I was very thrilled to hear that my sister in law is having a second baby; but then she threw her hands up in the air and said “WOO-HOO: I DONT HAVE TO WORK FOR 2 MORE YEARS!”
Yep, she’s been on maternity leave for about 18 months, and once little sucker #2 pops out of the oven, it will be another 2 years before she has to work again. She even said there was another woman at work that hadn’t returned for SEVEN years; when she returns, her company has to give her job back. That is an OUTRAGE, in my opinion.
I really don’t like her attittude. Her going on maternity leave is something that is a huge financial burden to her company and her co-workers, and should not be “celebrated” as a vacation.
Is maternity leave fair?
You have to spend a lot of money to train a new person to take over that mother’s position. Then, when she finally does return, you may have to let her go; all that training for naught. Plus, the replacement is thrown back on the street.
Or, you have other workers pick up the slack. Where I work, one of our sales reps is on leave. Her customers are constantly complaining they are not getting enough service, and we cant properly take care of our other customers because we are constantly taking care of these customers (customers do not care about you, by the way).
After missing work 4-7 years, how “in touch” can you be? Almost certainly, you will need to spend MORE time retraining, costing the company MORE money.
Is it more fair for an expectant mother (or the father) to leave their career to take care of the baby . . . allowing someone else a chance at the job . . . and taking their chances in the workforce LATER when the children grow up? Maternity leave screws business owners and other emloyees, especially in small businesses.
While I think they should be allowed leave when they get too pregnant to a short while after birth, I think extended maternity leave to that extent is ridiculously wrong.
Economic fact of life: Women are valuable workplace resources, and our economy would suffer gravely without them.
Biological fact of life: Women get pregnant.
Social fact of life: In our culture, women are the primary caregivers to babies and youngchildren.
Results of these intersecting facts: Maternity Leave.
Now, Vinnie’s SIL works for a company with unusually liberal leave policies, far beyond what the law requires, but I imagine they’ve done the necessary financial analysis, and concluded that their policies are at least economically neutral, and possibly even beneficial. I certainly wouldn’t presume to second-guess their understanding of their own business model.
Companies (in general) benefit from increased women’s participation in the workforce (greater pool of talent to draw from). It is therefore in their interest to try to retain female talent by catering for situations that apply fairly frequently to women.
Everyone benefits from the fact that some people are willing to incur the costs (in terms of disruption to their lives) that having children places on them. It is therefore reasonable that some of the cost should be ‘spread around’ society in general - eg the fact that the childless help to fund public schools, and the fact that workplaces have to provide maternity leave.
You don’t specify what your location is, (or, more pertinently, you’re SIL’s location) but two YEARS seems awfully high to be a legally mandated maternity leave time. Does she get her two years because it’s the law or because her company has chosen to provide two years maternity leave as a general policy?
If it’s the latter, then presumably they must think the benefits are worth it - thus no ethical problem.
(on preview: I’ve been beaten to some of these points…WTH, submit anyhoo…)
In Canada, it’s called Parental Leave, either parent may take it, and I think it caps out somewhere around a year. And in the Yukon for sure anyway, it applies to all sectors. AFAIK, it’s true Canada-wide.
My maternity leave was six weeks. Covered with 2/3rd pay under short term disability insurance - which didn’t kick in for two weeks, so it was essentially four weeks paid…oh, and 2/3rd pay topped out, and I made more than it topped out at, so I got about 1/2 my income. And it was taxed.
And since I ripped badly and suffered from post natal depression and some serious nursing issues, it wasn’t exactly vacation, as much as it was lying on my couch trying to sleep, feeding the baby, moving to the bathtub to speed healing, trying to sleep, feeding the baby…rinse repeat.
Seemed fair.
With your sister-in-law, I’m guessing she isn’t getting paid. So the employers only legal responsibility is to give her a job when she returns.
You know what, I owe an apology; my SIL is a teacher, so you are right, I imagine that since most elementary a school teachers are women, extended maternity leave is a nice recruiting tool.
I dont have a problem with a few weeks or a few months . . . but 2 years? I still don’t see how that is economically feasible.
Actually, I don’t see how a few weeks or a few months is ENOUGH, unless arrangements have been made with the other parents or grandparents to watch the child. Maybe my issue is with stay at home parents?
I think maternity leave is a good thing, because it allows the parents time to physically heal from the stress of childbirth, to emotionally bond with the baby and to allow the parents to make whatever temporary or permanent arrangements for the care of the baby so Mom can go back to work, if she wishes. Being in a position where all these details are worked out is a hellova lot better than taking it a day at a time.
I’ve worked with women, who, for whatever reason, did not take the full maternity leave, and who were left in far worse shape than someone who took the full leave. They often didn’t have a workable permanent daycare provider and had to take time off when Grandma couldn’t sit that day. One or two had physical problems after delivery and had to miss work to keep doctor’s appointments related to complications.
On an economic level, it depends a lot on the financial condition of the parents. If Dad makes enough for Mom to stay home for an extended period, then great. (Or if Mom’s job offers short-term-disability that covers maternity.) No one should be forced to go to work unless economic conditions demand it. A lot of women and some men (myself included, at least for the short-term) choose to stay at home with their children, and that’s a choice that’s best left to the individual family.
I, too, agree that Maternity leave is a good thing. Lady Chance used it, in the same scenario that Dangerosa described, for two months then back to work.
I decided I was going to take time off to be with the baby, too. When my firm denied it I quit. Just that simple. Had a job lined up with a firm who asked me to start a when I was done. It was worth every penny.
Actually, in some jobs it can be very feasible, like my old job. I worked for a government agency and was entitled to 4 years child care leave for my first child and three years for subsequent children. No pay, no benefits, I would have just gotten a job in my title back (and not necessarily the same one), and available to fathers as well as mothers.There were a few thousand jobs in my title, and hundreds of people were hired each year because of the very high turnover. No replacement getting thrown out onto the street- there simply wuld be one less new hire to replace someone who quit or retired. And I suspect the same would go for teachers who teach in a school system (whether public or private).
You can also split it. I know a couple that split the parental leave. Mommy stayed home for six months when she needed to recouperate and bond with the baby and then Poppa spent the following six months bonding with junior and changing diapers. It worked out really well.
2 years? Wow. I’ve never heard of that… Is it subsidized by the company (is she earning some kind of income)?
Well, let’s see. How about if we compare infant-and-toddler parenting with another time-demanding, highly praised, socially necessary job: military service?
Here’s the previous argument, amended for the new hypothetical:
"1. You have to spend a lot of money to train a new person to take over that soldier’s position. Then, when he or she finally does return, you may have to let that replacement go; all that training for naught. Plus, the replacement is thrown back on the street.
Or, you have other workers pick up the slack. Where I work, one of our sales reps is on military leave. His customers are constantly complaining they are not getting enough service, and we cant properly take care of our other customers because we are constantly taking care of these customers (customers do not care about you, by the way).
After missing work 4-7 years, how “in touch” can you be? Almost certainly, you will need to spend MORE time retraining, costing the company MORE money.
Is it more fair for a draftee to leave their career to take care of military service . . . allowing someone else a chance at the job . . . and taking their chances in the workforce LATER when the callup is over? Military leave screws business owners and other employees, especially in small businesses."
I guess shooting at people for three years means you get your job back as society’s way of thanking you; raising people for three years is obviously not as valuable.
Doubtless this sounds sarcastic, but the real question is: why is it considered reasonable to promise return-to-your-job rights to soldiers, but not to mothers? (Read "caretaker parents’ for the politically correct)
One of my girlfriends is a teacher and had a similar deal. For her there were a ton of caveats to it. She could take two years off, unpaid. She had to get “tenured” in her district (which took about three years IIRC), and then her seniority was frozen. Which means that if they were laying off English teachers, she had three years, not five, at the end of her leave.
She actually got the job out of a similar situation. The previous English teacher had taken a two year leave of absence to stay at home with her kids. My friend got the job. After two years, teacher didn’t come back (maybe had another kid and took another sabatical), now my friend has a permanent job. If the previous instructor wanted to come back now, my girlfriend (with her four years before maternity leave) would have more seniority than the old teacher (with three years). But neither of them came back - can’t pay daycare around here on a teacher’s salary.
For teachers this makes some sense. In many places, there is a shortage of them. Its primarily female. They have a good union (which can’t get them paid well, but does tend to get them decent benefits). They can stay pretty current in their field with minimal work while on leave. And they are government employees.
