so I will accept that I might be wrong. At all my employers FMLA has to be documented though. You cannot just call and say you are taking FMLA for that particular day. It needs to be filed and approved. Other employers might implement it differently. I don't know of anywhere that you call out for the day and say you're using FMLA, unless you have it in place already on as-needed basis (chemo would be my thought - maybe you need 2 days to recover instead of just 1).
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,864
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jan 29, 2015 16:08:07 GMT -5
I took 3 years off for my first and 3 months with my second. Screw that 6 week crap. Ha! I got got you beat by a mile and then some: I took years of for DS1. It did include DS2 though (also the constant international moves for xH's work and my lack of work permits had something to do with it, but that is nitpicky and I won't give up my lead for just any little ol' thing )
|
|
swasat
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 13, 2011 9:34:28 GMT -5
Posts: 3,735
|
Post by swasat on Jan 29, 2015 16:09:59 GMT -5
I took 3 years off for my first and 3 months with my second. Screw that 6 week crap. Ha! I got got you beat by a mile and then some: I took years of for DS1. It did include DS2 though (also the constant international moves for xH's work and my lack of work permits had something to do with it, but that is nitpicky and I won't give up my lead for just any little ol' thing ) Show offs!!! The both of you.
|
|
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 16:12:53 GMT -5
There are also employers with STD, say you take 12 weeks of FMLA at 85% STD, you are only out 2% of your total salary. At our job we can accrue up to 6 months full-time sick pay. So for us, it's full pay as long as they've built it up. So because they took it intermittently they got full pay for it. However, when I was on maternity leave, only 6 weeks could count as sick pay (for my medical reasons), but after that I had to take unpaid for the next six. Not even STD would cover then. I could save vacation for that part though. Irritated the heck out of me that I didn't abuse the sick time on a regular basis, but I couldn't use my accrued time to cover my full eligible leave when I had a baby. Yet if I was playing these games I could get 12 weeks fully paid. They've created a policy that benefits the abusers.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jan 29, 2015 16:16:12 GMT -5
Other than the requirement to allow UNPAID leave under FMLA and hold a similar job open for the employee upon return, no one is twisting employers' arms here. If a company wants to offer a specific policy -- paid FMLA, paid maternity leave, sabbaticals, whatever -- they are likely doing so because they've decided it benefits them somehow. If an employee is abusing any policy, they should be disciplined or terminated. If an employer chooses not to do so... well, again, that's because it benefits them somehow (or they're too lazy/inept/afraid of litigation/etc.)
I'm not understanding why all the blame and hard feelings seem to fall on the shoulders of the employees who take the medical leave to which they are entitled.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Jan 29, 2015 16:20:16 GMT -5
I think the six weeks might be a good thing, because maybe while most women with non c-section births are good to go after a couple...some aren't, but would get extra pressure to be back otherwise? I think maybe 4 with a check up for fitness to go back after might be better....and I think for some 6 weeks isn't enough, and pressure to conform to that flat number is kind of silly.
I am fine with the STD benefit for when physically unable to work and unpaid leave after, and I think it's important that fathers also have access to that unpaid leave.
I hate the idea of subsidized maternity leave...HATE it. I think people should plan ahead for that shit and not get special hugs and flowers because they reproduced....BUT....
I think there might be better outcomes when parents are able to take leave paid? Long term? I know lots of countries do this and I think a way too liberal for my tastes friend mentioned that it leads to better outcomes behaviorally...if that is true, I think it is not a bad thing that it be subsidized, no matter how distasteful I find it. Same with other types of welfare, actually. If studies actually show that something that bugs the ever living fuck out of me lead to substantially better outcomes, I have to be for it.
I still can want to kick in the face people who say that x, y, z unearned thing other people are paying for is a "basic human right." Fuck you, have some goddamned gratitude.
|
|
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 16:20:52 GMT -5
They shouldn't get special treatment just because they are sick How about we just let every one have 12 paid weeks of leave every year, to use however and whenever they wish. That way we don't discriminate against the healthy individuals with no families.
|
|
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 16:21:46 GMT -5
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?Why SOME FMLA? Why not all of it? Because they couldn't fucking afford to! I said they came back because they needed a paycheck (see underline).And who said that those people are not worthy of benefit? NO one. I specifically said benefits should be applied equally.My Indian employee is single with no kids. He is getting the benefit. and you point? So do older people who have to go for surgeries and take STD. see last comment above.So do new fathers who become parents. that's fine as long as they are not demanding a paid benefit that is not available to those who don't have kids.So do some unmarried , childless folks who take a sabbatical from work. Paid or unpaid? Is this option available equally to all?Seems to me its your company that is the peoblem, if they are ONLY giving the benefit to new parents. Not the world as a whole. Paid or unpaid? Both maternity and paternity leave are unpaid, as are all STD amounts under 16 weeks (at my current employer). You are obviously not reading my entire posts. See my comments.
|
|
swasat
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 13, 2011 9:34:28 GMT -5
Posts: 3,735
|
Post by swasat on Jan 29, 2015 16:22:00 GMT -5
quince, what do you mean by "subsidized maternity leave"? The paid part of the maternity leave?
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Jan 29, 2015 16:23:52 GMT -5
On another note FMLA when I was a supervisor was known as the "Friday/Monday Leave Act" among the management team. It seemed folks that could use it on different days rather than consecutively always seemed to get a lot of long weekends out of it. This makes sense. If you are undergoing chemo, or something that you need a few days to recover from, have the chemo on Friday and it gives you 2 days to recover before having to be back on the job. The form you need to fill out for FMLA is very long and involved, and you need a doctor to sign off on it. I seriously doubt that those who did it were taking Mondays and/or Fridays for shits and giggles.
|
|
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 16:25:26 GMT -5
not true....lots of people use it for chemo, parent care, etc. and prefer to use FMLA without burning their vacation days or they could be out of PTO at that point. Ok. Maybe. Not in my experience, but I am no expert so I will accept that I might be wrong. At all my employers FMLA has to be documented though. You cannot just call and say you are taking FMLA for that particular day. It needs to be filed and approved. Other employers might implement it differently. @singlemominmd is right, FMLA can be taken intermittently in chunks as small as quarter hour units. It's also calculated on a rolling 12 month period so it's not like the FMLA bank "refills" magically on the 1st of the calendar year.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Jan 29, 2015 16:27:57 GMT -5
not true....lots of people use it for chemo, parent care, etc. and prefer to use FMLA without burning their vacation days or they could be out of PTO at that point. Ok. Maybe. Not in my experience, but I am no expert so I will accept that I might be wrong. At all my employers FMLA has to be documented though. You cannot just call and say you are taking FMLA for that particular day. It needs to be filed and approved. Other employers might implement it differently. When I went out on FMLA, I was able to work part of the time.....when I felt up to it. So there were days where I worked, others when I did not. It was more a function of how bad my pain was, and whether the narcotics were kicking my ass or not. As this was a day by day happening, I either took it or didn't.
|
|
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 16:28:45 GMT -5
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. Apparently everyone else's experience is different from mine. I was cleared to go back at 5 weeks (knowing I had a desk job). Yes I had to jump through the HR hoops but from a physical standpoint it wasn't an issue, and I was older and not in fantastic shape when I had DD.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,864
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jan 29, 2015 16:29:39 GMT -5
To get back to my earlier statement about international moves: only DS2 spend a few years in public schools here in the US and both xH and I pay taxes out the wazhoo. However, it does not bother me that these taxes are (among other things) being spend on schools. In my opinion, whether you have kids or not you will benefit from educating all kids. For example: have you been to a hospital recently? There are more than a few nurses wh are no longer 23yo. Should I end up in that same hospital say 25 years from now (omen in my family tend to live quite long) A lot of those nurses will be retired and I really would appreciate it if the nurse that administrated my meds would be able to read the instructions/labels etc. On the other hand, child care tax credits and dependents deduction are harder for me to swallow since those are the result of choices you (generic you) make (having a child). And while I agree with the statement made several times here that nobody has children for the tax credits, I also don't believe that I should pay for the cost of raising your child. So if $25k in childcare only results in a tax credit of $1.8k I (the collective I) am in effect payin $1.8k and you are paying $23.2k for your child. It's like court-ordered child support paid by non-parents
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,864
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jan 29, 2015 16:30:48 GMT -5
Ha! I got got you beat by a mile and then some: I took 20 years of for DS1. It did include DS2 though (also the constant international moves for xH's work and my lack of work permits had something to do with it, but that is nitpicky and I won't give up my lead for just any little ol' thing ) Show offs!!! The both of you. Missed adding in the number of years...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 14:24:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 16:30:52 GMT -5
On another note FMLA when I was a supervisor was known as the "Friday/Monday Leave Act" among the management team. It seemed folks that could use it on different days rather than consecutively always seemed to get a lot of long weekends out of it. This makes sense. If you are undergoing chemo, or something that you need a few days to recover from, have the chemo on Friday and it gives you 2 days to recover before having to be back on the job. The form you need to fill out for FMLA is very long and involved, and you need a doctor to sign off on it. I seriously doubt that those who did it were taking Mondays and/or Fridays for shits and giggles. In your example you are correct, however Sam814 gave the playbook earlier on how it can be mass abused.
|
|
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 16:31:58 GMT -5
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? Ok, so what if someone (a MAN!) breaks a leg and the Dr. says 2 weeks STD but the person feels fine to go to work after 1 week. Are you policing them too if they take the full 2 weeks? I'm not policing anyone. Just saying there are inequities in how some benefits are applied. In some cases medical leave for a physical condition is covered but medical leave for a mental condition is not. If we are going to be honest with ourselves (as some have admitted) they were perfectly able to return to work earlier from a physical point of view.
|
|
swasat
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 13, 2011 9:34:28 GMT -5
Posts: 3,735
|
Post by swasat on Jan 29, 2015 16:32:29 GMT -5
See my answers above.
Why you target new parents is beyond me.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,070
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jan 29, 2015 16:36:35 GMT -5
In some cases medical leave for a physical condition is covered but medical leave for a mental condition is not.
If your doctor writes you a note physically documenting you have a mental condition requiring leave then yes it is covered under FMLA.
DH had a mental breakdown and was granted leave under FMLA protection because he could prove it's a qualifying event.
His employer didn't have a short term disability policy so I can't say what those do and do not cover, neither one of us have worked for a company that offers one.
He had three weeks PTO so he used that, the remaining nine weeks were unpaid.
If your employer is only granting leave towards people with children that's a major COMPANY problem and their in violation of the rules.
I'm guessing your co-worker while understandably stressed her situation is not one that falls under qualifying events. If that is the case at least here whether or not you get more leave than your PTO allows is up to the discretion of your supervisor.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Jan 29, 2015 16:37:49 GMT -5
quince, what do you mean by "subsidized maternity leave"? The paid part of the maternity leave? Paid maternity leave not associated with STD.
|
|
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 16:38:31 GMT -5
swasat said: You just made my whole point. Thank you. It's less about medical necessity than about economics in many cases. That's what I've been trying to say all along.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,070
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jan 29, 2015 16:42:07 GMT -5
It's less about medical necessity than about economics in many cases.
Okay then go to HR and demand they change the standards. Go to the medical community and demand that they change their stance. Show them there is no medical reason why women should be out 6-8 weeks.
What part of the fact that HR said I couldn't come back and my doctor refused to sign off on me coming back earlier because the medical standard for recovery time is 6 weeks is so hard to understand?
What do you propose I should have done to get HR and my doctor to go against policy and let me come back earlier?
If I could have come back earlier I would have, but HR would have skinned both me and my boss alive. It wasn't worth risking backlash just so I could smugly say I didn't need it.
COMPANIES set the leave policies, not me. I have to follow what my COMPANY says is acceptable. If my company says I am supposed ot be out at least 6 weeks then that's what I do and I have every right to do it. Hate the company not the employee following procedure.
|
|
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 16:42:17 GMT -5
FMLA will cover mental needs when necessary. My OB could have written me new FMLA papers at the end of my six weeks saying I needed another 6 weeks due to severe post-partum depression. Had that been filed properly with my work, then they would have paid my full pay since it was a medical situation for myself. Because of people "abusing" the policy in that way, my company now offers the full 12 weeks just paid out of the sick bucket. Of course, that started on 1/1 and didn't apply when I had J in October. I took my 6 weeks paid, my 4 weeks unpaid, and then came back to work.
|
|
swasat
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 13, 2011 9:34:28 GMT -5
Posts: 3,735
|
Post by swasat on Jan 29, 2015 16:42:47 GMT -5
swasat said: You just made my whole point. Thank you. It's less about medical necessity than about economics in many cases. That's what I've been trying to say all along. No you haven't. All you have been doing is ranting over "New parents" getting the benefit of FMLA while "others" don't. Wheres anyone eligible, and I repeat, ANYONE ELIGIBLE for FMLA can take it. If they don't because "they can't afford to", then thats poor planning on THEIR part, not anyone else's fault. The example you gave in your post? You yourself said she did not take the entire FMLA because she cannot afford to. Its not because she was denied it. Her finances are HER problem and hers only.
|
|