Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thumbs up OP.

+1. I got 3.5 months paid leave with each kid and it’s one of the reasons I’ve stayed at this job for so long. If women are given the time to recover and bond with their babies, they are less likely to leave the workforce and companies don’t need to face costly employee turnover.

Let’s be real. The ability (or not) to bond with your baby is not the reason most women leave the workforce. It’s almost always an issue of childcare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parental leave is a benefit just like health insurance, paid vacation, paid relocation/transportation costs, bonuses, 401ks, etc. It's meant to draw potential employees and to incentivize valued employees to stay.

If this a benefit that doesn't appeal to you, then look for a company that doesn't offer this benefit. There are many.

This! If you want to attract people who want to have children while working (a large subset of the population), a policy like this is a great perk. Much like paid relocation benefits are a good way to attract people outside your area, but many new employees won't actually use them.

Anonymous wrote:Parental leave is a benefit just like health insurance, paid vacation, paid relocation/transportation costs, bonuses, 401ks, etc. It's meant to draw potential employees and to incentivize valued employees to stay.

If this a benefit that doesn't appeal to you, then look for a company that doesn't offer this benefit. There are many.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally think the person who posted this is not being truthful. If she is, she is not thinking things through and has no idea the monster she just created. So, you have 50 employees, probably a small budget to work with, right?

Say, 5 women/men all have a baby coming at the same time, you are down 5 employees for 6 months? That is not sustainable and if you think your current employees are going to just pick up their slack, well...come back and let us know how that worked out for you.

All the more reason we should have a national insurance program for parental leave. Sure it's not sustainable for very small business, but it is very much sustainable for a fortune 150 company I work for. They just don't want to do it because they value their CEO's bonuses more than they value their young women.

We are in total agreement here. I try to make my organization a great place to be. I want to let the new mom and dad have 4 months of leave, but I also know I have employees that have kids at home and they don't want to pick up their slack, it puts them in this awful position of feeling like they can't support their colleague and be there for their kids for dinner. I think this was mentioned by someone else above too. It does happen, it does cause a lot of resentment. It was eye opening to me because I thought I was being progressive with our new 4 month leave policy, but then I had more people in my office pissed than happy, and sadly, a lot of them were women. As an HR professional, I have to take into account all sides. You would be shocked at some of the comments I get. I had a 25 year old woman come into my office and ask that she be given a leave benefit that is in line with our maternity/paternity leave policy, because I quote....I didn't spend 60K a year to be a birthing machine and don't ever plan to use this benefit. I'm not kidding, the stuff that comes my way, it's shocking.

You're an "HR Professional," not the CEO or leadership, so you should sit down. Just ignore the people who are pissed/prejudiced. In fact, I hope you shut that woman down about "birthing machine" and reminded her that that was offensive language and that pregnancy discrimination is illegal and against company policy.

Thanks, but I got this, and I don't need to sit down. I am the leadership. I am the VP for Administration and Finance . I do all the hiring and firing, and I report directly to my CEO. He refuses to get involved with HR "stuff", unless someone wants to lodge a complaint against me. He is not the best leader and I am very much looking forward to his five year term to be up. We are small, I don't have layers of HR in my company. I wish we did.....I have to fight him left and right to give our hard working staff the benefits they deserve. This is such a thankless job. I do one thing that makes one group happy, well, the other group wants my head. Luckily, I can take it.

Of course, the employee is no longer with the company.

Ok then, you should be smart enough to shut down discriminatory griping. If someone came to you to complain that the new black hires were affirmative action and weren't qualified, what would you do? If someone came to you to complain about a coworker's FMLA leave for cancer, what would you do? Maternity leave is a benefit provided to support people in the company going through a normal lifetime event. If your organization can't get it together to cover maternity leaves adequately, then THAT is what you need to be dealing with. Not feeding into the view that pregnant women are evil, greedy, lazy hags.

NP but I don't think you understand what the PP was saying at ALL. She was in no way talking about supporting that 25 year old, she was merely providing examples of what she sees from all sides of this conversation. I don't think she's the one that needs to calm down, I think YOU'RE the one who needs to get a grip.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally think the person who posted this is not being truthful. If she is, she is not thinking things through and has no idea the monster she just created. So, you have 50 employees, probably a small budget to work with, right?

Say, 5 women/men all have a baby coming at the same time, you are down 5 employees for 6 months? That is not sustainable and if you think your current employees are going to just pick up their slack, well...come back and let us know how that worked out for you.

All the more reason we should have a national insurance program for parental leave. Sure it's not sustainable for very small business, but it is very much sustainable for a fortune 150 company I work for. They just don't want to do it because they value their CEO's bonuses more than they value their young women.

We are in total agreement here. I try to make my organization a great place to be. I want to let the new mom and dad have 4 months of leave, but I also know I have employees that have kids at home and they don't want to pick up their slack, it puts them in this awful position of feeling like they can't support their colleague and be there for their kids for dinner. I think this was mentioned by someone else above too. It does happen, it does cause a lot of resentment. It was eye opening to me because I thought I was being progressive with our new 4 month leave policy, but then I had more people in my office pissed than happy, and sadly, a lot of them were women. As an HR professional, I have to take into account all sides. You would be shocked at some of the comments I get. I had a 25 year old woman come into my office and ask that she be given a leave benefit that is in line with our maternity/paternity leave policy, because I quote....I didn't spend 60K a year to be a birthing machine and don't ever plan to use this benefit. I'm not kidding, the stuff that comes my way, it's shocking.

You're an "HR Professional," not the CEO or leadership, so you should sit down. Just ignore the people who are pissed/prejudiced. In fact, I hope you shut that woman down about "birthing machine" and reminded her that that was offensive language and that pregnancy discrimination is illegal and against company policy.

Thanks, but I got this, and I don't need to sit down. I am the leadership. I am the VP for Administration and Finance . I do all the hiring and firing, and I report directly to my CEO. He refuses to get involved with HR "stuff", unless someone wants to lodge a complaint against me. He is not the best leader and I am very much looking forward to his five year term to be up. We are small, I don't have layers of HR in my company. I wish we did.....I have to fight him left and right to give our hard working staff the benefits they deserve. This is such a thankless job. I do one thing that makes one group happy, well, the other group wants my head. Luckily, I can take it.

Of course, the employee is no longer with the company.

Ok then, you should be smart enough to shut down discriminatory griping. If someone came to you to complain that the new black hires were affirmative action and weren't qualified, what would you do? If someone came to you to complain about a coworker's FMLA leave for cancer, what would you do? Maternity leave is a benefit provided to support people in the company going through a normal lifetime event. If your organization can't get it together to cover maternity leaves adequately, then THAT is what you need to be dealing with. Not feeding into the view that pregnant women are evil, greedy, lazy hags.

Anonymous wrote:Gender neutral parental leave sounds like you get the same amount of leave regardless if the baby is a boy or a girl

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess what people. The most prosperous European countries are very generous with their parental leave. People are the happiest and most productive as a result.

Move there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally think the person who posted this is not being truthful. If she is, she is not thinking things through and has no idea the monster she just created. So, you have 50 employees, probably a small budget to work with, right?

Say, 5 women/men all have a baby coming at the same time, you are down 5 employees for 6 months? That is not sustainable and if you think your current employees are going to just pick up their slack, well...come back and let us know how that worked out for you.

All the more reason we should have a national insurance program for parental leave. Sure it's not sustainable for very small business, but it is very much sustainable for a fortune 150 company I work for. They just don't want to do it because they value their CEO's bonuses more than they value their young women.

We are in total agreement here. I try to make my organization a great place to be. I want to let the new mom and dad have 4 months of leave, but I also know I have employees that have kids at home and they don't want to pick up their slack, it puts them in this awful position of feeling like they can't support their colleague and be there for their kids for dinner. I think this was mentioned by someone else above too. It does happen, it does cause a lot of resentment. It was eye opening to me because I thought I was being progressive with our new 4 month leave policy, but then I had more people in my office pissed than happy, and sadly, a lot of them were women. As an HR professional, I have to take into account all sides. You would be shocked at some of the comments I get. I had a 25 year old woman come into my office and ask that she be given a leave benefit that is in line with our maternity/paternity leave policy, because I quote....I didn't spend 60K a year to be a birthing machine and don't ever plan to use this benefit. I'm not kidding, the stuff that comes my way, it's shocking.

You're an "HR Professional," not the CEO or leadership, so you should sit down. Just ignore the people who are pissed/prejudiced. In fact, I hope you shut that woman down about "birthing machine" and reminded her that that was offensive language and that pregnancy discrimination is illegal and against company policy.

Thanks, but I got this, and I don't need to sit down. I am the leadership. I am the VP for Administration and Finance . I do all the hiring and firing, and I report directly to my CEO. He refuses to get involved with HR "stuff", unless someone wants to lodge a complaint against me. He is not the best leader and I am very much looking forward to his five year term to be up. We are small, I don't have layers of HR in my company. I wish we did.....I have to fight him left and right to give our hard working staff the benefits they deserve. This is such a thankless job. I do one thing that makes one group happy, well, the other group wants my head. Luckily, I can take it.

Of course, the employee is no longer with the company.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally think the person who posted this is not being truthful. If she is, she is not thinking things through and has no idea the monster she just created. So, you have 50 employees, probably a small budget to work with, right?

Say, 5 women/men all have a baby coming at the same time, you are down 5 employees for 6 months? That is not sustainable and if you think your current employees are going to just pick up their slack, well...come back and let us know how that worked out for you.

All the more reason we should have a national insurance program for parental leave. Sure it's not sustainable for very small business, but it is very much sustainable for a fortune 150 company I work for. They just don't want to do it because they value their CEO's bonuses more than they value their young women.

We are in total agreement here. I try to make my organization a great place to be. I want to let the new mom and dad have 4 months of leave, but I also know I have employees that have kids at home and they don't want to pick up their slack, it puts them in this awful position of feeling like they can't support their colleague and be there for their kids for dinner. I think this was mentioned by someone else above too. It does happen, it does cause a lot of resentment. It was eye opening to me because I thought I was being progressive with our new 4 month leave policy, but then I had more people in my office pissed than happy, and sadly, a lot of them were women. As an HR professional, I have to take into account all sides. You would be shocked at some of the comments I get. I had a 25 year old woman come into my office and ask that she be given a leave benefit that is in line with our maternity/paternity leave policy, because I quote....I didn't spend 60K a year to be a birthing machine and don't ever plan to use this benefit. I'm not kidding, the stuff that comes my way, it's shocking.

You're an "HR Professional," not the CEO or leadership, so you should sit down. Just ignore the people who are pissed/prejudiced. In fact, I hope you shut that woman down about "birthing machine" and reminded her that that was offensive language and that pregnancy discrimination is illegal and against company policy.

Anonymous wrote:Guess what people. The most prosperous European countries are very generous with their parental leave. People are the happiest and most productive as a result.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally think the person who posted this is not being truthful. If she is, she is not thinking things through and has no idea the monster she just created. So, you have 50 employees, probably a small budget to work with, right?

Say, 5 women/men all have a baby coming at the same time, you are down 5 employees for 6 months? That is not sustainable and if you think your current employees are going to just pick up their slack, well...come back and let us know how that worked out for you.

All the more reason we should have a national insurance program for parental leave. Sure it's not sustainable for very small business, but it is very much sustainable for a fortune 150 company I work for. They just don't want to do it because they value their CEO's bonuses more than they value their young women.

We are in total agreement here. I try to make my organization a great place to be. I want to let the new mom and dad have 4 months of leave, but I also know I have employees that have kids at home and they don't want to pick up their slack, it puts them in this awful position of feeling like they can't support their colleague and be there for their kids for dinner. I think this was mentioned by someone else above too. It does happen, it does cause a lot of resentment. It was eye opening to me because I thought I was being progressive with our new 4 month leave policy, but then I had more people in my office pissed than happy, and sadly, a lot of them were women. As an HR professional, I have to take into account all sides. You would be shocked at some of the comments I get. I had a 25 year old woman come into my office and ask that she be given a leave benefit that is in line with our maternity/paternity leave policy, because I quote....I didn't spend 60K a year to be a birthing machine and don't ever plan to use this benefit. I'm not kidding, the stuff that comes my way, it's shocking.