long term maternity leave (debate)

[damo]

Originally posted by 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.

No, I think that all it shows it the true differences in the basic nature of the Canadian vs. American people and that what you are used to is what you expect. I think it is called being patriotic.

 

[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?

i was home 10 weeks with each of my kids. if i had wanted to stay home longer, i would have quit my job before they were born and stayed home. i certainly wouldn't have wanted to stay home for a year at someone else's expense.

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.

exactly! the canadians love their system - good for them! but i wouldn't want any part of it for this country, and i fail to see how that makes me the bad guy.

 

[damo]

Originally posted by jmmom80
i was home 10 weeks with each of my kids. if i had wanted to stay home longer, i would have quit my job before they were born and stayed home. i certainly wouldn't have wanted to stay home for a year at someone else's expense.

Would you collect on car insurance or home owners insurance if you needed to claim more than you had contributed? If so, then you would rather fix your car or house at someone else's expense than stay home with your child at someone else's expense. That is how Canadians see it. You must see it from a different angle because I am sure that the answer is no.

 

[jmmom80]

Would you collect on car insurance or home owners insurance if you needed to claim more than you had contributed?

as i've said many times in this thread, when it comes to home, life, auto, insurance, i'm able to pick the coverage i want, with a company i want, for the price i'm willing to pay. if i don't want the insurance, i don't buy it. and if i don't buy it, no one else is going to pick up the tab when something happens that would have been covered.

that is completely different than a tax that is forced on you by the government and then used to subsidize people's personal lifestyle choices.

 

[maryliz]

But it's not "staying home at someone else's expense ... it's a program that I must pay into, so when I need the benefit, it is there for me.

I think this thread has long gone past the point of going anywhere. You either like your current system, like someone else's system, and if you really hate where you are, you will move

Mary-Liz

 

[jmmom80]

But it's not "staying home at someone else's expense ... it's a program that I must pay into, so when I need the benefit, it is there for me.

it's staying home on other people's dime for a personal choice that you make. if that's what canadians want, great for the canadians, but i would fight tooth and nail to stop that kind of thing from taking place on the government level here.

 

[Susan--Ontario]

Something else that EI covers is adoption. When you adopt a child, be it here or from China or some other country you are entitled to 35 weeks parental leave.

It is the government's belief that this is best for the child. We elected the government but I can assure you that no other party would rescind this legislation because there would be an uproar. We love our social benefits.

I also pay short and long term disability payments every pay as well (this is not optional, my employer requires this). I pray that I will never, ever need to collect on this insurance.

I'm sure that if the United States government ever wanted to implement such a mat leave program that the majority would rule. The majority of Americans would make the decision not just a few people.

 

[maryliz]

jmmom80 - how you can you blanket-say "someone else's dime" when I clearly, and many others have said that WE pay into it. Yes, some will pay more in their lifetime than others, and some may never collect it. No different than the fact that you may never visit a park in your city that your taxes paid for -- you don't get a rebate because you don't "make the choice" to go there. We need a growing population, and this program ensures that women have jobs to come back to.

You have every right to fight it if this were ever to become a referendum in your state/country. It would be interesting to see what a vote like that would bring.

Mary-Liz

 

[jmmom80]

I'm sure that if the United States government ever wanted to implement such a mat leave program that the majority would rule. The majority of Americans would make the decision not just a few people.

yes, and i would bet that the majority of americans don't want to subsidize a woman staying home for year after having a child.

 

[totalia]

Originally posted by maryliz
jmmom80 - how you can you blanket-say "someone else's dime" when I clearly, and many others have said that WE pay into it. Yes, some will pay more in their lifetime than others, and some may never collect it. No different than the fact that you may never visit a park in your city that your taxes paid for -- you don't get a rebate because you don't "make the choice" to go there. We need a growing population, and this program ensures that women have jobs to come back to.

You have every right to fight it if this were ever to become a referendum in your state/country. It would be interesting to see what a vote like that would bring.

Mary-Liz

Bravo. Well put.

 

[Susan--Ontario]

Just for fun. Let's do a poll.

How many Americans would like to have their unemployment insurance program provide for a women to stay home for 35 weeks and then either the woman or man stay home for the next 17 weeks? You would receive 55% of your salary and your job would be guaranteed for when you return?

Please tell us what State you are from as well so that we can tell geographical preferences.

 

[jmmom80]

We need a growing population, and this program ensures that women have jobs to come back to.

these same women could have jobs to go back to 6 weeks after they had the babies too, could they not? if a woman wants to be a sahm mom for a year, more power to her. but i see no reason for others to have to subsidize that choice.

No different than the fact that you may never visit a park in your city that your taxes paid for -- you don't get a rebate because you don't "make the choice" to go there.

of course i don't get the rebate. but there are necessary expenses involved in keeping up the park. staying home for a year is not a necessary expense, it is a choice.

 

[jmmom80]

Originally posted by Susan--Ontario
Just for fun. Let's do a poll.

How many Americans would like to have their unemployment insurance program provide for a women to stay home for 35 weeks and then either the woman or man stay home for the next 17 weeks? You would receive 55% of your salary and your job would be guaranteed for when you return?

Please tell us what State you are from as well so that we can tell geographical preferences.

i'm from florida, and the answer is no way.

 

[maryliz]

Maybe we could get good 'ole George W. to put this question as a referendum on your ballots for this November

 

[maryliz]

Originally posted by jmmom80
these same women could have jobs to go back to 6 weeks after they had the babies too, could they not? if a woman wants to be a sahm mom for a year, more power to her. but i see no reason for others to have to subsidize that choice.


of course i don't get the rebate. but there are necessary expenses involved in keeping up the park. staying home for a year is not a necessary expense, it is a choice.

But it's NOT a subsidy ... I pay into it.

As for the park example, that's my point ... a park to say, oh benefit some children , isn't a necessary expense. It was a choice that your city council made. After all, every parent that wants their child to play on a swing should just buy them one for their backyard, right? And if you don't have anyone in your family that would use said park, based on your rationale, you should be plenty angry that YOUR tax money was used to benefit these said children.

All gov'ts force us to pay for things we may or may not use. That's just life. And I guess you can be greatful that your gov't doesn't do this. But I would still love to see that as a national vote!

 

[poohandwendy]

I am from PA and I say no. I don't know of another way to say it but this:

I know you pay into it, I understand that. I know it isn't a handout like welfare. I have read all of your posts. You really, really do not have to repeat over and over that you pay into it or that it also covers other employment issues.

I still do not want it, not in a box, not with a fox, not in a plane, not on a train, ....I do not want this sort of social program being mandated here.

 

[jmmom80]

But it's NOT a subsidy ... I pay into it.

you most likely don't pay into enough to pay the whole tab for a year off, so it is a subsidy. someone is paying the difference, no?

But I would still love to see that as a national vote!

sorry, we don't do national votes on laws.

 

[maxie]

Originally posted by jmmom80
you most likely don't pay into enough to pay the whole tab for a year off, so it is a subsidy. someone is paying the difference, no?

This keeps coming back up. In my entire career starting from my first job back in University until I retire I will easily have paid for my 2 maternity leaves. No not everyone will. So what.

I was the one who originally brought up the topic of Canada's mat leave. I think it's time we all agree that there are different ideologies and opinions and leave it at that. This debate keeps going in circles.

 

[jmmom80]

it keeps being brought up because people keep saying that they only take out what they've put in.

 

[DIZNYFAN]

Some people like myself I will never go on a mat parental leave but I am paying into it and do so happily. Just like I pay taxes that help fix our roads and build city hockey arenas and soccer fields and ball diamonds etc. My kids do not play soccer or baseball but I am glad they are using the money to put in facilities that KIDS and adults alike can use just like I am glad to pay my EI premium I had to use it for 3 months one time and I sure as hell paid into it more than I ever got out of it but that is it I am happy that the money I am putting in helped me and likeley helped many other people like my wife or if my sisters ever have kids it will help them. It goes to show how unselfish Canadian people are when it comes to bettering thweir country community and way of life.