Anonymous wrote:If that were ever true - why wouldn't a woman just quit her job ?

Lol. Not every woman has a spouse who can pay all of the bills.

I would have loved it if I could have paid my sub and kept the rest of my salary, because while teacher salaries aren’t high they are higher than sub salaries. As it was, because my employer used short term disability for paid maternity leave, I got 8 days paid as an adoptive mom.

For people saying it’s the same everywhere, in many jobs you have annual leave that you can save.

Anonymous wrote:Was just reading this NPR article and was struck by the bolded. Do DC area schools system’s require teachers to pay for their sub if they are on maternity leave? You are on unpaid leave AND have to pay for your sub?

“In many places, that leaves a teacher who wants to have a baby with few options: take limited unpaid leave, save up sick leave, hope for colleagues to share their sick leave, pay for their own substitute teacher, or try to time the birth for summer break.”

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1183570525/paid-family-leave-teachers-summer-babies?utm_campaign=later-linkinbio-npr&utm_content=later-36178652&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkin.bio

You're changing an "or" to and "and" - the article is saying you can take unpaid leave OR pay for a sub. The bottom line is that teachers are paid more than subs. So if you take your pay, but then pay for a sub who makes, let's say, half of what you make, then you're only out half your income, rather than taking your leave entirely unpaid.

Not that it's good - obviously teachers and literally everyone should have paid parental leave. But essentially having your leave paid at 50% is better than 0%.

In rural Nebraska, our teachers have to pay for their own substitutes after their allotted sick days (8) are used up. As the person who does payroll for two different schools, it absolutely makes me sick to deduct that pay from a teacher when I know of other salaried employees doing a piss poor job and making twice what our teachers are making.

Anonymous wrote:My friend teaches in a catholic school in dc and has to pay for her subs.

Sanctity of life, of course.

This is both horrifying and explains why all the teacher/wannabe influencers in the South and Midwest quit.

Anonymous wrote:If that were ever true - why wouldn't a woman just quit her job ?

Health insurance for her family

If that were ever true - why wouldn't a woman just quit her job ?

Anonymous wrote:That’s absurd and I have to believe it’s factually wrong. No one is paying for their own sub.

A colleague had to when she taught in Pennsylvania

Anonymous wrote:Most teachers time their pregnancy so that their maternity leave lines up with summer break.

do you mean that teachers "try" to do this or actually do it? The human body doesn't always cooperate.

Most teachers time their pregnancy so that their maternity leave lines up with summer break.

"teachers are paid their salary minus the cost of the substitute " so OP is just wrong.


If sub costs less than teacher, that's obviously fine.

If sub costs more than teacher, that's awkward. But the alternative would be lower base pay an "attendance bonus" for showing up more days.

Either way, as long as pay for the whole year is a reasonable wage for time worked, it seems fine.

This is why short term pregnancy disability insurance exists. $500/year during TTC years, for $5000 payout when you have a baby.