Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It happens, but it's a shitty thing to do.

How is this shittier than quitting under other circumstances?

Because you're taking advantage of maternity leave policies that exist assuming you're coming back.

Maternity leave doesn't exist. She's taking annual leave and possibly a short term disability leave.

If companies actually had generous maternity leave then fewer women would be forced to do things like this. There's a huge difference between going back at eight weeks and going back at six months.

And in the meantime, others have had to pick up her work, thinking it was temporary.

I am a hiring manager. I have hired temps in such case so others have to pick minimum work. There is no need to make a pregnant women feel guilty. Our company does not pay during maternity leave. And I am a woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It happens, but it's a shitty thing to do.

How is this shittier than quitting under other circumstances?

Because you're taking advantage of maternity leave policies that exist assuming you're coming back.

Maternity leave doesn't exist. She's taking annual leave and possibly a short term disability leave.

If companies actually had generous maternity leave then fewer women would be forced to do things like this. There's a huge difference between going back at eight weeks and going back at six months.

And in the meantime, others have had to pick up her work, thinking it was temporary.

Anonymous wrote:

This is just a lousy thing to do to your fellow employees who have to do all your work when you are gone, then wait for a replacement to be hired and trained and up to speed after you waltz in and quit during maternity leave.

You will also screw your self over, because no one will want to hire you because they will worried you will pull this same stunt again.

I had someone do this to me, and from then on, I hired men or older women.

I don't actually believe that this PP has had the experience that he/she claims, but have something to say anyway:

OP is from the fed. Other work cultures may be different. But in the fed, it is the usual thing to have other people's portfolios dumped on you, and for any variety of reasons such as:

1) Boss or colleague got a new job, and there isn't money to fill the position right away, or really anytime in the foreseeable future. But that's OK, because you are so competent! You get to do your job and his! If doing your boss's job, don't expect that this involves a promotion or more pay.
2) Colleague goes on a temporary detail for professional development. You cover colleague while she's gone. Bonus if she doesn't come back from the detail after all, but rather gets the new job permanently. Now wait to see if they decide to fill the old position, or just have you keep doing it, because you're so good at it, and everything's under control.

I've been in the situations described above more than twice. I never held it against the person who left. If anything, I held it against my management. But not really!! Because that's just the way things go, organizations have to make decisions on what's best for the organization, based on budget and priorities.

And if I didn't like it, I should have gotten another job! You know, make decisions based on my own budget and priorities! That's what we're all doing here.

As a colleague or supervisor, there's no real difference to me between a) the person who went on temporary detail for professional development that became permanent and b) the woman who's out because she had a baby (using her own leave, that she earned, or using unpaid leave, under the law) and then decides not to come back. Both are making decisions for themselves. (I guess the difference is that people are ready to disparage the woman.)

My message to you, OP, is that you should quit if that's what is best for you. Especially in the fed, I think it is no big deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It happens, but it's a shitty thing to do.

How is this shittier than quitting under other circumstances?

Because you're taking advantage of maternity leave policies that exist assuming you're coming back.

Maternity leave doesn't exist. She's taking annual leave and possibly a short term disability leave.

If companies actually had generous maternity leave then fewer women would be forced to do things like this. There's a huge difference between going back at eight weeks and going back at six months.

+1
If we could only do 6 months to a year, think of all the happy babies and moms in the workplace (and dads too, for that matter). But it's just women sniping at each other instead of supporting each other.

You should do some actual research on this. Countries that have very generous maternity leave policies have worse track records when it comes to the promotion of women in the workforce. Turns out employers don't like to hire women for responsible positions when they are likely to disappear for 6 months and then you have to give them their job back. Surprise, surprise.

Yes. I work a lot in the EU and theire are very few women with young/school age kids. It's incredible. And the women who do work have a terrible time finding childcare. Ironically, they are envious of the opportunities we have here.

Women in Europe are not envious of women here. They pity them. Going back to work when your baby is 6 weeks old is not a privilege. Having your job guaranteed for a year (or in some countries longer) is not something that holds women back. There are just as many successful professional women in Europe as there are here. The difference is that the public policy environment in Europe is supportive of working women having families.

Pretty sure that statistics support what pp said, that countries with longer maternity leaves have fewer women in senior positions. http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/30/longer-maternity-leave-not-so-great-for-women-after-all/

Correlation.

Many woman of all stripes choose not to move up. I'm a natural leader. I declined a promotion. I cherish my flexibility at at this point in my life I have a great balance, I was very clear with my reasons. My DH would not have made the same choice. There are many women like myself. I have a friend who sold her very very successful marketing business for a 9-5 office job. She had a hard time finding work because they just couldn't understand why she would want a middle manager position. She's been at her company for a year and they keep trying to push her up.

That isn't proof of correlation, it's just your personal preference. I find the studies suggest causation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It happens, but it's a shitty thing to do.

How is this shittier than quitting under other circumstances?

Because you're taking advantage of maternity leave policies that exist assuming you're coming back.

Maternity leave doesn't exist. She's taking annual leave and possibly a short term disability leave.

If companies actually had generous maternity leave then fewer women would be forced to do things like this. There's a huge difference between going back at eight weeks and going back at six months.

+1
If we could only do 6 months to a year, think of all the happy babies and moms in the workplace (and dads too, for that matter). But it's just women sniping at each other instead of supporting each other.

You should do some actual research on this. Countries that have very generous maternity leave policies have worse track records when it comes to the promotion of women in the workforce. Turns out employers don't like to hire women for responsible positions when they are likely to disappear for 6 months and then you have to give them their job back. Surprise, surprise.

Yes. I work a lot in the EU and theire are very few women with young/school age kids. It's incredible. And the women who do work have a terrible time finding childcare. Ironically, they are envious of the opportunities we have here.

Women in Europe are not envious of women here. They pity them. Going back to work when your baby is 6 weeks old is not a privilege. Having your job guaranteed for a year (or in some countries longer) is not something that holds women back. There are just as many successful professional women in Europe as there are here. The difference is that the public policy environment in Europe is supportive of working women having families.

Pretty sure that statistics support what pp said, that countries with longer maternity leaves have fewer women in senior positions. http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/30/longer-maternity-leave-not-so-great-for-women-after-all/

Correlation.

Many woman of all stripes choose not to move up. I'm a natural leader. I declined a promotion. I cherish my flexibility at at this point in my life I have a great balance, I was very clear with my reasons. My DH would not have made the same choice. There are many women like myself. I have a friend who sold her very very successful marketing business for a 9-5 office job. She had a hard time finding work because they just couldn't understand why she would want a middle manager position. She's been at her company for a year and they keep trying to push her up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It happens, but it's a shitty thing to do.

How is this shittier than quitting under other circumstances?

Because you're taking advantage of maternity leave policies that exist assuming you're coming back.

Maternity leave doesn't exist. She's taking annual leave and possibly a short term disability leave.

If companies actually had generous maternity leave then fewer women would be forced to do things like this. There's a huge difference between going back at eight weeks and going back at six months.

Yup. It's why 95% of Swedish women return to work. SAHM is not a "thing" there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It happens, but it's a shitty thing to do.

How is this shittier than quitting under other circumstances?

Because you're taking advantage of maternity leave policies that exist assuming you're coming back.

Maternity leave doesn't exist. She's taking annual leave and possibly a short term disability leave.

If companies actually had generous maternity leave then fewer women would be forced to do things like this. There's a huge difference between going back at eight weeks and going back at six months.

+1
If we could only do 6 months to a year, think of all the happy babies and moms in the workplace (and dads too, for that matter). But it's just women sniping at each other instead of supporting each other.

You should do some actual research on this. Countries that have very generous maternity leave policies have worse track records when it comes to the promotion of women in the workforce. Turns out employers don't like to hire women for responsible positions when they are likely to disappear for 6 months and then you have to give them their job back. Surprise, surprise.

Yes. I work a lot in the EU and theire are very few women with young/school age kids. It's incredible. And the women who do work have a terrible time finding childcare. Ironically, they are envious of the opportunities we have here.

Women in Europe are not envious of women here. They pity them. Going back to work when your baby is 6 weeks old is not a privilege. Having your job guaranteed for a year (or in some countries longer) is not something that holds women back. There are just as many successful professional women in Europe as there are here. The difference is that the public policy environment in Europe is supportive of working women having families.

Pretty sure that statistics support what pp said, that countries with longer maternity leaves have fewer women in senior positions. http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/30/longer-maternity-leave-not-so-great-for-women-after-all/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It happens, but it's a shitty thing to do.

How is this shittier than quitting under other circumstances?

Because you're taking advantage of maternity leave policies that exist assuming you're coming back.

Maternity leave doesn't exist. She's taking annual leave and possibly a short term disability leave.

If companies actually had generous maternity leave then fewer women would be forced to do things like this. There's a huge difference between going back at eight weeks and going back at six months.

+1
If we could only do 6 months to a year, think of all the happy babies and moms in the workplace (and dads too, for that matter). But it's just women sniping at each other instead of supporting each other.

You should do some actual research on this. Countries that have very generous maternity leave policies have worse track records when it comes to the promotion of women in the workforce. Turns out employers don't like to hire women for responsible positions when they are likely to disappear for 6 months and then you have to give them their job back. Surprise, surprise.

Yes. I work a lot in the EU and theire are very few women with young/school age kids. It's incredible. And the women who do work have a terrible time finding childcare. Ironically, they are envious of the opportunities we have here.

Women in Europe are not envious of women here. They pity them. Going back to work when your baby is 6 weeks old is not a privilege. Having your job guaranteed for a year (or in some countries longer) is not something that holds women back. There are just as many successful professional women in Europe as there are here. The difference is that the public policy environment in Europe is supportive of working women having families.

Anonymous wrote:

You should do some actual research on this. Countries that have very generous maternity leave policies have worse track records when it comes to the promotion of women in the workforce. Turns out employers don't like to hire women for responsible positions when they are likely to disappear for 6 months and then you have to give them their job back. Surprise, surprise.

American businesses that have generous maternity leave policies have better retention rates than those that don't. Hiring new personnel is time-consuming and expensive, even more so than paid maternity leave. This is especially true when companies have to fill in professional positions. Finding good talent and training them is expensive.

There are also a lot of factors when you compare the US to other countries--namely the effect of having a government safety net (esp. health care)-- on workforce decisions and policies.