long term maternity leave (debate)

[DIZNYFAN]

Everyone in Canada that works pays employment insurance it is like a safety net in case you get laid off or your company goes out of business etc just like maternity leave it is money you pay out of YOUR pay every week or 2 weeks depending on how often you get paid. You then go on maternity leave and you get paid but not by the employer it comes from the government out of money you have been paying into from the first day you start to work at any age.

 

[ripleysmom]

I agree.

 

[sha_lyn]

You have to put in 40 weeks beforer you can go on maternity leave again.

It just doesn't seem fair to me. for every 40 weeks of work, you basically "earn" 52 weeks of paid "vacation" (note vacation is in parentheses, I realize having a baby is not a vacation)

 

[DIZNYFAN]

Ya no kidding it is no vacation LOL. But the rewards are far beyond anything one could imagine.

 

[sue1013]

In the US we also pay money out of our pay for unemployment insurance but the employer also pays unemployment tax for their employees. The government has to get the money from somewhere or are you taxed at a much higher rate than in the US?

 

[DIZNYFAN]

I am sure our tax rate is quite a bit higher.
here is a link to some numbers on our HRDC site.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/news02/02-097e.html

 

[Beth76]

Originally posted by DIZNYFAN
Everyone in Canada that works pays employment insurance it is like a safety net in case you get laid off or your company goes out of business etc just like maternity leave it is money you pay out of YOUR pay every week or 2 weeks depending on how often you get paid. You then go on maternity leave and you get paid but not by the employer it comes from the government out of money you have been paying into from the first day you start to work at any age.

So, what happens if you never get laid off or never go on maternity leave? You paid all that money for someone *else* to use and you got no benefit. I am a SAHM and I'm against maternity leave. It was my choice to stay home and lose my income. We live without a lot of things because of my lost income---and that's fine with us. I don't think it's fair for others to pay for someone to NOT work. If you get a year's worth of paid maternity leave, that's like a year's worth of vacation. You are getting paid to NOT work--that's vacation. Just because you're not traveling doesn't mean it's not "vacation time".

 

[DIZNYFAN]

It is something we pay into hoping we won't have to use it I pray never to get laid off but if it happens I know I am covered and I am happy that it is in place for the mothers that take it I hope they continue to have it I have no problem paying into it especially for that reason. Knowing that a mother can stay home for a year with her child is a big plus in my opinion and if some of my hard earned money can help that then so be it I applaud our GOVT for putting this in place and increasing it from 6 months to a year.

 

[hpsauce]

It's called employment *insurance*. It's like health insurance. You pay into the pot hoping you won't need to use it, but it's there if you need it. How is a mother staying home with her baby for a short period of time different than someone who is laid off or fired from their job? I may nevery use employment insurance because I may never be without a job -- does that mean I shouldn't pay into it?

Do you not have employment (unemployment) insurance in the States?

 

[jmmom80]

How is a mother staying home with her baby for a short period of time different than someone who is laid off or fired from their job?

people that are laid off or fired don't have the choice of staying at work. women that have children do have the choice. i have no interest in helping to pay for a year off for a woman that chooses to quit working and stay home with a new baby. if she wants to do that, she should be prepared to pay for it herself or hope that her company chooses to do so.

 

[DIZNYFAN]

Sounds like sour grapes to me LOL.

 

[jrydberg]

Employers in the US who lay off employees are responsible for some of the costs of unemployment. When I was laid off, part of my severance package stipulated that if I signed their severance agreement, I agreed not to pursue any lawsuits against them and they agreed not to contest paying unemployment benefits in my case.

 

[jmmom80]

Originally posted by DIZNYFAN
Sounds like sour grapes to me LOL.

actually it's called taking responsibility for your own choices. i had 10 paid weeks off when each of my kids were born. 6 weeks from my employer and 4 weeks of personal time. if staying home for the first year had been what i wanted to do, i would have waited until we could afford for me to do it rather than expect others to pay for my choice.

 

[hpsauce]

I should add that it's called parental leave, not maternal leave. Parents can split up the year between them, so dad can stay home with baby part of the time.

God Bless Canada!

Sauce

 

[patsvette]

My wife and i discussed this just recently since were having our first in march,she asked how long can she take off of work for.Her boss is very good like this so he said if you can afford to take time off then do it. So she started putting her extra money into a savings account for if i need more money to pay bills while shes off then i can take it out.So i told her the more you put away the longer you can take off.Her check gets automatically deposited into the bank but she gets extra money on top of that for late hours she has to work past her normal time (thats 50 plus hours a week)Now going back to the debate,im not sure which way i sway too,i understand about unemployment insurance (since ive had my own business with alot of employees)but maternity leave is a choice,i think ill just leave it at that.Im making sure we have enough put away to pay bills while shes out.

 

[swea_pea1]

Originally posted by hpsauce
It's called employment *insurance*. It's like health insurance. You pay into the pot hoping you won't need to use it, but it's there if you need it. How is a mother staying home with her baby for a short period of time different than someone who is laid off or fired from their job? I may nevery use employment insurance because I may never be without a job -- does that mean I shouldn't pay into it?

Do you not have employment (unemployment) insurance in the States?

I think the difference is that if an employer laid an employee off or fired one, they either a. could afford to run the business with one fewer employee, or b. can replace them.

Maternity leave requires the job to be protected. It's probable that the business needs that position to be filled or the employer would have "downsized" it. That's just how corporate America works. Holding onto that job unfilled for a year puts employers (especially small business owners, as decker96 said) in a difficult predicament from a staffing perspective.

No way could I support this one, and this is from a mom who could only afford to take 8 weeks for each of my two kids. If my employer could have done without me for a year, they could have done without me forever.

 

[DIZNYFAN]

ITA HP if I wanted to or my Dw wanted to I could have take 2 4 or 6 or more months off and she could have gone back to work but she prefered to stay home with all 3 of our kids I had no problem with that.

 

[DIZNYFAN]

Mind you up here if you are fired from a job you are not eligable for EI unless there are some very good reasons you should get it.

 

[septbride2002]

actually it's called taking responsibility for your own choices. i had 10 paid weeks off when each of my kids were born. 6 weeks from my employer and 4 weeks of personal time. if staying home for the first year had been what i wanted to do, i would have waited until we could afford for me to do it rather than expect others to pay for my choice.

Ya know you say the word "EXPECT" alot. I don't think anyone is saying that we EXPECT paid maternity leave. I don't think that MILLIONS of Canadian, French, and Spanish (I think those were the examples given) EXPECT to be paid. Rather, if you can expand your mind around this one, it is part of the system. It isn't about expectations or about screwing over the general public. Instead the systems are in place so that if your world comes crumbling down around you that you don't fall through the cracks. Which is what happens to countless Americans everyday. I'm not saying I EXPECT you to understand this because you have made it perfectly clear that for you it is all about "ME."

Sorry - but your attitude has finally gotten to me.

~Amanda

 

[hpsauce]