Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think the government or the employer should be responsible for providing ANY paid leave, honestly. People choose to have children, that should not have any effect on their employer and their need to run their business.
IMO allowing the parent to use whatever sick leave/vacation time is reasonable. Anything else (even unpaid) is beyond generous.
Do you have kids? I get 2 wks vacation and 1 wk sick. I should leave my baby at 3 wks old?
I have 4 kids.
Whether you leave your baby at 3 weeks is a decision you need to make for yourself. If you have 3 weeks, and your partner has 3 weeks, you could theoretically wait until the baby is 6 weeks before putting her in daycare. Or you could save enough money to last you to take whatever time off YOU feel is reasonable. Why should your employer be on the hook?
you sounds like SAHM that wants every woman to be a housewife.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think the government or the employer should be responsible for providing ANY paid leave, honestly. People choose to have children, that should not have any effect on their employer and their need to run their business.
IMO allowing the parent to use whatever sick leave/vacation time is reasonable. Anything else (even unpaid) is beyond generous.
Do you have kids? I get 2 wks vacation and 1 wk sick. I should leave my baby at 3 wks old?
I have 4 kids.
Whether you leave your baby at 3 weeks is a decision you need to make for yourself. If you have 3 weeks, and your partner has 3 weeks, you could theoretically wait until the baby is 6 weeks before putting her in daycare. Or you could save enough money to last you to take whatever time off YOU feel is reasonable. Why should your employer be on the hook?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think the government or the employer should be responsible for providing ANY paid leave, honestly. People choose to have children, that should not have any effect on their employer and their need to run their business.
IMO allowing the parent to use whatever sick leave/vacation time is reasonable. Anything else (even unpaid) is beyond generous.
right - people choose to have children. however, since vast majority of people makes the same decision (namely, to have children) then everyone benefits from the policy at some point. the only people this hurts are people who choose not to have children, and this is just as well. having children is a contribution to the future of the society as well, so i don't mind if childless (a small number anyway) get a small penalty there.
Let me guess, you have children so you "don't mind" ? 42% of Gen X women are childless.
Anonymous wrote:I am a small business owner who, more and more, is staffing my business with 1099 temporary contract workers, precisely to get around regulations such as this one.
Anyone who thinks that it is reasonable to ask businesses to provide you with 16+ weeks of paid leave, simply because you decide to pop out a kid is either 1) on welfare themselves; 2) still living at home with mommy and daddy, or has access to their trust fund, or 3) works for the government.
News Flash, OP. You are not irreplaceable in the work force. I guarantee that if you quit tomorrow, your employer would have people lined up at the door within a week to take your job. Why in the world do you think someone else should pay to have dust cover your desk for 16 weeks, so that you can have your cake and eat it too? Your sense of entitlement is shocking.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think the government or the employer should be responsible for providing ANY paid leave, honestly. People choose to have children, that should not have any effect on their employer and their need to run their business.
IMO allowing the parent to use whatever sick leave/vacation time is reasonable. Anything else (even unpaid) is beyond generous.
Do you have kids? I get 2 wks vacation and 1 wk sick. I should leave my baby at 3 wks old?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think unpaid FMLA is fine. The longer you wait to put your baby in daycare, the harder it will be. If you want to stay a home, be a stay at home mom, but this long-ass, paid for leave will just never be politically viable in this country, period. And guess what, the European countries are finding that they cannot afford it either.
Care to substantiate?
I don't believe it's true. European countries have been providing ML for many decades, their birth rates are still declining, and many European women do not take their full ML.
Anonymous wrote:I think unpaid FMLA is fine. The longer you wait to put your baby in daycare, the harder it will be. If you want to stay a home, be a stay at home mom, but this long-ass, paid for leave will just never be politically viable in this country, period. And guess what, the European countries are finding that they cannot afford it either.
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.
Anonymous wrote:I don't think the government or the employer should be responsible for providing ANY paid leave, honestly. People choose to have children, that should not have any effect on their employer and their need to run their business.
IMO allowing the parent to use whatever sick leave/vacation time is reasonable. Anything else (even unpaid) is beyond generous.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think the government or the employer should be responsible for providing ANY paid leave, honestly. People choose to have children, that should not have any effect on their employer and their need to run their business.
IMO allowing the parent to use whatever sick leave/vacation time is reasonable. Anything else (even unpaid) is beyond generous.
right - people choose to have children. however, since vast majority of people makes the same decision (namely, to have children) then everyone benefits from the policy at some point. the only people this hurts are people who choose not to have children, and this is just as well. having children is a contribution to the future of the society as well, so i don't mind if childless (a small number anyway) get a small penalty there.
Anonymous wrote:I don't think the government or the employer should be responsible for providing ANY paid leave, honestly. People choose to have children, that should not have any effect on their employer and their need to run their business.
IMO allowing the parent to use whatever sick leave/vacation time is reasonable. Anything else (even unpaid) is beyond generous.