Hellobee Boards

well, i don't think i'd change a lot.

1. i think 8-12 weeks is sufficient. any more is really a detriment to the company and i don't think they should be penalized for it. it's the woman's prerogative to take longer, but the company shouldn't be obligated to hold the position for her.
2. right now, some companies have paid, others unpaid. others have disability which pays for 60%. would be nice to have disability offered at each company that pays 100%.
3. i don't think it's the company's obligation to pay any maternity leave. if all companies did that, they'd probably tank, since payroll is a significant portion of expenses. i do think i would want to require them to offer s/t disability to the mother....my company doesn't offer any.
4. non-birthing parent - i'd say similar benefits, but not as much time off. part of the time off is for the mother to recover. if the woman didn't give birth, we should shave off 4 weeks. but they still need to bond with the kid.

If the States paternity leave was similar to Sweden, I would be on the first flight home. It doesn't even have to be half as long (I'd be happy for 1/4 the amount), I just wish it was more family friendly. For instance, here both parents have an automatic 10 days paid leave (without notice) when the baby is born, regardless of marriage. There is also no fear of losing your job or "feeling guilty" for taking paternity leave, and fathers are *required* to take 60 days of paid leave (that's not including the first 10 days). Then there's a remaining 360 days of paid leave to divvy up as you please (which can be taken within 8 years).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7202694.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

My perspective on this is a little different both because I work in politics and see the value for society of having mothers spend time with their newborns, and because I am the daughter of the owner of a very small business and know how mandatory maternity leave policies would cost him. The firm I currently work with only has three employees besides me and does not have a maternity leave policy - so that means that I have to do a lot of saving so that I can afford to have time off.

I very often hear about all the good in other countries' systems, but what you don't always hear about is how difficult that makes it for mothers to change jobs. Mandatory maternity leave policies can hurt women who are trying to get a job while pregnant, or trying to find a new job, or get promoted, because the companies know that they will have to pay for someone to sub in for that person while they're out on maternity leave for a year. I wish that mandatory maternity leave didn't have the effect that it can have on women's ability both to work and to receive promotions. This is particularly hard on women earning low wages, because they can't afford to NOT work, and desperately need the position.

1) I think the current system of 3 months of guaranteed leave is good. I know at my firm, they would have to hire someone to do my work while I'm out for maternity leave, and we are much too small a firm to qualify for FMLA, but I would like the requirements of holding your job for you to be extended to smaller businesses, I just don't know how to make that happen without bankrupting small businesses. Which really bothers me because many small businesses are owned by women and I would hate to see their businesses go away.
2) I think this is something that should be set by the employers - I know that if I were to find a job that I liked as much as my current one that paid maternity leave, I'd go after that job in a heartbeat. So this is one way that truly savvy companies have found to attract high-quality women to work for them.
3) See above. As much as I personally would LOVE to not have to use my personal savings for maternity leave as I am planning to, I am also very aware of the tightness of budgets on EVERY government level. I'm also aware that bringing in more revenue through tax increases can't cut it right now, because there are so many people already struggling. I have a hard time saying that the federal government should fund a program of this enormous proportion when social security and medicare are going bankrupt and our national debt keeps skyrocketing. I would like for employers of a certain size to be mandated to provide short-term disability insurance options - obviously this wouldn't help me because our firm is so small that we likely wouldn't qualify, but this is a good way for me (for example) to pay into an insurance plan and then get paid for the time that I'm out on leave.
4) Again, I think this is where good employers are figuring it out. My husband's company has been very good about providing time off to new dads. Good leave policies are a great way to attract good employees - just as flexible work hours and ability to work from home attract good employees. These are things that I am seeing more and more companies adopt, and as a result, their bottom lines are increasing because they retain employees longer and their employees are more happy, thus productive. Working Mother magazine has had some great articles on these topics.

@Kemma: i agree with your first point re: how mother's probably wouldn't be productive after having a kid and shouldn't have to be penalized for wanting to have children. but the problem is how do we actually FUND the program? there's a reason why social security and medicare is FAILING badly. it's hard to keep funding when there's no other income being generated. you know? it's not realistic. unless the mother could somehow generate funds, the government can't be giving free money, like welfare (which i think way too many people abuse) - i think i turned republican over the past few years.

@mamabolt - that's the problem - everyone thinks everything should be funded by the government - but who ultimately pays for that? the taxpayers. no offense, i don't want to pay for other people's maternity leave. i don't want my ss and medicare taxes to pay for other people's so that when i get to that age, i get no money! people want the government to pay for everything. that's why we're in a major major major deficit. and the people running the government are inefficient too! spending on drivers, nice offices, high salaries - that's another topic.

@beka - you said it! re: point #3. and i guess you're right in the sense that if a company wants to attract good people and thus, offer good benefits, paid leave is something that people would find attractive - but that offer is the prerogative of the company and should not have to be enforced.

I would just like to adopt the british system here, where women have paid maternity leave (paid by the government through the employer)
-We should have atleast 6 months maternity leave (during which employer cannot fire the mom), the current 12 weeks provided by FMLA is sooooo not acceptable.
I dont think the husband should get the same amount of time off, because then the system would be crippled. If the mom gets 6 months off I think the father should get about 2 weeks. {Bear in mind I havent had a baby yet so i dont know how much time off is enough for the father}

@tequiero21: I see your point about not wanting to pay for other peoples' maternity leave, via tax dollars. However right now taxes are paying for people who are chronic users of welfare and social services. I would much rather have stricter regulations on other social services and be able to provide mothers with maternity leave, than continue to fund social services for deadbeats.
(On a side note I think drug testing welfare recipients is AWESOME, and also think that welfare money should be tied to the school attendance of any kids under 18 who are in the home or are dependents of the recipient.)

@mrstilly: i concur!

@tequiero21: I think if big companies would pay fair wages people wouldn't be as dependent on the government.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walmart-ceo-pay-hour-workers-year/story?id=11067470#.TwXim9SPlc4
There's no reason a company as big as walmart should have people on welfare. That store and a lot of big stores like it are a drain on society. They make people work full time but don't give them enough that meets anyone's standards for living.
Fox News supports maternity leave, Megyn Kelly even went as far to call it barbaric that it wasn't paid leave for all women.

I don't really understand how the medical part of it can be set to a standard time. At my company, it's 8 weeks paid for regular delivery, 12 weeks paid for C-Section. Anything else goes under FMLA or long term disability. Isn't every person different? Shouldn't doctors determine what the necessary medical amount is?

Furthermore, I think we should distinguish that this time is about healing, but it's also about bonding. As someone who is using a surrogate due to a medical condition, I will have two weeks paid, period. I had more time off when I had my tonsils out. My husband will get no time at all. So the choice is to save up vacation days then take an unpaid leave or put a newborn in daycare.

I am not saying that in any way I will need the recovery time that a birth mother will, but I am saying that my child deserves the right to a semblance of a schedule.

As for who pays the salary, I think it's interesting what some people have brought up about time spent at the company, or the ability to work part-time. It's obviously not an easy solution, but it does make for interesting, and important, debate.

1) How much leave would you give off to new moms? (i.e. how many weeks or months)

6 months - 1 year (the choice of the mother)

2) How much of the leave would be paid, and what percentage of salary would moms receive?

(6 months paid, latter 6 paid at a % of salary)

3) Who would pay for the salary?

(The first six months - should be a combo of company + governent | the latter should be by government)

4) What about the non-birthing parent... would they get the same benefits?

I think the non-birthing parent should get at least 3 months - 6 months.

As with PPs, I believe maternity/paternity leave is a time of both physical healing and bonding with the child. I think that good tax-payers should have this as part of the benefits they receive from the government. I also think there should be some programs (at a fraction) thta give some sort of benefit to those who choose not to have children. They shouldn't be punished for choosing not to procreate. This is all a utopic situation that obviously will not happen in my lifetime.

1) How much leave would you give off to new moms? (i.e. how many weeks or months)
- I would require companies to hold the positions of "primary caregivers" (whether or not they give birth) for 3 months. I can understand that for some companies, more than that is just unrealistic. However, I think this should go for ALL companies, not just ones with more than 50 employees, and it should go for all "primary caregivers," not just women or women who give birth.
2) How much of the leave would be paid, and what percentage of salary would moms receive?
- Employers would be required to pay 100% of their salary for the full three months.
3) Who would pay for the salary?
- I'm not sure... I think it would be split between the company and the government.
4) What about the non-birthing parent... would they get the same benefits?
- "Secondary caregivers" would get 2 months 100% paid and would be able to take it non-continuously.

@Rock n Roll: Yes, they would just pick. I mean, after they have both taken leave, then it wouldn't really matter, but I feel like parental leave shouldn't be based on gender.