paid maternity leave for your employees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth does OP think that those of us who are pushing for the unpaid work of making the next generation of humans think that the costs should fall on individual employers? Obviously paid maternity leave needs to happen and it's a travesty that we don't have it. But we need a state fund. Everyone pays in, everyone has a chance to benefit when they have a child.

This would be amazing. I don’t see it happening, but our family would happily pay into a system that supported us all better. Let’s get everyone steady workable healthcare as well.

We already have this in California, and it is amazing. It covers 12 weeks of leave--6 under state disability and 6 as family leave, which is available for anyone who needs to care for an ill family member, not just for new parents. (Both fathers and mothers can take the time as new parents, though, and it can be taken any time in the child's first year.) Both family leave and disability are funded through a 1% tax paid by employees with an $1150/year cap, and it is well worth it IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To PP above (“‘someone else’” doesn’t pay for it”). I think you misunderstand public services. None of your examples are like maternity leave. Maybe you don’t drive on highways, but this country can’t function without them. The transportation of goods and people is key to our economy. Have you seen a country without highways? Did it seem prosperous to you? Likewise, public schools aren’t just a service for parents, like you’re doing parents a favor by paying. They are a key component of our democracy. We all need educated citizens to vote.

You brought up disability insurance. I am not against disability insurance, and I think the way it’s used now to support maternity leave as well as other illnesses is fine. The key is that it supports other situations besides pregnancy, and that is has rules surrounding its use (size of company, etc).

This thread is not about disability insurance. It’s about individual employers (not businesses with 50 or more employees) giving their nannies paid maternity leaves out of their own pocket.

PP, and this is my point exactly. Paid parental leave is also a key component of building a sound society, just as public education and highways are. They are social goods. Affordable daycare and early childhood education are as well. We need healthy, supported children and families to thrive in years to come. This isn't about being a do-gooder--it's about building a sustainable nation that will have an economic future. When having children becomes so expensive that it is a hardship, people respond by having fewer children. Those children are the future workforce (and we currently have historically low unemployment rates with worker shortages in many essential fields). So even if you are purely driven by your own economic self interest, you should want to see future generations of children who have access to family supports and education. You don't have to wish for it out of the goodness of your heart.

But yes, many individual employers do offer paid leaves out of their own pockets, as do many larger employers. It's a Band-Aid for a problem that needs to be solved at a state or national scale, though.

[Anonymous]

Our nanny gets about 6-8 weeks off when my kids are on vacation and we pay for her time anyway. We don’t have enough money to pay for her maternity leave and hire a second nanny so no... I would not be able to offer paid maternity leave. She is 40 and knows that.

I don’t think laws should apply to very small companies (like a family) because they usually don’t have the finances to pay for it. Otherwise I would have to cut her paycheck to save for her 12 weeks of maternity leave

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our nanny gets about 6-8 weeks off when my kids are on vacation and we pay for her time anyway. We don’t have enough money to pay for her maternity leave and hire a second nanny so no... I would not be able to offer paid maternity leave. She is 40 and knows that.

I don’t think laws should apply to very small companies (like a family) because they usually don’t have the finances to pay for it. Otherwise I would have to cut her paycheck to save for her 12 weeks of maternity leave

This is why systems like those in NY and CA, both funded through payroll deductions, are essential. Employees fund them collectively, which means it isn't hardship for the employer or for the employee, when leave is needed--and it doesn't matter whether the employer is large or small, because the employee is part of a much larger system. We have a similar system for federal unemployment already in place, so it's definitely possible to make this a model...it just takes political will.

[Anonymous]

I fought hard against 2 male business partners for some paid leave. I still remember how callous they were about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP above (“‘someone else’” doesn’t pay for it”). I think you misunderstand public services. None of your examples are like maternity leave. Maybe you don’t drive on highways, but this country can’t function without them. The transportation of goods and people is key to our economy. Have you seen a country without highways? Did it seem prosperous to you? Likewise, public schools aren’t just a service for parents, like you’re doing parents a favor by paying. They are a key component of our democracy. We all need educated citizens to vote.

You brought up disability insurance. I am not against disability insurance, and I think the way it’s used now to support maternity leave as well as other illnesses is fine. The key is that it supports other situations besides pregnancy, and that is has rules surrounding its use (size of company, etc).

This thread is not about disability insurance. It’s about individual employers (not businesses with 50 or more employees) giving their nannies paid maternity leaves out of their own pocket.

PP, would you pay for highway improvement voluntarily out of your own pocket if you drive on that highway multiple times a day? Nope, it's financed from your taxes. Would you give a check to a public school teacher to supplement their salary? No, that's not your role or responsibility as individual. Same goes for the maternity leave. Organize, lobby politicians, make it a state priority like in NY or CA. Then it will become a reality. Dumping on individual employers on the internet is misplaced and frankly ridiculous. Placing the burden on families will result in one thing only - fewer jobs for nannies, or lower wages, because the employers would have to figure in double the costs to cover maternity and a substitute nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP above (“‘someone else’” doesn’t pay for it”). I think you misunderstand public services. None of your examples are like maternity leave. Maybe you don’t drive on highways, but this country can’t function without them. The transportation of goods and people is key to our economy. Have you seen a country without highways? Did it seem prosperous to you? Likewise, public schools aren’t just a service for parents, like you’re doing parents a favor by paying. They are a key component of our democracy. We all need educated citizens to vote.

You brought up disability insurance. I am not against disability insurance, and I think the way it’s used now to support maternity leave as well as other illnesses is fine. The key is that it supports other situations besides pregnancy, and that is has rules surrounding its use (size of company, etc).

This thread is not about disability insurance. It’s about individual employers (not businesses with 50 or more employees) giving their nannies paid maternity leaves out of their own pocket.

PP, would you pay for highway improvement voluntarily out of your own pocket if you drive on that highway multiple times a day? Nope, it's financed from your taxes. Would you give a check to a public school teacher to supplement their salary? No, that's not your role or responsibility as individual. Same goes for the maternity leave. Organize, lobby politicians, make it a state priority like in NY or CA. Then it will become a reality. Dumping on individual employers on the internet is misplaced and frankly ridiculous. Placing the burden on families will result in one thing only - fewer jobs for nannies, or lower wages, because the employers would have to figure in double the costs to cover maternity and a substitute nanny.

That's a poor comparison. Hundreds of thousands use a highway. Public school teachers serve a classroom. Yet an employer makes a choice to hire a nanny to serve only their family. That means their employment safety net is you. Would it be ideal that there is a national insurance system that would cover these leaves for small employers in the future? Of course, But for now if you're all refusing to pay for a maternity leave for your pregnant nannies, you're pretty cold human beings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP above (“‘someone else’” doesn’t pay for it”). I think you misunderstand public services. None of your examples are like maternity leave. Maybe you don’t drive on highways, but this country can’t function without them. The transportation of goods and people is key to our economy. Have you seen a country without highways? Did it seem prosperous to you? Likewise, public schools aren’t just a service for parents, like you’re doing parents a favor by paying. They are a key component of our democracy. We all need educated citizens to vote.

You brought up disability insurance. I am not against disability insurance, and I think the way it’s used now to support maternity leave as well as other illnesses is fine. The key is that it supports other situations besides pregnancy, and that is has rules surrounding its use (size of company, etc).

This thread is not about disability insurance. It’s about individual employers (not businesses with 50 or more employees) giving their nannies paid maternity leaves out of their own pocket.

PP, would you pay for highway improvement voluntarily out of your own pocket if you drive on that highway multiple times a day? Nope, it's financed from your taxes. Would you give a check to a public school teacher to supplement their salary? No, that's not your role or responsibility as individual. Same goes for the maternity leave. Organize, lobby politicians, make it a state priority like in NY or CA. Then it will become a reality. Dumping on individual employers on the internet is misplaced and frankly ridiculous. Placing the burden on families will result in one thing only - fewer jobs for nannies, or lower wages, because the employers would have to figure in double the costs to cover maternity and a substitute nanny.

That's a poor comparison. Hundreds of thousands use a highway. Public school teachers serve a classroom. Yet an employer makes a choice to hire a nanny to serve only their family. That means their employment safety net is you. Would it be ideal that there is a national insurance system that would cover these leaves for small employers in the future? Of course, But for now if you're all refusing to pay for a maternity leave for your pregnant nannies, you're pretty cold human beings.

You yourself are very cold, if for all these pages of posts you can't understand that families can't afford it. The only way it works is when there is agreement at the national level (e.g. Canada) or at the state level, as in examples above. Pinning it on a single family doesn't work. What to do if the substitute nanny goes on maternity too? take out a second mortgage? Nope, no dice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP above (“‘someone else’” doesn’t pay for it”). I think you misunderstand public services. None of your examples are like maternity leave. Maybe you don’t drive on highways, but this country can’t function without them. The transportation of goods and people is key to our economy. Have you seen a country without highways? Did it seem prosperous to you? Likewise, public schools aren’t just a service for parents, like you’re doing parents a favor by paying. They are a key component of our democracy. We all need educated citizens to vote.

You brought up disability insurance. I am not against disability insurance, and I think the way it’s used now to support maternity leave as well as other illnesses is fine. The key is that it supports other situations besides pregnancy, and that is has rules surrounding its use (size of company, etc).

This thread is not about disability insurance. It’s about individual employers (not businesses with 50 or more employees) giving their nannies paid maternity leaves out of their own pocket.

PP, and this is my point exactly. Paid parental leave is also a key component of building a sound society, just as public education and highways are. They are social goods. Affordable daycare and early childhood education are as well. We need healthy, supported children and families to thrive in years to come. This isn't about being a do-gooder--it's about building a sustainable nation that will have an economic future. When having children becomes so expensive that it is a hardship, people respond by having fewer children. Those children are the future workforce (and we currently have historically low unemployment rates with worker shortages in many essential fields). So even if you are purely driven by your own economic self interest, you should want to see future generations of children who have access to family supports and education. You don't have to wish for it out of the goodness of your heart.

But yes, many individual employers do offer paid leaves out of their own pockets, as do many larger employers. It's a Band-Aid for a problem that needs to be solved at a state or national scale, though.

But I do not agree with you that we need more children to be born to people who can’t support them from 0-5 without assistance. There are millions of American families who can afford to have children without help, and if we need any additional increase in population, we can bring in immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one is saying we want MORE babies. We simply want babies to have a better start to life and for new moms not to suffer. You don’t seem to realize how many women are forced to return to work after such a short period of time. You just don’t get it.

I understand wanting to give babies and better start in life and not wanting moms to suffer. But isn't the better option just to not have children...? To me, providing paid maternity leave is encouraging people to have more babies. If you cannot afford to provide for a child without having tax payers pay for it, or your employer pay you for not working, then I'm not sure you should be having a child. That is why they offer those programs in Europe, to encourage population growth.

True. We don't need population growth because of illegal immigration. Only the poor immigrants should have children!

I mean, I don't actually see a problem with bringing in desperate people from the rest of the world, instead of adding more babies to the world's population. And my point still stands - not sure we should be encouraging the "poor immigrants" to have children either.

Because more people aren’t going to NOT have kids because more immigrants arrive. It doesn’t work that way. Besides the babies born here are legal and PAY Taxes once they start working.

While it’s not good for the environment, it’s silly to argue we should stop having kids because of it. We also should stop flying on planes but who is going to do that?

Okay, but does that mean I need to use my tax dollars to incentivize flying on planes?

How many people do you think would fly if there were no federal system of air traffic control? Would you?

People are going to fly whether I like it or not. Also, similar to highways, much of our economy depends on air travel, and that’s a benefit to me. If planes are going to be flying, I will help pay to ensure they don’t crash midair over my house, or that they aren’t hijacked and used for another 9-11. But no one is suggesting we subsidize plane tickets for those who can’t afford them and otherwise wouldn’t be flying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP above (“‘someone else’” doesn’t pay for it”). I think you misunderstand public services. None of your examples are like maternity leave. Maybe you don’t drive on highways, but this country can’t function without them. The transportation of goods and people is key to our economy. Have you seen a country without highways? Did it seem prosperous to you? Likewise, public schools aren’t just a service for parents, like you’re doing parents a favor by paying. They are a key component of our democracy. We all need educated citizens to vote.

You brought up disability insurance. I am not against disability insurance, and I think the way it’s used now to support maternity leave as well as other illnesses is fine. The key is that it supports other situations besides pregnancy, and that is has rules surrounding its use (size of company, etc).

This thread is not about disability insurance. It’s about individual employers (not businesses with 50 or more employees) giving their nannies paid maternity leaves out of their own pocket.

PP, would you pay for highway improvement voluntarily out of your own pocket if you drive on that highway multiple times a day? Nope, it's financed from your taxes. Would you give a check to a public school teacher to supplement their salary? No, that's not your role or responsibility as individual. Same goes for the maternity leave. Organize, lobby politicians, make it a state priority like in NY or CA. Then it will become a reality. Dumping on individual employers on the internet is misplaced and frankly ridiculous. Placing the burden on families will result in one thing only - fewer jobs for nannies, or lower wages, because the employers would have to figure in double the costs to cover maternity and a substitute nanny.

That's a poor comparison. Hundreds of thousands use a highway. Public school teachers serve a classroom. Yet an employer makes a choice to hire a nanny to serve only their family. That means their employment safety net is you. Would it be ideal that there is a national insurance system that would cover these leaves for small employers in the future? Of course, But for now if you're all refusing to pay for a maternity leave for your pregnant nannies, you're pretty cold human beings.

You yourself are very cold, if for all these pages of posts you can't understand that families can't afford it. The only way it works is when there is agreement at the national level (e.g. Canada) or at the state level, as in examples above. Pinning it on a single family doesn't work. What to do if the substitute nanny goes on maternity too? take out a second mortgage? Nope, no dice.

No, I am not cold. People with nannies are wealthier than the general population. If you can't afford to use that wealth to treat the employee raising your children with dignity, don't get a nanny. We have had a nanny for many years, and prioritize being able to cover her paid leave time. Yes, this means we don't take many vacations or have an updated home. But treating my only employee the way people deserve to be treated is worth it, and it's the example I hope my children take from me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP above (“‘someone else’” doesn’t pay for it”). I think you misunderstand public services. None of your examples are like maternity leave. Maybe you don’t drive on highways, but this country can’t function without them. The transportation of goods and people is key to our economy. Have you seen a country without highways? Did it seem prosperous to you? Likewise, public schools aren’t just a service for parents, like you’re doing parents a favor by paying. They are a key component of our democracy. We all need educated citizens to vote.

You brought up disability insurance. I am not against disability insurance, and I think the way it’s used now to support maternity leave as well as other illnesses is fine. The key is that it supports other situations besides pregnancy, and that is has rules surrounding its use (size of company, etc).

This thread is not about disability insurance. It’s about individual employers (not businesses with 50 or more employees) giving their nannies paid maternity leaves out of their own pocket.

PP, would you pay for highway improvement voluntarily out of your own pocket if you drive on that highway multiple times a day? Nope, it's financed from your taxes. Would you give a check to a public school teacher to supplement their salary? No, that's not your role or responsibility as individual. Same goes for the maternity leave. Organize, lobby politicians, make it a state priority like in NY or CA. Then it will become a reality. Dumping on individual employers on the internet is misplaced and frankly ridiculous. Placing the burden on families will result in one thing only - fewer jobs for nannies, or lower wages, because the employers would have to figure in double the costs to cover maternity and a substitute nanny.

That's a poor comparison. Hundreds of thousands use a highway. Public school teachers serve a classroom. Yet an employer makes a choice to hire a nanny to serve only their family. That means their employment safety net is you. Would it be ideal that there is a national insurance system that would cover these leaves for small employers in the future? Of course, But for now if you're all refusing to pay for a maternity leave for your pregnant nannies, you're pretty cold human beings.

You yourself are very cold, if for all these pages of posts you can't understand that families can't afford it. The only way it works is when there is agreement at the national level (e.g. Canada) or at the state level, as in examples above. Pinning it on a single family doesn't work. What to do if the substitute nanny goes on maternity too? take out a second mortgage? Nope, no dice.

No, I am not cold. People with nannies are wealthier than the general population. If you can't afford to use that wealth to treat the employee raising your children with dignity, don't get a nanny. We have had a nanny for many years, and prioritize being able to cover her paid leave time. Yes, this means we don't take many vacations or have an updated home. But treating my only employee the way people deserve to be treated is worth it, and it's the example I hope my children take from me.

+1 Nannies are expensive. The reason a lot of people don't get nannies is because they don't want to deal with backup care expenses while paying a salary to their nanny. I had a friend who had to pay months of sick leave for a nanny and it was a huge strain. If you don't like it choose daycare like most of the rest of the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP above (“‘someone else’” doesn’t pay for it”). I think you misunderstand public services. None of your examples are like maternity leave. Maybe you don’t drive on highways, but this country can’t function without them. The transportation of goods and people is key to our economy. Have you seen a country without highways? Did it seem prosperous to you? Likewise, public schools aren’t just a service for parents, like you’re doing parents a favor by paying. They are a key component of our democracy. We all need educated citizens to vote.

You brought up disability insurance. I am not against disability insurance, and I think the way it’s used now to support maternity leave as well as other illnesses is fine. The key is that it supports other situations besides pregnancy, and that is has rules surrounding its use (size of company, etc).

This thread is not about disability insurance. It’s about individual employers (not businesses with 50 or more employees) giving their nannies paid maternity leaves out of their own pocket.

PP, would you pay for highway improvement voluntarily out of your own pocket if you drive on that highway multiple times a day? Nope, it's financed from your taxes. Would you give a check to a public school teacher to supplement their salary? No, that's not your role or responsibility as individual. Same goes for the maternity leave. Organize, lobby politicians, make it a state priority like in NY or CA. Then it will become a reality. Dumping on individual employers on the internet is misplaced and frankly ridiculous. Placing the burden on families will result in one thing only - fewer jobs for nannies, or lower wages, because the employers would have to figure in double the costs to cover maternity and a substitute nanny.

That's a poor comparison. Hundreds of thousands use a highway. Public school teachers serve a classroom. Yet an employer makes a choice to hire a nanny to serve only their family. That means their employment safety net is you. Would it be ideal that there is a national insurance system that would cover these leaves for small employers in the future? Of course, But for now if you're all refusing to pay for a maternity leave for your pregnant nannies, you're pretty cold human beings.

You yourself are very cold, if for all these pages of posts you can't understand that families can't afford it. The only way it works is when there is agreement at the national level (e.g. Canada) or at the state level, as in examples above. Pinning it on a single family doesn't work. What to do if the substitute nanny goes on maternity too? take out a second mortgage? Nope, no dice.

No, I am not cold. People with nannies are wealthier than the general population. If you can't afford to use that wealth to treat the employee raising your children with dignity, don't get a nanny. We have had a nanny for many years, and prioritize being able to cover her paid leave time. Yes, this means we don't take many vacations or have an updated home. But treating my only employee the way people deserve to be treated is worth it, and it's the example I hope my children take from me.

You don't know finances of all the people with nannies. If your angle to soak the wealthy - by all means, get involved in political campaigns, etc to bring this agenda forward. That can and should be done through taxation.

Math-wise, daycare for 2 children costs more than employing a nanny. Some people do nanny shares, because they can't afford their own full time nanny.

Furthermore, you have yet to explain how everybody taking their kids to daycare and firing their current nannies would help the said nannies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP above (“‘someone else’” doesn’t pay for it”). I think you misunderstand public services. None of your examples are like maternity leave. Maybe you don’t drive on highways, but this country can’t function without them. The transportation of goods and people is key to our economy. Have you seen a country without highways? Did it seem prosperous to you? Likewise, public schools aren’t just a service for parents, like you’re doing parents a favor by paying. They are a key component of our democracy. We all need educated citizens to vote.

You brought up disability insurance. I am not against disability insurance, and I think the way it’s used now to support maternity leave as well as other illnesses is fine. The key is that it supports other situations besides pregnancy, and that is has rules surrounding its use (size of company, etc).

This thread is not about disability insurance. It’s about individual employers (not businesses with 50 or more employees) giving their nannies paid maternity leaves out of their own pocket.

PP, would you pay for highway improvement voluntarily out of your own pocket if you drive on that highway multiple times a day? Nope, it's financed from your taxes. Would you give a check to a public school teacher to supplement their salary? No, that's not your role or responsibility as individual. Same goes for the maternity leave. Organize, lobby politicians, make it a state priority like in NY or CA. Then it will become a reality. Dumping on individual employers on the internet is misplaced and frankly ridiculous. Placing the burden on families will result in one thing only - fewer jobs for nannies, or lower wages, because the employers would have to figure in double the costs to cover maternity and a substitute nanny.

That's a poor comparison. Hundreds of thousands use a highway. Public school teachers serve a classroom. Yet an employer makes a choice to hire a nanny to serve only their family. That means their employment safety net is you. Would it be ideal that there is a national insurance system that would cover these leaves for small employers in the future? Of course, But for now if you're all refusing to pay for a maternity leave for your pregnant nannies, you're pretty cold human beings.

You yourself are very cold, if for all these pages of posts you can't understand that families can't afford it. The only way it works is when there is agreement at the national level (e.g. Canada) or at the state level, as in examples above. Pinning it on a single family doesn't work. What to do if the substitute nanny goes on maternity too? take out a second mortgage? Nope, no dice.

No, I am not cold. People with nannies are wealthier than the general population. If you can't afford to use that wealth to treat the employee raising your children with dignity, don't get a nanny. We have had a nanny for many years, and prioritize being able to cover her paid leave time. Yes, this means we don't take many vacations or have an updated home. But treating my only employee the way people deserve to be treated is worth it, and it's the example I hope my children take from me.

You don't know finances of all the people with nannies. If your angle to soak the wealthy - by all means, get involved in political campaigns, etc to bring this agenda forward. That can and should be done through taxation.

Math-wise, daycare for 2 children costs more than employing a nanny. Some people do nanny shares, because they can't afford their own full time nanny.

Furthermore, you have yet to explain how everybody taking their kids to daycare and firing their current nannies would help the said nannies?

If you don't think someone paying an employee a salary of approximately $40k a year is wealthier than the general population (where the average US household income is 45K), then you aren't very well-informed. There are many cheaper options than nannies-including in-home daycares, care by neighbors etc. When I was in a nanny share (because I couldn't afford a nanny of my own), we clearly set out what leave we would pay for (and yes, both employers of the nanny discussed sick leave and maternity leave obligations.) Furthermore, I don't know why you would assume "everybody" would fire their nannies if they had to pay maternity leave. People don't like paying for leave, because we prefer our employees be as little cost as possible, but most people with nannies, I daresay could afford it. The ones who can't should find another outlet for their champagne tastes, because someone else who can afford it will hire their nanny and treat them better.

[Anonymous]

I think it's unreasonable to expect families to pay for their nanny's maternity leave, if only because I think it will just lead to people hiring only older nannies. I also don't think it's hypocritical to be arguing for society wide TAX-PAYER sponsored maternity leave and not wanting to pay your nanny's maternity leave out of your own pocket.

However.... for those of you that hire nannies, and those nannies either don't get any paid maternity leave, or their salary isn't high enough to save for maternity leave.... don't you feel kind of icky that your lifestyle depends on such poorly paid labor?

I guess if I had to be the devil's advocate and answer that, you could still say "no I don't feel bad because if you're going to be a nanny, then you shouldn't expect to have children." I think that is a valid thing to say.

Just an interesting thing to think about.