Anonymous wrote:Why on earth does OP think that those of us who are pushing for the unpaid work of making the next generation of humans think that the costs should fall on individual employers? Obviously paid maternity leave needs to happen and it's a travesty that we don't have it. But we need a state fund. Everyone pays in, everyone has a chance to benefit when they have a child.

This would be amazing. I don’t see it happening, but our family would happily pay into a system that supported us all better. Let’s get everyone steady workable healthcare as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one is saying we want MORE babies. We simply want babies to have a better start to life and for new moms not to suffer. You don’t seem to realize how many women are forced to return to work after such a short period of time. You just don’t get it.

I understand wanting to give babies and better start in life and not wanting moms to suffer. But isn't the better option just to not have children...? To me, providing paid maternity leave is encouraging people to have more babies. If you cannot afford to provide for a child without having tax payers pay for it, or your employer pay you for not working, then I'm not sure you should be having a child. That is why they offer those programs in Europe, to encourage population growth.

True. We don't need population growth because of illegal immigration. Only the poor immigrants should have children!

I mean, I don't actually see a problem with bringing in desperate people from the rest of the world, instead of adding more babies to the world's population. And my point still stands - not sure we should be encouraging the "poor immigrants" to have children either.

Because more people aren’t going to NOT have kids because more immigrants arrive. It doesn’t work that way. Besides the babies born here are legal and PAY Taxes once they start working.

While it’s not good for the environment, it’s silly to argue we should stop having kids because of it. We also should stop flying on planes but who is going to do that?

Okay, but does that mean I need to use my tax dollars to incentivize flying on planes?

How many people do you think would fly if there were no federal system of air traffic control? Would you?

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth does OP think that those of us who are pushing for the unpaid work of making the next generation of humans think that the costs should fall on individual employers? Obviously paid maternity leave needs to happen and it's a travesty that we don't have it. But we need a state fund. Everyone pays in, everyone has a chance to benefit when they have a child.

+1. OP, what society considers public goods is paid through taxes. This country decided that a 15 year war in Iraq is a public good. Billions of dollars in military aid to Pakistan, Egypt and Israel - also a public good. Now the wall is a public good. The society in the US does not consider maternity leave, health care or subsidized daycare a public good.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Very few individual families can afford to pay 2 nannies - one working and one on maternity. You suggested upthread to put children in daycare instead. Well, that would reduce employment opportunities for nannies. Economics tells us if demand shrinks creating oversupply the pices move accordingly.

So the way i see it - take your zeal to the piliticians. Or nannies can either go to a country where maternity is universally covered or switch occupations. I as an employer and tax payer who just got a higher tax bill so corporations can have a bigger break will not be able to pay maternity leave out of pocket.

Why on earth does OP think that those of us who are pushing for the unpaid work of making the next generation of humans think that the costs should fall on individual employers? Obviously paid maternity leave needs to happen and it's a travesty that we don't have it. But we need a state fund. Everyone pays in, everyone has a chance to benefit when they have a child.

To PP above (“‘someone else’” doesn’t pay for it”). I think you misunderstand public services. None of your examples are like maternity leave. Maybe you don’t drive on highways, but this country can’t function without them. The transportation of goods and people is key to our economy. Have you seen a country without highways? Did it seem prosperous to you? Likewise, public schools aren’t just a service for parents, like you’re doing parents a favor by paying. They are a key component of our democracy. We all need educated citizens to vote.

You brought up disability insurance. I am not against disability insurance, and I think the way it’s used now to support maternity leave as well as other illnesses is fine. The key is that it supports other situations besides pregnancy, and that is has rules surrounding its use (size of company, etc).

This thread is not about disability insurance. It’s about individual employers (not businesses with 50 or more employees) giving their nannies paid maternity leaves out of their own pocket.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It must be awesome in Bubbleland. I hope one day to be as wise and perfect.

Many of us provide well and do plan, but there months incomeless would hurt most families. I’m self employed and had no maternity leave/pay. It was financially painful and took a few years to recover from. It’s not an uncommon scenario with independent contractors.

It’s great to tell others what they should do, privileged even.

But you did it, right? What does it matter that it was "painful"? If you were able to do it, then why should someone else step in and pay for it?

"Someone else" doesn't pay for it. You pay for it. That's what it means to live in a society--everybody pays for public goods, even if they don't necessarily use a particular amenity on a particular day (or ever). I pay for highways even though I rarely travel on them. I pay for public schools even though my kids don't yet attend. I subsidize all sorts of things that I will never personally use and some that I don't even think should be subsidized--but it's not my decision alone. And I benefit from many things that are subsidized by others who probably feel the same.

Where paid leave exists, it is structured more or less like disability insurance. It's not money that falls from the sky--you pay to be part of the system and the system in turn pays you when you are in need.

To the OP's question, though: yes, when we had a nanny share, our nanny had paid leave as one of her benefits, as did we with our own employers. Haven't had any other employees before or since.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you assume I can pay maternity leave for my nanny and also pay for replacement care during that time. Nanny makes 475/ week after taxes. So double that to cover a sub and you assume I have $1000/week to pay for leave? Get real. The nanny is a contractor and we pay annual leave, sick leave etc. but that’s too much. Maternity leave at corporations is spread out more and more easily absorbed as a cost and benefit provided by the employer.

The nanny isn't a contractor, she's an employee. The Department of Labor is clear about employment categories for full-time, salaried household employees.

She isn't salaried. her contract states hourly pay. And trust me, we follow the DC gov law in all ways. Also in a corporation there are other people to absorb the work when one person goes out on leave. This is very different because I "the employer" have to pay the same amount to a substitute. This will drive wages down and specific to nannies, people will go out of their way to hire nannies who are done having kids or not planning to get pregnant while working. I know I would.

You are underpaying her to begin with. Shameless.

If that were the case she would find a better paying position, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one is saying we want MORE babies. We simply want babies to have a better start to life and for new moms not to suffer. You don’t seem to realize how many women are forced to return to work after such a short period of time. You just don’t get it.

I understand wanting to give babies and better start in life and not wanting moms to suffer. But isn't the better option just to not have children...? To me, providing paid maternity leave is encouraging people to have more babies. If you cannot afford to provide for a child without having tax payers pay for it, or your employer pay you for not working, then I'm not sure you should be having a child. That is why they offer those programs in Europe, to encourage population growth.

True. We don't need population growth because of illegal immigration. Only the poor immigrants should have children!

I mean, I don't actually see a problem with bringing in desperate people from the rest of the world, instead of adding more babies to the world's population. And my point still stands - not sure we should be encouraging the "poor immigrants" to have children either.

Because more people aren’t going to NOT have kids because more immigrants arrive. It doesn’t work that way. Besides the babies born here are legal and PAY Taxes once they start working.

While it’s not good for the environment, it’s silly to argue we should stop having kids because of it. We also should stop flying on planes but who is going to do that?

Okay, but does that mean I need to use my tax dollars to incentivize flying on planes?

Your tax dollars already are supporting airplane travel! Who do you think pays for the airport and TSA workers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you assume I can pay maternity leave for my nanny and also pay for replacement care during that time. Nanny makes 475/ week after taxes. So double that to cover a sub and you assume I have $1000/week to pay for leave? Get real. The nanny is a contractor and we pay annual leave, sick leave etc. but that’s too much. Maternity leave at corporations is spread out more and more easily absorbed as a cost and benefit provided by the employer.

The nanny isn't a contractor, she's an employee. The Department of Labor is clear about employment categories for full-time, salaried household employees.

She isn't salaried. her contract states hourly pay. And trust me, we follow the DC gov law in all ways. Also in a corporation there are other people to absorb the work when one person goes out on leave. This is very different because I "the employer" have to pay the same amount to a substitute. This will drive wages down and specific to nannies, people will go out of their way to hire nannies who are done having kids or not planning to get pregnant while working. I know I would.

You are underpaying her to begin with. Shameless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you assume I can pay maternity leave for my nanny and also pay for replacement care during that time. Nanny makes 475/ week after taxes. So double that to cover a sub and you assume I have $1000/week to pay for leave? Get real. The nanny is a contractor and we pay annual leave, sick leave etc. but that’s too much. Maternity leave at corporations is spread out more and more easily absorbed as a cost and benefit provided by the employer.

The nanny isn't a contractor, she's an employee. The Department of Labor is clear about employment categories for full-time, salaried household employees.

She isn't salaried. her contract states hourly pay. And trust me, we follow the DC gov law in all ways. Also in a corporation there are other people to absorb the work when one person goes out on leave. This is very different because I "the employer" have to pay the same amount to a substitute. This will drive wages down and specific to nannies, people will go out of their way to hire nannies who are done having kids or not planning to get pregnant while working. I know I would.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It must be awesome in Bubbleland. I hope one day to be as wise and perfect.

Many of us provide well and do plan, but there months incomeless would hurt most families. I’m self employed and had no maternity leave/pay. It was financially painful and took a few years to recover from. It’s not an uncommon scenario with independent contractors.

It’s great to tell others what they should do, privileged even.

But you did it, right? What does it matter that it was "painful"? If you were able to do it, then why should someone else step in and pay for it?

Sure, I had too or move my fresh baby outside. Mostly we reduced our needs, our mattresses were not magically stuffed with gold. Some bills had to wait. I made a ton of soup.

A nanny is an employee. It’s not the same. And of course it matter that it was financially stressful to not be getting paid. How many posts do we see employed parents in histrionics about their leave or leave without pay. I find the notion that household staff should provide for themselves (while parenting for others) remarkably classist and crass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It must be awesome in Bubbleland. I hope one day to be as wise and perfect.

Many of us provide well and do plan, but there months incomeless would hurt most families. I’m self employed and had no maternity leave/pay. It was financially painful and took a few years to recover from. It’s not an uncommon scenario with independent contractors.

It’s great to tell others what they should do, privileged even.

But you did it, right? What does it matter that it was "painful"? If you were able to do it, then why should someone else step in and pay for it?

Semi off topic: Nannies are in fact household employees. The agency is simply the middleman, not the employer. Many house cleaners work for themselves, or full time at the family’s home, though some obviously work for a company.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one is saying we want MORE babies. We simply want babies to have a better start to life and for new moms not to suffer. You don’t seem to realize how many women are forced to return to work after such a short period of time. You just don’t get it.

I understand wanting to give babies and better start in life and not wanting moms to suffer. But isn't the better option just to not have children...? To me, providing paid maternity leave is encouraging people to have more babies. If you cannot afford to provide for a child without having tax payers pay for it, or your employer pay you for not working, then I'm not sure you should be having a child. That is why they offer those programs in Europe, to encourage population growth.

True. We don't need population growth because of illegal immigration. Only the poor immigrants should have children!

I mean, I don't actually see a problem with bringing in desperate people from the rest of the world, instead of adding more babies to the world's population. And my point still stands - not sure we should be encouraging the "poor immigrants" to have children either.

Because more people aren’t going to NOT have kids because more immigrants arrive. It doesn’t work that way. Besides the babies born here are legal and PAY Taxes once they start working.

While it’s not good for the environment, it’s silly to argue we should stop having kids because of it. We also should stop flying on planes but who is going to do that?

Okay, but does that mean I need to use my tax dollars to incentivize flying on planes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one is saying we want MORE babies. We simply want babies to have a better start to life and for new moms not to suffer. You don’t seem to realize how many women are forced to return to work after such a short period of time. You just don’t get it.

I understand wanting to give babies and better start in life and not wanting moms to suffer. But isn't the better option just to not have children...? To me, providing paid maternity leave is encouraging people to have more babies. If you cannot afford to provide for a child without having tax payers pay for it, or your employer pay you for not working, then I'm not sure you should be having a child. That is why they offer those programs in Europe, to encourage population growth.

Actually the main reason they have these programs is because they want population growth among educated, working women. NOT poor immigrants.

Not supporting paid leave is going to simply continue to increase inequality in this country.

(aren't a lot of nannies poor immigrants...?)