shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on Nov 28, 2016 14:20:39 GMT -5
Have not read through everything. But no, hoops902, most places do NOT give maternity leave for adoption.
FMLA protects the time off you take as parental leave when you add a child to your family - male or female, birth or adoption (or even foster care). However, FMLA does NOT pay you. It simply means your company can't fire you.
Most states that have maternity leave cover it under short term disability. This limits the ability to take paid parental leave to pregnant women. Fathers, adoptive parents, those who have a kid via surrogacy, cannot use their sick time to cover their parental leave.
Most places I have worked have short term disability that covers 66% of pay over 6-8 weeks for maternity pay. (8 weeks if you have to have a Cesarean. 6 weeks otherwise.) FMLA protects up to 3 months (so roughly 12 weeks.) That means a new birth mother can take 12 weeks of parental leave for the price of 8 weeks, and can use a combination of sick and vacation time to cover it. Any other new parent, if they wanted to take the full 12 weeks protected by FMLA, would need to have 12 weeks of vacation banked for that - that's 480 hours of vacation time saved. I have worked a lot of places that don't let you bank that much vacation time.
As for the argument that the childless somehow "pay" for a benefit that people who have kids get that they don't (tskeeter), that's simply not true in any case where parental leave is covered via disability pay and paid sick or vacation time. If your company handles that extended time off for a staff person poorly, that's on your company, not the benefit. If short time disability coverage is an option, all employees have access to it. All employees have sick/vacation time. FMLA covers a maximum of 3 months in calendar year, regardless of whether you take that time off for parental leave, taking care of a sick parent or spouse, spending time with a family member about to deploy, or you end up in a car accident or get cancer. If you use all three months for parental leave, and then get in a car accident, FMLA will not cover the time off from the car accident. If you spend 6 weeks taking care of your parent with alzheimers and then find out you're pregnant, you get another 6 weeks, that's it. The company is NOT paying for anything extra.
Now, as for whether or not you think we should have a national policy (or even state policies) around parental leave that isn't tied to physical pregnancy, that depends on whether or not you think future tax payers are important. Because the people most likely to put off having children (or not have children at all) due to a lack protected and paid leave are in the middle class - ie the main tax payers.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 28, 2016 14:41:42 GMT -5
Hm, not sure how "middle class" is defined, but there's no way to stretch the definition to show that they pay most of the taxes or are the "main" taxpayers. Since people filing taxes with over $100k in income paid more than 70% of all individual income taxes and only about half of Americans pay income tax at all, that implies that the bulk of individual income taxes are paid by a very small slice of people earning $100k+, which sounds like it might be at the upper end of "middle class". So without getting too deep into it, I'm not sure I'd buy the argument that middle income tax payers pay most of the taxes.
And if all we are concerned about is future tax payers, it would perhaps be smarter to look at creative solutions like using this as an opportunity to allow more of the highly qualified immigrants that want to become US citizens into our country. Instead of increasing regulatory and financial burdens on our businesses and essentially paying Americans to have more kids, we could accept more of the hard working, smart would-be immigrants to come on over and pay taxes....
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Nov 28, 2016 14:50:18 GMT -5
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. There is merit in your argument, hoops. I limited my discussion to maternity or parental leave because that is what the OP was discussing. However, looking at benefits in their entirety, I think the only truly equitable way to provide employee benefits is to allocate each employee a certain dollar amount for benefits, and allow the employee to select the benefits that are most appropriate for their own situation from a menu of benefits. That would eliminate the favoritism and inequity that is present in almost all existing benefit plans.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Nov 28, 2016 15:02:28 GMT -5
Have not read through everything. But no, hoops902 , most places do NOT give maternity leave for adoption.
FMLA protects the time off you take as parental leave when you add a child to your family - male or female, birth or adoption (or even foster care). However, FMLA does NOT pay you. It simply means your company can't fire you.
Most states that have maternity leave cover it under short term disability. This limits the ability to take paid parental leave to pregnant women. Fathers, adoptive parents, those who have a kid via surrogacy, cannot use their sick time to cover their parental leave.
Most places I have worked have short term disability that covers 66% of pay over 6-8 weeks for maternity pay. (8 weeks if you have to have a Cesarean. 6 weeks otherwise.) FMLA protects up to 3 months (so roughly 12 weeks.) That means a new birth mother can take 12 weeks of parental leave for the price of 8 weeks, and can use a combination of sick and vacation time to cover it. Any other new parent, if they wanted to take the full 12 weeks protected by FMLA, would need to have 12 weeks of vacation banked for that - that's 480 hours of vacation time saved. I have worked a lot of places that don't let you bank that much vacation time.
As for the argument that the childless somehow "pay" for a benefit that people who have kids get that they don't (tskeeter ), that's simply not true in any case where parental leave is covered via disability pay and paid sick or vacation time. If your company handles that extended time off for a staff person poorly, that's on your company, not the benefit. If short time disability coverage is an option, all employees have access to it. All employees have sick/vacation time. FMLA covers a maximum of 3 months in calendar year, regardless of whether you take that time off for parental leave, taking care of a sick parent or spouse, spending time with a family member about to deploy, or you end up in a car accident or get cancer. If you use all three months for parental leave, and then get in a car accident, FMLA will not cover the time off from the car accident. If you spend 6 weeks taking care of your parent with alzheimers and then find out you're pregnant, you get another 6 weeks, that's it. The company is NOT paying for anything extra.
Now, as for whether or not you think we should have a national policy (or even state policies) around parental leave that isn't tied to physical pregnancy, that depends on whether or not you think future tax payers are important. Because the people most likely to put off having children (or not have children at all) due to a lack protected and paid leave are in the middle class - ie the main tax payers. If any company funds are used to pay for maternity or paternity leave (even indirectly, through disability insurance premiums) while a comparable benefit does not exist for non-parents, money is being taken out of the pockets of non-parents. With four decades in finance and accounting, I am well aware that there is a certain amount of money available to pay for compensation and benefits. If money from that pool is taken to pay for maternity leave for some of the employees, that means there is less money available for compensation and benefits for the rest of the employees. Benefits is not a zero sum game. As it exists today, there are definitely winners and losers. On the paid maternity leave question, non-parents come out losers. Note that this isn't a slam on parents for using the benefits available to them. What it is is an argument that employers and benefit professionals need to ask themselves if their benefit strategy is equitable, or. Whether it unfairly favors certain groups of employees.
|
|
shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on Nov 28, 2016 16:03:17 GMT -5
tskeeter - so obviously, we shouldn't cover short term disability for people who speed, or ride bikes, or ski, or play basketball, or any other activity that is more likely to lead to an injury requiring them to use short term disability, since that takes away from the benefits of people who don't do those things. Since disability coverage for parental leave only applies to women, and not all of the women who are employed by a company are likely to be of child bearing age, this is a benefit maybe 1/3 of a work force are likely to need. I am guessing that at least 1/3 of the workforce is also plays sports and are likely to need to use short term disability for a sports related injury. Trying to claim it's an unfair benefit because not everyone will need it for that purpose is silly. I have never used short term disability in my 20+ years in the workforce. Should I blame people who get injured taking part in a hobby (their choice to go skiing) for getting injured and needing to use it? It's insurance. It's there for a reason. Sometimes that reason will be planned - like having a kid, or getting knee replacement surgery. Sometimes that reason will not be planned - like being in a car accident. But an employer who offers short term disability insurance is never going to tell its employees - we only have $2mil for disability this year, so first come first serve.
While it is possible that there could be a deficit when it comes to short term disability, like every insurance, it's a highly unlikely risk. Insurance companies wouldn't still be big business if they didn't turn profits - including companies that offer short term disability coverage to major employers.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 28, 2016 16:22:27 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. We get a years parental leave, which could be taken by either parent. Yes, of course it's paid. It's paid through Unemployment Insurance, because you're not employed while on leave. It builds strong families, which builds strong communities, which build happy and healthy countries.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Nov 28, 2016 16:29:59 GMT -5
Where I work we are not covered by FLMA because we have fewer than 50 employees within 75 miles. We provide 6 weeks of paid maternity leave, and one week of paid paternity leave. No STD.
The few people who have used the maternity leave here typically take anywhere from 8-10 weeks using a combination of PTO and maternity leave. And it has a huge impact on the other staff because we are a small organization. Last time one of my co-workers went on maternity leave I did half her job and mine for 10 weeks. It was miserable. But, I also know that co-worker would have done the same for me. But, there are other co-workers who I'd really resent having to work 70-80 hours a week for a couple months.
However, with that said, I think FMLA needs to be mandated for all organizations with more than 20-25 employees.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 28, 2016 16:30:37 GMT -5
Well, there's the disability part, and then there's the taking care of the tiny baby part... But I don't see how that is the employer's responsibility.
I took just under a year off with my oldest. I took 4 months off (or maybe 5, it's been awhile!) with my second and then went back two days a week. Those were my choices. I cant imagine expecting my employer or the taxpayers to pay for my choices.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,147
|
Post by alabamagal on Nov 28, 2016 16:43:36 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. Well said!
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 28, 2016 16:50:45 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. Totally agree. While I see most benefits as being beneficial to only certain groups of people, that's precisely how I decide on employment. I knew I wanted to pursue an MBA, so I found a company that would do tuition reimbursement. My wife wouldn't be working somewhere that didn't offer maternity leave. The fact my company offers paternity leave also affects my decision to stay vs go somewhere else. Is it fair? In many ways within the company...no. Is it fair in that people can make their own choices in the economy as a whole? Probably pretty close.
|
|
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 17:03:43 GMT -5
Where I work we are not covered by FLMA because we have fewer than 50 employees within 75 miles. We provide 6 weeks of paid maternity leave, and one week of paid paternity leave. No STD. The few people who have used the maternity leave here typically take anywhere from 8-10 weeks using a combination of PTO and maternity leave. And it has a huge impact on the other staff because we are a small organization. Last time one of my co-workers went on maternity leave I did half her job and mine for 10 weeks. It was miserable. But, I also know that co-worker would have done the same for me. But, there are other co-workers who I'd really resent having to work 70-80 hours a week for a couple months. However, with that said, I think FMLA needs to be mandated for all organizations with more than 20-25 employees. I was not covered where I used to work either, which is crazy. There were 10 or so properties each worth millions, but since they were spread around the country, there weren't 50 employees at a single one. IMO, the 50+ threshold is fairly large, at it annoys me that people point out as FMLA being sufficient for people in the US when so many people are not even covered by it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 16:23:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 17:19:00 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. We get a years parental leave, which could be taken by either parent. Yes, of course it's paid. It's paid through Unemployment Insurance, because you're not employed while on leave. It builds strong families, which builds strong communities, which build happy and healthy countries. Exactly, why reinvent the wheel America? This seems to work well in Canada.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 28, 2016 17:26:33 GMT -5
We get a years parental leave, which could be taken by either parent. Yes, of course it's paid. It's paid through Unemployment Insurance, because you're not employed while on leave. It builds strong families, which builds strong communities, which build happy and healthy countries. Exactly, why reinvent the wheel America? This seems to work well in Canada. It's the "Not On My Dime!" mentality. "Why should I have to pay for other peoples' choices, even though it benefits the country as a whole?"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 16:23:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 17:29:35 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. That's fair as long as you must save up yours to cover a heart attack, etc. Otherwise, women are being treated unfairly. Although guys can take paternity leave, they can't give birth or cover the recuperation from that. Use your leave to vacation and then get sick, too bad, so sad for you.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 28, 2016 19:46:38 GMT -5
Exactly, why reinvent the wheel America? This seems to work well in Canada. It's the "Not On My Dime!" mentality. "Why should I have to pay for other peoples' choices, even though it benefits the country as a whole?" The idea that a year of paid maternity leave "benefits the country as a whole" is opinion, not fact. And it's opinion that not everybody agrees on.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Nov 28, 2016 19:54:48 GMT -5
I don't know of time limitations, but it only pays around half your salary with a cap, so highly compensated employees get an even smaller amount. So while it's helpful, they're not living the same as when they're actually working.
Eta kept googling, yea they're requirements to keep someone from being perpetually pregnant. They have to work and pay into the system a certain level before their eligible. Just like our unemployment system.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 16:23:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 19:55:55 GMT -5
It's the "Not On My Dime!" mentality. "Why should I have to pay for other peoples' choices, even though it benefits the country as a whole?" there has to be a limit on how many kids the govt will give you a free year for, or you'd have people with a dozne kids so they didn't have to work Maternity leave is based on your income with a cap. Also, like employment insurance, you have to have paid into it for a minimum year between babies. Nobody I know abuses it, seriously....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 16:23:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 19:56:51 GMT -5
I don't know of time limitations, but it only pays around half your salary with a cap, so highly compensated employees get an even smaller amount. So while it's helpful, they're not living the same as when they're actually working. Ours is 65%, with no taxes taken of so it isn't that bad. If you are making enough to have to worry about the cap, you are doing okay....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 16:23:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 20:17:04 GMT -5
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Nov 28, 2016 20:28:37 GMT -5
I'm against the idea that people deserve or are entitled paid parental leave. I have heard that there is some evidence that it is beneficial in the long term. I think with strong evidence of the benefits of paid parental leave, it would be a good idea for the USA to implement it.
I still have strong feelings against an idea that it is a right, though. Good idea =/= right. I'm for subsidized education because I think an educated population is desirable. I cringe at the idea that a fully funded high quality education is a human right.
I also am against the idea of "maternity" leave. Yes, disability for the giving birth. Parental leave for everything after.
I suspect the idea behind the set minimums of 6/8 weeks disability for childbirth is avoiding discrimination/ the expectation that new mothers will come right back to work. Haven't looked into it though.
|
|
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 Nov 28, 2016 20:38:15 GMT -5
I don't think companies should be required to provide generous paid leave. Some companies have lots of young women and letting them take off even 12 weeks is a hardship. Not bad if the young women are production workers like say retail clerks where they can hire temps and train them quickly maybe have an opening to keep them when the parent comes back. For jobs where the woman is important in a highly skilled job like payroll clerk replacing her for 12 weeks means getting a temp who can only get out payroll not file all the other reports and handle audits or other things. The company I worked for was almost all men and older woman we only had one payroll clerk. We cross trained a purchasing clerk to get out paychecks so we could cover a short vacation but she couldn't do her job and the payroll clerk job so even after a single week they were way behind. For maternity leave we hired a temp but the new mother would show up once or twice a week with the infant to make sure she wasn't messing things up and the purchasing clerk would do some of the data entry. If the government said we needed to give her a year off we would have had to totally train a temp meaning many managers would need to get involved figuring things out and handling audits. We dealt with audits all the time from the unions checking the benefits were paid correctly so about one a month. We gave the same payroll clerk two other FMLA leaves for drug rehab about 6 weeks at a time. If this was a law a woman could take 12 weeks to a year off some companies would only hire young women for unimportant jobs or jobs that could be fully cross trained. The last drug rehab FMLA for this one we kept the temp, cross trained her to several jobs and insisted the payroll clerk fully train her. The payroll clerk was terminated, her drug rehab didn't work.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Nov 28, 2016 22:03:12 GMT -5
Maybe, but women have lower unemployment rates in Canada. www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labor07a-eng.htmAnd employment among mothers with children have been going up for decades. www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11387-eng.htmI think there's good reasons for and against maternity and parental leave. But with so many other countries having long leave, one has to be careful in discerning what reasons actually pan out vs what you think the leave might cause. Btw it is a law that women van take twelve weeks off. Law that men can too. Assuming fmla covers the company. There's the argument to make it paid and then the argument to extend it.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 29, 2016 0:41:50 GMT -5
Exactly, oped! It's not just my opinion. It's fact. from your link.... Another study, from the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University, found that women who had taken advantage of New Jersey's paid-family-leave policy were far more likely than mothers who hadn't to be working nine to 12 months after the birth of their child. The study also found these women to be 39% less likely to receive public assistance and 40% less likely to receive food stamps in the year following a child's birth compared to those who didn't take any leave. A study of European leave policies by the University of North Carolina found that paid-leave programs can substantially reduce infant mortality rates and better a child's overall health. And research out of The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn indicates higher education, IQ, and income levels in adulthood for children of mothers who used maternity leave — the biggest effect comes for children from lower-educated households. The researchers cited this as a significant discussion for policymakers to have, as it could reduce the existing gap in education and income in the US.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Nov 29, 2016 9:47:59 GMT -5
It's always a hardship when an employee is out. I don't care if it is for a two week vacation or six weeks after a heart attack. At our little company we have had at least 12 disability leaves in the past two years. Every single one of them have been middle aged men with heart attacks and various other like things. Yet in the same time the only woman of child bearing age has been there every single fucking day. At the GC there are about 300 employees and most are young people and female. Of them only three have had babies and went out on mat leave in the three years. The GC actually has a short term disabilty that supplements the state UI/Dis plus a baby bonding benefit that is like 3-6 months, but based on hours worked or something. I can't remember exactly how someone said it worked. It is a place where lots of young people who don't make a lot so you would think it would be used and abused more but the reality is most people aren't just popping out babies so they can get full use of their company benefits.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 29, 2016 9:58:26 GMT -5
There's got to be a better word than STD.
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 29, 2016 10:25:24 GMT -5
What is GC?
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Nov 29, 2016 12:50:25 GMT -5
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. That's fair as long as you must save up yours to cover a heart attack, etc. Otherwise, women are being treated unfairly. Although guys can take paternity leave, they can't give birth or cover the recuperation from that. Use your leave to vacation and then get sick, too bad, so sad for you. Good point. There are some shortcomings to my idea. Do you have some thoughts about how an event such as a heart attack might be accommodated under my type of scenario? I can obviously use some help in identifying some of the things that might happen and figuring out an equitable way to address those situations.
|
|
travelnut11
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 12, 2011 22:17:14 GMT -5
Posts: 639
|
Post by travelnut11 on Nov 29, 2016 13:33:52 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.)
|
|
travelnut11
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 12, 2011 22:17:14 GMT -5
Posts: 639
|
Post by travelnut11 on Nov 29, 2016 13:36:43 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.) Ack! My first post was eaten. The condensed version is that "managing" the best possible outcome is not always possible as it's dependent on your employer's leave policies. Despite having 6 weeks of PTO per year I can only rollover 5 days each year. I'm having a late Jan/early Feb baby so will only be able to use those 5 days plus the 2-3 days I accrue before my baby comes. How exactly was I to manage this better?
|
|
steph08
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 13:06:01 GMT -5
Posts: 5,504
|
Post by steph08 on Nov 29, 2016 13:57:34 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.) Ack! My first post was eaten. The condensed version is that "managing" the best possible outcome is not always possible as it's dependent on your employer's leave policies. Despite having 6 weeks of PTO per year I can only rollover 5 days each year. I'm having a late Jan/early Feb baby so will only be able to use those 5 days plus the 2-3 days I accrue before my baby comes. How exactly was I to manage this better? You were to plan your pregnancy down to the time of day that you would be having that baby (obviously, 6 pm after you worked a full day at 40 weeks pregnant so no one would have to pick up your job duties for that day). And for you, obviously plan to have him/her at the end of the year so you have all your vacation! Do people not get how pregnancy works? You can try to time your pregnancy - you may or may not get pregnant the first, second, third, fourth, etc. month that you try.
|
|