paid maternity leave for your employees?

[Anonymous]

Can I ask another question for people who employ nannies and are happy to offer maternity leave (either paid or unpaid): do you feel that it negatively affects your children for their one of the main adults in their life to be gone for 3 months? I don't have a nanny, but I would be angry if I hired a caregiver for my child, expecting that person to stay until my child was say, at least 1, and ideally til they were 2, and then that person disappeared for 3 months and I had to bring in another caregiver. That seems like it would be fine for children above 2, but maybe not healthy for children under 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“You agreed to hire a nanny. That means you bear the risk of sickness/maternity leave/illness that come with having an individual employee rather than a daycare center. If you don’t want that risk, put your kid in daycare.”

Sorry but nope. It is never going to be the case that employers of just 1 or 2 people are expected to solely shoulder the cost of maternity leave. Now if there is a program the government runs where you chip in X% of salary towards a fund that pays for leave, then absolutely they should be included. That’s very different though.

+1 to "sorry but nope." First, pregnancy isn't a "risk" like an illness. And yes, if we're going to maternity leave, it needs to be funded by taxes, not individual employers.

And when that day comes where there's a federal or state policy on maternity leave, that will be great. But in the meantime, if you hire a nanny, you have the moral obligation to pay maternity leave. Because there's no other option right now. If you can't afford that possibility, don't get a nanny, because there's nothing worse than people who say, "I appreciate you, but I can't afford to pay you now that you're pregnant."

NP. "No other option"? There are lots of other options. Like hiring an older nanny who's not going to become pregnant. And I STILL don't understand why it's "moral" to pay for someone else's choice to have a child. I think it's moral to support a sick employee because it's not a choice to become sick, and I think it's inhumane to let sick people lose their jobs and go into financial ruin. But I think pregnancy is way different from an illness.

So your answer to the lack of maternity leave in this country is age discrimination? If you don't realize why it's immoral to leave your child's caretaker with no source of income because she's pregnant, we don't have a political disagreement, we have a fundamental difference in value systems.

Do you have a nanny? Have you paid her maternity leave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Then one would also feel icky when getting any service of lower paid professions. Barristas at coffee shops, nail salon employees, checkout staff at Giant, maintenance guy in apartment building, etc. I don't think 3K per month with paid vacation is so poorly paid for someone with no other skills and no education. What she saves/doesn't save is truly not my business, these are decisions by another adult that I am not accountable for. Being able to randomly pony up 9K cash for her maternity at any given point is not something I'd be willing to entertain. If OP is doing that for her nanny by sacrificing elsewhere - she can give her self a pat on the back. But that's that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Then one would also feel icky when getting any service of lower paid professions. Barristas at coffee shops, nail salon employees, checkout staff at Giant, maintenance guy in apartment building, etc. I don't think 3K per month with paid vacation is so poorly paid for someone with no other skills and no education. What she saves/doesn't save is truly not my business, these are decisions by another adult that I am not accountable for. Being able to randomly pony up 9K cash for her maternity at any given point is not something I'd be willing to entertain. If OP is doing that for her nanny by sacrificing elsewhere - she can give her self a pat on the back. But that's that.

No. There is a big difference between the staff that you are solely responsible as the nanny's employer and the barrista at a coffee shop that you patronize once or twice a week. If you don't see that you have a greater obligation to the person who works full-time taking care of your kids, we have fundamentally different world views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

We gave our nanny paid leave, actually more than I earned at the job I had when I had children. We also paid her $30/hour for 40 hours per week and $45/hour for overtime, which was at least 10 hours a week, guaranteed. She decided not to save any of her leave during the five years she was with us and is now with a new family and likely considering starting a family soon. Had she not taken all her leave with us, we would have paid her out that leave (we made that clear in the contract from the get go). She also got an annual bonus of around $5,000. So no, I don't feel like I would also need to pay her for three months of maternity leave. We gave her leave that she could have accrued and we paid her well, not to mention bonuses. If she chose not to save any of her salary or bonus money then I don't really think it was beyond us at that point to pay for additional leave. She also received health insurance, monthly contributions to an IRA, a cell phone stipend, and paid mileage and food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Then one would also feel icky when getting any service of lower paid professions. Barristas at coffee shops, nail salon employees, checkout staff at Giant, maintenance guy in apartment building, etc. I don't think 3K per month with paid vacation is so poorly paid for someone with no other skills and no education. What she saves/doesn't save is truly not my business, these are decisions by another adult that I am not accountable for. Being able to randomly pony up 9K cash for her maternity at any given point is not something I'd be willing to entertain. If OP is doing that for her nanny by sacrificing elsewhere - she can give her self a pat on the back. But that's that.

No. There is a big difference between the staff that you are solely responsible as the nanny's employer and the barrista at a coffee shop that you patronize once or twice a week. If you don't see that you have a greater obligation to the person who works full-time taking care of your kids, we have fundamentally different world views.

I was responding to the quoted PP, not to you, to the question on whether using lower paid labor feels icky. Your talking points are quite clear, and you don't seem to have any new arguments. Yes, our views are very different. Unless you go through the route of political action on this, nothing will change. This is not something individual employers will offer voluntarily en masse without being legally mandated to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather get paid more and manage my time myself

^^^ This. There is no free stuff. The money comes from somewhere. I'd rather manage it myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“You agreed to hire a nanny. That means you bear the risk of sickness/maternity leave/illness that come with having an individual employee rather than a daycare center. If you don’t want that risk, put your kid in daycare.”

Sorry but nope. It is never going to be the case that employers of just 1 or 2 people are expected to solely shoulder the cost of maternity leave. Now if there is a program the government runs where you chip in X% of salary towards a fund that pays for leave, then absolutely they should be included. That’s very different though.

+1 to "sorry but nope." First, pregnancy isn't a "risk" like an illness. And yes, if we're going to maternity leave, it needs to be funded by taxes, not individual employers.

And when that day comes where there's a federal or state policy on maternity leave, that will be great. But in the meantime, if you hire a nanny, you have the moral obligation to pay maternity leave. Because there's no other option right now. If you can't afford that possibility, don't get a nanny, because there's nothing worse than people who say, "I appreciate you, but I can't afford to pay you now that you're pregnant."

NP. "No other option"? There are lots of other options. Like hiring an older nanny who's not going to become pregnant. And I STILL don't understand why it's "moral" to pay for someone else's choice to have a child. I think it's moral to support a sick employee because it's not a choice to become sick, and I think it's inhumane to let sick people lose their jobs and go into financial ruin. But I think pregnancy is way different from an illness.

So your answer to the lack of maternity leave in this country is age discrimination? If you don't realize why it's immoral to leave your child's caretaker with no source of income because she's pregnant, we don't have a political disagreement, we have a fundamental difference in value systems.

Do you have a nanny? Have you paid her maternity leave?

Yes I do. No I haven’t paid maternity leave but I have paid out a month of sick leave and bereavement leave where I also paid for backup care. We have put aside money in case nanny related contingencies arise because it’s a part of being a good employer until the time that there’s a government system of paid maternity leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you assume I can pay maternity leave for my nanny and also pay for replacement care during that time. Nanny makes 475/ week after taxes. So double that to cover a sub and you assume I have $1000/week to pay for leave? Get real. The nanny is a contractor and we pay annual leave, sick leave etc. but that’s too much. Maternity leave at corporations is spread out more and more easily absorbed as a cost and benefit provided by the employer.

It's so much easier to spend other peoples money.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can I ask another question for people who employ nannies and are happy to offer maternity leave (either paid or unpaid): do you feel that it negatively affects your children for their one of the main adults in their life to be gone for 3 months? I don't have a nanny, but I would be angry if I hired a caregiver for my child, expecting that person to stay until my child was say, at least 1, and ideally til they were 2, and then that person disappeared for 3 months and I had to bring in another caregiver. That seems like it would be fine for children above 2, but maybe not healthy for children under 2.

Maternity leave is part of life. Nannies can leave whenever they want (and often do), for better opportunities or personal considerations. Similarly employers can fire nannies per their contract terms when they move/lose jobs/get daycare slots etc. It's not forced servitude for life. Yes, you can be annoyed that they leave when you thought the nanny were staying, or that they dare have children when they're supposed to be devoted only to your children, but nannies are people too. In daycares and preschools and elementary schools you see pregnant staff too, and they have maternity leave. Somehow the world keeps on spinning and our kids survive (ideally our kids are even happy for the caregiver to have that new baby in their life!)