thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,749
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 12, 2015 9:23:17 GMT -5
One thing that annoys me is that most people do not have any paid maternity/paternity leave. They have the 6-8 weeks of SHORT TERM DISABILITY, the same for anyone who has broken their leg, had a heart attack, had a baby, etc. It is likely an insurance policy that the employee has paid into, sometimes the company pays for the policy. In addition, you have the other 4-6 weeks of unpaid FMLA. I don't know what is fair but I know I hate when I hear about "paid maternity leave" which is really just short term disability. Maybe - maybe not. It is correct that I used a ST-disability policy to get a portion of my salary, but I suspect that people who are pushing for this are taking the medical aspects out of it. There is no way to justify a 26 week recovery period. The medical aspects come out so you can adopt a baby and get paid time off, or a man could take time off. Leaving maternity leave in the hands of short term disability throws up all sorts of barriers. Making "infant leave" a stand-alone subject, you can be way more inclusive. That is why supporters say this expense should come from the company directly, instead of an insurance company.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 12, 2015 9:25:21 GMT -5
For some tech jobs just the ramp up of company knowledge itself is long. So even a year off being a brain dead Mom, you still retain all of that and more. I don't know, my first day back it was like I never left. I spent a day or two getting up to speed and that was it. New hires are a lot more challenging to integrate. Makes sense. Each job and company is so individual there are definitely jobs/companies where the company knowledge and background are integral and valuable enough to want to retain. In the Big Four example I used, there was definitely some advantage to knowing company background, but that was far outweighed by the fast pace of the consulting assignments where the Firm knowledge was not a factor. In a month's period of time, you might be dropped into 3 or 4 different brand new companies, all paying your Firm top dollar to parachute in, become an instant expert on their (new, different) company, diagnose its' problems and propose custom solutions to the problems. If you're slow or can't quickly become that expert or worse yet, can't come up with new, innovative, successful solutions to whatever problem you've been hired to fix... you and your Firm fail, costing you a client, probably getting you fired and maybe even bringing down the client company if the problem you've been hired to fix is large. Nobody gives a rat's patootie if you're tired or have only been reading "Goodnight Moon" for a year... they need you to come up with $200 million or they'll default on that next debt payment. Oh, and it's nice that you have the Firm knowledge to know how to fill in the standard TP2 report, but really, you just need to figure out how to find that $200 million - now.
Tough to find temps for stuff like that. But it's also why time off and payment wasn't really the issue for people doing that type of work. We made enough money that we could hire a nanny if that's what we needed and were enough in demand that as long as we could do the work, we could take off whatever (unpaid) time we wanted and would have a job when we got back.
The point isn't that all jobs are one type or the other, it's that jobs are so different it's a really bad idea to try to force solutions like a year's maternity leave on employers and people. The solutions will work for some situations and make others worse.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Aug 12, 2015 9:26:59 GMT -5
One thing that annoys me is that most people do not have any paid maternity/paternity leave. They have the 6-8 weeks of SHORT TERM DISABILITY, the same for anyone who has broken their leg, had a heart attack, had a baby, etc. It is likely an insurance policy that the employee has paid into, sometimes the company pays for the policy. In addition, you have the other 4-6 weeks of unpaid FMLA. I don't know what is fair but I know I hate when I hear about "paid maternity leave" which is really just short term disability. Maybe - maybe not. It is correct that I used a ST-disability policy to get a portion of my salary, but I suspect that people who are pushing for this are taking the medical aspects out of it. There is no way to justify a 26 week recovery period. The medical aspects come out so you can adopt a baby and get paid time off, or a man could take time off. Leaving maternity leave in the hands of short term disability throws up all sorts of barriers. Making "infant leave" a stand-alone subject, you can be way more inclusive. That is why supporters say this expense should come from the company directly, instead of an insurance company. What I meant and probably stated poorly is that I dislike when someone uses an STD policy for the birth of a child and they are told "oh lucky you have paid maternity leave". This isn't a separate benefit, it's a benefit anyone in the company who has signed up for short term disability has if a qualified event occurs.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Aug 12, 2015 9:32:34 GMT -5
For some tech jobs just the ramp up of company knowledge itself is long. So even a year off being a brain dead Mom, you still retain all of that and more. I don't know, my first day back it was like I never left. I spent a day or two getting up to speed and that was it. New hires are a lot more challenging to integrate. Makes sense. Each job and company is so individual there are definitely jobs/companies where the company knowledge and background are integral and valuable enough to want to retain. In the Big Four example I used, there was definitely some advantage to knowing company background, but that was far outweighed by the fast pace of the consulting assignments where the Firm knowledge was not a factor. In a month's period of time, you might be dropped into 3 or 4 different brand new companies, all paying your Firm top dollar to parachute in, become an instant expert on their (new, different) company, diagnose its' problems and propose custom solutions to the problems. If you're slow or can't quickly become that expert or worse yet, can't come up with new, innovative, successful solutions to whatever problem you've been hired to fix... you and your Firm fail, costing you a client, probably getting you fired and maybe even bringing down the client company if the problem you've been hired to fix is large. Nobody gives a rat's patootie if you're tired or have only been reading "Goodnight Moon" for a year... they need you to come up with $200 million or they'll default on that next debt payment. Oh, and it's nice that you have the Firm knowledge to know how to fill in the standard TP2 report, but really, you just need to figure out how to find that $200 million - now.
Tough to find temps for stuff like that. But it's also why time off and payment wasn't really the issue for people doing that type of work. We made enough money that we could hire a nanny if that's what we needed and were enough in demand that as long as we could do the work, we could take off whatever (unpaid) time we wanted and would have a job when we got back.
The point isn't that all jobs are one type or the other, it's that jobs are so different it's a really bad idea to try to force solutions like a year's maternity leave on employers and people. The solutions will work for some situations and make others worse.
I agree and this is part of the reason I have stuck with the same company for years, even though I definitely have some undesirables like a really crappy commute. I had a long term plan and weighed my pros and cons. Guess what, I don't plan on having more kids and I'm still there. I appreciate what they have given me. Some people will take advantage of things no matter what. 2 weeks paid or 52 weeks paid, it doesn't matter. I'm not on board with the gov't subsidizing maternity leave. I do feel bad for the person with a sick 8 week old infant in daycare and no PTO days left. That's a very tough spot and like you said, there isn't one big band-aid to fix it.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,030
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 12, 2015 9:34:01 GMT -5
After the joys of trying to just browse health insurance coverage thru the feds, I can heartily agree with I don't want them managing maternity leave.
And after dealing with medicaid for the kids I am not sure I want the state involved either.
Talk about the most ass backwards stupid ridiciously slow system I've ever seen in my life. I thought I was on candid camera b/c surely no one can be this incompetent.
No way I want them messing around with something that leaves my job hanging in the balance.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Aug 12, 2015 9:38:13 GMT -5
IDK just to play devil's advocate part of the premise of Idiocracy is the smart people were postponing having kids b/c it was never the right time. They wanted to have more money saved, they wanted to be in better spots in their careers blah blah. By the time they were ready the woman was unable to have kids. MAYBE ::dons flame suit:: if we presented the option of a year's maternity leave women wouldn't feel the need to postpone or even forgo having children all together in the name of their careers. That would potenitally lead to more higher earning "smart" people having kids. I agree with some of this; it's in society's best interest to encourage successful (and I'm deliberately not defining that because IMHO successful people come in many shapes, types, sizes - from the "smart" to the less smart; for society's purposes "successful" is more about people who are overall contributors in a meaningful way to the group at large and that can be other than financial ways) people to reproduce. But I'm not sure a year's maternity leave necessarily does that. Right now, not having the year of maternity leave mostly impacts 1) people without family to help with childcare and 2) the mid-level and not yet successful. The higher earning "smart" people and the people on welfare are OK under the current system; it's just that gap in the middle that we'd be addressing. And of the gap in the middle it will be very much job dependent whether a year off is a good thing or not.
For vocations like nursing, it's a nice windfall to get a year off and the only issue is cost since nurses are already scheduled and treated as interchangeable for employers. Sounds like it's similar for programmers and some of the high tech jobs. Other vocations, like CFO aren't as plug and play. Try finding a temp CFO.
Not only that, but the issue that hasn't been addressed at all is the loss of skills that happens over that year off. This isn't a year spent furthering skills or expanding job related skills in any way - it's a year where frankly most of us actually lose brainpower. Although it's not PC to discuss, an entire year of parenting a newborn - although incredibly important to that family - actually decreases the caregiver's skills that s/he will bring back to the employer. In fields like programming and finance, it's hard to imagine that the loss wouldn't be obvious and a problem. When I worked for a Big Four type firm, most of the women had 3 months' maternity leave. About 2/3 - 3/4 of the women quit immediately after taking their free 3 months. The ones that came back all talked about how much brainpower they'd lost in that time off. Can't imagine what taking a year off would do. I suspect taking a year off would result in MORE not fewer, high level women just quitting because the skill loss would be too noticeable.
I don't think that it's loss of skill hardly at all. It is lingering pregnancy brain at only 3 months post-partum, along with hormone levels readjusting and 3 months worth of sleep-deprivation. All of which is gone or much reduced by 6 months or a year post-partum.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Aug 12, 2015 9:38:02 GMT -5
As far as paternity leave under FMLA, I think it's looked at similar to PTO. I know here it is frowned upon to take 2 weeks off, people do it of course, but 1 week is much more PC. So in that way, you typically see Dads take off for about 1.5-2 weeks max after the birth of a kid.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,749
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 12, 2015 9:41:54 GMT -5
Maybe - maybe not. It is correct that I used a ST-disability policy to get a portion of my salary, but I suspect that people who are pushing for this are taking the medical aspects out of it. There is no way to justify a 26 week recovery period. The medical aspects come out so you can adopt a baby and get paid time off, or a man could take time off. Leaving maternity leave in the hands of short term disability throws up all sorts of barriers. Making "infant leave" a stand-alone subject, you can be way more inclusive. That is why supporters say this expense should come from the company directly, instead of an insurance company. What I meant and probably stated poorly is that I dislike when someone uses an STD policy for the birth of a child and they are told "oh lucky you have paid maternity leave". This isn't a separate benefit, it's a benefit anyone in the company who has signed up for short term disability has if a qualified event occurs. Yes, but it isn't a benefit that is available to everyone, and the terms are different. So "Your so lucky" coming from a fellow employee would fit your scenario, but "Your so lucky" from someone who works for a company that offers a crappy policy, or no policy, makes sense. I had two different policies for each of my kids - and got very different coverage. I felt "lucky" for having better coverage on that first kid.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Aug 12, 2015 9:43:33 GMT -5
What I meant and probably stated poorly is that I dislike when someone uses an STD policy for the birth of a child and they are told "oh lucky you have paid maternity leave". This isn't a separate benefit, it's a benefit anyone in the company who has signed up for short term disability has if a qualified event occurs. Yes, but it isn't a benefit that is available to everyone, and the terms are different. So "Your so lucky" coming from a fellow employee would fit your scenario, but "Your so lucky" from someone who works for a company that offers a crappy policy, or no policy, makes sense. I had two different policies for each of my kids - and got very different coverage. I felt "lucky" for having better coverage on that first kid. Touche
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 12, 2015 9:59:07 GMT -5
Not only that, but the issue that hasn't been addressed at all is the loss of skills that happens over that year off. This isn't a year spent furthering skills or expanding job related skills in any way - it's a year where frankly most of us actually lose brainpower. Although it's not PC to discuss, an entire year of parenting a newborn - although incredibly important to that family - actually decreases the caregiver's skills that s/he will bring back to the employer. In fields like programming and finance, it's hard to imagine that the loss wouldn't be obvious and a problem. When I worked for a Big Four type firm, most of the women had 3 months' maternity leave. About 2/3 - 3/4 of the women quit immediately after taking their free 3 months. The ones that came back all talked about how much brainpower they'd lost in that time off. Can't imagine what taking a year off would do. I suspect taking a year off would result in MORE not fewer, high level women just quitting because the skill loss would be too noticeable.
I don't think that it's loss of skill hardly at all. It is lingering pregnancy brain at only 3 months post-partum, along with hormone levels readjusting and 3 months worth of sleep-deprivation. All of which is gone or much reduced by 6 months or a year post-partum. I am going to cling to this idea with all my ever lovin' might. As someone who came back to work at 3 months or less post-partum both times, I was seriously convinced I had lost significant brainpower and have been sad about that loss for a very long time. My new story is that it was a temporary thing and the brain cells I thought I had lost will return at any moment.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Aug 12, 2015 10:32:18 GMT -5
As a woman with a PhD in a STEM field - I watch the pipeline bleed women every year, often from having children.
I had 12 weeks; I would have liked 6 months. A 3 month old baby is just still too tiny to be sent to daycare IMO. They still need their mamas. I spent half the next year pumping and nodding off at work anyways because my child wasn't sleeping. Not to mention recovering from my emergency C-section. It would have been better to spend 3 more months getting rest and healing than to go back to work and to pretend to be productive.
Luckily my spouse took 2 more months so my DD didn't go to daycare until 5 months. It seems to me babies really start being stronger, sleeping more, etc at 6 months. Why shouldn't we work with nature instead of fighting against it??
|
|
cktc
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 19, 2013 22:15:31 GMT -5
Posts: 3,202
|
Post by cktc on Aug 12, 2015 11:28:58 GMT -5
Why not make incentives for parents to continue working that extend beyond childbirth? I'd prefer more work from home and onsite/extended hour daycare options to more leave.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Aug 12, 2015 11:55:51 GMT -5
While I've not had a child, I HAVE been off of work for extended periods of time and I have seen how it has affected my productivity. IME, the longest I can stay away and step right back into things is about 3 weeks. It takes some time to get up to speed, but not that long. Being out for 6 weeks used to take me a couple months to have the same fluidity in my job that I had prior to going out.
After a year, I KNOW you lose a lot. When I went out on disability, after I was off the drugs and was healing, I started writing my dissertation. I got stuck on doing the stats. Despite the fact that these were things that I had done for the last 20 years of increasing complexity, I found that my brain was totally empty with regards to what I needed to do. Things that should have been simple made absolutely no sense to me. It was then that it really hit me that if you don't use it, you really do lose it - and lose it quickly.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Aug 12, 2015 12:08:06 GMT -5
I don't think that it's loss of skill hardly at all. It is lingering pregnancy brain at only 3 months post-partum, along with hormone levels readjusting and 3 months worth of sleep-deprivation. All of which is gone or much reduced by 6 months or a year post-partum. I am going to cling to this idea with all my ever lovin' might. As someone who came back to work at 3 months or less post-partum both times, I was seriously convinced I had lost significant brainpower and have been sad about that loss for a very long time. My new story is that it was a temporary thing and the brain cells I thought I had lost will return at any moment. Whatever you say. I came back within 3 months or less for both of my leaves, (and I was fine with going back when I did). I think my hormones are just now finally completely normalized after 2.5 years. I thought that my brain power had declined, but I have proof that it did not, which was 1.5 years post partum. Having a psych degree, I might have been more self-observant than most. I also enjoy reading articles on the subject, probably more than most. (For example, during and after pregnancy brain function is not diminished, but switched over to the emotional centers more.) There was a marked improvement in my focus and memory once I started getting real sleep, at 6 months, and at 1 year.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Aug 12, 2015 12:12:29 GMT -5
I am going to cling to this idea with all my ever lovin' might. As someone who came back to work at 3 months or less post-partum both times, I was seriously convinced I had lost significant brainpower and have been sad about that loss for a very long time. My new story is that it was a temporary thing and the brain cells I thought I had lost will return at any moment. Whatever you say. I came back within 3 months or less for both of my leaves, (and I was fine with going back when I did). I think my hormones are just now finally completely normalized after 2.5 years. I thought that my brain power had declined, but I have proof that it did not, which was 1.5 years post partum. Having a psych degree, I might have been more self-observant than most. I also enjoy reading articles on the subject, probably more than most. (For example, during and after pregnancy brain function is not diminished, but switched over to the emotional centers more.) There was a marked improvement in my focus and memory once I started getting real sleep, at 6 months, and at 1 year. YES! With my first I went back after 5 months and I was really struggling. I constantly felt like I was behind in every aspect of my life, until about the 1 year mark when he started to sleep thru. That's why the 2nd time I just went for it with the full year. I think it was better for everyone, workplace, me and my nerves (they are sometimes their own thing).
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 12, 2015 12:33:11 GMT -5
I am going to cling to this idea with all my ever lovin' might. As someone who came back to work at 3 months or less post-partum both times, I was seriously convinced I had lost significant brainpower and have been sad about that loss for a very long time. My new story is that it was a temporary thing and the brain cells I thought I had lost will return at any moment. Whatever you say. I came back within 3 months or less for both of my leaves, (and I was fine with going back when I did). I think my hormones are just now finally completely normalized after 2.5 years. I thought that my brain power had declined, but I have proof that it did not, which was 1.5 years post partum. Having a psych degree, I might have been more self-observant than most. I also enjoy reading articles on the subject, probably more than most. (For example, during and after pregnancy brain function is not diminished, but switched over to the emotional centers more.) There was a marked improvement in my focus and memory once I started getting real sleep, at 6 months, and at 1 year. This makes sense. For me some of the effect feels permanent. I don't think it is the hormones at this point, but just that I have so much more going on than I did pre-kids that my brain is filled with kid-related things. As a result I can't remember job-related stuff (or any stuff) like I use to be able to. I compensate by writing basically everything down now.
I do think it has nothing to do with time off though. 3 months or 6 months or even a year shouldn't make a huge difference in the catch-up time. I didn't lose any skills being out. I just had to be caught up on current projects.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Aug 12, 2015 12:34:33 GMT -5
I am going to cling to this idea with all my ever lovin' might. As someone who came back to work at 3 months or less post-partum both times, I was seriously convinced I had lost significant brainpower and have been sad about that loss for a very long time. My new story is that it was a temporary thing and the brain cells I thought I had lost will return at any moment. Whatever you say. I came back within 3 months or less for both of my leaves, (and I was fine with going back when I did). I think my hormones are just now finally completely normalized after 2.5 years. I thought that my brain power had declined, but I have proof that it did not, which was 1.5 years post partum. Having a psych degree, I might have been more self-observant than most. I also enjoy reading articles on the subject, probably more than most. (For example, during and after pregnancy brain function is not diminished, but switched over to the emotional centers more.) There was a marked improvement in my focus and memory once I started getting real sleep, at 6 months, and at 1 year. This was my experience as well- except it was exactly one year. I had never taken more than 1 week off work and even still- checked my laptop constantly. So leaving for 12 weeks without any access to work was really scary and I was worried about how that would affect my career. My performance after I returned had nothing to do with losing skills and everything to do with how my brain was functioning on 2 hours of interrupted sleep/night, hormones and the constant worry about the newborn who I couldn't physically be with during the work day. The skills were still there, but I struggled with articulation and overall sharpness. I was terrified that having a baby made me dumb, and I was doomed to struggle with thought process the rest of my life. I'm not saying this happens to everyone, but it's what happened to me. Fortunately, it all came back 1 year later and I'm as sharp as ever. As an employee, I did my best during those newborn days- but it was hard. Somehow I got the highest performance review and biggest bonus of my career after having my first. I didn't think I deserved it, but my behaviors must have changed for the better, even if I wasn't as sharp. I got a promotion after having my second. So, I guess working moms aren't the worst employees. And, I put in over 10 childless years at the company before having babies.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Aug 12, 2015 12:36:44 GMT -5
Netflix has recently announced that they will offer up to one year of unlimited parental leave for women and men. That's right, one year.
Several other companies have started offering more time off as well. Adobe announced it will allow up to 26 paid maternity leave and 16 weeks for paternity leave for fathers who are primary care givers. Microsoft is now offering up to 20 weeks of maternity leave.
www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/health/paid-parental-leave/index.html
Also, some are starting to state that paid parental leave is a right, not a favor.
www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/eisenman-netflix-parental-leave/
What do you think is fair as far as parental leave? Mandated or otherwise? Do you think the U.S needs radical change in this area?
What is your employer's policy?
As an employee who has never had children, I think that becoming a parent is an individual choice. As such, parents should not get a benefit when no compensatory benefit is provided to non-parents. Current benefit policies are decidedly discriminatory in favor of parents. Parental or adoptive leave. More heavily subsidized medical care benefits. Employer subsidized child care/child care facilities. Some states require paid leave time for parent/teacher conferences. Since there is a limited pool of money that is available for compensation and benefits, any benefits provided to parents where a compensatory benefit is not provided to non-parents has the effect of taking money/benefits from non- parents in order to giv them to parents. And that's just the formal system. The informal system adds benefits, such as leaving early for kids activities, leaving on time due to child care issues while non-parents work late to complete projects parents should be participating in, etc. And, when parents leave early, who gets the benefit of dealing with the issues that the parent would have dealt with, had they been at work? The non-parent. Refuse to cover for the absent parent? Not an option. The workplace culture of most businesses will have you branded uncooperative and not a team player if you refuse to take on the tasks of the absent parent. Now move outside the workplace and look at how the Internal Revenue code provides parents benefits where there is no comparable benefit for non-parents. Dependent deductions, childcare credits, and the like. In our culture, both our government and our employers commonly discriminate against non-parents. It's time for that discrimination to end, not get worse.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,146
|
Post by alabamagal on Aug 12, 2015 12:41:07 GMT -5
I went back to work after 6-8 weeks with all 3 kids. I had 6 weeks paid through STD and maybe took another 1 or 2 as vacation or unpaid.
I have always made much more money than DH. He was school teacher when we had first 2 kids. First kid was born in March and my 6 weeks plus 2 extra got us to his summer break. 2nd born inJuly so DH was home. After #3 he quit teaching and stayed home with kids for 6 months.
It was tough going back with each but we knew there was no choice.
My kids all grew up to be well adjusted young adults.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 12, 2015 12:43:42 GMT -5
Netflix has recently announced that they will offer up to one year of unlimited parental leave for women and men. That's right, one year.
Several other companies have started offering more time off as well. Adobe announced it will allow up to 26 paid maternity leave and 16 weeks for paternity leave for fathers who are primary care givers. Microsoft is now offering up to 20 weeks of maternity leave.
www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/health/paid-parental-leave/index.html
Also, some are starting to state that paid parental leave is a right, not a favor.
www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/eisenman-netflix-parental-leave/
What do you think is fair as far as parental leave? Mandated or otherwise? Do you think the U.S needs radical change in this area?
What is your employer's policy?
As an employee who has never had children, I think that becoming a parent is an individual choice. As such, parents should not get a benefit when no compensatory benefit is provided to non-parents. Current benefit policies are decidedly discriminatory in favor of parents. Parental or adoptive leave. More heavily subsidized medical care benefits. Employer subsidized child care/child care facilities. Some states require paid leave time for parent/teacher conferences. Since there is a limited pool of money that is available for compensation and benefits, any benefits provided to parents where a compensatory benefit is not provided to non-parents has the effect of And that's just the formal system. The informal system adds benefits, such as leaving early for kids activities, leaving on time due to child care issues while non-parents work late to complete projects parents should be participating in, etc. And, when parents leave erly, who gets the benefit of dealing with the issues that the parent wold have dealt with, had they been at work? The non-parent. Refuse to cover for the absent parent? Not an option. The worplace culture of most businesses will have you branded uncooperative and not a team player if you refuse to take on the tasks of the absent parent. Now move outside the workplace and look at how the Internal Revenue code provides parents benefits where there is no comparable benefit for non-parents. Dependent deductions, childcare credits, and the like. In our culture, both our government and our employers commonly discriminate against non-parents. It's time for that discrimination to end, not get worse. Honestly it sounds like you've worked in some shitty workplaces. If parents get away with everything & others are expected to pick up the slack, then blame it on the employer.
As far as the tax code. Some of it makes sense. Exemptions are based on number of people because the idea is you don't pay federal taxes on money spent on necessities & the amount of spending on necessities would be dependent on household size. Childcare deductions are similar to dozens of other deductions available, so I don't have a huge problem with those. If we are going to cut those, then cut mortgage, electric car, energy efficiency, student loan, and all the other deductions out there that only benefit certain groups.
Now, if you wanted to complain about the child tax credit, that I could understand. That one doesn't make much sense & was upped when Bush made the tax changes & no one ever set it back to the lower amount.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Aug 12, 2015 12:54:08 GMT -5
I think the biggest reason that we need some sort of paid parental leave (even if it's only a few weeks) is not for people who work in decent paying jobs. It's for the women who often comes back to work days after they've given birth. Because they simply can't afford to take off any time. For those women i would like to see at least 4-6 weeks provided. So at the very least they can recover physically from giving birth. But, I also would like to see the same option provided to those people in those kinds of jobs who have surgery and come back sooner than they are physically ready because there is no sort of paid disability leave.
|
|
cktc
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 19, 2013 22:15:31 GMT -5
Posts: 3,202
|
Post by cktc on Aug 12, 2015 13:03:56 GMT -5
As an employee who has never had children, I think that becoming a parent is an individual choice. As such, parents should not get a benefit when no compensatory benefit is provided to non-parents. But not having children is also a choice (typically). You could opt into all those wonderful benefits by becoming a parent. You choose otherwise, that's not discrimination.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Aug 12, 2015 13:14:20 GMT -5
As an employee who has never had children, I think that becoming a parent is an individual choice. As such, parents should not get a benefit when no compensatory benefit is provided to non-parents. But not having children is also a choice (typically). You could opt into all those wonderful benefits by becoming a parent. You choose otherwise, that's not discrimination. Excellent point about choice. It's like if I begrudged all my co-workers who have taken advantage of tuition reimbursement. They've gotten to leave for school, studied during the work day and sometimes the field has nothing to do with any jobs at my company. For example, one co-worker went back for HVAC and we work in financial services. I think it's great they've taken advantage of the benefit and have never once thought it's not fair. It's a benefit available to the employees who choose to be students.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Aug 12, 2015 13:47:12 GMT -5
I think the current law is fine as is. I view childbirth as a medical issue, and it should be covered under laws/policies that cover any type of medical absence at work. As far as an employer should be concerned, taking time off for a knee replacement or heart attack should be no different than that for having a baby.
At least that's how I look at it.
I'm fine with employers electing to offer more parental leave if they choose, but many businesses can't absorb the cost of paying for an unproductive employee for six months to a year. At that point, the employee might get pregnant again and take off another six months to a year and be gone for 2-3 years, or most of it. It's just not realistic. Plus, is it fair to the other employees who don't have kids to cover for you for that length of time?
And I'm concerned that such policies would discourage employers from hiring women of childbearing age. Be careful what you wish for. An acquaintance from Germany was explaining the German parental leave laws a few years ago. IIRC, three years leave for Mom after the birth of each child. At least partial pay during leave. Upon completion of leave, return to the same job. If job no longer exists, retrain for a job at least as good. Acquaintance's wife was starting to think about her return to work after her nearly 9 years of on-going parental leave (3 kids). Certainly, if politicians think they can continue to buy votes and businesses think they can continue to buy employees by offering liberal parental benefits, German practices will become a benchmark for what should be done, sooner or later. I disagree with your contention that childbirth is a medical issue. Few people have the opportunity to choose whether or not they will have a heart attack or whether they will need a knee or hip replacement or whether they will get cancer. However, in this day and age, the decision to have children is entirely at the discretion of the parents (as evidenced by the daughter born to my lezbian cousin).
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Aug 12, 2015 13:49:07 GMT -5
wow - so many thoughts
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Aug 12, 2015 14:15:50 GMT -5
As an employee who has never had children, I think that becoming a parent is an individual choice. As such, parents should not get a benefit when no compensatory benefit is provided to non-parents. Current benefit policies are decidedly discriminatory in favor of parents. Parental or adoptive leave. More heavily subsidized medical care benefits. Employer subsidized child care/child care facilities. Some states require paid leave time for parent/teacher conferences. Since there is a limited pool of money that is available for compensation and benefits, any benefits provided to parents where a compensatory benefit is not provided to non-parents has the effect of And that's just the formal system. The informal system adds benefits, such as leaving early for kids activities, leaving on time due to child care issues while non-parents work late to complete projects parents should be participating in, etc. And, when parents leave erly, who gets the benefit of dealing with the issues that the parent wold have dealt with, had they been at work? The non-parent. Refuse to cover for the absent parent? Not an option. The worplace culture of most businesses will have you branded uncooperative and not a team player if you refuse to take on the tasks of the absent parent. Now move outside the workplace and look at how the Internal Revenue code provides parents benefits where there is no comparable benefit for non-parents. Dependent deductions, childcare credits, and the like. In our culture, both our government and our employers commonly discriminate against non-parents. It's time for that discrimination to end, not get worse. Honestly it sounds like you've worked in some shitty workplaces. If parents get away with everything & others are expected to pick up the slack, then blame it on the employer.
As far as the tax code. Some of it makes sense. Exemptions are based on number of people because the idea is you don't pay federal taxes on money spent on necessities & the amount of spending on necessities would be dependent on household size. Childcare deductions are similar to dozens of other deductions available, so I don't have a huge problem with those. If we are going to cut those, then cut mortgage, electric car, energy efficiency, student loan, and all the other deductions out there that only benefit certain groups.
Now, if you wanted to complain about the child tax credit, that I could understand. That one doesn't make much sense & was upped when Bush made the tax changes & no one ever set it back to the lower amount.
Angel!, it sounds like you're a parent, so you've been on the benefitting side of parent/non-parent equation. Being parent or working mother friendly is a part of the workplace culture we have built over the last 50 years or so. It's not unique to a few employers. It's common throughout large businesses in the US. If you look at the practices of the company you work for, I'm betting that you will find several policies that benefit only parents, but no compensatory policies that only benefit non-parents, or that equalize the value benefits for all employees. While cafeteria plans that would have done that were all the talk, decades ago, it was a concept that never took hold. Shitty workplaces? No. One of the places that I worked is recognized every year as a great place to work, for working mothers, LGBT employees, minorities, etc. However, there is no organization that advocates for or recognizes employers who offer comparable benefits for non-parents that they offer to parents. We have reduced discrimination against some groups of employees and made life easier for working parents, but in the process, we have created discrimination against non-parents where it previously did not exist. Regading the tax code, it makes sense to you because it appears that you benefit from the provisions of the tax code. Since I don't benefit to the extent that you benefit, it doesn't make as much sense to me. To me, the tax code should be about funding government operations, not about social engineering. To eliminate the social engineering present in the tax code, we'd have to eliminate a lot of tax deductions. OK. Let's do it.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Aug 12, 2015 14:29:16 GMT -5
As an employee who has never had children, I think that becoming a parent is an individual choice. As such, parents should not get a benefit when no compensatory benefit is provided to non-parents. But not having children is also a choice (typically). You could opt into all those wonderful benefits by becoming a parent. You choose otherwise, that's not discrimination. Your argument is one that is typically used to justify the policies that we currently have. I look at the kids/no kids choice in the same light as a staycation/European vacation choice. If I choose to take an expensive vacation to Europe every year, should you be forced to help pay some of the costs? Should I get a tax deduction because I have contributed, theoretically, to international understanding of the American perspective and social structure? Or because I have acquired some appreciation for perspective or social structure of other countries? After all, I found my European vacations to be quite educational. Certainly, improving the population's ability to function in a multinational/multicutural business world is beneficial to the US. No?
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,192
Member is Online
|
Post by bean29 on Aug 12, 2015 14:31:27 GMT -5
I had about 8 weeks off when I had each of my kids. If you have quality daycare lined up, and no complications for Mom or Baby, that is adequate imho, but I am an accountant...I don't think that a year or even two off would cause me to lose my knowledge...especially if one made some effort to stay current by say CE courses etc. That said, if you are returning to work at the 8 or 12 week mark, you still have sick child days and wellness visits for immunizations etc to contend with so 8-12 weeks plus say 10 PTO days might be a good option for most parents.
I got 66 2/3 pay (Short Term Disability) when I had my 1st and Full pay when I had my second. Second one was at least partially STD but I am not sure if 100% of the 100% I was paid was from disability ins. We were also told we would receive our bonus compensation awarded while we were off, but they rolled that back and refused to pay it. Que Sera, Sera. My kids were planned and the compensation was not a factor in the decision so much. I would not have chosen to work at an employer w/o STD if possible, but we felt we had adequate savings at the time to continue our plans without the paycheck.
I have been working at an employer who has no STD for 8 years now though, and it does not bother me enough to have me actively looking for a different position. This employer lacks the STD policy, but they are decent about allowing flex time and that has benefited me as an employee with older children and 2 dogs who think they are humans.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Aug 12, 2015 14:34:12 GMT -5
Having/raising children is an investment in the future of this country/society. If you're in a nursing home at the age of 90, who's going to be taking care of you? Not your contemporaries.
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
I identify as a post-menopausal childless cat lady and I vote.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,979
|
Post by cronewitch on Aug 12, 2015 14:35:53 GMT -5
Child bearing woman are different classes from each other. One company might have highly skilled woman who are highly paid mostly over 30 where another might have unskilled mostly 16-30. When I worked with women most highly skilled didn't have babies, we were too old or already had them or whatever. One software company only the receptionist had a baby in the 7 years I was there, she took maternity leave and didn't come back. Two men fathered children, one didn't miss any time that I remember. The other took more than he could afford, his baby was having seizures so he and his wife were working 24/7 on his health. They were having to do things like recording how many seizures he had and hour so were taking turns watching him even in the hospital. He used up all his sick and vacation time so people donated more, his wife didn't return to her job after maternity leave as planned.
A family with high paid careers can sometimes get a nanny or other help so they can get some sleep. Welfare type programs like Medicaid and subsidized daycare help the less highly paid. Sick babies would be much harder on any family.
The high tech firms offering great leaves won't have as many births per employee as a lower paid company like Walmart who hire more woman and younger woman.
|
|