Seriously, Leslie, that would mean our leaders would have to think creatively. Don't you love that most of these folk run on family values, culture of life platforms?

I think 8 weeks is the minimum for women and 4 weeks should be the minimum for men. The kids being born today are the government workers 20 and 30 years from now that will be taking over leadership of the country. It behooves us promote families so that we have people to take over one day!

I agree that a family friendly government sets good examples but I dont think the federal government should pick up the tab, it is not fiscally responsible. I am a federal employee and a mother but would not support 8 weeks of paid leave.

As a Federal employee and mother of one (soon to be two) young children, I am entirely sympathetic to the argument that four weeks is not enough to spend time with your newborn. Keep in mind, however, that Federal employees already have very generous leave packages. When I had my first child, I was able to use sick leave (of which I had plenty) for the initial physical recuperation period--for me, about 6 weeks--and then use a combination of annual and unpaid leave to spend another 3 and a half months at home. Few private-sector organizations--especially small employers--offer something more generous. The point about being "out of touch" went more to the faltering economy, and the fact that firms are laying people off. (To say nothing of the Federal deficit.) Is it really the time to add more benefits for Federal employees?

2-4 hours of interrupted sleep? With both of my children I had no more than 45 minutes of interrupted sleep for the first 10 weeks. Family values huh, politicians, they talk from both ends don't they.

Please frame the arguement correctly Leslie, and differentiate between paid and unpaid Leave. 4 weeks of paid and still eligible for the FLA of 12 unpaid (an extra 8 weeks).

Your musings on "only hiring people that don't have children" lends nothing to the arguement. This topic has been discussed a dozen times here on OB, and it will go thru the push for paying people because of hangnails and the pull of forcing people to come back to work the day after birth. By the end of the day the concensus by the levelheaded participants will prevail, hopefully, until Leslie posts this inane topic again in 3.5 months.

Thank you Federal Employee for pointing out the Fed options on Leave packages and the paid vs unpaid. Once again Leslie did not do her homework.

"I am a federal employee and a mother but would not support 8 weeks of paid leave."

I am a federal employee and a mother and I WOULD support 8 weeks of paid leave.

Also in the Congressional pipeline is a bill which would permit married Fed employees to donate Annual Leave to each other.

I am also a federal employee and when I had my second child, I was still relatively new and used up all of my annual leave and sick leave, plus some days without pay, plus some donated days, to spend 10 weeks at home with my son. Thank goodness he started sleeping fully through the night (7-7) two days before I went back to work.

With my first child, I was a teacher and used up all of my sick and annual leave (that I had been hoarding for five years) to take 8 weeks off. Luckily, the T'giving and Christmas breaks were also in my maternity leave time so that was another 3 weeks.

The U.S. is backward in its family leave policies. It's embarrassing.

I'm not so sure about the "generous leave package" thing. Yes, if you've been in government for years, you likely have tons of sick time. But I am a recent hire, and since I spent time before entering federal service getting work experience and two masters' degrees, I am 29 years old. So I'm now in the position of not taking sick days or vacation AT ALL, trying to save leave for having children in a few years. I would argue that it benefits the government to hire those with work experience and education, but it also means that 30-year-old workers won't have much time to spend with their newborns without facing some major financial hardship. At least give us short-term disability!

This is outrageous.

The solution is *unpaid leave*? So those who are wealthier who can afford to take unpaid leave should be allowed to have children? Or new mothers should use up their vacation/leave time? Come on. Private sector jobs are more generous with leave, with higher pay - how is the government going to attract the best workers? It's bad business.

I'm a Republican, and seriously considering voting for a Democrat in the coming election year. We are suppossed to be the party of family values, and over the last eight years I've seen the exact opposite.

As a male unmarried government employee, I've never run across a problem with the many women who have taken parental leave. I prefer that to unfocused, exhausted coworkers.

I'm disgusted.

Why should the government subsidize the choice of someone to have children? It's a choice!!!

This country has so many problems. While there is still nowhere else I'd rather live, our priorities as a nation are seriously out of whack. I'm sick of the lip service paid to the importance of families but when it comes time to make the hard decisions, none of our elected leaders have the balls to take a stand.

That said, most people do not get paid parental leave. They do, however, have the assurance that they can take up to 12 weeks FMLA leave without losing their job (16 in the District). Do I think this is right? No. But it's the reality.

I suggest, for the day, we ignore all the whiny 'why should the government subsidize children' flaming posts. They are sure to come out in full force today.

"Private sector jobs are more generous with leave"

Ummm, not in my world. When my husband was working for the government, he had 5 weeks off every year, along with every other Friday as part of a 9/80 deal. When he went private sector, he immediately flipped back to 2 weeks leave; now, 12 years and 3 jobs later, he's up to 3 weeks again (one of them as part of an "off the books" deal he negotiated with his boss). Whoo-hoo.

I'll grant you that the pay is better. But for the rest of the benefits, as a whole, the government is hard to beat.

I'm a Democrat, and I've long been annoyed with the party of the alleged "family values" that never puts its money where its mouth is. But I actually find myself somewhat in agreement with Rep. Issa on this. I don't know many private sector firms who provide paid parental leave -- FMLA, sure, if they are covered; sometimes STD. I think they should offer more, but most don't. So I'm not sure the middle of a recession is the time for the government to be jumping even further out front with more benefits. I would absolutely support something like STD that would cover this and a variety of other things, but I'm uncomfortable committing more tax dollars to a formal paid parental leave program given our existing deficits and slowing economy. At least end the ^(@##$%#$ war first -- bring that money back home to pay for this.

Unless I'm mistaken, Gizmo, Fed employees (married or not) can already donate leave to each other through the Leave Bank/Leave Tranfser mechanism.

As for the actual topic, I still say any of these 'family-friendly' policies are going to meet quick deaths unless they can be extended to all employees (not just for parents or child-related reasons).

As for myself, I'm a Fed, and at 39 weeks along (yes, I'm as huge as a house), I've had first-hand experiene of scrappling together leave and other options to cover my 12 weeks off. As another poster said, 'Is it perfect?' No. But it can be done.

I guess I still personally do not feel the general public needs to pay for my decision (to have a kid), much like I don't want to subsidize everyone else for doing whatever it is they want to do.

My other thought is if this paid parental leave passed, that money's got to come from somewhere. Are our retirement packages going to remain the same? Pay raises? Training opportunities? Because I really like all of those things and I do not care to lose them in any regard.

I don't like the idea of paying women to make babies. Leslie, your column today made the bosses blunderous statement, "Enjoy your vacation" to the pregnant employee legitimate.

I am perfectly willing to donate leave (and have done so) to someone who is sick but I would not donate so someone could stay home extra weeks after her needed medical recuperation period (6-8 weeks)with a newborn - sorry.

"Unless I'm mistaken, Gizmo, Fed employees (married or not) can already donate leave to each other through the Leave Bank/Leave Tranfser mechanism"

The proposal eliminates some of the current burdensome requirements.

"When my husband was working for the government, he had 5 weeks off every year, along with every other Friday as part of a 9/80 deal."

5 weeks off every year comes after 15 years of service! Not exactly when most women are having babies.

Paying women to make babies? Are you kidding me with this? How is it that paid maternity leave pays a woman to make a baby? How about the cost of raising a child? The idea that maternity leave is some kind of a vacation is insane and is clearly being offered by people who've never had kids and apparently don't have the ability to emphathize.

Why don't you take a 12 week leave of absence during which you either have major abdominal surgery or pass a bowling ball, and then get only 2 hours sleep a night while healing. Does that sound like a vacation to you?

aftre the birth/adoption ofyour child"I am perfectly willing to donate leave (and have done so) to someone who is sick but I would not donate so someone could stay home extra weeks after her needed medical recuperation period (6-8 weeks)with a newborn - sorry."

Would you donate leave to your wife to stay home extra weeks after the birth/adoption of your child?

Be grateful to even have the opportunity of 4 weeks of paid leave. The very vast majority of those in the private sector get ZERO paid leave.

Getting paid maturnity leave is nice, but it is definitely a rarity. I am someone who is hoping to have a child soon and we have worked to save enough for me to take 12 weeks of FMLA. In the private sector, you can't "borrow" vacation or carry over enough sick leave to cover the 12 weeks. Yes, it has meant we have waited several years to have a child, but I know it will be worth it when I am off.

I am against this policy since it is fair to only a few people, but does not seem to do anything to encourage companies to take up the same practice.

Would I donate leave to spouse - of course. A stranger or co-worker - probably not.

Let's look at the numbers:
1) All Fed employees get 13 days of sick leave per year with unlimited carry-over.
2) Working 0-2 years, employee gets 13 days of annual leave with 30 days max carry-over. Working 3-15 years, it jumps to 20 days (still with 30 days max carry-over).

So, you come out of college and work for the government. After 5 years, you've earned 65 days of sick leave but you've used 3 days per year (doctor's appointments, sick days, etc) so you have 50 days in the bank.
You've earned 79 days of annual leave but you've used 8 days per year so you have 39 days in the bank.

You have 89 days of annual and sick banked - almost 14 weeks. If use it all, you can use advanced annual and advanced sick leave.

Families have suvived for years. It doesn't need to be changed. However, if it is going to be changed, the government MUST give a similar (and equal) amount of paid leave to those NOT having kids (or already had kids). Say every 10 years you get 4-weeks paid extra vacation if you haven't used it for the birth/adoption of a kid.

It's actually hard for me to have any sympathy for the fed employees here. I have a lot of friends who are govt employees and they had way more paid leave for maternity than I did. As an earlier poster said, the leave they currently receive is ridiculous. My fed friends were able to take 12+ paid weeks of leave.

For me....I hoarded my sick and vacation and managed to cobble together 20 days of paid leave. I did another 6 weeks unpaid, and returned to work with zero leave available. That meant, no sick leave for a 10 week old child entering day care, and certainly no vacation for the foreseeable future.

And by the way, my fed friends also make very nice salaries. Straight out of college, several were on management tracks, moving up to GS14s and 15s within 10 years. All that, with a pension to look forward to? Wow.

Zero paid leave in the private sector? Who are you working for?

I've worked at three universities, with six to = eight weeks of paid leave for each child per birth. I have many friends who take advantage of six to eight weeks of paid leave who work in multiple private sector jobs: auto industry, law firm (one is a lawyer, one paralegal, same benefits), IT (one a large national well-known web company, one small, homegrown here in MI). The standard is that the benefit comes after two years of employement, with half offered after one year.

I've also had one friend at the Univeristy I work at take the time for major surgery; it was very helpful for this man to have six weeks of paid leave after an unexpected complication.

I can see small employers in the private sector, but my experience (from the midwest) is that there tends to be a fair amount of paid leave covered before FMLA starts at medium to large private sector companies.

And before the jokes about the auto industry start: yep. One of the reasons it's tough for the auto industry to compete is the comprehensive benefit package offered to employees which is paid for by the government in other countries. Not the reason, but one of the reasons.

For those of you out there without children that don't think people should get time off to care for newborns, just think about who will be running the country when you are in retirement.

You better hope that people who share your political values are having babies now so they can support your values and your needs in your old age. The best way to ensure this is to make sure people in your social class with your values have access to friendly family leave policies. You may not want the kids yourself, but one day you will depend on other people's children.

Personally, I believe everyone should have access to paid family leave to care for their newborns. I just make this argument for the people who say we shouldn't be paying women to have babies. You may not want to pay for them now, but one day you'll be wishing you helped paid for those babies.

Thought -- very good point. Most companies/firms/organizations do not allow their employees to carry over more than a week or so of leave into the following year. There are certainly exceptions, such as teaching, but not many. I've been asked many times why we can't allow people to carry over as much leave as they don't use (especially since it makes for a crazed December when people burn their leave instead of using it), but it would be an administrative nightmare, at least for us. I would be interested in hearing from people who don't work for the government on whether their companies/firms allow them to carry over as much leave as they want.

I am a Federal employee who has had 2 children while employed by the Federal Government. I was able to take 6 months maternity leave for each child. My husband and I valued this greatly, so I saved leave (about 4 months worth for the first) and we saved money to make pay for the other 2 months. With our 2nd child, I ended up with 10 weeks of bedrest, so only 2 weeks of my 6 month maternity leave was paid. Meanwhile, my husband received 4 weeks of paid paternity leave from his private sector company. So after I returned to work, I started with 0 hours annual leave and 0 hours sick leave. My husband meanwhile has all his vaction and sick leave in tack!

It's hard to comment on the insanity of this issue when we are spending billions daily in Iraq, but for the person who suggested we give those who don't have children some extra leave every 10 years, well, what will happen when MY children, for whom I pay (over the course of 21 years) several hundred thousand dollars out of my own pocket, end up taking care of them in their old age?

I did NOT get leave for my kids and I had twins and about 45 minutes sleep every few hours.

Paid leave is not a luxury, it is a necessity.

"Why don't you take a 12 week leave of absence during which you either have major abdominal surgery or pass a bowling ball, and then get only 2 hours sleep a night while healing. Does that sound like a vacation to you?"

This is ridiculous. It was your decision to "pass a bowling ball and then get only 2 hours of sleep a night while healing". These are factors that a woman should weigh when deciding whether to have children or not.

If someone did have major abdominal surgery, they would be expected to use leave. Why should it be different for new mothers?

"How is it that paid maternity leave pays a woman to make a baby?"

Simple, it provides a vacation incentive for women to bear a child.

"Families have suvived for years. It doesn't need to be changed. However, if it is going to be changed, the government MUST give a similar (and equal) amount of paid leave to those NOT having kids (or already had kids). Say every 10 years you get 4-weeks paid extra vacation if you haven't used it for the birth/adoption of a kid."

I completely disagree with this. Maternity leave is not a pleasure cruise -- it's primarily medical, both for mom and child. Just because someone chooses not to have a child (it's a choice, as the childfree constantly remind us on this blog) doesn't mean they should have vacation. Come on. We can't make everything in this world fair and equal.

Since someone asked about private company leave policies...here are my experiences in the non-profit world (associations here in the DC area):

One job: Received 2-3 weeks vacation year/ based on tenure. Allowed to carry 5 days over a year. Received 6 days sick. No carryover of sick (I fought this and got the policy changed to a 30 day carryover).

Another job: Received 3 weeks vacation. No carryover allowed. Got 12 days sick. No carryover allowed. Crappy place to work.

Current job: Receive 3 weeks vacation. Allowed to carry up to 30 days at any time. Also get 12 days sick, can carry up to 30 days at any time. Plan on staying here a while because of extreme family-friendliness.

Bunny Hop

"How is it that paid maternity leave pays a woman to make a baby?"

Simple, it provides a vacation incentive for women to bear a child.

Is there any data to support this?

Most companies/universities around here allow you to carry over at least your vacation. The universities allow you to carry vacation plus sick leave up to a certain amount. Many mid-range private sector companies have adopted generic time off (CPTO) that can be carried over indefinitely and can be used for vacation or sick time.

Bunny hop, ROTFL. Yes, that's right, that's why women have children, they want the LUXURY of maternity leave. Oh, the pampering wonder of an episiodomy, bleeding nipples, stumbling around on 120 minutes of sleep. It's a little slice of heaven, I tell you. But it's my choice so it must count as vacation.

Sorry, I'm just not in the mood to suffer fools gladly this week.

Although I am in favor of leave and senority retention for parents I am in agreement with Congress on this.

Federal employees have very generous leave and health benefits.

No one in the Federal sector gets pressured to retire or quit because they have a major illness and are running up health costs for their employer. This is a very real problem for employees in the private sector, particularly if they work for small employers.

To dole out another generous benefit on the public tab is not responsible.

So, you come out of college and work for the government. After 5 years, you've earned 65 days of sick leave but you've used 3 days per year (doctor's appointments, sick days, etc) so you have 50 days in the bank.
"You've earned 79 days of annual leave but you've used 8 days per year so you have 39 days in the bank.

You have 89 days of annual and sick banked - almost 14 weeks. If use it all, you can use advanced annual and advanced sick leave." -- Fed gov worker with 2

This assumes a pretty idyllic world -- no personal health problems, no health problems with family members. I had to scrimp and save leave while battling 5 years of infertility treatments that were NOT paid for by any government health plan, 10 wks of pregnancy bedrest, the serious illness of my mother, and finally her death.

Federal employees have the option of borrowing advanced sick leave of 240 hours, which is 6 weeks. for new employees who haven't had time to accumulate a lot of leave, the childbirth recuperation time can be paid. None of us wants to come back to work without leave, but you do what you have to. Women have done it for years.

I also believe that the proposal for 4 weeks paid parental is in addition to any other leave policies in place.

The Director of OPM has submitted a proposal for short-term disability insurance for ALL federal employees. I believe that this proposal is much better than the 4 weeks paid parental leave proposal.

https://www.opm.gov/news_events/congress/proposals/STDI_Transmittal_Letter.pdf

I'm a private-sector engineer with almost 20 years of experience. Paid leave for childbirth? I was allowed to use my accumulated sick leave, which amounted to about 3 weeks. I had used up some of my sick leave prior to birth and, of course, had zero paid leave after the three weeks were used up.

Feds do OK with their paychecks, but benefits like ANY paid maternity leave, lots of paid holidays and a retirement plan are where it really pays off.

"And by the way, my fed friends also make very nice salaries. Straight out of college, several were on management tracks, moving up to GS14s and 15s within 10 years. All that, with a pension to look forward to? Wow."

True in DC, maybe. I am a GS-12 and have 30 years of service. I'm not in DC.

"what will happen when MY children, for whom I pay (over the course of 21 years) several hundred thousand dollars out of my own pocket, end up taking care of them in their old age?"

HUH? Why are your kids taking care of somebody else?

Does anyone have a link describing the leave bank changes? My googling has failed me.

"Maternity leave is not a pleasure cruise -- it's primarily medical, both for mom and child."

So how about non-child bearing people (or those finished), have the option of 4-weeks should they need surgery (knees, hips, etc.)?

Please note, not every agency has a "Leave Bank." I have been lobbying for years to get one set up at my agency. No one is interested. The only other option is to put up flyers next to the elevators pleading your case to persuade someone to donate leave to you. How demeaning!

SLP said:
"This assumes a pretty idyllic world -- no personal health problems, no health problems with family members. I had to scrimp and save leave while battling 5 years of infertility treatments that were NOT paid for by any government health plan, 10 wks of pregnancy bedrest, the serious illness of my mother, and finally her death."

And in my 17+ years in the government, your case is in the minority. My comments were for the majority.

Younger people, in general, don't deal with sick relatives (as the relatives are gnerally younger) so they can build the leave for having kids. After the birth, generally, the kids only have normal illnesses and parents can build the leave banks. Later, the parents have the leave (in general) to care for their sick parents.

And to workingmom, I misspoke with saying we should get 4-weeks extra vacation. The 4-weeks should be available as extra sick leave for medical recovery. That's pretty equal, no?

"Does anyone have a link describing the leave bank changes? My googling has failed me. "

What leave bank changes do you mean? As far as I know, the government hasn't change the leave bank rules (yet)

Anyone who things parental leave is sitting at home living the high life has never been on maternity/paternity leave. It is not sitting around eating bon bons and doing nothing. You are feeding this little person constantly, changing diapers, dealing with gas, spit up, throw up. You're trying to get this little one (or ones) to sleep. And, these are just the kids with no health problems.

I think it is unconscionable not to offer parental leave (or leave to care for an elderly/sick parent for that matter). Yes, the Federal Government does offer generous leave but 1) we are talking about 4 wks paid leave in this bill; we'd still have to use most or a good chunk of our own leave to stay with our child/children longer and 2) many young feds don't fall into that "generous" leave category. You don't qualify for more than 4 hours per pay period for several years after hire and for the REALLY generous amounts until yo've been in the feds for 15 years.

Have we really come to the point that "just b/c I didn't get that type of leave" or "I don't have kids so this won't benefit me" . . . people cannot see the value of a VERY SMALL amount of paid parental leave? Are we that self-centered? Because that is what it comes down to plain and simple. (And don't give me crap about spending more taxpayer money . . . taxpayer money is spent all the time on things I don't like or disagree with.)

Finally, to all the "having a kid is a choice" people, well so is not having a kid. You want the benefit . . procreate, adopt, get a surrogate.

I think I wrote about this once before - someone actually was asking people to donate leave for her so she could take time off after a cosmetic tummy tuck. I doubt it would have passed the sniff test to be accepted into the program but wow. That takes nerve.

As I said before, a nightmare administratively. Also, childfree folks would argue that they're entitled to multiple 4 week leaves because their co-workers had more than one child in a 10 year period. Just sayin'. (It's my job to think about these fun things from various angles.)

I'm looking for the proposed legislation Gizmo was referring to. I looked in house.gov and senate.gov and nothing popped up.

Thank you Federal Employee for pointing out the Fed options on Leave packages and the paid vs unpaid. Once again Leslie did not do her homework.

Posted by: Get Real | April 18, 2008 7:45 AM
----------------------------

Why should today be different than any other day? Leslie always misstates the facts and fails to give the information that doesn't support her position.

The fact is that we simply don't have the money to provide an extra 4 weeks of paid leave to government workers who have babies, and it's not necessary anyway. As numerous people have pointed out, there are plenty of leave options available already.

Day 1 of Fed goverment employment, you are earning 13 days of sick and 13 days of annual leave - that's 26 days or 5 weeks and 1 day. You can use BOTH types of leave for post-birth issues.

If the government is going to give a benefit to employees, it has to be a benefit ALL employees can use. They CANNOT give a benefit it is impossible for somebody to use (i.e. a 50 year old employee is NOT going to have a kid).

I believe many people would back the new benefit if it were NOT called 4-weeks paid maternity/paternity leave but call it 4-weeks special leave for use when recovering from birth, surgery, or adoption bonding. This should be available once every 3 years (or so) to avoid abuse.

To clarify:

Everyone who works for a company over 50 employees is entitled to 12 weeks of leave per the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This means that you may take UNPAID leave for up to 12 weeks:

for the birth and care of the newborn child of the employee;

for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care;

to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; or

to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition.

Anything other than that is a PERK. Any paid maternity or sick leave is a PERK.

Dennis- While I'm in agreement with you, I would like the option of short-term disability. It would be $40 a pay period and optional. You can only get donated leave up to 6 weeks, and only after you exhaust your annual and sick leave. With STD at least you could use your annual after 6 weeeks. Sick leave only covers the first 6 weeks (8 weeks c/s) regardless.

ATB

"I'm looking for the proposed legislation Gizmo was referring to. I looked in house.gov and senate.gov and nothing popped up."

It's your assignment for today.

Regarding leave policies - I worked at 3 private companies before joining the fed gov't - only 1 of 3 allowed for leave carry-over (max 10 days). Everywhere else it was use or lose. I was up to 5 weeks leave in one job but it was use/lose with heavy travel schedule, so the co. benefited on that one!

Mid-career professionals can negotiate for accelerated leave accrual in the fed gov't - it helps it if was contract work that is similar to the job you are taking.

"what will happen when MY children, for whom I pay (over the course of 21 years) several hundred thousand dollars out of my own pocket, end up taking care of them in their old age?"

HUH? Why are your kids taking care of somebody else?

Posted by: To andrea | April 18, 2008 9:12 AM

Huh? Never heard of the medical profession? What do you think those people DO all day long?

I know I'm in the minority here, but maternity leave was a vacation compared to being a working mom and dealing with work, daycare, and personal life.

Maybe my babies were just easy, but I don't remember it being difficult on a regular basis - just a few difficult days here and there.

I am thinking that if some (not all of course) women didn't act like martyrs/whiners with a holier-than-thou-I procreated attitude after giving birth then there might not be such a huge division betweeh the "haves" and "have-nots".

Re: The Leave Donation Program

I've seen Requests for Leave due to Narcolepsy, AHDD, and weight reductin surgery.

Some of my co-workers will not donate leave for anything related to child birth.

Some will not donate to anyone they consider "overpaid anyway".

Some will not donate to anyone whom they know to have a spouse/partner that makes a "lot of money".

Some will not donate to anyone who has the potential to get a big windfall down the road, ie. automobile accident victims.

Some do donate to their own monster supervisors to keep the "jerk out of the office as long as possible".

zZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Leslie's out. of. ideas. again.

Actually, Leslie DID do her homework. If you enter the gov't at age 22 and have kids at around 30, you are all set, provided you have saved your vacations and sick leave. However, if you enter gov't at age 30 and want to get pregnant right away, you are out of luck. You have no sick or vacation time accumulated. It's true that there is no stigma attached to long (by US standards) maternity leaves and several women in my office have benefited from leave donation program but it is not the same as having a guaranteed paid leave.

I have friends who live in states where local laws mandate up to 4 months of maternity leave (unpaid) and they take it only b/c they can swing it financially. I think having upaid leave greatly benefits those who either have the savings, or have spouses with jobs that earn sufficient salaries to support 3-4 months of living on one salary.

In fact, as a former congressional staffer I had two 8-week paid maternity leaves, so to me if Congress passed this law with 8 weeks for the feds, it would only mean that Congress is extending the same privilidges to the rest of the government work force.

I am also told that Speaker Pelosi gives 18 weeks of maternity leave paid to her staff and my friends who work on very challenging committees have never complained about bad maternity leave policies. (They do gripe about the hours AFTER they come back to work, but that's another subject)

"HUH? Why are your kids taking care of somebody else?

Posted by: To andrea | April 18, 2008 9:12 AM

Huh? Never heard of the medical profession? What do you think those people DO all day long? "

Um, being a doctor is different than "taking care of them in their old age". Taking care of somebody in their old age is more akin to being a nursing home employee.

And how is a child's profession choice make a difference when it comes to 4-weeks paid maternity leave? Mabye my kids (born without 4-weeks paid maternity leave) will be doctors while her kids will be ditch-diggers.

'"Why don't you take a 12 week leave of absence during which you either have major abdominal surgery or pass a bowling ball, and then get only 2 hours sleep a night while healing. Does that sound like a vacation to you?"

This is ridiculous. It was your decision to "pass a bowling ball and then get only 2 hours of sleep a night while healing". '
-------------------------------------------
Actually, the decision to only get 2 hours of sleep a night was not HER decision. It was dictated by the needs of a newborn.

Not all federal agencies have the same policies for leave donations. Some don't have them at all.

You know, some women are hired when they are pregnant and don't have the leave banked, yet. It's really not an unreasonable proposition, paying for 6 weeks of leave post-partum. After all, if 90% of them come back to work and stick it out for a few years, or more, then the investment has paid off.

"what will happen when MY children, for whom I pay (over the course of 21 years) several hundred thousand dollars out of my own pocket, end up taking care of them in their old age?"

What if by chance your child doesn't become a doctor?

Upon arrival in the Fed workforce, you can borrow upto 240 hours of sick leave - that's 6 weeks (http://www.opm.gov/oca/leave/HTML/sicklv.asp) of paid leave.

Devil's Advocate

"I am thinking that if some (not all of course) women didn't act like martyrs/whiners with a holier-than-thou-I procreated attitude after giving birth then there might not be such a huge division betweeh the "haves" and "have-nots". "

More evidence that women are their own worst enemies.

"Actually, the decision to only get 2 hours of sleep a night was not HER decision. It was dictated by the needs of a newborn."

She knew it was a very real possibility - and she made the decision to have a child anyway.

"HUH? Why are your kids taking care of somebody else?

Posted by: To andrea | April 18, 2008 9:12 AM

Huh? Never heard of the medical profession? What do you think those people DO all day long? "

Um, being a doctor is different than "taking care of them in their old age". Taking care of somebody in their old age is more akin to being a nursing home employee.

And how is a child's profession choice make a difference when it comes to 4-weeks paid maternity leave? Mabye my kids (born without 4-weeks paid maternity leave) will be doctors while her kids will be ditch-diggers.

Posted by: anon | April 18, 2008 9:50 AM

Silly me, to have thought the mindset of having kids "to take care of ME when I'm in my second childhood (but 150+ pounds heavier than when I started this life)" had gone away.

No, no, people only have children to glorify themselves and as some sort of old-age insurance policy.

What the hell is the big deal about 4 to 6 weeks of paid leave? Don't most people earn a million dollars and more throughout their working career? How does that compare to 6 lousy weeks?

I don't understand the position that having children is a luxury that should only be undertaken by the wealthy. Why should government or private sectors profits be more important than the most basic and natural desire to create a family? It seems to me that priorities are way out of order if giving birth or adopting a child is an annoyance or even a "poor choice".

"what will happen when MY children, for whom I pay (over the course of 21 years) several hundred thousand dollars out of my own pocket, end up taking care of them in their old age?"

I will be delighted to have YOUR kids change my adult diapers. Thank you!

The report titled "The Big Payoff: Educational Attainment and Synthetic Estimates of Work-Life Earnings" (.pdf) reveals that over an adult's working life, high school graduates can expect, on average, to earn $1.2 million; those with a bachelor's degree, $2.1 million; and people with a master's degree, $2.5 million.

Persons with doctoral degrees earn an average of $3.4 million during their working life, while those with professional degrees do best at $4.4 million.

"At most ages, more education equates with higher earnings, and the payoff is most notable at the highest educational levels," said Jennifer Cheeseman Day, co-author of the report.

The figures are based on 1999 earnings projected over a typical work life, defined as the period from ages 25 through 64.

Borrowing is not a solution -- first of all, 6 weeks is not a maternity leave, it's a joke. I say that fully realizing that many women are lucky to get that, but it does not make it right. And what do you do if your kid gets sick ALL THE TIME, borrow from thin air?

"What the hell is the big deal about 4 to 6 weeks of paid leave? Don't most people earn a million dollars and more throughout their working career? How does that compare to 6 lousy weeks?"

We're not talking 4-weeks ONCE. We're talking 4-weeks whenever the family has another kid. So is it 4, 8, 12, 16, 20-weeks of extra leave over a career? Who knows?

Point is simple - add a benefit for Fed employees which can benefit ALL employees - not just the young. Just another attempt to discriminate against the old.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11641991

Lifetime earnings patterns. Published in 2000.

I have no idea if this will add anything besides noise to this discussion.

Everybody is well, I hope?

dc reader said:
"first of all, 6 weeks is not a maternity leave, it's a joke."

So how is 4-weeks paid leave good? If 6-weeks is a joke, 4-weeks is a bad joke.

If your kid gets sick all of the time, you go on the leave transfer program.

Discrimination against the child free. Hmm, I wonder why that's never been in a court. Probably because it's WITHOUT MERIT.

I can't believe the child free nuts are whining about maternity leave. Get over your entitled selves.

I can't believe the child free nuts are whining about maternity leave. Get over your entitled selves.

Posted by: What a Crock | April 18, 2008 10:05 AM

Right back atcha.

"Discrimination against the child free"

No, not the child free - the older people (who might have children) but aren't going to have ANY MORE!

We have a benefit here for furthering eduction (basically money available each year for classes). I choose not to use it. However, the benefit isn't for "those in child-bearing years only" (as 4-weeks paid maternity/paternity leave would be).

See the difference once you take the blinders off.

Point is simple - add a benefit for Fed employees which can benefit ALL employees - not just the young. Just another attempt to discriminate against the old.

Posted by: to anon at 9:57am | April 18, 2008 10:01 AM

I'm a fed, and I gotta tell you, without young people populating our ranks, I would not and will not be able to have health insurance. So, kvetch all you wish, if we want more young people, we have to recognize that younger people tend to have children. And having younger people keeps our premiums down. Not to mention keeping the working environment livelier, 90% of the time in a good way.

It's still an investment. I don't know many feds who have litters of children. I can only think of one or two (older than myself) who have 4 or more. I'm 40, so take it for what it's worth. Very little.

I have some benefits that they do not. I've worked here for more than 15 years, so I earn more vacation time, for example.

Any other fed out there find it ironic that when we're being courted we're, "The best and the brightest". The second we're hired we are viewed rather differently and usually perjoratively?

So 10:09, your premise is that everyone should have exactly the same benefits?

"What the hell is the big deal about 4 to 6 weeks of paid leave?"

About $10,000. Far from chump change.

"I can't believe the child free nuts are whining about maternity leave. Get over your entitled selves."

The same can be said about parents. People have had children throughout history without paid maternity leave. They do what they have to do, whether it be delay childbirth until you have leave, come back to work sooner, sacrifice more financially, get a different job, etc.

Paid maternity leave is a nice perk, but it is a perk nonetheless. I also like the idea of providing short term disability insurance for all employees. Then it would be a benefit for everyone, even if not everyone needs it. Paid maternity leave is only a benefit for mothers, and is discriminatory in that respect.

"I have some benefits that they do not. I've worked here for more than 15 years, so I earn more vacation time, for example"

Actually, they do have the benefit of more leave after 15 years. They just haven't gotten there yet.

"I can't believe the child free nuts are whining about maternity leave. Get over your entitled selves."

I can't believe people with children think that they deserve benefits above and beyond the norm. If anyone feels entitled...

By the way, it is clearly not just the 'child free' who have a problem with this policy. It is also people who have raised their children without this benefit.

I have to add one thing to the person who responded to "What a Crock":

You're saying "we have a benefit here for furthering eduction (basically money available each year for classes). I choose not to use it. However, the benefit isn't for "those in child-bearing years only" (as 4-weeks paid maternity/paternity leave would be)".

You get the same paid leave if you adopt, which you can do at any age. Just FYI. So just because you chose not to adopt at your age, does that mean no one should ever get paid leave for it?

Why should the government subsidize the choice of someone to have children? It's a choice!!!

It has long been feredal policy to offer pay/benefits somewhat comparable to the private sector. Generally the pay isn't quite as good, but the benefits & job security have been better, so it tends to balance out.

To: Fed gov worker with 2

I am also a federal employee with 2 children. Yes, I think anything less than 8 weeks is a joke. I had paid 8 weeks on the Hill, why can't I get the same benefit as part of another branch of the same government? As for the leave donation program, I think it is a great idea but where is the guarantee that you will actually get donated leave. I have a colleague whose mother, a retiring Fed, gave her all her sick leave. She stayed home for nearly 6 months paid. Another pregnant colleague had a medical condition unrelated to pregnancy and is now burning up her leave. Of course, she is going to go into a leave donation program, but what if she doesn't get any leave donated? I think to use leave donation policy as a pseudo maternity policy is too uncertain. I am glad I am not in her shoes.

I always love when Congress refuses to give something to the federal employees that they have for themselves and their own stafers (like paid maternity leave). Going through a pregnancy at the federal government is a joke. While the benefits, once you have a child are supposedly better (less hours...hah! more flexibility...hah!), the maternity policy is a joke. It's nice that you have to burn through whatever leave you build up in the short amount of time you work (and God forbid you should even think about having more than one child within 5 years), but then all of your leave is then gone when you need it the most (for all of the first year dr. appts, ear infections, etc.)

If the government is such a "family friendly" place to work, it needs to get with the times and step up.

"We have a benefit here for furthering eduction (basically money available each year for classes). I choose not to use it. However, the benefit isn't for "those in child-bearing years only" (as 4-weeks paid maternity/paternity leave would be). "

The TransitChek program is the same.

HOWEVER,

Men can reproduce at any age.
Adoption isn't always liked to age.

"Point is simple - add a benefit for Fed employees which can benefit ALL employees - not just the young. Just another attempt to discriminate against the old."

Posted by: to anon at 9:57am | April 18, 2008 10:01 AM

I guess local taxes to pay for public education is also "just another attempt to discriminate against the old." Give me a break! All these types of things are investing in our (the collective "our") future.

"What the hell is the big deal about 4 to 6 weeks of paid leave?"

About $10,000. Far from chump change.

Posted by: Bunny Hop | April 18, 2008 10:11 AM

Again, when they come back (and the majority do), they provide more than that to their employer. As a rule.

Is it a guarantee? No. Much of life is a crap shoot. You can't make it all fair. But you can think down the road a bit.

For example, be nice to the people under you as you climb life's ladder. You'll be meeting them later on, as you are going down, and they are climbing up.

So avoid their faces and fingers.

Young people tend to be the ones making their own children. They are also at the start of their working career. That $10,000 isn't diddly-squat when compared to their lifetime earnings. You are betting on their return to the workplace (a reasonably safe bet) and recouping your money through their efforts. Okay, if you lose, but they rejoin the workforce later on, they still generate far more than $10,000 by the time they retire.

I just don't know many people, even stay-at-home parents, who have a Social Security statement with a lifetime earnings of $0. I know they're out there, but many of them are old.

*shrugs*

"By the way, it is clearly not just the 'child free' who have a problem with this policy. It is also people who have raised their children without this benefit."

Posted by: Really? | April 18, 2008 10:13 AM

Not true! I have had 2 children while employed by the Federal Government. I would have loved to have had the proposed maternity benefits. That does not mean that since I'm about to turn 50 and I can't benefit from this proposal that I'm not for it! Far from it -- I say it's about time!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Sorry, I meant to say "$10,000 IS diddly-squat when compared to their lifetime earnings". It's also a BIG HELP at the time, particularly if it's at the beginning (say 20s) of their careers.

I don't begrudge them. I was once one of them. Yeah, I was able to bank leave and had uneventful pregnancies. I was LUCKY. Some people are not as lucky in that regard.

Companies are all about continuity. Leaves like this disrupt that continuity and that's why Republicans (who are supported by the business community) are loathe to support it.

I worked for a company that had employer-paid short term disability. It covered the 6 weeks before long term disability kicked in. I think the LTD was part employee/part employer paid.

This was the only company I ever worked for that had this benefit. Usually, STD is a fully employee paid benefit.

I agree that fed employees have great benefits already. And, I also agree that it shouldn't create a benefit that excludes a good portion of the workforce. But, if the fed gov't wants to set an example for private sector, then they should call it STD.

Personally, I have a hard time believing this benefit is necessary for fed employees. I work as a contractor and see the administrative, sick, vacation, donated and comp leave that is accrued and used. Even without comparing it to anything else, it's a good benefit.

"I have some benefits that they do not. I've worked here for more than 15 years, so I earn more vacation time, for example. "

But if they continue to work, they will get it.

4-weeks paid maternity/paternity leave will NOT benefit a large percentage of government workers.

I am a fed employee.

Much is made about being able to "borrow" sick leave. But then you have to pay it back.

I had my daughter 17 months ago, and probably won't have my sick leave repaid for another year. That means that the only leave I have now is annual, and I have to use that for things relating to both me and my daughter. Forget building up a cushion, or taking anthing more than a few days' vacation.

The worst aspect of this job is that I'm basically a salaried employee in an hourly job. Leave 30 minutes early...take .5 hours leave. When I was in the private sector, we never took sick or vacation time unless we were completely out of pocket. None of this nickle-and-diming of time. All you had to do was get the job done. At the govt, its all about butts in seats.

By the way, it is clearly not just the 'child free' who have a problem with this policy. It is also people who have raised their children without this benefit.

I realize this will come as a shock to you, but some people who had it tougher in the workplace want it to be BETTER than it was when they had their children. With your attitude, the US would never, e.g., have legalized equal pay for women in the same jobs as men, or for employees regardless of race etc.

prarie dog: "I worked for a company that had employer-paid short term disability. It covered the 6 weeks before long term disability kicked in. I think the LTD was part employee/part employer paid."

STD is a great benefit to have, whether employee- or employer-paid. Mine has been employer-paid in every private company for which I've worked, but I'd take it even if I had to pay the premium myself.

LTD is generally employee-paid, because it's better tax-wise that way. (If LTD is employee-paid and you have to collect it, it's considered "insurance" and there's no income tax. If it's employer-paid and you collect, then it's taxable. If you ever have to collect, you're way ahead of the game having paid the premium yourself.)

"I guess local taxes to pay for public education is also "just another attempt to discriminate against the old." "

Um, the public education is a benefit which old people used (either as a student themselves or on their kids - or both).

Some of us really want things to be fair. What if there was a proposal for all employees to pay the same amount for health insurance, regardless of whether they had seven kids or none?

I don't understand this "everyone should have it" mentality. And the idea that people who are older, who raised their children without the protection FMLA now offers, actually WANT to get rid of the benefits and coverage they wish they'd had -- well, those of you thinking this need some time for introspection. You really seem to have a mean streak in you.

"4-weeks paid maternity/paternity leave will NOT benefit a large percentage of government workers."

Hazardous duty pay will NOT benefit a large percentage of government workers; namely, those who choose not to take assignments in hazardous places.

Flight pay will NOT benefit a large percentage of government workers.

Foreign-language incentive pay (bonuses for being proficient in several key languages) will NOT benefit a large percentage of government workers.

Special pay scales for doctors (e.g., NIH) scientists, etc. will NOT benefit a large percentage of government workers.

Free periodic trips home for government workers stationed overseas will NOT benefit a large percentage of government workers.

You get my drift now, right?

The 4 weeks medical leave is NOT just for women who give birth/women of child bearing age. It's for new mothers and fathers, regardless of whether that's by childbirth or adoption.

"I realize this will come as a shock to you, but some people who had it tougher in the workplace want it to be BETTER than it was when they had their children. With your attitude, the US would never, e.g., have legalized equal pay for women in the same jobs as men, or for employees regardless of race etc."

This isn't my attitude - if you read through the comments you will notice that many of the people opposed to this benefit are parents with raised children.

Also, it is ridiculous to compare equal wages for women or racial equality to maternity leave. Equality is a basic human right, 8 weeks off because you had a child is a perk.

""I guess local taxes to pay for public education is also "just another attempt to discriminate against the old." "

Um, the public education is a benefit which old people used (either as a student themselves or on their kids - or both)."

So you're saying no new benefits ever? The world should never change and move on? What about the social security that you get that I will never get?

"Um, the public education is a benefit which old people used (either as a student themselves or on their kids - or both)."

What if the old people only went to private schools, and then either sent their kids to private schools or never had any kids?

I forgot to mention that I was able to use the employer-paid STD for maternity leave. Very nice! I was working for a different employer for my first child, and was in the boat of having to save up sick and vacation.

"So you're saying no new benefits ever? "

No, I'm saying no new benefits that can only be used by few.

"What if the old people only went to private schools, and then either sent their kids to private schools or never had any kids?"

Choices - all choices. They opted to NOT use the benefit - versus not being able to use the benefit. 4-weeks paid leave is akin to saying "You can't go to public school since you're black."

What if the old people only went to private schools, and then either sent their kids to private schools or never had any kids?

That assumes that society as a whole, which includes those old people and their families who only ever attended private schools, doesn't benefit in the least from public education. Talk about fallacious reasoning. I assume the poster was being sarcastic, though.

"4-weeks paid leave is akin to saying "You can't go to public school since you're black.""

Bizarre. Truly bizarre. Who are the "black" people in this case? Men? No, because they can use the leave when their wives give birth or when they adopt.

Women older than a certain age? No, because they can use the leave when they adopt, which is generally NOT limited by age.

The only people who can NEVER use this leave are those who CHOOSE to never have a biological child AND to never adopt (that's a logical "AND"; both clauses have to be true). And that, my friend, is a choice.

Maybe if the US weren't pi$$ing away $300 million a year in Iraq (for quite possibly a total of $3 trillion over the course of a decade), we could afford 8 weeks of paid parental leave for the birth or adoption of a child.

Medicare is the second largest program in the federal government and faces collective unfunded obligations of more than $74 trillion -- more than six times the current size of the American economy.

The Medicaid budget is shrinking each year and shifting more of the financial burden on the states.

We are midst a recession and lending crisis. Retailers and airlines are filing for bankruptcy right and left.

We are fighting a friggin' WAR and are bringing home a large percentage of veterans with head injuries who will require a lifetime of disability payments and healthcare support.

What kind of drugs do you have to be on in order to look out on this economic landscape, smack your forehead and say, without irony or sarcasm: "This is an IDEAL time to make funding paid maternity leave for federal employees a top budget priority"?

New to those living under a rock: The government doesn't have a money tree in the backyard any more than you do.

Pi$$ing? No, it's a full-fledged flood.

Just a minor nit on the tone of both Leslie's article and Barr's original Federal Diary article. The membership of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is listed on http://oversight.house.gov/about/members.asp

By my quick count, there are 22 Democrats and 18 Republicans on the committee. So, if you hypothesized that EVERY SINGLE Republican opposed any paid maternity leave, the Democrats could still have passed the bill easily.

More interesting, Barr's article noted that the compromise bill passed by a vote of 7-3, with seven Democrats in favor and 3 Republicans opposed. That means 30 members of the committee - 15 of each party - weren't even there.

Recognition of Service benefit -- bestowed on hire date anniversaries of those who've been with us for 10, 15, 20, and 25 years. It's just not fair to all those employees who leave before then, is it?

Special Auto Insurance rates -- many people don't drive, especially in the big cities, so why should the company essentially hand out wads of cash to anyone who does?

Commuting benefits -- what if I walk to work? Can I get my sneakers paid for? What does the company do to offset the money I don't get because I DON'T NEED IT?

Employee referral bonus -- I don't know anyone I'd refer and it's not fair that other people do and get money for it

Gift matching program -- I refuse to give to charities but why should other people do it AND get credit for a bigger donation just because there's a company match?

Adoption assistance -- My company offers $5000 toward adoption costs. But I don't plan to adopt and I want the money anyway because otherwise, it's not fair

WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE.

We seem little schizophrenic as a country about whether we value children and families or not. The choice faction sees kids right up there with raising puppies or surfing as a potentially time-consuming but personal hobby.

Those of us who are parents feel like we're making the most important contribution we'll ever make to the world with out kids. They'll be our doctors, lawyers, furnace repair people and bedpan cleaners AND taxpayers after we parents leave the world.

Is it so unfair to ask the society that benefits down the road to contribute upfront for parental leave, education etc?
I guess in a society that can't see past the next financial quarter, it may be too much.

But I suspect we will face our comeuppance in the form of demographic trends. If it weren't for immigrants, the U.S. would be seeing some of the same declines in children that parts of Europe are seeing now. Young people come out of college with so much debt these days and face so many obstacles to providing a good life for their children. Many more people are *choosing* not to have children. Perhaps that's better for our planet in the long run but don't think we're not going to suffer for it in terms of our economy, social security etc.

Stand back and watch our aging society and see if you like those costs better than the ones involved in getting children off to a good start.

"What if the old people only went to private schools, and then either sent their kids to private schools or never had any kids?"

What if the old people were only home schooled /Bible schooled?

"The only people who can NEVER use this leave are those who CHOOSE to never have a biological child AND to never adopt (that's a logical "AND"; both clauses have to be true). And that, my friend, is a choice."

I'm 50 and will never use this leave because I already had my children. Women today do have it better than I did. We could only use leave we had saved or borrowed (no donated leave nor comp time at that time), and we had to return to work after medical recovery which was 6 wks or 8 wks for a c-section. Women today can be off for 12 weeks and may be able to use donated leave.

In addition to being a federal employee, I am a taxpayer and as such, I am not in favor of additional paid time for parental leave. Buy your own short term disability leave if you want to be paid.

WorkingMomX's list indicates, more than anything else, that the feds think nothing of spending taxpayer money on benefits that have little to do with either atracting or retaining good employees.

How 'bout this idea: if paid maternity leave is so important than let's devote the money that would be saved by eliminating ALL of the following bogus programs to paid maternity leave:

Recognition of Service ("Tom's still breathing, let's wake him up and give him some money"),

Commuting benefits (decide and spend for yourself - that's what the rest of us do),

special auto insurance rates (ridikulus, 'nuf said),

the employee referral bonus (other than with respect to military personnel, including employees of Walter Reed -- the feds can get stupid, lazy, inefficient people to work there without hiring the stupid, lazy, inefficient friends of stupid, lazy, inefficient people),

and the matching gift program (give all you want but my taxes shouldn't subsidize your giving).

special auto insurance rates

What federal agency gives special auto insurance rates? It's not the agency where I work.

PULSE CHECK: Great discussion. Very heated. Some name calling.

Is everyone okay with this level of fervent?

Or do I need to be deleting some of the (to me minor) swear words and finger pointing posts?

Please weigh in so I can keep the discussion productive.

Thanks.

I do not work for the feds, FYI. But I hope they do have these programs.

And sorry, but it's WHINING. You want what you want without logic and sans reason. You want the stuff others get, even when it doesn't make sense (like maternity leave for people who don't want kids), except when you don't. Equality? Don't make me laugh.

Best fight I've had in months. :)

"You want the stuff others get, even when it doesn't make sense (like maternity leave for people who don't want kids)"

Actually, it does make sense. What doesn't make sense is 4 weeks off for a specific medical condition (childbirth) rather than 4 weeks off for any medical condition.

If the four weeks of leave is approved, I think that it should be conditional on continuing employment for 3 years beyond the leave period. If the employment doesn't continue for 3 years, the money should be repaid.

To anon@10:47

"What if the old people only went to private schools, and then either sent their kids to private schools or never had any kids?

That assumes that society as a whole, which includes those old people and their families who only ever attended private schools, doesn't benefit in the least from public education. Talk about fallacious reasoning. I assume the poster was being sarcastic, though."

The 10:40 posting was mine (sorry, forgot to put my name on it) and yes, I was being *very* sarcastic.

My point is that it's in our best interests as a society to take care of the next generation. Because, as Andrea points out in her 8:58 post, those kids will be taking care of us in our dotage.

Other people's kids and grandkids, not just my own, will be taking care of me. Some directly, by being doctors, nurses, etc. Some by serving their country and protecting us if need be. Some by being police officers, firefighters, and teachers.

Some will be running businesses that provide goods that I want to buy, or jobs for my family and friends.

Some will invent new technologies that extend my life or make it better. Some will create new music, movies or books that will entertain me.

And they're (almost) all going to be supporting me by paying taxes that will provide the roads on which I drive; the payment for those future teachers, firefighters, police officers, etc.; the parks in which I get my recreation; and other services I consume. (Remember, one of the "games" of an IRA or 401k is that I'll be paying fewer taxes when I collect on it, so it's a good investment now.)

So, yes, the world will be a far better place for me in the future if I help to educate all citizens and provide them basic needs. It's in my own selfish interests to do that.

"If the four weeks of leave is approved, I think that it should be conditional on continuing employment for 3 years beyond the leave period. If the employment doesn't continue for 3 years, the money should be repaid."

This is a great suggestion. This is the way tuition reimbursement works.

Leslie,

Fervent discussion has never been a problem here, except when it is to you because you get on one of your "nice" and "respectful" kicks. Nasty, gratuitous personal, targeted insults are what drives grown folks away. None of that here today, other than the occasional "stupid". Come on, do you really not know the difference?

"I'm a Republican, and seriously considering voting for a Democrat in the coming election year.
Posted by: | April 18, 2008 8:01 AM"

Yes, you are a Republican, not a Conservative. What can my Government do for ME, ME, ME? This is what is wrong with the Republican Party, there is little difference with the Democrats. So, please vote for the Democrats, you will feel right at home with them.

If four weeks of unpaid leave makes that much of a difference to parents, maybe they shouldn't be having a child. In the big scheme of things, four weeks without pay is nothing compared to the cost of raising a child.

I totally agree, hockeyfan. And the sad thing is, once I was in my seat (promptly at 9) it didn't matter what was done for the rest of the day (even if I had nothing to do all day). But look out if I even tried to leave a few minutes early. I also knew a women who worked a ton of hours for the first 4 days of the week, wanted to leave early on Friday, and was told she'd have to use vacation time to do it.

Recognition of Service ("Tom's still breathing, let's wake him up and give him some money"),

Ha,ha! It's known as the "Warm Body" Award in my agency.

It's amazing how many mediocre people think they "bust their asses" and "go beyond the call of duty" in the workplace.

I know. I review the nomination applications for awards. Employees are allowed to nominate themselves. I've seen some real lulus.

MN -- I just might have to delete that comment!

Seriously, my thick skin sometimes makes me impervious to stuff others find offensive.

So I thought the simple solution was to ask.

Thanks.

I'm childless and unmarried - and I'd prefer to pay for maternity leave over bailing out people who bought houses they couldn't afford.

"Zero paid leave in the private sector? Who are you working for?

I've worked at three universities, with six to = eight weeks of paid leave for each child per birth.
Posted by: Ann Arbor | April 18, 2008 8:53 AM "

Do you honestly thing working at a University is the Private Sector? If so, I have a couple "special" bargains I want to share with you. I know several people that have worked in various capacities at VA Universities and they all had excellent benefits. Their wages may not have been the highest, but that is the trade-off. Pick your poison like the rest of us schmucks.

dc reader

I know women who were law clerks & secretaries for federal judges who got a lot of paid maternity leave.

The policies differ between the 3 branches and within the branches themselves.

Women in the military and Public Health Service get 6 or 8 weeks paid, non-chargable leave after childbirth.

ArmyBrat

"My point is that it's in our best interests as a society to take care of the next generation. Because, as Andrea points out in her 8:58 post, those kids will be taking care of us in our dotage."

What does that have to do with paid maternity/paternity leave? You didn't make your point in 8+ paragraph novella.

"The policies differ between the 3 branches and within the branches themselves."

Ahhh. The dirty little secrets. Some of us feds have ZERO maternity benefits, while others are reported to have 18 weeks. Some of us can only use donated leave up to 6/8 weeks, while others are allowed 6 months. I'm all for leveling the federal benefits, at least for the civilians.

As a Fed, I had no idea there was such a vast difference in benefits between the different branches. Eye opening.

Maternity benefits (as well as other uses for short term disability) are already calculated in our current sick leave package. This is the reason we (unlike many private sector companies) are able to retain sick leave from year to year.

If this maternity benefits package passes, how will it affect our current policies?

You didn't make your point in 8+ paragraph novella.

Look on the bright side. At least he didn't run it all together into a single humongous one!

The policies differ between the 3 branches

No, "The policies differ among the 3 branches." "Between" is only for comparing two things; more than two and you use "among."

I fail to understand the mentality of "I've having a child so everyone else must help me". You choose your job and you choose a kid. If your job doesn't allow you the time off then you should either choose another job, deal with it, or choose to not have a child. If you can't afford to take the time off then you shouldn't be having children.

"You didn't make your point in 8+ paragraph novella."

"Look on the bright side. At least he didn't run it all together into a single humongous one!"

Ha, ha! But I still don't know what his point is (I usually don't).

I don't want kids, but I'm not going to get irked at someone who does just because they're eligible for eight whoppin' weeks of time off to take care of the baby and I'm not. It's not as though that newborn baby can just up and take care of itself, and it is only eight weeks in a long career for most folks.

Maybe the solution in this case is to make the time off available to everyone, to be used for whatever you want. Babies, puppies, travel, visiting family, writing that novel, whatever you choose. Just set a limit on it. What that is, I don't know. I'm a bit short on caffiene right now to think it all the way out, so I'm just tossing out the idea.

"I fail to understand the mentality of "I've having a child so everyone else must help me". You choose your job and you choose a kid. If your job doesn't allow you the time off then you should either choose another job, deal with it, or choose to not have a child. If you can't afford to take the time off then you shouldn't be having children."

Wow! I wanna work closely with you 5 days a week!

The FEDs should use this on their recruitment posters & literature.

In addition to being a federal employee, I am a taxpayer and as such, I am not in favor of additional paid time for parental leave. Buy your own short term disability leave if you want to be paid.

Posted by: | April 18, 2008 11:00 AM

I'm a fed too, and short term disability leave is not available to me. I can't "purchase" it.

"If four weeks of unpaid leave makes that much of a difference to parents, maybe they shouldn't be having a child. In the big scheme of things, four weeks without pay is nothing compared to the cost of raising a child."

Posted by: Just a thought | April 18, 2008 11:22 AM

Got any old paystubs from when you were younger and starting your family (if you did)? Pull them out, compare them to what you were paying for your rent/mortgage, electricity, water (if applicable), auto insurance (if applicable), health insurance, life insurance, any student/credit card debt, etc.

Now, tell me how feasible that is. Put it on top of recovering from (painful procedure of your choice).

Look, this isn't a case of "we have no ability to take time off and we need it." If that were the case, I believe most would say "give the benefit".

However, Feds already have great leave benefits and some people (old, young, with kids, childless) are saying "if you can't do it with the benefits you have, don't do it". I tend to agree with them.

Make this like short-term disability insurance. People can put a few bucks away each pay period to buy the benefit (like health insurance or LTD). If you want to buy 4-weeks of leave, be my guest.

If you can't afford to take the time off then you shouldn't be having children.

That worked well for the Shakers.

"Make this like short-term disability insurance. People can put a few bucks away each pay period to buy the benefit (like health insurance or LTD). If you want to buy 4-weeks of leave, be my guest."

Can Feds purchase short-term disability insurance?

"I'm a fed too, and short term disability leave is not available to me. I can't "purchase" it."

True, the feds don't have a short term disability leave program.
But you could purchase short term disability insurance.

"If you can't afford to take the time off then you shouldn't be having children"

I can't keep my knees together.

"Got any old paystubs from when you were younger and starting your family (if you did)? Pull them out, compare them to what you were paying for your rent/mortgage, electricity, water (if applicable), auto insurance (if applicable), health insurance, life insurance, any student/credit card debt, etc.

Now, tell me how feasible that is. Put it on top of recovering from (painful procedure of your choice)."

Well, apparently it is very feasible. Look around and see how many working mothers there are who had children before a lot of today's policies were in place.

People, have we forgotten about demographics? The elderly (65+) are the fastest growing ("growing"?) population in the world. Last time I looked, aged adults weigh more than infants, tend to be prone to a far wider variety of labor and medical-intensive maladies, and get this! You can't bank on their getting better AND getting to work.

Maybe I'm feeling punchy about this subject because my grandmother is 92 and has Alzheimer's, my grandfather is 95 and has congestive heart failure, and their medical care is beyond my limits. They have to be in a nursing home, across the street from a hospital.

Whethe