Maternity leave in the US - what do you think is reasonable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we could completely change the FMLA system in the U.S. what do you think is reasonable?

Personally, I think 12 weeks leave is on the short side of reasonable. My infant was sleeping longer stretches at 8 weeks and I was beginning to feel cabin-feverish.

I think we should have 16 weeks of paid leave. I think that is more than reasonable. If you don't use all 16 weeks at once, you can keep the leave for sick days.

I was blessed with a terrible sleeper. By 9 months we were at our wits end. I would have killed for more flexible hours or just 1 day off a week to catch up on sleep/errands, etc. Thus, I also think that in general there should be at least 2 weeks of sick leave on top of 2 weeks of vacation leave. Since having kids, I have ended up maxing out sick leave pretty much every year which takes away from much-needed vacation time.

In other words, I think if leave was more generous all around, it would relieve a lot of burden on new parents.

save your vacation and sick if you want to be paid as most of I
of us do. Stress is part of life for everyone and should not be
given for new parents. You are not special

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the government or the employer should be responsible for providing ANY paid leave, honestly. People choose to have children, that should not have any effect on their employer and their need to run their business.

IMO allowing the parent to use whatever sick leave/vacation time is reasonable. Anything else (even unpaid) is beyond generous.

right - people choose to have children. however, since vast majority of people makes the same decision (namely, to have children) then everyone benefits from the policy at some point. the only people this hurts are people who choose not to have children, and this is just as well. having children is a contribution to the future of the society as well, so i don't mind if childless (a small number anyway) get a small penalty there.

Newsflash lady, women (and men) can contribute to society in other ways than popping out babies. And some of those kids will be productive citizens, but some of them will also turn out to be drains on society. Having a child is not in and of itself a contribution to the future of society, it depends on chance and how much you invest in that child. You don't get a medal for getting knocked up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the government or the employer should be responsible for providing ANY paid leave, honestly. People choose to have children, that should not have any effect on their employer and their need to run their business.

IMO allowing the parent to use whatever sick leave/vacation time is reasonable. Anything else (even unpaid) is beyond generous.

right - people choose to have children. however, since vast majority of people makes the same decision (namely, to have children) then everyone benefits from the policy at some point. the only people this hurts are people who choose not to have children, and this is just as well. having children is a contribution to the future of the society as well, so i don't mind if childless (a small number anyway) get a small penalty there.

Newsflash lady, women (and men) can contribute to society in other ways than popping out babies. And some of those kids will be productive citizens, but some of them will also turn out to be drains on society. Having a child is not in and of itself a contribution to the future of society, it depends on chance and how much you invest in that child. You don't get a medal for getting knocked up.

having a child is a contribution to the society, ceteris paribus. and i don't care to get a medal, just paid maternity leave. which is not going to happen here so i am moving abroad (to a country with a much much smaller debt per capita, btw) where it will happen .

[Anonymous]

I don't really get the ' don't have kids' or you chose to have kids, your problem'. reproduction is necessary for a continued workforce. If no one who worked had children, the economy would be in deep, deep trouble as the generation moves along.

Do you really want only unemployed people, people on social assistance and the very wealthy to have children?

Putting a newborn in daycare is a horrible idea from every perspective and good for no one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the government or the employer should be responsible for providing ANY paid leave, honestly. People choose to have children, that should not have any effect on their employer and their need to run their business.

IMO allowing the parent to use whatever sick leave/vacation time is reasonable. Anything else (even unpaid) is beyond generous.

Do you have kids? I get 2 wks vacation and 1 wk sick. I should leave my baby at 3 wks old?

I have 4 kids.

Whether you leave your baby at 3 weeks is a decision you need to make for yourself. If you have 3 weeks, and your partner has 3 weeks, you could theoretically wait until the baby is 6 weeks before putting her in daycare. Or you could save enough money to last you to take whatever time off YOU feel is reasonable. Why should your employer be on the hook?

you sounds like SAHM that wants every woman to be a housewife.

I want every woman to do what SHE wants to do. On her own dime/own merit. Just like every man.

Not to be snarky, but by the time most educated women are finishing graduate programs, their fertility is in decline already. Unless they come from riches wiht a trust fund, or rely heavily on a man's support, this would be a significant hardship for women in their 20s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think unpaid FMLA is fine. The longer you wait to put your baby in daycare, the harder it will be. If you want to stay a home, be a stay at home mom, but this long-ass, paid for leave will just never be politically viable in this country, period. And guess what, the European countries are finding that they cannot afford it either.

Care to substantiate?

I don't believe it's true. European countries have been providing ML for many decades, their birth rates are still declining, and many European women do not take their full ML.

Not the PP, but it is true. Europe for the most part is being crushed under the weight of these entitlements and companies too are starting to complain about parents - not just mothers - who take their generous leave while the job is held for them, then they come back then OOPS we're pregnant again, kindly hold my job for another year or whatever, then I'll come back and WHOOPS we wanted to have another so I'm off again. The info is a Google away...

Yeah, it sure is, and I wonder where the scenario you presented came from.

The birth rate in most European countries is 1.2-1.7 children/ woman, well below the replacement rate of 2.1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate

The ML in Europe is chump change compared to the other "entitlement" programs (social security, medical benefits and annual vacations).

And don't cry for Europe, they're doing much better than us. The standard of living is better in all European countries (with the exception of the Eastern block, still recovering from decades of communism) when compared to the USA, which is at no. 23. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the government or the employer should be responsible for providing ANY paid leave, honestly. People choose to have children, that should not have any effect on their employer and their need to run their business.

IMO allowing the parent to use whatever sick leave/vacation time is reasonable. Anything else (even unpaid) is beyond generous.

Do you have kids? I get 2 wks vacation and 1 wk sick. I should leave my baby at 3 wks old?

+1

[Anonymous]

I support better support for parents in the US, I would actually prefer to see any public money go supporting low income families for a basic amount of parental leave (set amount per family per child) and making childcare more affordable.

I work for the feds and actually find the federal program fine/good if administered well by the agency but it seems to be a mindset thing. My agency is pretty family friendly.

After 3 years, feds earn 4 weeks of leave annually and they earn 2 weeks of sick leave every year.

At any federal agency you can save up leave and carry over 6 weeks year to year and can under certain circumstances roll over more, there is no limit to saving up sick leave, you can use a combination of sick and annual leave for FMLA and there is also the ability to use sick leave for child medical appointments and sick days. If you do not have enough leave to cover the medical recovery portion of maternity leave (6 weeks vaginal birth, 8 weeks c-section) you can go into the leave donation program and other feds can donate their leave. You can also advance leave to a certain amount.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think unpaid FMLA is fine. The longer you wait to put your baby in daycare, the harder it will be. If you want to stay a home, be a stay at home mom, but this long-ass, paid for leave will just never be politically viable in this country, period. And guess what, the European countries are finding that they cannot afford it either.

Care to substantiate?

I don't believe it's true. European countries have been providing ML for many decades, their birth rates are still declining, and many European women do not take their full ML.

Not the PP, but it is true. Europe for the most part is being crushed under the weight of these entitlements and companies too are starting to complain about parents - not just mothers - who take their generous leave while the job is held for them, then they come back then OOPS we're pregnant again, kindly hold my job for another year or whatever, then I'll come back and WHOOPS we wanted to have another so I'm off again. The info is a Google away...

I HATE when Americans do this. Europe is fucking huge. Are you really lumping Greece and the Netherlands in the same boat? Try making am intelligent argument using specific countries, Europe is NOT a country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support better support for parents in the US, I would actually prefer to see any public money go supporting low income families for a basic amount of parental leave (set amount per family per child) and making childcare more affordable.

I work for the feds and actually find the federal program fine/good if administered well by the agency but it seems to be a mindset thing. My agency is pretty family friendly.

After 3 years, feds earn 4 weeks of leave annually and they earn 2 weeks of sick leave every year.

At any federal agency you can save up leave and carry over 6 weeks year to year and can under certain circumstances roll over more, there is no limit to saving up sick leave, you can use a combination of sick and annual leave for FMLA and there is also the ability to use sick leave for child medical appointments and sick days. If you do not have enough leave to cover the medical recovery portion of maternity leave (6 weeks vaginal birth, 8 weeks c-section) you can go into the leave donation program and other feds can donate their leave. You can also advance leave to a certain amount.

Some agencies have policies that leave donation can not be used for maternity leave.

[Anonymous]

I don't know the answer, but I do think an employer who can afford to do certain things, should. Adults spend most of their lives at work, at least waking hours. We'd all be healthier and happier and likely more successful and productive if more employers made an attempt to make their employees lives easier. I don't think maternity leave is the only answer, and I don't think super long paid leaves are the answer. I'm thinking of the successful companies who have seen great results from having high quality daycare on site, to retain top talent and make it super convenient for the working mom or dad. Or the onsite clinics that is a growing trend so you don't have to either ignore symptoms or suck it up, or take off work, you can pop down and get taken care of. And flexible hours, and work environments that support things like healthy eating, exercise, and discourage smoking or let you work with a health coach if you want help in those areas.

Tons of case studies and peer reviewed research show that healthier employers are more productive and cut down on health care costs. I think if a mom can count on a few paid weeks to recover and rest up, establish BFing if she wants, and feel less overwhelmed, that is a win win. And even better if when she goes back to work she and the dad can have a bit of flexibility to make life a little easier.

Obviously bigger companies can have an easier time implementing some of this. I feel for the small business owners. If it affects your bottom line, okay, but I at least think you'd have healthier, happier employees and productivity might go up, and you could retain and attract talent, if you did things that didn't cost money, like have reasonable flexibility and so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know the answer, but I do think an employer who can afford to do certain things, should. Adults spend most of their lives at work, at least waking hours. We'd all be healthier and happier and likely more successful and productive if more employers made an attempt to make their employees lives easier. I don't think maternity leave is the only answer, and I don't think super long paid leaves are the answer. I'm thinking of the successful companies who have seen great results from having high quality daycare on site, to retain top talent and make it super convenient for the working mom or dad. Or the onsite clinics that is a growing trend so you don't have to either ignore symptoms or suck it up, or take off work, you can pop down and get taken care of. And flexible hours, and work environments that support things like healthy eating, exercise, and discourage smoking or let you work with a health coach if you want help in those areas.

Tons of case studies and peer reviewed research show that healthier employers are more productive and cut down on health care costs. I think if a mom can count on a few paid weeks to recover and rest up, establish BFing if she wants, and feel less overwhelmed, that is a win win. And even better if when she goes back to work she and the dad can have a bit of flexibility to make life a little easier.

Obviously bigger companies can have an easier time implementing some of this. I feel for the small business owners. If it affects your bottom line, okay, but I at least think you'd have healthier, happier employees and productivity might go up, and you could retain and attract talent, if you did things that didn't cost money, like have reasonable flexibility and so on.

Great. So, go work for a company that thinks like you do on this issue. What it should not be is mandated by the government. Who is to decide what a company "should" do, except the owners and the people who choose or don't choose to work there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand ehy nobody thinks families should take responsibility for SAVING money in advance for their parental leave, the same way you save money to pay for daycare, braces, camp, or any of the other things you CHOOSE to do. Im not bring snarky, i seriously would love an answer from the ones who feel their employer or government should pay.

Some babies are not planned, despite using birth control. Surely you know that.

This is a very tiny fraction of people who are using birth control responsibly. But either way, responsible grownups save for things that aren't planned but sometimes happen-- car repairs, health emergencies, getting laid off, or a surprise pregnancy. Again, I'm not talking about those barely scraping by at a minimum wage job. But you and I both know most DCUMers who expect paid leave could have afforded to save for it. You're going to find a way to pay for daycare, aren't you? If you'd just put that money away every month before and during your pregnancy, you could pay yourself during unpaid leave.

Bottom line, I'm in favor of paid maternity leave for those whose income TRULY would not have permitted them to save for it. (Not the fake-poor DCUMers who can't afford to save because they have to pay their high mortgage, cleaning lady, and new shoes.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think unpaid FMLA is fine. The longer you wait to put your baby in daycare, the harder it will be. If you want to stay a home, be a stay at home mom, but this long-ass, paid for leave will just never be politically viable in this country, period. And guess what, the European countries are finding that they cannot afford it either.

Care to substantiate?

I don't believe it's true. European countries have been providing ML for many decades, their birth rates are still declining, and many European women do not take their full ML.

Not the PP, but it is true. Europe for the most part is being crushed under the weight of these entitlements and companies too are starting to complain about parents - not just mothers - who take their generous leave while the job is held for them, then they come back then OOPS we're pregnant again, kindly hold my job for another year or whatever, then I'll come back and WHOOPS we wanted to have another so I'm off again. The info is a Google away...

I HATE when Americans do this. Europe is fucking huge. Are you really lumping Greece and the Netherlands in the same boat? Try making am intelligent argument using specific countries, Europe is NOT a country.

+1

Several countries with great maternal leave policies are in a very good financial shape. On the other hand, USA is 15+ trillion in debt and nothing to show for it.

[Anonymous]

OP here, I'm a little surprised at the responses. For the record, my family owns a small business and has no horse in the race since small businesses are <50. Despite not having the financial resources to pay for all leave, we make it a priority to give generous leave.

For those of you that argue the government shouldn't pay for it and neither should employers. How do you feel about unemployment benefits? The government jut extended benefits to almost 2 years, yet there is no ability to provide a similar benefit for maternity or sick leave?

When does the idea of fairness trump providing something essential to encourage the continuation of the workforce or supporting people trying to continue to support the economy during a temporary, difficult transition? If anything working families contribute economically in many more was than families with SAHPs. The two adults are working, their kids care creates jobs, they have more discretionary funds for tourism/charity/etc, and they may even pay for some domestic help. In addition to raising the next generation of worker (both male and female). It seems strange to argue that parents shouldn't receive benefits because it's unfair to non-parents.

We increased FMLA from 6 to 12 weeks and there was little to no impact on overall productivity. If anything it has helped to keep women in the workforce. I don't think anyone would argue that people aren't replaceable but there is a significant cost associated with losing well trained (and educated) workers. If anything, it was more efficient in the 50s, economically speaking, to not have women go to college since most wouldn't contribute economically. Now that women get college educations, we should try to keep them in the workforce (I they want to continue of course).