anybody else completely pissed about maternity leave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an IMF economist, I get 3 months of maternity leave plus accumulated annual leave (3 months in my case) at 100 percent salary. One of the perks in an organization full of Europeans (for whom this is worse than what they get in their home countries).

Stop griping. I 've worked at IMF for many years and I'm a US citizen who knows the uutrageous perks that non-US citizens receive. If you don't like it, go back home.

Outrageous perks??? HAHAAHHAAHAAAAA!
Indeed, for all Europeans 3 months paid leave is NOT an outrageous perk, but really incredibly outrageously bad, and I assume that all pregnant women try very hard to be transferred back home, where on average 12 months leave at about 65% pay await.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The only profession that appears to have good fully paid maternity leave for several months are lawyers in certain large law firms.
The laws of our nation are made by lawyers. Hmmm.

actually, the laws of our nation are made by congress, many members of which are not lawyers, and very few of whom ever worked at these large law firms. As someone who left one of thse firms well before the birth of my children and never looked back even for a minute and even when I was on unpaid maternity leave, let me tell you, the women who take that leave pay for it in so many other ways. there is absolutely no reason to be envious of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an IMF economist, I get 3 months of maternity leave plus accumulated annual leave (3 months in my case) at 100 percent salary. One of the perks in an organization full of Europeans (for whom this is worse than what they get in their home countries).

Stop griping. I 've worked at IMF for many years and I'm a US citizen who knows the uutrageous perks that non-US citizens receive. If you don't like it, go back home.

Outrageous perks??? HAHAAHHAAHAAAAA!
Indeed, for all Europeans 3 months paid leave is NOT an outrageous perk, but really incredibly outrageously bad, and I assume that all pregnant women try very hard to be transferred back home, where on average 12 months leave at about 65% pay await.

Pregnancy and birthing a baby is not an illness. If you want more leave, take it without pay, quit your job, or, if you can't afford to not work then you can't afford to have a baby. So, wait until you can afford to have one. Simple.

[Anonymous]

My company also touts being a best place to work but we also have 6-8 weeks short term disability with a waiting period. You would not believe....MEN get 2 weeks paid. We just get short term disability. Unbelievable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My company also touts being a best place to work but we also have 6-8 weeks short term disability with a waiting period. You would not believe....MEN get 2 weeks paid. We just get short term disability. Unbelievable.

You aren't disabled!

[Anonymous]

Pregnancy and birthing a baby is not an illness. If you want more leave, take it without pay, quit your job, or, if you can't afford to not work then you can't afford to have a baby. So, wait until you can afford to have one. Simple.

So, essentially you believe only wealthy people should have children. Many hard-working families find it very difficult to go without one salary for 3 months. I know of more than one woman who had to return to work at 4 weeks postpartum, because they had no paid leave whatsoever and her husband lost his job when she was 8 months pregnant. is that really in the best interests of the family and society?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Pregnancy and birthing a baby is not an illness. If you want more leave, take it without pay, quit your job, or, if you can't afford to not work then you can't afford to have a baby. So, wait until you can afford to have one. Simple.

asshat!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Pregnancy and birthing a baby is not an illness. If you want more leave, take it without pay, quit your job, or, if you can't afford to not work then you can't afford to have a baby. So, wait until you can afford to have one. Simple.

So, essentially you believe only wealthy people should have children. Many hard-working families find it very difficult to go without one salary for 3 months. I know of more than one woman who had to return to work at 4 weeks postpartum, because they had no paid leave whatsoever and her husband lost his job when she was 8 months pregnant. is that really in the best interests of the family and society?

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My company also touts being a best place to work but we also have 6-8 weeks short term disability with a waiting period. You would not believe....MEN get 2 weeks paid. We just get short term disability. Unbelievable.

You aren't disabled!

I can't tell what point you're trying to make. But if dads get 2 weeks paid, how much time do you think birth moms should get paid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an IMF economist, I get 3 months of maternity leave plus accumulated annual leave (3 months in my case) at 100 percent salary. One of the perks in an organization full of Europeans (for whom this is worse than what they get in their home countries).

Stop griping. I 've worked at IMF for many years and I'm a US citizen who knows the uutrageous perks that non-US citizens receive. If you don't like it, go back home.

Outrageous perks??? HAHAAHHAAHAAAAA!
Indeed, for all Europeans 3 months paid leave is NOT an outrageous perk, but really incredibly outrageously bad, and I assume that all pregnant women try very hard to be transferred back home, where on average 12 months leave at about 65% pay await.

Pregnancy and birthing a baby is not an illness. If you want more leave, take it without pay, quit your job, or, if you can't afford to not work then you can't afford to have a baby. So, wait until you can afford to have one. Simple.

I think this PP is being unnecessarily harsh (and totally unrealistic), but there is a kernel of truth in what she says. Why do we feel entitled to be paid for time off for something that is, ultimately, a discretionary choice? Of course it's lovely to bond with our babies but the money has to come from somewhere. In other countries where more leave is standard, they also pay a ton more in taxes. And with our economy in the state it is and so much unemployment, is it really wise to put additional financial burdens on already-strapped employers?

[Anonymous]

Pfft! Believe me when I say my firm is NOT financially strapped. We get to hear about record earnings and happy shareholders all the time. And a CEO whose take home pay is many times the average worker who does nothing as far as I can tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My company also touts being a best place to work but we also have 6-8 weeks short term disability with a waiting period. You would not believe....MEN get 2 weeks paid. We just get short term disability. Unbelievable.

You aren't disabled!

you are in the sense that you are not able to work
nobody is disabled for a short term. Disabled is for life.
Our species is just built so that we are the most helpless creatures and this is just a fact of life.
That is why the more civilized societies see it as a duty to provide benefits to mothers. Women are valueable memebers of society there. And it is the survival instinct of every species to look after the survival of the young.
But then America is backward. It took America a long time to give women the vote. And the eugenics program forced sterilizations on the women

[Anonymous]

It's not just bonding either - what about breastfeeding every 3 hours for the first few months? What about day and night care? What about healing from a tear? How soon are YOU going back to work then? Tell us your plan since clearly you are not taking this discretionary leave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this PP is being unnecessarily harsh (and totally unrealistic), but there is a kernel of truth in what she says. Why do we feel entitled to be paid for time off for something that is, ultimately, a discretionary choice? Of course it's lovely to bond with our babies but the money has to come from somewhere. In other countries where more leave is standard, they also pay a ton more in taxes. And with our economy in the state it is and so much unemployment, is it really wise to put additional financial burdens on already-strapped employers?

can you believe it. Some countries tax more, have a national health system, lower unemployment, less crime, more women in the workforce, and less national debt

[Anonymous]

My small firm gave 6 weeks paid and 6 weeks unpaid.