Hellobee Boards

I'm back at work starting yesterday. I got more time than with M (2 weeks instead of 3 days)., but I feel like the expectation is now set that I will not disrupt my work for my children.

There's creeping expectations and it sets a bad precedent for other women in my division. I know this, but I feel like my career will be negatively impacted if I don't return early.

I know that I would be negatively impacted by a mandatory long leave (more than 8 weeks) because it would negatively and possibly irreparably affect my cases at work. I would hate to have anyone else, particularly a government entity, trying to force me to take more leave than I believe I need. Even though it is typically more progressive countries who have those policies, they strike me as incredibly sexist.

My company is very small - there are only two of us. We work very closely with a consultant whose daughter only took 2/3 of her available leave with her first child and then only five weeks with her second. I took my full year with DD1 and plan to do the same with DD2. My boss is 49 without children and really doesn't get it. She's made a number of comments about our consultant's daughter being able to go back so soon. I know my absence is hard for her (she has hired a temp replacement) but my family is #1. Besides after daycare for two I actually bring home more on leave than i do while working.

No, luckily in my company most women take the full 12 weeks allowed.

My OBGYN took 6 months and everyone wondered why she was coming back to work so "early".... I don't know anyone else IRL who has taken less than 9 months leave. It's all relative, I guess !

@Maysprout: I wouldn't be harmed in terms of advancement, as my firm is very understanding and accommodating. The firm would suffer because we're already handling as much work as we can per attorney, and it is not a big firm. As someone with an ownership interest in the firm, I am harmed when the firm is harmed. I'd imagine it'd be the same for any woman who has an ownership interest and works at a small company where there are no extra workers to spare, as you just can't get by for long when you're too short staffed.

As a comparison, a doctor in a large hospital may be able to easily take a long leave without any major effect on the hospital, but if she's part of a small private practice with 4 or less doctors, her absence is going require more drastic changes at her office. No matter what the law says about prohibiting pregnancy discrimination or requiring that employers work around longer leaves, some businesses will inevitably suffer if their key employees take extended leaves, and that will affect those employees too.

@MrsBananaGrabber: I hear you. I'm just expressing my frustration with my inability to obtain leave without negatively impacting my career. You'd think that in a large hospital setting that it would be easier-- but it is so not!

Here in the UK, women are allowed to take up to a year's leave (and now we can transfer that right to the father after the first 6 weeks). It is completely expected that a woman will take the full year and companies write this into their business plans/ budgets. People do take shorter leaves (I took 6 months because I couldn't afford to take any more) but nobody expects it..... it's just part of the culture here.

@MrsBananaGrabber: I completely - and respectfully - disagree with you. I think if a business employs women of childbearing age, they should plan financially for the cost of cover when she takes her maternity leave(s). In the country in which you live, it *isn't* the norm for women to take maternity leave and so of course your company hasn't financially planned for this.... but I would urge you to stop viewing what you do as the "totally correct and to-be-expected course of action" and perhaps push for them to consider this in annual plans going forward.

@Maysprout: I totally agree with you. When women cut their leave short because they're "so dedicated" and "taking one for the team" is DOES create an expectation that other woman should do the same. I would love to see some kick-ass legislation in your country to combat this.

@Mrs. Jacks: I'm so sorry you have to deal with this. I forget how lucky I am to live in the UK when I'm moaning about the tax I pay on petrol or sharing a ward when I go in to be induced! I hope for your daughters, the law changes in your country before they are of childbearing age..... but, to you, I just take my hat off! You provide great example to your kids.

I have not. But re: the general topic-- I didn't know that Canadian women got 1 year until HB and I was so confused as to how businesses could keep operating. Then one of the Canadian bees explained to me that it is expected and planned for that women take 1 year leaves, and so the position does not sit open waiting for someone to cover the work like we do in America... they hire a temp. So someone is covering that work (because it is worth it to hire someone for a year but not for 12 weeks), and that is also a great way for people to get their foot in the door and get experience in various jobs. Which actually makes a ton of sense! It seems like the Canadian way, once you plan for it, makes it EASIER on employers because they have time to train someone and they do train them, and they have someone covering that work, and then if/when they need to hire more people they also have a pool of people they have already tried out for a year.

@Cherrybee: whoa- I never said or implied that a shorter leave is the 'totally correct and to-be-expected course of action'. I said that I wouldn't want to be required to take a certain amount of leave that may be longer than I want, as described in the original post. I would never tell someone else how long their leave should be, and I would not want my country telling me how long mine should be.

Another woman in my company, in a less crucial position, just had a baby and has chosen (and we have allowed her) to take 6 months of leave. She's in a position where that is possible and we are doing everything we can to work around her. For her, it's the right decision. I am choosing to take a shorter leave, because that's what is best for me, my family, and the company that I partially own and have helped build. I believe I should have the right to make that choice without governmental interference.

@Cherrybee: thank you for the vote of confidence. It's easy to self-doubt in the moment.

@MrsBananaGrabber: I'm eligible for 3 months of 90% pay through my employer. There's just no one to cover me should I choose to exercise my right. So instead, I took the two weeks now and will take two months in our low season. It was the best I could negotiate given the short notice for our adoption.

@mae: That's how it works here in the UK too. I met my temporary replacement person a couple of months ago. I kind of feel bad that she'll be out of a job in a few months when I go back

@MrsBananaGrabber: I am a partner at a small firm and the other attorneys and staff make it work. It doesn't negatively Impact people (aside from that everyone chips in to cover things) and it certainly doesn't effect our clients. It's not like one person has to take on my full workload - it gets dispersed and handled.

@MrsBananaGrabber: I think the government wouldn't force you to take the leave, just to forfeit the pay if you don't take the whole time.

@MrsBananaGrabber: I guess my question is here is .if your business would be forced to shut down if you took a few months off for maternity leave, what would happen if one of the partners suffered a medical emergency and was unable to work for several months? Would the firm close or would you be able to make it work because you had to? I am a critical employee in a small (by NYC standards) and we make it work because it's important to everyone here to make it work.

Eta: I don't mean to single you out, I just often wonder if the idea that an employee is too critical to take leave is more of a product of the lack of value that our society places on maternity leave than anything else.

@Madison43: That's something we've had to discuss, since we are small and busy and 2 of our attorneys are over 50 (although obviously, anyone could have an emergency). If we couldn't find an experienced lateral within a few weeks who could step in right away and handle a full case load, we would have no choice but to transfer many of our ongoing cases to another firm in our practice area (which would cost us a huge amount, as so many of our cases are on a contingency basis). It sucks, but right now we're all handling the most we can reasonably handle, and dividing up 1 attorney's work to the few others would put those other attorneys at the point of being overworked where it would potentially be malpractice.