If you had a baby with no FMLA, what did you do?

[Anonymous]

I'm so glad that I'm in the private sector. My employer offers 12 weeks leave for both the mother and father, plus FMLA if necessary. Plus, I still get government holidays off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whenever I read stuff like this I am SO SO grateful I had my kids while I was living in the UK. I took 7 months maternity leave followed by my husband taking 2 months paternity leave for #1 and then I took 10 months for #2. I wasn't paid for all of it but my job was guaranteed for a year. There are so many great things about living here in the US but maternity policy is not one of them! Good luck, OP, I hope your bosses are sympathetic.

Can you explain what your employer did with your work while you were out? Are UK companies more likely to have staffing models where their employees having breathing room to absorb the additional work versus here we try to pile as much on our employees that we can? Are there more folks willing to work in these jobs temporarily and just keep rotating companies?

I've always been curious as to how this truly works. What I've previously read indicates that companies just hire temps. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the workforce in every other country includes mass amounts of temps.

Maybe the flexibility comes from statutory requirements in many countries regarding work hours and benefits. Our culture really seems to be based on greed. I've worked for multiple companies and have never worked somewhere where every day employees days were filled with work.

TIA!

PP here. Since all companies have to do this (companies must keep your job open for you for 12 months - there is a statutory minimum maternity pay which lasts for 9 months, but is very low; most companies pay on top of that to some degree) I think they just get on with it, there is no choice. Many companies will hire temps - it's common to see jobs advertised as "maternity cover" - but since it can be for a year, it's not actually that temporary. I think it's almost easier to staff if you know someone will be away for a year, compared with covering their work for just a few weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This freaking country. Why are we SO behind the times?

Depends on where you work. I got pregnant immediately upon starting work at a 9 person small business. They paid me in full for 3 months and then when I returned to the office allowed me to work from home 3 more months because I was breastfeeding and we had a nanny with the baby at home.

Our company has grown and the CEO approached me about a year ago and asked me to work with HR and help develop the best maternity/paternity leave policy in the industry.

This company is so family friendly, I will only leave in a casket or in handcuffs.

[Anonymous]

6 weeks unpaid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This freaking country. Why are we SO behind the times?

Depends on where you work. I got pregnant immediately upon starting work at a 9 person small business. They paid me in full for 3 months and then when I returned to the office allowed me to work from home 3 more months because I was breastfeeding and we had a nanny with the baby at home.

Our company has grown and the CEO approached me about a year ago and asked me to work with HR and help develop the best maternity/paternity leave policy in the industry.

This company is so family friendly, I will only leave in a casket or in handcuffs.

No, it doesn't matter where you work. It is the country's policies at fault. Just because you lucked out at a good company doesn't mean the system works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This freaking country. Why are we SO behind the times?

And these are executive branch employees under Obama. If I have to hear him talk up maternity leave on e more time I want to scream. It's so hypocritical.

Given that feds in the executive branch seem to get at least 6 weeks paid leave, even if they haven't been there a year or accrued any leave, and people working for private employers have the experience described directly above, I'd say that Obama is right to focus on national issues, and not on issues specific to the fed.

-- Mom who got 8 days of paid leave from an employer who gave no annual leave, and didn't allow sick leave to be carried over from year to year.

I think you missed the point. Obama is on the national stage telling private sector employees that they should offer 12 weeks paid maternity leave. When feds do not have that and he's our boss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whenever I read stuff like this I am SO SO grateful I had my kids while I was living in the UK. I took 7 months maternity leave followed by my husband taking 2 months paternity leave for #1 and then I took 10 months for #2. I wasn't paid for all of it but my job was guaranteed for a year. There are so many great things about living here in the US but maternity policy is not one of them! Good luck, OP, I hope your bosses are sympathetic.

Can you explain what your employer did with your work while you were out? Are UK companies more likely to have staffing models where their employees having breathing room to absorb the additional work versus here we try to pile as much on our employees that we can? Are there more folks willing to work in these jobs temporarily and just keep rotating companies?

I've always been curious as to how this truly works. What I've previously read indicates that companies just hire temps. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the workforce in every other country includes mass amounts of temps.

Maybe the flexibility comes from statutory requirements in many countries regarding work hours and benefits. Our culture really seems to be based on greed. I've worked for multiple companies and have never worked somewhere where every day employees days were filled with work.

TIA!

Not the PP but I worked at a US based company with UK based colleagues (who were bound by the employment laws of the UK - i.e. guaranteed job for one year) and I had to take on her work load on top of my own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whenever I read stuff like this I am SO SO grateful I had my kids while I was living in the UK. I took 7 months maternity leave followed by my husband taking 2 months paternity leave for #1 and then I took 10 months for #2. I wasn't paid for all of it but my job was guaranteed for a year. There are so many great things about living here in the US but maternity policy is not one of them! Good luck, OP, I hope your bosses are sympathetic.

Can you explain what your employer did with your work while you were out? Are UK companies more likely to have staffing models where their employees having breathing room to absorb the additional work versus here we try to pile as much on our employees that we can? Are there more folks willing to work in these jobs temporarily and just keep rotating companies?

I've always been curious as to how this truly works. What I've previously read indicates that companies just hire temps. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the workforce in every other country includes mass amounts of temps.

Maybe the flexibility comes from statutory requirements in many countries regarding work hours and benefits. Our culture really seems to be based on greed. I've worked for multiple companies and have never worked somewhere where every day employees days were filled with work.

TIA!

PP here. Since all companies have to do this (companies must keep your job open for you for 12 months - there is a statutory minimum maternity pay which lasts for 9 months, but is very low; most companies pay on top of that to some degree) I think they just get on with it, there is no choice. Many companies will hire temps - it's common to see jobs advertised as "maternity cover" - but since it can be for a year, it's not actually that temporary. I think it's almost easier to staff if you know someone will be away for a year, compared with covering their work for just a few weeks.

I think what pp is getting at is that there is a trade off for this leave. I looked at a job in London and was shocked at how the salary was lower than my salary in NY. Much lower! I would gladly take the unpaid leave for maternity and keep the higher salary for my entire career. I do understand how certain jobs can handle the leave. For example, the government. However, there have to be some jobs where this leave is a major problem and negatively impacts other workers, salaries etc. for the record I fully support paid leave but there seem to be a lot of people who truly think this benefit is free or doesn't hurt their career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think what pp is getting at is that there is a trade off for this leave. I looked at a job in London and was shocked at how the salary was lower than my salary in NY. Much lower! I would gladly take the unpaid leave for maternity and keep the higher salary for my entire career. I do understand how certain jobs can handle the leave. For example, the government. However, there have to be some jobs where this leave is a major problem and negatively impacts other workers, salaries etc. for the record I fully support paid leave but there seem to be a lot of people who truly think this benefit is free or doesn't hurt their career.

I'm the PP from London. I'm not sure about this. There are a lot of factors that go into salaries and maternity leave is only one of them (health care is the main thing I am thinking of here). For what it's worth, my job in London as a lawyer was paid exactly the same as in NY. The benefits were different (probably better in London, including maternity leave) but the tax in London was a bit higher. It all averaged out. The issue of whether it hurts your career is another question. I genuinely don't think taking 6 months hurts anyone's careers and I saw a study somewhere that said that. Taking a year might because it's a long time to be out of the loop, although it is still doable. But I went to a meeting of parents in my office here in DC last week and it seems to me that your career can be hurt any way you do it - people were talking about returning to work after 8 or 12 week leave and finding the first several months extremely difficult and stressful. When I went back to work after 7 months I didn't feel like it was hugely stressful because I was completely recovered, my baby was sleeping really well by then, he was eating food so although I exclusively breastfed, I could cover his day time feeds by pumping before I went to bed.. it felt manageable whereas I think if I'd had to go back after 8 or 12 weeks I would have been a complete wreck and actually, I may not have gone back. I may also have gone back part time (which can also hurt your career) whereas I didn't feel the need to when I went back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm so glad that I'm in the private sector. My employer offers 12 weeks leave for both the mother and father, plus FMLA if necessary. Plus, I still get government holidays off.

Same here, plus I got to return part time for the following 3 months to ease back into work and transition to motherhood.