I'm a fed who just moved to MoCo. If this passes, I will try to contain my resentment and be happy for my DC resident pregnant friends

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to a new job if you're a woman.

This is not maternity leave. This is medical/family leave. By your reasoning, anybody who has a family and/or can get sick should say goodbye to a new job. That won't leave many people to hire, though.

You don't think women of childbearing age are the most likely to take parental leave?

"Women of childbearing age"? If you want to limit your labor force to people who

1. are not women aged 20-45
2. are not in families with women aged 20-45
3. don't have parents
4. don't have children
5. don't get sick

go right ahead.

Huh?

I'm a woman. I don't want a company to choose a man over me because I'm more likely to take 16 paid weeks off. This will hurt women.

As opposed to not hiring women because it is expected that she'll quit after she has a baby? Or take unpaid leave? DC already guarantees 16 weeks of FMLA; all this law does is make that 16 weeks paid (not at the employer's expense).

Also, men are eligible for the same amount of FMLA as women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am more in favor of the shared tax proposed by Senator Gillibrand, which would cost the average worker $72.04 per year, with a maximum contribution of $227.40 per year.

Except that that's going nowhere, whereas this might actually happen.

While Congress is avoided at step 1, Congressional Republicans can still block this, correct? What's the basis that this bill can clear that hurdle.

Do you think that it's likely that the Republicans in Congress will want to oppose family/medical leave, in an election year?

Do I think Republicans in Congress will oppose a "socialist" "inside-the-beltway" "job killing program"? Yes. Did they support FMLA?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/15/obama-paid-family-leave-mandate-runs-into-republic/?page=all (the only time I will link to a Wash. Times article)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm interested in what happens if you already have STD through your employer. What if you have PTO saved? Can you double dip?

I guess maybe DC employers will drop their private STD insurance.

just curious, why would you want to double dip your PTO? Wouldn't you want to save it for when you need to take time off after the 16 week leave? Kids get sick, daycare ends up closed, etc.

To supplement your income if you are making more than $52,000. So say you usually earned $2000 per week, you would get a $1500 benefit from the district, and then take 10 PTO hours to make up the other $500.

Some STD policies allow an employee to do this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time to move my business from DC to Maryland or Virginia.

You don't have a business, PP. You are an old, retired man.

~spits out coffee with laughter~

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm interested in what happens if you already have STD through your employer. What if you have PTO saved? Can you double dip?

I guess maybe DC employers will drop their private STD insurance.

just curious, why would you want to double dip your PTO? Wouldn't you want to save it for when you need to take time off after the 16 week leave? Kids get sick, daycare ends up closed, etc.

I would want to double dip because this isn't giving you 100% of salary if you make more than 52k.

Anonymous wrote:I'm interested in what happens if you already have STD through your employer. What if you have PTO saved? Can you double dip?

I guess maybe DC employers will drop their private STD insurance.

just curious, why would you want to double dip your PTO? Wouldn't you want to save it for when you need to take time off after the 16 week leave? Kids get sick, daycare ends up closed, etc.

I'm interested in what happens if you already have STD through your employer. What if you have PTO saved? Can you double dip?

I guess maybe DC employers will drop their private STD insurance.

Anonymous wrote:what will it pay for? 100% of salary? Because anything less is useless - I'd go back to work because I need to pay for the food on the table and the roof over our heads.

100 percent of pay for those making up to $52,000 a year. Employees who earn more than that would be eligible for $1,000 a week plus 50 percent of their additional income, up to a maximum of $3,000 per week.

read the details. It's 100% of salary up to $1,000 per week (so, if you make $52,000 or less per year, you will get your full salary). Anything beyond $52,000 is 50% of that, to a max of $3,000 per week. So if you make $100,000 per year, you would get about $1,461 per week:

base $1,000
remaining $48,000 of salary x .5=$24,000/52 weeks=$461 additional per week

if you have annual and sick leave saved up that would pay you more than what the DC plan would pay you, by all means, you're (likely) free to continue to use that. If you short term disability policy pays more than what you'd get from DC, use that instead.

I'm just excited at the prospect of more options, of significant income during 16 weeks of leave, of policies that actually move us towards what the rest of the world already does. That my husband would also be able to take 16 weeks at close to his full salary? Potentially giving us 6-7 months at home with a baby before starting daycare? Just frickin' awesome. And as a DC resident, i'm quite proud to see DC lead the way on this. I hope other states and the federal government follow suit SOON.

what will it pay for? 100% of salary? Because anything less is useless - I'd go back to work because I need to pay for the food on the table and the roof over our heads.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to a new job if you're a woman.

This is not maternity leave. This is medical/family leave. By your reasoning, anybody who has a family and/or can get sick should say goodbye to a new job. That won't leave many people to hire, though.

You don't think women of childbearing age are the most likely to take parental leave?

"Women of childbearing age"? If you want to limit your labor force to people who

1. are not women aged 20-45
2. are not in families with women aged 20-45
3. don't have parents
4. don't have children
5. don't get sick

go right ahead.

Huh?

I'm a woman. I don't want a company to choose a man over me because I'm more likely to take 16 paid weeks off. This will hurt women.

You're already probably being discriminated against, because you're a woman and you're more likely to take 16 weeks off. The employer has to pay the tax for every employee, regardless of if they will use the benefit or not. The employer does not pay the benefit: the District does.

Hmmm, ok, so when do you think the layoffs will begin?

I think an employer would have a really difficult time explaining why he or she fired all of the 20-40something women in his office.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to a new job if you're a woman.

This is not maternity leave. This is medical/family leave. By your reasoning, anybody who has a family and/or can get sick should say goodbye to a new job. That won't leave many people to hire, though.

You don't think women of childbearing age are the most likely to take parental leave?

"Women of childbearing age"? If you want to limit your labor force to people who

1. are not women aged 20-45
2. are not in families with women aged 20-45
3. don't have parents
4. don't have children
5. don't get sick

go right ahead.

Huh?

I'm a woman. I don't want a company to choose a man over me because I'm more likely to take 16 paid weeks off. This will hurt women.

You're already probably being discriminated against, because you're a woman and you're more likely to take 16 weeks off. The employer has to pay the tax for every employee, regardless of if they will use the benefit or not. The employer does not pay the benefit: the District does.

Hmmm, ok, so when do you think the layoffs will begin?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to a new job if you're a woman.

This is not maternity leave. This is medical/family leave. By your reasoning, anybody who has a family and/or can get sick should say goodbye to a new job. That won't leave many people to hire, though.

You don't think women of childbearing age are the most likely to take parental leave?

"Women of childbearing age"? If you want to limit your labor force to people who

1. are not women aged 20-45
2. are not in families with women aged 20-45
3. don't have parents
4. don't have children
5. don't get sick

go right ahead.

Huh?

I'm a woman. I don't want a company to choose a man over me because I'm more likely to take 16 paid weeks off. This will hurt women.

You're already probably being discriminated against, because you're a woman and you're more likely to take 16 weeks off. The employer has to pay the tax for every employee, regardless of if they will use the benefit or not. The employer does not pay the benefit: the District does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to a new job if you're a woman.

This is not maternity leave. This is medical/family leave. By your reasoning, anybody who has a family and/or can get sick should say goodbye to a new job. That won't leave many people to hire, though.

You don't think women of childbearing age are the most likely to take parental leave?

"Women of childbearing age"? If you want to limit your labor force to people who

1. are not women aged 20-45
2. are not in families with women aged 20-45
3. don't have parents
4. don't have children
5. don't get sick

go right ahead.

Huh?

I'm a woman. I don't want a company to choose a man over me because I'm more likely to take 16 paid weeks off. This will hurt women.