# My Employer's Idea of Maternity Leave **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 14, 2004, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003 "2004-04-14T17:50:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2004, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/221 "2004-04-21T20:35:16Z")
> [@racinchikki](#): > > For the baby? If I break a leg I’m not suddenly responsible for another human life, so there’s no need for me to wait any longer than it takes for me, personally, to get better. From a disability perspective, that would fall under the heading of “your choice, your problem.” I think what **catsix** is getting at (though it’s nearly clear as mud) is that short-term disability insurance should only cover the time that the mother is actually disabled. Anything longer than the time it takes for her to recuperate, she’s not disabled and shouldn’t be eligible for disability benefits. Beyond that point, nobody owes her a dime for not working. If the company or the government want to offer additional family leave benefits (available to _all_ employees, whether they have kids or not), fine, great, yay for all of us. If, however, people are getting disability benefits after they are no longer in fact disabled while other employees have to come back as soon as they’re medically cleared, that’s bullshit. If parents are getting paid family leave to spend with their kids but nonparents aren’t getting fully equivalent paid leave to spend with their families, that’s bullshit. Basically, if someone’s getting preferential treatment on the clock because of stuff that happens off the clock, that’s bullshit. I don’t care if you’re getting cut extra slack because you’ve got kids or because you’re screwing the boss, it’s bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![belladonna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9fc29f/32.png) [@belladonna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/belladonna)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/222 "2004-04-21T20:59:49Z")
> [@](#): > > It’d be the same thing if someone has to stay out to take care of a parent with cancer or alzheimer’s, once the employee’s leave time is over, the employer has no obligation to hold a job open for that person. The sick family member being taken care of is not entitled to a benefit from the employer (giving additional leave to the employee). Why would it be different for a baby? Actually, the FMLA does cover employees who are responsible for caretaking of sick parents and spouses, so regardless of the employers personal policies about paid leaves anyone in a caretaking position is eligible for the federally allotted time off. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2004, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/223 "2004-04-21T21:11:37Z")
> [@](#): > > **mske** said: > Seems to me catsix that should actually be advocating a longer maternity leave - like one year. At that point, it makes economic sense for your employer to hire a temp/contract person to replace them rather than shift the burden on everyone else for a six week period of time. I think if I were in a different industry I might advocate getting a temp for a year. I just know that with what I do it’s hard for someone who is not already familiar with whatever the hell we’re working on to walk in and pick it up, especially if we’re smack in the middle of a project. The teaching part of my job could probably be easily picked up by a temp, since there’s a course outline to follow, a book to use, and a disk full of tests to give. It’s all the other stuff that there’s so much windup time for that becomes a problem for a new person. It took the last new person we got three months to get up to speed on how our systems work and all the ways we do things, which also left me grouchy for a while because the two-week interim between the fall and winter terms ended up having less accomplished project-wise than should’ve been. Anyway, I think yeah if I were in some other field I might be more prone to say ‘Hey, leave for a year, you’ll still have a job, you just won’t get the seniority and full salary that you’d get if you were here. We’ll have a temp.’ > [@](#): > > **CrazyCatLady** said: > I think what catsix is getting at (though it’s nearly clear as mud) is that short-term disability insurance should only cover the time that the mother is actually disabled. Anything longer than the time it takes for her to recuperate, she’s not disabled and shouldn’t be eligible for disability benefits. Beyond that point, nobody owes her a dime for not working. This is exactly what I am trying to say. I am so glad you speak such fluent ‘engineer’ to translate it into English. Thanks. > [@](#): > > **belladonna** said: > Actually, the FMLA does cover employees who are responsible for caretaking of sick parents and spouses, so regardless of the employers personal policies about paid leaves anyone in a caretaking position is eligible for the federally allotted time off. This I was not aware of because my bosses apparently are idiots who think ‘family’ = children only. We do not have an HR department here because there’s not enough actual employees to require us to have one or some bullshit like that. I blame solely my bosses for **that** problem. No HR department, nobody who understands any of this to put it in writing or explain it to the employees. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/224 "2004-04-22T00:29:59Z")
Quote: Originally Posted by CanvasShoes If you schedule less time for each patient in order to handle her load, again, that is YOUR choice. And yes, just as in any other job where a person handling a certain job is gone, you may very well have to reschedule patients and say just that “I’m sorry, but the person who was to do your appointment is unable to be here, we have to reschedule”. Why is this so unreasonable? I’ve had Doctor’s offices do that to me. And I didn’t implode. Again, THAT is just part of life. Stuff happens. > [@](#): > > I work in a trauma center, traumas are not scheduled so that would be impossible. Like everyone else, I work in a situation where things don’t fit in neat little boxes with easy little answers for other people to give. I’m trying to show JUST ONE EXAMPLE of how your “one size fits all” answer to how to handle the situation doesn’ t work for everyone. Instead, you want to make snarky and totally ignorant comments about me and my job. You DO live in American right? (if not, then the following doesn’t apply), if so, your company’s policy fall under state and federal law, which regulate rules regarding written company policy. Therefore, I’m afraid your company IS supposed to 'fit in a neat box". At least insofar as the law goes. My point was that YOU have chosen not to pursue your lawful rights to be treated fairly and equitably, and that’s NOT due to maternity leave or moms taking leave, it’s due to ONE woman at your company abusing leave, and your refusal to stand up for yourself in that instance. Period. Quote: Originally Posted by CanvasShoes If your job is SOOOOOO hard, and has SOOOOO many hassles, perhaps it’s not the right job for you. > [@](#): > > Excuse me? I mentioned ONE example of something at my job. Exaggerate much? How dare you insinuate that I’m not right for my career because I site one example of a situation to fit the problem outlined in the previous post. Are you mental? Nope, just answering in kind, for that’s been the tone of your condescending attitude toward working moms and SAHMs throughout the thread. FTR, I don’t fall under either of those, so I don’t have a “dog in the fight”. Just disagreeing with the “moms have no rights” attitudes that about three posters in this thread keep fostering as what “should be”. Quote: Originally Posted by CanvasShoes With your statements above, you are attempting to claim that YOUR job is so special, and so important and vital, that it couldn’t possibly fall under the same conditions as other people’s jobs. That is, that there ARE policies and procedures in place for problem employees. Such as the chronically late and absent. Sorry, I’m not buying it. If you don’t stand up for your OWN rights, no one else will. But if you choose not to, and stand behind your “but MY job is different, and so much more important than anyone else’s, so I can’t possibly do that”. Again, fine. But it’s still YOUR choice. And really, as such, has no bearing on what “working moms” do, by and large. > [@](#): > > Attempting to claim WHAT? I’m attempting to show one example (based on my own experience) of how your tidy solution doesn’t work. NOT ONE TIME did I insinuate that my job is special or different or better. I used MY job as an example, because it is MINE. Duh! I can’t imagine that I needed to explain that to anyone, but there it is. I was using the example that we are all doing JOBS and the people who are on the receiving end of our jobs (in my example, patients) don’t need to be inconvenienced by stuff like that. I hardly think that makes me insinuating that my job is better, important, or more special than anyone elses. Honestly, I can’t imagine what kind of person ASSumes SO many things about a person from such limited information. No, I don’t disagree that you HAVE had the experience you say you have, what I disagree with is you using your personal experience as an argument against working moms taking allowed leave. NOTE I said “allowed”. I’m not talking someone abusing policy, that is another issue, and extends to ALL who abuse leave policy (whether my aforementioned examples OR working moms). One which SHOULD have been addressed in a separate thread, not one talking of maternity leave. > [@](#): > > Maybe I could ASSume that since you had all sorts of jobs instead of a career that you couldn’t keep a job because of your finger pointing, trouble starting, bad attitude. Maybe I should ASSume since it’s been 30 years since you’ve worked that you have no idea about the climate of the workworld now that companies are being sued left and right for wrongful termination and discriminatoin at work. That would make me pretty ignorant to think I know that much about you based on one post. Wouldn’t it? You conveniently forgot to include your statement to which I was replying. Which said, in part (paraphrasing) "Well I work in the real world, and don’t have the luxury to “stand up for myself…” and so on. Implying that a worker who turned in a coworker breaking company policy, and/or a company that is not applying leave time policy equitably is somehow not “working in the ‘real world’” and has the “luxury” to stand up for themselves, unlike you who is in the “real world”. Give us a break. Oh, you’re right, I didn’t explain very well about my “lots of different jobs”. My mistake. In addition to the normal “lots of jobs” any kid does throughout their teens, I’m a project manager for an environmental company, so we are awarded, complete and move on with a lot of different projects/contracts within a year. Hence my doing "lots of different jobs, I didn’t explain very well that I do those jobs for the same company. Just a lot of different clients and types of projects. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/225 "2004-04-22T00:43:49Z")
Quote: CanvasShoes said: Funny how, after a long post addressing all of your points, you pick that to refute. > [@](#): > > The rest of it didn’t seem to warrant a response, since it mostly consists of you disliking my opinion. No, it’s that I “disliked” your opinion, I just found it irrelevant to the OP, and the rest of the discussion at hand. Quote: If you’re getting that impression, then you’re not reading our posts. All of us have stated QUITE clearly, that if a person is abusing company policy, then they ARE in the wrong. > [@](#): > > At the same time saying that because I don’t agree with lengthening the short-term disability leave for having a kid that I must be one of those evil people who begrudge a new mother time with her kid. NOooo. Again, if that’s what you’re getting, then you’re either not reading the WHOLE post, or you’re not understanding it. Your arguments against lengthening maternity leave time have all consisted of how inconvenient that then becomes for the other workers. And then you use YOUR situation as an example of that. Yes, YOUR situationj consists of a jerkish person who takes unplanned leave, using thier kids as an excuse and leaves people in the lurch because then other people may have to pick up the slack and so on. That is NOT the same as a woman who has, from the beginning of her pregnancy, worked WITH her bosses and coworkers to ensure that her position and work is covered, (perhaps with a lucky temp, or underling, as I described before). In YOUR example, you’re right, that person is being unfair, and so is the company if they allow it. But YOUR example is NOT the norm for maternity leave. Quote: What we HAVE said, repeatedly, is that the existance of some people who abuse company policy, does NOT make the policies THEMSELVES wrong. > [@](#): > > Perhaps if a policy is so open to abuse as the ‘my kid needs me so I must take time off’ policy seems to be, a change is in order. As I explained to **Daisy** , there are state and federal laws that regulate written policy at companies already in place. If a company is NOT applying those policies equally, and the employees do nothing about it, then of COURSE it won’t change, no one who can change it KNOWS about the abuse. And once again, abuse of a leave policy is abuse of a leave policy. Should we stop ALL leave and return to Triangle Shirtwaist Company rules so that no one could EVER possibly inconvenience a coworker by calling in sick? ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/226 "2004-04-22T01:16:56Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > What duty does this place on the employer of the mother? The baby’s not an employee and thus has no rights to the benefits of a longer leave on disability from the company. > > It’d be the same thing if someone has to stay out to take care of a parent with cancer or alzheimer’s, once the **employee’s** leave time is over, the employer has no obligation to hold a job open for that person. The sick family member being taken care of is not entitled to a benefit from the employer (giving additional leave to the employee). Why would it be different for a baby? How old are you, and where the hell do you work? Your posts paint you as someone with the “worldliness” of a 12 year old, and the bitterness of a 56 year old spinster (apologies to all happy go lucky 56 year old single ladies). ::shakes head in disbelief:: and feels really bad for you. At any rate, in answer to your questions. It’s not “different from having a baby”. A good company that has a good employee will work with that employee in times of need, whether it’s a blessed event, or a sad one. Again, you must not be reading all of everyone’s posts, because you must have missed my description of what MY company did for me when I broke MY leg. They SAID they valued me, and then they backed up their words by bending over backward to help me get back on my feet (literally). If a person is working for McDonalds or Walmart, I don’t see that happening, but out in the corporate (not the Walmart type corporate, the business type corporate), most companies DO work with their employees. And again, when something like a long maternity leave, or leave to assist an elderly and ill parent DOES happen to an employee, it’s NOT the same as your example of someone consistantly and without notice, calling in sick. It’s something that both the company and the employee work out, for instance: Who is going to cover for the person taking the leave How long the leave is going to be… Compensation Parttime and/or telecommuting And so on. So it’s not as if, for a long term leave, that it’s a sudden, unplanned inconvenience for everyone. Again, many times it opens doors for other people and ends up being a great thing for more than just the mom on leave. Are you so uninformed that you think that in these longer maternity leaves that it’s a case of “mom gets what she wants no matter what”? No. It’s NEGOTIATED. By both the company and the mom, and sometimes mom doesn’t end up coming back to the job, sometimes she opts to stay at home, which is great for the person “holding” her job. It’s STILL great for the person “holding” her job if the mom DOES return to her job. That person has had a year under his/her belt, at a higher responsibility job for a year. He/she is then more valuable to the company as well, and can move up in their field as well. You seem to think that’s it’s like the company has no options, and the job just sits there vacant for a year while the company suffers. And…Again, it’s NOT equivelant to what has happened to you in your job. That’s not maternity leave, that’s not leave at all, that’s out and out abuse, and should be stopped, Period. And that’s true of ANY leave abuse. But the OP and the relevant discussion here is NOT “people who call in sick because of their kids without notice” it’s Maternity leave. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/227 "2004-04-22T01:20:01Z")
> [@](#): > > **CanvasShoes** said: > NOooo. Again, if that’s what you’re getting, then you’re either not reading the WHOLE post, or you’re not understanding it. > > Your arguments against lengthening maternity leave time have all consisted of how inconvenient that then becomes for the other workers. And then you use YOUR situation as an example of that. If that’s the impression you got, you have not read all of my arguments against lengthening the leave for having a kid. One of the biggest reasons I am not in favor of that is that short-term disability is supposed to cover the time that a person is **disabled** and cannot work. I cannot imagine that there are very many cases in which a person is disabled to the point of being unable to work for a year (as are the policies of those European countries some posters in this thread have suggested we need to ‘catch up’ to) after having the baby. If pregnancy related disabilities are treated differently than other short-term disabilities, that seems to be unfair discrimination and something that should be stopped. It is also a problem in companies like my own (yes, I know, not **every** company) where expressing the idea that a pregnancy-related short-term disability be treated no differently than any other short-term disability is responded to with the attitude that the person who feels that way is seen as a shit-heel who begrudges the new mother time with her baby. Do you think that having a baby should be treated so differently from other short-term disabilities? If so, why? > [@](#): > > In YOUR example, you’re right, that person is being unfair, and so is the company if they allow it. But YOUR example is NOT the norm for maternity leave. How is what you have personally seen to be taken as ‘the norm’ for maternity leave? Maybe it isn’t. Maybe ‘the norm’ is somewhere in the middle. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/228 "2004-04-22T01:49:38Z")
Quote: CanvasShoes said: NOooo. Again, if that’s what you’re getting, then you’re either not reading the WHOLE post, or you’re not understanding it. Your arguments against lengthening maternity leave time have all consisted of how inconvenient that then becomes for the other workers. And then you use YOUR situation as an example of that. > [@](#): > > If that’s the impression you got, you have not read all of my arguments against lengthening the leave for having a kid. One of the biggest reasons I am not in favor of that is that short-term disability is supposed to cover the time that a person is disabled and cannot work. **CCL** made that clear, but you didn’t. I have no dog in this fight. I’m no longer a working mom, nor am I a SAHM. But after reading yours and others posts on this subject, what I see is unmitigated bitterness and "IT’S NOT FAIR"ism by you and a few others. Now that b]CCL\*\* has cleared it up, I DO see what your argument is, but your constantly referring to your personal example of the woman who, with no notice, constantly called in because of her kids. Based on your post above, it seems that your beef is, at least partly, against the terminology. Since the woman isn’t physically “disabled” once she’s healed from the delivery, then it’s not a valid reason to be covered. I further see that you believe this to be true for a number of reasons. 1.) It’s not fair. 2.) There is no valid reason to give them any quarter in this instance JUST because they had a baby 3.) It will inconvenience the company and the workers. And I’m sure you have others. > [@](#): > > I cannot imagine that there are very many cases in which a person is disabled to the point of being unable to work for a year (as are the policies of those European countries some posters in this thread have suggested we need to ‘catch up’ to) after having the baby. Um, ONE person in this thread said that. And again, you seem to disagree with that opinion, in part because of the reasons I list above. > [@](#): > > If pregnancy related disabilities are treated differently than other short-term disabilities, that seems to be unfair discrimination and something that should be stopped. It is also a problem in companies like my own (yes, I know, not every company) where expressing the idea that a pregnancy-related short-term disability be treated no differently than any other short-term disability is responded to with the attitude that the person who feels that way is seen as a shit-heel who begrudges the new mother time with her baby. 1.) Physically speaking alone, the disabilities from pregnancy ARE different than other “disabilities”. 2.) Allowing for that difference is does NOT automatically = unfair to the company > [@](#): > > Do you think that having a baby should be treated so differently from other short-term disabilities? If so, why? Well, now that I’m realizing that other people, like you, have such a problem terming it a “disability” what I think (since you asked :D), is that there should be a separate leave policy specifically for maternity. if you’re defining it solely by the term “disability” it really technically ISN’T a disability. It IS however, a very unique phsycial, emotional ordeal. And one which DOES, whether people want to accept it or not, affect all of society in the long run. Quote: In YOUR example, you’re right, that person is being unfair, and so is the company if they allow it. But YOUR example is NOT the norm for maternity leave. > [@](#): > > How is what you have personally seen to be taken as ‘the norm’ for maternity leave? Maybe it isn’t. Maybe ‘the norm’ is somewhere in the middle. Sorry, bad typing there, that was supposed to read “maternity leave POLICIES”. Of course I could be wrong, there MIGHT be a company out there that has written into their maternity leave policy “This ONE mom can call in, with no notice, whenever and however often she pleases”. But somehow I doubt it. * * * ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/229 "2004-04-22T02:42:21Z")
> [@](#): > > **CanvasShoes** said: > Based on your post above, it seems that your beef is, at least partly, against the terminology. Since the woman isn’t physically “disabled” once she’s healed from the delivery, then it’s not a valid reason to be covered. Yes, it is true that I believe if a person is no longer physically prevented from working due to a medical condition, that person should return to work. If that person chooses not to, that person’s job should not be held for them because in they had a baby any more than it would be if they decided to stay out from work for an extended period of time after any other medical condition has healed. I know the FMLA exists, I just don’t understand why some reasons were deemed ‘worthy’ of holding a job open for someone who chooses to, in effect, quit their job with the absolute option to return to it later. > [@](#): > > 1.) Physically speaking alone, the disabilities from pregnancy ARE different than other “disabilities”. No two disabilities are exactly the same. What has been my position was that the same general guideline apply to all of them: a medical leave of absence should last only as long as it takes to be cleared by the doctor to return to work. > [@](#): > > 2.) Allowing for that difference is does NOT automatically = unfair to the company Unless the difference in treatment of the cases is based entirely on non-medical reasoning for granting a medical leave to begin with. > [@](#): > > Well, now that I’m realizing that other people, like you, have such a problem terming it a “disability” what I think (since you asked ), is that there should be a separate leave policy specifically for maternity. if you’re defining it solely by the term “disability” it really technically ISN’T a disability. It IS however, a very unique phsycial, emotional ordeal. And one which DOES, whether people want to accept it or not, affect all of society in the long run. And how long should a company policy allow for this ‘unique physical, emotional ordeal’? ---
**Author:** ![Daisy\_Mae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/46a35a/32.png) [@Daisy\_Mae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daisy_Mae)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/230 "2004-04-22T05:09:00Z")
> [@CanvasShoes](#): > > Nope, just answering in kind, for that’s been the tone of your condescending attitude toward working moms and SAHMs throughout the thread. FTR, I don’t fall under either of those, so I don’t have a “dog in the fight”. Just disagreeing with the “moms have no rights” attitudes that about three posters in this thread keep fostering as what “should be”. You have a serious case of selective reading. I have gone back and read EVERY comment I have made in this post. NOT ONE TIME have I stated nor have I insinuated that “moms have no rights” and that they are not entitled to DISABILITY leave. Quite the opposite, on several occasions I state they have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT as anyone else who needs disability time. Am I anti-mom because I dare to say they don’t deserve MORE than the rest of us? On page two I take time to explain how I viewed this entire thread and not once did I take on the nasty tones you accuse me of and seem to use yourself whenever addressing ANYONE who doesn’t see things your way. For someone who has been out of the workforce longer than I’ve been alive, I’m really surprised that you behave as badly as Catsix. On page three I point out that I have seen favortism for mothers AND for students. Guess you choose not to see that. In fact, in MANY of my comments I have repeatedly stated that I think Catsix is going way too far and that I don’t agree. You CHOOSE to lump me in with whomever you imagine to be “anti mom” or against SAHM. I don’t think I even REFERRED to SAHMs. Did you even read any of my comments or did you just see that I have a different opinion on some points and go into attack mode? I notice that you avoided your accusation that I was implying that my job is special or more important than others. Once again, someone disagrees with you and you launch into reading what you WANT to read. I insinuated no such thing, and you were inappropriate to falsely state that I did. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/231 "2004-04-22T11:13:06Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > If that’s the impression you got, you have not read all of my arguments against lengthening the leave for having a kid. One of the biggest reasons I am not in favor of that is that short-term disability is supposed to cover the time that a person is **disabled** and cannot work. What gives you the idea that the longer leaves have anything to do with disability? You’re right, short-term disability covers the time you are disabled and cannot work just like any other disability. Any additional time comes from the FMLA ( which also covers caring for a spouse or parent, or being ill yourself ), accumulated leave time or a policy providing for a longer unpaid leave. But those policies providing for a longer unpaid leave don’t exist at every employer, aren’t necessarily restricted to childcare ( I’ve had jobs where I could get unpaid leave for any reason I wanted to ) and generally exist in the sorts of jobs where it doesn’t greatly inconvenience coworkers. I once had a job that allowed up to four years for a first child care leave and three years for subsequent leaves. Inconvenienced no one. There were so many people in that job and such constant quitting and retiring and firing that the effect was exactly the same as someone quitting a job at Walmart when giving birth and being rehired four years later. The four year leave didn’t mean a job was empty for four years- it just meant the person returning from leave filled a spot that was now open becasue someone else left. And it meant the employer didn’t have to hire a brand new person and train them to fill that spot. I suspect that employers offer longer childcare leaves for the same reasons they offer any other benefits- to attract and keep employees. I don’t know what sort of leave benefit would attract you- maybe time off to participate in the company golf league, maybe time off to do volunteer work (I have heard of a company offering this as paid leave), maybe a leave to return to school or travel. Whatever it is, I’m sure there is one. I’m sure you would also prefer to work for a company that has such a policy over one that doesn’t. And if enough people are interested in a particular benefit, it becomes a means of attracting and keeping employees. I can tell you for myself, if I had wanted unpaid time after having my children, and my employer didn’t offer a long leave, I would have quit the job and found a new one when I wanted to start working again. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/232 "2004-04-22T17:23:39Z")
> [@](#): > > **doreen** said: > What gives you the idea that the longer leaves have anything to do with disability? You’re right, short-term disability covers the time you are disabled and cannot work just like any other disability. Any additional time comes from the FMLA ( which also covers caring for a spouse or parent, or being ill yourself ), accumulated leave time or a policy providing for a longer unpaid leave. What I’m really interested in knowing is why certain things that do not relate to the employee’s job are used as reasons to give the employee leave when that policy only covers specific things. I don’t understand the part about being selective instead of stating that employees can take one leave period of X weeks in X years unpaid and be guaranteed a job no lower on the scale than the one they left when they return. I have trouble with the ‘these non-job related reasons are good reasons to be off’ and ‘these non-job related reasons are bad reasons to be off’ idea. > [@](#): > > don’t know what sort of leave benefit would attract you- maybe time off to participate in the company golf league, maybe time off to do volunteer work (I have heard of a company offering this as paid leave), maybe a leave to return to school or travel. Whatever it is, I’m sure there is one. I don’t really know. I am one of those weird people who has to be reminded to take my vacation weeks, perhaps because I grew up being beat over the head with the very extreme work-ethic that dadsix had. I would like to think I’m not as bad as he is though, because he tried to go to work at his physical labor job the day after he broke his tailbone almost completely off. He worked three days like that (and even I can see that this is ‘nutjob’ level of work-ethic) before momsix forced him to a hospital. I guess one thing that would be really nice is to be able to work from home. My employers here have put me on kind of a flex schedule where as long as I work all the hours I’m supposed to, I can come in late, stay really late and get Friday off all the time. (Of course I’m still nuts enough to show up on Friday events that I like, which I know is entirely my problem.) ---
**Author:** ![sugaree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@sugaree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sugaree)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/233 "2004-04-22T17:56:52Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > What I’m really interested in knowing is why certain things that do not relate to the employee’s job are used as reasons to give the employee leave when that policy only covers specific things. I don’t understand the part about being selective instead of stating that employees can take one leave period of X weeks in X years unpaid and be guaranteed a job no lower on the scale than the one they left when they return. Because the better-run companies and organizations out there recognize the importance of keeping employees happy. They realize that employees have lives outside of the office, and if it’s a choice between keeping the job or caring for your family, most people are going to choose to care for their family. There’s always another job out there. I understand that you will not be a parent, but you are a child. If the day comes when you must care for an ailing, aging parent, would you take any time off work? Of course, this is assuming that you do NOT simply leave your work for others to finish. Some companies have a policy of allowing leave for parents who have adopted. I’m all about that policy, as it promotes bonding. What do you think of it, **catsix**? ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/234 "2004-04-22T19:41:22Z")
> [@](#): > > **sugaree** said: > > Because the better-run companies and organizations out there recognize the importance of keeping employees happy. They realize that employees have lives outside of the office, and if it’s a choice between keeping the job or caring for your family, most people are going to choose to care for their family. I think what I’m getting at is that if employers are only doing this to keep employees happy, I don’t understand why they don’t offer leave packages to all of the employees. Lots of people don’t have kids, or don’t have families, but do have other things that are very important to them also. I don’t know, maybe it does come off as a whiny ‘It’s not fair!’ kind of thing, but I guess I see it as employers doing a lot to keep some workers happy but dropping the ball for those who are like me. > [@](#): > > Some companies have a policy of allowing leave for parents who have adopted. I’m all about that policy, as it promotes bonding. What do you think of it, catsix? I don’t know. I can see how it benefits the people it’s available to, but I also think that if it only is available for certain reasons then it is kind of unfair to people with different life ambitions. ---
**Author:** ![sugaree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@sugaree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sugaree)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/235 "2004-04-22T22:45:30Z")
All of the McJobs I’ve been familiar with have granted nearly unconditional leave to college students. For example, when my husband was away from home at college, he worked two jobs. At school, he worked in a fast food joint; at home, he worked in a grocery store. When he went home during the summer and on breaks, he called the grocery store to let them know what days he could work, and they put him on the schedule. Back at school, he would just let the restaurant know when he was leaving and when he would be back, and they adjusted the schedule accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/236 "2004-04-23T02:12:40Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > I think what I’m getting at is that if employers are only doing this to keep employees happy, I don’t understand why they don’t offer leave packages to all of the employees. Lots of people don’t have kids, or don’t have families, but do have other things that are very important to them also. I don’t know, maybe it does come off as a whiny ‘It’s not fair!’ kind of thing, but I guess I see it as employers doing a lot to keep some workers happy but dropping the ball for those who are like me. Could be that employers only want to keep one group happy. It seems to me, however, that those who don’t believe they will ever need any sort of family leave (or leaving early or any other benefit) approach it in one way. The initial approach is always “they shouldn’t get the leave”. After some back and forth, an idea like yours comes out. If it takes a person a while to get there in a conversation, I have to assume that the idea of _expanding_ the benefit more fairly (rather than eliminating it) was never brought up to the employer. There’s a big difference between grumbling that Mary can get a three month leave for having a baby and asking your employer to give you a three month leave for whatever you want it for, or pointing out that Mary gets to leave early for kid things , while you must use your vacation time if you leave an hour early for an appointment. If nobody brings up the subject, the employer is not going to give it just to be nice. They just don’t do that. They give it because they feel they have to. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/237 "2004-04-23T02:29:25Z")
> [@](#): > > **sugaree** said: > All of the McJobs I’ve been familiar with have granted nearly unconditional leave to college students. I think that’s nice of them. My concern is just more on the career end of things than the McJob end at this point in my life. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/238 "2004-04-23T02:41:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes, it is true that I believe if a person is no longer physically prevented from working due to a medical condition, that person should return to work. If that person chooses not to, that person’s job should not be held for them because in they had a baby any more than it would be if they decided to stay out from work for an extended period of time after any other medical condition has healed. > > I know the FMLA exists, I just don’t understand why some reasons were deemed ‘worthy’ of holding a job open for someone who chooses to, in effect, quit their job with the absolute option to return to it later. Ahhh, Okay, I’m beginning to see another problem here, another reason people in the “con” camp are in disagreement with the maternity leave thing. At any rate, I think what’s happening to make the “cons” in this thread so against this is the word “should”. As in companies “should” hold someone’s job. I think that people are translating that, in part, to mean that the company then “has to” do anything that the prospective mom wants, and that WE as society have to then “pay” for it. Especially the coworkers. Again, workers, (whether they be moms using their kids as an excuse, or golf addicts), who call in sick withOUT notice, are a far different issue than maternity leave. Maternity leave is an issue which, particularly if it’s to be long term, is worked out between the company and the mom to be, usually, if not always, involving the employee(s) chosen to cover the mom’s leave. Should the leave be paid if it’s longer than the 6-12 weeks? Well, that’s also a separate issue. Quote: 1.) Physically speaking alone, the disabilities from pregnancy ARE different than other “disabilities”. > [@](#): > > No two disabilities are exactly the same. What has been my position was that the same general guideline apply to all of them: a medical leave of absence should last only as long as it takes to be cleared by the doctor to return to work. Well, a company may feel differently about that, they are, after all staffed by humans, just as their workers are. And for better companies, and for their valued employees, (at least in my experience, and from what I’ve read of the trends in better companies over the last 20 years), they DO want to keep the good employees, and usually work with them in times of need. Caring for an elderly disabled parent my require more time off than just what’s needed under Doctor’s orders. That’s where a company will step in and decide on a case by case basis. And again, these sorts of decisions are NOT the same as calling in without notice. These are leaves that have been negotiated before hand. Quote: 2.) Allowing for that difference is does NOT automatically = unfair to the company [qoote]Unless the difference in treatment of the cases is based entirely on nonmedical reasoning for granting a medical leave to begin with. [/quote] See, this is where I disagree. A private corporation is not a democracy, within the law, they have the right to make any decisions about an employee that they please. And again, if they have a valuable employee that they are working to keep, and that involves ;perhaps allowing a leave to extend beyond what’s strictly medically necessary, that’s their perogative. As long as it’s applcation is NOT based on other than the employees worth (like for instance applied to men, but not to women, or to whites but not blacks). Quote: Well, now that I’m realizing that other people, like you, have such a problem terming it a “disability” what I think (since you asked ), is that there should be a separate leave policy specifically for maternity. if you’re defining it solely by the term “disability” it really technically ISN’T a disability. It IS however, a very unique phsycial, emotional ordeal. And one which DOES, whether people want to accept it or not, affect all of society in the long run. > [@](#): > > And how long should a company policy allow for this ‘unique physical, emotional ordeal’? IMHO? As long as that company feels like it. If they feel that the worth of being able to retain that particular employee outweighs any inconveniences, then that’s THEIR call. And again, since what we’re talking about is actual leave, which IS scheduled and planned for, and staffed for ahead of time, and NOT call-ins without notice, how does this affect any other employees? It’s not taking money out of their paychecks, it’s not putting hours on their schedule, and the same policies are open to them, should they be of the same caliber employee and get pregnant, or need to take leave to assist an elderly parent or some such. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/239 "2004-04-23T02:51:17Z")
> [@Daisy Mae](#): > > You have a serious case of selective reading. I have gone back and read EVERY comment I have made in this post. NOT ONE TIME have I stated nor have I insinuated that “moms have no rights” and that they are not entitled to DISABILITY leave. Quite the opposite, on several occasions I state they have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT as anyone else who needs disability time. Am I anti-mom because I dare to say they don’t deserve MORE than the rest of us? > > On page two I take time to explain how I viewed this entire thread and not once did I take on the nasty tones you accuse me of and seem to use yourself whenever addressing ANYONE who doesn’t see things your way. For someone who has been out of the workforce longer than I’ve been alive, I’m really surprised that you behave as badly as Catsix. > > On page three I point out that I have seen favortism for mothers AND for students. Guess you choose not to see that. In fact, in MANY of my comments I have repeatedly stated that I think Catsix is going way too far and that I don’t agree. You CHOOSE to lump me in with whomever you imagine to be “anti mom” or against SAHM. I don’t think I even REFERRED to SAHMs. Did you even read any of my comments or did you just see that I have a different opinion on some points and go into attack mode? > > I notice that you avoided your accusation that I was implying that my job is special or more important than others. Once again, someone disagrees with you and you launch into reading what you WANT to read. I insinuated no such thing, and you were inappropriate to falsely state that I did. I quoted one paragraph in which your statements made me think that you carried that viewpoint. And descrived EXACTLY why I thought it implied that you felt your job was “too important” for you to rock the boat. I also made it clear that I was NOT quoting, but paraphrasing you. I notice that you once again neglect to include your words to which I’ve replied here in your retort. Your words in the paragraph that I’m describing were “I work in the real world, and don’t have the luxury to poke my nose in…etc”. Stating “real world” and “luxury” clearly implies that others who DO make the choice to bring legitimate complaints to their company are NOT in the “real world” and are enjoying a “luxury” by doing so. So no, I didn’t avoid your accusation, I replied directly to it. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003/240 "2004-04-23T03:07:35Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > I think what I’m getting at is that if employers are only doing this to keep employees happy, I don’t understand why they don’t offer leave packages to all of the employees. Lots of people don’t have kids, or don’t have families, but do have other things that are very important to them also. I don’t know, maybe it does come off as a whiny ‘It’s not fair!’ kind of thing, but I guess I see it as employers doing a lot to keep some workers happy but dropping the ball for those who are like me. OOOH. Okay, well, as **sugaree** said, the better companies do do that. There are companies who give valued employees “personal growth time” or “sabbaticals” off. Sometimes those are even partially paid. Some of the companies I’ve worked for gave me huge boneses just for having a “no-accident” quarter. Or gave me paid time off to attend college classes. THAT part of it is all about how valued you are as an employee, and about employers coming into the new world and treating their employees like humans. I don’t think ANYONE in this thread is saying “moms to be should have all the perks and no one else should”. I think that they’re saying that, “aMONG the perks, this needs to be an important one”. I doubt anyone is expecting it to be an exlusive perk to moms only. > [@](#): > > I don’t know. I can see how it benefits the people it’s available to, but I also think that if it only is available for certain reasons then it is kind of unfair to people with different life ambitions. Well, as I said above, the better companies DO compensate people for other than just ailing parents or kidlets. And, you can look at it that "it’s SO unfair, or you can look at it in many other ways. For instance, you, as a single kidless person, get to have lots of stuff that parents don’t. like you have freedom and energy to pursue other things (again, at the better companies, things like classes that ARE paid for by the company). And, that a stranger who is raising a child is raising a good citizen, instead of potentially a neglected little soul who may turn out to be an axe murderer who, in their 16th year, takes out some innocent family. And, that life is unfair. But there are always tradeoffs even to those who might APPEAR to be getting a “better deal” than you. Just some thoughts. I’ve done all three, both been a SAHM, a working mom, and regular worker with no kids at home. Each has perks, each has stuff that sucks. It’s not personal. Just some thoughts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-employers-idea-of-maternity-leave/240003.md?page=13)