If the employer pays for the STD premiums or most of them then that is basically paid leave. However for a regular birth STD only covers 6 weeks so then almost all are tapping into vacation and sick time to make up the rest.

Many times when we talk about paid maternity leave, what we're really describing is unpaid leave that a mother is able to cover with a combination of vacation or sick leave, short-term disability, etc. I don't know anyone whose employer actually offers paid maternity leave.

Point is that most workers do not have this, even more do not have it when you subtract out those that just effectively prepaid for their leaves by opting into a short term disability insurance policy if their employer did not cover most of the premiums for it.

I doubt we're going to feel sorry for an MD, or other typically highly paid worker without certain benefits.

According to the Working Mother magazine, even not all of the 100 best employers for women have paid maternity leaves. So, it is definitely not common in US. I wonder if people confuse paid maternity leave (when employer absorbs the cost of you not working and pays you your salary) with disability coverage (which is more common, and where you pay premiums to insurance company and it pays part of your salary if you are not able to work -- these payments are generally not taxable, so this is why you only need to replace part of your income). I had 3 kids over last 10 years, and each time disability kicked in. Guess what? The amount of premiums that I paid for the disability insurance over 10 years was higher than what I received to cover 3 maternity leaves. So actually, if I was saving money every month pre-pregnancy instead of carrying disability insurance, I would be better off. Incidentally, you can buy individual policies for the disability insurance, so if you want to have paid maternity leave it is an option for any woman. Yes, paid maternity leave is nice, but it is expensive, and unless we want to pay European level of taxes, it won't be here any time soon. I'm also of the opinion that if you decided to have a kid, it is your responsibility to figure out how you are going to afford it, and not try to get your employer to fit the bill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who wants equal treatment - I agree that it would be much better if the government paid for leave. But especially in the case of very small employers (1 or 2 employees) I think it is a huge hardship to require them to pay for leave since they will need to pay for replacements in the mean time. In a large company the work likely is just covered mostly by shifting the burden a bit and making do for a bit.

+1. I'm an MB with 3 children, thus have been on maternity leave 3 times. I've never been paid for maternity leave. I did, however, continue to pay the nanny her regular salary during my maternity leave because that's the fair thing to do. If, however, she had a baby, some of you think I should pay her for her maternity leave while simultaneously paying for backup care? I agree nannies should be treated equally and fairly but paid maternity leave is not common, regardless of the job.

What is your field where it's so uncommon?

I'm a physician (I work for a private practice) but I have many friends in other fields who also had unpaid maternity leave.

PP again. Also, as someone else pointed out, in most offices where there IS paid maternity leave they don't have to hire a temporary replacement for the person who is out. They just have other people in the office covering the work. There is a lot of talk on this forum about how nannies are underpaid and if you can't afford at least x amount you shouldn't have a nanny and I don't totally disagree with that but it's ridiculous to think an employer should be able to afford double the nanny's salary so she can take maternity leave while they also have to pay a second nanny for backup care during that time. I'm not saying the system isn't flawed but people all over this country have to make the decision everyday if they can afford a child and if they can afford to be without pay for their maternity leave. Unfortunately, that's not different for a nanny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who wants equal treatment - I agree that it would be much better if the government paid for leave. But especially in the case of very small employers (1 or 2 employees) I think it is a huge hardship to require them to pay for leave since they will need to pay for replacements in the mean time. In a large company the work likely is just covered mostly by shifting the burden a bit and making do for a bit.

+1. I'm an MB with 3 children, thus have been on maternity leave 3 times. I've never been paid for maternity leave. I did, however, continue to pay the nanny her regular salary during my maternity leave because that's the fair thing to do. If, however, she had a baby, some of you think I should pay her for her maternity leave while simultaneously paying for backup care? I agree nannies should be treated equally and fairly but paid maternity leave is not common, regardless of the job.

What is your field where it's so uncommon?

I'm a physician (I work for a private practice) but I have many friends in other fields who also had unpaid maternity leave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who wants equal treatment - I agree that it would be much better if the government paid for leave. But especially in the case of very small employers (1 or 2 employees) I think it is a huge hardship to require them to pay for leave since they will need to pay for replacements in the mean time. In a large company the work likely is just covered mostly by shifting the burden a bit and making do for a bit.

+1. I'm an MB with 3 children, thus have been on maternity leave 3 times. I've never been paid for maternity leave. I did, however, continue to pay the nanny her regular salary during my maternity leave because that's the fair thing to do. If, however, she had a baby, some of you think I should pay her for her maternity leave while simultaneously paying for backup care? I agree nannies should be treated equally and fairly but paid maternity leave is not common, regardless of the job.

What is your field where it's so uncommon?

Anonymous wrote:Pp who wants equal treatment - I agree that it would be much better if the government paid for leave. But especially in the case of very small employers (1 or 2 employees) I think it is a huge hardship to require them to pay for leave since they will need to pay for replacements in the mean time. In a large company the work likely is just covered mostly by shifting the burden a bit and making do for a bit.

+1. I'm an MB with 3 children, thus have been on maternity leave 3 times. I've never been paid for maternity leave. I did, however, continue to pay the nanny her regular salary during my maternity leave because that's the fair thing to do. If, however, she had a baby, some of you think I should pay her for her maternity leave while simultaneously paying for backup care? I agree nannies should be treated equally and fairly but paid maternity leave is not common, regardless of the job.

Pp who wants equal treatment - I agree that it would be much better if the government paid for leave. But especially in the case of very small employers (1 or 2 employees) I think it is a huge hardship to require them to pay for leave since they will need to pay for replacements in the mean time. In a large company the work likely is just covered mostly by shifting the burden a bit and making do for a bit.

Unemployment claim will not hurt the op. She will never hire again

OP: coming back to your question, what evidence you might need for the hearing. I'm an MB who got to go through the unemployment claim. Your position is that the nanny quit on her will, right? What evidence do you have to prove it? If that was verbal, it might help to write down exactly what the nanny said (e.g., did she give specific date?). They would need to establish whether she quit voluntary.

The hearing is kind of awkward: the deputy assistant will ask you questions, while your nanny hears your answers. Then your nanny gets to do a rebuttal. The law puts burden of proof on employer (the nanny is assumed to be entitled to unemployment compensation until you prove otherwise).

In my case, the nanny outright lied about what she was or was not doing (she was fired for cause), but because I did not have any proof in writing, and all our conversation regarding issues were verbal, it turned into "she said - she said". In that case they cited with her.

Good luck to you.

Anonymous wrote:
You have a reading comprehension problem. I never said the government should guarantee anything. I said all women should be "equally" treated. Just because one have only one employee, you think you have no ethical obligation to allow her to give birth and have some associated benefits?

You are the one with comprehension issues.The OP treated the nanny exactly like a regular employer would. She offered the nanny the same PT job upon return from maternity leave. This is exactly what employers do for us - they don't keep paying us, they only keep the job open for us. The nanny didn't want the job, though, she wanted a different job. It's not on the OP to offer the nanny the exact job she wants. Terms of employment are between the employer and the employee. You can't unilaterally decide that now you want to be full time, and object when the employer doesn't agree. Full time employment was never on the table for this particular case.

That's right PPs, if you want paid maternity leave you must move out of the USA and go to " some socialist country."

You heard it here first, on DCUM. There is no point in fighting for subsidized childcare or paid maternity leave because MURICA F YEAH!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think there's any possibility she thinks she's rightfully earned some kind of maternity benefits?
Hasn't someone mentioned that on this thread?

The thing is, this country does not provide any kind of maternity benefits to ANYONE.

No, it's the EMPLOYER who usually provides the compensation package, not the government.

Her employer is the OP, and she did not offer any maternity benefits - a package to which the nanny agreed.

That's why I said,

Domestic workers deserve EQUAL RIGHTS too,

not just you office and medical workers.

You have a chip on your shoulder and sound very misinformed. Why do u think office workers have more rights? They are not guaranteed anything by law, not even their job after having a baby if their employer has less then 50 employees. Look up FMLA. But you expect a household to pay a nanny's salary for 2 or three months while she's on leave and also paying for backup care so they can go to work? Good luck with that!

You have a reading comprehension problem. I never said the government should guarantee anything. I said all women should be "equally" treated. Just because one have only one employee, you think you have no ethical obligation to allow her to give birth and have some associated benefits?

She's getting all the same benefits as anyone else would, that's the point. You should move to England or some other socialist country where they have all these things you are looking for.