First!

Second, dammit!

What's fair? I'm not sure what's fair but each company has to decide what benefits they can afford to offer their employees. Potential employees, like yourself, make their decisions/choices based on those as well as other factors. Benefits, such as maternity leave, get better when companies want to compete for the best employees. I guess I think that's fair. Is it optimal for families planning to have a family? No...but I bet companies would think that "optimal" benefits for expecting families isn't fair to them.

Actually, that maternity leave policy does sound generous. Anything would be better than the non-existent maternity leave in the federal government. How do we pay for maternity leave? Sick time, vacation time and saving as much as you can (get rid of things you don't need like cable, eat out less, etc.) is how you do it.

That policy does seem pretty generous. Most companies I've come by "allow" you to use your accrued vacation or sick time for maternity leave. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying 3 paid weeks and 60% salary is better than anything I or my friends have encountered when we had our children.

Chris 1458 is right....You have a choice to not take the job if the benefits don't suit you. Fair is when both sides give up something and no side gets everything...

ditto 37 weeks...

By the way, I had 10 days with one of my kids. Someone had to teach my course after all. There was no maternity leave as University faculty were considered part time employees. This was a while ago. Hopefully, that university is better now.

Sick time, vacation time and saving as much as you can (get rid of things you don't need like cable, eat out less, etc.) is how you do it.

You mean that you have to sacrifice to give birth to children? Get use to it, you no longer will have a life but your children will!

I have worked for utilities for a while, and the pay isn't great, but the benefits are. When my first was born, almost 12 years ago, I was given 3 weeks off before my due date, 6 weeks medical after my child was born, and then the 6 months FMLA can be used (unpaid). I was home for 9 months, 8 with my daughter, since she was a week late. Most of my friends worked for higher salaries, but worse benefits.

This is generous compared to my Fortune 500 firm, which pays nothing while you are on maternity leave. And don't even think about paternity leave.

In 8 years at my job, I've accrued about 9 weeks worth of leave. I have to use that for maternity leave. The problem is, if I have another child, what do I use then??? There definitely will NOT be an 8 year gap b/w the two kids allowing me time to build up my leave again. We don't even have a leave share program. My only hope is that I time the birth juuuuust right so that I can use some of the leave at the end of the school year and then use the two months I have off in the summer to recover before going back to work full time in August.

I DO think that in comparison to other countries, we're getting the shaft when it comes to maternity leave and other such family affairs. We don't value family here like we should.

I think that weeks off at full pay followed by weeks with 60% pay is pretty darn nice and I WISH I had that option.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought you did not pay taxes on STD payments? So that 60% salary is closer to 90% after taxes. But I could be wrong.

I have very mixed thoughts about maternity leave. Perhaps because I have none. I work for the feds, and for all the talk I hear of great benefits, maternity leave is not there at all. You have to save all your leave for 2 years if you want 12 weeks off. That, or ask for donations.

There is an interesting topic... should you be able to get leave donations for a typical, no complication pregnany, delivery, and materinity leave? As someone who went through 6 months of chemo for cancer in her 3rd year of employement, I never had to ask for leave donations. It makes me wonder about folks who have a planned medical condition requiring leave.

To be honest, I think that company's policy is beyond generous. Paid maternity leave is a great perk, but it's just that -- an extra, something to make the job more appealing. It isn't a right.

And as much as a feminist as I am, I think that's how it should be. It's not your employer's job to help you afford another child. If you can't save enough to cover 40% of your salary for 9 weeks (or at least accrue some paid leave to cover that time), then maybe it's not wise to be having another child right now.

Seems to me that if the pay issues associated with maternity leave are so serious for the guest blogger, then perhaps she and her husband need to re-evaluate whether it is financially prudent to have a second child at all.

You have to be kidding me. This is a job offer, not a place to get paid for getting pregnant and staying home to take care of your baby. The problem I have with women today who demand to be treated as if being pregnant, having a baby, or even breast feeding is that you are not special. The company is in business (even non profits) to accomplish their mission. If you can't afford to stay home without any pay at all, don*t have babies. If you think companies owe you anything - especially as a new hire, you have been spoiled. How is what you want fair to single people who work, work, work and just take their sick days when they are sick, etc. Get real, lady.

RT you're correct. That is 60% of your gross pay, and no taxes taken out. If your using the company's health insurance you'll still need to pay for things like that though. And I agree, this plan sounds pretty good. My wife gets nothing paid from the company and can get use STD for up to six weeks after the baby is born, but only after using 3 weeks of her vacation time. So typically only 3 weeks get any money

I strongly believe that 6 weeks for women to recover from the physical of labor is a good start. But I do agree with previous posters that you have choices in where you work based on such factors as leave. There is sacrifice involved,and it does suck. It should change (especially for fed workers).

I'm very concerned about leave for dads. My husband's company offers him the option to take a couple sick days, and then his vacation time when the baby's born. Jeez, couldn't they spring for at least the hospital stay on them? A sleep-deprived employee isn't exactly an efficient one.

I hope this blogger realizes that she had some great options. Usually, maternity leave falls under the UNPAID FMLA. You use all of your PTO and then go unpaid if you can. Most companies I know of and the federal government work this way.

It's great that you had some generous benefits no matter which job you took.

After you read these posts your eyes will be opened to the fact that most companies do NOT offer paid maternity leave. You're on your own to save up your regular leave and money.

THe part of the story I'm having trouble with is how someone in their forties could not have any savings. PResumably she's been working for close to twenty years. During that time she saved nothing? There's more to this story than she's telling us. At that point I'd be more worired about having no retirement savings than how I was going to cover a short-term gap in my salary.

I think there are two issues here. First is maternity/paternity leave - the actual time off and the second is pay during that time. In the US we have FMLA which offers 12 weeks unpaid leave in companies with more than 50 employees. Compare that to other countries -- most African countries offer 14 weeks at 50-100% pay, in the Americas - Brazil is 120 days at 100% pay, Mexico 12 weeks at 100%, Venezuela 18 weeks at 100%, how about Asia -- Japan offers 14 weeks at 100%, India - 12 weeks at 100%, Saudi Arabia - 10 weeks at 50-100% - and most Europe offers 3-6 months at up to 100% pay. We are a great country in many ways -- but we are behind the world in supporting parents.

I live in Austria where you have to stop working when you are 7 months' pregnant and have to stay out until 8 weeks after baby's birth-- at full salary (paid by the public insurance.) By law your employer has to give you a job back up to 2 years after baby's birth. During maternity leave you get about 600 euros in child/family benefits-- these last longer if the father takes some leave (fathers can take paid paternity leave for 6 months-- employer has to let them come back to their job.)

I miss many things about life in the U.S. but I listen to my girlfriends who want to start families who feel they can't afford to because their benefits haven't kicked in yet.

The drawback to these "goodies" though is that I have found (and have heard from the experiences of friends) that the job market discriminates against women of child-bearing age. Some employers refuse to hire women of child-bearing age-- and it is perfectly legal to ask about family status here. (You have to include it on your resume here.)

Good and bad to both systems. I think American women have more and better career choices but I think the Europeans have much more generous leave and benefits.

I kind of agree that while mat leave benefits are a nice perk, it's really not up to corporations to pay for them. Companies pay employees money to work. I think holding people's jobs for a specified period of time is one thing, but expecting companies to pay effectively TWO salaries for one job is a bit much.

Having said that I do think that it's a SOCIAL good to provide leave for new parents for a number of reasons - the health of all members of the family; establishing good strong connections which later might aid in keeping people out of very expensive jails, etc. (I am not suggesting that daycare causes people to be criminals; just saying that families under great stress may be more vulnerable to getting into drugs, etc.)

So I think IF as a society we think that some leave for parents is a good thing then there needs to be a way to fund it. In some countries it is funded like unemployment insurance, for example.

Obviously, it is time to move. France just had a nice election!

If you can't afford to plan out a pregnancy and be off to take care of your baby, then you shouldn't be having a baby. I've been on both sides, as an employee (who was pregnant) and an owner of a business with employees. The business is under no obligation to pay for you to be off to have a baby - so anything a company gives is a bonus and should be considered that. It urks me when people feel entitled and that someone else should pay their way through life. This is your life and the decisions you make come with circumstances. If you have a baby, plan to save beforehand, make sacrifices and face the fact that you might have to shop at yard sales for baby stuff or eat mac and cheese while your "bonding". Why do people feel someone else should pay their way in life?

I live in Switzerland. Women pay into a kind of mandatory 'maternity insurance' which allows us to take three months for each child. Pretty good eh? Although this is nothing compared to Germany.

My wife works for a small company that has no maternity leave policy (they've never had a pregnant employee!). When she becomes pregnant, she'll either have to take time off unpaid and/or use up whatever little leave time she's saved to that point (but they've got a maximum annual limit on how much you can save; two weeks IIRC). The company is too small to qualify for FMLA, too, so having 3 weeks paid and 6 weeks at 60% salary sounds good to me.

Fortunately for us, I've got nearly 200 sick days and keep my vacation leave maxed out at 30 all the time, so I'll be able to stay out once as long as necessary when we do have a baby to help her out.

Michele, first off, thanks for reminding me about how well I'm managing my own personal finances.

I mean, if you are in your 40's, dual income with only 1 child, professional career and all, and you are living paycheck to paycheck and worried about paying the bills after a few weeks off work to the point where you are looking for a new company to work for solely based on their maternity leave policy, I don't really know what to say to you other than suggesting short term credit to finance the "bonding" period.

OK, I live from paycheck to paycheck too, but hay, I've got excuses: I'm in the thick of raising 4 kids, living in one of the most expensive areas in the United States, competing in a technical field without a college degree, and have a chronic illness and a severe, dehabilitating handicap.

Thanks for today's ego trip! I was feeling a little down this morning.

My company gives 6 weeks short-term disability (60%), then another 6 unpaid to round out the FMLA. I heard something about a week of full pay rather than 60% for every year of service up to 6, but I don't know if that's official. Should be finding out in the next month, though. Depending on how the first 6 weeks go, I'm going to try to take on some part-time work (my same job) to help offset the unpaid part. Thankfully we can live on my husband's salary alone (just not as nicely) so a couple of months without mine isn't going to plunge us into debt.

I always scratch my head at these economic arguments AGAINST societal support of childbirth and parental leave. Healthy, well-raised children are an essential, long-term investment. If you choose not to have children and everyone else your age does the same because of some of the "if-you-can't-afford-it-tough-luck" arguments, then where will you be in thirty years or so?

As with anything else necessary to the good of an entire society (roads, police force, etc.), it makes sense for the entire society to support childbirth and parental leave to a reasonable degree. The U.S. is extreme in its dismissal of the value of children. Note Beth's statistics on other countries.

This just speaks volumes about the moral decay of society, when people now openly pay to get STD!

...ok... well, someone had to say it, and I figured it might as well be me.

Seriously though, (ok, not really), I thought this was the age of tough elitist women who can do anything. After all, your "ancestors" supposedly popped the kids out and continued running/hunting. Now wouldn't that be empowering? You would have total bragging rights to lord (or lady) over EVERYONE. Imagine going back to work the next day and being the one to set the bar so high. With the extra money you make you can even pay for daycare!

"I live in Switzerland. Women pay into a kind of mandatory 'maternity insurance'"

There you go, sounds like a tax on women! (See yesterday's blog)

Ha! I was just talking about this yesterday with another mom. For all of the family values blather that goes on, there is no walk behind the talk. Childbirth is hard and get harder as you get older. Miss Britney is NOT average. By failing to pass nominal mandated leave, we allow corporations to put their employees last. .0000? of Exxon's record profit would probably cover 4 weeks of paid leave for anyone who wanted it. And how about those multi-million dollar bonuses CEO's get? Let see admin. asst. at 700 week equals 2,800 for 4 weeks, times 30 people equals 84,000. Which out of a bonus of 10 million is .0084. A few less dinners at Morton's. Our priorities are warped in this country.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mimi.

I consider myself a feminist, and a liberal, but definitely into personal responsiblity, nonetheless. If you want a baby, YOU pay for the baby. Not your company and not (by default) your single, childless co-workers who have to shoulder your burden while you're out for two years and then re-materialize. Not fair.

I think in the rush toward mother's rights, we've forgotten that plenty of women are not mothers and don't want to be. Are we just non-entities? I don't think so.

I think we also can't forego rationale. Of COURSE I don't want to hire someone who plans to be preggers within the next month. If I wanted to have a vacancy, I wouldn't be hiring, now would I?

That a lot of muddle brained thinking parades around as feminism really infuriates me. Feminism is about women's rights - EQUAL rights - not special rights.

I'm seriously contemplating finding a new job in my field (law), in part because my small firm doesn't have anything close to maternity leave, and my husband and I are going to be looking at having kids in the next few years. I love my current employer, but we're too small to qualify for FMLA unpaid leave, and we only get 2 weeks of vacation a year (which doesn't rollover). On the other hand, the large law firms almost all offer twelve weeks of paid maternity leave, because they have to in order to compete with each other for associates, and that's very, very tempting. It makes me sad, though, that I might have to leave a job I like in order to be able to afford to have kids.

I got 8 weeks paid STD leave at 100% plus an additional 2 weeks "paid maternity leave" that my firm offered, which was very nice. With my saved vacation time, I was fully paid for 12 1/2 of the 16 weeks I got. Was it enough?

Of course not. I think it's absurd that this country -- the greatest country in the world -- is hanging with third-world countries when it comes to paid maternity leave. Our government (especially our current administration) pays a lot of lip service to the importance of family and the sanctity of motherhood, but it doesn't put its money where its mouth is. I would absolutely be willing to pay more taxes in return for parents being able to be home if they choose with their kids for 12-18 months after birth.

Maternity leave is a BENEFIT, not a right. It is one of many benefits employers can offer to attract candidates. Is it fair that you are evaluating companies based on maternity leave? It seems you may plan on working for a short period before taking a long absence. What if you decided to stay home with the kids instead of returning to work? How fair would that be to your new employer who paid out $x in maternity leave for a relatively new-hire?

3 weeks paid, 9 weeks 60%? That sounds great! And I agree with the others. You can't save 1 month's worth of salary to take the full 12 weeks? If you're in a 2 professional household, you need to reprioritize.

The fed system isn't too bad, but I'm so envious of my friends at big pharma. People talk about fed benefits, but really the only benefit is stability. My big pharma friends have KILLER benefits.

So, as feds, we can take all of our sick and vacation time for maternity leave. If that's less than 12 weeks, the balance is without pay. If that's less than 6 weeks we can ask for leave donations to get it up to 6 weeks (8 weeks with a C-section). If you're in this latter category I STRONGLY encourage you to ask for donations. At the NIH alone, the number of hours that people allow to expire is astonishing. It's gone, into the ether, when it could be yours! If you're one of those crazy people who has vacation time expiring, please donate it. You can always give it to someone going through chemo or recovering from surgery, etc if you're opposed to giving it to someone who got pregnant.

Non-Mom -- Of course it is fair that people evaluate a new job based on the benefits. Anyone who doesn't look at the big picture is making a huge mistake. I've had secretaries leave for a new firm because they're getting a $5 K increase in salary, and they don't realize that the new firm doesn't have profit-sharing like we do, and they're actually losing money overall. If a benefit such as maternity leave is important to you, you'd better be looking at it, because taking 3-4 months off unpaid for many people would be a financial hardship.

Older fed employee here. Unlike other feds who have already posted, I think we have good benefits. We do not have a special category called 'maternity leave', but we do have sick and annual leave, and some offices even have comp time so you can work late to build additional time off.

If you haven't saved enough sick leave, you can borrow 6 weeks worth and there is also a leave donation program. Even though it will take about 2.5 years to pay back 6 weeks of sick leave, at least there is an option to be paid during that time. You will still accrue annual leave while paying back sick leave, so it's not as if you have no leave for 2 years if you borrow for maternity.

When I first came to work, the policy was that you could only be off for the time you were physically incapacitated, i.e, 6 weeks (8 weeks for C-section). By the time I had my first, I took 4 months, fully paid because of the leave I had saved. Admittedly, I worked here for some years before having the first. The second was born 4 years later, and I also had 4 months fully paid using a combination of my sick leave, borrowed sick leave, and annual leave. It was hard coming back to work with no sick leave for 2 years with 2 kids under 5, but it just meant that we took long weekends rather than real vacations until I was again earning sick leave in addition to annual leave.

Not sure if that was directed at me, Non-Mom, but if it was: first of all, I will not stay home with the kids for more than 12 weeks. Ever. End of story. No need to get into the reasons here, but they are sufficient for me. Second, you're required to work at least a year at most of these companies to qualify for the maternity leave. That doesn't really sound like a short period to me. Third, maternity leave is a benefit. Why can't I evaluate it in making job decisions the same way someone else might evaluate health insurance or salary?

Finally, you're missing the biggest reason someone might want to move to a company with better maternity benefits: it indicates that the company, for whatever reason (social conscience, attracting better candidates, etc.), is making support for parents a priority. In a crazy-hours, fast-paced industry, knowing that your employer isn't going to value you less because you have kids is vitally important.

While I found it interesting to see how other countries handle it, I am wondering what the trade offs are.

Also, I'm not sure it is up to the business community to "value families." Seems to me, that is a parents job and while I think that we as a whole aren't doing a great job at that, I think it has a lot to do with choosing us over our kids.

If you choose to work full time while your child is small, that is your choice but you have to know going into it that you won't be as present and as involved as someone who is home full time. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, but by design you are balancing priorities.

We can't then turn around and demand the government and business "value families" and make up for any gaps left by our choice.

All of this about maternity leave and time at work to breastfeed and flexible hours so you can go to the pre-school tea--all of it is great if you can get it but it's when people start to demand it that I get nuts...someone above said they were sick of paying for other people's choices. I agree.

non-mom, people who abuse the system have to payback. You get 12 weeks FML for every year of service.

Paying for other people's choices is part of being in a civilized society. If you don't feel like participating, go hang out with the crazies in a commune or government-hating group in the midwest. At the very least quite complaining about it, because it isn't going to change. Ever.

the feds may not get "maternity" leave but we get 13 days of sick leave per year that accrue into infinity and anywhere from 13 to 26 days of annual/personal leave every year of which we can carry over 240 hours into the next year. In addition to all that, feds can use up to 240 hours of advanced sick leave (yes, we can run a negative balance), we can advance our annual/personal days (as much as we earn during the leave year) and we can apply for leave donations. Oh, did I mention FMLA?

Federal employees are out of line if they are complaining that we don't get "maternity" leave.

Working MomX--you can stay home with your child for 12 -18 months Quit your job.

So I think IF as a society we think that some leave for parents is a good thing then there needs to be a way to fund it. In some countries it is funded like unemployment insurance, for example.

Posted by: Shandra | May 8, 2007 08:19 AM

Ummm...unemployment insurance, both state and federal, is paid by your employer. And before some of you geniuses start bleating, it does NOT come out of your paycheck. At ALL.

It seems like the free market is an important factor here. Companies have to offer better benefits if the people coming to work there expect it. Otherwise, those people will go to work somewhere else. Isn't it just as important, then, for companies to pay attention to "family values" issues like mat/pat leave as it is for them to pay attention to the salary range in the market for a given position?

Chris 1458 (obviously not the real Chris), you are missing my point.

As a society we pay for other people's choices all the time. Families are paying right now because our mental health system is broken and no one wants to pay what it would actually cost to fix it. We pay for more prisons when we decide that excellent addiction rehabilitation costs too much. The list goes on.

"Paying for other people's choices is part of being in a civilized society"

Then I guess I'd rather not be civilized! I don't mind paying when people can't do something (work), but if they CHOOSE not to, that's not civilization, that's being taken advantage of.

Last year when I had my daughter, I took off 6 weeks (2 weeks of my leave and 4 weeks 60% STD/40% leave) then worked part time (30-32 hours/week) for 12 weeks. During that time, my husband stayed home with the baby 2 mornings a week and I'd get 2 6-hour periods in the office per week, getting the rest done from home. This worked out pretty well but was very demanding. My employer needed me to do it because I am the manager and my group was in the midst of a really demanding project. It was kind of a blur, but we managed to put off the need for daycare until our daughter was more than 4 months old.

And for all of you who say maternity leave or taking time to be with a baby is unfair, that same year I had one employee who was off 3 times for various surgeries and took more time than I did and an employee who was off for a large chunk of time while her husband was very ill. I don't begrudge them the time they needed and they did not begrudge the time I took. Life happens and we should all try to be more decent to one another, corporations and companies and governments included.

how come I'm not real just because someone else has my name or i have hers--i'm real darnit! :) unless it's all just a big brains in a vat philosophical thing and this is the reality i created which is a downright scary thought...

It is all about choices that you get to make for what is right and best for you.
As I seid early on, you can not have it all. You have to make choices with the limited economic resources at your disposal. Just like we all do.

to atb, so suck it up or go somewhere else.

Kate,

My husband works at a firm where they get 12 weeks PATERNITY leave - full pay. Granted, he would never be able to use it fully if we were to have kids, but he would at least be able to work from home for a while. Yea - he works a lot now. We are thinking about making a change just - making a lot of money doesn't make up for the little bit of time we have together - and he is ALWAYS tied to his Blackberry. There just a lot of trade offs. . .no matter where you go, even Austria, it sounds like.

real life story- When I was in the AF, I had a captain for a short period of time, who was always out. It was a 2 person office, and the poor MSgt was always stuck in it and could never get ANY time off. Why? The captain kept getting pregnant. Fully within her right and all, but she was always on maternity leave, getting paid full salary to have babies, leaving one person to constantly stay late and attempt to do her job as well. She had three, one after the other, when she was on assignment there. When I came into the picture with a new (female) captain to take over, so the old captain could rotate out to get her advanced degree we were both apalled at the mess that awaited us. So little had been done in the last 4+ years! The MSgt had done as much as he could in the couple years he was there, but despite being a workaholic, the records and everything were in shambles. The new capt got deployed shortly after getting there. It took us nearly 2 years to get the place operating smoothly. Some people game the system, and it costs everyone. If it is a woman, you can not dare say anything about it because it is not PC to do so. So you get stuck with awful looking performance without any excuse. However, when I, as a man, would attempt to take part of a day for a medical reason I would get all sorts of flak from higher up- despite my willingness to make up for lost time and a dedication to always get the job done. Double standards, anyone?

You can not deny someone their right to children, but at the same time, I can see why companies may not want to lose tons of money if someone is not going to be contributing to the "mission." This is definitely something that needs balanced.

Let me get this straight, its so very important for mothers to be home with their kids when they are tiny that we as a nation should subsidize that, but when they are older it is a "choice" and a happy mommy is more important than a present one. But please give us cheap, quality childcare for our kids so we can be happy role models. So ladies, which is it - is it important to be home or not?

Maternity leave is a relatively new thing. Remember, there was a time when women weren't allowed to work if they were pregnant, and most never returned to work once there were children. As time went on, more and more mothers joined the workforce and stayed there, even when there were not any maternity benefits at all. Now there are more benefits than ever, yet people still want more (not saying this is good or bad, just commenting). Over time, women have done what they had to do. I had a neighbor who returned to work weeks after having twins because sometimes you just do what you have to. She sucked it up and did the best she could and moved forward - I admire her greatly for this.

My point is that maternity policies have really come a long way, even if there is still room for improvement. If your company doesn't have the best policy, think of what you need to do to work around that before you become pregnant.

The lack of maternity policies has never, and will never, stop women from having babies - individual women, mabye, but not women as a whole.

I think that, if you are PLANNING a family, you should be able to plan your finances so that you can afford to take time off after the birth. I can't believe the guest blogger was complaining because she might have to take a cut in pay to stay home!

While I'm sorry for the posters who work for organizations with much worse policies, I'm glad they have let this woman know how lucky she is.

The real issue I have is, why do we only want paid maternity leave? Why not 12 weeks at half-pay (not to be taken at intervals less than 2 years, or earned in similar ways to vacation, sick time etc) for FAMILY leave -- to care for sick parents, for DADS to be home for 12 weeks after moms, or other life/health crises?

I don't have a problem with society paying for some people's choices. But it's a two-way street. An employer who seeks flexible working hours to take care of kids (or ailing parents, or the dog) is still trying to do their job, they just need to be able to do so in a less-traditional framework temporarily.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a whole other kettle of fish for people to expect that their boss (or anyone else) will pay them for a purely personal benefit. What I got from the original poster today is that she wants to have another baby, but she doesn't want to lose any of her sick or vacation time to do so, nor does she want to have to rely on savings for any of the time she wants to spend with her newborn. Basically, she wants to make no sacrifice at all so that she can have her baby and some extra bonding time. That goes way beyond the pale. If she can find an employer who will give her what she wants, wonderful. But it bugs me that she seems to think such a boon should be a right, instead of the extremely great privilege it would actually be.

I get 6 weeks at 60%. It's not maternity leave, it is short term disability. It's the same thing as if one of my childless, single friends fell down and broke something or had to have surgery with one exception, they might be out longer depending on what happened. The doctor can't write me a not and say I need a few more weeks to recover.

I am tired of hearing that my 6 weeks of disability is hurting the single people.

How can this woman be 42 and not have enough savings to cover a short break in employment? Why doesn't she start planning/saving now? What is she going to do if she loses her job tomorrow?

Some small companies really can't afford to pay you for work you're not doing. Remember, having kids means a sacrifice - money, sleep, your independence. Why do you expect someone else to pay 100% of your salary for work you're not doing?

pb&j- It is only important to recuperate from what, for some, is major surgery. I think the baby issue obfuscates the whole thing.

That IS a generous policy. Where have you been living before this? Sweden?

I mean, I understand your concerns. Believe me, I wish we had a much better family leave law in this country, but due to Republicans, we don't. Instead, we have the "screw-over-the-babies-and-throw-them-into-daycare-ASAP" policy.

This policy sounds good to me. At my first job, maternity benefits were 2 weeks for an employee's first year. I think any time beyond that was unpaid. At my current job, the maternity benefit is 66% of your pay for 8 weeks. After that, you use your PTO, which goes very quickly. Then unpaid leave. We are allowed up to 12 weeks off, per FMLA, no questions asked but you can request more (although not many do). When I was pregnant with my son nearly 4 years ago, I requested -- and was granted -- 6 months off. We "funded" most of my 6 months off by using money we had put into savings knowing our plan for me to stay home for 6 months.

The HR response was reasonable in saying that other employees handle their leave by preparing for it (saving, etc.) I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I honestly don't think any of this was unreasonable.

I realize I'm very fortunate to work on a team that respects family time and outside responsibilities. If I had to be "wired in" to the office 24/7, I'd leave.

"to atb, so suck it up or go somewhere else"

That's one of my favorite trollisms. "Then LEAVE!" Not, then vote, then talk to your congressperson. Nope. "LEAVE!"

"Ummm...unemployment insurance, both state and federal, is paid by your employer. And before some of you geniuses start bleating, it does NOT come out of your paycheck. At ALL."

In Canada, it comes out of both the employer side and straight off the employee's paycheque as a deduction.

When people lose their jobs the FIRST time they get unemployment insurance for free. (up to 9 months' worth). The second, third, etc., times, they still get benefits but have to repay a portion of them once they are back to work. The "payback" system makes the EI system replete with cash to fund maternity leave, as well as caregiving leave (up to 6 weeks to care/arrange care for a terminally ill relative).

And yes, it is a deduction and some people would rather not pay it, but that is the process of deciding what a society will or won't fund. We all vote on that in some way, so.

The Canadian system obviously would not work wholesale in the US, but I think it shows there might be ways to fund brief leaves. People in the US constantly complain that there is No Way to fund things, but there is. (Look at the military budget!)

I read that in some countries this effects employment of women. I haven't seen any stats on women working in Canada vs. women working in the US, so I don't know. As a woman I might be more apt to think of that kind of thing as a -discrimination- issue rather than a -leave- issue, as long as the employer isn't funding the leave.

If the employer has to fund it based on how many pregnant people end up in that company, of course that company is not going to want to. If the premiums are the same for every individual regardless of sex, and the company's only cost is some inconvenience (which under the FMLA the company is ALREADY required to deal with), then I don't see how it could effect hiring.

to atb, well you said you didn't want to be part of society, which includes voting and representation, so SORRY if I made the mistake of assuming you didn't realize that.

I don't see many people complaining against people using the short-term disabliity benefits offered by their employers. But the guest blogger wants way more than that -- she's complaining that the 9 weeks she gets at 60% pay isn't enough, even coupled with her vacation and sick leave time and the three weeks of fully paid maternity offered by the employer.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it's the expectation of more on top of the already-generous policy that's annoying.

Let's be clear. There is no such thing as a free ride. If you are going to get "paid" for work you aren't doing - aka maternity leave, then you/someone is paying for it somewhere.

Countries with good maternity benefits have OUTRAGEOUS taxes. There is also a greater tendancy to DISCRIMINATE against women of child bearing age.

Women in America have more economic opportunities than in any other country. This is part of the price we pay. You can't have it all - low taxes, work opportunity, paid maternity leave.

My female counterpart has a good point in that we should not be forced to pay for the choices of others. However, the overwhelming need is for someone to be raising the kids and instilling values in them. The system needs better managed, and were that the case, I think it would not necessarily increase the taxpayer burden. If you look at the bigger picture, people have been having kids and making it work for a long time. Perhaps that means someone gets to be a stay at home parent for a while. Perhaps that means giving up an income so you can spend time with the child you chose to have. Kids are a reward, right? It might mean sacrifices, but you always pay for the choices you make, or did nobody get lessons in responsibility?

IMO, medical recovery time from childbirth, which is usually 6-8 weeks, should be treated by the employer as any other health issue. Whatever sick time policy is in place should apply to childbirth recovery. Beyond that period of time, each employer should be able to offer whatever package is necessary to attract and keep the women they wish to employ.

If I had to choose between returning to work after medical recovery, but having flexibility for sick child, dr appts, school closed days, etc OR twelve weeks maternity but no flexibility upon return to work, I would actually choose the shorter maternity leave. This is based on personal experience. The stress of working with no flexibility when you have children is much worse than the awful feelings you have returning to work sooner than you like after childbirth.

I am just trying to imagine (I have no kids) taking off twelve weeks or more of work! I am not trying to sound snarky here at all, just tring to imagine being away that long. Any other childless folk feel the same?

Let think about this... you say insurance doesn't come out of your pay check "at all", but doesn't it really? Your employer has to pay it, which means they have less money to go around, which means your paycheck is LOWER. Duh! Do you think employers are so altruistic that THEY take a pay cut? No.

I lived in Canada for several years. Not so great. Health care is not anywhere the level of care I receive in the US - not to mention that taxes are a whopping 50%. There is no free ride. You pay for it somewhere.

I must say I was expecting a more positive conversation than this one!

When I had my son three years ago, my company gave me three months leave. Full pay, full seniority, full vacation/sick leave accruals. I did not have to use vacation or sick leave.

Yes, I hand-wrote a thank you note to the CEO who lived out of town and thanked personally the one who lived in town.

He looked at me, a little confused, blinked, and said "But that's how I've always thought it should be, so it was common sense to do it that way."

When I came back from leave and wanted to work an 80% schedule, it was done with maybe an hour's worth of conversation. The head of HR called me to talk to me about it because she'd done the same thing and wanted to make sure I didn't repeat some of the mistakes she'd made (like agreeing to participate in conference calls on her day off).

And, yes, doom-sayers, I worked for them another two years and got excellent performance reviews.

So, Michelle, keep looking. Make sure when you decline positions like the one you described that you tell them what turned you off. They'll never know they're offering crap unless you tell them.

I understand the frustration that women who are not mothers feel when they see the benefits that are given for maternity leave. However, these women, myself included, need to remember that maternity leave is an investment in our next generation. Should childless households stop paying property taxes that support local schools? Of course not. Educating young people is an investment in our country's future. Similarly, we need to support maternity rights and benefits, even if we are not a direct recipient of them. Unfortunately our society has become too individualistic. We need to think about our society as a whole and we need to care for the whole and not get caught up in what is she getting that I am not getting. Let's remember the common good! We should support our female colleagues in their quest for good benefits. But, mothers-to-be need to be careful to not become overly entitled and expect too much. While I support decent maternity benefits, I also feel that there must be be personal responsibility in making lifestyle changes (saving, etc.) to accomodate your choice to have children.

"I am just trying to imagine (I have no kids) taking off twelve weeks or more of work! I am not trying to sound snarky here at all, just tring to imagine being away that long. Any other childless folk feel the same?"

From what I saw and discussed with my wife, it's kind of surreal to take a break from your work life for 12 weeks. Add to that a new baby, and it's an intense experience.

From what I saw and discussed with my wife, it's kind of surreal to take a break from your work life for 12 weeks. Add to that a new baby, and it's an intense experience.

Posted by: Arlington Dad | May 8, 2007 09:10 AM
Sounds like it would be...though I suppose for a new mom (or dad) it probably flies by.

Michele - I hear you loud and clear. I just had my son six months ago and I seriously do not understand the way this country views childbirth and child rearing. There are only a few select countries in this world that do not have paid maternity leave and we live in one of them. It's a very sad state of affairs and it doesn't look like its going to change. Best bet is to save as much as possible all the time to have an emergency fund. However, it is not fair at all. http://becki325.wordpress.com/

Me -- it does fly by, but in some respects it feels like forever too. My wife got antsy and did resume phone and e-mail contact with the office after a couple of weeks -- I think it was important for her to stay in touch with her "work self."

1) Federal employees do NOT get a separate additional leave for maternity/paternity purposes. Federal employees may use their vacation/Annual or sick leave or unpaid leave for this purpose. You can only use a maximum of 8 weeks sick leave for maternity/paternity purposes unless your doctor claims you need more. So if you have 40 weeks of sick leave, you can still only use 8 of them for maternity/paternity purpsoses. The rest has to be used from annual leave. You can also borrow (run a negative balance) and ask for donated leave.
2) When I was pregnant, I had already been a federal employee for 7 years. I had about 16 weeks of sick leave (as a single women-I was rarely sick prior to my child) and 240 hours or 6 weeks of annual leave. My daughter was born in January, so for that leave year of her birth, I also accrued 4 more weeks of annual and 13 days of sick leave. I took a 4 months off after the birth and a few weeks prior to the birth for maternity. I was on bed rest a week and half before delivery. I could do all that because I had worked for 7 years before the birth of my child. We did not plan to wait that long, I just did not marry till I was 30 years old. I can see how it would be very difficult for someone in their first year of working for the federal government to have a baby and another baby in the next year or so.
3) I think the leave that she was offered was actually generous. On top of her sick and annual leave, she was given an ADDITIONAL 3 weeks paid and a possible 9 weeks at 60% pay. That is a lot better then most companies out there and the federal government.
4) She is absolutely entitled and should look at the total benefits package before choosing a job. Your a fool not to look at the total benefits package. Your true compensation is salary plus benefits plus flexibility.
5) Over all, I think the federal government does have great benefits. Stability is a huge one but we also have good medical and now dental coverage. I am not sure why people think it is so bad. I wonder how many of them have spent time in the private sector. I have worked in private industry for a company that had great benefits too. The trade off was the amount of hours expected far exceeded 40 hours a week. They actually had unlimited sick leave but you can bet people dragged themselves into work when they were really sick to get the work done. None of this, I feel slightly sick today I will call in.
5) As far as her finances are concerned, lets not jump the gun. I think a lot of people who are two income probably don't have 40% salary socked away for emergencies. Not to mention, I bet she has it in retirement accounts and other investments that she did not "think" she could liquidate to cover a short term disability stay. If everyone waited to be able to afford kids, we would probably see a drop in the population by around 80%. Most people in this country do not have 3-6 months of their salary saved outside of retirement.
6) Even though we feel our family is probably finished, we are confident that my agency has started a short term disability insurance program. I believe we are one of the only federal agencies to do so. I am not sure if other feds will follow suit. But it allows 6 months short term disability at 60% pay. I am not sure of all the details because it is a fairly new program. But I think if I ever have a surprise pregnancy, then we will use this program. I am not sure if we will have to switch our insurance over to my husband at open season, as he is a fed employee as well. But other then that, I think if you were the sole insurance carrier, you may have to pick up the employer portion of the insurance coverage during that stay. Again, I am not sure of all the details. I will try to look them up today and get back with you guys. After my daughter was born, I still had around 8 weeks of sick leave and maximum annual leave. I was shocked how much sick leave she used after the maternity period. She has a lot of doctors appointments due to her developmental delays. So it is not wise to go down to a 0 balance or negative balance after maternity leave. Having this new short term disability leave would insure if we had baby #2, then we would still have sick leave in the balance for our two children in case of illness after the maternity period. Oh by the way, you could also use the STD for illness to you or any primary member of your family. It is for maternity/paternity leave. And if your single you could still get cancer or your mother could get sick. You can also use it for an adoption.
7) Lastly, I agree with the poster who said if you have leave that will expire, please donate it. There are some sick people out there who could use the extra leave.

To Me -
On one hand, yes, I was SO ready to return to work (part time) after 4 months at home with baby #1, but on the other, life at work does go on without you!

I have to agree with Laura. And, I am extremely surprised at how dismissive the folks on this Board are about maternity leave. And, I am posting with an amount of disgust that I rarely felt in reading this Board.

Limited time off with little or no diminished pay is not "asking for someone to pay your way in life." It is asking for help and flexibility during an extremely difficult time -emotionally and physically- and for a purpose that benefits society as a whole. Others have noted the positive investment in parental involvement. But, also, where do you think the future generations of doctors, engineers, etc. are going to come from? Where do you think the future payees of this country's social programs -in the current form or some other form- will come from? Have we become so self-centered that we cannot see the positives of limited, paid parental leave?

BTW, I am 39 wks. pregnant and funding my 12 weeks paid wholly on my own through vacation/sick leave (I'm a fed). I have asked for nothing from anyone on this front and was happy just to know that I could fund it. Luckily, in addition to that, my supervisors are extremely understanding -moreso than many of you on this board it seems - and have been flexible with accommodating me in many ways.

I am also relieved to see what good planners most of you are. Knowing when you'll have children and how to fund XX number of children by banking your leave well enough in advance . . . how much better you must feel about yourselves to know that others are not up to your standards. GMAB. Things happen. Accidents happen. Life happens. Not all things can be planned for. And, I say this as someone who IS a planner and did plan for our child. But, I know that is not always the case.

I just wish that companies who offer little/no benefits in this area realize that they are foregoing able, loyal employees. But, seeing the cynical, self-centered opinions of the folks on this board makes me realize that those companies' views are not likely to change in the near future if the people that they are meant to benefit -parents- also don't see the value of this offerings.

To 9:07: Of course there are tradeoffs.

I just think that mat leave - perhaps not the whole year long one, but a brief one - is something I would rather pay for than a lot of things my US taxes pay for (I'm a dual citizen and pay in both countries, depending on the year and the type of income and where it was produced.)

I think there is a lot of talk about the high standard of living in the US and the great opportunities for women, but I am not sure I see it globally. Yes, health care is better in the US, no question - for those who have good insurance. Yes, taxes are lower - but so is minimum wage, so if someone is at the low end of the spectrum, there may not be any difference effectively.

As someone whose generally middle-class family falls on both sides of the border, I don't see a lot of difference over the course of a lifetime. Each other's homes are more or less equivalent. The difference that I see is that my Canadian relatives do tend to do with a little less - drive older cars, etc. My American relatives don't, until something happens and they lose their job and their health insurance, or have to quit a job due to a preemie baby, and then their lifestyle tanks. (Sometimes to be regained.)

I favour a bit more social net, myself. That's where I fit on the spectrum. Obviously the majority of voters are not with me. I just think the knee-jerk "We can't afford that! Our vaunted quality of life would suffer!" is often a little overblown. Frankly I'm wondering about the Iraq war bill and what impact that debt is going to have.

Anyways I'll get down off the soapbox now. :-)

IMO, medical recovery time from childbirth, which is usually 6-8 weeks, should be treated by the employer as any other health issue.

Anyone who has had more than one child knows that it does NOT take 6-8 weeks to recover. You don't have 6-8 weeks. I'd rather go to an office than chase a two year old 1 week post delivery.

"I seriously do not understand the way this country views childbirth and child rearing. There are only a few select countries in this world that do not have paid maternity leave and we live in one of them"

I'm surprised to read this comment since I believe that this country views childbirth and child rearing from the point of view that the mother should be home with the children until they go to school. If mothers are expected to stay home, why would maternity leave be necessary?

Disclaimer - this is not my personal opinion.

I think those policies sound generous.
Way back when, when I was on maternity leave it was your accrued sick/vacation leave. You were welcome to take as much LWOP as you wanted.

I was in my 20s, and we got by. Baby rode in the back of an old car, at that point we didn't have a dishwasher beyond Mom, and I went back part-time after a couple of weeks. I still feel fortunate that my employer was willing to let me work a flexible schedule during that time as it allowed me to stretch my maternity leave out considerably.

If our guest blogger is in her 40s, she's senior, and presumably got more set aside to tide her over.

It would be wonderful if we had a system like the Europeans with lots of paid leave and job security -- but we don't. So I guess I think that the arrangement the guest blogger was considering wasn't all that bad.

To: Me @ 9:05

I am just trying to imagine (I have no kids) taking off twelve weeks or more of work! I am not trying to sound snarky here at all, just tring to imagine being away that long. Any other childless folk feel the same?

______________________

Let me introduce you to my friend Clark. Clark was injured in a car accident and was out of work for six months. Oh, Clark is in his 50's, has been a fed for 30 years and all of his kids are long since out of the house so he's effectively "childless". (He's also a widower; his wife died of cancer 10 years ago.)

Then I'll introduce you to my friend Susan. Susan is single and childless; she also had a heart attack at age 27 and was out of work for more than 4 months recuperating.

(And yes these are real people and real circumstances.)

The point being that the post from "Me" implied that being out of work for 12 weeks was essentially a "vacation". It's not necessarily the case; it's a medical situation. Whem DW was having our kids, the doctors stated that six weeks was the normal recovery time for a normal vaginal birth with no complications. That's the medical reason. Now I realize I was just the husband, but that seemed to be realistic; it wasn't a "vacation" notwithstanding the small person in the room.

I will go on maternity leave in July. Paid 100 percent for first six weeks (eight if it is a c-section) then burn two weeks of accrued vacation (the max I'm allowed to carry over) and then zero pay for the remaining four weeks to round out my 12 weeks under FMLA.

We've been saving since January to be able to make the bills, and we sacrifice too. Our home computer recently died. Replacing it is not in the budget right now. Boy it is totally taking some getting used to, living without it. We have no credit debt and want to stay away from that pitfall.

We will make the leave work because we are preparing for it. The thing that irks me are the people who look at me "sympathetically" and say "There's no way you'll be able to stay home permanently after the baby is born?" How come they never, ever, never, ever ask my husband that?

Momma is the chief breadwinner. Momma pays the mortgage. She buys the food. She doesn't have that option. I'm ending off topic, I know. Needed to vent.

I completely agree with NewSAHM and others who are saying that this policy is generous. When I had my first child, I used my vacation & sick time to cover what wasn't covered by the STD benefit at my company. When I had my twins, I decided to quit my job. I planned for the financial changes this would require and we got by. I'm back to work part time now and my new employer has a similar policy to what was described by the guest blogger.

To the federal workers who are complaining about not having maternity leave....I'd trade my short term disability benefits for your lifetime medical benefits that allow you to retire before age 65 :)

Army brat - I was not trying to imply it was a vacation (did you read the part where I said I wasn't being snarky??). I was just trying to imagine being out of work that long. Not having children does not mean I don't realize how much and time they require.
Sorry about your friends, sounds like a rough time.

Yes unemployment insurance *does* come out of your paycheck. Don't you think you would be paid more if your employer didn't have to pay it? Or didn't have to pay their share of the soc security tax? Yes, your salary takes all that into account.

I think that the government has done a lousy job with many other programs over the yrs that I laugh when I hear that we should create more and have them run yet another program.

Yes those other countries have more leave but there is a price to pay for it. Many of it is hidden, as in europe where the average person comparatively here would be called poor.

Businesses should be able to run as they want and if they don't have the best package and you don't work there then perhaps they are losing out. They make decisions by looking at the bottom line-as they should.

We live in a capitalist society and therefore our citizens have a lot of responsibility. That's the way it is and sometimes it isn't fair.

"I'd rather go to an office than chase a two year old 1 week post delivery.

Posted by: pb&j | May 8, 2007 09:16 AM "

Then don't have a baby! Seriously, people, we all have choices to make, and there are tradeoffs (speaking as a parent myself).

Also, it seems rather unfair to give new parents 12 weeks off with pay, but those who choose not to have kids get nothing (and probably have to cover for the new parents during the 12 weeks off!). Social good or not, the burden shouldn't fall unfairly on those who choose not to, or cannot, have children.

"Yes unemployment insurance *does* come out of your paycheck. Don't you think you would be paid more if your employer didn't have to pay it? Or didn't have to pay their share of the soc security tax? Yes, your salary takes all that into account. "

The reason I made the comment about the insurance not coming out of your paycheck is that so many people swear up and down that they have an actual, literal deduction for FUTA and SUTA. I agree with your point, though.

I don't understand why some people who (a) didn't get great maternity benefits or any benefits at all, or (b) don't have children or (c) aren't planning on having them . . .

can't engage in a productive discussion of a topic that probably interests but at the very least affects us all, while looking outside of their own situations and taking into account other people's views, without getting pissy at each other. It is ridiculous. Talk about high school never ending.

Anyone who has had more than one child knows that it does NOT take 6-8 weeks to recover. You don't have 6-8 weeks. I'd rather go to an office than chase a two year old 1 week post delivery.

Posted by: pb&j | May 8, 2007 09:16 AM

Well, did you get your MD from the same school as my OB/GYN? You may feel fine in a shorter period of time, but that doesn't mean the internal healing is complete. Also, the 8 weeks is for a C-section.

Me, apologies if I took your comment the wrong way. Personally, yes I *can* imagine being out of work for 12 weeks at a time, if I could afford it. (No I'm not childless now, but I could imagine being out for 12 weeks even when I was.) There are a lot of things on my "to do before I die" list that I could get accomplished. But, I can't afford 12 weeks time off right now so those things wait.

And I'm not naive or foolish enough to think that life at my employer's place of business wouldn't go on without me were I to take 12 weeks off. It would; the company likely wouldn't go bankrupt; and things would get done. Maybe not as well (I *hope* not as well; it means I'm providing some value:-), but they'd get done.

Because that's my bias - yes, I can imagine being out of work for 12 weeks - I took your comment as implying that these 12 week absences were just long vacations. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

As a previous poster pointed out, STD is NOT just maternity leave, it can be used for other medical purposes. In my small office (too small for FMLA), three people in the past year have taken the 6 weeks STD to recover from various types of surgery. I used it when I had my baby. I was the only one called at home with questions or asked to do work while out since the reason was that I had a baby - it's not like I was recuperating from surgery (even though I had a c-section). My boss referred to the time I was out as my "vacation." I took an extra two weeks unpaid because there are very few daycares that will take an infant under 8 weeks old. I came back to work 2 months to the day he was born.

My colleagues with older children get to work from home when their kids have a snow day... I came into the office the day my son received his first vaccination shots (husband took him to the ped - his job let him off that day, paid, since day care did not want the baby in that day in case he had a reaction). For some reason, there is concern that my having a baby will be disruptive to my work, but the people with 3 or 4 school-aged children have not been given the talk about keeping work and home separate (unless there is work to take home or our President calls me at 9 pm with a question, then it is ok for the two to mingle).

I like my job, I went on leave with enough money saved to make up the difference of the insurance that I pay for (and which is taxed,actually), I came back to work the first day I could... but why is shoulder surgery given respect and sympathy but people posting to this blog - and at my job - think maternity leave is a walk in the park? For me it was 8 weeks of getting my son on a feeding and napping schedule so I could get back to work.

And to the poster who made a comment about breastfeeding (which is an often enough discussed topic here) - yes, I expect 30 minutes a day to sit in my office with the door closed so I can pump breastmilk for my son. During that time I eat lunch and answer emails, and I still hear snide comments about my "downtime"... however, the smokers can take 5 or 6 cigarette breaks a day at 10 minutes or so a pop, and that's fine.

Ok, 9:30, time to switch topics! ;-P

The German leave for women is generous, but only 20% of German women with minor children are working full time. As the woman in Austria said earlier, the policy encourages discrimination against women of childbearing age.

Also, they don't have to give you _your_ job back, they have to give you an equivalent job back, even if it's not located near you.

pb&j, I had two c-sections. While I did feel much better sooner with my second (i.e., at the 5 week mark instead of 9 weeks as with my first), there is NO WAY I was running around for weeks and weeks. You're not even supposed to drive a car for 2 weeks after a c-section, for heaven's sake. And while I realize that not everyone has a c-section, don't underestimate the massive impact giving birth has on your body.

If you are a doctor, state your qualifications and present your evidence, but otherwise, and ESPECIALLY because you're not a mother, please pipe down and don't make such foolish assumptions. I for one don't appreciate your insinuations.

Paid leave is an option ( a generous one at that) that a company can or cannot choose to offer. I work in the public sector and can only expect to use my accrued sick leave for maternity leave.

Plus, what if you came to this company when you were 55, most likely past baby age. What do you get in return?

I'm curious about all of the comments about short-term disability and taxes. As it's always been explained to me (through multiple employers) there are two choices:

- if the employee pays the cost of the benefit, then it's 'insurance' which is non-taxable. I don't take home 60% of my top-line paycheck, so 60% Short-term disability payments would be pretty close to what I take home now (granted, I wouldn't be making the contributions to the 401K, but that's about it)

- if the employer pays the cost, then it's a taxable benefit

So every employer I've had, except for the Feds which didn't have this when I worked for them, has the employee pay the cost of the STD insurance. Yes, it means more off my bottom line, but then so does the life insurance, the medical and dental insurance, etc.

Have I been misled all this time re: the taxability? Or do most of you work for employers that pay the STD premiums themselves (or self-insure) so the 60% is taxable?

9:24:She isn't getting 12 weeks of pay for having a baby. She is getting 3 weeks full paid maternity. The other 9 weeks is STD. Single childless people could also use 9 weeks STDs. Of course the alternative is you or one of your relatives is sick to use it. Not really the blessing you think it is. But she is only getting an additional 3 weeks maternity. If you think it is so great, then go off and have a kid. No one is stopping you from adopting or giving birth to a child. For all you naysayers that go on about paying her way. Did you ever stop an consider that the mother or father being home with the newborn for the very short period of 12 weeks is in the best interest of the CHILD! And of society. I mean really. Do you really think kids should be put in day care at 3 weeks of age. Get real. Also, yes people will not stop having children if they took away all maternity benefits. And yes people have made having kids work for centuries. But kids also used to work in factories. I don't think we should return to the days of bread lines and making families figure it out themselves. I think most people would agree that we want to try to improve society a little bit at a time.

A serious question to the childfree and those with children out there -- have you ever considered taking a leave of absence to do something fun/personally fulfilling, like travel or do research on something that interests you?

Chris,
Thank you for pointing out the obvious, which so many posters seemed to dismiss: life is about choices. We can't necessarily have it all, at the same time, on our schedule. The trick is *balancing* (like the title of the blog) our needs and wants. When we marry and have children (yes, I DO think it should be in that order), we have to then consider the needs and wants of our spouse and children as well.
It would be great if all employers were as considerate as we think they should be, but this is the real global economy, and many of you are competing with workers from India, China and Russia (so far, teachers are immune...so far).
Leave policies are not as fair as they should be. There is a societal cost to policy as it is, but there would be a societal cost to making them TOO generous as well.

Plus, what if you came to this company when you were 55, most likely past baby age. What do you get in return?

You get children who work after you retire funding social security and keeping the wheels of society greased for you. Please.

I actually don't think the feds are so bad in terms of maternity leave. While there is no official leave time alloted for maternity, the vacation and sick leave benefits are pretty generous, and if you are careful and don't waste your time, you can make do. I had my first child about a year and 3 months after starting to work for the government, and I took 7 weeks off with full pay when my son was born. I would have liked more time, but considering that I was a relatively new employee, I was thrilled with my 7 weeks off. This time around, I have already have 14 weeks of time accrued between sick leave and vacation. I will have more by the time my child is born in December. I will probably take the full 12 weeks at full pay. Not bad.

And I have managed to save this time even though I take two weeks of vacation every year and the occasional day off. It can be done if you are careful.

Well, did you get your MD from the same school as my OB/GYN? You may feel fine in a shorter period of time, but that doesn't mean the internal healing is complete. Also, the 8 weeks is for a C-section.

What do you do for a living? pick up garbage. Sitting at a desk is a helluva lot easier than caring for multiple small children at home, but women do it. Do you need to be completely, internally healed to sit at a desk? I think not. Its not like you are laying in bed for 6 weeks completely depleted from the delivery. With all 3 of mine I was home in two days taking care of my family - tired yes, but doing it nonetheless, so for working women to act like they "need" to be home to physically recover, I say bunk. They want to be home until they don't want to be home and then my family is supposed to subsidize that choice too.

A serious question to the childfree and those with children out there -- have you ever considered taking a leave of absence to do something fun/personally fulfilling, like travel or do research on something that interests you?

Posted by: WorkingMomX | May 8, 2007 09:37 AM

I have thought about it...not sure if I could swing it. Would like to volunteer for something Habitat for Humanity and help build a house or two. I know folks who have done that and would do it again.

xyz pointed out that it was more important to her to have "flexibility for sick child, dr appts, school closed days" rather than a long maternity leave. When I was working PT, I found the need to miss work to care for a sick child or deal with a snow day very stressful too.

A number of times on the blog, I've seen people make comments about a parent taking time off for the pre-school tea or their kids' soccer games, etc. I've never known anyone who did this. My co-workers who were parents saved any absences for the times when they didn't have much choice about it. If they used a vacation day for a "frivolous" reason, it was their business (they used a vacation day) and not done during a time when their taking a vacation day would have a highly negative impact on work.

I find it hard to imagine that so many people treat their work responsibilities this lightly. Most working parents I know were very sensitive not to have their home needs have a negative impact on their work relationships. People may have had to leave at five on the dot, but it was because the daycare closed at six o' clock sharp.

pb&j: Most women probably do not need 6-8 weeks to recover. But I had a C-section and could not even drive forr 2 weeks. I felt great after 4 weeks but the first 2 1/2 were still extremely difficult after the surgery. I think you should not imply then all women are running around after 3 days. You should be greatful that you did not have a C-section. BTW, I think close to 24% of all births in the US are C-sections.

Educmom-

Well, the point of this article is that perhaps it shouldn't have to be a choice between time at home with your new child and getting back to work so you can pay your bills, or getting back to work so they don't fire you and give your job to someone else. I hardly think that's too much to ask.

As to the "societal cost" making maternity leave policies "too generous", exactly what would that be? What detriment would it be to our society if mothers could spend...say, 3 months at home with a newborn, instead of 2, or 1, or none? And I'm not sure why the fear of them being "too generous" is a reason to not make them more generous than they are. Many women aren't even as fortunate as Ms. Degani, in that their employers offer them no paid maternity leave at all. Surely we should be discussing the societal cost of that approach on our part.

Hasn't this blog covered this topic something like 72 times already? Does anyone have anything new to say?

BTW, the 60% disability pay is probably tax-free, which makes up for a big bit of the difference.

Pb&J I had serious complications after the birth of my daughter. I had three friends who also had complications. If I had been at work, I would have been out on STD at 6 weeks anyway. I am glad you didn't have any complications or didn't need to rest, but everyone is not you. Thank God we have doctors in this country who set the rules for when someone is recovered or not.

I work for a state government, and we get NO paid maternity time. To get paid at all, we have to use up all of our accrued sick and vacation leave. Of course, that means that when we return, we've got nothing in those banks should something happen and we need a day off. To me, having even a few weeks with partial pay sounds like a GREAT deal. I have no idea why the writer would complain about such a unique benefit that even a state - the conventional wisdom provider of lush benefits - does not offer. Want to switch places?

"What do you do for a living? pick up garbage. Sitting at a desk is a helluva lot easier than caring for multiple small children at home, but women do it."

I do have two children, 4 years apart. My four-year-old was very easy to care for. She was not clingy, played independently, and was happy to sit next to me with a book while I was BF the newborn. I could catnap on the couch while the baby was sleeping and the 4-year-old was playing on the floor nearby. In my case, working at a desk was not easier than caring for my children. I also had 2 c-sections. Walking and driving were limited for several weeks. Couldn't walk the stairs. Came home from the hospital with staples still in my stomach. Taking care of the kids was relatively easy - it was the healing that was difficult.

I think when a new baby is born in this country, the govment should flat out write the mother a check strait from the treasury.

Kinda like a Happy Birthday card from Uncle Sam, but with the Social Security identification card instead. :-)

"Well, did you get your MD from the same school as my OB/GYN? You may feel fine in a shorter period of time, but that doesn't mean the internal healing is complete. Also, the 8 weeks is for a C-section. "

She was saying the physical work involved in taking care of a one-year old is more than the physical work of her job. Or don't you think there is any work involved in taking care of a toddler?

I think the globalization is a big mistake... all this talk of American Unions and integration with the European Union is scary- apart from the prophetic side... We will find ourselves in quite a bind in the not too distant future if we continue on this track. This nation was founded on the idea of less taxes on the people, giving freedom for innovation. This is becoming squashed as things are outsourced or imported- not only cutting wages, but dodging taxes, as it is cheaper to ship something in that does not even get inspected, than it is to make it here. After we sell off our country, from the smallest company, to the largest innovators like Bell labs, we will eventually wake up too late to realize we are bled dry and ultra vulnerable. I am very much for good benefits, and taking care of everyone, but through wisdom and proper management of what we have. Otherwise we will find ourselves overtaxed to support programs that do not encourage any form of work or initiative. Even France got sick of this path... hopefully it is not too late for them to turn around.

Oh, and teachers, especially college profs are not immune. I had many from overseas. My speech teacher was from China, and had only been in the US for 6 months before he was teaching the class. Nice guy, but hardly anyone could understand a word he said.

I haven't read all the comments, but once again, all I can really do is echo the sentiments of other posters: it's not the company's job to pay you to have a baby, and you should be able to afford a baby before you have one--biological clock or not. If you can't afford one by the time you're pre-menopausal, that's not the company's fault. It may not be "fair," but it's reality. I wish more people would consider their finances better before they have children.

I, like many, am only a few paychecks away from poverty. But I don't have kids, and won't until I can afford them. If that means I never have kids, then so be it. But I'd rather not bring a life into this world that I can't support, because after all, the only person you can ever really count on is yourself.

"After one year, the company gives you three weeks of time off with full pay, and then you get nine weeks of STD at 60% of your salary."

This is a pretty generous leave plan. Why would anyone complain about it?

And what's wrong with expecting a new employee to demonstrate a year's worth of loyalty to the company before extending this benefit?

I can't believe we're going back to the old days when pregnancy was regarded as illness or infirmity. Geez, even supermarkets have jumped on the bandwagon, offering special parking spaces for "expecting mothers." Isn't it supposed to be healthy to walk when you're pregnant?

This whole discussion is soooo symptomatic of the entitlement that today's parents seem to feel. Like they're owed special privileges because they're reproducing.

Frankly, I'm pretty disgusted with the attitude portrayed by today's guest blogger.

And why should a company pay an employee to bond with her child?

To clarify, the earlier "Laura" posting was not me.

I support more maternity leave, but I do think today's poster might not be realizing how good she has it. It's not that long ago that employers didn't even have to provide unpaid leave for pregnancy -- in fact, you can still be fired today just for taking ANY maternity leave if you work for a company that is too small for the FMLA to apply. So, sure, consider it a benefit like any other, and treat it as such in your evaluation. But at least realize that you're choosing between two options that both go far beyond what is legally required.

Also, big misunderstanding on short-term disability: if you pay the premiums out of post-tax income (which is usually the way they set it up), your payments are tax free. That's why it's limited to 60-60% -- because it's trying to replace your post-tax salary.

Kate: be careful about evaluating the family-friendly-ness of a law firm by its benefit packages. The bigger firms generally can afford better packages because they have more profits to fund them. How do they make those profits? By working their associates 2,000-2500 hrs/yr. And at least in a lot of these places, the unstated rule is that if you don't manage that, you're not partnership material. Sure, they may offer part-time positions, mommy-track, etc. But find out what really happens to the women on those tracks long-term -- are they viewed as valuable contributors? Do they have the same chance of long-term success? To my mind, if you have a job now where you are happy and successful and respected, that's the holy grail right there -- they might not squeeze out the profits to give everyone 12 weeks paid leave, but I bet they'd have more ability to be flexible long-term.

To "Me": I'd like to fantasize about 12 weeks off, too. Here was my vision for my last maternity leave, which started before Thanksgiving and lasted through New Year's: baking dozens of sugar cookies; making luscious Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners (not to mention the latkes for Hannukah); getting my Christmas cards sent out in early December for a change; taking my daughter out of preschool early to enjoy leisurely afternoons baking assorted yummies; getting the shopping done early, and the gifts mailed in plenty of time; etc. -- basically, the "perfect" holiday, which I can never manage while working.

Now, here's the reality: one batch of cookies baked (pre-cut Pillsbury cookie shapes, so daughter could do). Scrawled Christmas gift list in front of computer mid-December, trying to snag non-horrible gifts in time for final shipping deadline. Christmas cards sent in mid-January, after daycare started. Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners left to mother; Hannukah dinner left to SILs. Not one fun shopping or baking afternoon with older girl. I was just Too D@mn Tired to do any of it.

Here's the scary thing: he was an EASY baby, except for wanting to eat all the time and not sleeping more than 4 hrs at a stretch for the first 3 months. And I was still Too D@mn Tired to do much of anything. So please, when you're thinking of 12 weeks off work for maternity leave, don't think of it as a "normal" 12 weeks off to work on the garden, read books, catch up on chores, watch TV, etc. -- well, wait, you can use it as time to catch up on TV, but just be prepared not to remember anything you watched, because you can't stop falling asleep in the middle of it.