Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Newborns are hard and I am 1000% supportive of inclusive policies.
But does anyone else kind of worry that by making everything equal, that we ignore the realities of childbirth on a mother? I don’t know what the solution is— I certainly want adoptive parents, partners, etc to have time off, but I also feel like as a society we already gloss over the challenges of childbirth (it’s natural! It’s wonderful!) and don’t provide physical or mental supports to birth moms- many of whom are recovering from surgery, potentially life-threatening complications, or long term issues requiring PT. I guess what I’m saying is that fair is not always equal.

I don’t mean to hijack your thread, OP, and congrats on writing a thoughtful policy.

This has always been an issue for me too. I know one of the biggest ways to improve the societal situation for mothers recovering from childbirth is to make it easier AND socially expected for a partner to stay home to care for baby and new mom too but I also struggle with the idea that these broad parental leave policies place the emphasis squarely on adjusting to a new baby/child and not on the realities of the impact pregnancy and childbirth has on a woman. I don’t know how to solve that though. Maybe someday these policies will also include flexibility for pre and postnatal leave specifically for dealing with the challenges of pregnancy ans the often drawn out postpartum treatments needed to fully recover.

But wouldn't having a partner stay home with the mother for the same length of time support mothers who are recovering from childbirth? Ideally in that situation you would have the mother recovering and the partner picking up the other slack around the house (cooking, cleaning, helping the mother physically, performing baby-related tasks). A full-time caregiver to support the mom who is dealing with the emotional and physical recovery from childbirth sounds like the perfect way to ensure that mothers' recovery from childbirth is as smooth and healthy as possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Newborns are hard and I am 1000% supportive of inclusive policies.
But does anyone else kind of worry that by making everything equal, that we ignore the realities of childbirth on a mother? I don’t know what the solution is— I certainly want adoptive parents, partners, etc to have time off, but I also feel like as a society we already gloss over the challenges of childbirth (it’s natural! It’s wonderful!) and don’t provide physical or mental supports to birth moms- many of whom are recovering from surgery, potentially life-threatening complications, or long term issues requiring PT. I guess what I’m saying is that fair is not always equal.

I don’t mean to hijack your thread, OP, and congrats on writing a thoughtful policy.

YES. I agree paid leave is great for all new parents. But it should be STANDARD to have 6-8 weeks paid medical leave. It should be covered under short term disability. That's one thing my company got right so I did end up with about 5 weeks of paid leave, which I was grateful for. But it should be standard for all women, even those who work at McDonalds.

McDonald's Corporation offers 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, 2 weeks of paid paternity leave. Walmart has paid maternity leave too.

I disagree that it should be under STD. STD benefits are often not that generous and you have to run through all your paid leave first and then the pay isn't 100%.

Reverse for me - std first at 100% for 6-8 weeks followed by company paid 8 weeks parental.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Newborns are hard and I am 1000% supportive of inclusive policies.
But does anyone else kind of worry that by making everything equal, that we ignore the realities of childbirth on a mother? I don’t know what the solution is— I certainly want adoptive parents, partners, etc to have time off, but I also feel like as a society we already gloss over the challenges of childbirth (it’s natural! It’s wonderful!) and don’t provide physical or mental supports to birth moms- many of whom are recovering from surgery, potentially life-threatening complications, or long term issues requiring PT. I guess what I’m saying is that fair is not always equal.

I don’t mean to hijack your thread, OP, and congrats on writing a thoughtful policy.

This has always been an issue for me too. I know one of the biggest ways to improve the societal situation for mothers recovering from childbirth is to make it easier AND socially expected for a partner to stay home to care for baby and new mom too but I also struggle with the idea that these broad parental leave policies place the emphasis squarely on adjusting to a new baby/child and not on the realities of the impact pregnancy and childbirth has on a woman. I don’t know how to solve that though. Maybe someday these policies will also include flexibility for pre and postnatal leave specifically for dealing with the challenges of pregnancy ans the often drawn out postpartum treatments needed to fully recover.

I agree. I was severely anemic, went into post-partum depression, AND had a thyroid crisis. It was extremely difficult.

I'm a woman but I disagree. Assuming there is an adequate sick leave policy (and I assume so, since that would be more of a priority than parental leave), illnesses are already accounted for. I don't think it's a good idea to treat pregnancy-related illnesses differently than other illnesses.

I agree with you too. BUT... my company made me run through all of my sick leave before taking LWOP. And then I was very ill after returning to work (hospitalized due to retained placenta and then bleeding/anemia issues). I wished I had that sick leave and it hadn't been used for maternity leave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should you get full-time pay for working part-time after you’ve already gotten 3 months off paid? No need to be greedy. Goodness.

You're an idiot. Move on.

And you’re clearly a freeloader.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:* Gender-neutral paid leave for new parents of new children (includes biological, adopted and foster)
* Six months total: 3 months fully paid, 3 months of partially paid leave or return to work for 3 months part-time with full-time pay
* Same for medical leave
* 1 month caregiving leave

We’re a small org (less than 50 people), but they’re very serious about diversifying their staff and especially leadership and I told them
this is how you do it.

I wonder if you’re going to get the result you want. I think there’s a segment of the workforce that will like this but I don’t see it as universal by any means and I think a lot of people are going to resent it. I also think it’s going to be tough for a small organization to actually provide this.

No one is going to resent this policy, any more than they resent the leave provided for those who get cancer or get into a car accident. Every developed country in the world has paid maternity leave except for the US and the outcomes for babies are better as a result. If someone argues that we shouldn’t have maternity leave because others will be resentful, I honestly don’t know what to tell you. If you don’t care about how our country’s children grow up we don’t have a difference in policy, we have a difference in morality (and I say this as someone whose childbearing years are past her.)

It depends a lot on how it is implemented. If the work is just loaded onto people with full workloads then it can cause resentment. If it gives people a chance to do new or interesting projects that they wouldn't otherwise get to do, then that's a positive. I certainly think staying home with an infant is a lot harder than working, so I am not going to resent anyone for getting paid for that, but being asked to do double work is another thing entirely...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Newborns are hard and I am 1000% supportive of inclusive policies.
But does anyone else kind of worry that by making everything equal, that we ignore the realities of childbirth on a mother? I don’t know what the solution is— I certainly want adoptive parents, partners, etc to have time off, but I also feel like as a society we already gloss over the challenges of childbirth (it’s natural! It’s wonderful!) and don’t provide physical or mental supports to birth moms- many of whom are recovering from surgery, potentially life-threatening complications, or long term issues requiring PT. I guess what I’m saying is that fair is not always equal.

I don’t mean to hijack your thread, OP, and congrats on writing a thoughtful policy.

This has always been an issue for me too. I know one of the biggest ways to improve the societal situation for mothers recovering from childbirth is to make it easier AND socially expected for a partner to stay home to care for baby and new mom too but I also struggle with the idea that these broad parental leave policies place the emphasis squarely on adjusting to a new baby/child and not on the realities of the impact pregnancy and childbirth has on a woman. I don’t know how to solve that though. Maybe someday these policies will also include flexibility for pre and postnatal leave specifically for dealing with the challenges of pregnancy ans the often drawn out postpartum treatments needed to fully recover.

I agree. I was severely anemic, went into post-partum depression, AND had a thyroid crisis. It was extremely difficult.

I'm a woman but I disagree. Assuming there is an adequate sick leave policy (and I assume so, since that would be more of a priority than parental leave), illnesses are already accounted for. I don't think it's a good idea to treat pregnancy-related illnesses differently than other illnesses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:* Gender-neutral paid leave for new parents of new children (includes biological, adopted and foster)
* Six months total: 3 months fully paid, 3 months of partially paid leave or return to work for 3 months part-time with full-time pay
* Same for medical leave
* 1 month caregiving leave

We’re a small org (less than 50 people), but they’re very serious about diversifying their staff and especially leadership and I told them
this is how you do it.

I wonder if you’re going to get the result you want. I think there’s a segment of the workforce that will like this but I don’t see it as universal by any means and I think a lot of people are going to resent it. I also think it’s going to be tough for a small organization to actually provide this.

+1 it’s excessively greedy. You’re making new mothers look like freeloaders with this policy. I’m trying to understand why any company would want to pay someone their full salary for 3 months when they’re completely MIA and THEN on top of that pay them another 3 months of a full salary when they’re only working part-time. That sounds so incredibly entitled and short-sighted.

I think you are entitled and short-sighted. Because presumably these people have talents that the company values. Do you have any idea how much it costs in real money to keep replacing people? Also, go to countries where they have a negative birth rate. The future isn't so promissing. This country keeps dissing immigrants, but also does not want to address that young parents can't afford to have children any more unless they are willing to go into poverty. I think your thinking is very short sighted indeed.

Anonymous wrote:Why should you get full-time pay for working part-time after you’ve already gotten 3 months off paid? No need to be greedy. Goodness.

You're an idiot. Move on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Newborns are hard and I am 1000% supportive of inclusive policies.
But does anyone else kind of worry that by making everything equal, that we ignore the realities of childbirth on a mother? I don’t know what the solution is— I certainly want adoptive parents, partners, etc to have time off, but I also feel like as a society we already gloss over the challenges of childbirth (it’s natural! It’s wonderful!) and don’t provide physical or mental supports to birth moms- many of whom are recovering from surgery, potentially life-threatening complications, or long term issues requiring PT. I guess what I’m saying is that fair is not always equal.

I don’t mean to hijack your thread, OP, and congrats on writing a thoughtful policy.

This has always been an issue for me too. I know one of the biggest ways to improve the societal situation for mothers recovering from childbirth is to make it easier AND socially expected for a partner to stay home to care for baby and new mom too but I also struggle with the idea that these broad parental leave policies place the emphasis squarely on adjusting to a new baby/child and not on the realities of the impact pregnancy and childbirth has on a woman. I don’t know how to solve that though. Maybe someday these policies will also include flexibility for pre and postnatal leave specifically for dealing with the challenges of pregnancy ans the often drawn out postpartum treatments needed to fully recover.

I agree. I was severely anemic, went into post-partum depression, AND had a thyroid crisis. It was extremely difficult.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:* Gender-neutral paid leave for new parents of new children (includes biological, adopted and foster)
* Six months total: 3 months fully paid, 3 months of partially paid leave or return to work for 3 months part-time with full-time pay
* Same for medical leave
* 1 month caregiving leave

We’re a small org (less than 50 people), but they’re very serious about diversifying their staff and especially leadership and I told them
this is how you do it.

I wonder if you’re going to get the result you want. I think there’s a segment of the workforce that will like this but I don’t see it as universal by any means and I think a lot of people are going to resent it. I also think it’s going to be tough for a small organization to actually provide this.

No one is going to resent this policy, any more than they resent the leave provided for those who get cancer or get into a car accident. Every developed country in the world has paid maternity leave except for the US and the outcomes for babies are better as a result. If someone argues that we shouldn’t have maternity leave because others will be resentful, I honestly don’t know what to tell you. If you don’t care about how our country’s children grow up we don’t have a difference in policy, we have a difference in morality (and I say this as someone whose childbearing years are past her.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Newborns are hard and I am 1000% supportive of inclusive policies.
But does anyone else kind of worry that by making everything equal, that we ignore the realities of childbirth on a mother? I don’t know what the solution is— I certainly want adoptive parents, partners, etc to have time off, but I also feel like as a society we already gloss over the challenges of childbirth (it’s natural! It’s wonderful!) and don’t provide physical or mental supports to birth moms- many of whom are recovering from surgery, potentially life-threatening complications, or long term issues requiring PT. I guess what I’m saying is that fair is not always equal.

I don’t mean to hijack your thread, OP, and congrats on writing a thoughtful policy.

YES. I agree paid leave is great for all new parents. But it should be STANDARD to have 6-8 weeks paid medical leave. It should be covered under short term disability. That's one thing my company got right so I did end up with about 5 weeks of paid leave, which I was grateful for. But it should be standard for all women, even those who work at McDonalds.

McDonald's Corporation offers 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, 2 weeks of paid paternity leave. Walmart has paid maternity leave too.

I disagree that it should be under STD. STD benefits are often not that generous and you have to run through all your paid leave first and then the pay isn't 100%.

Anonymous wrote:Newborns are hard and I am 1000% supportive of inclusive policies.
But does anyone else kind of worry that by making everything equal, that we ignore the realities of childbirth on a mother? I don’t know what the solution is— I certainly want adoptive parents, partners, etc to have time off, but I also feel like as a society we already gloss over the challenges of childbirth (it’s natural! It’s wonderful!) and don’t provide physical or mental supports to birth moms- many of whom are recovering from surgery, potentially life-threatening complications, or long term issues requiring PT. I guess what I’m saying is that fair is not always equal.

I don’t mean to hijack your thread, OP, and congrats on writing a thoughtful policy.

YES. I agree paid leave is great for all new parents. But it should be STANDARD to have 6-8 weeks paid medical leave. It should be covered under short term disability. That's one thing my company got right so I did end up with about 5 weeks of paid leave, which I was grateful for. But it should be standard for all women, even those who work at McDonalds.

How about unlimited/12 mo maternity leave? Companies have tried that eyebrow raising approach and found their employees return more readily and are less likely to have to take off from work, upon return, to care for a sick child/seek treatment for themselves, etc. Ironically, most don't take the whole 12 mo bc they feel guilty and their pay, obviously, is severely reduced, but it is an awesome perk your company can advertise.
There are definitely pros/cons, no doubt, but not having a "cap" on leave and not having to stress about returning to work in 3, 4, 5, 6, whatever months makes such a huge difference.

Just a different perspective; putting it out there.

(I think the big companies can afford/do this - Netflix, FB, come to mind, but you could look into it).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:* Gender-neutral paid leave for new parents of new children (includes biological, adopted and foster)
* Six months total: 3 months fully paid, 3 months of partially paid leave or return to work for 3 months part-time with full-time pay
* Same for medical leave
* 1 month caregiving leave

We’re a small org (less than 50 people), but they’re very serious about diversifying their staff and especially leadership and I told them
this is how you do it.

I wonder if you’re going to get the result you want. I think there’s a segment of the workforce that will like this but I don’t see it as universal by any means and I think a lot of people are going to resent it. I also think it’s going to be tough for a small organization to actually provide this.

+1 it’s excessively greedy. You’re making new mothers look like freeloaders with this policy. I’m trying to understand why any company would want to pay someone their full salary for 3 months when they’re completely MIA and THEN on top of that pay them another 3 months of a full salary when they’re only working part-time. That sounds so incredibly entitled and short-sighted.

Now if you add on-site daycare you would keep employees even longer.