paid maternity leave for your employees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We provide our nanny with a generous leave package each year. She typically uses every single day of her leave throughout the year, but she is allowed to keep it and roll it over from year to year. We're moving across the country this summer so she won't be with us anymore but I know she's planning to try to get pregnant soon and I do wonder about what her maternity leave situation will be with a new employer. We said from the beginning that we'd pay her out any unused leave, but she plans to use it all up before then. I used to work for the federal government as a GS-11, so I had however many sick and personal days that came with. I saved my leave for the first few years and then took it when I had my twins. I had to take a few days of leave without pay, but I sprinkled them throughout and the financial hit was minimal. I took 14 weeks off total, 98% of which was paid by my leave. To be honest, it was difficult to listen to the women who weren't going to have much or any paid maternity leave complain when they had been taking multiple-week vacations for the previous five years. I had planned and saved and sacrificed because I knew the rules and as a result, I had paid maternity leave. I'm all for requiring companies to provide paid leave to their employees, but I do think a lot of people are rubbed the wrong way by those who want fully paid maternity leave on top of regular leave. It's a huge burden for smaller companies, and even if it's paid out of taxes, someone is paying for it.

I know it's hard to imagine, but a lot of feds are new employees (we start at 0 leave and accrue. A lot of private sector gives you leave as a new employee). Or have existing issues that they already use their leave for.

My first maternity leave was mostly paid because I saved up. My second and third were almost entirely unpaid. I never could accumulate any sick leave once I had kids because I spent every winter extremely sick from the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We provide our nanny with a generous leave package each year. She typically uses every single day of her leave throughout the year, but she is allowed to keep it and roll it over from year to year. We're moving across the country this summer so she won't be with us anymore but I know she's planning to try to get pregnant soon and I do wonder about what her maternity leave situation will be with a new employer. We said from the beginning that we'd pay her out any unused leave, but she plans to use it all up before then. I used to work for the federal government as a GS-11, so I had however many sick and personal days that came with. I saved my leave for the first few years and then took it when I had my twins. I had to take a few days of leave without pay, but I sprinkled them throughout and the financial hit was minimal. I took 14 weeks off total, 98% of which was paid by my leave. To be honest, it was difficult to listen to the women who weren't going to have much or any paid maternity leave complain when they had been taking multiple-week vacations for the previous five years. I had planned and saved and sacrificed because I knew the rules and as a result, I had paid maternity leave. I'm all for requiring companies to provide paid leave to their employees, but I do think a lot of people are rubbed the wrong way by those who want fully paid maternity leave on top of regular leave. It's a huge burden for smaller companies, and even if it's paid out of taxes, someone is paying for it.

I know it's hard to imagine, but a lot of feds are new employees (we start at 0 leave and accrue. A lot of private sector gives you leave as a new employee). Or have existing issues that they already use their leave for.

My first maternity leave was mostly paid because I saved up. My second and third were almost entirely unpaid. I never could accumulate any sick leave once I had kids because I spent every winter extremely sick from the kids.

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, because obviously I was a new employee at one point as well. And at that point, with no leave, it didn't make sense to have a kid. I'm sure others will flame me as well, but you did make the decision to have three kids with unpaid maternity leave for your second two. I get that it's much harder to save leave once you have one kid. I guess I just don't get why others should entirely subsidize one's choice to have as many children as they want. And in case anyone asks, I voted for Clinton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We provide our nanny with a generous leave package each year. She typically uses every single day of her leave throughout the year, but she is allowed to keep it and roll it over from year to year. We're moving across the country this summer so she won't be with us anymore but I know she's planning to try to get pregnant soon and I do wonder about what her maternity leave situation will be with a new employer. We said from the beginning that we'd pay her out any unused leave, but she plans to use it all up before then. I used to work for the federal government as a GS-11, so I had however many sick and personal days that came with. I saved my leave for the first few years and then took it when I had my twins. I had to take a few days of leave without pay, but I sprinkled them throughout and the financial hit was minimal. I took 14 weeks off total, 98% of which was paid by my leave. To be honest, it was difficult to listen to the women who weren't going to have much or any paid maternity leave complain when they had been taking multiple-week vacations for the previous five years. I had planned and saved and sacrificed because I knew the rules and as a result, I had paid maternity leave. I'm all for requiring companies to provide paid leave to their employees, but I do think a lot of people are rubbed the wrong way by those who want fully paid maternity leave on top of regular leave. It's a huge burden for smaller companies, and even if it's paid out of taxes, someone is paying for it.

I know it's hard to imagine, but a lot of feds are new employees (we start at 0 leave and accrue. A lot of private sector gives you leave as a new employee). Or have existing issues that they already use their leave for.

My first maternity leave was mostly paid because I saved up. My second and third were almost entirely unpaid. I never could accumulate any sick leave once I had kids because I spent every winter extremely sick from the kids.

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, because obviously I was a new employee at one point as well. And at that point, with no leave, it didn't make sense to have a kid. I'm sure others will flame me as well, but you did make the decision to have three kids with unpaid maternity leave for your second two. I get that it's much harder to save leave once you have one kid. I guess I just don't get why others should entirely subsidize one's choice to have as many children as they want. And in case anyone asks, I voted for Clinton.

But what would it cost my agency to give me paid leave? They weren't hiring a temp. They actually profited off me not being there and the same amount of work got done (they shifted half to coworkers and then half was left waiting for me)

[Anonymous]

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."

[Anonymous]

Because for most people that would be unaffordable (essentially paying 2 nannies while the first is on maternity leave, because you need cover). For most employers, it is not unaffordable and it's just a cost of doing business.
I'm from the UK where there is statutory maternity leave and then many employers pay extra on top of that. Many small businesses and non-profits do not pay anything other than statutory (it's about $180/week), and people with nannies may do the same depending on the contractual status. Businesses have to give up to 12 months off if the mother requests (i.e. hold the job open for them for 12 months - but this generally does not apply to nanny/cleaner/other personal services contracts because it is entirely plausible that the employer's need for that personal service may change during that time, and individual employers are not treated like businesses for these purposes), and statutory payments are available for up to 6 months. This would include daycare workers and teachers.
Not saying this is the best way of doing it, just to highlight that there are other ways of doing it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We provide our nanny with a generous leave package each year. She typically uses every single day of her leave throughout the year, but she is allowed to keep it and roll it over from year to year. We're moving across the country this summer so she won't be with us anymore but I know she's planning to try to get pregnant soon and I do wonder about what her maternity leave situation will be with a new employer. We said from the beginning that we'd pay her out any unused leave, but she plans to use it all up before then. I used to work for the federal government as a GS-11, so I had however many sick and personal days that came with. I saved my leave for the first few years and then took it when I had my twins. I had to take a few days of leave without pay, but I sprinkled them throughout and the financial hit was minimal. I took 14 weeks off total, 98% of which was paid by my leave. To be honest, it was difficult to listen to the women who weren't going to have much or any paid maternity leave complain when they had been taking multiple-week vacations for the previous five years. I had planned and saved and sacrificed because I knew the rules and as a result, I had paid maternity leave. I'm all for requiring companies to provide paid leave to their employees, but I do think a lot of people are rubbed the wrong way by those who want fully paid maternity leave on top of regular leave. It's a huge burden for smaller companies, and even if it's paid out of taxes, someone is paying for it.

I know it's hard to imagine, but a lot of feds are new employees (we start at 0 leave and accrue. A lot of private sector gives you leave as a new employee). Or have existing issues that they already use their leave for.

My first maternity leave was mostly paid because I saved up. My second and third were almost entirely unpaid. I never could accumulate any sick leave once I had kids because I spent every winter extremely sick from the kids.

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, because obviously I was a new employee at one point as well. And at that point, with no leave, it didn't make sense to have a kid. I'm sure others will flame me as well, but you did make the decision to have three kids with unpaid maternity leave for your second two. I get that it's much harder to save leave once you have one kid. I guess I just don't get why others should entirely subsidize one's choice to have as many children as they want. And in case anyone asks, I voted for Clinton.

But what would it cost my agency to give me paid leave? They weren't hiring a temp. They actually profited off me not being there and the same amount of work got done (they shifted half to coworkers and then half was left waiting for me)

I suppose that depends. My husband's company does government contracts. They get paid when work gets done. If the work doesn't get done, like if someone is out, they don't get paid. In your case, you say only half the work got done by others. For a budgeted agency it probably doesn't matter how productive the employees are because they have a budgeted amount of money for employees and if they don't hire a temp then you're right, I suppose they get a windfall (although who exactly gets that windfall I don't know). But consider the nanny mentioned in the OP. If she does't work, the family still needs childcare, which means they do have to hire a temp. So how do they handle double the cost for, say, three months? I suppose the federal government employees (not contractors) would be a great test case for providing wholly subsidized maternity leave. But I'm not sure how you expand that concept to other companies who don't operate with the same budget. Client-based services, for example, who can't bill if no one is doing the work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We provide our nanny with a generous leave package each year. She typically uses every single day of her leave throughout the year, but she is allowed to keep it and roll it over from year to year. We're moving across the country this summer so she won't be with us anymore but I know she's planning to try to get pregnant soon and I do wonder about what her maternity leave situation will be with a new employer. We said from the beginning that we'd pay her out any unused leave, but she plans to use it all up before then. I used to work for the federal government as a GS-11, so I had however many sick and personal days that came with. I saved my leave for the first few years and then took it when I had my twins. I had to take a few days of leave without pay, but I sprinkled them throughout and the financial hit was minimal. I took 14 weeks off total, 98% of which was paid by my leave. To be honest, it was difficult to listen to the women who weren't going to have much or any paid maternity leave complain when they had been taking multiple-week vacations for the previous five years. I had planned and saved and sacrificed because I knew the rules and as a result, I had paid maternity leave. I'm all for requiring companies to provide paid leave to their employees, but I do think a lot of people are rubbed the wrong way by those who want fully paid maternity leave on top of regular leave. It's a huge burden for smaller companies, and even if it's paid out of taxes, someone is paying for it.

I know it's hard to imagine, but a lot of feds are new employees (we start at 0 leave and accrue. A lot of private sector gives you leave as a new employee). Or have existing issues that they already use their leave for.

My first maternity leave was mostly paid because I saved up. My second and third were almost entirely unpaid. I never could accumulate any sick leave once I had kids because I spent every winter extremely sick from the kids.

What private sector companies start employees with a balance of leave? We accrue leave in the private sector, the same as Feds. Everyone starts at zero. Companies with “unlimited PTO” typically have provisions on how medical needs are covered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While reading the other maternity benefits topic about why women in US are not fighting for paid maternity leave and such...

Many women said they are not fighting because they are not CEOs, they only have one vote, they have no power, etc.

But how about your own employees? How common is it to pay maternity leave for nannies? Cleaning ladies? Tutors?
You have all the power to make that decision, right? Theoretically you can continue paying your tutors, cleaning lady, etc for first 12 weeks after she gave birth.

How many of you do it?

And if you don't, do you have the moral right to demand benefits from your employer that you deny your own employees?

This line of questioning is besides the point. Most women AND men should be advocating for the federal government to provide more support for postnatal care.

Are you kidding? Federal employees don't even have maternity leave. You think they're going to give it to everyone else when they don't even give it to their own employees? nope

Why are you talking about Fed employees? PP said men and women. They didn’t say Fed employees who are men and women. And advocating for the government to cover all is what most people are saying on the thread. It should be part of our taxes.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Why does the leave have to be paid? I'm ambivalent about maternity provisions in general, but couldn't the nanny's employer give her unpaid leave for 3 months, with a guarantee of getting her job back at the end? Is that not good enough? Is it really impossible for a nanny to save up 3 months of basic living expenses before taking leave? And if that is impossible... should you really be having a child....? If you don't have enough money on your nanny salary to save for 3 months of living expenses, then how are you going to pay for childcare once you go back to work?

[Anonymous]

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.

It’s moral because in order to have a child, most women and men need to work. By not offering leave, you’re limiting their ability to work and support themselves. Forcing a woman to drop out of the workforce because she had a child is grossly unfair. A man can have child after child and not have it affect his employment.

On an individual level is it a choice to have a child? Yes.

For the US, could we economically survive as a country if not one woman had children? No.

If you don’t believe in some sort of leave, then you also shouldn’t believe in public schools. After all having a child is a choice, right? Why should society have to support and help pay for your decision to have children? You should pay for their education. Except it doesn’t work that way since as a society we understand the value of educating children. Just like most people are waking up to the fact that there is a significant benefit to providing leave so that women can work AND have children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does the leave have to be paid? I'm ambivalent about maternity provisions in general, but couldn't the nanny's employer give her unpaid leave for 3 months, with a guarantee of getting her job back at the end? Is that not good enough? Is it really impossible for a nanny to save up 3 months of basic living expenses before taking leave? And if that is impossible... should you really be having a child....? If you don't have enough money on your nanny salary to save for 3 months of living expenses, then how are you going to pay for childcare once you go back to work?

What are you paying your nanny? Seriously, if it’s enough to live on plus save three months of expenses, I’d live to apply!!! Beats my current income for sure.

[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.

It’s moral because in order to have a child, most women and men need to work. By not offering leave, you’re limiting their ability to work and support themselves. Forcing a woman to drop out of the workforce because she had a child is grossly unfair. A man can have child after child and not have it affect his employment.

On an individual level is it a choice to have a child? Yes.

For the US, could we economically survive as a country if not one woman had children? No.

If you don’t believe in some sort of leave, then you also shouldn’t believe in public schools. After all having a child is a choice, right? Why should society have to support and help pay for your decision to have children? You should pay for their education. Except it doesn’t work that way since as a society we understand the value of educating children. Just like most people are waking up to the fact that there is a significant benefit to providing leave so that women can work AND have children.

"...if not one woman had children"? There are millions of children born in America everyday even though we don't have maternity policies in place.
I pay for public schools because it's very important to me that the children who are here are educated because they will be voting for things that affect me. What is the benefit to me of all mothers and fathers of young children being in the workforce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the leave have to be paid? I'm ambivalent about maternity provisions in general, but couldn't the nanny's employer give her unpaid leave for 3 months, with a guarantee of getting her job back at the end? Is that not good enough? Is it really impossible for a nanny to save up 3 months of basic living expenses before taking leave? And if that is impossible... should you really be having a child....? If you don't have enough money on your nanny salary to save for 3 months of living expenses, then how are you going to pay for childcare once you go back to work?

What are you paying your nanny? Seriously, if it’s enough to live on plus save three months of expenses, I’d live to apply!!! Beats my current income for sure.

I don't have a nanny. I'm just asking a question. And like I said, if you are truly unable to save even 3 months of living expenses... are you really financially read to have a child....? I'm not saying it would be saved overnight, but you have a lot of time to plan if you're thinking of having a child.

[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.

It’s moral because in order to have a child, most women and men need to work. By not offering leave, you’re limiting their ability to work and support themselves. Forcing a woman to drop out of the workforce because she had a child is grossly unfair. A man can have child after child and not have it affect his employment.

On an individual level is it a choice to have a child? Yes.

For the US, could we economically survive as a country if not one woman had children? No.

If you don’t believe in some sort of leave, then you also shouldn’t believe in public schools. After all having a child is a choice, right? Why should society have to support and help pay for your decision to have children? You should pay for their education. Except it doesn’t work that way since as a society we understand the value of educating children. Just like most people are waking up to the fact that there is a significant benefit to providing leave so that women can work AND have children.

"...if not one woman had children"? There are millions of children born in America everyday even though we don't have maternity policies in place.
I pay for public schools because it's very important to me that the children who are here are educated because they will be voting for things that affect me. What is the benefit to me of all mothers and fathers of young children being in the workforce?

The benefit isn’t directly for you. Just like the benefit of educating children who are not your own isn’t to your direct benefit. The specific benefit is that babies are breastfed longer and women are able to continue gainful employment and not lose out on contributing to retirement and social security only because they had a child. I could go on with the benefits. If you really don’t see how women in this country are disadvantaged by not having paid leave I don’t know what to tell you.

You’re right there are millions of children born. But many of these are in single parent homes or in poverty. Not offering paid leave of some sort supports only poor (who live off of the government) and very rich people having babies.