travelnut11
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 12, 2011 22:17:14 GMT -5
Posts: 639
|
Post by travelnut11 on Nov 29, 2016 13:59:14 GMT -5
|
|
chen35
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 19:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,312
|
Post by chen35 on Nov 29, 2016 14:38:51 GMT -5
It took us 5 years to get pregnant. Timing was the last thing on my mind. We were just offered 12 weeks paid maternity in the last few months. That worked out great because I can only roll over 2 weeks of PTO, so that wouldn't have helped much.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,140
|
Post by giramomma on Nov 29, 2016 14:40:43 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? Right, but you probably knew about your policy ahead of time, from your first, child, right? Or is this a new policy that just happened and you had no time to prepare for it? With my first kid...I was in a position with NO PTO. No sick leave, no vacation, and no holiday pay. I was the only source of income. Since I had been at that job for 5 years before I my first, it didn't seem that hard of a task to start poking around to make sure, that I understood correctly, that if I wanted to have any sort of maternity leave..beyond 3 or 4 days, that I had to fund it myself by saving. It also wasn't that hard of thing to sit down and say "I need X amount of money saved, roughly over the next X months." This is what I'm talking about. I understand oopsies happen. I understand that my infertility gives me the advantage that I can plan pregnancies pretty well. I understand that some women don't discover that they are pregnant until they are very far along. I believe that these cases, myself included, are not the norm. I also think it's reasonable to take an hour or two to send off emails and do a little research about what your company covers in terms of leave and then spend another hour or two with your partner retooling the budget to make sure you've got some funds in place when you start TTC or when you first find out you are pregnant. I think it is reasonable to figure this earlier, than say, the 7th or 8th month of your pregnancy, and then being frustrated and blaming the system that there's no paid leave, or there's not the amount of paid leave that you would like, or suddenly discovering that you don't want to go back to work but have built a two income lifestyle. I mean, I could have done that when I was at my old position. I could have blamed the system. But blaming the system still wouldn't have paid for my mortgage or put food on my table while I was out on leave. (Really, I lump this along with saving for things like car maintenance. You know, at some point, if you drive a car, it will likely need maintenance. The usual advice is to set up a sinking fund for car maintenance, so you aren't completely unprepared when you need to spend the money.)
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,140
|
Post by giramomma on Nov 29, 2016 14:59:02 GMT -5
And, I'll add that I'm going to counsel all my kids to take an hour to do some thinking about what they might like long term. If they think they might want to stay at home when the kids are young or ramp down work when the kids are in HS...I'm going to tell them to keep that in the back of their heads as they go through their life.
Or telling them to start a baby fund when they start TTC so they don't have to rely on showers to pay for baby needs and there's extra cash laying around to give them more choices about how they want to proceed with leaves, work, etc.
I don't understand what's so bad about that, to spend an hour or two to think through their life and position themselves so they have choices...
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 15,010
|
Post by raeoflyte on Nov 29, 2016 15:02:14 GMT -5
My company changed our FMLA policy during the 4th week of my last FMLA leave which left me with absolutely 0 PTO for the 11 months remaining in the year after I came back. Then changed it again at open enrollment of the next year (somehow I don't think I was the only one that was burned).
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Nov 29, 2016 15:03:26 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. And this is another area where the gap between urban and rural is highlighted. I could go find another job in my city, heck, even in the same industry if I wanted to. Not so for people living just a couple hours away from here. Standardizing time off (regardless of cause) would benefit everyone everywhere equally. This would be true for pregnancy or for other medical leave. Which is why a system similar to the Canadian system would be good. Everyone who is working pays into it, and when/if you need it, it's there. Just like we do with unemployment now.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,365
|
Post by gs11rmb on Nov 29, 2016 15:10:43 GMT -5
Often times these discussions focus on the planning. I cannot be the only woman who planned to go back to work after the birth of my first child and then discovered that was absolutely the last thing I wanted to do. I desperately wanted to stay home longer with my baby. Because we hadn't planned for me to stay home I did, in fact, go back to work. I was miserable for the first few weeks until I felt really comfortable that my baby was thriving in daycare. With my second child, it never entered my head to stay home.
A few weeks ago janee had a thread about an employee who was out for maternity leave and wanted some accommodations made so she could nurse. A lot of people seemed to be of the opinion that the employee was manipulative. I thought she was a woman just desperately trying to make all the pieces fit together after the birth of her child.
Apart from the USA, all developed nations (and many developing nations) have maternity leave policies. Six months to a year sounds about right to me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 16:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 15:20:28 GMT -5
I cannot be the only woman who planned to go back to work after the birth of my first child and then discovered that was absolutely the last thing I wanted to do.
Nope. That was me too. I was a workaholic. I worked 2-3 jobs at a time all through my 20's and early 30's. I was set on retiring early and hiking the Appalachian trail in my 50's. Being a SAHM was definitely not something I ever thought about until July of 2002. LOL I started crunching numbers and realized it would work on one income and suddenly the dream of early retirement didn't matter. I did a complete 180 from what I always thought I wanted. Heck I didn't even want kids at all until I was in my 30's, so making plans for them in my 20's wasn't happening.
|
|
travelnut11
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 12, 2011 22:17:14 GMT -5
Posts: 639
|
Post by travelnut11 on Nov 29, 2016 15:20:29 GMT -5
giramomma Thanks for the clarification. I did not read your original post to say that you saved up for your leaves but rather all of us should be sure to save our vacation/sick time to take off 5 months like you did. My point was that the latter is not always possible based on employer policies. I agree that people need to know what is available and plan for that. For sure I agree with you on that point. And to be clear I'm not complaining as I'll get 4 weeks of full pay, 2 weeks of 70%, 7-8 days PTO at full pay and the rest unpaid. I realize this is better than most and we can afford the unpaid time so consider myself fortunate. Ideally I would've been pregnant later in the year and in fact I was due October 2 2016 which would've been PERFECT as I could've saved all 6 weeks PTO and used my 6 weeks STD and got the whole thing paid. Alas, I miscarried with a blighted ovum. Some things can't be planned as you know.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Nov 29, 2016 15:33:08 GMT -5
I would really like to see a culture shift where more men take the time off that is available to them- bonding time is available to BOTH parents by way of FMLA, and if both parents took it regularly, there would be less assumptions made about women of child bearing age.
I do agree that people actually planning for increasing their families should plan the finances as well as what color the baby's room should be. Accidents happen, but when on purposes happen they should be prepared for.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,082
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 29, 2016 15:39:22 GMT -5
I'd like to see a culture shift where instead of nitpicking over who "deserves" what type of leave the most we all have a general leave pool that we use whenever or for whatever. Be that my husband has to take off for a sick parent, I take off because I have a baby or my co-worker wants to go hike Everest.
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 29, 2016 15:49:00 GMT -5
I thought she was a woman just desperately trying to make all the pieces fit together after the birth of her child.
Gira's whole point of her few previous posts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 16:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 15:51:53 GMT -5
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. To me, the equitable way to address those situations is short-term disability for both. I'm ok with it being employee-funded. I'm not ok with guys having this snowflake leave that they can use to pursue their special hobby or whatever, but women need to save it in case they have a baby. Pregnancy really is a short-term disability, just like a heart attack. I won't explain it well, but it brings back memories of snowflake money that my in-laws used to give us at Christmas. Ours was a check made out to the private school that our kids attended. They helped found that school and really wanted them to go there. It wasn't meant to force us to send our kids there; it was meant to help us out. But at the same time, they gave my BIL and his wife the same size check to do with whatever they pleased. They bought a big screen tv, took great vacations, etc. They didn't live in the same area as the school so that wasn't an option. They meant to truly treat us equally. I know that. But it didn't come across that way because our snowflake money was earmarked for us. The plan you described smacks of that same sort of earmarking.
|
|
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 29, 2016 16:16:37 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. And here's where I say - check your privilege. That bolded statement may be true for most of us on the board, but it is not, in fact, true for many, many people in this country, I might even hazard to say it is not true for most of the people in this country. Retail workers, fast food workers, convenience store and gas station workers, servers, taxi drivers, etc. If you've ever gone to Vegas for vacation, most of the people you talked to don't have ability to choose between employers that offer benefits. (I know, I know, they should get a college degree and get a better job, but someone still has to do those jobs, and not just high school kids.) Part of this is that many companies (and I know there are those on this board who have made this argument) won't hire people full time, or even a full 50% FTE, so that they don't have to offer benefits. When I lived in NV, in most jobs, you didn't qualify for benefits until you'd been with the company at least 3 months. But if you worked at a casino, it was often 6 months to a year before you earned benefits, and oddly enough, people often got "let go" the day before they became eligible for benefits - only to be hired back at the same casino a few weeks later. Here in the Seattle area, we have a culture of "contract" labor (to the extent where contractors sued and won against Microsoft). Contract laborers get no benefits, unless their contracting company gives them. And those benefits are often in no way comparable to the benefits people actually working for the companies they are working in get. So they work at Microsoft, but not for Microsoft. And the dream might be to eventually make that switch, but in the mean time, you still have bills. And Microsoft really doesn't like hiring people directly.
This is a board that likes to tell people to get a job, any job, even a McJob, if you don't have one. But at the same time, we're now saying - oh, you have the power to choose a job that has the exact suite of benefits you want. That's just not true for the majority of people in this country. And especially during the recession, where you were simply lucky to get a job, any job, even a McJob.
So perhaps I agree with you that employees SHOULD have the ability to choose between employer with varying benefits, but I do not agree that they already do. The ability to pay rent, put food on the table, keep the lights on, often have to take precedence over the exact suite of benefits.
But personally, I don't think employers should be responsible for any of our social safety net. I think the only benefit an employer should offer is PTO. I think our social safety nets - health insurance, parental leave, disability insurance, etc, should actually be the responsibility of our society at large, for all of our members. Good benefits shouldn't only belong to people who work at companies that can afford them. My health insurance should differ from yours based on what we choose to pay for premiums, not who signs our paychecks. And protected and paid time off to care for and bond with a new child should not be the sole privilege of those working in "white collar" jobs.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Nov 29, 2016 16:24:18 GMT -5
I work for a super awesome company with a very progressive policy. 16 weeks 100% paid parental leave policy. If you are an employee and you have a biological or adopted baby/child- you qualify, regardless of whether you are male or female. They also have pretty decent adult dependent care and child care reimbursement/back-up care programs. I haven't had any medical issues to know first-hand how other issues are accommodated, but I'm sure there is something in the FMLA and insurance policy. I know there is an employee relief fund, which I voluntarily donate via payroll deduction. There are plenty of other benefits as well- tuition reimbursement, low carbon vehicle reimbursement program, solar power reimbursement, adoption support, legal services, commuter reimbursement, etc. I have never heard of anyone complaining about any of our benefits, whether they use them or somebody else uses them. It's a great company and people aren't nasty about somebody needing to be out, which really doesn't happen very often. I've used 3 maternity leaves at this point, but never touched the tuition reimbursement. My co-worker hasn't used parental leave, but got his BA, MA and PHD- time for classes and tuition fully reimbursed over a 20 year period. Nobody ends up with an extra heavy workload, at least not in my nearly 16 year experience. Maybe we're more forward thinking.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 29, 2016 16:24:48 GMT -5
The reason employers won't hire people full time is to avoid the increasing burden of government regulation, mandates and expense associated with hiring. Adding more regulation, mandate and expense won't improve that situation.
I agree that employers shouldn't be responsible for the social safety net. Placing that responsibility on employers has bad unintended consequences - like employers not wanting to hire full time employees.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Nov 29, 2016 16:26:56 GMT -5
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. To me, the equitable way to address those situations is short-term disability for both. I'm ok with it being employee-funded. I'm not ok with guys having this snowflake leave that they can use to pursue their special hobby or whatever, but women need to save it in case they have a baby. Pregnancy really is a short-term disability, just like a heart attack. I won't explain it well, but it brings back memories of snowflake money that my in-laws used to give us at Christmas. Ours was a check made out to the private school that our kids attended. They helped found that school and really wanted them to go there. It wasn't meant to force us to send our kids there; it was meant to help us out. But at the same time, they gave my BIL and his wife the same size check to do with whatever they pleased. They bought a big screen tv, took great vacations, etc. They didn't live in the same area as the school so that wasn't an option. They meant to truly treat us equally. I know that. But it didn't come across that way because our snowflake money was earmarked for us. The plan you described smacks of that same sort of earmarking. I agree with that, with the caveat that companies shouldn't require their staff to use all their available PTO before going onto STD (and I've been at more than one company that required that), and that FMLA should be available for people who work at companies of 20 to 25 employees or more and be upped from 12 weeks to 16 weeks.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 29, 2016 16:27:28 GMT -5
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. To me, the equitable way to address those situations is short-term disability for both. I'm ok with it being employee-funded. I'm not ok with guys having this snowflake leave that they can use to pursue their special hobby or whatever, but women need to save it in case they have a baby. Pregnancy really is a short-term disability, just like a heart attack. I won't explain it well, but it brings back memories of snowflake money that my in-laws used to give us at Christmas. Ours was a check made out to the private school that our kids attended. They helped found that school and really wanted them to go there. It wasn't meant to force us to send our kids there; it was meant to help us out. But at the same time, they gave my BIL and his wife the same size check to do with whatever they pleased. They bought a big screen tv, took great vacations, etc. They didn't live in the same area as the school so that wasn't an option. They meant to truly treat us equally. I know that. But it didn't come across that way because our snowflake money was earmarked for us. The plan you described smacks of that same sort of earmarking. Would you have wanted to send your kids there if the in laws didn't pay for it?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 16:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 16:36:57 GMT -5
Maternity leave in Canada is not an expense to employers. Save for having to hold the mat leave persons job for them. Not a huge burden by any stretch.
Every employed person pays into employment insurance, it is deducted from their pay. This can be used for maternity leave to be shared by the parents of the newborn.
The company I worked for topped up my mat leave which was nice and not all that unusual.
It seems to work, I don't hear any complaints here.
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Nov 29, 2016 16:47:21 GMT -5
Anyone else see this playing out like the real-life version of Idiocracy? Unpaid leave means those in the lower middle class struggle the most to have children, and women are put at more of a disadvantage than men. Meanwhile those on the very low end don't have the same penalty because they aren't giving up higher paying jobs & are getting assistance of some sort, and those on the upper end can afford the option to take time off if they want/need to.
|
|
janee
Established Member
Joined: May 14, 2014 10:04:48 GMT -5
Posts: 344
|
Post by janee on Nov 29, 2016 16:47:42 GMT -5
Often times these discussions focus on the planning. I cannot be the only woman who planned to go back to work after the birth of my first child and then discovered that was absolutely the last thing I wanted to do. I desperately wanted to stay home longer with my baby. Because we hadn't planned for me to stay home I did, in fact, go back to work. I was miserable for the first few weeks until I felt really comfortable that my baby was thriving in daycare. With my second child, it never entered my head to stay home.
A few weeks ago janee had a thread about an employee who was out for maternity leave and wanted some accommodations made so she could nurse. A lot of people seemed to be of the opinion that the employee was manipulative. I thought she was a woman just desperately trying to make all the pieces fit together after the birth of her child.
Apart from the USA, all developed nations (and many developing nations) have maternity leave policies. Six months to a year sounds about right to me. I think the reason some thought the employee was being manipulative is she sent an email from a government web site about what you HAD to do to accommodate an employees who need to pump breast milk. It clearly didn't apply to our tiny company. I think it was just the manner in which she was communicating.
It is a tough call on what's right. I certainly see both sides and sympathize with new parents. So many other countries offer better benefits but here it's on the company. For a small business, it's a huge disruption. A large company or department has more resources to cover the work. A small business does not. There's a real fear (and big cost) when a new mother changes her mind and doesn't come back after maternity leave.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 16:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 16:49:10 GMT -5
To me, the equitable way to address those situations is short-term disability for both. I'm ok with it being employee-funded. I'm not ok with guys having this snowflake leave that they can use to pursue their special hobby or whatever, but women need to save it in case they have a baby. Pregnancy really is a short-term disability, just like a heart attack. I won't explain it well, but it brings back memories of snowflake money that my in-laws used to give us at Christmas. Ours was a check made out to the private school that our kids attended. They helped found that school and really wanted them to go there. It wasn't meant to force us to send our kids there; it was meant to help us out. But at the same time, they gave my BIL and his wife the same size check to do with whatever they pleased. They bought a big screen tv, took great vacations, etc. They didn't live in the same area as the school so that wasn't an option. They meant to truly treat us equally. I know that. But it didn't come across that way because our snowflake money was earmarked for us. The plan you described smacks of that same sort of earmarking. Would you have wanted to send your kids there if the in laws didn't pay for it? The in-laws didn't pay for it. We did. The gift was exactly what a gift is. We couldn't count on it, and a lot of years we didn't get it. That was particularly true after I started working there to help pay for tuition. I was actually opposed to it because I am a proponent of public school in most cases. However, my ex insisted on it, and we struggled to pay for it. I think the in-laws recognized the struggle so hence the "gift" some years. Other years they hired my ex to do work for them . . . either on the farm or later in the antique shop. My point was that our gift came earmarked. The plan to give snowflake leave so that you could pursue a hobby if you weren't having a baby or use it for maternity leave it you were seemed unfair when it came with the caveat "Too bad if you already used it but need it for maternity" but no such caveat "Too bad if you already used it but need it for some health issue." Having a baby is a health issue. Like I said, I am fine with the employee paying for STD insurance. Ditto, the man in case he needs six weeks off to fight cancer or get over a heart attack. Sure, one can be "planned" more or less. But nothing prevents anyone from saving in case they have to be off from work for a health reason. It just seems disingenuous when women are the only gender who can bear children to insist that they also bear the financial responsibility of the time-off while giving similar time-off if needed for health issues that impact men. I won't be having prostate problems, I imagine.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Nov 29, 2016 17:08:08 GMT -5
I would really like to see a culture shift where more men take the time off that is available to them- bonding time is available to BOTH parents by way of FMLA, and if both parents took it regularly, there would be less assumptions made about women of child bearing age. I do agree that people actually planning for increasing their families should plan the finances as well as what color the baby's room should be. Accidents happen, but when on purposes happen they should be prepared for. My DH'S job wasn't covered under FMLA, so he had no time off available to him. When DS1 was born, his bosses were feeling generous. With DS2, birth happened on a Friday 3am. DH was back at work on Monday. I think he even went into work later the day of, as well. 'Merica rules! /S
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 15,010
|
Post by raeoflyte on Nov 29, 2016 17:35:05 GMT -5
Maternity leave in Canada is not an expense to employers. Save for having to hold the mat leave persons job for them. Not a huge burden by any stretch.
Every employed person pays into employment insurance, it is deducted from their pay. This can be used for maternity leave to be shared by the parents of the newborn. The company I worked for topped up my mat leave which was nice and not all that unusual. It seems to work, I don't hear any complaints here. This is actually the part that I don't know how companies are supposed to work around. If I have to cover a job for a year, I'm not just hiring a temp. I'm needing to hire a regular full time employee ideally 60-90 days before the expected leave to have them up to speed, and then when the parent comes back to work I still only have enough work for 1 person, but now have 2 full time people for that work. At a bigger company I guess the hope is that one of them can move into a different job, but that isn't always available.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 16:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 17:37:27 GMT -5
Maternity leave in Canada is not an expense to employers. Save for having to hold the mat leave persons job for them. Not a huge burden by any stretch.
Every employed person pays into employment insurance, it is deducted from their pay. This can be used for maternity leave to be shared by the parents of the newborn. The company I worked for topped up my mat leave which was nice and not all that unusual. It seems to work, I don't hear any complaints here. This is actually the part that I don't know how companies are supposed to work around. If I have to cover a job for a year, I'm not just hiring a temp. I'm needing to hire a regular full time employee ideally 60-90 days before the expected leave to have them up to speed, and then when the parent comes back to work I still only have enough work for 1 person, but now have 2 full time people for that work. At a bigger company I guess the hope is that one of them can move into a different job, but that isn't always available. If you look in the job advertisements here you will see plenty of "mat leave coverage" positions. Sometimes its a good way to get your foot in the door. Either way, both parties know it is a temporary position of one year.
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 29, 2016 17:57:53 GMT -5
I think this is a pretty weak argument. There are lots of temp jobs that don't foray into perm. As long as it's known it is maternity leave coverage and when time is up time it's up.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 16:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 19:21:40 GMT -5
60-90 days of training? What position is this for? Brain surgeon? I've never offered more than two weeks training for a mid level position.
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 15,010
|
Post by raeoflyte on Nov 29, 2016 19:25:07 GMT -5
I think this is a pretty weak argument. There are lots of temp jobs that don't foray into perm. As long as it's known it is maternity leave coverage and when time is up time it's up. I don't have a ton of experience with temps and what I do have has been entry level work, okay to hop around, okay without stability. When I'm looking for work I won't consider contract jobs, no matter how awesome it could be if I am kept on full time. Too much risk to me as the primary breadwinner. I can't hire entry level and I'm not looking for exec level that may have more flexibility options to take chances. 85% of my team fits my exact demographic, and if it isn't a job I would consider, I'm going to have to assume that a large portion of others won't either. Now maybe if that contract was a year, and there were lots of opportunities for that kind of work and I wasn't dependent on employer provided health insurance... then maybe...
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 15,010
|
Post by raeoflyte on Nov 29, 2016 19:27:47 GMT -5
60-90 days of training? What position is this for? Brain surgeon? I've never offered more than two weeks training for a mid level position. 60-90 days before most new hires can kick out the expected volume. There will be a rock star here or there that gets it immediately, but solid employees usually need that long to learn the system and procedures and really produce.
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 29, 2016 19:29:04 GMT -5
Yes, most everyone on here is really bringing their opinions based on what would or wouldn't work for them/their company. I expected that. That isn't a bad thing I just expected it and it brings so many different opinions. It's great.
|
|