long term maternity leave (debate)

[jmmom80]

on the national health care thread, the canadian long term maternity leave was mentioned. the poster said that the government covers (i believe) 60% of the new mother's wages for up to 9 months (forgive me if my numbers are off a bit, but i think it was 9 months). she thought that the u.s. should do this as well, or force employers to do it.

i think if employers want to do it, great, but they shouldn't be forced. and i certainly don't think that taxpayers should be stuck paying the wages for someone that chose to have a child. i think that if staying home with the baby is that important to the woman, she should make sure that she is able to do so before she has the child, rather than expecting someone else to pick up her bills for her.

opinons please?

 

[Galahad]

i think if employers want to do it, great, but they shouldn't be forced

I agree. Not sure I have a problem with government mandated unpaid leave, like with the FMLA, but for it to be paid, I think the job market should dictate that.

 

[chrissyk]

I totally agree! I've been married for the better part of a decade, and we've been saving up the entire time so that 1 of us can always be home once we have a child. No way did I expect my employer to pay for my choice to have a baby!

 

[DIZNYFAN]

Actually it is a full year in Canada and they cover 60% or more don't remember exactly my wife just came off Maternity about 6 months ago. You can also split it up if the mother wants to go back to work early and the father wants to stay home they can do that at the same rate of pay 60% of his wage or greater.


Darren

 

[tiggerlover]

Italy has a similar program for maternity leave. Mothers have one year of leave as the norm and if they are nursing I believe they get an additional 6 months or a year on top of that.

 

[minnie56]

just echoeing the above.
It is one full year and a job must be waiting for you at the end of your year.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by tiggerlover
if they are nursing

Wow....do they have to provide periodic fluid samples? Do they have a federal bureau of lactation?

 

[septbride2002]

I think that if we look at most countries you will find that Americans work twice as hard. Our average vacation time is much shorter then that of other countries.

I guess I could go either way. I would love it if yes I could go on maternity leave for 9 months to a year and not worry about losing my position within a company. But then again I could see how some would think that is an unfair use of their tax dollars.

~Amanda

 

[RNMOM]

I believe other European countries have this...I am pretty sure France and Sweden as well as other Scandinavian countries.

I am curious why some might feel this is not important enough to support? Personally I feel the first couple years of life are so very important. I wish it was possible for all children to be raised by their parents until they enter school. In a perfect world....

 

[Galahad]

I think that if we look at most countries you will find that Americans work twice as hard

It may be a stretch to say we work twice as hard. Generally we work "more" or "longer" or "more days" because of less mandated leave.

 

[Galahad]

I am curious why some might feel this is not important enough to support?

I support a mom deciding to take leave. I don't support mandating that employers pay for it. There are countless problems with it. Many of the European countries that mandate this also have fairly high unemployment. Mandating this simply adds to the cost of employing somebody, making it a disincentive for job creation. I'm sure others will jump in as well. Any time government mandates that an employer do something, it's not free. The cost must be borne somewhere and often it means fewer jobs.

 

[jmmom80]

i don't have any problem with fmla either, because it is unpaid.

I am curious why some might feel this is not important enough to support?

because i don't think that taxpayers or employers should be forced to pay for a woman to stay home. if it is that important to a woman that she stay home, then she should make sure that she doesn't have kids until she is able to do so without relying on someone else being forced to pay for it.

 

[septbride2002]

That is what I mean Galahad. I know people that have 5 weeks of vacation time built up because they haven't taken any days off in 3 years. And while I admire their work ethic - I often wonder why they continue to work so hard. They get nothing out of it. The company doesn't reward them for working so many hours. And in a financial pinch the company would give them a pink slip and send them on their way.

I suck every hour of vacation time that I can because I know that family and life are a bit more important then the company I work for. I read awhile ago somewhere that Italians average 6 weeks of vacation time a year. Wow!

Again I can see it either way. I know that I would love to be at home with a baby for 6 months but then I would be ready to return to work. Under the current US system I would lose my job in those 6 months and would have to find another one. Kinda stinks.

~Amanda

 

[DIZNYFAN]

This is covered by the government and is paid for in our empoyment insurance that is deducted from our pay every pay cheque so the employer isn't actually paying anything for it you as an empolyee are paying for it with the Employment insurace that is taken from each pay cheque. We get 2 weeks vacation every year up to 5 years then it goes to 3 weeks and up from that point.

 

[talicskai]

I live in Ontario and it is 55% of your pay up to a maximum of $356 weekly (I think). It is not paid by the employer but by the government. We also do not have to pay for the medical bills associated with having a baby. My son was in a neonatal unit at birth and then had 4 subsequent surgeries in the first six months of his life and we paid "nothing" Mind you my husband and I have been paying taxes since we were 18 years old but it was certainly nice not to worry about the hospital bill and just focus on his well being. At that time maternity leave was only 6 months long and I would have loved to have a year!

At this point in time the maternity leave is a certain number of weeks and then a parental leave kicks in where either the mother or father can take it. The nice thing is the father can take parental leave while the mother takes maternity leave and they can be off together for a little while. But you cannot exceed your maximum of 52 weeks.

 

[decker96]

Gosh, this is a tough question! I think it would be great if all moms or dads could stay home with their babies at least for a little while without worrying how they could afford it (I'm a SAHM by the way). But, I can also see how it would be a hardship to some employers.
My DH owns his own business and only has two employees. If one of them went on maternity leave and he had to pay her salary plus pay salary for someone else to replace her, it would be very difficult. But, it wouldn't be impossible if the mandated paid leave was shorter, like say a month or so.
I would support a shorter leave like that and I'm sure employers could afford it. But, I've been wrong before and I'm sure someone will tell me if I'm wrong about that now! LOL!

 

[talicskai]

Originally posted by decker96
But, I can also see how it would be a hardship to some employers.
My DH owns his own business and only has two employees. If one of them went on maternity leave and he had to pay her salary plus pay salary for someone else to replace her, it would be very difficult.

In Canada the employer does not pay the salary while the mom (or dad) are off, they get employment insurance from the government. It actually can benefit a employer if they can get by without replacing that employee, then they save that salary.

 

[sha_lyn]

Originally posted by jmmom80
because i don't think that taxpayers or employers should be forced to pay for a woman to stay home. if it is that important to a woman that she stay home, then she should make sure that she doesn't have kids until she is able to do so without relying on someone else being forced to pay for it.

ITA, very well said

Also some problems I see with this:

For every employee that is on maternity leave, the employer is paying someone their salary to do their job, plus they are getting paid 60% of it for not doing their job. This leads to higher overhead for every employer, thus a higher cost of leaving for every person. Once again it is "socialism" at its "finest"
Let's make everyone pay for the choices of a few.

I alos wonder how often someone can take advantage of this. Lets say the mother gets PG while on leave, does it get extended for another yr. How long, if any, does the mother have to wait between pregnacies before she can take a yrs leave with pay. I see I can easily see it being a incentive to some to just keeping having kids.

 

[DIZNYFAN]

You have to put in 40 weeks beforer you can go on maternity leave again. And again it is not paid for by the employer. You are paid by the employer whie you are at work you then from that pay have income tax deducted and employment insurance which is what you get back essentially when you go on maternity. You also pay CPP (pensionPlan) so it is like you are giving the government your money in employment insurance for them to hold onto until you need it for a situation like maternity leave. It has nothing to do with the employer thjey pay nothing while you are off.

 

[sha_lyn]

Well we were posting at the same time, so I didn't see talicskai's
post until now.


It really doesn't change my response however, because that 60% of the salary is not coming from thin air. someone is paying it. Either all employers are paying for it through some sort of tax, or every citizen is by paying the high national tax.