Anonymous wrote:Wouldn’t OPM have to promulgate regulations on it first before it becomes effective?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Paid FMLA for feds would also have covered other caregiving--everyone who needs time off to care for a parent, or a very sick child, for example. So overall this is a pretty limited and sort of discriminatory "benefit"

There is an emergency leave bank. Not to mention, sick and annual leave can be used. I’ve actually met a Fed who needed leave to take off to care for a parent or sick kid and couldn’t cover it. Maternity has been a different story.

Anonymous wrote:Paid FMLA for feds would also have covered other caregiving--everyone who needs time off to care for a parent, or a very sick child, for example. So overall this is a pretty limited and sort of discriminatory "benefit"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm not going to lie that's its hard for me that I'm missing this by four months. so much money and time off I can't save.

It sucks but there has to be some sort of cut off

Anonymous wrote:For those that want to read the language, the conference report is here: https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191209/CRPT-116hrpt333.pdf
and the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act language starts on page 2647.

The summary report language states:
Federal Employee Paid Leave Act (secs. 7601-7606)
The House amendment contained several provisions(sec. 1121 through 1126) that would provide 12 weeks of paid leave to the Federal workforce for reasons covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (Public Law 115-232).
The Senate bill contained no similar provision.
The Senate recedes with an amendment that would provide 12 weeks of paid leave to Federal employees in connection with the birth or placement of a child to an eligible employee.

Anonymous wrote:Trump tweeted today he would sign so as long as Congress does their job ... is the 12 weeks for both mother and father?

Anonymous wrote:Trump tweeted today he would sign so as long as Congress does their job ... is the 12 weeks for both mother and father?

Anonymous wrote:i'm not going to lie that's its hard for me that I'm missing this by four months. so much money and time off I can't save.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The original language had it only applicable for babies born after October 1, 2020. I haven’t been able to find the latest agreement, though. They should be voting today. So we’ll find out shortly.

SIGH. I would be very surprised then if this was earlier. It would have been SO NICE not to have to use all my leave and take time unpaid. Also, to have my husband (we're both feds) be able to spend some real time home with the baby as well.

Yup. I'm on maternity leave right now. It will be nice for others and I don't begrudge it to them, but it will be bitterly disappointing to use up all of my sick and annual leave, take a 10% pay cut for the year due to unpaid FMLA (I've only been a fed instead of a contractor for 1.5 years), and miss paid leave by a hair. Like, that's such a huge cost i would probably have waited a year to get pregnant if I'd known.

You do sound very bitter, yes.

Eh, she said it’s nice for others and she doesn’t begrudge it to them. Doesn’t sound bitter to me. I’m a fed who recently took my second maternity leave. Covering the first one was tough and covering the second one was even tougher because I didn’t have as much time to accrue sick/annual leave, plus I had a difficult pregnancy the second time around, so I had to use sick leave before the birth. The current fed approach just kind of sucks, and it’s awesome that it might change for the better!

+1 - for the professional crowd (doctors, lawyers, etc.) it's been a maxim that you have the children before you go public if you can because parental leave benefits are so far behind what the private sector offers. This will be a big attraction to would-be parents who are thinking they want kids in the future. Now, they stay put because they don't want to give up those benefits. In the future, they are more likely to jump prior to getting pregnant - which is a big bonus to the government to get new people in who may stay for a long time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's a part of the FY21 legislation, then it should have an enactment date included in the Bill. I haven't seen the language anywhere, but in my experience, most legislation takes over a year to implement - so if you're pregnant now it probably won't help you this round. . .

I'm not sure this would actually be the case. Obviously, this would depend on the language in the bill, but this is spending authorization bill, and the money for spending is for next year I believe? But I could be wrong.

It's a spending authorization bill - but the Act enacting the legislation is not dependent on yearly authorization any more than anything else that the government needs money to do.

That said - devil in the details - but I think it's entirely possible that you could be eligible for it up to a year after the birth of the child, as long as there is still within the year of birth, similar to FMLA.