Mandatory Paid Parental Leave, how much is fair?

[HoneyBBQ]

Aug 13, 2015 10:44:16 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

::But 75% (or so) of people have children. 75% of the population do not get cancer or have narcolepsy. Why is having a benefit available seen as taking away from someone else?::

Because someone is paying for that benefit.  So if you get "a benefit" of $100, and in order to give you that benefit you're taking $100 away from me...then you're taking away from someone else.  There are limited resources in this world, anytime you give a person one thing from a pooled resource, you're effectively taking that opportunity away from others. 

Having kids is about the last thing we should give people paid time off for...it is 100% a choice.  It's also not a choice we need to encourage people on.

I also think the argument of "pay me to do nothing, because otherwise I'll just be a poor employee" isn't exactly a rousing argument.

So, by your logic, if I don't max out my 401k match, am I  "giving" you money? 

Somehow the rest of the modern world disagrees with you.  I guess all of Europe, Canada, and the middle East is wrong in granting parents the right/benefit/ability to care for their newborns?

[HoneyBBQ]

Aug 13, 2015 11:04:43 GMT -5 movingforward said:

I haven't read the entire thread but if my company was forced to give 6-12 months of paid maternity leave we would end up never hiring people of childbearing age.  Essentially, the company would end up a good old boys club like it was 40 yrs ago.  I would absolutely HATE to see that happen and I am about 95% certain that is the way it would go.  We are a small association and we don't have the resources available to make this happen.  We can't expect a small staff to pick-up the extra workload for that long and what if 2-3 women have kids at the same time.  We would be in REAL trouble. 

Except... that would be illegal.

[hoops902]

::Somehow the rest of the modern world disagrees with you. I guess all of Europe, Canada, and the middle East is wrong in granting parents the right/benefit/ability to care for their newborns?::

You have the right/benefit/ability to do that in the U.S.  Nobody is enforcing slave labor to make you go to your job.  It's just that you have to be financially responsible for it yourself here.  It's not news to me that most of the modern world is absolutely for taking money from people who work harder than they do to subsidize their poor choices. It happens in the U.S. as well, hence welfare.  Those who are looking to take money from other people are almost always largely FOR the idea.

::So, by your logic, if I don't max out my 401k match, am I "giving" you money? ::

You're giving the company money.  And since my bonus is based in part on company profitability...yes.  Or if I own stock in that company, my value goes up, so again, yes.

[hoops902]

Aug 13, 2015 13:42:27 GMT -5 HoneyBBQ said:

Aug 13, 2015 11:04:43 GMT -5 movingforward said:

I haven't read the entire thread but if my company was forced to give 6-12 months of paid maternity leave we would end up never hiring people of childbearing age.  Essentially, the company would end up a good old boys club like it was 40 yrs ago.  I would absolutely HATE to see that happen and I am about 95% certain that is the way it would go.  We are a small association and we don't have the resources available to make this happen.  We can't expect a small staff to pick-up the extra workload for that long and what if 2-3 women have kids at the same time.  We would be in REAL trouble. 

Except... that would be illegal.

It depends on which part of the excerpt you use.  It's not illegal to refuse to hire people of childbearing age.  You could have an entire workforce of middle-aged to old men and women (obviously the piece about boys club could potentially prove to be illegal...though it's only illegal if you get convicted of it...and there are very simple ways to make it legal in dissuading people you don't want to work there not to apply).

[HoneyBBQ]

Aug 13, 2015 12:58:24 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

::Then change if for everyone.::

Why change FMLA for everyone?  Let's just give everyone unlimited time off for their decisions.  No matter what decisions or unexpected circumstances lead you to want to take time off, you get it off.

Right, because that is the logical next step.

Like allowing gays to marry leads to people marrying horses. 

[HoneyBBQ]

Aug 13, 2015 13:02:10 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Aug 13, 2015 12:31:37 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

I took "people" to mean men and women. I thought we were talking about leave for both parents caring for the child, but I haven't been reading closely, so I could be wrong.

Normally, I'd agree but HoneyBBQ posted earlier that SHE thought 6 months was more adequate for this because of HER issues (lack of sleep, hormones, pumping/breastfeeding, etc.) which are mostly not applicable 50% of the population.

I meant both men AND women. 

[HoneyBBQ]

Aug 13, 2015 12:10:58 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

But 75% (or so) of people have children. 75% of the population do not get cancer or have narcolepsy. Why is having a benefit available seen as taking away from someone else? It's not. It's merely another benefit. And I personally didn't suggest a year, I suggested 6 months.

As you are arguing this benefit for women who have had children (which you posted due to the lack of sleep, hormones, pumping/breastfeeding) then you're not quite right.  Women only comprise ~50% of the population.  If 75% do have children (and I don't think that the number is that high of child bearing women these days), the real number is 37.5%.

According to this data from 2012, only about 59% of child bearing women aged 15-50 have children (p.3 top line all women).  41% do not.

www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p20-575.pdf

Well, you're going to have to double that to get to both MEN AND WOMEN having a child. so 37.5 x 2 = 75%. 

[hoops902]

Aug 13, 2015 14:53:09 GMT -5 HoneyBBQ said:

Aug 13, 2015 12:58:24 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

::Then change if for everyone.::

Why change FMLA for everyone?  Let's just give everyone unlimited time off for their decisions.  No matter what decisions or unexpected circumstances lead you to want to take time off, you get it off.

Right, because that is the logical next step.

Like allowing gays to marry leads to people marrying horses. 

It SHOULD be the next logical step. I'd be far more supportive of a system where people can take time off for their choices, as opposed to saying "some choices we'll pay you for time off, some choices we won't".  Why is the choice to procreate more deserving of paid time off than a choice to travel, or set up a charity, or spend the summer farming?  It's only because people make the fallacious but popular "it's for the children!!!" argument.

[hoops902]

::According to this data from 2012, only about 59% of child bearing women aged 15-50 have children (p.3 top line all women). 41% do not.::

Can't measure how many HAVE children currently, you have to measure how many will have them prior to death.  That's the number affected.

[Lizard Queen]

Aug 13, 2015 15:06:39 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

::According to this data from 2012, only about 59% of child bearing women aged 15-50 have children (p.3 top line all women). 41% do not.::

Can't measure how many HAVE children currently, you have to measure how many will have them prior to death.  That's the number affected.

Since this is assumed to be an ongoing benefit, and not one only applicable to women who are both currently between the ages of 15-50 and going to have children by the time they turn 50, it is a reasonable comparison to look at all who have children.  I'm assuming that today's baby girls who may have a baby in 20-40 years won't be cut off from the benefit.  They're not going to say, sorry, you weren't at least 15 in2015, so you don't get any maternity benefits.  Could happen, but that doesn't make a good comparison in how many could possibly benefit.

[hoops902]

Aug 13, 2015 15:14:48 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

Aug 13, 2015 15:06:39 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

::According to this data from 2012, only about 59% of child bearing women aged 15-50 have children (p.3 top line all women). 41% do not.::

Can't measure how many HAVE children currently, you have to measure how many will have them prior to death.  That's the number affected.

Since this is assumed to be an ongoing benefit, and not one only applicable to women who are both currently between the ages of 15-50 and going to have children by the time they turn 50, it is a reasonable comparison to look at all who have children.  I'm assuming that today's baby girls who may have a baby in 20-40 years won't be cut off from the benefit.  They're not going to say, sorry, you weren't at least 15 in2015, so you don't get any maternity benefits.  Could happen, but that doesn't make a good comparison in how many could possibly benefit.

Ummm that's precisely what I'm saying.  If 59% of all women of child bearing age right now currently have kids, the number affected will be much larger, because plenty of those remaining 41% will eventually have kids.

[Lizard Queen]

Aug 13, 2015 15:25:33 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Aug 13, 2015 15:14:48 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

Since this is assumed to be an ongoing benefit, and not one only applicable to women who are both currently between the ages of 15-50 and going to have children by the time they turn 50, it is a reasonable comparison to look at all who have children.  I'm assuming that today's baby girls who may have a baby in 20-40 years won't be cut off from the benefit.  They're not going to say, sorry, you weren't at least 15 in2015, so you don't get any maternity benefits.  Could happen, but that doesn't make a good comparison in how many could possibly benefit.

Ummm that's precisely what I'm saying.  If 59% of all women of child bearing age right now currently have kids, the number affected will be much larger, because plenty of those remaining 41% will eventually have kids.

Sorry, I see the quote now, and see what you're saying. 

[zibazinski]

I'd worry the company would figure out they can get along without me. We haven't replaced DH's office manager. DH said she wasn't necessary but he wasn't ever going to fire her. She retired at 68. I think it bothers her that she wasn't replaced.

[thyme4change]

Aug 13, 2015 10:26:46 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Aug 13, 2015 9:55:20 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

All of the things I rattled off may or may not fall under STD or FLMA (except divorce)- but I doubt any policy would give 100% pay for as long as someone might need - which is basically what the political stance is - that women should get 12 months of pay for birth.  My stance is that we are being too specific by defining birth as something that should be compensated, and every single other disease - you are on your own, and good luck with that.

Maybe I'm missing it, but I'm not seeing anyone arguing for 12 months paid at 100%.  

Almost all those things you listed would qualify for STD, FMLA, & even LTD if they are ongoing problems. So I don't see the 'you are on your own, and good luck with that' with those. 

Bernie Sanders wants paid leave, 12 months, full pay - straight from employers.

[weltschmerz]

Aug 13, 2015 22:41:02 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Aug 13, 2015 10:26:46 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Maybe I'm missing it, but I'm not seeing anyone arguing for 12 months paid at 100%.  

Almost all those things you listed would qualify for STD, FMLA, & even LTD if they are ongoing problems. So I don't see the 'you are on your own, and good luck with that' with those. 

Bernie Sanders wants paid leave, 12 months, full pay - straight from employers.

You really should learn the difference between a week and a month. It's not that hard.

www.newrepublic.com/article/122025/paid-leave-week-bernie-sanders-pushes-family-values

He then outlined three family-oriented policies that would be at the center of his “Family Values Plan”: making sure that all American have 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, paid sick leave and 10 days a year of paid vacation time.

www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-wants-to-take-back-family-values-121276760221.html

[gooddecisions]

Aug 14, 2015 3:10:15 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

making sure that all American have 12 weeks of paid maternity leave

Kind of an oxymoron since maternity leave can never apply to all Americans, only half.

That was bad reporting blogging. This one is more specific:

"The FAMILY Act to Provide Universal Paid Family and Medical Leave
Workers in the United States should have at least 12 weeks of universal paid family and medical
leave. The FAMILY Act introduced by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand does just that. This bill, which Sen.
Sanders is co-sponsoring, allows mothers and fathers to receive 12 weeks of paid family leave to care
for a baby. It also allows workers to take the same amount of paid time off if they are diagnosed
with cancer or have other serious medical conditions or to take care of family members who are
seriously ill."



www.sanders.senate.gov/download/061115-familyvaluesagendafactsheet?inline=file 

[thyme4change]

Aug 14, 2015 0:05:42 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Aug 13, 2015 22:41:02 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Bernie Sanders wants paid leave, 12 months, full pay - straight from employers.

You really should learn the difference between a week and a month. It's not that hard.

www.newrepublic.com/article/122025/paid-leave-week-bernie-sanders-pushes-family-values

He then outlined three family-oriented policies that would be at the center of his “Family Values Plan”: making sure that all American have 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, paid sick leave and 10 days a year of paid vacation time.

www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-wants-to-take-back-family-values-121276760221.html

Sorry - I guess I got confused because he was in the news the same day as Netflix was saying a year, and Bernie kept quoting the Scandinavia model - which is a full year.  If he had to drop 1/3rd of the plan above, I think paid maternity leave is the least important of the three.  75% of Americans have kids - so having paid sick leave and vacation time every year will be soooo, sooo, sooo much more helpful as that kid grows up and gets strep throat or whatever over and over.  

[thyme4change]

Workers in the United States should have at least 12 weeks of universal paid family and medical
leave.

What does "universal" mean in this sentence?  Does that mean it comes from tax dollars?

[whoisjohngalt]

I think some of the paid leave's responsibility should be put back on individuals and not tied to the employer, something like HSA.   You can bank is as much as you can and take it with you wherever you go.

The problem is that since there is no education about any kind of financial responsibility, we, once again, will have a large portion of population who will have to be subsidized. 

I think before any new laws and all kinds of reforms are considered, we should provide education and try to change the mentality of millions of people about this and other similar issues

But that doesn't buy votes, promising unpaid leave does. 

ETA:  I meant to say "promising PAID leave"

[Shooby]

I think we have to realize that giving birth is a medical event and that women do need time to recover. We also have to recognize that this event is solely the responsibility of women. And, that there really is a limited window of time for women to have a family. So, I think we need a reasoned approach. If it is too much then employers will be far less likely to hire women of childbearing years if it is a big burden on them. On the other hand to have no leave seems barbaric. There should be some medical consideration for that.

[emma1420]

Aug 14, 2015 8:46:50 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

I think some of the paid leave's responsibility should be put back on individuals and not tied to the employer, something like HSA.   You can bank is as much as you can and take it with you wherever you go.

The problem is that since there is no education about any kind of financial responsibility, we, once again, will have a large portion of population who will have to be subsidized. 

I think before any new laws and all kinds of reforms are considered, we should provide education and try to change the mentality of millions of people about this and other similar issues

But that doesn't buy votes, promising unpaid leave does. 

I like this idea, especially if employers are required to match the amount of time out in by employees.  And/or employers are required to add a certain number of days per year.  Otherwise I think that it will be tough for employees to rack up enough time to make a difference.

we have a long term sick bank, which I think many employers do, that all unused PTO goes into at the end of the year (barring what you can carry over).  The only problem is that you can only use it once you've gone through all of your PTO.  It would work much better if that sort of bank could be tapped into first for medical leave that exceeds a few days/week.

[whoisjohngalt]

I never liked "use PTO first" policies.

I don't know if it's bc stopped working when I had kids but I think it's a lot more important to provide leave for illnesses, both the employee's and the family than "maternity" ones

I can't even imagine what one serious illness or an elderly parent can do to a person's time off.

And actually, I wouldn't mind if the paid leave bank could be used for anything.  I would have been totally fine banking a day or two a month so I could go on 3 weeks European vacation when I was single.

[Wisconsin Beth]

I don't like PTO policies.  I've yet to see one where the amount of permitted time off works in favor of the employees.  At best it might remain the same but it usually seems to go down, down, down.  For example, my husband used to get 1 week of sick leave and 4 weeks of vacation.  They moved to PTO.  He now gets 4 weeks of PTO, period.  Plus they used to add VAC time after you worked there long enough.  We've yet to see an increase in PTO time for him.  Same for other family and friends who've made the shift. 

[souldoubt]

To be blunt then I think you've worked for or had experience with crappy companies as far as their PTO policies go.  My current employer has a PTO policy, I started at 15 days a year and can now max at over 30 with no use it or lose it policy.  My previous employer also gave us more PTO each year and didn't have a use it or lose it policy.  I realize it's company specific and that's something I take into account when interviewing for a position along with all the other benefits they provide.  Not sure what different states require but in CA they implemented a sick policy requirement so that even if you have a PTO policy you now get an additional 3 sick days to use that you lose if they're unused at year-end.  

[Wisconsin Beth]

That may be.  I think too, it's different when you're a long term employee.  DH had about 15 years in with his company when they switched to PTO.  And I'm fairly sure the company went to a 1 size fits all PTO policy.  I'll have to ask DH. 

My employer hasn't shifted to PTO.  I'm not aware of any current talks on switching to it.  But they did change how we earn VAC/SL and the accrual rates a few years back. 

[zibazinski]

I liked how my school did it. We got one day a month so basically ten days a year. Sick or personal, up to you. You could also bank it. I heard of teachers getting huge checks at their retirement time because they had so much time banked. There was a formula for paying it out. You didn't get the time at your last pay scale but it was a combination of over the years. I used all my time. Mental health days were more important to me than a check at the end. But if I had needed it for kids, awesome. I had DS in the summer, no issue there and DD the beginning of January and I went back to work the end of January so used very little time. But after the divorce I usually took the kids somewhere during thanksgiving and before we had the whole week off, I took the two days before the holiday began and we went away for the week. Stuff like that. 

[Miss Tequila]

Aug 14, 2015 0:05:42 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Aug 13, 2015 22:41:02 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Bernie Sanders wants paid leave, 12 months, full pay - straight from employers.

You really should learn the difference between a week and a month. It's not that hard.

www.newrepublic.com/article/122025/paid-leave-week-bernie-sanders-pushes-family-values

He then outlined three family-oriented policies that would be at the center of his “Family Values Plan”: making sure that all American have 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, paid sick leave and 10 days a year of paid vacation time.

www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-wants-to-take-back-family-values-121276760221.html

Why would all Americans need paid maternity leave? Unless I missed something in biology class, men can't actually identify as a mom who has pushed a human out of her.

[Angel!]

Aug 14, 2015 10:58:48 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Aug 14, 2015 0:05:42 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

You really should learn the difference between a week and a month. It's not that hard.

www.newrepublic.com/article/122025/paid-leave-week-bernie-sanders-pushes-family-values

He then outlined three family-oriented policies that would be at the center of his “Family Values Plan”: making sure that all American have 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, paid sick leave and 10 days a year of paid vacation time.

www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-wants-to-take-back-family-values-121276760221.html

Why would all Americans need paid maternity leave? Unless I missed something in biology class, men can't actually identify as a mom who has pushed a human out of her.

The act wasn't just for maternity leave, more just paid leave for FMLA events:

"allows mothers and fathers to receive 12 weeks of paid family leave to care
for a baby. It also allows workers to take the same amount of paid time off if they are diagnosed
with cancer or have other serious medical conditions or to take care of family members who are
seriously ill."

[Miss Tequila]

Aug 14, 2015 11:01:24 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Aug 14, 2015 10:58:48 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Why would all Americans need paid maternity leave? Unless I missed something in biology class, men can't actually identify as a mom who has pushed a human out of her.

The act wasn't just for maternity leave, more just paid leave for FMLA events:

"allows mothers and fathers to receive 12 weeks of paid family leave to care
for a baby. It also allows workers to take the same amount of paid time off if they are diagnosed
with cancer or have other serious medical conditions or to take care of family members who are
seriously ill."

I was only replying to weltz as she gets so cocky when someone else makes a typo. Of course when she is busted for posting inaccurate statements (for example, the is birth rate) she never comes back

[movingforward]

Aug 14, 2015 9:21:21 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

I don't like PTO policies.  I've yet to see one where the amount of permitted time off works in favor of the employees.  At best it might remain the same but it usually seems to go down, down, down.  For example, my husband used to get 1 week of sick leave and 4 weeks of vacation.  They moved to PTO.  He now gets 4 weeks of PTO, period.  Plus they used to add VAC time after you worked there long enough.  We've yet to see an increase in PTO time for him.  Same for other family and friends who've made the shift. 

I get 4 weeks of PTO which is the max.  The max used to be 3 weeks (this was after 5 years of employment) and at one point the board wanted to make it 2 weeks .  About 2 months ago I fought to get all staff with 5+ years 4 weeks of PTO and 3 weeks for those with less than 5 years.  We have a few employees who have only been with the company for 2-3 years and they were only getting 2 week of PTO a year.  With no separate sick days and such few total days they were coming to work sick and infecting the rest of the staff.  One employee has a ten year son who has some medical issues and she blew threw her 2 weeks in no time.  The time off policy really was quite ridiculous.  I am okay with the current policy of 4 weeks max.  We have other good benefits like flexible hours.  Most everyone in the office works 4/10 each week.  Half the staff takes Monday and the other half takes Friday off.  Having a 3 day weekend most weeks is pretty great (I say most because occasionally we might have to work a weekend).  I am fairly certain I would have a really difficult time going back to 5 days a week. 

Though my previous place of employment was toxic they did have, what I believe, was a good time off policy.  The vacation did max out at 4 weeks; however, you received 10 sick days a year and those could be carried over.  I rarely took sick time so I had a ton of days saved up.  When my mom had her heart attack and I needed to be out of state for a month I was able to use my saved sick time and I still had quite a few days left for anything else that might have popped up.  I never had to touch my vacation time.  My co-worker had to be out for 6 weeks after a major surgery and had enough time saved to get paid for all 6 weeks.  Carrying over sick time can be extremely beneficial to those who don't call in sick very often.