Maternity Leave

[Purrybonker]

Living in Canada and being responsible for a fairly large staff, I'm kinda used to managing workload coverage through maternity leave scenarios. In Canada women (and men on an unpaid basis I think) are entitled to benefit/job protected leave for up to 12 months with a part of their pre-leave earnings paid by the government. (there is a max based on pre-leave income and years worked).

So basically, women can take a year off with their employer guaranteeing them a job (not necessarily same job) upon return to work and picking up the tab for their benefit coverage during the absence. This is legislated. The gov't picks up the tab for the earnings compensation. Works slick as crap through a goose - allows women to manage career w kids. Happy employees are good employees.

I was suprised to catch this article on the wire yesterday:

With little public debate, the United States has chosen a radically different approach to maternity leave than the rest of the developed world. The United States and Australia are the only industrialized countries that don't provide paid leave for new mothers nationally, though there are exceptions in some U.S. states. Australian mothers have it better, however, with one year of job-protected leave. The U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act provides for 12 weeks of job-protected leave, but it covers only those who work for larger companies.

even more interesting...

To put it another way, out of 168 countries in a Harvard University study last year, 163 had some form of paid maternity leave, leaving the United States in the company of Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland.

Let us help you toss off those victorian, draconian shackles our dear American & Australian friends! Capitalism can co-exist with social values. No really, it can!

[legion]

My employer give 6-8 weeks of paid leave. Pretty standard.

[lendaddy]

So everytime a skank gets knocked up the gubmint gives em say $50k?

And you think we're f'd up?

[Purrybonker]

Originally posted by lendaddy
So everytime a skank gets knocked up the gubmint gives em say $50k?

And you think we're f'd up?

Well, actually the number probably works out to more like $18k ($1500/mo or thereabouts). But you have to re-establish eligibility based on earnings between leave periods.

But unlike the US apparently, in Canada our "skanks" do not have any sort of monopoly on getting "knocked up". Quite the opposite, in fact. Our "knock up per skank" ratio is much, much lower than our "knock up per woman" ratio. Perhaps you should consider some kind of "rubbers-for-skanks" program to address this issue in your situation.

[dtw]

[singpilot]

I recently requested maternity leave after all 3 female employees in dispatch took theirs sequentially.

I said I wanted 7 moths paid leave to go bring maternity to some poor unwed waif.

Needless to say, it was not approved. HR had no sense of humor about it. They put the request and their response into my employee file permanently. What they didn't get (HR being run by an entirely female group) was that I wear that file now like a badge of honor.

[gaijindabe]

Look at the birthrates in the rest of the developed world. They need this bit of social legislation if those nations are to survive. The birthrate for American women is pretty much at replacement with immigration leading to a growing population. They need this, we do not.

You want a kid, then pay for it.

[pbs911]

This is legislated. The gov't picks up the tab for the earnings compensation.

Actually working Canadians pick up the tab. Where do you think the govt get their money? It's called socialism - from each according to their means, to those according to their needs. Or something like that.

[mikester]

A good company will take care of employees knowing exactly what you stated; Happy employees mean good employees.

In California things are not equal for men and women but they are likely closer than they are anywhere else.

My wife got 12 weeks paid leave through the state's Disability insurance. For 6 of it her employer paid the difference which they are not at all in any way required to do. For the full 12 weeks her job was guaranteed by the Family Medical Leave act. Which covers almost everyone unless you're a key stone in the company or a company with very few employees.

So; In CA you're covered by two sets of laws. The California State Disability laws and insurance and the Federal FMLA act.

For men, CA gives the 6 weeks paid leave (it's not full pay for anyone I think its a $728 max) to bond with a newborn or newly adopted child. When we had ours I made the mistake of trying to work with my boss and instead of just taking the time off through the disabiltity program I worked part time from home for half ot it and took the rest as vacation and sick time. Granted I got paid but at that point the money isn't so much the issue as the time with my child was. I found it very difficult to get the work I needed to get done, done. I didn't feel like I did a good job at it and I wouldn't do it again or ask someone else to do it. In either side of the situation I would do my best to make sure that I worked it out as best I could but I'd be taking the time the laws say I can and make sure that my employees have that option as well (as long as they can afford it).

Given the opportunity - the right thing to do is just that. Children are raised in a villiage - not just in the homes. Supporting parents helps them be better parents.

[lendaddy]

I was back to work the morning after my son was born.

I'm trying to figure out why you guys should have paid me to stay home.......

[mikester]

In California I wouldn't have been paying you to stay home. When you work you pay premiums into the State Disability insurance system (SDI on your paycheck). When you're taking disability they pay you out of that - just like any other insurance scheme.

So if Michigan has an SDI program and you didn't take the time (and your work could afford to be without you) you simply lost that time with your son AND wasted your money in that system since there likely is no "opt-out" option.

Originally posted by lendaddy
I was back to work the morning after my son was born.

I'm trying to figure out why you guys should have paid me to stay home.......

I already said why. Children are raised in a villiage. If you support parents and let them be better parents they will also likely be better employees and the children will be better for it as well. Loyal employees with children who have good role models who are available and home often.

That's a novel concept eh?

[Purrybonker]

Originally posted by pbs911
Actually working Canadians pick up the tab. Where do you think the govt get their money? It's called socialism - from each according to their means, to those according to their needs. Or something like that.

well yeah, you're kinda right, but with that evil socialism twist to it. Roadways and sewers and even the military are evil socialist plots if you want to argue that perspective.

Actually, the system is more than self-sustaining. Employers/employees pay into an "employment income" fund. Maternity and other unemployment income benefits are paid out of that fund.

gaijindabe
The birthrate for American women is pretty much at replacement with immigration leading to a growing population.

Data I've seen recently significantly disagrees with that. The WASPs better get breedin' (even the skanks), else we risk extinction. The rightwing should get behind paid maternity leave just for self-preservation.

[lendaddy]

Is my wife having a child a disabilty of mine? Is this really what government is for?

And no, I don't believe my state has such an asinine program....yet.

[bryanthompson]

Women should stay home and raise the children... but the husband should make enough to support that, not the gumbint.

[mikester]

The conservative mentality! It's fantastic - Take the man out of the home for more time than the child is typically awake when they are young.

Then you end up with stories like this where old men are crying because they missed their children's youth.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1083900,00.html

Employers in the future are going to have to do one of two things. Unite against the workers and say "F-off" work or your fired. Or come to terms with the fact that people want to raise their children and contribute. There are a number of ways to be extremely productive and still give your time approriately to your family.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by mikester
There are a number of ways to be extremely productive and still give your time approriately to your family.

Right, ours was to have my wife stay home, instead of a daycare center raising my child so I could keep my 930 and have children. The 930 is gone, the motorcycles are gone, many other toys are gone. My child gets more quailty time with his parents than 90% of his peers I'm sure......All of this without her former employer having to foot the bill! Amazing!!!!!

Maybe we can legislate away the inconveniences of parenthood I guess

[Jeff Higgins]

From a little bit different perspective, let's talk about how this relates to "globalization". Here in the U.S., that has become the mantra of large corporations and their gubmint stooges. Some of the touted benefits are to help raise the standards of living in countries that receive our off-loaded work; to help them see the benefits of "democracy" (our definition anyway) where it does not exist; to help with their social re-engineering. Not much is said about their extremely cheap labor, lack of envronmental laws, etc., other than that we are there to help influence a change for the better.

So what about here in the U.S.? We lag behind the rest of the industialized world in many facets concerning how we treat our workforce. The emphasis here has always been on the worker as an employee first and some one with an outside life as second, if it comes up at all. With our ever accelerating drive towards "globalization", I see no push to adopt "quality of life" kinds of elements from other countries. That in itself exposes the true motivations of our corporations and their cousins in gubmint. They are happy to use the "making the world a better place" line when the work flows out and the profits flow in. They get pretty quiet about it when it looks like improving our workers' lots in life might cost them a bit of money.

[lendaddy]

I really think ones "quality of life" is up to them. Their government and/or employer need not play any role. If you are willing to do without most "wants" you can easily lead a VERY relaxed "personal-priorities" style life...all without the aid of legislation.

[gaijindabe]

Originally posted by Purrybonker
The WASPs better get breedin' (even the skanks), else we risk extinction. The rightwing should get behind paid maternity leave just for self-preservation.

PB: It is the liberals that aint breeding, dont worry about us knuckle draggers..

As for socal engineering as self-preservation, just ask the French. They have the most generous leave and family allowance policies. As I understand, a woman with three kids can basically retire. Now guess who is having the large families?

[beepbeep]

Originally posted by gaijindabe
As for socal engineering as self-preservation, just ask the French. They have the most generous leave and family allowance policies.

Nope. I thinky we have it.

Best part is that it's not only mother that can take maternity leave...you can actually split the leave between mother and father.