FMLA: Once again America is rather behind the times

[Joanna vander Poele]

Den - severely irresponsible people (say, crack smokers) who have children tend to have them taken away by child protective services. "Irresponsible but not criminally so" people (say, people who buy more house than they can afford and end up getting foreclosed on) create an interesting learning experience for their children.

That's a rather euphemistic way of saying things.

[Guest Raidne]

On the OP, FMLA is hopelessly outdated. It was a compromise bill when it was passed - the supporters wanted paid leave, not unpaid.

I personally want this:

(1) 12 weeks paid parental leave. For any parent. The point is to allow new parents a reasonable amount of time to bond with and adjust to caring for their new child.

(2) The leave will be paid by the government, not the employer, so self-employed persons would be covered.

(3) The amount of pay will be the amount the person filed as their income from wages on the previous year's tax returns. Obviously, income from capital gains won't count, so we would not be paying Bill Gates $5 million a day.

(4) Where there is a married couple, the amount of pay will be capped at the wages of the least-paid partner.

The other thing is, what about the other issues covered by FMLA, like being able to take time off to care for a dying parent?

[Angalin]

Raidne - what's the current FMLA policy for being a caregiver for someone in the family who's dying? When I talk to people who come from outside North America/UK, elderly parents are often living with them already or close by with frequent visits; nursing homes are mostly unheard of.

It does seem silly to have "family time" in a corporate context mean only a person's children and exclude parents. Aging or dying parents aren't easy going either.

Also, when you say "12 weeks paid parental leave. For any parent", do you mean both parents get leave per baby or just that either parent can take the twelve weeks?

[MinDonner]

I always thought the maternity leave regulations were made in recognition of the fact that society is no longer set up for a default system of Husband Works, Wife Takes Care Of Kiddies; it may have been the norm 30 years ago for Mum to quit her job when junior was born, but now it's really really not, and in fact I suspect most families now require 2 incomes to afford the same housing (etc) that my parents managed with one. The libertarian types on the board are always bringing up the fact that we pay SUCH high taxes over here, and well, this is one of the payoffs. Whether or not I end up having kids, it's worth knowing that I'm paying towards a system that has bothered to adapt to the changing needs of society and isn't just relying on, eg, some pie-in-the-sky notion of how everyone should have X amount of savings (especially as recent governments have made saving SO attractive with their enlightened financial policies).

And really, is it actually an argument to say "some people abuse this system, so the system is obviously crap". Do you make the same claims for democracy? Or capitalism?

[Galactus]

look at the election coverage stuff where it shows how few states subsidize the rest. New York can't support Alabama forever.

I'll just point out that this is true for just about any jurisdiction. I bet if you go down far enough you could see it in your local town, IE: Some parts of it subsidize other parts. This is not unique for the US by any means, the only real difference is that the state governments are a bit more free to do their own thing (including mistakes)

[Snarfy]

Im gonna add my view here.

It is not up to the government to pay a group money simply because they don't feel they should take a hit in their income just because they got knocked up. If you are incapable of planning or wrapping its not thier fault.

The government is a reflection of the people's will, and if the vast majority of people want an over the top parental system that's their choice. Also rape victims is also another matter entirely, but i don't think that's being discussed here.

It is also not the job of the employer to pay your way for any amount of time, although holding your job for 6-8 weeks is not unreasonable. Businesses are there to run a business not be your personal lap dog that caters to your every need. Its a mutually beneficial arrangement, you do labour they need and they give you the means to live as compensation, when it stops being mutually beneficial than the business has no obligation to give you squat. Now that being said i get paid parental leave from work for a certain time I'm not sure what, but i understand it to be a significant amount of time. That was negotiated by my union on my behalf and that's why i give them money every month. It is up to employers to negotiate these things with their employee. This process is called bargaining.

Being self employed is a choice, and i grew up with a self employed Father who ran a number of successful small businesses. He gave up a promising Career with a large company to start his own business and it paid off for him, that was a choice he made, and it worked for him. Also it seems to me their are also a number of social programs that already fill this void anyway whether its Canadian EI, or the Polish insurance policy mentioned earlier, an as such there is no need to create another program for this.

That being said if you truly can't afford the child than it is a matter of social assistance. Yes if your a low income earner than you should get help from the government, but i find the idea that you should get help just because you had a child as stupid and irresponsible. As in child income supplements and such based on yearly income are good, but like the signs in the amusement park read, "you must be ____ this poor to ride the free money cars".

If you want the government to pay for your maternity leave just because don't want to a cut in lifestyles than too bad so sad. Help should be given to those who are needy not those who are just greedy.

Basically im saying this, if your poor the government should help pay your maternity leave, if your not poor, than they should direct you to your financial planner.

Edit: my sister pointed out to me my argument was unintentionally sexist, if the women is by herself that should be taken into account, and also the father should be forced to pay upto 50% of her wages, and if he isn't in the picture than the government should step in and pay his share.

[Guest Raidne]

Now that being said i get paid parental leave from work for a certain time I'm not sure what, but i understand it to be a significant amount of time. That was negotiated by my union on my behalf and that's why i give them money every month. It is up to employers to negotiate these things with their employee. This process is called bargaining.

Yes, unions were an alternative to better employment law for a long time - we substituted an adversarial labor/management system for using the law to protect employees.

That, in many cases, tended to lead to corruption and was, in many cases, worse for business than the employee protection laws would have been.

Also, unions have a storied of history of sexism and haven't given a shit about parental leave until quite recently.

If you want the government to pay for your maternity leave just because don't want to a cut in lifestyles than too bad so sad. Help should be given to those who are needy not those who are just greedy.

Basically im saying this, if your poor the government should help pay your maternity leave, if your not poor, than they should direct you to your financial planner.

It's not that simple, unless you're against sick leave. For a certain time period, up to six weeks, sometimes longer, maternity leave is physically necessary for the women who gave birth. It's no different than any other sick or disability leave.

[Galactus]

The entire debate of generalized vs. specific welfare is an interesting philosophical debate on it's own.

[Snarfy]

Yes, unions were an alternative to better employment law for a long time - we substituted an adversarial labor/management system for using the law to protect employees.

That, in many cases, tended to lead to corruption and was, in many cases, worse for business than the employee protection laws would have been.

Also, unions have a storied of history of sexism and haven't given a shit about parental leave until quite recently.

Unions, like government, are representative of there base, saying a union is sexist is pointless unless its the base itself saying this. If that's the case than the union has no choice but to confirm to its new standards.

Well unions are excessively far from perfect, that is another subject and if you wish to start that debate i would happily join it and spend hours ranting how they piss me off. But that doesn't change the historical impact organized labour has had in ensuring that workers get a fair shake.

It's not that simple, unless you're against sick leave. For a certain time period, up to six weeks, sometimes longer, maternity leave is physically necessary for the women who gave birth. It's no different than any other sick or disability leave.

Sick leave and parental leave are totally different issues. Medical problems are not a choice. You did not choose to get cancer or have lasting problem from childbirth, but you did choose to have sex that might result in a child, so any expense incurred by the child is different than any expense incurred by medical procedures (including delivery, and any time you must spend in the hospital as a result of pregnancy before or after regardless of time passed). Yes deliveries are a part of childbirth anyway but i believe that you should never have to pay for any basic medal procedure in anyway other than a set medical premium based on income within reason. Also and medical problem resulting from pregnancy that don't require hospitalizations including drug subscriptions should also be covered under medical imho.

Edit: Oh and i would like to say that the idea that poverty is a choice is the biggest line of BS i have ever heard in my life.

[Guest Raidne]

Unions, like government, are representative of there base, saying a union is sexist is pointless unless its the base itself saying this. If that's the case than the union has no choice but to confirm to its new standards.

Well unions are excessively far from perfect, that is another subject and if you wish to start that debate i would happily join it and spend hours ranting how they piss me off. But that doesn't change the historical impact organized labour has had in ensuring that workers get a fair shake.

It may surprise you to know that government was also sexist well past the time period where women were finally given the right to vote? There's this whole concept called tyranny of the majority you might look into, particularly relevant in unions where men vastly outnumbered women (and still do). One's voice does not become pointless just because one is in the minority - that's the idea behind the whole concept of majority rights.

I am, generally, pro-union (I mean, please, I'm from Michigan and have worked as pro-plaintiff labor and employment attorney), but acknowledge that it's likely to be the answer moving forward, and thereby contest your argument that unions can be counted on to successfully negotiate parental leave moving forward. As such, we will have to turn to employment law, because the only reason we don't have more employment law is that our legal theory on the subject was premised on the success the unions.

This is all I'm trying to say. Whether unions are bad or good is, for the most part, immaterial. The material thing is that they are trending toward failure, and that we need to look to other solutions.

Sick leave and parental leave are totally different issues. Medical problems are not a choice.

Some of them are. If you crush your spine skydiving, your workplace isn't going to deny you sick leave.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Looks like the discussion hasn't advanced much over the weekend. I am still waiting for

1. Proof (quantifiable, objective) that the European System "works". Not that it is enacted without bankruptcy, but that it has tangible, demonstrable benefit.

2. Proof that the US system is a failure. Show me the tangible detriment to not having a European system.

The OP posited that the Euro system was better and the US system worse. On what criteria are we judging this? It seems to me that this board automatically assumes European > US in any given program. I want to see some numbers.

[Cuellar]

Thankfully I'm in california.

I think the argument boils down to 3 points:

1) Knocked up people aren't in the medical state to work. Saying "you choose to do it" is like saying "you choose to ski so when you break your leg, no sick time for you".

2) It benefits society to provide FMLA. Specifically, middle-income workers and upper income are the most likely to use it, therefore encouraging the people you WANT to have kids help a society. Lower income people already have FMLA - welfare... they quit their job, go on welfare for a year or two, then find another job when they're ready to work... and they end up with the same shit job they had before.

3) Holding critical jobs sucks for companies. There is no getting around this unless you operate at lower productivity like Europe, basically you make up for it by having too many people at your company. This may actually get a lot better in the future as more companies move ot flexible work arangements. 6 months of lost productivity from a key worker is better than losing that worker period, especially for critical positions. I think it's pretty accepted that white collar jobs have 6 months to a year of no productivity when they bring on a new hire.

Regarding the last point, I think the biggest problem isn't the lost productivity or cost to the business, it is that most US business are run by WASPs, who simply have to retire before the work environment changes to be more flexible and productive. The same shitheads who make everyone wear suits every day, or fly across the country for a meeting, are the same people think that they shouldn't have to plan for a worker going on leave. They grew up in a work environment where workers were a dime a dozen, and if you lost one, you replaced them... fuck your employees and their morale. The whole concept of human resources is something they didn't really grow up with.

Another 20 years and all of the baby boomers will be out of the work force... and another 20 years from then, the people they trained will be gone as well. You'll probably at that point see a massive increase in productivity as companies shift to silicon valley style work environments.

[Swordfish]

Thankfully I'm in california.

I think the argument boils down to 3 points:

1) Knocked up people aren't in the medical state to work. Saying "you choose to do it" is like saying "you choose to ski so when you break your leg, no sick time for you".

2) It benefits society to provide FMLA. Specifically, middle-income workers and upper income are the most likely to use it, therefore encouraging the people you WANT to have kids help a society. Lower income people already have FMLA - welfare... they quit their job, go on welfare for a year or two, then find another job when they're ready to work... and they end up with the same shit job they had before.

3) Holding critical jobs sucks for companies. There is no getting around this unless you operate at lower productivity like Europe, basically you make up for it by having too many people at your company. This may actually get a lot better in the future as more companies move ot flexible work arangements. 6 months of lost productivity from a key worker is better than losing that worker period, especially for critical positions. I think it's pretty accepted that white collar jobs have 6 months to a year of no productivity when they bring on a new hire.

Regarding the last point, I think the biggest problem isn't the lost productivity or cost to the business, it is that most US business are run by WASPs, who simply have to retire before the work environment changes to be more flexible and productive. The same shitheads who make everyone wear suits every day, or fly across the country for a meeting, are the same people think that they shouldn't have to plan for a worker going on leave. They grew up in a work environment where workers were a dime a dozen, and if you lost one, you replaced them... fuck your employees and their morale. The whole concept of human resources is something they didn't really grow up with.

Another 20 years and all of the baby boomers will be out of the work force... and another 20 years from then, the people they trained will be gone as well. You'll probably at that point see a massive increase in productivity as companies shift to silicon valley style work environments.

Can't argue with that 'logic'.

:rolleyes:

[Angalin]

1) Knocked up people aren't in the medical state to work. Saying "you choose to do it" is like saying "you choose to ski so when you break your leg, no sick time for you".

Just a follow-up on this: when a woman gets pregnant, planned or not, she and everyone else make the assumption that the pregnancy is going to run smoothly and that she'll be able to work almost until her due date. While that assumption is correct a lot of the time, there's a sizable minority of cases where she has to stop working well before it. Pregnancy and childbirth might be natural processes, but that doesn't mean they're straightforward. :/ Nobody asks to be put on bed rest from 20 weeks.

[Cuellar]

Stress of work and such add to the liklihood of using drugs to induce pregnancy and also the risk of issues.

[Lord Mord]

TM,

I think the reason the European system is better is that it's fairer. Men can get children, and of their own blood at that, without having to miss a single day if they wanted, and put in at work every day and their career couldn't have suffered less by the time it's all done. But women, just because nature's chance has outfitted them with actually carrying the children, don't have that luxury. If men get to make the choice of "both" with impunity, why not women?

Are we going to pretend we don't have the option to so grant them?

[Swordfish]

TM,

I think the reason the European system is better is that it's fairer. Men can get children, and of their own blood at that, without having to miss a single day if they wanted, and put in at work every day and their career couldn't have suffered less by the time it's all done. But women, just because nature's chance has outfitted them with actually carrying the children, don't have that luxury. If men get to make the choice of "both" with impunity, why not women?

I don't follow your point here. How is the european system allowing women to do 'both' where both entails having children without actually carrying them?

How specifically is the european system making this playing field more level?

Are we going to pretend we don't have the option to so grant them?

Unless there is some surgical procedure available that I am unaware of, it isn't pretending.

[Myrddin]

Again, your really not understanding the concept.

No matter how good an idea it is, some people WON'T FUCKING DO IT.

And these people will have kids anyway.

And you're not really understanding the concept.

The people who are doing it (whatever the good idea is) are getting tired of paying for the people who are not doing it.

Road, bridges, schools, blah blah blah. These are things society is built on. Without them, there is no economy and not much of a modern society. Maternity leave beyond a certain amount of time is great for the kids and much better than daycare, but it's also much more in the "optional" range of social services. Thus why there is disagreement over the length of what is decent maternity leave and how much of that should be paid by others.

You know. A debate between people with different ideas. Not a gang bang between people who "know better" and the "uninformed" who haven't drank the kool-aid yet.

Telling me I need to pay more because others aren't responsible is not a valid arguement. "It's the right thing to do" is not a compelling one either, and not because I'm a cold hearted-bastard. Unless there's a system in place not to reward unemployeed people from having artifical ensemination for 8 kids, I don't want any part of supporting her. It's human nature to exploit a system.

I have two kids. My wife took 12 weeks off for each of them, part of it unpaid (I don't remember the amount of weeks). It depended on how many days of vacation she had saved up (ie Insurance paid for x amount of days, then she took "vacation", then she took unpaid days until the 12 week time was up). When we got pregnant the first time, we sat down and figured out our finances. How much we had, how much we needed to save, decided if we could afford to stay in our current house and still pay for daycare, etc. So we tightened out belts and made it happen.

[Lord Mord]

Swordfish,

I don't follow your point here. How is the european system allowing women to do 'both' where both entails having children without actually carrying them?

How specifically is the european system making this playing field more level?

Is this not about giving women not merely maternity leave, but paid maternity leave -- and not eight weeks but twelve? So the "both" option is both child and livelihood/career.

The pretending bit is about pretending that it's not our option to permit a woman to choose both child and career.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I think the reason the European system is better is that it's fairer.

Not objective, not quantifiable. Show me some results. Give me some objective facts which show the European system leads to a better society directly linked to paid, as opposed to unpaid, maternity leave. Or, give me some objective facts which show negative results from unpaid maternity leave in the US.

And fairer to who? It doesn't seem fair for me, with no kids, to pay for someone else's kids. Nor would it seem fair if I demanded someone pay for mine, should I choose to have any.