My Employer's Idea of Maternity Leave

[CanvasShoes]

=nyctea scandiaca]Well if you are rich enough to be able to afford to do this, then that is wonderful. I hope I can afford that someday…

And I hope to God you’re NOT ever “rich enough” (whatever that might mean to you). Not until you gain some “life knowledge” and grow up quite a bit.

Based on the beliefs and attitudes about children, and childrearing you display here, I can’t imagine more of a control freak, potty trained at gunpoint anal retentive piss-poor parent than you.

FTR, I grew up poor. QUITE poor. My parents gave me so much more than making sure I had the latest in designer wear, and the perfectly budgeted upbringing, including the constant nagging of "go to college, Go to College!!, GO TO COLLEGE!!! (something parents who could provide EVERYTHING for little Johnny, or Janie aren’t always so motivated to do, since they know they can always “rescue” Janie or Johnny).

Being able to pay for everything, and make a child’s life picture perfect moneywise, isn’t always the best way to prepare a child for real life.

Having to struggle for money does not a bad parent make. And despite my “unacceptable parents” (after all, they weren’t “rich enough” to have had kids, so how could they possibly have been allowed to exist in this world?), I grew up to be well educated, to have a quite satisfying and lucrative career, and also did both the financially well off working single mom AND financially tight SAHM thing.

I love when people who have no clue about “real life” make such idealistic and neat tidy little pronouncements on how everyone “should” do things.

Well, look, if you can’t afford children, don’t have them. Having children when you can’t afford all the costs involved is irresponsible. And that isn’t an “ignorant” view, it is the mature and responsible view. And most states have WIC programs that pay a majority of the costs of infant formula for families who can’t afford it. I wish you could have taken advantage of that. Oh and namecalling isn’t going to help matters any.

With this kind of mentality, only the extremely wealthy would have children. And we’ve SEEN what kind of kids that produces (Paris Hilton, The Max Factor heir and rapist, etc).

Just because parents can’t afford every last perfectly laid out, planned out phase of their child’s life doesn’t mean that they “shouldn’t” have children, or that they can’t “afford” them. And just because some things might be a financial struggle, or there might need to be some creative budgeting, doesn’t mean that people “can’t afford” to have kids.

Not to mention the fact that a pair of parents CAN have had everything budgeted and lined out, and things can STILL change, jobs can be lost, a parent can die young or a divorce can happen, leaving one to be a single parent, kids can be born with medical problems.

Again, STUFF HAPPENS. It’s called life. For someone who is in the medical field, you seem to have no idea ins and outs of everyday life. Everything doesn’t fit in a neat little box, on a neat little schedule.

Not for working folks, not for stay at home folks, not for moms, not for non-moms. Not even for rich folks.

And for you to keep claiming that working moms all fit into YOUR neat little ugly beliefs about them IS ignorant, as are all of your silly arguments to try and make your arguments support that belief.

[Green_Cymbeline]

@CanvasShoes

Just because parents can’t afford every last perfectly laid out, planned out phase of their child’s life doesn’t mean that they “shouldn’t” have children, or that they can’t “afford” them. And just because some things might be a financial struggle, or there might need to be some creative budgeting, doesn’t mean that people “can’t afford” to have kids.

Creative budgeting? You mean having kids and expecting the taxpayers to foot the bill for your prenatal care, childbirth, health care for you and the baby, food stamps and WIC benefits to feed it? That is the kind of situation I was referring to. If you don’t even have health insurance to cover the birth, then maybe you should think twice before getting pregnant. Put your plans on hold for a little bit while you find a job, get insurance, and save up enough money to be able to afford the child. Is that too darn much to ask of a responsible citizen? Don’t expect other hardworking taxpayers to pay for it, that is all I am saying. Why is this such an offensive view? I don’t want to pay for your baby, OK!? Geez.

@CanvasShoes

For someone who is in the medical field, you seem to have no idea ins and outs of everyday life.

Hmmm. Well I do know that it’s a pretty good idea to at least have health insurance and enough money to feed, clothe and house the child before bringing it into the world. That seems like a common principle of “everyday life” to me.

How would you feel if I bought a house that was beyond my means, and I couldn’t pay for it, and I expected the taxpayers to subsidize me because I made a poorly-planned decision? Or a car? Or any expensive decision like that? How would you feel?

[LavenderBlue]

I think that any childless person who objects to maternity leave is missing the point. The point isn’t that mommy gets too much time off. The point is that we all get too little.

Americans work the longest hours and have the least time off. How about fighting for more time off for EVERYONE instead of carping that women who have infants get too much?

[ENugent]

@nyctea scandiaca

Both my parents worked while I was growing up, and I am so proud and grateful that my mom did so, because she served as such a positive role model to me, and I feel it was that positive example that has helped get me to where I am today, which is a successful career woman with a good education, self-supporting, unlike many of my high school friends who are stuck at home with kids and no job experience and no intellectual achievements… The best example my mom made for me is that a woman can have it all, kids and a satisfying career, and the kids won’t turn out like they were raised by a pack of wolves. My brother and I have turned out to be above average in all aspects.

How did your parents handle it when one of you was sick? Did one of them stay home? Which one? Did someone else have to “pick up the slack” at work when they did?

[CanvasShoes]

@nyctea scandiaca

Creative budgeting? You mean having kids and expecting the taxpayers to foot the bill for your prenatal care, childbirth, health care for you and the baby, food stamps and WIC benefits to feed it? That is the kind of situation I was referring to.

No sweetheart. I’m referring to the ugliness shown another poster who said that she breastfed, in part, because she couldn’t afford formula, as just ONE example. How does that equal food stamps, etc etc etc. YOU are the one equating family budget cuts etc with taxpayers having to pay for others to have kids and so on. And you’re contradicting yourself. On the one hand you’re saying “don’t have kids unless you can afford them”. On the other you’re saying “don’t work unless you don’t take ANY time off for your kid, or inconvenience ME in any way”. You’re all over the map.

You ask a question, other posters answer it, and you turn it into an argument why mothers are bad bad people, unless of course they work and “don’t waste themselves”.

If you don’t even have health insurance to cover the birth, then maybe you should think twice before getting pregnant. Put your plans on hold for a little bit while you find a job, get insurance, and save up enough money to be able to afford the child. Is that too darn much to ask of a responsible citizen? Don’t expect other hardworking taxpayers to pay for it, that is all I am saying. Why is this such an offensive view? I don’t want to pay for your baby, OK!? Geez.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps things happen between the conception and birth of a baby that aren’t planned? Further, has it occurred to you that we, as Americans pay for PLENTY Of things other people get themselves into that WE don’t particularly care to pay for (smokers, drinkers, diseases caused by obesity to name a few).

Along that same line, this rant was about MATERNITY leave. Remember it? You’re off on your own tangent that’s gone from how working mothers always take more than their fair share off at work, and shift their work onto everyone else, to how parents PERIOD make everyone pay for it.

Where do you think the money for having babies comes from? Working parents. Since lots of people have kids, it stands to reason that there are going to be a lot of parents out there working, many of whom have to do the things that are required when kids get sick, or have important games, and so on.

Your arguments went from how those actions somehow cost you money, or made you have more work, to how you LITERALLY had to pay for them because people didn’t plan well enough and have enough money to have kids. You’re starting to make less and less sense.

What is it that you think would be the solution? People work until they’re 40 or so, and then once they’ve saved up enough money to make sure that they’re being parents NEvER EVER even slightly inconveniences anyone else, they quit their jobs, and have a baby? Sheesh.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You either have people who CAN afford kids, (hint, those that are likely CURRENTLY working, and that might involve occasional kid related days off), OR those who are supported by the state.

Again, only the extremely and independently wealthy fit your unrealistic standards for “acceptable” parenthood.

How would you feel if I bought a house that was beyond my means, and I couldn’t pay for it, and I expected the taxpayers to subsidize me because I made a poorly-planned decision? Or a car? Or any expensive decision like that? How would you feel?

None of that is what is being DISCUSSED here though. YOU are bringing the “if you can’t afford it, don’t have it” argument in as a way to support your whines about ONE coworker who takes too much time off at your job.

And again, in MY post, I wasn’t talking about people who were welfare parents. I was merely talking about not having the perfect budget with which to raise a child. As to insurance. One would think that you’d KNOW, since isn’t the medical industry part of what you do? At any rate, we, the other clients of the insurance company ARE paying for the babies, and the heart surgeries, and the dental work…

Your premiums don’t equal those items. So it’s everyone’s premiums that pay for the clients who DO end up needing treatment, whether it’s emergency health care, or childbirth.

[FaerieBeth]

@catsix

I seem to remember stating that the amount of time someone should be off for short-term disability is the amount of time that they are medically required to be off.

I don’t see anyone really disagreeing with that fact. I think the disagreement arose when some posters tried to insist that “they” didn’t think childbirth qualified for 6 weeks off from work. In my experience, all OB/GYNs state that medical leave for childbirth is 6 weeks for vaginal delivery and 8-12 weeks for c-section delivery. My insurance policy states 6 weeks vaginal / 8-12* weeks c-section. My short-term disability policy states 6 weeks vaginal / 8-12 weeks c-section.

In other words, most medical professionals and insurance professionals medically require (and expect) a maximum of 6 weeks for vaginal and 8-12 weeks for c-section.

@catsix

If you are under doctor’s orders to not go to work, then you’re not going to be there.

Exactly! So where’s the argument?

@catsix

What I have said is that if your company has a policy stating that X weeks will be paid at Y% of your salary for the time you are out on short-term disability, then you shouldn’t get double or triple X weeks paid time off if your ‘short-term disability’ is having a kid.

Agreed. BUT, if the doctor has ordered you to stay out longer, then you should be able to do so without being penalized. I agree that you don’t necessarily deserve to be paid, but you should not lose your job or be demoted because of it.

@catsix

So, if short-term disability kicks in after two weeks, and it lasts for four weeks after that, don’t complain if you don’t show up for work for another six weeks after your disability period ends and you didn’t get paid for weeks six to twelve. Whether you broke your leg, had your colon rewired, or had a baby, the short-term disability terms and conditions should be the same.

Agreed again. Incidentally, the two short term disability policies I have had experience with both stated 6 weeks vaginal and 8-12 c-section, and one had a clause to extend benefits based on doctor’s assessment

@catsix

Yes, it chaps my ass if someone who was off for weeks for whatever reason walks back into work the day of rollout and gets the same credit for the project as those of us who poured our hours into it have

Will it chap your ass equally if the co-worker was out on leave because of a broken back from skiing instead of childbirth? I ask because you seem to preach on the fairness of leave, but then are more irritated when the leave is caused by childbirth. That’s not fair. No matter what has happened to a person- if the doctors say stay home, the insurance and disability pick up, and the boss has signed off on the leave- then you really don’t have any room to complain. The same consideration will be given to you when you need it.

FB

*the 8-12, I think, has to do with the circumstances that required the c-section. Preeclampsia, freak accidents, surgical complications, etc. would extend the leave from 8 to 12.

[catsix]

jarbabyj said:
Don’t forget the part where you insisted that six weeks were not recommended by doctors and that you’d never heard of such a thing. No reply for the mothers who refuted you?

I must have been the only person to see that for a normal, vaginal birth the maximum short term disability time was six weeks.

Cut and paste ONE PERSON IN THIS THREAD who suggested maternity leave OR short term disability should be a year long. Just one. ONE! I beg you.

Sure.

Bruce_Daddy said:
If one makes the decision to have a child, what’s wrong with taking a leave and then when mom is ready to come back, her job should be held for here up to, I dunno, a year?

belladonna said:
Well, legally that is the situation. The FMLA says that maternity leaves up to a year are allowable–although IIRC you don’t have any guarantee that you’ll be getting the same job back after that long.

missbunny said:
I think maternity leave should be even longer than 12 weeks. We’ve got people who could only stay out 6 weeks because that’s all our disability policy covers. I feel very bad for them having to leave their child like that.

Three people who think that it should be extended enough for you, jarbabyj?

FaerieBeth said:
Agreed. BUT, if the doctor has ordered you to stay out longer, then you should be able to do so without being penalized. I agree that you don’t necessarily deserve to be paid, but you should not lose your job or be demoted because of it.

Why not? It pretty explicitly states in the policy where I work that if an employee is not able to return to work after disability ends, that employee can be terminated. Why should having a kid mean your job is held for a year while breaking your back doesn’t?

Will it chap your ass equally if the co-worker was out on leave because of a broken back from skiing instead of childbirth?

Well, in my own words:

Yes, it chaps my ass if someone who was off for weeks for whatever reason walks back into work the day of rollout and gets the same credit for the project as those of us who poured our hours into it have.

You still have a problem with the statement I made?

[tiny_ham]

awww catsix, aren’t you just the cutest li’l thing.

belladonna simply quoted the FMLA law, which leaves up to a year open, but note she didn’t say it SHOULD be a year. And missbunny said 12 weeks. I’m not a rocket scientist, but isn’t a year 52 weeks?

I admit I missed that comment of Bruce Daddy’s. I guess you really are the champion. His quote alone proves that all of us want to take a year off, full pay, with unlimited massage and footrubs for maternity leave. Huzzah.

[catsix]

Wow, aren’t you a bitch?

belladonna certainly didn’t seem to find anything wrong with there being a year of leave available, and missbunny thinks that 12 weeks is too short.

So, that’s three examples out of two pages that involve numbers where people have supported leave longer than is medically necessary.

Other posts I didn’t quote here have stated that the US currently lags ‘far behind’ European countries where a year of leave is normal.

You forgot about those?

[CanvasShoes]

Quote:
jarbabyj said:
Don’t forget the part where you insisted that six weeks were not recommended by doctors and that you’d never heard of such a thing. No reply for the mothers who refuted you?

I must have been the only person to see that for a normal, vaginal birth the maximum short term disability time was six weeks.

What is your point? That mom’s take the maximum available to them? SHAME on them for taking what was offered to them by their employers!!!

Quote:
Cut and paste ONE PERSON IN THIS THREAD who suggested maternity leave OR short term disability should be a year long. Just one. ONE! I beg you.

Sure.

Quote:
Bruce_Daddy said:
If one makes the decision to have a child, what’s wrong with taking a leave and then when mom is ready to come back, her job should be held for here up to, I dunno, a year?

Quote:
belladonna said:
Well, legally that is the situation. The FMLA says that maternity leaves up to a year are allowable–although IIRC you don’t have any guarantee that you’ll be getting the same job back after that long.

Quote:
missbunny said:
I think maternity leave should be even longer than 12 weeks. We’ve got people who could only stay out 6 weeks because that’s all our disability policy covers. I feel very bad for them having to leave their child like that.

Three people who think that it should be extended enough for you, jarbabyj?

I’ve read of several companies, particularly large corporations who have worked this into their company policy. So giving women up to a year off and the ability to return to their jobs at the same level that they left.

Some of them worked part time from home, many kept up in other ways, teleconferencing etc.

So obviously this is a practice that major corporations don’t consider unreasonable. Along with many others in this thread, I don’t get why you DO. And further, why you take it so personally, and as if it directly affects you.

(if there are people at your job who abuse company policy, then THEY are jerks, it’s NOT the same issue as allowed and common business policies for maternity leave).

I think that you’re not looking at the “big picture”. There are many benefits to someone’s fellow employees when they take a maternity leave for a long period. If gives someone else a chance to “move up” in the company. And, with a leave that long, sometimes the moms do decide not to come back, or to change their status to part time. This allows for others in the company to move up.

I actually had a great long term temp assignment once due to a girl who was off for maternity leave. Great job, and I never would have had that opportunity, if she’d have come back after her paid leavetime. So it’s not as if, all of a sudden, the woman’s absence creates some huge void because she’s indispensible or something.

Quote:
FaerieBeth said:
Agreed. BUT, if the doctor has ordered you to stay out longer, then you should be able to do so without being penalized. I agree that you don’t necessarily deserve to be paid, but you should not lose your job or be demoted because of it.

Why not? It pretty explicitly states in the policy where I work that if an employee is not able to return to work after disability ends, that employee can be terminated. Why should having a kid mean your job is held for a year while breaking your back doesn’t?

It shouldn’t. But that’s a problem with THAT company’s policies, or ITS chosen procedures for following those policies. If they’re unfair, then that’s THEM. It’s not “all maternity policies”.

Besides, I think that’s just desparate posturing on your part. I’d have to have proof of a company which actually did that. IANAL, but I suspect they’d be open to a discrimination suit if they did. Likely under ADA or some such.
Quote:

You still have a problem with the statement I made?

I have a problem with your insisting upon equating ONE specific personal experience with “working moms” and “maternity leave policies”.

You’re very much allowing your anger with your personal work situation to color your attitude about this subject overall.

[catsix]

Likely under ADA or some such.

ADA only covers sepcific disabilities. There are a lot of things it doesn’t cover.

Of course you can accuse me of anything you want, but I’m getting the impression here that so long as I think people should earn their paycheck and show up at work when they are physically able to do so in order to have a job and a paycheck waiting for them, you’ll continue to think I’m evil.

Whatever.

[Daisy_Mae]

@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.

@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?

@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.

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?

[papergirl]

I would just mention that, had my employer offered a year off, full pay, with unlimited massage and footrubs for maternity leave, per jarbaby’s comment, I would have jumped on it with both feet and defended it like a dog with a bone. I’m no dummy. If I could’ve gotten a trip to a remote beach, a housekeeper, and maybe a few margaritas thrown in, I’d have added that to my benefits package too.

Point is, if you have the opportunity to take maternity leave, whether it’s for six weeks with limited pay or for a full year with full pay, why in the name of all that’s holy would you be expected to TURN IT DOWN? Would any of you refuse to take your vacation leave, or refuse to accept your company-paid health insurance, or demand to work overtime without compensation? If so, then you aren’t using your contract or your employment to your advantage.

It’s obvious that maternity leave is not the real issue with a lot of people…just look at all the other stuff that bubbles out: WIC, welfare moms, SAHPs, societal expectations of women in general…it’s no wonder women feel like they can’t win.

My own view and experience is pretty close to Hama’s. I am almost a SAHM–I work very early hours, for a very limited income–so that I can be home with my kids. Parenting is my most important job right now. If some folks are insulted because I get WIC, because I don’t have a “real” career, because I’m thisclose to getting food stamps until I can get back on my feet–you’re just gonna have to deal. Your priorities have no more to do with my decisions than my priorities have to do with yours.

The difference is that I respect your decisions and priorities, and I don’t think the feeling is mutual in some cases. The lack of diplomacy and respect for other people I’m seeing here is riveting in an appalling sort of way.

[tiny_ham]

@catsix

Wow, aren’t you a bitch?

belladonna certainly didn’t seem to find anything wrong with there being a year of leave available, and missbunny thinks that 12 weeks is too short.

So, that’s three examples out of two pages that involve numbers where people have supported leave longer than is medically necessary.

Other posts I didn’t quote here have stated that the US currently lags ‘far behind’ European countries where a year of leave is normal.

You forgot about those?

You’re a fucking miracle baby. Saying there’s nothing wrong with a year off doesn’t mean everyone SHOULD get a year off. If someone OFFERS me a year off with pay, I’m going to take it, but it doesn’t mean I’m going to run around advocating year long maternity leave.

and again, angelcake, saying 12 weeks isn’t long enough doesn’t mean missbunny ADVOCATES 52 Weeks. Look at the math here…it’s hard…but even a gal should be able to figure it out:

12<52

maybe you could write it down.

And giving six weeks as opposed to a year in Europe certainly is a lag behind…that’s just a fact. Watch, I’ll do it again:

6<52

But yet STILL, no one yet has demanded a year off for maternity leave.

By the way, where do you find the time to post? I thought you were the hardest working woman in America??

[CanvasShoes]

@catsix

ADA only covers sepcific disabilities. There are a lot of things it doesn’t cover.

Talk about lack of reading comprehension. I said IANAL, and that I “suspect” it would be covered under ADA, or SOME SUCH.

Funny how, after a long post addressing all of your points, you pick that to refute.

Of course you can accuse me of anything you want, but I’m getting the impression here that so long as I think people should earn their paycheck and show up at work when they are physically able to do so in order to have a job and a paycheck waiting for them, you’ll continue to think I’m evil.

Whatever.

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.

What we HAVE said, repeatedly, is that the existance of some people who abuse company policy, does NOT make the policies THEMSELVES wrong.

[catsix]

jarbabyj said:
But yet STILL, no one yet has demanded a year off for maternity leave.

They’ve been smart enough to couch it as ‘We should really catch up to the Europeans who offer a full paid year off because they’re so much better than we are in this area.’

Seems to me that people want more time off for having a kid than for other temporary medical problems of the same physical severity.

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.

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.

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.

[racinchikki]

Seems to me that people want more time off for having a kid than for other temporary medical problems of the same physical severity.

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. The year-off benefit isn’t for the mother - it’s for the child. Anything longer than 6 weeks (which is apparently how long doctors want the mother to recuperate from the act of giving birth) would seem to me to be for the purpose of getting the baby to a point where it’s safer and easier to leave the child with a babysitter. (I know I had an easier time babysitting my foster siblings when they were more than a couple months old than when they were very tiny.)

[catsix]

racinchiki said:
Anything longer than 6 weeks (which is apparently how long doctors want the mother to recuperate from the act of giving birth) would seem to me to be for the purpose of getting the baby to a point where it’s safer and easier to leave the child with a babysitter.

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?

[mske]

@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?

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.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

@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?

I’ll hand it to you; it’s a cogent point you just made.

I suppose there could be several justifications for an employer treating care for a child different than care for a parent or other ailing family member. They may or may not be compelling to you or to anyone, but just tossing a few out there:

• A newborn has only have one set of parents to care for them. That is not always the case in the other direction.

• There seems to be a belief that “a good start” for children (which seems to be defined, in part, as maximized time with one or both parents, employed outside the home or not) is generally thought to have more long-term and societal benefits than, say, adult care of a disabled parent.

• The U.S has been singled out as a laggard in providing maternity leave; it simply gets a lot more attention than other kinds of family leave

• Employers may think that baby-centered family leave policies it effects more workers than a broader family leave policy. Looking at just potential mothers: in the mid nineties 80% of the women in the labor force were of child-bearing age, and it was thought a staggering 90% of them will become pregnant during their working lives. I doubt there are comparable statistics indicating that so many workers will face a dependent-care situation for other types of family members.

• Children tend to be something people think about and hope for ahead of time; an employer can probably get more recruitment mileage out of an attractive maternity/paternity leave policy than it can for leave policies for other family events which aren’t planned or hoped for and are sometimes tragic, unwelcome surprises.

To reveal the big softie in me, I think an employer ought to say “If you have to go take care of your mom until her death, I will not fire you, we will do all we can to have a job for you when you get back.” Of course, that may not be possible or feasible, and some people may not agree with that anyway. If an employer can’t do that, I might see why the employer might still have a p/maternity leave policy. It might “unfairly” favor the unique care situation of a newborn, but it’s not a mystery to me why they might do that.