naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 28, 2016 8:28:23 GMT -5
What ideas do you have and how to implement them.
I think at least six months, but how do we implement that for overall nicety for the family and company.
What about paid or not paid.
How about more men taking extended leave.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Nov 28, 2016 8:34:04 GMT -5
NJ has paid mat leave through the Unemployment/Disability insurance. I pay for the insurance every week out of my paycheck and childbirth is covered just like any other medical event. It isn't anywhere near six months but more like three but IMO it is a good place to start. Just a side note my mom used to get totally pissed off when she would see a pregnant woman at the Unemployment/Disability office. No amount of explaining to her that it was also a disability office could make her understand that they weren't necessarily there to collect unemployment.
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 28, 2016 8:36:52 GMT -5
I agree three months is a start. Is there anything else we can call pregnancy and childbirth other than disability?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Nov 28, 2016 8:45:49 GMT -5
I view childbirth as a short term disability, and thus should be treated as such.
Perhaps three to six months. Paid out of the employees own sick leave or short term disability plan, otherwise unpaid.
Employers, obviously, should have the right to offer more generous leave if they want, but I assume we're talking the minimum required by law.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Nov 28, 2016 8:51:08 GMT -5
I agree three months is a start. Is there anything else we can call pregnancy and childbirth other than disability? I think it's the best way to define it. It's a gender neutral definition. What difference should it make to an employer if you need to take a few months off to recover from childbirth, a heart attack, or a knee replacement?
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 28, 2016 8:56:03 GMT -5
True Phoenix. I don't really know why I seem to have a problem with it being called a disability. Not a "I am going to go batshit crazy if it doesn't change" just a general maybe we can change it somehow, maybe? Just throwing things out there.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,140
|
Post by giramomma on Nov 28, 2016 9:48:29 GMT -5
I'd also like to see women encouraged to think about these things before they procreate.
I did not have paid leave at my job. I managed my sick and vacation hours so that by the time I had my third child..I was able to take almost 5 months off paid (at a full time rate.)
I didn't have the luxury of not thinking things through beforehand, as the primary breadwinner. Our family likes living in a place with walls and a roof and they like having a full belly.
I supposed I could have got all huffy about not having paid leave and whatnot. I'm also savvy enough to understand that when you look at my job benefits in total, I'm still ahead even if I don't have paid maternity leave.
I also think something like maternity leave is hard to prescribe a set amount of time folks are allowed off. There are too many variables: easy kids, hard kids, moms that recover quickly after birth and moms that don't, moms that aren't cut out to be a SAHM and moms that are.
Even 6 months off paid, might be perceived as not enough for a woman who got a crap sleeper as a kid, especially if the woman doesn't want to go back to her job, for whatever reasons. Heck, a year might not even be enough.
And yet, another woman might have an easy time with recovery after giving birth, have a great sleeper, and need adult stimulation. They might going crazy with a 6 month leave.
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 28, 2016 10:18:15 GMT -5
All good points.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 28, 2016 10:23:48 GMT -5
True Phoenix. I don't really know why I seem to have a problem with it being called a disability. Not a "I am going to go batshit crazy if it doesn't change" just a general maybe we can change it somehow, maybe? Just throwing things out there. Same here, I think it's because compared to all the other things people mention as disabilities, this one is a direct choice (I think you can argue lots of others are indirect choices...you choose to eat horribly and not exercise, a heart attack is the outcome...but nobody says "I want a heart attack, I'm going to make sure it happens in 3 months). I think another part of it is also that it seems to affect women so differently, and yet there's just this one standard length of time. People suffering other disabilities return to work when that disability is over...women who give birth seem to just get a specific period of time (for example, if you broke your leg and were claiming disability, then you were seen out dancing at a nightclub with your leg just fine...people would say you're scamming the system. If you give birth and you're fine a week later...nobody says anything about you being out and about other than "you're doing great").
We can call it a "disability" but we don't treat it in any way like other things we call disabilities.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Nov 28, 2016 10:57:57 GMT -5
Well, there's the disability part, and then there's the taking care of the tiny baby part...
|
|
tcu2003
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 31, 2010 15:24:01 GMT -5
Posts: 4,955
|
Post by tcu2003 on Nov 28, 2016 11:23:32 GMT -5
I don't think 3 months (and it isn't even 3 months, it's 12 weeks) is long enough. Today is my first day back from maternity leave - my daughter will be 13 weeks tomorrow and 3 months on Wednesday. She is a much easier baby than her big brother, but that still doesn't mean I was completely ready to come back to work today. She still needs to eat in the middle of the night, I'm breastfeeding so I am pumping 3 times a day at work, and brain-development-wise, this age is still crucial that babies spend the majority of their time with a single primary caregiver they've bonded with (which is typically the mother). I'd say 16-20 weeks at a minimum, and 26 weeks would be even better.
That said, i also recognize what a challenge that would be to employers, especially small companies.
|
|
tcu2003
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 31, 2010 15:24:01 GMT -5
Posts: 4,955
|
Post by tcu2003 on Nov 28, 2016 11:26:43 GMT -5
I also think that having the ability to transition back to work part time for a few weeks can help, though that can make finding childcare an issue for that time (or you're paying for full-time care and only using it part-time).
I'm also a proponent of dad/partner taking leave. DH took a week when each kid was born, various days (or half days) throughout my mat leave, and the entire first week I'm back at work. He's staying home with DD this week, and then she'll start daycare next week, which makes for a smoother transition for both me and the baby.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Nov 28, 2016 11:37:35 GMT -5
I'm thinking currently 3 months paid, up to 6 months (the rest unpaid). Leave for dad as well. I'm not planning any more, so this would be for the greater good, not me personally.
|
|
taz157
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:50:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,934
|
Post by taz157 on Nov 28, 2016 11:37:58 GMT -5
I think it depends on the person and pregnancy. With my DD, I was ready to go back to work at 8 weeks as I was a little stir crazy towards the end. My DD slept through the night ridiculously early. Also since I had STD, I was able to receive my full salary (between STD and employer) when I came back. If/when a 2nd arrives, I no longer have STD and I'm self-employed; therefore, if I don't work, I don't get paid. I could see me coming back on a reduce schedule after 3-4 weeks since I would be working from home as it is. Granted, that's assuming the 2nd would be as a great sleeper as DD was.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,140
|
Post by giramomma on Nov 28, 2016 12:17:45 GMT -5
I think it depends on the person and pregnancy. With my DD, I was ready to go back to work at 8 weeks as I was a little stir crazy towards the end. My DD slept through the night ridiculously early. Also since I had STD, I was able to receive my full salary (between STD and employer) when I came back.
If/when a 2nd arrives, I no longer have STD and I'm self-employed; therefore, if I don't work, I don't get paid. I could see me coming back on a reduce schedule after 3-4 weeks since I would be working from home as it is. Granted, that's assuming the 2nd would be as a great sleeper as DD was. This. I bounce back really quickly after giving birth. My first two were sleeping 12 hours by 10 weeks the latest. My first was ridiculously easy. He also is not a cuddler. We could put him down and down our thing. DD1 was like that as well. With my second, I took a week off of teaching and then started working 5ish hours a week. With all three kids, I was back to my full teaching schedule within a month or so of giving birth. Now, my third, given that she was up every two hours until she was 13 months old. One year of maternity leave wouldn't have been enough. It took me another year to adjust back so I could sleep 5ish hours straight a nigh for most days out of the week. With an 8 year span between my youngest and oldest..Between the needs of my oldest and having a high needs baby/infant/toddler/preschooler, it really has take DD2 until now to mellow out. So, with her, a four year maternity leave would have been perfect. Don't think anyone would grant me that.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Nov 28, 2016 12:19:10 GMT -5
What ideas do you have and how to implement them. I think at least six months, but how do we implement that for overall nicety for the family and company. What about paid or not paid. How about more men taking extended leave. As a non-parent, I am generally opposed to maternity/paternity leave because I believe such leave provides a benefit to some employees that is not provided to other employees. Fundamentally, that doesn't seem equitable. I spent decades working unpaid overtime to cover work that coworkers who were on maternity leave were paid to do. My reward for being a team player? Zip, nada, bupkus. I was only doing what was expected. Why do employers punish non-parents for choosing not to raise a family? Now, if employers came up with a leave strategy that was not tied to the addition of a child to an employee's family, I'd be all for it. Something like a long term leave where you accrue some leave every year that can be used as you see fit. Maternity leave, a month long international vacation, several weeks doing genealogical research, whatever you want. Use your leave to vacation and then get pregnant, too bad, so sad for you.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 28, 2016 12:30:19 GMT -5
What ideas do you have and how to implement them. I think at least six months, but how do we implement that for overall nicety for the family and company. What about paid or not paid. How about more men taking extended leave. As a non-parent, I am generally opposed to maternity/paternity leave because I believe such leave provides a benefit to some employees that is not provided to other employees. Fundamentally, that doesn't seem equitable. I spent decades working unpaid overtime to cover work that coworkers who were on maternity leave were paid to do. My reward for being a team player? Zip, nada, bupkus. I was only doing what was expected. Why do employers punish non-parents for choosing not to raise a family? Now, if employers came up with a leave strategy that was not tied to the addition of a child to an employee's family, I'd be all for it. Something like a long term leave where you accrue some leave every year that can be used as you see fit. Maternity leave, a month long international vacation, several weeks doing genealogical research, whatever you want. Use your leave to vacation and then get pregnant, too bad, so sad for you. I understand the point, but don't all benefits really fall under this? Tuition reimbursement, volunteer time off, health insurance, etc...all benefit the person who chooses to use it at the expense of the people who don't. Personally, I'd rather do away with all those benefits and just take the extra cash. Instead, companies try to play off the "this is your entire compensation package" and attribute financial numbers to those benefits even if you don't use them.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 28, 2016 12:38:23 GMT -5
I understand the point, but don't all benefits really fall under this? Tuition reimbursement, volunteer time off, health insurance, etc...all benefit the person who chooses to use it at the expense of the people who don't. Personally, I'd rather do away with all those benefits and just take the extra cash. Instead, companies try to play off the "this is your entire compensation package" and attribute financial numbers to those benefits even if you don't use them. I think the difference is that could use these benefits but choose not to. For some they cannot use maternity leave at all (and I'm not talking men/paternity leave either). Who cannot? Most places get maternity leave for things like adoption. So the only people who "cannot" are those who can't have biological children in any way, and those who cannot qualify to adopt. I see that as no different than someone trying to use tuition reimbursement...you have to get into a school first. Some people cannot use it. It might not be a good decision to have kids just to get the maternity leave, just like it might not be a good decision to enroll in school just to get some tuition reimbursement. All of those things positively impact folks who choose to do the related activity, and negatively impact those who choose not to. I'd prefer to do away with it all.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,082
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 28, 2016 12:40:17 GMT -5
o give birth seem to just get a specific period of time (for example, if you broke your leg and were claiming disability, then you were seen out dancing at a nightclub with your leg just fine...people would say you're scamming the system. If you give birth and you're fine a week later...nobody says anything about you being out and about other than "you're doing great").
I asked my HR department about this since I was curious after reading all the complaints on YM about maternity leave.
Their stance is that according to currently medical advice the standard duration of recovery for birth is 6 weeks if vaginal and 8 weeks if C-section.
Therefore my behind was to remain off the clock for that duration of time. .. period. I couldn't even email my boss while on leave. They didn't care how I felt they weren't going to allow me to come back to work until I hit the medically advised clearance date.
The reason for this is let's say something DID happen and it happened while I was at work. I could turn around and sue my company stating that they caused the problem by allowing/forcing me to return to work. While odds are good my case would be thrown out since I'd have no proof that was the case my company is not going to take the chance.
I took this information to my OB and asked if it was possible to get clearance before 6-8 weeks. She said she was not allowed to clear me before then, it was hospital policy for the same reasons that my employer would not let me return early. She said she faced disciplinary action if she were to clear me earlier than that. She recognizes not all women are lucky enough to be able to afford 6-8 weeks off, those women have to return to work AMA, she cannot sign off on it.
It didn't matter how I felt or what I wanted, I had to obey company policy if I wanted to keep my job. I wanted to keep my job so I followed standard medical advice.
I've read the rules regarding FMLA and disability here and it's the same thing if you have a heart attack. If your doctor says standard recovery time for your type of heart attack is 8 weeks it doesn't matter if you feel fine at 4 weeks, you cannot return until your doctor medically clears you and it's pretty rare to have a doctor sign off because "well I feel fine enough to go back to work". You stay out for the time period your documentation states you need to stay out. It's to protect the company.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Nov 28, 2016 12:51:10 GMT -5
I also think that having the ability to transition back to work part time for a few weeks can help, though that can make finding childcare an issue for that time (or you're paying for full-time care and only using it part-time). I'm also a proponent of dad/partner taking leave. DH took a week when each kid was born, various days (or half days) throughout my mat leave, and the entire first week I'm back at work. He's staying home with DD this week, and then she'll start daycare next week, which makes for a smoother transition for both me and the baby. Regarding paternity leave...
Here in the government, men are allowed to take up to two weeks of paternity leave, which you can cover with your sick leave.
I think that's fair. Though I don't know if they'd let you take the paternity leave later, when mom goes back to work.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 28, 2016 12:51:45 GMT -5
o give birth seem to just get a specific period of time (for example, if you broke your leg and were claiming disability, then you were seen out dancing at a nightclub with your leg just fine...people would say you're scamming the system. If you give birth and you're fine a week later...nobody says anything about you being out and about other than "you're doing great").
I asked my HR department about this since I was curious after reading all the complaints on YM about maternity leave. Their stance is that according to currently medical advice the standard duration of recovery for birth is 6 weeks if vaginal and 8 weeks if C-section. Therefore my behind was to remain off the clock for that duration of time. .. period. I couldn't even email my boss while on leave. They didn't care how I felt they weren't going to allow me to come back to work until I hit the medically advised clearance date. The reason for this is let's say something DID happen and it happened while I was at work. I could turn around and sue my company stating that they caused the problem by allowing/forcing me to return to work. While odds are good my case would be thrown out since I'd have no proof that was the case my company is not going to take the chance. I took this information to my OB and asked if it was possible to get clearance before 6-8 weeks. She said she was not allowed to clear me before then, it was hospital policy for the same reasons that my employer would not let me return early. She said she faced disciplinary action if she were to clear me earlier than that. She recognizes not all women are lucky enough to be able to afford 6-8 weeks off, those women have to return to work AMA, she cannot sign off on it. It didn't matter how I felt or what I wanted, I had to obey company policy if I wanted to keep my job. I wanted to keep my job so I followed standard medical advice. I've read the rules regarding FMLA and disability here and it's the same thing if you have a heart attack. If your doctor says you have to be out 8 weeks it doesn't matter if you feel fine at 4 weeks, you cannot return until your doctor medically clears you and it's pretty rare to have a doctor sign off because "well I feel fine enough to go back to work". You stay out for the time period your documentation states you need to stay out. It's to protect the company. This is exactly how it's treated different than other disabilities though. You have a baby, it's 6 weeks vaginal, 8 weeks C-section...without ever actually being examined to determine the length of time. You have a heart attack, the doctor checks on you, then the doctor determines how long you likely need to be out and follows up with you consistently. You break your leg, the doctor looks at you, determines the severity, then says how long you need to be out based on how things are progressing. You hit the nail on the head..IF YOUR DOCTOR SAYS YOU HAVE TO BE OUT...most places though grant STD without regard for whatever a doctor says...they don't consult a doctor to ask how long you'll need to be out...they just give you the time for childbirth (which is fine, it's an efficient way to do it given that childbirth is a common medical occurrence). It's just not consistent with how most other STD benefits play out.
I also think a lot of the more recent posts point to the fact that it's not really just disability though. It's disability, plus people want time to just be with their kids. If all we were discussing is "is it ok that childbirth results in 6 weeks of STD benefits?"...then sure. But I don't think it's realistic to call all maternity leave "disability" when people want more time that has nothing to do with the disability of giving birth, but more because they think it's good to have babies with mom for longer, or because they aren't getting sleep like they were before the baby, etc. We also have maternity leave for those who adopt, that really has nothing to do with a disability of the parent. I don't have a problem with calling the STD portion disability, but I don't think it's reasonable to label all maternity leave as "disability" when many of the reasons people want more maternity leave has nothing to do with the medical condition of childbirth.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,147
|
Post by alabamagal on Nov 28, 2016 12:52:40 GMT -5
I am ok with it being considered "short term disability" to recover from birth. That is what it was when I had kids. I think people are getting stuck on the work disability. STD leave is for health issues that prevent you from working. I was out on STD when I had gall bladder surgery. It took some time for my recovery, but I returned to work and I am not disabled.
I went back to work for all 3 kids at 6-8 weeks. I was paid for 6 weeks under STD. For kid 1, we planned the timing well enough that I was able to take off 8 weeks, and then DH was home for 3 months (he was a school teacher at the time). After kid 3 (and 3 kids under 4), DH quit teaching to stay home with the kids, so I only took 6 weeks. (DH's SAHD job lasted 3 months, but that is a whole different story).
Life was tough with young kids, but we survived, and have 3 well-adjusted young adults now.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Nov 28, 2016 13:17:08 GMT -5
You have the medical aspect of birth and then the child aspect. I've heard a lot of daycare don't accept really young children. Then there's studies out there that says it's better for kids to have a parent at home longer. Then all casual links of countries with lengthy parental leave beating us in rankings and such.
While I get how much of a pain it can be for companies to deal with parental leave, you better bet if I decide to have kids I will be looking to go to a company with a great policy. More and more are doing it. I'm betting more and more millennial will gravitate towards companies that do that like they are with other perks and such.
The companies I've worked for had no sick time, a capped pto bank, but offered STD. A combo of STD and max pto would not get me to the twelve weeks I'd get for fmla.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,488
|
Post by Tiny on Nov 28, 2016 13:28:31 GMT -5
I think the difference is that could use these benefits but choose not to. For some they cannot use maternity leave at all (and I'm not talking men/paternity leave either). Who cannot? Most places get maternity leave for things like adoption. So the only people who "cannot" are those who can't have biological children in any way, and those who cannot qualify to adopt. I see that as no different than someone trying to use tuition reimbursement...you have to get into a school first. Some people cannot use it. It might not be a good decision to have kids just to get the maternity leave, just like it might not be a good decision to enroll in school just to get some tuition reimbursement. All of those things positively impact folks who choose to do the related activity, and negatively impact those who choose not to. I'd prefer to do away with it all. You are assuming all women will have babies (or will adopt). I never had kids (a choice) so while I've witnessed many coworkers take advantage of maternity/paternity leave (I've been here 20 years - so some of those coworkers got MULTIPLE leaves over the years). I have never benefited from that particular employer benefit.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,082
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 28, 2016 13:31:01 GMT -5
This is exactly how it's treated different than other disabilities though. You have a baby, it's 6 weeks vaginal, 8 weeks C-section...without ever actually being examined to determine the length of time. You have a heart attack, the doctor checks on you, then the doctor determines how long you likely need to be out and follows up with you consistently. You break your leg, the doctor looks at you, determines the severity, then says how long you need to be out based on how things are progressing. You hit the nail on the head..IF YOUR DOCTOR SAYS YOU HAVE TO BE OUT...most places though grant STD without regard for whatever a doctor says...they don't consult a doctor to ask how long you'll need to be out...they just give you the time for childbirth (which is fine, it's an efficient way to do it given that childbirth is a common medical occurrence). It's just not consistent with how most other STD benefits play out.
I believe that it became standardized for child birth due to the fact so many insurance companies didn't used to cover it and women would often be terminated from employment the moment the pregnancy was discovered. By making standard guidelines for recovery it allowed it to be categorized as a disability and be granted the same protection as you having a heart attack would be.
There are standards for all types of care, if you need to go beyond that the doctor has to justify it. If you go shorter the doctor has to justify it.
It's only in the case of childbirth that I am not allowed to justify a shorter amount of leave. That I do agree with should be changed. If I want to come back earlier I should be able to get cleared by my doctor and be allowed to return.
I don't think you should be made to return earlier though. If I have the leave banked to pay for it or can bankroll it out of savings I should be able to use my 12 weeks if I wish. Just like if you had a heart attack and wanted to take all 12 weeks you should be able to too.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,488
|
Post by Tiny on Nov 28, 2016 13:35:11 GMT -5
We DO NOT need to call pregnancy/childbirth a "disability". Maybe the time off would be handled with similar rules/regulations as short term disability - but the person taking the time off isn't "disabled" they are taking off the time TO CARE FOR SOMEONE ELSE.
Call it what it is: Family Leave.
And then let people use the time for childbirth, caring for a very sick child (cancer? some other long term issue?), caring for a sick spouse (again with the cancer OR maybe after an accident or some serious surgery) or caring for elderly parents (end of life care - or just the time needed to get a parent into long term care). That makes the 'benefit' a bit more fair to people who will NOT have the option to use Maternity/Paternity leave....
We've successfully moved away from "vacation time", "personal days", and "sick days" with rules and regulations for each type - and now just have "combined leave" or some other 'generic" name. We need to do the same thing with "maternity/paternity" leave - "Family Leave" sounds good to me.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,147
|
Post by alabamagal on Nov 28, 2016 13:44:18 GMT -5
We DO NOT need to call pregnancy/childbirth a "disability". Maybe the time off would be handled with similar rules/regulations as short term disability - but the person taking the time off isn't "disabled" they are taking off the time TO CARE FOR SOMEONE ELSE. Call it what it is: Family Leave. And then let people use the time for childbirth, caring for a very sick child (cancer? some other long term issue?), caring for a sick spouse (again with the cancer OR maybe after an accident or some serious surgery) or caring for elderly parents (end of life care - or just the time needed to get a parent into long term care). That makes the 'benefit' a bit more fair to people who will NOT have the option to use Maternity/Paternity leave.... We've successfully moved away from "vacation time", "personal days", and "sick days" with rules and regulations for each type - and now just have "combined leave" or some other 'generic" name. We need to do the same thing with "maternity/paternity" leave - "Family Leave" sounds good to me. Pregnancy is a disability. It takes time for a body to recover from childbirth. I had a friend who lost her baby very late at 39 weeks. She had to deliver the baby. She had to go through everything like it was a live birth. She was off 6 weeks disability. No one would say she shouldn't have. She needed recovery time.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 28, 2016 13:49:09 GMT -5
It's hard to make laws for things like this because just like no two pregnancies and deliveries are alike, there is no standard "job" out there, either. One woman could have a no-complication vaginal delivery and then be physically ready to work at a desk type job within a few weeks, yet another women could have a delivery with complications and also a c-section and not even be ready to work at a job that requires heavy lifting even 8 weeks later. And that's just addressing the simple physical needs, not addressing sleep needs or caring for an infant.
Although I understand and agree with the overall concept that there "should be" some sort of standardized leave, the many different situations, physical and financial variations make it almost impossible to consider this a standard thing that all employers should have to treat in one specified way.
Do I provide paid leave in my own company? Yes. Do I think this should be something the government is involved in? No.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 28, 2016 13:55:38 GMT -5
Who cannot? Most places get maternity leave for things like adoption. So the only people who "cannot" are those who can't have biological children in any way, and those who cannot qualify to adopt. I see that as no different than someone trying to use tuition reimbursement...you have to get into a school first. Some people cannot use it. It might not be a good decision to have kids just to get the maternity leave, just like it might not be a good decision to enroll in school just to get some tuition reimbursement. All of those things positively impact folks who choose to do the related activity, and negatively impact those who choose not to. I'd prefer to do away with it all. You are assuming all women will have babies (or will adopt). I never had kids (a choice) so while I've witnessed many coworkers take advantage of maternity/paternity leave (I've been here 20 years - so some of those coworkers got MULTIPLE leaves over the years). I have never benefited from that particular employer benefit.
No I'm not. I'm assuming that not all women will want to have a baby or adopt, just like not all people will want to attend college to get the tuition reimbursement. I'm pointing out that maternity leave is no different than some other benefits like tuition reimbursement. Not everyone will use them.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 28, 2016 14:10:01 GMT -5
The FMLA already protects an employee from being fired for taking a reasonable amount of time off for a medical condition or even to care for a family member with a medical condition. Anti-discrimination laws protect an employee from being fired for being pregnant. I don't really want more government intervention beyond that.
Some companies will choose to provide maternity/paternity leave as a benefit either because they believe it's a social obligation or to attract certain employees. Those companies should have the right to do that.
Some companies will choose not to provide leave above and beyond FMLA requirements either because they can't afford it or because they are not trying to attract certain employees. Those companies should have the right to do that, too.
It's a big country with literally millions of jobs available and employees should and do have the right to choose between employers that offer benefits that are most valuable to them.
We have a lot of bigger and more important issues to address as a country before I want government spending any time getting involved in this particular issue.
|
|