FMLA: Once again America is rather behind the times

[Swordfish]

Yes, but would your advice to them be 'just don't have children'?

Certainly it would be better if there were fewer children living in abject poverty in third world countries, wouldn't you agree?

Still not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand.

I want to know whether your point is 'anyone can save up to have children if they just get their act together' or 'some people will never have the money, so they shouldn't have children, period'. Since there seems to be some delusions that 'there aren't people in the states who can't get out of their poverty', I'm asking from a third world perspective because I assume you wouldn't argue that anyone in a third world country could get a job if they wanted, etc., even if you're still convinced that anybody in the US being able to make ends meet given the will to do so.

If people in third world countries, or any other countries, cannot afford to raise children then I am not in favor of them having children.

I think that there are plenty of people in this country who cannot, and will never be able to, afford to raise children.

I would like it very much if these people avoided having children.

Who are 'we', here, exactly? Because I'm certainly *not* going to tell my kids that (or practice that method myself).

Then you should be prepared to deal with the potential consequences.

You know, rather than asking other people to deal with them for you.

[Jaxom 1974]

And those people cannot afford to have children, and should therefor be doing everything they can to avoid it.

Somehow this sounds like some sort of economic Darwinism.

I can't claim that Mrs. Jax and I have saved the way some people think we should have before we finally got pregnant, but I'll be damned if I'm going to listen to anyone who says we shouldn't have done it because we don't have the money in the bank.

Am I slightly distressed that we'll lose her income when she's out on leave? Hell yes. Would I have been upset if we had that magical 8 months of money in the bank anyway? Hell yes.

We manage our money the best we can right now and I think it's getting better all the time, but it obviously isn't at the level that some people here believe in, but we come from good families and have sturcture to our lives and we'll make it by and we'll have a happy, healthy child in the process.

[Swordfish]

Somehow this sounds like some sort of economic Darwinism.

I can't claim that Mrs. Jax and I have saved the way some people think we should have before we finally got pregnant, but I'll be damned if I'm going to listen to anyone who says we shouldn't have done it because we don't have the money in the bank.

Am I slightly distressed that we'll lose her income when she's out on leave? Hell yes. Would I have been upset if we had that magical 8 months of money in the bank anyway? Hell yes.

We manage our money the best we can right now and I think it's getting better all the time, but it obviously isn't at the level that some people here believe in, but we come from good families and have sturcture to our lives and we'll make it by and we'll have a happy, healthy child in the process.

Then I would submit that it doesn't sound like you fall into the category of people who can't afford to have kids.

Really, is this such a complicated concept?

[mashiara]

Wow, this thread went off in a completely different direction that I thought it would.

Sometimes pregnancies might occur even if haven't planned for them, even if you were careful and responsible. Sometimes there might be complications that will eat up your savings before you actually have the baby. I don't know about you but I've noticed that often things don't go as planned. It used to worry me no end because I'm a compulsive planner but I'm starting to accept that there are some things that you have to take the way they come.

On the original topic, I can only speak for civil servants in Greece and we are indeed in a privileged condition. If I get pregnant I'll be getting 2 months of paid leave prior to giving birth and another 3 afterwards. I also have two options after the three months are up. I either take an additional 9 months off, fully paid, or I get to work reduced hours for the next 2 years, without this affecting my pay.

I don't feel like someone else will be burdened with paying for my maternity leave. In the ten years I've been employed I've seen truly hefty amounts withheld from my salary each month for health insurance purposes and I hardy ever needed my insurance so far. So I feel I've already contributed the money that I will be getting back.

[TrackerNeil]

I would characterize a business that is forced by the government to transfer money to an employee who is not working as having to pay "a handout."

So, by that logic, I guess you consider COBRA a handout? And workers' compensation?

[AquariumDrinker]

So, by that logic, I guess you consider COBRA a handout? And workers' compensation?

No, that's insurance. Kinda different.

[mouse]

First, thanks for the congratulations, Tracker and Ro.

I would characterize a business that is forced by the government to transfer money to an employee who is not working as having to pay "a handout."

Of course, the FMLA doesn't require businesses to transfer money to employees. (I realize that the debate is whether it ought to so require.) The FMLA requires certain businesses to offer up to 12 weeks unpaid leave for a qualifying event.

And let's remember that it's not the "Family Leave Act." It's the "Family and Medical Leave Act." And childbirth is, in fact, a medical event that requires time away from work. Not 12 weeks, I admit - I think it's 4 weeks to recover from a vaginal delivery and 6 weeks to recover from a C section.

(And, lest anyone counter that, oh, but childbirth is a voluntary medical event, I know the old-timers here remember that I once was a kidney donor. Same sort of voluntary medical event - entirely in my control and discretion. Yet I did get FMLA leave - and disability pay - for that.)

Now, if businesses decide that they wanted to pay 6 weeks' (or however many) paid parental leave on their own, to attract qualified employees, I'm all good with that. In fact, many businesses do this. As we've heard, there are some that are even more generous.

That's true, but the problem is that many of the employers who offer more attractive leave policies are offering them to the people who may need paid leave least -- educated people, likely with a good salary, and more likely to have enough in savings to take unpaid leave. I doubt that Wal-Mart, say, is ever voluntarily going to offer the minimum wage cashiers paid maternity/paternity leave so that it can attract the most qualified cashiers.

[potsherds]

In general, the idea that *everyone* can make it if they just want is the great myth of our age, but it's sad to see people in here subscribe to it so uncritically. The notion that millions of people go hungry every day because they can't be arsed to do anything else is just boggling.

It really should be no surprise that those in this thread that ascribe to this ridiculous myth are, one and all, American.

[Eponine]

Going back to the beginning:

Sweden has 16 months of paid leave. Bulgaria has 2 years, of which the first is paid 100%. Lithuania has almost 2 years, with the first being paid 100%.

This seems excessive and problematic. Maybe not such a problem for jobs with little education involved, or for huge companies with constant incoming business, but horrendous for small businesses relying on specifically educated employees.

I previously worked for an electrical engineering company with about 20 employees, and I can't imagine how a situation like this would have worked out. So someone gets pregnant and is on their two years of leave. Does everyone else bust their asses for two years? I can deal with 12 weeks of extra work for the good of society, but you'd better believe that I'm going to resent two years of increased workload. No one is so much "the best and brightest" that they're worth two paid years of leave to a company with 20 people. Does someone else get hired to fill in? So now you have to train a new person, negating the benefit of not having to retrain the old person when she comes back. And if the company hasn't grown much in two years? Who gets fired?

[Angalin]

<mod gloves>

The topic is family and, as mouse pointed out (congrats! btw :)), medical leave in the US; specifically parental leave. Stay on-topic and away from personal attacks and inflammatory generalizations, please.

</mod gloves>

[Altherion]

Sweden has 16 months of paid leave. Bulgaria has 2 years, of which the first is paid 100%. Lithuania has almost 2 years, with the first being paid 100%.

This seems excessive and problematic. Maybe not such a problem for jobs with little education involved, or for huge companies with constant incoming business, but horrendous for small businesses relying on specifically educated employees.

2008 fertility rates for various countries

Sweden: 1.67

Bulgaria: 1.48

Lithuania: 1.22

There is no doubt that these very long leaves (paid and otherwise) are disruptive and have a negatively impact on productivity for exactly the reasons that you speak of, but what is the alternative? The US not only has a 2.1 fertility rate (which is equal to what is necessary for replacement), but also a massive influx of immigrants. It doesn't really need such parent-friendly policies because people are having children anyway and they somehow make do. In Eastern Europe (and to some extent the rest of Europe as well), people need to be encouraged to have children and since there is no stick that applies here, all the government can do is offer progressively larger carrots.

[Guest thebadlady]

The US's FMLA plan should be more like the european models. Woman should not have to suffer professionally to give birth. Better educated people should be encouraged to procreate. Someone has already mentioned how this is an investment and it is - we need to invest in babies and children so when they get older they don't feel desperate for their needs.

Hell, we should have the euro model for vacation and sick days period. More bank holidays would make much happier employees.

Every place I worked, we had a temp come in during family leave time and they left when the person came back. No biggie.

[Shryke]

2008 fertility rates for various countries

Sweden: 1.67

Bulgaria: 1.48

Lithuania: 1.22

There is no doubt that these very long leaves (paid and otherwise) are disruptive and have a negatively impact on productivity for exactly the reasons that you speak of, but what is the alternative? The US not only has a 2.1 fertility rate (which is equal to what is necessary for replacement), but also a massive influx of immigrants. It doesn't really need such parent-friendly policies because people are having children anyway and they somehow make do. In Eastern Europe (and to some extent the rest of Europe as well), people need to be encouraged to have children and since there is no stick that applies here, all the government can do is offer progressively larger carrots.

Please stop this. Most countries (I'd say all but, hey, maybe there's one or two) don't have good parental leave because of birth rates. They do it as part of a social safety net.

[Shryke]

And childbirth is, in fact, a medical event that requires time away from work.

Exactly. Child Birth is just another medical event and paternity leave is just medical leave.

Although, in actual fact, it's more important medical leave since your giving leave for 2 people.

[Celtigo]

Please stop this. Most countries (I'd say all but, hey, maybe there's one or two) don't have good parental leave because of birth rates. They do it as part of a social safety net.

Off the top of my head both Italy and France instituted a number of policies designed to encourage women to have more children. It wouldn't surprise me if lengthy maternity leave was a part of the package.

A quick google came up with this map w/ blurbs for some of the more populous/wealthy EU countries and Norway:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4837422.stm#italy

I don't quite get the anger at the point. Europe's demographics make it more likely the governments would want to encourage higher fertility levels. This has little to do with the argument as to whether maternity/paternity leave should be at a certain length of time or quality for societal benefit/morality.

[Altherion]

Please stop this. Most countries (I'd say all but, hey, maybe there's one or two) don't have good parental leave because of birth rates. They do it as part of a social safety net.

Three months is part of a social safety net, two years is an incentive for people to reproduce. How many countries with fertility rates above replacement can you think of that have paid maternity leave of 1 year or longer?

[Celtigo]

Going back to the beginning:

Sweden has 16 months of paid leave. Bulgaria has 2 years, of which the first is paid 100%. Lithuania has almost 2 years, with the first being paid 100%.

This seems excessive and problematic. Maybe not such a problem for jobs with little education involved, or for huge companies with constant incoming business, but horrendous for small businesses relying on specifically educated employees.

I previously worked for an electrical engineering company with about 20 employees, and I can't imagine how a situation like this would have worked out. So someone gets pregnant and is on their two years of leave. Does everyone else bust their asses for two years? I can deal with 12 weeks of extra work for the good of society, but you'd better believe that I'm going to resent two years of increased workload. No one is so much "the best and brightest" that they're worth two paid years of leave to a company with 20 people. Does someone else get hired to fill in? So now you have to train a new person, negating the benefit of not having to retrain the old person when she comes back. And if the company hasn't grown much in two years? Who gets fired?

I agree. I think the US could certainly improve its maternal/paternal leave policies, but not to the level where positions must be held open for 2 years. I cannot imagine a law firm (the environment at which I'm most familiar) keeping open a very expensive, competitive slot for two years. This goes beyond what I'd consider a reasonable accommodation.

[Shryke]

Three months is part of a social safety net, two years is an incentive for people to reproduce. How many countries with fertility rates above replacement can you think of that have paid maternity leave of 1 year or longer?

Low Fertility is highly correlated with an educated, healthy and happy population.

A Social safety net is also highly correlated with an educated, healthy and happy population.

Social Safety nets and low fertility rates are both generally functions of the same thing, a stable 1st world country.

Also, I agree that 2 years is excessive. Some countries really push it up high to try and counter birth rate issues. But the idea of parental leave is a pretty basic social safety net thing. It's gonna be there no matter what the fertility rate is.

EDIT: To make the point clearer, the US's piddly like 6 weeks of maternity leave has essentially NOTHING to do with it's fertility rate and everything to do with it's abhorrence, on a political level, of social safety nets.

[Filippa Eilhart]

in Poland, at least, the maternity leave isn't paid from taxes, it's paid from your insurance premiums. The only difference being it's a state insurance plan, not private, and so it's duration and amount is regulated by the state.

[TrackerNeil]

Exactly. And COBRA is hardly a handout in any way, as the employee is paying 100% of their premium. Worker's compensation is pure insurance.

I believe employers have to pay some premium to keep the plan available through COBRA, even if employees pay premiums themselves.

As to workers' comp, the fact that it's insurance makes no difference in this regard. The employer must shell out money that is (at times) transferred to employers who have not "earned" it. That would seem a handout by your definition, Chataya. Also, unless I am mistaken, employers also pay a portion of the Social Security tax, and unemployment insurance as well. All of these are "handouts", and yet businesses who endure them have not yet crumbled.