Maternity Leave - Page 4

[lillymonster]

Originally Posted by Climbergirl

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.

Yes, I do have to agree, I had a co-worker who was an alcoholic and heavy smoker with all kinds of health issues. Our sick days were basically "free" not coming out of saved vacation days, so you got paid and didn't use any time. She missed at least one day of work a week, usually 2-3. She got paid time off for her ER visits, for surgeries, she was in and out of the hospital more times than anyone I know, and she was only 52. At one point she was off paid for 3 months. Now, how is that right, she reeked of smoke and booze in the morning coming into work. She was ruining her health and everyone was okay with it.

I get a call 2 days after giving birth asking if I can work from home or come back early?? I know this co-worker took well over 6 weeks in time off over a few months

[Pinoikoi]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's not fair.

[Climbergirl]

Yeah, it was a little unfair. My company was bought out and when that happened (in CA), you could vote to not be in the state disability program. So, the company had this big meeting and told us that for their short term disability, they would pay 6 months at 100% (which was better than the state program). When we asked what the maternity policy was, the HR (idiots) said they were not sure. Now, before, all people (including maternity) had the same STD benefit, so we were all hopeful that we would get 6 months at 100%.

And, then, it turned out, they were able to exclude maternity. So, while my benefits were good, it was frustrating to know that someone who made really poor choices related to their health could stay out longer at 100% than I could. And, I felt that they should have been able to answer the question related to maternity with a bit better clarity.

I had 4.5 months at some sort of pay, so I still feel lucky.

[WildinTheory]

Originally Posted by Pinoikoi

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'd love to see some numbers on this. Are there really more SAHM's in the US then anywhere else in the world? I would think that there are more mom's home with infants in Canada due to the paid leave. After 1 year I'd be curious. There is no doubt that here in Canada we pay more taxes, and have a higher cost of living, but is our standard of living less? I don't feel like it is but I don't really know.

Both DH and I work and have well paying jobs. This means we pay a lot of taxes and those dollars go to support a lot of things, including mom's and babies who don't have as much as we do. I love that about our country and even though my paid maternity leave will be a cut in pay I'm go grateful for the time I get to be with my new baby.

[PhotoJournMama]

I live in Canada too and am very proud of how we take care of mothers here in terms of giving a year off with partial pay. We pay taxes, employment insurance, and for a national pension plan, which as the pp said pay for many wonderful social programs.

I don't find the cost of living here to be restrictive to my being a SAHM. We don't make a tonne of money but we live within our means and are able to save what we can. Obviously I don't work now so I won't be getting ei when I have the next child, but I will get a tiny bit every month from the government (a tax credit for having kids). I think in Europe the cost of living is high for a lot of reasons, not because people are able to be home with their kids.

I also don't see a lot of people popping out babies just so they can get time off. Most people I know have one or two kids, a few have three or four. No different from anywhere else - whatever works for that family, not whatever will let you stay at home the most. I know a lot of women who have been able to have kids, stay home with them, and still advance in the company or institution because they are valued for their work. I don't know why it's such a tough sell.

[Megan73]

Another proud Canadian here!

[lrgs]

I agree 100% with the 3 Canadians above. I don't mind paying taxes for some of our social programs......including supporting new mom's in being able to stay home with their babies for the first year of their lives. We pay into our Employment Insurance for our whole lives and it's nice to have that benefit when having children. If I'm going to question where my taxes go it's certainly not that area...........there's a lot of waste out there (and things that should be cut back) but I think the societal benefit to helping mom's stay home with their babies a little extra time is well worth it.

Our tax bill is fairly high and everyone would love to pay a little less but there are some things that I feel need to be supported. I don't think it's anymore cost restrictive here to have someone stay home with the kids then it is in the US. We have our high cost of living areas and our low cost of living areas......same as anywhere else. People aren't necessarily priced out of staying home because of cost of living. I personally have a lot of friends who are SAHM's and with some budgetting and cut backs I could stay home too (if that was our choice).

As for people having babies just because of the paid leave........I'm not sure about that. I am one of the very lucky people who has my year off paid at full salary (half by EI and half topped up by my employer). While I am lucky not to have to restrict my family size due to work or money issues, I certainly would not be having more children just because I get paid leave. There are a lot of other factors working to decide that.

[smpayne]

In CA the STD for the most part is funded by the state disability we pay into. It is 4 weeks before EDD and 6 weeks PP (8 for c/s) or until the doctor releases you clear for work. The check is about 60% of our salary (up to the max) but disability is not taxable, so it can get pretty close to your take home. Although it really hurts when you have to pay for your insurance while on disability.

Over the years, I have talked with a few people from European countries and they have to pay double to triple what most of us pay in taxes. Look at your next pay stub, double the amount taken out for taxes, what will your pay check look like then? How much will that cost you over your lifetime vs saving for extra maternity leave on your own?

There is always the option of purchasing private disability insurance that will pay extra maternity leave (and for just being out sick). Over the years, I have know a number of self employed independent contractors that do this, because if they don't work, they have no income.

I completely agree, that maternity leave should be treated as any other medical leave (heart attack, gastric bypass, major surgery, etc) and that companies (or insurance companies) should not have the option of "opting out of maternity care".

[Pippi L.]

I'm with the Canadians above -- I'm proud and happy to pay taxes that support mothers (and fathers!) staying home with their babies for the first year. We certainly contribute quite a bit in our family. It's healthy for parents and babies to have that time together in many, many ways. There are still lots of SAHP and parents who work part time in my area after maternity and paternity are over even though the cost of living is high here (an average single family home is around a million dollars now I believe).

I have American friends (I'm American and moved up here for university and stayed) who are going back to work at 6 weeks post partem because financially they have to. I think that's abusive, plain and simple, to both mother and child. Sometimes taxes are worth paying.

[Ola_]

Originally Posted by Hannah32

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.

Originally Posted by Pinoikoi

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?

I can tell you that it's not a recent development, I was born in Poland and turned 30 this year. Admittedly I don't know how long the birth rate has been sinking for.

Now as a Canadian (with dual citizenship, another great thing ) I'm very glad for the maternity leave policy that we have here. I haven't used it yet, but I've been paying into the system for a while now, and will pay into it much more in the future. I don't see anything wrong with using those benefits.

Is the tax rate that much higher here? Maybe it is, though I recall comparing it once and after factoring in the state and federal taxes in the US it really didn't seem like a huge difference (depending on the state). But I suppose that's another topic.

[Greenlea]

With my 1st child I told my boss I would be taking off 6 weeks after the baby was born and they just about fell over! I work for a very small company and it was un-paid maternity leave. They wouldn't even let me use my vacation time I had, although they did pay me one week of it after I got back.

Then, even though we couldn't afford it, I only came back part time thus losing my health insurance. But at least I didn't have to leave my 6 week old at daycare full time. 8 mths later I started working full time again (at the same company), only to have my hours cut back down to part time 3 mths later. And my DH only gets one week off to help me, but he has to use his vacation time to do it. Which means we're stressed out for the rest of the year because we can't take another vacation.

I am currently pregnant again, with no health insurance, since my PT status doesn't allow me to get the group coverage at work, and since I have this "pre-existing condition" of being pregnant, can't get personal insurance either. I told my boss I was taking 8 weeks off this time, as I will be giving birth in our slow season, and they "seemed" all right with that. But I don't know how I'm going to leave my 8 week old in daycare nor pay for two kids in daycare, and with my hour commute each way - it's just gonna suck. I'm trying to figure out a way to not go back to work, or only work PT at a different job.

I HATE America's health care system and their outlook on maternity leave. It's like you get stuck either way - SAHM's get looked down upon cuz they don't "work" and working mom's get looked down upon cuz they're not at home. Plus oh my god to have a child in daycare?? What are you thinking??

Sometimes I just want to go off and live in the woods or something; let the bank take my house and my car and not worry about bills.