Motion: TTHB that it is in the interests of women's equality to campaign against maternity leave

[constanze]

@Laudenum

My first reaction on reading the debate was that it is a rediculous idea, but I’m beginning to see the merits.
Women aren’t delicate flowers that need months and months of time off - most can go home from hospital the same day. Instead it might be better to have the option of extended sick leave if it is medically necessary.

First, you’re going from one extreme (women are delicate flowers) to the other extreme (a birth is just small stuff, you can go home the same day). Thus you have excluded the reasonable middle:

a birth is a major procedure, even if natural, and takes time to heal and recover from.

In my country (Germany, in the Socialist state of Europe) we have maternal protection athe workplace

Der Mutterschutz beginnt sechs Wochen vor der Geburt bzw. vor dem errechneten Geburtstermin. Werdende Mütter dürfen in den letzten sechs Wochen vor der Entbindung nicht arbeiten, es sei denn, dass sie sich ausdrücklich dazu bereit erklären. Nach der Niederkunft dürfen die Wöchnerinnen bis zum Ablauf von acht Wochen nicht beschäftigt werden, bei Früh- und Mehrlingsgeburten wird diese Zeit auf zwölf Wochen ausgedehnt. Insgesamt betragen die Mutterschutzfristen (vor und nach der Geburt) zusammen mindestens 14 Wochen. Alle Tage, die durch eine „vorzeitige“ Entbindung verloren gehen, werden gewissermaßen an die acht- bzw. zwölfwöchige Schutzfrist nach der Geburt „angehängt“.

Maternal protection starts 6 weeks before the date of birth or the calculated date of birth. Pregnant mothers are not allowed to work in the last 6 weeks before delivery, unless they expressivly declare it. After delivery the women in childbed can not be put to work before 8 weeks have passed; in case of preemies or multiple babies, this time is lengthened to 12 weeks. All together the maternal protection before and after delivery is at least 14 weeks. All days lost to an “earlier” delivery, are “added” to the 8/12 weeks span afterwards.

This is medically sensible not because women are delicate - medical science knows that complete bedrest during pregnancy like in Victorian times is usually not healthy. Nevertheless, esp. in the last weeks, pregnancy is not a stroll in the park either - not only is the mother carrying a lot of weight with the baby, her whole organism is supporting it, which is an additional strain, plus the hormones are making her own body go out of whack. So it’s different from a man being overweight or carrying a bag of potatoes for an afternoon to see what it feels like.

Time off for sickness is of course in a civilised first-world country always given as needed. That some employees have a limited amount of days off per year, both for vacation and sick leave, strikes me as unlogical and backwards and non-rational in the extreme: humans aren’t machines and can’t control how often they get sick, or why and how long.

So instead of shortening maternity leave, the sensible medical rational solution is to allow unlimited sick leave for all employees if really sick (together with Access to Healthcare to get treatment, instead of sitting around sick infecting everybody else, or being fired and a drain on the economy).

In addition to the medically reasonable maternity protection, there’sparental leave, which used to be taken by the mothers, but can now be taken by the father or split to suit individual circumstances. It’s both because new babies need feeding, and with all that waking up every 4 hrs., people can’t really work anyway; and babies needs bonding with their parents if we don’t want them to shrivel into soulless cold bastards who become penny-pinching employers.

Die Elternzeit dauert maximal 3 Jahre, anspruchsberechtigt sind Mütter und Väter. Sie können die Elternzeit gleichzeitig oder nacheinander nehmen. Eine Teilzeitbeschäftigung von bis zu 30 Stunden pro Woche ist möglich.

Parental time is a maximum of 3 years. It can be claimed by mothers and fathers. They can take parental leave both at the same time or consecutivly. A part-time work of up to 30 hrs per week is possible.

The usual construction is that the mother takes off the first 6 months for breastfeeding, and when the child is 1 1/2 years old she starts working part time again. Or the father takes off when the child is about 1 year old to bond, too.

But I can’t help feeling that if it becomes in anyway optional, women will be pressured to go back to work before they are ready.

Protection laws for employees should never be optional, because in most cases the job market is against the employee.

Actually that sounds as if there is some maternal protection or leave in the US as law after all? Really? Than why do so many people say that they have to go home from hospital the day after birth? Why do so many women say they went to work while the baby was still keeping her up, because she couldn’t afford staying home? Is this unpaid leave in the law???

In the Pulitzer article on babies being forgotten in car seats and dying, one factor often cited that shocked me was on how much sleep deprivatin those parents still worked and drove cars - because the laws didn’t give them the first half year off paid.

So if you want to prevent deaths by accident from sleep deprivation and exhaustion, the care-taking parent needs to be able to stay at home for at least the first 6-9 months, until the baby lets the parent sleep the night through. There are tons of evidence on the negative effects of sleep deprivation.

[Skammer]

@constanze

Actually that sounds as if there is some maternal protection or leave in the US as law after all? Really?

There is federal law in the US called the Family Medical Leave Act, which entitles workers to time off for their own serious health condition (including pregnancy and childbirth), to bond with a new baby, or to take care of an ill family member (and some related reasons).

However, in order to be eligible for this entitlement:
– you must work for an employer with more than 50 employees within 75 miles of your work location
– you must have worked for that employer for at least a year (not necessarily consecutive)
– you must have worked 1250 hours in the previous 12 months

Then, if you qualify, the law gives you up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. That’s it. If you aren’t ready to come back to work in 12 weeks in most cases the company can replace your position.

Than why do so many people say that they have to go home from hospital the day after birth? Why do so many women say they went to work while the baby was still keeping her up, because she couldn’t afford staying home? Is this unpaid leave in the law???

These are two separate questions. People feel pressured to leave the hospital as soon as possible because generally that’s all the care that their medical insurance will pay for. Even if your company is generously providing you with paid leave, you’d be on the hook for thousands of dollars if your insurance stopped paying the hospital. So they have to go home.

However, women go back to work because they are often not getting paid while on leave. They may have short-term disablity insurance, or they may have paid parental leave, but neither is guaranteed. The law only guarantees you unpaid time off, and again only if you meet the qulifications I listed above.

[constanze]

@Skammer

There is federal law in the US called the Family Medical Leave Act, which entitles workers to time off for their own serious health condition (including pregnancy and childbirth), to bond with a new baby, or to take care of an ill family member (and some related reasons).

However, in order to be eligible for this entitlement:
– you must work for an employer with more than 50 employees within 75 miles of your work location
– you must have worked for that employer for at least a year (not necessarily consecutive)
– you must have worked 1250 hours in the previous 12 months

Then, if you qualify, the law gives you up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. That’s it. If you aren’t ready to come back to work in 12 weeks in most cases the company can replace your position.
These are two separate questions. People feel pressured to leave the hospital as soon as possible because generally that’s all the care that their medical insurance will pay for. Even if your company is generously providing you with paid leave, you’d be on the hook for thousands of dollars if your insurance stopped paying the hospital. So they have to go home.

However, women go back to work because they are often not getting paid while on leave. They may have short-term disablity insurance, or they may have paid parental leave, but neither is guaranteed. The law only guarantees you unpaid time off, and again only if you meet the qulifications I listed above.

To me it’s insane to have leave if you don’t get paid. What’s that supposed to achieve?

And it shows how much your govt. values mothers and children and families: Not enough to spend money on them when it’s important like European countries do.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@constanze

To me it’s insane to have leave if you don’t get paid. What’s that supposed to achieve?

It’t not quite insane. The idea is that your job is safe while you’re on leave – that you won’t be replaced or your position eliminated, and that when you return after the leave is done you won’t have lost any seniority (though the time on leave doesn’t count; it’s as if the seniority clock were put on pause). The drawback – or at least limitation – is that this only works for persons who either have enough money saved to be able to afford to be out of work for a considerable length of time, or whose household has other income coming in, say from a spouse.

As for your claim that the US government does not care about mothers & children: to me it seems more that we have limited resources, and acknowledge that. Should the government force the companies to pay people for not working? How is that fair to the company?

[perfectparanoia]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

As for your claim that the US government does not care about mothers & children: to me it seems more that we have limited resources, and acknowledge that. Should the government force the companies to pay people for not working? How is that fair to the company?

You could try it the Canadian way. In Canada, you get 15 weeks of Maternity leave (which can only be taken by a mother who has recently given birth) and 35 weeks of parental leave (taken by either parent but only 35 weeks total between you). You do not get paid by your employer (typically, there are some companies that do pay) but get paid employment insurance.

Your job (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) is guaranteed while you are on leave.

EI is not much in terms of cash but it can be enough to keep you afloat. The company is not paying your wages so they can afford to hire a temp or contractor to backfill you.

(Aside: there is currently an undercurrent that is working to make it 50 weeks of parental leave and get rid of maternity leave (with an additional kind of leave for surrogate mothers to recover). This would allow mothers to go back to work as soon as they were able if their husband wanted to stay at home with the baby.)

[constanze]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

It’t not quite insane. The idea is that your job is safe while you’re on leave – that you won’t be replaced or your position eliminated, and that when you return after the leave is done you won’t have lost any seniority (though the time on leave doesn’t count; it’s as if the seniority clock were put on pause). The drawback – or at least limitation – is that this only works for persons who either have enough money saved to be able to afford to be out of work for a considerable length of time, or whose household has other income coming in, say from a spouse.

It’s insane or hypocritical or dumb because keeping the job safe without making it possible for a normal worker with a one-income household to recuperate from his illness by getting continually money to pay the usual expenses is useless.

If the normal worker is so sick he needs to stay at home, he needs the money to pay the rent and food and medicine to get well again, too. That should be obvious. That his job is safe is a given for me, but then I come from a socialist state where the govt. makes basic laws to protect the workers against the power of the employers.

As for your claim that the US government does not care about mothers & children: to me it seems more that we have limited resources, and acknowledge that. Should the government force the companies to pay people for not working? How is that fair to the company?

Limited resources? Excuse me, I thought we were talking about the USA and not Burkina Faso.

Seriously, if your companies don’t feel the civic obligation to help the wider community by making it possible for mothers to bring new children into the world (if all companies pay it, it’s not unfair) - then the govt. should step in. Esp. since your conservative Christian senators and talking heads and politicans are all so vocal about protecting children, setting up a fund to pay mothers before and after birth a minimum wage to stay at home to recuperate and bond with the child would be a way to put actions to words, instead of it being simply a bunch of lies against women deciding themselves about abortion.

Of course in my socialist country, where there is healthcare for all employees plus their families, the sick pay for normal illness is paid from the healthinsurance to the worker. Maternal leave and parental leave are paid by the employer. But then, our constitution says that the state recognizes the special status of a family and therefore aids and protects it - which means helping mothers and born children, not forbidding gay marriage.