naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 29, 2016 19:30:21 GMT -5
I would bloody love it.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 29, 2016 19:55:53 GMT -5
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. But if they cut a check for $5k to the school to pay for tuition, didn't that free up $5k that you would have had to pay? The kids were going there anyway because your ex insisted. Would it have been any different if they cut the check to you and not the school?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 16:20:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 20:16:23 GMT -5
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. But if they cut a check for $5k to the school to pay for tuition, didn't that free up $5k that you would have had to pay? The kids were going there anyway because your ex insisted. Would it have been any different if they cut the check to you and not the school? The checks weren't that big. Try more like $1000 for tuition of about $5000. It bumped our budget monthly but less than a $100.. But this isn't about that situation at all. I said upfront that I was explaining it badly. It is about earmarking one person's leave toward a health care situation but not the other's. If the first person (female) uses it for something other than maternity, they can't use later use health care leave. If the second person (male) does, no big deal.This was entirely hypothetical. A poster suggested a snowflake leave that women could use for maternity, but if they used it for anything else, literally "too bad, so sad." Meanwhile, it could also be used to pursue hobbies, etc. I was trying to point out that it should be equally "too bad, so sad" if a guy used that snowflake leave for something else, and then had a heart attack.Otherwise, you are penalizing women for a medical condition that only they can have. I also suggested employee-funded STD insurance. Most people aren't upset that they pay for insurance and don't use it. They are usually grateful!
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Nov 29, 2016 20:20:32 GMT -5
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. But if they cut a check for $5k to the school to pay for tuition, didn't that free up $5k that you would have had to pay? The kids were going there anyway because your ex insisted. Would it have been any different if they cut the check to you and not the school? Parents really can't win when it comes to gift giving. My sister doesn't have any kids and I have 3. My parents have been known to buy us both the same gifts valued around $1000. If it were cash, I could put it toward my outrageous daycare bill. Regardless, whatever they do I appreciate. My MIL observed how challenging life is right now for the both us working full-time with a baby, 2 year old and 4 year old and wanted to pay for monthly cleaning service, she ball-parked $1500. I thought that was really sweet and sounded great at the time, but if she had to give all 5 of her kids an equivalent gift, Christmas would cost her $7500. So, I doubt it will happen. We'll probably get some jars of pickled beets and artichokes and over-sized sweaters from Costco. I've been trying to subtly kill adult gift giving for years now, but don't want to be the Grinch who ruined Christmas.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 16:20:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 20:35:39 GMT -5
But if they cut a check for $5k to the school to pay for tuition, didn't that free up $5k that you would have had to pay? The kids were going there anyway because your ex insisted. Would it have been any different if they cut the check to you and not the school? Parents really can't win when it comes to gift giving. My sister doesn't have any kids and I have 3. My parents have been known to buy us both the same gifts valued around $1000. If it were cash, I could put it toward my outrageous daycare bill. Regardless, whatever they do I appreciate. My MIL observed how challenging life is right now for the both us working full-time with a baby, 2 year old and 4 year old and wanted to pay for monthly cleaning service, she ball-parked $1500. I thought that was really sweet and sounded great at the time, but if she had to give all 5 of her kids an equivalent gift, Christmas would cost her $7500. So, I doubt it will happen. We'll probably get some jars of pickled beets and artichokes and over-sized sweaters from Costco. I've been trying to subtly kill adult gift giving for years now, but don't want to be the Grinch who ruined Christmas. I don't want to turn this into a gift thread. But imagine your mom giving you the $1500 worth of cleaning service and simply $1500 to each of the siblings to do with what they wanted to. Sure, you would appreciate the gift. But you might prefer the option of cleaning your house yourself and using the $1500 towards what you needed or wanted. That was my point. But, of course, you are grateful for whatever. It's just not quite as equal as people think when the choice of what to do with the gift isn't left up to you. That was the point of my criticism of the snowflake leave.
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 29, 2016 21:39:14 GMT -5
I understand what you are saying Alabama.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Nov 29, 2016 22:50:25 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 guess that I don't understand how a leave that an employee, male or female, can use for any purpose they choose is an earmark. The employee, not the employer decides how the leave gets used.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 30, 2016 0:24:52 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. No. We have a pool of mat leave temps.
|
|
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 30, 2016 5:22:55 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. When I retired I trained my replacement and my new boss and I am sure they still didn't know everything. Taking more than a week off would have only left my boss to do my job. he could have hired a temp to do some routine tasks like writing checks but handling all the other things like managing other employees, handling all their problems, decision making would have fallen on my boss. Taking a single week off he messed up direct deposit, uploaded the wrong file so double paid one group and didn't pay over 100 people. Brain surgeon is probably easier to cover than someone who has a diverse job with several deadlines every week. I gave notice in Sept and left in January after year end taxes and financial statements and the replacements had taken over the day to day stuff but the quarterly and annual things needed more training up to the last day.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 16:20:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 6:12:27 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. I guess that I don't understand how a leave that an employee, male or female, can use for any purpose they choose is an earmark. The employee, not the employer decides how the leave gets used. It would be equal if it is simply PTO. But in your example, you specifically said "Too bad so sad" if the female employee (only one who can get pregnant) used it otherwise and then became pregnant. Men can't become pregnant, of course. But you didn't vocalize a similar "Too bad so sad" attitude if he had a heart attack, etc. and needed time off. I think the real problem is separating the medical aspect of pregnancy/recovery from the caretaking aspect. They are two separate issues that we conflate with the term "maternity leave." Women's bodies need time to recover. Unless society wants to turn over human reproduction entirely to laboratories so that neither women nor men physically give birth, there has to be a concession of some sort that women do the actual carrying and delivery. There is no male equivalent. So it will never be entirely fair. Trust me, giving birth is not a vacation, no matter how many PTO days you allot for it.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Nov 30, 2016 9:14:56 GMT -5
I worked for a health insurance company and they still had memo's from the early 70's that explained maternity expenses so people would understand how the bills were to be treated the exact same way as any other medical bills. It went something like this. "Substitute the word broken leg or heart attack for pregnancy or childbirth and pay accordingly based on the type of bill or service." We used to laugh and laugh that someone thought we needed that explanation like it was still 1952. So apparently not so dumb. So to the mgr trying to figure out how to fill a position for someone who might go out on maternity leave I would suggest the same thing. What would you do if said employee had a heart attack and had to go out on disability for three to six months? I'm guessing no one here would sit on the floor and cry about how hard it will be to fill the position or how unfair it is to everyone else. They would just get to work and figure out a way to get the job done. Well pregnancy is easy compared to that! You don't get six months warning someone is going to have a heart attack.
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 30, 2016 9:57:33 GMT -5
Beachbum. What an excellent way of putting it. Something SS said also. Seeing as someone has to procreate and it isn't done in a lab it should be looked at as a medical issue. Just as one can plan for a knee replacement there are medical things that can be foreseen. Also I agree that maybe the taking care of a baby part should be separated from the medical part (after the 6/8 weeks of recovery.)
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,082
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 30, 2016 9:59:57 GMT -5
No. We have a pool of mat leave temps. No disrespect intended, but don't you work for a retirement/nursing home? Positions in these types of facilities lend themselves to temporary employees. The work is fairly routine and a person with certain qualifications and skill levels can walk into the positions fairly easily. To be fair the work is the same from one facility to another, policy and procedure might be a little different but the core position is the same. Anyone on my staff is looking a 3-6 month ramp up to be independently functional. We just hired a manager and he didn't do anything but meet with people to get overviews and learn about the different aspects of our company for 2 1/2 months. He spent another 2 months shadowing me, who was interim manager. And he's now finally semi independent. To be clear he had a lot of experience in the core functionality, and most of his training was learning our business and customers. This would be a nightmare to try to cover for 12 months then to have to bring the original employee up to speed when they get back. Realistically you could be training for 18 months to cover one leave. That's kinda the problem with my job. It can take two months just to get thru all the stupid regulatory paperwork before you can even touch anything. That also said. .. we make it work. My boss over in the COP brought in a student several months before I left and we got him up to speed enough to complete the project. We decided to leave the data crunching for when I returned. I was the sole employee in my last lab so you can imagine how big a headache it was for me to go on leave. .. on top of being pregnant I got called for jury duty at the same time. Here it would be a lot "easier" because we have multiple technicians. It would be a pain for them to have to absorb my work for 6-8 weeks but it's a pain for me to absorb their work when they go on several multi-week long vacations over the course of the year. In the long run I think it evens out. We just had someone leave to go back to school and I had a month to absorb her job. We made it work. At least in the case of my maternity leave my boss could count on me coming back, no way was I going to have to reimburse UNMC my insurance costs (If you quit while on FMLA leave you're expected to pay back your employer's share of your premiums).
|
|
jeep108
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 20:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,056
|
Post by jeep108 on Nov 30, 2016 11:20:35 GMT -5
I'll be out way longer with my surgery to get rid of this cancer than, I did having a baby. I was back to work after 6 weeks with the baby. So far I have had 5 weeks of radiation that I ended up losing 10 or more hours a week, adding in MRI and CT Scans, and a Cardio surgeon, a plastic surgeon, my oncology surgeon and the radiologist appointments. Now, I'm gong to miss at least two hours Friday to do a EKG, and blood work for my biopsy on Monday, I have planned on missing 3 days after the biopsy. The original surgery they were giving me 8 weeks to heal and the plastic surgeon was taking about having to go in for a second surgery on my shoulder. Who knows what will be on the table for me if my markers have gotten bigger and I need to go out of state.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Nov 30, 2016 11:43:32 GMT -5
I guess that I don't understand how a leave that an employee, male or female, can use for any purpose they choose is an earmark. The employee, not the employer decides how the leave gets used. It would be equal if it is simply PTO. But in your example, you specifically said "Too bad so sad" if the female employee (only one who can get pregnant) used it otherwise and then became pregnant. Men can't become pregnant, of course. But you didn't vocalize a similar "Too bad so sad" attitude if he had a heart attack, etc. and needed time off. I think the real problem is separating the medical aspect of pregnancy/recovery from the caretaking aspect. They are two separate issues that we conflate with the term "maternity leave." Women's bodies need time to recover. Unless society wants to turn over human reproduction entirely to laboratories so that neither women nor men physically give birth, there has to be a concession of some sort that women do the actual carrying and delivery. There is no male equivalent. So it will never be entirely fair. Trust me, giving birth is not a vacation, no matter how many PTO days you allot for it. OK, I get where you're coming from and the comparison you are making. There is no doubt that there is a medical aspect to a pregnancy and that there is no male equivalent. But, I would like to point out that, these days, a pregnancy is a concious decision. Where something such as a heart attack is not. In this world of equality and equal pay for equal work (which I support), shouldn't we encourage gender equality in as many aspects of life as possible?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,082
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 30, 2016 11:58:52 GMT -5
It would be equal if it is simply PTO. But in your example, you specifically said "Too bad so sad" if the female employee (only one who can get pregnant) used it otherwise and then became pregnant. Men can't become pregnant, of course. But you didn't vocalize a similar "Too bad so sad" attitude if he had a heart attack, etc. and needed time off. I think the real problem is separating the medical aspect of pregnancy/recovery from the caretaking aspect. They are two separate issues that we conflate with the term "maternity leave." Women's bodies need time to recover. Unless society wants to turn over human reproduction entirely to laboratories so that neither women nor men physically give birth, there has to be a concession of some sort that women do the actual carrying and delivery. There is no male equivalent. So it will never be entirely fair. Trust me, giving birth is not a vacation, no matter how many PTO days you allot for it. OK, I get where you're coming from and the comparison you are making. There is no doubt that there is a medical aspect to a pregnancy and that there is no male equivalent. But, I would like to point out that, these days, a pregnancy is a concious decision. Where something such as a heart attack is not. In this world of equality and equal pay for equal work (which I support), shouldn't we encourage gender equality in as many aspects of life as possible? I'd be fine with that if you did not get leave or any type of benefits if you ended up with prostate cancer. That's specifically a male related issue that I will never have to face as a female so if you don't have to "pay" for a solely female related issue then I should not have to pay for solely male related issues either. That would apply to ovarian cancer as well since you cannot experience it. If we are going to separate out things based on gender where do we draw the line? It's easy to say keep it to pregnancy but once companies, especially insurance companies, find out they can save money by divvying up things based on gender do you really think it'd stop there? And you may disagree but I REALLY doubt my salary would go up if I did not have to pay for your prostate cancer or your salary would go up if you did not have to pay for my maternity leave. That money will go back into the pockets of the company.
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Nov 30, 2016 12:12:15 GMT -5
And although men don't experience pregnancy in the physical sense, it does take two to make a baby. So should a dad not be paying into that insurance because he personally won't use it, even if it's being used for the benefit of his family?
We like to think that pregnancy is a scheduled thing nowadays, but the reality is that more than half of pregnancies are unplanned. Hormonal birth control is only 99% effective when taken exactly as prescribed. In real life practice it is more like 80%. Women forget a day, medications interfere, etc. Only 100% effective option is complete abstinence, not something consenting adults are particularly fond of.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 16:20:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 12:12:35 GMT -5
It would be equal if it is simply PTO. But in your example, you specifically said "Too bad so sad" if the female employee (only one who can get pregnant) used it otherwise and then became pregnant. Men can't become pregnant, of course. But you didn't vocalize a similar "Too bad so sad" attitude if he had a heart attack, etc. and needed time off. I think the real problem is separating the medical aspect of pregnancy/recovery from the caretaking aspect. They are two separate issues that we conflate with the term "maternity leave." Women's bodies need time to recover. Unless society wants to turn over human reproduction entirely to laboratories so that neither women nor men physically give birth, there has to be a concession of some sort that women do the actual carrying and delivery. There is no male equivalent. So it will never be entirely fair. Trust me, giving birth is not a vacation, no matter how many PTO days you allot for it. OK, I get where you're coming from and the comparison you are making. There is no doubt that there is a medical aspect to a pregnancy and that there is no male equivalent. But, I would like to point out that, these days, a pregnancy is a conscious decision. Where something such as a heart attack is not. In this world of equality and equal pay for equal work (which I support), shouldn't we encourage gender equality in as many aspects of life as possible? Sure, we should encourage it. But sometimes that gender equality just doesn't apply. While pregnancy can be "planned," whenever it happens, planned or not, is going to be inconvenient for employers. The time off is still going to have to be covered. So you need a policy that acknowledges that. I haven't been quarreling with the idea that women should plan and use their PTO to cover pregnancy. But if there is no coverage beyond PTO for pregnancy, there should be no coverage beyond PTO for other conditions. So the "Too Bad So Sad" applies to both genders equally. That's fair, right?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,082
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 30, 2016 12:12:46 GMT -5
At least from what I can gather from the emails I've been getting about our insurance it is not women having babies that's increasing the burden. It's age related issues. Which are only going to get more expensive and more cumbersome as baby boomers continue to work and age. So really the best solution would be to stop providing leave and insurance coverage for old people. Then there would be plenty of money for the rest of us.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 30, 2016 12:13:49 GMT -5
It's a lot easier to split things up based on whether you can directly stop them from happening in the first place than it is to separate things out that only apply to both genders. Separating by gender has tons of complications to it. Separating by your level of control of the thing is much easier. It would basically be treating childbirth as an elective procedure.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 30, 2016 12:16:16 GMT -5
And although men don't experience pregnancy in the physical sense, it does take two to make a baby. So should a dad not be paying into that insurance because he personally won't use it, even if it's being used for the benefit of his family?
We like to think that pregnancy is a scheduled thing nowadays, but the reality is that more than half of pregnancies are unplanned. Hormonal birth control is only 99% effective when taken exactly as prescribed. In real life practice it is more like 80%. Women forget a day, medications interfere, etc. Only 100% effective option is complete abstinence, not something consenting adults are particularly fond of. Without getting too into controversial topics, it takes 2 to conceive, it only takes 1 to decide to go through childbirth which is what the time off is for. Agree that many pregnancies are unscheduled. You don't get time off for being pregnant though. You get time off for giving birth to a child, which is 100% under the control of the pregnant female (excluding the weird "I didn't know I was pregnant but I just gave birth" scenarios).
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,082
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 30, 2016 12:23:49 GMT -5
It's a lot easier to split things up based on whether you can directly stop them from happening in the first place than it is to separate things out that only apply to both genders. Separating by gender has tons of complications to it. Separating by your level of control of the thing is much easier. It would basically be treating childbirth as an elective procedure. But we can control A LOT of our health issues. Type II diabetes is often brought on by excessive weight gain. So if I develop it and my records show that I am overweight should coverage be stopped and if I need to take leave for my issue should I be told "too bad so sad?" If you have a heart attack due to high cholesterol should you be told "too bad so sad? That's what you get for eating too many cheeseburgers?" I get where you are coming from. If I choose not to take birth control I am "choosing" to get pregnant. Where we are going to disagree is that companies will think that way. Once they are given permission to separate out issues and decide what benefits they provide based on "level of control" you'd be amazed what is suddenly going to become "your responsibility". We already have to fill out a "voluntary" health survey every year during benefits enrollment. Right now that information cannot be used against us, but it would not be hard to change that if it's decided my coverage should be based on what the company feels I have control over. This is a downside of having these things tied to your employment. That's why I'd be in favor of a system like Canada's. I get the outcry over "big government" but it's not like our system is perfect either. I'd also been in favor of doing away with sick/vacation and making one large PTO pool that any employee can take for whatever reason no questions asked. I'd also be in favor of for most industries we start moving towards everyone being able to have a flexible schedule (within reason of course there does need to be some consistency). Instead of being chained to your desk from 9-5 period if you have a week where you need to take your sick parent to doctor's appointments you could work 7-3 no questions asked. FMLA can still be in place for health related issues but otherwise it's your business what that leave is for. No more playing around with what "deserves" leave and what doesn't. There was an episode of Adam Ruins Everything that went over employment and it's amazing how much of our workplace rules were designed during the Industrial Revolution and Great Depression. Maybe it's time to update?
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Nov 30, 2016 12:24:33 GMT -5
Regardless of how a pregnancy ends, it is still a medical event. There would be time off needed at any point along the way.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 30, 2016 12:36:05 GMT -5
It's a lot easier to split things up based on whether you can directly stop them from happening in the first place than it is to separate things out that only apply to both genders. Separating by gender has tons of complications to it. Separating by your level of control of the thing is much easier. It would basically be treating childbirth as an elective procedure. But we can control A LOT of our health issues. Type II diabetes is often brought on by excessive weight gain. So if I develop it and my records show that I am overweight should coverage be stopped and if I need to take leave for my issue should I be told "too bad so sad?" If you have a heart attack due to high cholesterol should you be told "too bad so sad? That's what you get for eating too many cheeseburgers?" I get where you are coming from. If I choose not to take birth control I am "choosing" to get pregnant. Where we are going to disagree is that companies will think that way. Once they are given permission to separate out issues and decide what benefits they provide based on "level of control" you'd be amazed what is suddenly going to become "your responsibility". We already have to fill out a "voluntary" health survey every year during benefits enrollment. Right now that information cannot be used against us, but it would not be hard to change that if it's decided my coverage should be based on what the company feels I have control over. This is a downside of having these things tied to your employment. That's why I'd be in favor of a system like Canada's. I get the outcry over "big government" but it's not like our system is perfect either. I'd also been in favor of doing away with sick/vacation and making one large PTO pool that any employee can take for whatever reason no questions asked. I'd also be in favor of for most industries we start moving towards everyone being able to have a flexible schedule (within reason of course there does need to be some consistency). Instead of being chained to your desk from 9-5 period if you have a week where you need to take your sick parent to doctor's appointments you could work 7-3 no questions asked. FMLA can still be in place for health related issues but otherwise it's your business what that leave is for. No more playing around with what "deserves" leave and what doesn't. There was an episode of Adam Ruins Everything that went over employment and it's amazing how much of our workplace rules were designed during the Industrial Revolution and Great Depression. Maybe it's time to update? We agree that most things like that can be controlled, but it's an indirect control...that's why I said "directly". It's not really about pregnancy...you don't get time off for pregnancy, you get time off for the childbirth. People make a conscious and clear choice to go through childbirth in a very direct way. Nobody says "hey manager, in 74 days from now I'm going to decide to have a heart attack, I'll need some time off". I'm really approaching this more like a government thing. I don't care what companies do honestly, there's enough flexibility people can choose to work for the company that offers the benefits they enjoy.
I don't think maternity leave from a company standpoint is even that big of a deal frankly. It's not actually that much money for the company (I mean, it's covered by insurance, then the STD insurance...it's not like the insurance is any more expensive because my wife is a woman). My wife just went back to work after having a baby, her total bill including her missed pay wasn't that much different than the tuition reimbursement I've collected over the years working on my Masters.
My opinion on government intervention is that we shouldn't...but then that's my opinion on most government intervention for most adults.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 16:20:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 12:36:25 GMT -5
Regardless of how a pregnancy ends, it is still a medical event. There would be time off needed at any point along the way. Not if we would just turn it over to the laboratory. That's the only way that childbirth can become a gender-neutral condition. Then employers wouldn't have to be inconvenienced either. Win/win, right?
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Nov 30, 2016 12:40:10 GMT -5
Hold up..... Hoops is a dad?!?!
<<faint>>
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,082
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 30, 2016 12:43:27 GMT -5
It's not really about pregnancy...you don't get time off for pregnancy, you get time off for the childbirth
Correction. If you end up with complications during pregnancy you can absolutely end up on leave before you give birth to the child.
Where would that fall into the mix? Do we tell women "too bad so sad that's what you get for deciding to become pregnant?". They do not understand fully what causes eclampsia or gestational diabetes, research is showing more and more it's not something that the mother can control. There are also a bazillion other things that are totally outside your control that can happen too such as a placental tear or your cervix weakening requiring bed rest until you give birth.
So do we draw the line at when you pop out the kid it's "elective" or is EVERYTHING to do with pregnancy 'elective coverage"?
This is the problem with pushing that pregnancy is a choice and therefore shouldn't be covered in any way or be given limited coverage compared to a heart attack. I can control when I GET pregnant but once I do there is very little of it I actually control.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Nov 30, 2016 12:47:40 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. Where I work we have people who often need at least year to really be up-to-speed, and it takes them at least 3-to-6 months to be a truly functional member of the team. However, I also work in a niche area, and almost no one has the type of experience that we need. We did hire a temp once when someone went on maternity leave. It was a huge waste of money. The person wasn't productive and ended up causing everyone else more work when we had to redo their work.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Nov 30, 2016 13:03:13 GMT -5
And although men don't experience pregnancy in the physical sense, it does take two to make a baby. So should a dad not be paying into that insurance because he personally won't use it, even if it's being used for the benefit of his family?
We like to think that pregnancy is a scheduled thing nowadays, but the reality is that more than half of pregnancies are unplanned. Hormonal birth control is only 99% effective when taken exactly as prescribed. In real life practice it is more like 80%. Women forget a day, medications interfere, etc. Only 100% effective option is complete abstinence, not something consenting adults are particularly fond of. Without getting too into controversial topics, it takes 2 to conceive, it only takes 1 to decide to go through childbirth which is what the time off is for. Agree that many pregnancies are unscheduled. You don't get time off for being pregnant though. You get time off for giving birth to a child, which is 100% under the control of the pregnant female (excluding the weird "I didn't know I was pregnant but I just gave birth" scenarios). The moral implications to not "deciding to go through childbirth" are huge. I am technically pro-choice, but still. It would be a terribly difficult choice--not one to be made for the convenience of an employer. This is not a flip a coin sort of choice that you seem to imply with this argument.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Nov 30, 2016 13:06:00 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. Where I work we have people who often need at least year to really be up-to-speed, and it takes them at least 3-to-6 months to be a truly functional member of the team. However, I also work in a niche area, and almost no one has the type of experience that we need. We did hire a temp once when someone went on maternity leave. It was a huge waste of money. The person wasn't productive and ended up causing everyone else more work when we had to redo their work. This pretty much describes my last job to a T. However, the job was expanding and another person should have been hired anyway around the time of my last pregnancy. The company was being stingy--trying to squeeze out as much work out of one person as they could instead of growing the company intelligently.
|
|