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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's face it: this country gives only lip service to families and children. Short shrift is given to anything that would make life with children more doable. Only the CONCEPT of families and motherhood is sanctified. In reality, our policies are hopelessly outdated. That includes the hodgepodge of non-standardized, expensive daycare and preschool options that parents are forced to choose. There should be universal Pre-K in this country.

Having a child is a choice. Why do you except rest of the society to subsidies your choices? Whatever happened to personal responsibility ?

Almost everyone has children. Social Security is much more of a subsidy than paid maternity leave.

Social Security was supposed to self funded program and it mostly is for time being. It doesn't matter that majority of people have children they still shouldn't be paid to have one. Like another subsidy program it leads to unforeseen consequences.

All programs are "self-funded" as money doesn't grow on trees. You pay taxes all the time (i.e. at various life stages) and government uses the revenue to help you when you are in certain life stages. Really not that mysterious. Countries with much less debt have been doing it for decades.

This a fucking a lie. Majority of federal government program are not self funded. In fact they contribute to a huge deficit problem we have now. Social security is a notable exception of a federal government program that is self funded. I also don't believe we should to our already massive debt so women can be paid to have babies.

Paid maternity leave can also be "self-funded". We can introduce a special small "mother tax" that will be deducted from everyone's paycheck. Apparently, that would make a world of difference to you

You can also take personal responsibility and save amount you need before you have kids. Why do you need to get government involved in this?

To maintain the role of the employee i.e. career. I have plenty of money saved; however I would never take unpaid maternity leave. It has almost nothing to do with money. I want to be employed and I don't feel employed if I am not paid.

This is a very stupid excuse to mandate a massive bureaucratic tax on everyone so you can maintain your self-worth. I am sorry but your choices have consequences and I for one do not feel that government should subsides those

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP, when are you going to grow up and realize that your employer is not your parents, or your husband, or anyone else who has an obligation or even a need to make your life perfect? Quit your whining and be thankful that you have a job. No one cares about your terrible sleeper. They care about the job tha you are able to do for the company. If you can't hack it, you can't hack it. You should have thought about that before having kids.

Libertarian.

Asshole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned that the U.S. is one of only 4 counties in the world that does not have a national policy of paid maternity leave. We're in good company with Swaziland, Liberia, and Papua New Guinea. Go U.S.A.!

You took the words out of my mouth. This country's maternity leave policies are a disgrace.

Yes, having children is a choice, but society, as a whole, needs people. If no one reproduces because they'd rather 'be working' who's going to be moving this country forward?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This a fucking a lie. Majority of federal government program are not self funded. In fact they contribute to a huge deficit problem we have now. Social security is a notable exception of a federal government program that is self funded. I also don't believe we should to our already massive debt so women can be paid to have babies.

Again, all programs are meant to be self-funded because taxes are paid to cover the expenses. Taxes collected are often insufficient, so money gets borrowed. Your precious "social security" box is just an accounting gimmick - the only money you will get "back" (highly misleading because SS is very progressive) is the money collected from taxes at the time you draw your benefits.

And btw - women are not paid to have babies, but to maintain careers. It's not about encouraging women to have children, but rather encouraging them not leave the workforce.

I am not excepting to collect much from social security that's why I am already taking personal responsibility for my retirement. Social Security for time being is self funded through a specific tax. And BTW, semantics aside,women would still be paid to have babies whether you want to believe that or not is your choice.

Not true. Countries with long maternity leaves don't have higher fertility rates. But they do have higher proportions of working women.

Again - maternity leave helps women maintain careers, not have babies. Women will have babies regardless. But if they need to leave 3 week old babies in childcare in many cases they will abandon their careers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's face it: this country gives only lip service to families and children. Short shrift is given to anything that would make life with children more doable. Only the CONCEPT of families and motherhood is sanctified. In reality, our policies are hopelessly outdated. That includes the hodgepodge of non-standardized, expensive daycare and preschool options that parents are forced to choose. There should be universal Pre-K in this country.

Having a child is a choice. Why do you except rest of the society to subsidies your choices? Whatever happened to personal responsibility ?

Almost everyone has children. Social Security is much more of a subsidy than paid maternity leave.

Social Security was supposed to self funded program and it mostly is for time being. It doesn't matter that majority of people have children they still shouldn't be paid to have one. Like another subsidy program it leads to unforeseen consequences.

All programs are "self-funded" as money doesn't grow on trees. You pay taxes all the time (i.e. at various life stages) and government uses the revenue to help you when you are in certain life stages. Really not that mysterious. Countries with much less debt have been doing it for decades.

This a fucking a lie. Majority of federal government program are not self funded. In fact they contribute to a huge deficit problem we have now. Social security is a notable exception of a federal government program that is self funded. I also don't believe we should to our already massive debt so women can be paid to have babies.

Paid maternity leave can also be "self-funded". We can introduce a special small "mother tax" that will be deducted from everyone's paycheck. Apparently, that would make a world of difference to you

You can also take personal responsibility and save amount you need before you have kids. Why do you need to get government involved in this?

To maintain the role of the employee i.e. career. I have plenty of money saved; however I would never take unpaid maternity leave. It has almost nothing to do with money. I want to be employed and I don't feel employed if I am not paid.

This is a very stupid excuse to mandate a massive bureaucratic tax on everyone so you can maintain your self-worth. I am sorry but your choices have consequences and I for one do not feel that government should subsides those

It's not about self-worth but about career. You are apparently running a grocery store so do not really grasp the concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's face it: this country gives only lip service to families and children. Short shrift is given to anything that would make life with children more doable. Only the CONCEPT of families and motherhood is sanctified. In reality, our policies are hopelessly outdated. That includes the hodgepodge of non-standardized, expensive daycare and preschool options that parents are forced to choose. There should be universal Pre-K in this country.

Having a child is a choice. Why do you except rest of the society to subsidies your choices? Whatever happened to personal responsibility ?

Almost everyone has children. Social Security is much more of a subsidy than paid maternity leave.

Social Security was supposed to self funded program and it mostly is for time being. It doesn't matter that majority of people have children they still shouldn't be paid to have one. Like another subsidy program it leads to unforeseen consequences.

All programs are "self-funded" as money doesn't grow on trees. You pay taxes all the time (i.e. at various life stages) and government uses the revenue to help you when you are in certain life stages. Really not that mysterious. Countries with much less debt have been doing it for decades.

This a fucking a lie. Majority of federal government program are not self funded. In fact they contribute to a huge deficit problem we have now. Social security is a notable exception of a federal government program that is self funded. I also don't believe we should to our already massive debt so women can be paid to have babies.

Paid maternity leave can also be "self-funded". We can introduce a special small "mother tax" that will be deducted from everyone's paycheck. Apparently, that would make a world of difference to you

You can also take personal responsibility and save amount you need before you have kids. Why do you need to get government involved in this?

To maintain the role of the employee i.e. career. I have plenty of money saved; however I would never take unpaid maternity leave. It has almost nothing to do with money. I want to be employed and I don't feel employed if I am not paid.

This is a very stupid excuse to mandate a massive bureaucratic tax on everyone so you can maintain your self-worth. I am sorry but your choices have consequences and I for one do not feel that government should subsides those

It's not about self-worth but about career. You are apparently running a grocery store so do not really grasp the concept.

So save money in the bank just call it a motherhood tax. How is imposing tax on everyone will help anything? Btw, it sounds you have never ever owned any successful money making business in your life and that is why you can make these egregious demand. By the way you sound like an entitled government employee . Please tell me this is true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I do. Our family has benefitted enormously from both or companies which have great policies: paid paternity leave, incredible onsite daycare, ability to work reduced hours when kids were very young, and other great benefits, including a completely flexible schedule. It's awesome and it makes balancing work and family so much nicer. I wish more families had these options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I do. Our family has benefitted enormously from both or companies which have great policies: paid paternity leave, incredible onsite daycare, ability to work reduced hours when kids were very young, and other great benefits, including a completely flexible schedule. It's awesome and it makes balancing work and family so much nicer. I wish more families had these options.

Oh, and I have a free gym in the office and DH has free exercise programs like boot camp etc. we both take advantage of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This a fucking a lie. Majority of federal government program are not self funded. In fact they contribute to a huge deficit problem we have now. Social security is a notable exception of a federal government program that is self funded. I also don't believe we should to our already massive debt so women can be paid to have babies.

Again, all programs are meant to be self-funded because taxes are paid to cover the expenses. Taxes collected are often insufficient, so money gets borrowed. Your precious "social security" box is just an accounting gimmick - the only money you will get "back" (highly misleading because SS is very progressive) is the money collected from taxes at the time you draw your benefits.

And btw - women are not paid to have babies, but to maintain careers. It's not about encouraging women to have children, but rather encouraging them not leave the workforce.

I am not excepting to collect much from social security that's why I am already taking personal responsibility for my retirement. Social Security for time being is self funded through a specific tax. And BTW, semantics aside,women would still be paid to have babies whether you want to believe that or not is your choice.

Not true. Countries with long maternity leaves don't have higher fertility rates. But they do have higher proportions of working women.

Again - maternity leave helps women maintain careers, not have ba
bies. Women will have babies regardless. But if they need to leave 3 week old babies in childcare in many cases they will abandon their careers.

There is no direct correlation between amount of maternity leave and women participation in labor-force. In-fact USA ranks better in female workforce participation than some countries with generous maternity leave.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's not about self-worth but about career. You are apparently running a grocery store so do not really grasp the concept.

What?

Is that supposed to be an insult to the PP? Do you shop at a grocery store? Someone has to run it you stupid twat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned that the U.S. is one of only 4 counties in the world that does not have a national policy of paid maternity leave. We're in good company with Swaziland, Liberia, and Papua New Guinea. Go U.S.A.!

You took the words out of my mouth. This country's maternity leave policies are a disgrace.

Yes, having children is a choice, but society, as a whole, needs people. If no one reproduces because they'd rather 'be working' who's going to be moving this country forward?

But we are getting people to reproduce without giving generous maternity leave.

[Anonymous]

So save money in the bank just call it a motherhood tax. How is imposing tax on everyone will help anything? Btw, it sounds you have never ever owned any successful money making business in your life and that is why you can make these egregious demand. By the way you sound like an entitled government employee . Please tell me this is true?

Have you traveled much? You sound like a card-carrying provincial American.

People from other countries are aghast when they hear our maternity and early childcare policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned that the U.S. is one of only 4 counties in the world that does not have a national policy of paid maternity leave. We're in good company with Swaziland, Liberia, and Papua New Guinea. Go U.S.A.!

You took the words out of my mouth. This country's maternity leave policies are a disgrace.

Yes, having children is a choice, but society, as a whole, needs people. If no one reproduces because they'd rather 'be working' who's going to be moving this country forward?

Yes! And what is really a disgrace is the way we've been acclimated to think that even something like unpaid FMLA leave is "unamerican" and an undeserved entitlement. We're the proverbial frogs in water that is slowly being heated to a boil. We don't even realize how we are being screwed over. The way mothers and families in the country are treated is a true disgrace. As someone (or many someones) pointed out earlier, we pay a lot of lip service to the importance of families and mothers in this country, but guess what... actions speak louder than words, and our actions show that we don't really value families in this country.

And to all the posters bitching about "well, having children is a choice! Wah!" feel free to take a look at Japan and the problems that they are facing as their population grays. Do you really think that should be the model for the U.S.? Last time I checked, the only way to keep your population up was either through immigration (and we know that there are a lot of you out there who have a real problem with that) or through childbirth. How is it that virtually every country in the world has figured out that paid maternity (and paternity, in many cases) leave is best for the mother, the father, the child, the business, the economy and the whole friggin' country!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This a fucking a lie. Majority of federal government program are not self funded. In fact they contribute to a huge deficit problem we have now. Social security is a notable exception of a federal government program that is self funded. I also don't believe we should to our already massive debt so women can be paid to have babies.

Again, all programs are meant to be self-funded because taxes are paid to cover the expenses. Taxes collected are often insufficient, so money gets borrowed. Your precious "social security" box is just an accounting gimmick - the only money you will get "back" (highly misleading because SS is very progressive) is the money collected from taxes at the time you draw your benefits.

And btw - women are not paid to have babies, but to maintain careers. It's not about encouraging women to have children, but rather encouraging them not leave the workforce.

I am not excepting to collect much from social security that's why I am already taking personal responsibility for my retirement. Social Security for time being is self funded through a specific tax. And BTW, semantics aside,women would still be paid to have babies whether you want to believe that or not is your choice.

Not true. Countries with long maternity leaves don't have higher fertility rates. But they do have higher proportions of working women.

Again - maternity leave helps women maintain careers, not have ba
bies. Women will have babies regardless. But if they need to leave 3 week old babies in childcare in many cases they will abandon their careers.

There is no direct correlation between amount of maternity leave and women participation in labor-force. In-fact USA ranks better in female workforce participation than some countries with generous maternity leave.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS

this is not the relevant table. you need a proportion of labor force that are women, not a proportion of women that in labor force.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So save money in the bank just call it a motherhood tax. How is imposing tax on everyone will help anything? Btw, it sounds you have never ever owned any successful money making business in your life and that is why you can make these egregious demand. By the way you sound like an entitled government employee . Please tell me this is true?

Have you traveled much? You sound like a card-carrying provincial American.

People from other countries are aghast when they hear our maternity and early childcare policies.

So you are an entitled government employee aren't you? I did travel a lot mostly for business purpose and still I don't see any reason why we should pay women to have babies.