Maternity Leave - Page 3

[Hannah32]

We have good friends in Poland/Hungary who are expecting. Mom gets as much time off during the pregnancy as she wants. Literally, she could produce her doctor's note during the first trimester. They aren't allowed to fire her and she gets a portion of her salary covered. She then gets almost a year of paid maternity leave after the birth and cannot be fired during that time.

And yet, Poland does have a sinking birth rate. So I don't think that supposition holds up. However, Poland isn't nearly as rich a country as the US and they manage to treat maternity leave like it's a real thing, instead of some luxury.

Grrrrr......

[MyFullHouse]

Originally Posted by LilBlossom

The US has it's ups and downs. Yes, maternity leave is horrible (non-existent?) compared to other developed counties. My first son was born in Norway, and I got 10 months worth of maternity leave at 100% of my salary. We moved to the US 3 months after he was born and used that money to pay off my husbands student loan, as well as manage a downpayment on a house. And now I am a full time stay at home mum with my boy. And THAT is something we could NEVER afford in Norway. Cost of living there is just waaaay too high to have one parent at home. My husband makes a bad wage atm, and living just outside Chicago, we have a fairly high cost of living, but we still make it by each month.

Yes, we don't live in a big fancy McMansion and we can't afford fancy stuff, but that's ok.

(Though I am looking for a weekend job to add some money to our monthly budget)

Out of curiosity, how are these long maternity leaves funded overseas? Is it government/tax provided, or are the companies expected to pay that salary while hiring (and paying) someone else to do the job in the meantime?

[Pinoikoi]

Originally Posted by Hannah32

We have good friends in Poland/Hungary who are expecting. Mom gets as much time off during the pregnancy as she wants. Literally, she could produce her doctor's note during the first trimester. They aren't allowed to fire her and she gets a portion of her salary covered. She then gets almost a year of paid maternity leave after the birth and cannot be fired during that time.

And yet, Poland does have a sinking birth rate. So I don't think that supposition holds up. However, Poland isn't nearly as rich a country as the US and they manage to treat maternity leave like it's a real thing, instead of some luxury.

But were these benefits in response to the sinking birth rate, or were they in place prior to the sinking birth rate?

If people were having too few babies, it these kinds of changes might force the hand, kwim?

Originally Posted by MyFullHouse

Out of curiosity, how are these long maternity leaves funded overseas? Is it government/tax provided, or are the companies expected to pay that salary while hiring (and paying) someone else to do the job in the meantime?

I think most countries with these types of plans have pretty heavy tax burdens..

[Spiralshell]

I live in NY, but work in NJ (30 min from home, just over the border) for a large medical device company. (1200+ employees on site, over 15K worldwide).
My leave went like this:

4 weeks before EDD to the birth: Short Term Disability. The state paid ~$575 per week, and the company made up the difference between that and my full salary. So 4 weeks full pay.
Nate came within 2 days of his EDD, but if he had gone longer before he came I would have kept getting this full pay. As it was, I was induced for pre-eclampsia, and ended up with the c-section.
Birth to 8 weeks PP: Short Term Disability. It would have been 6 weeks for a natural birth, but 2 extra weeks for the extra healing from the c-s. Again, the state paid ~$575 per week, and the company made up the difference between that and my full salary. So 8 weeks full pay.
8 weeks PP to 14 weeks PP: 6 weeks of NJ Paid maternity leave. The state paid ~$575 a week. This is considered to be the first 6 weeks of the 12 week FMLA period. At this point the company stops paying for anything -- and the cost of benefits for this time are deducted from the first paychecks upon return from leave. So 6 weeks at partial pay.
15 weeks PP to 20 weeks PP: 6 more weeks of FMLA, but this time no pay from anybody.

I very intentionally used up all of my vacation days for 2009 before I started leave, otherwise they would have taken them for the leave time. And because I was out on leave over the turn of the new year, I got my 15 new days in the bank and didn't have to give any of them up. Got really lucky there! (At my company we are not allowed to bank leave -- whatever vacation you don't use in the current calendar year disappears if you don't use it.)

So all told, I was out of work from October 1st until March 16th. 5 and a half months of snuggling and nursing and enjoying my little one. I still did not want to leave Nate, but it was a HELL of a lot easier leaving him with his grandmas at 5.5 months than it would have been at 6 weeks. OMG I would have had to quit -- at 6 weeks we were very much a mess!
This is considered to be SPECTACULAR maternity leave for the US. Which is really sad. But I got SO much more than most women, I feel like a schmuck for complaining about it at all!

[WTHamI?]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I would not expect someone else to pay my salary while I was not working because I chose to have a child. If the company pays for it, it's an incredible hardship on a business (especially small businesses) to be paying two salaries for one position while you are away. If the government pays your salary, that is basically confiscating money from other working people via taxes to pay your salary during that time. BOTH scenarios would greatly increase the cost of living, and as other posters have said, many countries that have policies such as this have a cost of living so high it's almost impossible to have one stay-at-home parent. In my opinion, that scenario takes choices AWAY from women, rather than giving us freedom to choose whether to work or stay home with our children.

If the financial burden was on the company, I believe they would be less inclined to hire women of childbearing age simply because they can't afford to pay twice as much for her position (her plus a replacement) while she is on maternity leave. I know it's difficult when you are the person taking leave, but to be honest I would not trade a policy of unpaid leave for the benefit of paid leave for those reasons - I believe it ultimately would do more harm than good to women's place in the workforce. This isn't to say I don't feel for you because it is difficult to give up part of your income when you have a baby, but please consider the consequences if the U.S. were to mandate paid leave policies.

[Pinoikoi]

That was a really well thought out argument WTHamI?... Thank you for that.

[MacKinnon]

I hadn't realized how much in the minority I was among university employees! I knew in the greater world of maternity leave I was EXCEPTIONALLY fortunate. I'm university faculty at a Big 10 school and I get 6 weeks paid parental leave, plus whatever short-term disability I am written off for by my healthcare provider. So, with DS, I was off from 38 weeks to 40 weeks, delivered on my due date, continued STD through 6 weeks post partum, then began parental leave. We are encouraged to use our parental leave to flex some time, so I went back to work when DS was 10 weeks, and used the last two weeks to be half-time for another month.

I have asked my midwives if/when they will write off work for just being really pregnant, and they said pretty much whever I feel like I need to be done they will come up with a reason. At this point I'm planning on 38 weeks again, but considering 37 weeks (and wishing for earlier, we'll see how I'm doing as time moves along!).

[poorlittlefish]

Well said WTHamI.

I agree completely. I want 12 weeks leave but I never would expect to be paid for it.

[graciegal]

I am faculty at a college and I am getting tenure after the fall quarter. I give birth August 26th... I have to teach a full load starting 3 weeks later in order for my tenure process not to get significantly pushed back (i've been working on it for 3 years now). I can't take FMLA because then I won't be full time.

Yeah, it's tough being at an institute of higher education...

[Kyamo]

Originally Posted by MyFullHouse

Out of curiosity, how are these long maternity leaves funded overseas? Is it government/tax provided, or are the companies expected to pay that salary while hiring (and paying) someone else to do the job in the meantime?

In Canada, it is part of EI (employment insurance, which is also what pays out if you are laid off). Both the company and the employee contribute to EI. It is one year, 55% of salary up to a maximum (someone else posted the max). Some generous companies will "top up" so that some people will get more than 55%.

[boringscreenname]

All of my maternity leave is going to be unpaid too. I can take 12 weeks of FMLA, but not a dime of it will be paid by the company I work for.

Also I only have 32 hours of vacation time to use, the company I work for offers no way to accrue sick time or PTO. And the kicker is they prepaid my vacation time on my 1 year anniversary, and just cut me a check, so even when I use the vacation time I won't be getting a paycheck.

I'm also not eligible for short term disability because I'm on the state's insurance program, due to the fact that the insurance my work offers would take literally half of what I make in a month and we can't survive on that little.

I also have to get a doctor's note and clearance before I come back to work, so I'm stuck taking a minimum of 6-8 weeks off. At least my DP is working and he will just have to keep up with bills as best he can and if something has to slide then we'll catch it up later. It sucks, but what else can you do?

[*Jade*]

Originally Posted by WTHamI?

If the government pays your salary, that is basically confiscating money from other working people via taxes to pay your salary during that time.

See, I see the role of our taxes to support the citizens of our country. And it's not like there aren't financial benefits to maternity leave - babies going into daycare later could lead to less illness, which the government then has to pay to treat.

That said, I live in a country where the leave is much more than in the US, but still not great. I will get 14 weeks paid, although at a maximum of $350 after tax. After that, I can stay off work unpaid for up to 52 weeks (in total) while my job is held for me. It's better than some, but as others have said, it's not great.

[MyFullHouse]

Originally Posted by Kyamo

In Canada, it is part of EI (employment insurance, which is also what pays out if you are laid off). Both the company and the employee contribute to EI. It is one year, 55% of salary up to a maximum (someone else posted the max). Some generous companies will "top up" so that some people will get more than 55%.

I love when companies make maternity pay their own chosen policy. I know several moms who have had that benefit for at least a short time period. I am a bit uneasy about the government equating maternity leave to unemployment though.

Personally, I've had exactly 1 maternity leave with short-term disability payments (I stopped working while pg with #2). It certainly wasn't *great*, lol, but I knew it was coming. As of Dec., I will have had 5 children in 12 years. Not because my hypothetical company laid me off, but because I chose that path. Multiple times. I'm really not sure I could be comfortable with being paid for 5 years of work I never did, especially when only working for 7 intermittent years.

Not that it wouldn't be an awesome financial relief! But I would struggle with the idea. Heck, I already feel weird about claiming my kids as tax exemptions!

[mbhf]

Originally Posted by WTHamI?

I know I'm in the minority here, but I would not expect someone else to pay my salary while I was not working because I chose to have a child.

I agree with this whole post, but really, how can anyone argue with this?

[Galatea]

Originally Posted by mbhf

I agree with this whole post, but really, how can anyone argue with this?

B/c having healthy children and mothers is a societal good.

[Baby~Braatens~Mama]

Originally Posted by WTHamI?

I know I'm in the minority here, but I would not expect someone else to pay my salary while I was not working because I chose to have a child. If the company pays for it, it's an incredible hardship on a business (especially small businesses) to be paying two salaries for one position while you are away. If the government pays your salary, that is basically confiscating money from other working people via taxes to pay your salary during that time. BOTH scenarios would greatly increase the cost of living, and as other posters have said, many countries that have policies such as this have a cost of living so high it's almost impossible to have one stay-at-home parent. In my opinion, that scenario takes choices AWAY from women, rather than giving us freedom to choose whether to work or stay home with our children.

If the financial burden was on the company, I believe they would be less inclined to hire women of childbearing age simply because they can't afford to pay twice as much for her position (her plus a replacement) while she is on maternity leave. I know it's difficult when you are the person taking leave, but to be honest I would not trade a policy of unpaid leave for the benefit of paid leave for those reasons - I believe it ultimately would do more harm than good to women's place in the workforce. This isn't to say I don't feel for you because it is difficult to give up part of your income when you have a baby, but please consider the consequences if the U.S. were to mandate paid leave policies.

I completely agree! It is so hard for me to leave my company, and the owners are completely adorable, wonderfull people. They have been more than helpfull and I have had to turn down any more assistance from them. It was getting a little overwhelming. They are a struggling, small company and it is hard for them to get hands (a very physical and dirty job with many hours and days in the field.) I started feeling like I was taking advantage of them. I will no longer be employed by this company as of June 30, and will not be accepting any maternity leave from them as I do not feel that I will be able to work with them again once my son is born.

I have no idea what I will do without the salary I was getting, but enrolled myself back in school January and will hopefully have my MT diploma by the time baby is getting ready to be born. I am fortunate in having a wonderful dp and his entire family at my baby's disposal, I can not imagine where I would be financially and work-wise if I had been given my little man at an earlier age in a different stage of my life.

I wish you the very best of luck, mama. Sorry for rambing on here, but this is a topic I have spent much time thinking about these past six months.

[sharr610]

Originally Posted by Galatea

B/c having healthy children and mothers is a societal good.

EXACTLY. The thing is, many mamas and families are having to make the horrible choice about going back to work within a truly inhumanely short period of time. Many babes are missing out on breast milk, many mamas are suffering PPD, babes suffer from attachment issues and early illnesses abound. The long term costs and effects of these things are huge.

As a society, we stand up on a lot of things and say that its important to us to make sure they are basic rights of our citizens and that we'll all chip in for them. In the US, that includes care for our elderly(to an extent), free public education, public roads, and emergency services just to name a few.

I agree that the burden on small businesses would be great, but its not like there aren't small businesses pretty much EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED country in the world that seems to offer greater support to their new mamas and babies. It seems to be something that they have surmounted. Its not like there aren't creative solutions to issues such as these.

And there is also the whole issue of how women are cared for in this country in general. Insurance companies are turning down women for previous c/s, BUT viagra and other impotence medications are covered for men.

Sorry, didn't mean to get so soapbox-y. I just think that taking care of our families should be something we care about a bit more as a society, not just amongst ourselves. My husband and I have spent a lot of time living in West Africa. Granted, the poverty and disease are issues, but kids are looked out for. Moms get time with them, they have a huge community of people who will watch them, and they are considered treasures, not burdens on society. Can you just imagine, with the resources we have in this country, if we were to adopt such a mentality, how much greater we could be?

[Pinoikoi]

Originally Posted by Galatea

B/c having healthy children and mothers is a societal good.

There are lots of ways of having healthy children.. as was previously pointed out, sometimes parents can SAHM in the US that wouldn't be able to in other countries.. I think a SAHM is another way of having healthy children, and perhaps even has greater impact than paid maternity leave.. (debatable since most moms stay home for SOME amount of time ppd, and not all moms SAHM, but I think the point has to be made).

Originally Posted by sharr610

I agree that the burden on small businesses would be great, but its not like there aren't small businesses pretty much EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED country in the world that seems to offer greater support to their new mamas and babies. It seems to be something that they have surmounted. Its not like there aren't creative solutions to issues such as these.

And there is also the whole issue of how women are cared for in this country in general. Insurance companies are turning down women for previous c/s, BUT viagra and other impotence medications are covered for men.

I agree that the burden on small businesses in every other developed country in the world is great. In fact I am not sure the last time that I was able to buy a product from a small business that was in a developed country other than the US. I think the reality is that most products (and the least burden) comes from countries that are under developed.. until that is addressed, then US businesses need to be able to stay competitive.

I think a healthy economy is crucial for healthy children. In fact that is one reason why I live where I do.. I don't want my children burdened with more debt than they have to be.. for example, there are lots of States that are economically in the red, and operating that way, but eventually someone is going to have to fix the problem... it will not just go away somehow. I don't want to leave my kids with that kind of legacy.

The medical issues- now that one is a biggy.. I get spam all the time telling me how I can "increase my member" yet so many women are dealing with fertility issues out of pocket.. that one just does not compute at all for me.

[Hannah32]

Originally Posted by mbhf

I agree with this whole post, but really, how can anyone argue with this?

Well many don't want to argue that point. That's why life in the US is the way that it is. Other industrialized countries have social safety nets. We have credit cards and "good luck with that" attitudes.

I really think my hubby and I would fit in better in Europe.

[Climbergirl]

If a company is going to pay for someone to recover from heart surgery, then they can pay for me to recover from a c-section. Regardless of whether I choose to have a child or not. Because the smoker who was in the cube next to me would get paid to have treatment for illnesses caused by him choosing to smoke. So, yes, I expect my company to pay for my time off, just like they pay for time off for recovery of a lot of other things.

At my company, the dude with the heart attack caused from years of smoking got a better deal on leave than I did for maternity leave.