What's Up With U.S. Maternity Leave?

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Freedom as in "nothing left to lose?"

It is, as the troubadours tell us.

I love America, but going against the international grain on this doesn't make us exceptional in any way except that we look exceptionally short-sighted and stuck in some paradigm of home life that no longer exists in a country where the middle class has been squeezed so tight it's popping out diamonds for the 1%.

[Fan_Dancer 171]

In Romania we get 2 years paid maternity leave at 80% of what you were making the year before the baby was born.

I will be a stay at home mom, at least in their first 2-3 years. Financially, it will suck but my kids are more important than anything.

[LiliBurd 85]

The cost of the program may not be forced on the employer directly, but losing an employee for a prolonged period time will affect the business owner and may cost them money in production or finding and hiring someone to fill that void. Mind you, I think it's a good program if the employer is not directly financially responsible, they can find a way to work around it. Most articles I've read on this program have nothing but good things to say about the positive outcomes in allowing prolonged maternity leave.

Yes for sure it costs something to the employer and it can be a pain in the butt to find a replacement for mat leave. As far as productivity goes there's a lot to consider. I'm not sure a woman that just gave birth 4 weeks ago, maybe in postpartum depression, that is waking up every 2 hours to breastfeed would be much more profitable.

And it's proven happy employees are more productive.

Edited November 3, 2014 by LiliBurd

[Transborderwife 4,666]

except that it, in many cases, an employer sees an attempt to negotiate for potential maternity leave as a statement that the woman will pick her family over the job and simply won't hire her. In addition, asking women to take lower salaries 'just in case of maternity leave' creates a long term, enduring wage gap.

In Canada, a woman gets 17 weeks maternity /pregnancy leave with an additional 35 weeks of parental leave available. A father can take up to 37 weeks of parental leave in the first year of the baby's life.

For example. My father and stepmother decided to have another child and were blessed with identical twins. (note that suddenly having twins rather than one baby isn't something you can accurately budget for before you get pregnant). They hired a nanny with the intent of my stepmother returning to work as it is nearly impossible to find a daycare that has two spots for newborns available. The nanny turned out to be negligent (left plastic bags in the crib with the twins) and they were unwilling to leave fragile newborns with someone else after that experience. Parental leave rules allowed them to not be bankrupted by the fact that they needed to take turns using up that parental leave so that the twins had one parent or the other home with them for the first year of life.

Note also that my father and stepmother both had high paying jobs at the time they became pregnant with the twins. They weren't bringing children into the world that they would be unable to pay for. But that first year would have left their finances in shambles.

I second this. My ex and I unexpectedly had twins. Parents do not get any extra money/benefits for twins though the cost of living goes up drastically. We got the same up to 55% of my salary like everyone else on mat/parental leave. We did get CCTB and UCCB for both children. For 3 children we were receiving an extra $1300/mo in financial tax benefits for having 3 children. That's an extra $15.6k a year. It helped make up the difference in my salary. Is it a perfect system? No, but I was grateful for the job security of having something to go back to guaranteed after a year.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It is, as the troubadours tell us.

I love America, but going against the international grain on this doesn't make us exceptional in any way except that we look exceptionally short-sighted and stuck in some paradigm of home life that no longer exists in a country where the middle class has been squeezed so tight it's popping out diamonds for the 1%.

It also makes the country ever less competitive. There's a reason we have this huge trade deficit that other developed nations - where workers actually have rights - don't have. Once the average American gets that bit, we may stand a chance of escaping the descent from the first wold. Until then, the race to the bottom is on!

[Merle 458]

People are afraid of what they don't know. They think that if you change the way things are America will crumble to pieces. On one hand they praise the might and resilience of our country, while on the other they doubt her resolve and spirit.

The irony, which seems to be lost on these people, is that they don't realize that what made America strong is the fact we have people from all over the place who came here and brought some of their ideas with him. Today, many of these immigrants, come here and don't accept that anything should change, their answer of choice being one should consider living elsewhere if one should be critical of one owns country. A few days ago a kid made that suggestion based on a comment I made. Many come here and they want to be more American than the natives. While I applaud their enthusiasm, I do recommend caution with their zealotry.

Go figure!

Since this was aimed at me, the "kid", I'll respond. In America, you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness doesn't mean you have the right to happiness. That's up to you. If you want to come and make America better by bringing your ideas on how to make a better mouse trap or whatever than by all means do it. On the other hand, if you mean people should come here and bring their socialistic ideas on how American government should be changed than you are going to get backlash. We already have a constitution that's been in place for over 200 years here and we don't need to change it to suit you or anyone else. If your idea of the pursuit of happiness means putting your hand in my and everyone else's wallet so that you can have your kids and take 3 months paid off paid work you are putting your foot directly on my right to the pursuit of happiness. That's where I have a problem. There are already laws in place that will let people take off work, FMLA for example, and their are tax benefits for having kids as well.

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

Since this was aimed at me, the "kid", I'll respond. In America, you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness doesn't mean you have the right to happiness. That's up to you. If you want to come and make America better by bringing your ideas on how to make a better mouse trap or whatever than by all means do it. On the other hand, if you mean people should come here and bring their socialistic ideas on how American government should be changed than you are going to get backlash. We already have a constitution that's been in place for over 200 years here and we don't need to change it to suit you or anyone else. If your idea of the pursuit of happiness means putting your hand in my and everyone else's wallet so that you can have your kids and take 3 months paid off paid work you are putting your foot directly on my right to the pursuit of happiness. That's where I have a problem. There are already laws in place that will let people take off work, FMLA for example, and their are tax benefits for having kids as well.

Um. *raises hand* Are you denying that constitutional amendments exist? I mean, the most recent change to the constitution of the United States of America was the 27th amendment, which took place in 1992 and took over 200 years to be ratified.

The constitution can and does change. I mean, if it weren't for changes to the US constitution, women wouldn't have the right to vote in federal elections, prohibition would never have existed and people who aren't white still wouldn't be allowed to vote.

Changes to the constitution are part of democracy.

[Merle 458]

Um. *raises hand* Are you denying that constitutional amendments exist? I mean, the most recent change to the constitution of the United States of America was the 27th amendment, which took place in 1992 and took over 200 years to be ratified.

The constitution can and does change. I mean, if it weren't for changes to the US constitution, women wouldn't have the right to vote in federal elections, prohibition would never have existed and people who aren't white still wouldn't be allowed to vote.

Changes to the constitution are part of democracy.

Changing it to give the feds more power is what I was referring to. Good call.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Socialism. The ultimate American cliché.

The legacy of Joe McCarthy lives on.

[Merle 458]

I'm not sure what you're getting at but the wording on the website is as follows:

What I was getting at is how can the unemployment insurance part of the California EDD be billions in the red but the disability insurance part of it have money? If I had $10 in the bank but owed $10,000 in bills wouldn't I be considered broke?

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

Changing it to give the feds more power is what I was referring to. Good call.

I'm pretty sure that prohibition alone gave the feds more power.

Heck, income tax in general gave the feds more power.

It makes absolutely no sense to have a country where the federal government has no power. Do you campaign for secession?

It also makes no sense to have some states where people literally have more rights than in other states, united under the same flat. As is the case now. The US model of government, with as little federal power as seems to exist to unite the nation, is puzzling and problematic.

[Merle 458]

I'm pretty sure that prohibition alone gave the feds more power.

Heck, income tax in general gave the feds more power.

It makes absolutely no sense to have a country where the federal government has no power. Do you campaign for secession?

It also makes no sense to have some states where people literally have more rights than in other states, united under the same flat. As is the case now. The US model of government, with as little federal power as seems to exist to unite the nation, is puzzling and problematic.

Of course they have power. Mandating employers pay maternity leave just isn't one of them.

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

Of course they have power. Mandating employers pay maternity leave just isn't one of them.

It seems to me that, if they chose to, they would be able to, based on other federal mandates. And it also seems to me that constitutional amendments can be and are used to change the powers of the federal government.

It also seems to me that mandating employers pay maternity leave isn't even what I have been arguing for. I've been arguing for a system like the one in my home country, where employees pay into employment insurance on each cheque and maternity is paid out of that. Now, are there going to be times when such a program is not self sufficient? Absolutely. Whenever there is a very large number of people who are unemployed due to economic issues, yes, there will be times when an employment insurance program will run at a deficit.

Whether you like it or not, people are going to continue having babies and unexpected things will continue to occur when people have babies (twins, triplets, maternal injury or death) that make maternity and/or paid parental leave necessary to keep families out of poverty. Would you rather pay 6 months of supporting a deficit in employment insurance after which the parent returns to a job which has been held for them or would you rather pay some combination of increased medical bills for children on state low-income medical plans and WIC and foodstamps for years?

When you support families, they are able to stay out of poverty or spend brief amounts of time in poverty. When you don't support them, you pay for their poverty in the long term. It comes in the form of increased crime rates, health issues that are treated in emergency rooms and the bills abandoned for, food stamps, and various social safety nets. The longterm financial support of a family is much more expensive than a few months' paid parental leave.

[LiliBurd 85]

Amen! Well said.

It seems to me that, if they chose to, they would be able to, based on other federal mandates. And it also seems to me that constitutional amendments can be and are used to change the powers of the federal government.

It also seems to me that mandating employers pay maternity leave isn't even what I have been arguing for. I've been arguing for a system like the one in my home country, where employees pay into employment insurance on each cheque and maternity is paid out of that. Now, are there going to be times when such a program is not self sufficient? Absolutely. Whenever there is a very large number of people who are unemployed due to economic issues, yes, there will be times when an employment insurance program will run at a deficit.

Whether you like it or not, people are going to continue having babies and unexpected things will continue to occur when people have babies (twins, triplets, maternal injury or death) that make maternity and/or paid parental leave necessary to keep families out of poverty. Would you rather pay 6 months of supporting a deficit in employment insurance after which the parent returns to a job which has been held for them or would you rather pay some combination of increased medical bills for children on state low-income medical plans and WIC and foodstamps for years?

When you support families, they are able to stay out of poverty or spend brief amounts of time in poverty. When you don't support them, you pay for their poverty in the long term. It comes in the form of increased crime rates, health issues that are treated in emergency rooms and the bills abandoned for, food stamps, and various social safety nets. The longterm financial support of a family is much more expensive than a few months' paid parental leave.

[JohnR! 5,495]

It was not aimed at you. I don't recall discussing this issue with you in particular. I interact with several other people in this forum.

Your rant on the Constitution is derived mostly from your own misconceptions. I am not sure what the Constitution has to do with maternity leave, if anything at all.

Since this was aimed at me, the "kid", I'll respond. In America, you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness doesn't mean you have the right to happiness. That's up to you. If you want to come and make America better by bringing your ideas on how to make a better mouse trap or whatever than by all means do it. On the other hand, if you mean people should come here and bring their socialistic ideas on how American government should be changed than you are going to get backlash. We already have a constitution that's been in place for over 200 years here and we don't need to change it to suit you or anyone else. If your idea of the pursuit of happiness means putting your hand in my and everyone else's wallet so that you can have your kids and take 3 months paid off paid work you are putting your foot directly on my right to the pursuit of happiness. That's where I have a problem. There are already laws in place that will let people take off work, FMLA for example, and their are tax benefits for having kids as well.

It is the ultimate red herring. Just label anything you don't understand as 'socialism' and you're home free.

Socialism. The ultimate American cliché.

The legacy of Joe McCarthy lives on.