long term maternity leave (debate)

[damo]

Originally posted by poohandwendy
I said that the people who CANNOT HANDLE not having a year off when they have a baby are generally not the productive types. I said nothing about being able to afford it.

Sorry, it means the same to me and that is how I interpreted what you said. Sorry if that is not what you meant.

So, not all employed American citizens pay EI? Sorry, I was under the assumption that they did.

 

[DarrenSt]

It isn't about not having a year off it is about the ability to take a year off when ow oman takes maternity here she doesn't have to take a full year if she wants to she can go back in 2 weeks. This is just one use of the money we pay into our EI premiums say they told you that all of a sudden your EI was going to be used for this no increase at all but now mothers were eligable to take maternity using EI would you still cry foul?

 

[Maleficent13]

Originally posted by damo
So, not all employed American citizens pay EI? Sorry, I was under the assumption that they did.

Possibly a terminology miscommunication here. Americans don't have employment insurance. We do, however, have taxes which we pay, some of which ends up funding welfare programs. And no, if I never use what I pay in, I don't get it back.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by DarrenSt
say they told you that all of a sudden your EI was going to be used for this no increase at all but now mothers were eligable to take maternity using EI would you still cry foul?

If they suddenly added paid maternity leave to my employment tax, yes, I would cry foul. Nothing is for free. It is not possible to add it to the system without additional costs. Either they'd have to raise the tax at some point or they have been taxing too much right now. No getting around that.

That doesn't even address the issues of whether someone should be entitled to paid time off. I'd still have a problem with my tax dollars going towards someone's voluntary paid time off.

 

[Susan--Ontario]

Point of clarification here..

Canadian Employment Insurance is basically the same as US Unemployment Insurance except for the maternity benefit.

I have a question for the people who are so adamantly against employment insurance for maternity leave..

Do you work full-time and currently contribute to an unemployment insurance program??

Is that why you are so against it. You don't want your premiums to go up to only benefit working mothers.

This would help me to understand where you are coming from.

 

[jmmom80]

Do you work full-time and currently contribute to an unemployment insurance program??

i don't believe that workers pay the unemployment tax in the u.s., the employer does.

 

[jrydberg]

Correct. Unemployment taxes are wholly paid by employers in the US.

 

[totalia]

Originally posted by Madi100
I live in the United States, and I have no desire to live anyplace else, but I think people are making it sound like it's so bad in Canada because they HAVE to pay this. Well, I would much rather pay this kind of tax, if you want to call it that, than pay into taxes that allow people to stay home and be lazy, which is exactly what our welfare program is set up to do.

.............

Just out of curiousity, what type of welfare program does Canada have?

Well put.

Can you define what you mean by type?

Originally posted by jmmom80
then why are some people insisting that people are only taking out what they have put in?

Yes, there are cases where people do put in less.

Look, is your country majority rule or not? Ours is. THe MAJORITY of people put enough in.

Maternity leave is not given forever. Its not a free ride and only lasts a year.

I don't see why you have such a problem with this.

Ever think there may be a reason why things are so bad in so many places in your country? Hmm, could it be that people are taught not to care about anyone but themselves?

Originally posted by Madi100
From what has been said here, this is also for lay-offs or injury. And, even if you don't have children, someone had you and perhaps got to take advantage of the insurance. So, then you are just helping pay for your way. It's like a school tax. People who don't have kids don't want to pay them. However, they were once in school too. Now, it's their turn to pay.

Yes exactly. Thank you. There's a reason why its called Employment Insurance and not Unexmployment insurance. Because anything can and DOES happen and this covers all circumstances.

It's like Americans are all accusing us Canadians of just being lazy and working the system. The reality is that it doesn't really exist here. Not like it does in the US. Canadians work just as hard as Americans in their lives. We don't just sit around waiting for someone to take care of us.

These programs are here if we need them to help keep peoples heads above water and try to keep people like homeless mothers and homeless children off the street. They are here to protect us from things like going hungry every night. And they WORK. Not perfectly, but they do work.

When someone here gets laid off, they aren't suddenly screwed and within a couple of months living on the streets. The gvt provides training for new jobs (nothing college or university oriented mind you but enough to get a back on your feet), make sure you have enough food to eat and a place to sleep. It doesn't last forever but usually by the time its run out, the person is back on their feet again.

That is what these are for. To help those who have suddenly gone down and out. I'm happy to pay for it. I know that I may have to use these programs myself at some point. I'm glad I have a safety net.

Originally posted by damo
Then they use their benefits for a time when they are sick or need to use it to take care of a sick family member or are unemployed. It is an umbrella insurance that covers all different situations of unemployment. It is not called "maternity insurance".

Does your car insurance only cover damage to the car? No it covers damage to the people hurt as well. Insurance does not need to be as specific as you are making it.

I think you are getting hung up over the fact that EI is paid to the government and not an insurance company.

I agree. I find the thought of private insurance companies running the cost of EI to be very frightening. Just look at the rising costs of Insurance companies for cars and the like. The costs are extremely high. Capitalism isn't helping that any and alot of people can't afford cars because of it. Granted, that might be a good thing .

How many people would actually be able to afford to pay the high costs for a capitalist system to run EI? The answer is that alot of people wouldn't and the people its meant to help would never be able to put in the money.

Again, the rich would rule the poor.

Originally posted by damo
Okay, then all unemployment insurance is tax, whether you are in Canada or the US. Who cares what it is called, why do you get so hung up on giving money to your government? Do you not trust them? Do you prefer that the insurance companies take your money and profit from it? What is the difference?

In Canada, we see the insurance companies as the crooks, not the government.

Bravo. Exactly.

Originally posted by jrydberg
Maternity leave is a choice one makes. Unemployment insurance is not (at least in the US) for those who choose to leave their job.

As for the government, no, I don't trust government with my money. With an insurance company, I can choose what company to go with or whether to even have insurance at all. I'd prefer to spend my money as I see fit.

I don't get why you can't understand this.

Maternity leave is NOT a choice if you want a healthy mother and a healthy child. And frankly, pregnancy is not always a choice either.

Btw, unemployment CAN be a choice very easily. You might like to think on that a bit.

Originally posted by MECH8T7
It's called insurance but Canadians will recall that it used to be called "unemployment" insurance before the government realized that it might be sending the wrong message.

To me, the real issue is just a social / philosophical one about whether or not you want to live in a society that encourages mom's to stay home for up to a year for giving birth to a newborn child. The program has been in place for a long time but its only been the past few years that it went from 6 months (or whatever) to 12 months. I'm sure our government looked at it for a long time before implementing it and the program was extended as part of a package of legislative reforms to address the welfare of children. It wasn't really about trying to help out the poor moms, though of course they would obviously benefit.

*sighs* Yes, it was Unemployment Insurance. It was also only meant for being unemployed through losing your job by being laid off. They changed the name when they added things like maternity leave to the pot. So what?

And yes, thats the whole point don't you think? To address the welfare of children? We consider our children to be extremely important resources that need their mothers influence to function properly. Sounds like a great reason to have it to me.

Originally posted by septbride2002
Elwood - it has been explained many times that the EI is not just for maternity/parental leave. It can also be used in case you lose your job, or have to have some sort of medical problem. Therefore just because you may not use it for maternity does not mean that you many not ever use it for something else.

~Amanda

Yes. Exactly. I can't undersand why this is so hard for people to get.

Originally posted by septbride2002
??? Where did you get that? From what I understand - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - a % is taken out of your paycheck to pay your EI and then when you need to use it you can. It doesn't matter if I only use it for Maternity leave and you use for heart surgery - we've both been paying into it and therefore are both covered. I don't think they keep a tally of seperate coverage.

~Amanda

Amanda, you are an intelligent woman. Yes, exactly that.

 

[MECH8T7]

I think one of the themes here is that some of the U.S. side of the debate are equating paid extended mat leave with welfare (or some sort of hand out) whereas I think that most of us on the Canadian side don't really see it that way.

The government has implemented a policy that encourages moms to stay at home with their newborns longer and Canadians know what the benefits are if they do that. From that perspective, is this really any different from, say, tax incentives for encouraging people to contrbute to their own retirement savings?...The government puts in an incentive in the hope that the citizens change their behaviour to fulfil the social objectives underlying the policy. In the case of paid extended mat leave, I believe the policy directed at ensuring the well-being of the children of Canada. The Canadian budget materials on this point are probably available from the Canadian Department of Finance or Human Resources Development websites.

It's not like the program is designed to "prop up" mothers that would otherwise take a year off to have their babies without the progam, although no doubt a number of mothers did so even before they implemented the extension to the mat leave benefits to 12 months. And its not like women are having babies just to get the benefits (and they have to have worked beforehand to qualify anyways).

So, when previous posters speak somewhat indignently about "being responsible for their personal choices", IMHO that really has nothing to do with what this program is about. Mothers in Canda are responsible about their choices too. It's just that when Canadian moms CHOOSE to have their kids, they can take into account in their planning for the child that they can be at home for 12 months at a significantly reduced income level through the program. If it wasn't there, moms might make different choices because the parameters would be different.

It strikes me that the previous anti-EI posters may have had in mind that the program was aimed at propping up women who would not consider the financial implications of motherhood. That simply is not the case. For those individuals, whether such a program existed or not would likely not make a difference to their "decision" to have a kid. Sure, they would benefit from the program but that is not what the program is designed to encourage. For those folks, if we weren't paying them benefits under EI, they would probably getting some other form of social assistance financially in any event, whether it was in Canada or the United States.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by totalia

Look, is your country majority rule or not? Ours is. THe MAJORITY of people put enough in.

It is not. In fact, our entire system of government is designed to avoid a tyranny of the majority. But that's for another discussion.

Originally posted by totalia

Ever think there may be a reason why things are so bad in so many places in your country?

Your opinion. I don't think things are so bad in many places in my country. Quite the opposite.

Originally posted by totalia
Maternity leave is NOT a choice if you want a healthy mother and a healthy child. And frankly, pregnancy is not always a choice either.

You're saying the mother of my daughter wasn't healthy and my daughter wasn't healthy? I've got a couple doctors who would disagree with that. It is a choice.

Originally posted by totalia
Btw, unemployment CAN be a choice very easily. You might like to think on that a bit.

Not sure how things work in Canada, so I won't presume to speak about that, but in the US, one cannot choose to leave a job and then collect unemployment benefits. One must be laid off or "unjustly" terminated.

 

[jmmom80]

THe MAJORITY of people put enough in.

i highly doubt that the majority of women work 27 years before having their first child and leaving for a year, but that's just my best guess.

I don't see why you have such a problem with this.

and i don't see why you don't see that i don't have a problem with you doing it in canada, but i would have a definite problem with doing it here.

Again, the rich would rule the poor.

nope, the people that bother to vote rule while the ones that don't have no say.

Maternity leave is NOT a choice if you want a healthy mother and a healthy child.

this is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard or read.

 

[Susan--Ontario]

this is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard or read.

______________________________________________

jmmom80,

How long did you get to be off when you had your child? Wouldn't you have like to have had more than just a few weeks with your newborn?

My Mom also thinks that it's ridiculous that we get so much time off. She says that in her day they only got a few weeks off and then they went back to work. I say hooray for her. I guess she was a stronger woman than i was. But, I still say that when a government can improve the quality of life for its citizens then they have an obligation to do so. I've been paying premiums for well over 28 years now and I hope to do so for another 13.

This thread seems to be going around in circles now with the same thing being said over and over. How about we quit now and just agree to disagree unless someone else has something new and relevant to add to the discussion.

 

[totalia]

Originally posted by Susan--Ontario
WOW!!!

To say that this thread is hot would be a total understatement.

........

You've made a very good post that made alot of sense. Thank you.

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
That's really not what I was asking.

A better question would be why are they allowed to avoid paying into the system (knowing that they can't make claims) but others that aren't self-employed can't opt out?

Avoid paying into the system? That's not what they are doing. You act like they are evading the tax. They aren't. They just don't pay into it.

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
But to have such an all-inclusive plan certainly costs more than one that doesn't. That was my point.

You should realize this when you shop for car insurance. The more coverage you want, the more you pay. And you car insurance is similar to the Canadian EI. You may need to make a claim for someone that crashed into you and I may need to make a claim for a stolen vehicle. Additional coverage like towing or car rental is usually extra. You may opt out for it, and I may not.

What Canadians are being told is that for X percentage of your pay, this is what you coverage you get.

Does that sound like something you'd like to have?

Huh? All Insurance covers many things. How does this cost more?

Originally posted by poohandwendy
I disagree, I think most people have a problem with it being MANDATORY. The only reason the govt has been mentioned is because that is who would take care of it. I would disagree with it if anyone (private or govt) was requiring me to contribute to that specific program.

Again, we already contribute to unemployment compensation. So, we essentially have the same program, just without the maternity part. That is the part I don't want. Nope, wouldn't want it.

*sighs* You know what? You don't HAVE to pay in. Honestly, there are people that don't. Most of us don't consider that a benefit though. Imagine what would happen if a person who doesn't pay that ever lost their job. They would never ever be able to claim something like EI. So, it's really your choice. Do you want to have that backup incase something bad happens or don't you? I find it far more frightening to not have it.

We, the Canadian people, demanded these things to take care of everyone. We the Canadian people, decided that we were tired of seeing homeless mothers on the street, the unemployed eating out of garbage cans, people dying because they didn't have medical coverage and worse. We haven't always had these things but Insurance wasn't cutting it.

Our gvt didn't just wake up one day and hold us all down with guns claiming that we were going to pay whether we wanted to or not.

Canadians DO NOT exist in a MEMEMEME state like a five year old. There are other people out there. We may need something of these things eventually just like we all do. There will NEVER be a circumstance where you don't need these programs.

Again, Employment Insurance covers ALL instances of unemployment. That doesn't mean just maternity leave. It means getting laid off (you don't get coverage if you were fired because you did it to yourself). It means dozens of possibilities that you will likely have to claim by the end of your life. In our eyes, its worth it and everyone should have these benefits.

Let me emphasize that canada is NOT a dictatorship. We are not authoritarian. I also don't trust my gvt any more than you trust yours. BUT my gvt is certainly more qualified to control these things than a bunch of money grubbing thieving Insurance agents. I'd rather know that I'm not being charged an outrageous sum of money. You see, when I pay into the insurance, I'm only paying a few dollars each month to my gvt. To an insurance company it would be hundreds of dollars. My gvt manages it more efficiently than any insurance company ever would.

I don't trust the insurance companies. At least I know my gvt has the people concerns in mind. An insurance company only cares about themselves.

Originally posted by damo
If you do not use your EI, do you get the money back?

You WILL use it. If you ever go through life with nothing bad happening to you, then your very lucky and extremely rare.

 

[MikeyNS]

I think another point that should be made is that it's a tough choice whether to stay on it for the entire time you have it.
55% of your gross pay, to a max of ~$400/week, is not much money.

What's the average wage in Canada.. $35,000-40,000? I would highly doubt they would get much more than $1300/month from EI; for most people that would make you tighten the purse strings a bit. I know it did when I had to go on EI after being laid off out of the blue earlier in the summer. I saw my take home pay drop dramatically. It made me go out and get a job real quick! It may be """free""" money, but it definitely wasn't enough to continue the lifestyle we previously enjoyed!

Oh and don't forget that you have a 2-3 week waiting period before you can even apply for any money.

PLUS I had to wait 7 weeks to get any EI due to the backlog. How much fun was that!?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by DarrenSt
Well there you have it they just don't feel like giving up a small portion of their money just in case they never use it is what I am reading here. No matter if it would benefit themselves or a loved one etc.

That's not true. No one has said that. Most people have said that they would not want the governent to mandate a dedcution from their pay to pay for something they would prefer to get by other means.

 

[jrydberg]

I've tried to agree to disagree. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Canada's system works for Canada. Great. My comments are solely based on my feelings that a similar system in the US would be a big mistake. No disrespect intended towards Canadians or the system that they apparently like.

I would hope that Canadians would do me the same courtesy and not continue to disparage those of us who don't want the same system Canada has.

 

[damo]

I think she means that some sort of maternity leave is vital to a healthy mother/child. I don't think that 1 year is the magic number, but I don't think 2 weeks would be enough. That would be an interesting poll though, to see how long people thought would be the right length of time.

 

[totalia]

Canadians, ever get the feeling like your banging your head against a brick wall?

Actually, that would probably be more productive.

And yes, damo, thats exactly what I mean.

One of the things I find most frustrating about these kinds of conversations is that things that should be obvious, seem to often be ignored or dismissed.

 

[Maleficent13]

That's not a feeling exclusive to Canadians.

 

[Amberle3]

I'd like to stay out, but I have to jump in. And I'm apologizing right off the bat - I have a huge headache (almost migraine) and I'm not as comprehensible as I'd like to be. The result is that I'm sure this post could have been half the length, and made more sense.

I'm Canadian. My fiance is American. He's positively aghast at the taxes we pay up here, frankly I usually don't give them a second thought.

Before I was self-employed, my hours of work went to benefit someone else. Meaning that yes although I was being paid in return for my work, ultimately the consequence was that the company or employer received the benefit of my work. Because my job was in their control, and I could be laid off etc at any point, I contributed (as required) to EI.

EI is there to protect people who do not have ultimate control over their jobs.

I am now self-employed. My job is completely under my control, and therefore I do not pay EI. If I am sick and unable to work, or choose to take time off for a child, well then I'd darn well either have the money saved up or have private insurance to cover it.

As for maternity leave, we take the "whole village" approach here. You know, the old saying that "It takes a whole village to raise a single child". That means that we look out for each other, and we do what's best for the village as a whole. Because none of us is an island, we don't exist in a vacuum (can I use more cliches here?!). We still have to interact with society, and to a large extent our experiences are shaped by those interactions. Does contributing to the overall betterment of society not lead to a more fullfilling life experience in the long run? How do you attain that if you stay with the "I'm only concerned with ME" approach?

And for those of you wondering about costs, here's the info I've been able to gather:

If you're making say $50,00 a year, living in Winnipeg, you're paying:
$819 in EI (maximum annual contribution)
$900 in CPP (Canada Pension Plan)
$8,900 in Federal tax
$6053 in Provincial tax
Total deductions: $16,672
Take-home pay: $33,328
That's assuming you don't have any other deductions, like a premium health care or union dues etc.

In return for that, we have the comfort and security of knowing that any time we need help, it's there for us. If someone is laid off from work, he'll have a little bit of income to help him until he finds another job, so that he can continue to care for his family. Why should it matter if it's a stranger or a close friend or family member? Our health care gets paid for from those taxes. I might be fortunate enough to never need major surgery, it doesn't mean I'm going to be upset because I've paid money into the health care system and I'm not using it as much as someone else is.

As for the EI, as far as I know it's all one pot. If Sally has a baby and uses all her EI benefits in taking a year of combined parental leave, great. If she gets laid off 4 months after going back to work, she's already used up her EI and she's not eligible for benefits - it's not like there's a separate fund for maternity money.

I've seen several posters take issue with the fact that women are CHOOSING to have children and taking the time off. Well, on the flip side of the coin isn't NOT having children a choice? Those who can't have children "of their own" are still able to adopt, and I'm fairly certain they're still eligible for parental leave.

EI is like the difference between eating at home, and eating out a buffet. If I chose to eat at home, I'm responsible for my meal and I don't have to pay a fee for it. If I chose to eat at a buffet, then I'm required to pay. Now then, at the buffet there's a variety of options. I personally can't eat seafood, so I'm not going to be choosing that. EI is a multi-faceted program that happens to include maternity leave. Just like I don't get a lower price at the buffet because I'm not going to be taking advantage of the crab legs, some people contributing to EI may never take advantage of parental leave. Oh well. That's just the way it goes.

I'm a travel agent. I've had people try and get lower pricing at all-inclusive resorts because they don't eat at buffets, they don't eat bread, they have wheat allergies, they don't drink - you name it. Sorry, it's an all-inclusive price. Just because you don't use part of it doesn't mean you don't have to pay the same price that someone else does who might use more. So some people choose to have children and others don't. It's still the same deductions.

And if you never have to use the EI money you've contributed, then you can at least have the satisfaction of knowing that money has benefitted someone else. Like maybe a relative. Or a total stranger. What's the difference? None.

If everyone had the "I only care about me" attitude there would be no social programs at all. And no neighbourhood watch. And no sense of community whatsoever. Because it seems to me that you can't have a sense of community without caring about the people that live in it.