# Scandalous US Maternity Policies



## Island Mommy (Mar 26, 2003)

OK, I just read another post by a mom who says she will be returning to work 6 weeks post-partum!!!! I just cannot believe that the social policies in the U.S. are so poor that they think a new mom can be ready to return to work 6 weeks after a new babe is born.

I don't want to knock the U.S. As an outsider though, I'm just astounded.

In Canada we now have 1 year partial-paid maternity leave with a guaranteed job at the end of the year. Plus many companies offer paternity leave. And Canada is by no means the best country in terms of its social policies.

I encourage you all to lobby your elected officials for better support for families.


----------



## wednesday (Apr 26, 2004)

Yeah, it stinks. I went back to work at 8 weeks.


----------



## Nurturing Mama (Nov 11, 2003)

In the US, we have a 12 week maternity leave where we are guaranteed our job at the end. It isn't necessarily paid, mine wasn't. That depends on the company you work for. Most of the women I worked with returned to work within six weeks of having a baby, and some were working 1 week after giving birth, because they had to support their family. I couldn't even sit without a donut for 3 weeks post partum, let alone work a 40 hour week.

Paternity leave is unheard of in my area. Fortunately my husband is self employed and was able to take a week off.


----------



## Jadegrniiz (May 14, 2004)

It's just awful, isn't it? I agree about lobbying your political representatives, but to be honest - they have much bigger fish to fry at the moment (gas prices, jobs going to China, and the "war on Terrorism" ) and won't listen like they should.

I had to go back to work at 6 weeks as well, but my boss was wonderful, and allowed me to bring the baby with me to the office until I was more comfortable with my child care choices. It was nice, because 6 weeks just isn't enough time to build up a BF'ing routine/supply when your baby spent the first 5 days in NICU unable to latch. Anyhow, she worked with me for 3.5 months


----------



## Cranberry (Mar 18, 2002)

I got 12 weeks' maternity leave with partial pay (I think it was 2/3 of my full pay). The company I worked for had JUST implemented this program right before ds was born, so I was fortunate! I didn't end up going back to work, though. Actually I knew I wasn't going back to work, but I didn't tell them that until my maternity leave was almost over.


----------



## wednesday (Apr 26, 2004)

Ha, cranberry, I did the opposite--I told my work I would not be coming back after my baby's birth. I had no paid leave benefits anyway. Then when my husband was laid off I panicked over not having health insurance, even moreso than over income, and called my boss and asked for my job back. Fortunately he was thrilled I had changed my mind.


----------



## KLK7 (Jan 31, 2004)

Quote:

In the US, we have a 12 week maternity leave where we are guaranteed our job at the end. It isn't necessarily paid, mine wasn't.
I believe that the 12 weeks is only for companies with 50 or more full time employees. The reason I know is because we are only allowed 5 (!) weeks, completely unpaid because we only have around 30 Full Time employees.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Island Mommy*
*I don't want to knock the U.S. As an outsider though, I'm just astounded.*

As an insider, I say knock away.









It really is pathetic... it's yet another piece of evidence pointing to the obvious - that corporations run this country.


----------



## Parker'smommy (Sep 12, 2002)

It is awful!!!

I had 8 weeks Maternity Leave ( c-section, a vaginal would have been 6 weeks). I had paid into disability so I got partial pay after my sick days had been used up ( which was about 45 days since we can roll them over). But if I had not paid for the Disability insurance I would have been S.O.L. since teachers cant use State Disability! And then I used ALL of Family Medical Leave. Of course FMLA is unpaid so most families that have to work, dont actually use it. It's nice to know that you can use it and not lose your job, but the fact that you dont get paid is the worst part.

So. I left Feb 1st, had a baby at the end of Feb and then returned to work at the end of August. Thankfully, we had saved all of dh's income while i was pregnant and had that saved up. ANd Im DOUBLE thankful that I only had to work for 2 months because we were totally blessed that my dh got an awesome job that allowed me to quit. He was staying home while I worked!

I always cringe when I hear of other countries Maternity/paternity leaves. It seems like the norm in other countries is one year leave and partial pay. Why is the US so behind the times in this respect???


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

What I want to know is this: Where the hell are those family values the politicians preach?

I quit my job to stay home with my baby but likely would've kept it if I could've taken a year off and had my same job when I went back.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

There is supposed to be job security in Canada, but that isn't always the case. One of my GFs got pissed because the 52 week leave was not retroactive to her daughter's birth (2-3 months before the leave became active) and she had to go to work at the end of the original leave (6 mo?). Her job was not waiting for her and since her DH had lost his job, they ended up on EI for a while and are now on welfare from what I last heard.


----------



## thirtycats (May 14, 2002)

We need more criticism from insiders and outsiders!!!!

Have any of you read The Price of Motherhood??????

Dina


----------



## willowsmama (Jan 11, 2003)

Dina- How's the author? It sounds like something I'd be interested in.

Our maternity and paternity leave policies suck. Big time. With dd #2, I was induced on a Wed. night had her Thurs. morning left the hospital Fri. morning. Dh was back to work on Mon. Yup, Monday! It sucked. With ds I left the hospital earlier so I could atleast get situated before he went back to work. He took 4 days off. Then he got crap because I left the hospital 4 hrs. after birth, so couldn't he have come back sooner?And his company thought they were being uber generous letting him. He used some vacation days so we didn't lose tons of money.

But his boss' wife buys a outfit( gymboree or baby gap) for the new one~ I think it's supposed to make them feel better for screwing mom, dad and the kids.

I read a back issue of Mothering about Sweden. then I asked dh if we could move.lol


----------



## indiegirl (Apr 15, 2002)

I moved this to Activism--go you activists!

I would really like to vent my peice about this, too. With my first dd, I went back to work when she was six weeks. Can you say heartbreak?? With dd2, I had my salary reduced so that I could take a full 12 weeks off and still get a paycheck. I couldn't even use my sick days on that leave because, get this, I "wasn't sick." (I was a public school teacher!!!) You know what I did? I called in sick the entire week before my leave began. I used my sick days and all of my personal days. Lied through my teeth. Get this: three veteran teachers (all with 25+ years exp.) offered to give me a week's salary each in their accrued leave. That amounts to nearly a month's salary at full pay. They wouldn't let them give it to me.

So, I took my leave (12 weeks) and there was no way in heck I was going back. I gave notice and they promptly cut my entire program. It was easier not to replace me than to keep the arts alive in public h.s. What a crock of crap.

I was the breadwinner, so it was a huge adjustment. We now make over 20K less a year and we are better off financially (and emotionally) now that I quit.

Jesse


----------



## mshollyk (Sep 24, 2002)

i was FIRED from my job when i took a leave of absence beyond my 6 weeks. then they had the audacity to claim i didn't deserve unemployment insurance. they took me to court and i won


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)




----------



## sweetpeasmom (Nov 20, 2003)

I agree it is horrible. I went back to work 6 weeks pp. It was miserable. My supply dropped, I was so moody. I missed my baby. I ended up quiting work 2 mths later because I couldn't bear the thought of missing another day with my baby.
I have a feeling it would be a tough battle to win but hope some the battle will be won.


----------



## Brisen (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Island Mommy*
In Canada we now have 1 year partial-paid maternity leave with a guaranteed job at the end of the year. Plus many companies offer paternity leave. And Canada is by no means the best country in terms of its social policies.

I don't know if this is just in Ontario or all of Canada, but the 1 year is parental leave -- either parent can take it, or they can share. So, both could be off for the first 6 months, or one off for 6 mths, then the other for the next 6 mths.


----------



## Mommiska (Jan 3, 2002)

Wow - can I move to Canada?!

I've always been glad that I'm having my children in the UK.

We're a bit behind much of the rest of Europe as far as maternity provisions go, but I'm still on maternity leave (and this last month was the first month I didn't get a paycheck







), and ds is 8 months old (we get 6 months maternity leave with some form of pay - whether it's at 90%, 50% or statutory pay, which isn't much but better than nothing).

I can't even begin to imagine going back to work when my newborn was only 6 weeks old. And if you look at the big picture, little to no maternity leave has got to be counter-productive financially. I would think that many women just quite all together, because it's just too soon.

Surely in the long run it would be good for companies/the economy/etc for women to take a longer, paid maternity leave and then return to the work force (whether full or part-time)?


----------



## cumulus (Jul 17, 2002)

If you read Meredith Small's books you'll find that most of the world is shocked at much of how we treat our childen. She's an anthropologist who studies child-rearing in other countries where, she finds, parents value things other than what Americans value most in children, namely independence.
As President Coolidge said, "The business of America is business" and as concerns child-rearing we, as a nation, get right down to business with our children as our child-rearing fits business more than it fits children.


----------



## stafl (Jul 1, 2002)

I think it's yet another way big business and big brother are partnered together to keep the working class dependent on their jobs. It's all about class division, the poor get poorer, the rich get richer... same ol' song and dance, my friends.
As long as the US government is really run by those with the money, I don't see it ever changing.

Quote:

Surely in the long run it would be good for companies/the economy/etc for women to take a longer, paid maternity leave and then return to the work force (whether full or part-time)?
not really. They want us to just accept having other people taking care of our kids for us, first daycare, then public schools. It's one of many ways they have of controlling the masses, of raising a compliant workforce. Heaven forbid the masses should open their eyes and start to question governmental policy! Plato explained it all over two thousand years ago, and it still works the same way now as it did then.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Hi! All!

I am one of the mamas who have children now in their twenties. I worked and fought for the measly benefits that American women now have.

I can remember the time when health insurance companies DID NOT offer maternity benefits because pregnancy/childbirth was not considered an accident.

So that is where we came from; where are we going to go?

Personally, I do not want to work with a woman who is going on maternity leave and then have to pick up the slack for the eight/twelve weeks she is gone for the same amount of pay. Sorry, this is a reality of life on the job now.

Since I never had any of the benefits, but I did work to change the system. Now, I watch pregnant women with less seniority and education as I taking advantage of a system that I helped to create, and I have to cover for them also at the same salary.

Not fair.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

When you helped to create this system, what was your vision?


----------



## stafl (Jul 1, 2002)

Quote:

I can remember the time when health insurance companies DID NOT offer maternity benefits...
My insurance does not offer maternity benefits. It's not just a thing of the past, it still goes on today.
The only women covered by FMLA work for companies with at least 50 full-time employees, and they have to have been working there at least 12 months in order to qualify. And even then, if they meet those requirements, they are only guaranteed time off without pay and a job if they wish to return, it doesn't even mean they will have the same job. Some companies go beyond what the gov says they have to do, but just barely. Most find ways around it, loopholes and such. Like the companies that have well over 50 employees, but call most of them part-time so they don't have to offer any benefits at all.
No, it's not fair.

Quote:

Personally, I do not want to work with a woman who is going on maternity leave and then have to pick up the slack for the eight/twelve weeks she is gone for the same amount of pay. Sorry, this is a reality of life on the job now.
The companies that do offer paid leave, also have insurance policies that cover the salary and the cost of training a replacement. If the coworkers are picking up the slack, it is the company you should be angry with, not the new mother.


----------



## Bippity (Sep 12, 2003)

Our office also has no paid maternity leave. One of our employees will have to return to work TWO WEEKS PP - that's all the leave she has & she's a single mom (this is baby #2). It's sickening!


----------



## Kerlowyn (Mar 15, 2002)

In Rhode Island, where I worked for 6 years before DS2 was born, there is Temporary Disability Insurance. It gets taken out of your check each week, a very small amount.
When you have a baby, you get to collect for 12 weeks. It equals almost your take home pay while working, and it is tax free. Also, you have to get your job back when you return to work. The same insurance works for any type of illness/accident where you can't work for a week or more.

I wish more states had a program like this. 6 weeks leave is so barbaric!!!


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

_I_ did not create THE system. I am sorry if I sounded as if I said I was responsible for the whole thing. I just recall filing complaints at the time as many mothers did, but I could not do much more since I had a babe to care for. What I would have envisioned for the workplace has never materialized and never will as no one really cares what I think. I will forever be an underling and no one is going to let me forget it.

Many of those companies I complained against are no longer around.

As for insurance companies not offering maternity insurance, I meant that NO company offered maternity insurance. I know that insurance often does not include it; my DH's company patently refused to offer insurance that had maternity coverage.

As a side-note, health insurance has become astronomically expensive since it has been offered as a benefit of employment. Originally, health insurance as a part of a benefits package of employment was offered during WWII when the wage/price controls were in place; employers needed another way to attract good candidates for employment besides a good salary, so they did this. Since many people use their health insurance alot and with the astronomical rise in malpractice cases, many tests are ordered that are not necessary, but are expensive and often invasive. Anyway, this is just one reason insurance is high.

As for working with women in this situation and picking up the slack, I am not as stupid as you would want to make me out to be. I DO KNOW THAT IT IS THE COMPANY THAT IS AT FAULT making me take up the slack and not hiring a temp for an employee who is on maternity leave. However, in an economy that is cutting back all of the time, being mad at the company will only get you the door with a pink slip. I have an education, I am using it, and yet I find myself being stretched to the limit as personnel is cut, cut, cut and I take on more responsibility.

alittle







T I have known of people who go to Kaisar almost every day and just pay the co-pay. I know of one mother who took her DD twice a week since her DD was fascinated by all of the gadgetry. This was her outing every couple of days. This was entertainment. This also adds to the cost of insurance for everyone.

Furthermore, in my area, three hospitals have closed in the last three years! People without insurance using the ER's for health care have forced them to close.

I have never had health insurance, but I have always paid my bills.


----------



## mirthfulmum (Mar 3, 2003)

I went to university for a while in the US and still keep in touch with many of my friends down in the States (actually married one of them and brought him back up here with me so have family down there as well). And I am still dumbfounded by the heart arche and hassle that family and friends have had to go through when it came to juggling work and new motherhood. Like many other posters I too wonder where are these great family values that so many conservative Republicans keep preaching about. They'll go to hell and back, alter one of their country's most sacred documents to save family values from those nasty homosexuals who want to ruin marriage (dripping sarcasm here) but heaven forbid if they spent some time considering that their most precious resouce, children, be allowed the opportunity to grow up under the love and guidance of their parents for the most importnant time of their lives.
All right rant over. I feel better.

Sure the Canadian system isn't perfect. Women who are self-employed, my midwife for example, do not get to benefit from the one year parental leave. And I myself, as a stay at home mom, will not be getting any benefits when my second child is born in October. But what my family will be benefitting from is that my husband will be able to take a full year off of work to stay home with his family and would be able to return to the exact same job for the exact same pay. We can't afford him to really take a full year off though, benefits are not at full pay, but he will be taking four months off of work and has the option to use his parental leave benefits as needed through out the baby's first year. System's not perfect, but I ain't complianing.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

_

Quote:


Originally Posted by *stafl*
not really. They want us to just accept having other people taking care of our kids for us, first daycare, then public schools. It's one of many ways they have of controlling the masses, of raising a compliant workforce. Heaven forbid the masses should open their eyes and start to question governmental policy! Plato explained it all over two thousand years ago, and it still works the same way now as it did then.









ITA!

One of the dirty little secrets that was NOT reported of the Oklahoma City Bombing and the World Trade Center Attack is that there were -- DAY CARE CENTERS THERE -- yes, on the job site day care centers for the employees, another way to get good employees to work for you! Little children died because their parents went to work!

Provide an on-site day-care center so that mothers can visit their children on their break and/or during lunch!

SAHM is a better way to be. Safer also!_


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

unfortunately, our country isn't very family-friendly at all.

with the CalWORKS requirements, i would have had to return to job-searching or full-time work at 4 weeks postpartum, regardless of type of birth or any other circumstances (including the surgery i need). my SO would have had to be working full-time the entire time, no time off at all, and we would have had to have both of our kids in daycare.

(we're out of the program now!)


----------



## indiegirl (Apr 15, 2002)

I take issue with your above conclusion, applejuice. Please, correct me if I am wrong--You are saying that you didn't think the media covered the fact that there were daycare centers in OK and at WTC? I am sorry, but I remember a deluge of media attention paid to the fact.

You also say that "Little children died because their parents went to work." No, little children died because of the terrible acts of a few people.

"SAHM is a better way to be. Safer also." This act of judegment just propells the sah/woh "debate" and I'm sure makes woh mamas feel like crap. I woh the home with my first child and don't need to hear the harsh judgements about it--and to insinuate that these parents were somehow at fault because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time--that they couldn't protect their children because they had made this terrible decision to work--is inflammatory and hurtful.

I believe that our economy and this nation's politics are to blame, not the hard-working mamas and papas who died on those terrible days.

Not all SAH parents are happy or better parents. It's called making a decision that is best for your family. I think your arguement is unfair and hurtful.

Jesse


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

I am sorry you interpreted my post as hurtful.

I did not intend it that way.

I have been a stay at home mom, a work at home mom, and a work out of the home mom. I am not passing judgement on any one. I have been there and I have done all of it when I needed to do it. I am not saying that any one way is bad. Every mother does what she has to do.

Those children were killed at their parents place of work because they were there when the terrorists attacked. Had they been any place else, they would probably be alive. Yes, it is the terrorists fault, but what is the government doing about it? It is the responsibility of the government to prosecute the guilty and make sure it does not happen again.

Yes, our economy drives homemakers and young mothers into the workforce to help budget a household. Thirty/forty years ago, I knew of mothers of my friends who went to work so the family could afford a nice vacation, college, or an addition to the house. In other words, women worked for the extras in life for the family. Now women work so that the family can survive. This is not the way it should be. It is sad that that is the way it is.

Some people want the same government to handle our healthcare.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *indiegirl*
I take issue with your above conclusion, applejuice. Please, correct me if I am wrong--You are saying that you didn't think the media covered the fact that there were daycare centers in OK and at WTC? I am sorry, but I remember a deluge of media attention paid to the fact.

You also say that "Little children died because their parents went to work." No, little children died because of the terrible acts of a few people.

"SAHM is a better way to be. Safer also." This act of judegment just propells the sah/woh "debate" and I'm sure makes woh mamas feel like crap. I woh the home with my first child and don't need to hear the harsh judgements about it--and to insinuate that these parents were somehow at fault because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time--that they couldn't protect their children because they had made this terrible decision to work--is inflammatory and hurtful.

I believe that our economy and this nation's politics are to blame, not the hard-working mamas and papas who died on those terrible days.

Not all SAH parents are happy or better parents. It's called making a decision that is best for your family. I think your arguement is unfair and hurtful.

Jesse

I really think you are reading too much into what I said.

I really do think the ideal situation for a newborn baby is to have a stay at home mom. What is wrong with wanting the best? It is just my honest opinion, and I have striven and achieved it when it was possible for me. And when it is not or has not been possible, I used my education and went to work and I have made the best of the situation that I possibly could. that is all anyone can do. I do not think that is judgemental at all. It is real.


----------



## Island Mommy (Mar 26, 2003)

Just to clarify. In Canada, it is not personal health plans or the companies that pay for maternity leave. It is the government (ie. the people), through our Employment Insurance program which all employees and employers pay into.

So, the companies can afford to hire replacement workers because they are not paying the salary for the person on mat/pat leave.

However, many larger companies "top up" a woman's salary because the govt amount is limited to a maximum amount. Say I had a job that paid $50k/year. The govt might pay, say $25k/year and the employer might pay another $15k/year while I'm on mat leave. Most companies require that the employee return to their job for a certain amount of time, say 1 year, or they are required to pay the extra benefit back. Does that make sense?

Smaller mom&pop companies do not usually offer the "top-up".

Also, as the mat leave is so long (1 year) most companies do hire replacement workers. I can imagine that if the mat leave was only 6-12 weeks many companies would scrape by with the employees they had until the person returned. So, again, it is the inadequacy of the social policies that is causing the grief for the employees left behind who are expected to pick up the slack.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

The only thing I can say about US's maternity policies is that you can tell exactly where their priorities lie.


----------



## mirlee (Jul 30, 2002)

Before I had a change in status at the university, I was forced to use all of my sick time and vacation time for my materinity leave. When that ran out, I went unpaid. I only had 4 1/2 weeks saved up. I was very very not ready to go back. Unfortunately, being the bread winner, quitting was not an option. Also, if I had quit I would have had to pay everything back. It seems there is this little policy that you can't quit right after taking materinity leave. You have to come back for at least 6 months of work.


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamid*
The only thing I can say about US's maternity policies is that you can tell exactly where their priorities lie.

Cheap labor. Say it with me. Cheap labor.


----------



## hvl25 (Jan 28, 2003)

when i had my first son i was military, we went back after 6 weeks also. and if you were lucky enough to have a c/s







you got 8 weeks off


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

My heart aches every time I hear a story about some poor woman going back to work with a tiny, newborn baby at home. This is just not right. I know many women (including myself) who WOTH and I'm certainly not judging people. But I'm sorry, an 8 week old needs to be with it's mother and needs the constant access to her breast.

It has been shown in several studies that the poor maternity leave policies are the greatest contributor to the poor BFing rates after 3 months.

This is not meant to make anyone feel guilty who had to return to work. It's just to raise awareness and anger that this country does this to woman. ITA with mirthfulmum: where are the "family values" these politicians talk about?

FMLA is a joke. You don't get paid unless you save up vacation and sick time. What message does that send? That being home with your baby is equivalent to a vacation?? To being sick?? I see pregnant woman at work suffering with pregnancy-related disabilities who suck it up so as not to lose 1 day with their baby. And those who have no such time saved up must return early or live off their savings (and who has that?).

I'm constantly disgusted and outraged by the policies here. This country is the strangest dichotomy: it has so many wonderful things going for it and yet at the same time is pathetically backwards.


----------



## Artisan (Aug 24, 2002)

This is one of those subjects that just gets me totally riled up. The US is THE ONLY industrialized nation in the world that does not require its employers to offer some sort of paid maternity leave. I'm a teacher, and when I had my first baby I got not one day of paid maternity leave because I hadn't been teaching there for a full calendar year. (I'd been there the whole school year, and had the baby at the end of May.)

We as a society are beginning to reap the benefits of the huge generation of children placed in daycare while both parents worked outside the home. While there are other factors involved, riddle me this: why have school shootings suddenly become common? Why do we have more teenagers (and children!) in the justice system than ever before? Why do I constantly see a stream of 16 year olds in and out of my classroom without a conscience? One reason, I believe, is the lack of close attachment to a parent. And WE, as a society, are partly to blame. By not supporting mothers who must work but want to be at home with their babies.

We want to do things like reform welfare so people MUST work to receive benefits, but that often requires moms to place their children in a giant daycare factory with a revolving door of caregivers. Who do these policies serve? Do they serve the child? No. Do they serve the parents? No. Do they serve society as a whole? No.

The corporate climate is such that many people have the attitude of, "I don't want to pick up the slack for so and so who's just at home playing with her baby. I don't want to pay for that." But yet, that's exactly what we MUST do. Do we say, "I don't want to pick up the slack for Mary who's recovering from her mastectomy," or, "I don't want to pick up the slack for Bob who has prostate cancer?" There's a much different attitude toward people with an "illness". But caring for a child is seen as a luxury, a choice you make.

Some politicians (ahem, ahem) claim to be all family values and pro-life but then do nothing meaningful to support the women who choose to have their children or want to be at home with the ones they have.


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

reader ~


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I would be glad to take up the slack for someone staying home with her baby, even though no one bothered to help me out in that dept.

I was fortunate to get laid off right before I found out I was pg. I didn't have to worry about this maternity leave stuff. I could live off unemployment benefits. I still thought for sure I was going to find another job and go right back to work as soon as I could after the birth. I was going to find the cheapest daycare center I could and leave dd there as long as I could every day.

Little did I know how expensive it really was, even for the cheapest, lowest-quality place. I also didn't know there was no government help for 2-parent families seeking childcare when one parent was a student. (I had given up on the job idea and went back to school; dh worked part-time.) They said if I wanted daycare help, I'd have to find a job, and that I'd have to have that job before they would offer assistance. (How does one get a job when they don't have childcare lined up?)

And of course after she was born I realized there was no way any daycare center was good enough for her.


----------



## jengi33 (Jan 7, 2002)

I'm all for better maternity leave, etc. But the thing I always wonder about is who pays for a years leave? It's hard to expect an employer to pay for a woman to be gone for a year and also pay for someone who's taking her place. My husband has a small business and there's no way we could make that work. What would you propose as solutions? How do the other countries do this?


----------



## Artisan (Aug 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jengi33*
I'm all for better maternity leave, etc. But the thing I always wonder about is who pays for a years leave? It's hard to expect an employer to pay for a woman to be gone for a year and also pay for someone who's taking her place. My husband has a small business and there's no way we could make that work. What would you propose as solutions? How do the other countries do this?

It's subsidized by the government. In some European countries, such as Sweden and Germany, you can take more than a year. It's because they as a society have decided that small children are worth the sacrifice and investment. Sadly, we have not.


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

And then we pretend that the 'real' issue is affordable daycare. It's about babies being able to stay with their mothers, not about having more childcare factories.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

That's right - I just joined the parents association at my school and every meeting they have is all about daycare, funding for daycare, student run daycare, etc. As if every student just can't wait to put their kid in daycare. I was the only one there who had never done that. I mentioned that I was looking for support from other parents who also manage to keep their child at home while attending school (split care between dh and I) but there was no one else. They don't understand why I won't just do what other students are expected to do. The instructors are the same way; telling me there is no way I am going to graduate since I am not available so often. Even the financial aid office is telling me they can't give me any more loans unless I put my child in daycare!

I need support as a parent that consists of more than just being told to hand my child over to be raised by someone else.


----------



## mammastar (Nov 5, 2002)

Jengi33, you asked about who pays for the longer leave. In Canada, it is paid via the employment insurance program: this is a national program to insure employees against unemployment through mandatory contributions by both employees and employers (off each paycheque). Over time it has expanded to also cover maternity, parental, and compassionate care leaves (that's the latest one, it's a few weeks off if a relative is dying). Benefits could actually be better, since the program has a surplus.

Benefits are set at usually about 55% of salary, to a maximum of $1600/month. You can only access benefits if you have accumulated a certain number of hours of work in the period up to taking the leave. When my daughter was born I couldn't access benefits because I was a fulltime student. However my husband had been recently laid off when I was 9 months pregnant and converted his unemployment benefits to parental leave benefits. The 12 months of benefits after a child's birth or an adoption can be accessed by mum or dad, or split between them however they like. So, we had $1600/month for a year while he stayed home with her and I was in law school. It worked so well that he continued to stay home with her after, despite the income loss - he's still there, while I am now working full-time. Stats show that more and more men have been taking substantial parental leaves since the program began, spending more time on the day to day parenting of their children.

The downside of how the system is set up is that if you make very little money at your job, benefits will be too small to live on (55% of minimum wage won't get you far). Same if you work part-time before having your baby since benefits are 55% of your typical week's wages. Also, part-time you might never get enough hours to qualify. And, if you're a high income earner, the drop in income to $1600/month might still feel like a lot. Also no benefits for the self-employed, and professional women are still very much pressured to return asap to the office.

Still, though, compared to what the US has - wow! I hope there's a groundswell down there one day to put their money where their mouth is on family values!! The system here shows that it is totally doable to offer much more than there is in the US - and our economy is just fine, thank you (and lots of people gain valuable experience in the job market by taking one year contracts to cover mat leaves!).


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

What's really neat about having a long maternity leave policy is it creates an industry: temp workers! I know several friends who work F/T all the time in temp agencies. They get to stay at a place for a year - many times they are offered permanent positions when the mom returns to her job. Or they go on to the next. It is a great way to give people flexible job experience and fill in the "gap" created by the moms on leave. I'm quite sure the temp industry has boomed with the increase in maternity leave.

My DH told me that in Croatia (where his family is from) you get one year of leave PER CHILD up to 3 years. And if you are a single mom you get 3 years from the start. They are a new democracy and trying to grow a stable population that won't flee the country, but still...they are such a poor country and yet they know this is a priority.

ITA about the daycare stuff, too. It's such a huge "issue" here and it wouldn't be if more moms were able to stay home.


----------



## QueeTheBean (Aug 6, 2002)

With my first, I had no maternity leave--was working for a small nonprofit. I worked up until the day he was born, then had 6 weeks (4 were paid--all my vacation and sick days that I had saved up), 2 unpaid. I went back to work bc. they offered me and my DS fully paid helath insurance. We could not have afforded it otherwise, and I think it is somewhat irresponsible to not have coverge--if something happened, we would be destitute.

It was terrible to go back with DS that small. Thankfully, my DH was working from home & took care of DS. I pumped and DS never had formula--not even one time. We nursed for over 2 years. BUT, I had my own office & an understanding boss. DS came to work with me on occasion & they were very flexible. It was tough & even though I did it, I can't imagine too many situations that mamas could continue bf. full time like I did.

With DS#2, I quit a few months before he was born. Just couldn't go through it again. DH's job is very shaky right now, so who knows.

I look at a 6 week old baby now & cannot believe I ever left mine.

I say this not to criticize other mamas, only to bemoan the fact that a longer maternity leave is not a matter of course.


----------



## mammastar (Nov 5, 2002)

For those of you mamas in the US who have had to go back to work so soon after having your babes, I am so amazed at what it must have taken!! Good for you for holding it together and making it through!

I often think about how we need better mat policies here in Canada - but gosh, we've come a long way. I hope that one day soon you're able to get it on the politicians' agenda down there, so they put families first!


----------



## Faith (Nov 14, 2002)

I was friends with a girl back when we were both pregnant. It was my first baby, and we worked in a daycare center.

I went in one day Monday, and there she was no longer pregnant. I asked her where her baby was, looking around for someone to be holding him. She laughed and said he was at the sitters with the other kids down the road, she was back at work, and she had had him Friday evening.

I was shocked! I was about eight months pregnant and decided I wanted to be pregnant forever, if the alternative was leaving my baby down the road like she had done.

Three days later she hemmoraged and was in the hospitial for a long time. Her doctor had never okay'ed her to come back to work, and our boss got in a tiny bit of trouble.

I understand what everyone is saying about the gov't needing to provide a better way, by making the companies have better policies. And that the government is making us need the system, starting with daycare than public school... But expecting the gov't to fix this is still just depending on the gov't.

When my baby was born a month later, I decided to stay home immediately. We were NOT well-off at all. I was in college full-time, but I dropped out and quit the daycare. My boyfriend/now DH was working in an entry level position and making just above minimum wage. But we sold our second car, stopped doing everything that was not necessary to living (no cable, etc) and we lived decently.
I would honestly not look to the gov't to solve any of my problems! Usually I wish the gov't would just go away, or start from scratch with a few basic laws. There are sooooo many laws and policies and things now that don't benefit anyone.


----------



## CarrieMF (Mar 7, 2004)

Quote:

There is supposed to be job security in Canada, but that isn't always the case. One of my GFs got pissed because the 52 week leave was not retroactive to her daughter's birth (2-3 months before the leave became active) and she had to go to work at the end of the original leave (6 mo?). Her job was not waiting for her and since her DH had lost his job, they ended up on EI for a while and are now on welfare from what I last heard.
Actually this would be the fault of the company, upon the end of the 1 year mat leave the job(or a job of equal pay & status) is there for them. I do not remember what the leave was like before the 1 year came into effect other than it was 6 months at full pay, before the 1 year came into effect were the jobs to be guaranteed? Also, it is 50weeks, not 52. The last 2 weeks are vacation.

I'm curious to those in the US have you lobbied your gov'ts to change the policies? I know someone mentioned with everything else going on the gov't that they probably wouldn't pay attention, but if they aren't lobbied against they're definitly not going to take the first step either.


----------



## mammastar (Nov 5, 2002)

Here's a Canadian update!

In Quebec, they announced today that the province there has made a deal with the federal government to have their own parental leave program (maternity plus paternity, share how you like). The benefits are even better than in the rest of Canada:

75% of your salary for 40 weeks, or you can choose 70% for 25 weeks and then 55% for the next 25

you can collect a maximum of $52,500 in benefits (this is more than the rest of Canada)

AND self-employed people are covered for the first time, to a maximum of $21,000 in benefits

I hope the rest of Canada matches it at some point (although no one's done that with the $7/day daycare they have in Quebec either).

And I hope that having more information about what's going on elsewhere helps those of you ladies in the US who are interested in seeing something similar happen there.

BTW, Faith, for me the issue is not 'depending on the government.' First, it is an insurance program that we all pay into with our contributions. Second, it is about society having an interest in children growing up healthy and well-cared for - so let's all pitch in and help our neighbours. Appropriate leaves and high quality, affordable child care for parents who work outside the home invest in the future. I would also agree that providing services and support to stay-at-home parents is important. The distinction between the two is not really that great - I don't think we would have one parent in the home right now if we had not initially accessed the parental leaves available here when our daughter was born. It opened up all kinds of opportunities for us as a family. I recently considered a job in the US, but thought seriously about how I have benefitted from the system here, parental leaves, good education - and I could earn more there, but I want to return some of what has been invested in me here (and help make it better, because there's still so much room for improvement).


----------



## mountain (Dec 12, 2001)

I would honestly not look to the gov't to solve any of my problems! Usually I wish the gov't would just go away, or start from scratch with a few basic laws. There are sooooo many laws and policies and things now that don't benefit anyone.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this, with the small exception that the government takes so much frickin money away that I earned, I want something good done with it! As a small restaurant owner, I am living below poverty while the govt takes huge amounts for 'unemployment' & workers comp out of my sales every month. IF IT WERE SPENT ON PG MAMAS CHILDREN & PEOPLE IN NEED...INSTEAD WE'VE GOT TO PAY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON BOMBS TO 'RETALIATE' AGAINST PEOPLE WHO HATE US BECAUSE WE'VE SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON BOMBS!!! And killed their families, poisoned thier water supplies in the pursuit of oil...We need to wake up and smell the family.(& other countries have families too!)

I know this seems all off topic---but it's all so interrelated. If we spent resources on families rather than material products...


----------



## Artisan (Aug 24, 2002)

[/QUOTE]I agree with this, with the small exception that the government takes so much frickin money away that I earned, I want something good done with it! As a small restaurant owner, I am living below poverty while the govt takes huge amounts for 'unemployment' & workers comp out of my sales every month. IF IT WERE SPENT ON PG MAMAS CHILDREN & PEOPLE IN NEED...INSTEAD WE'VE GOT TO PAY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON BOMBS TO 'RETALIATE' AGAINST PEOPLE WHO HATE US BECAUSE WE'VE SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON BOMBS!!! And killed their families, poisoned thier water supplies in the pursuit of oil...We need to wake up and smell the family.(& other countries have families too!)

I know this seems all off topic---but it's all so interrelated. If we spent resources on families rather than material products...[/QUOTE]

I hear your sentiment, but you're right that it's not this simple. It's not like the gov't will say "Oh, let's stop the bombing and use money for maternity leave!"


----------



## Brisen (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mountain*
the govt takes huge amounts for 'unemployment' & workers comp out of my sales every month. IF IT WERE SPENT ON PG MAMAS CHILDREN & PEOPLE IN NEED...INSTEAD WE'VE GOT TO PAY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON BOMBS TO 'RETALIATE' AGAINST PEOPLE WHO HATE US BECAUSE WE'VE SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON BOMBS!!!

I may be about to expose my naivete (oooh, I butchered that spelling) here, especially since I don't know anything about unemployment payments in the US, but would the money collected for UI and WC go there? I thought that taxes were more segregated -- for instance, our municipal taxes go to the municipality, provincial sales tax goes to the province, EI payments go to Employment Insurance, CPP goes to the pension plan... am I totally in the dark on this?


----------



## Quindin (Aug 22, 2003)

My husband is Danish and we had our first 2 kids there.
Denmark now has 1 year FULLY PAID maternity leave + optional parental leave with partial pay to be used from age 0 to 6 years.
I just cannot imagine how hard it is to go back to work already at 6 weeks!!! Poor babies - and por mamas...


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

Quote:

I'm curious to those in the US have you lobbied your gov'ts to change the policies?
** raises hand

... it's hard to know where to even start though. there are so many sides to this issue... kwim? so many _roots_...


----------



## Artisan (Aug 24, 2002)

I don't think we as American women have lobbied very hard AT ALL. With women making up the majority of the voters in the US, we could make a big difference if we tried.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Reading about the Canadian system is interesting, with having to commit to paying back the top off to the company if the mother doesn't go back to work. Seems fair.

In Sweden you can get two years paid leave, correct? Is there a requirement that you go back to work after that time in order to "pay back" into the system? I know there are moms who want to work, so would some of them give up the year or two off and go back early, or would that be frowned upon?

I was planning on going back to work after a year, but that was still too soon. I would still have the issues of paying for daycare, and at that point the separation anxiety would have been a huge deal. After a year I think it would be even harder to make that transition, but I had a friend who put her daughter into full time daycare at about a year, and she did well with it.

Family values? I think that the Republicans *do* support family values for the right families. Families with a father who makes enough money so the mom can stay home and never work out of the home at all. Of course people who can't afford to do this will still have children, but our society needs those children for the menial jobs. Hence the stand on abortion and birth control by many of the extreme right Republicans. I'm feeling pretty cynical, I guess, I'm sorry.

I agree with Stafl, though.


----------



## Gendenwitha (Apr 2, 2002)

I don't think it's going to be a better system until the laws start ALLOWING and society starts ENCOURAGING dads to take time off as well.

Right now I think as nice as it sounds to have women have more time off from their job, and less strict requirements like having worked there for 12 months, I also think it's women who DON'T go back to work after six weeks, or AT ALL, who make it harder for women who are serious about their careers, to find a job. Who wants to spend time and money training a woman who might breed and leave soon?

I was job hunting when pregnant (dh and I had worked opposite shifts until I was laid off) NO ONE wanted to hire me, and I wound up taking a job (offered to me by clueless men that didn't notice I was pregnant) that I felt was way beneath me, just because I was showing more and more every day. For every benefit WOMEN get, regarding family leave and such, the harder it is for women to be taken seriously in the workplace.


----------



## KoalaMama (Jan 24, 2004)

Quote:

Reading about the Canadian system is interesting, with having to commit to paying back the top off to the company if the mother doesn't go back to work. Seems fair.
I didn't go back to work after my year, and I didn't have to pay anything back to the company. The company topped up my benefits because I was an employee when I took leave, not because I would be an employee X months/years from then. I've heard this statement before regarding company top-ups, but I don't know if there's any truth to it? Perhaps it depends on the company?

In my situation I received maternity pay from the government for the year, and the first 14 (16?) weeks were topped up somewhat by my employer. The first few weeks of top-up was to bring me to 100% of my pay; the remaining was to bring me to 55% (60%?). Government benefits go to 55% up to a maximum magic number, and that maximum number was under what 55% of my salary would have been. I also received full medical benefits from my employer for the duration of my leave, and at the end I got paid vacation time that I "earned" during that year leave.

Regarding the government... In a democratic society, we are the government! We, the people, are in control of making decisions on how our society works. We vote officials in, we vote officials out. If we don't like how it's working we have to work to change it. If we want our society to change we have to be that change. Waiting on "the government" to fix things won't work because it means we're avoiding taking ownership and accountability for the decisions they make. I know this sounds like some idealistic pipe dream, but it really is how it's *supposed* to work.

Quote:

Right now I think as nice as it sounds to have women have more time off from their job, and less strict requirements like having worked there for 12 months, I also think it's women who DON'T go back to work after six weeks, or AT ALL, who make it harder for women who are serious about their careers, to find a job. Who wants to spend time and money training a woman who might breed and leave soon?
If the work places were set up to support women who wanted to be parents and have careers, then this wouldn't be an issue. If more companies allowed women to take a reasonable amount of leave, have flexible work schedules, work from home, take their babies to work, etc. then more women would consider stayng in the workplace to begin with. To me, this suggests the idea that a woman should be penalized for NOT wanting a career. I don't think either situation is appropriate.

And yes, I agree it will be better when it's viewed as parental leave, and parental benefits rather than maternal. Though I still think that whenever possible a mother needs to be with her baby in those early months!


----------



## OwensMa (Apr 15, 2004)

In Ontario, we have 15wks Parental Leave, and 35wks Maternity Leave. I took the entire 50wks, and now I'm going to be a SAHM. With the next baby (if we're so lucky/blessed), my DH will take 15wks Parental Leave. I do firmly believe that American Mums are really getting the shaft on this issue. It's so sad. The babies are brand new! I think that must be the quickest way to stop a nursing relationship, or at the very least, make it extremely difficult.







:


----------



## mammastar (Nov 5, 2002)

OwensMa, you may want to doublecheck on how much time your dh can take: I think it's more than 15 weeks, actually - as I remember it from dh's parental leave, if the mom isn't taking anything then the dad can take the full amount, because the total leave entitlement is shared between them. My husband took 50 weeks (I was a fulltime student). That doesn't go into whether you could afford that, if you're a one-income family, of course.

We were in BC, then, so maybe it's different - but EI is a federal program, so I don't see why that would be.


----------



## KoalaMama (Jan 24, 2004)

I think it's the reverse actually - 15 weeks maternal, 35 weeks parental.

Edited to add this link: http://www.sdc.gc.ca/en/ei/types/special.shtml

Yep, it's 15/35 maternal/parental.


----------



## mammastar (Nov 5, 2002)

Ah-ha, that sounds familiar!


----------



## muse (Apr 17, 2002)

Thankyou thankyou all for reminding me why we left the US. I got 12 weeks *unpaid* maternity leave (starting 2 weeks before DS was born, so actually 10 weeks), and a small percentage of my salary as disability allowance from the state of CA for 6 weeks. Dh on the other hand was working for an awesome nonprofit peace organisation run by feminists who had implemented a plan offering one month paternity leave which he staggered over 6 months by working part time. I decided not to go back to my work since they would not allow me to work part time, and finally we thought what the heck are we doing here and now we're in the UK where I'm from. It's far from perfect here but way way better. We definitely plan to stick around at least to have a second child and enjoy the free home births on the national health system and hopefully (if i'm employed by then) such much more decent maternity leave.

I don't have much hope at all of the US governemnt changing their policies drastically. The priorities are clear and it's working for them. Capitalism rules everything there.


----------



## Slackermom (Jul 23, 2003)

I work for the Cdn federal gov't, so I get about 93% of my regular salary, and am now in month 7 of a 13 month parental leave (I took an additional month in accumulated overtime). Because I don't have certain deductions while on leave (like union dues), I'm actually earning more than I do while working! Sadly, I seem to be spending the extra on cloth diapers







Now, I know we are taxed a lot more heavily in Canada to pay for social programs like this, but I honestly have no problem with that. I'd much rather pay hefty taxes for things like public health care, maternity leave and compassionate leave (which allows family members a few months off to care for sick loved ones), than I would pay moderate taxes and have most of it go to the military. JMHO.

I would have been in no mental or physical state to go back to work at 6 weeks. I'd be no good to an employer. I'm pretty sure I'll be no good to my employer when I go back to work in November! My hat's off to you women who do this and make a go of it. Keep working to change the system.


----------



## Brisen (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jellyfishy*
Sadly, I seem to be spending the extra on cloth diapers

Hey! Nothing sad about that!


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

Here's the chart for all of Canada


----------

