long term maternity leave (debate)

[jmmom80]

Oh I see your point and the point you are making is if you feel you need to have a kid you should suffer for it if you don't have the money to stay home and no one should look out for you if that is the case.

actually, no you don't see the point. i had the money to stay home if i had wanted to, but i chose not to. i love my job and i wanted to keep my career, so i kept working. i love my children dearly, but i would not have been happy as a sahm, so i chose to keep working.

as it was stated by somone before we look at it like this if we all pay for this why not use it and better the relationship and health etc of the mother and child for the betterment of society and it sure seems to be workign for us here.

if you believe that only sahm's can properly care for children during the day and that the children of working mothers are a detriment to society, then i can see where you support taxpayer funding of mothers staying home for a year. i don't share that belief, so i don't see the need for taxpayers to foot the bill for a new mother to stay home. to me, such a system accomplishes nothing other than telling women 'stay home for a year and we'll foot the bills, no problem'.

 

[Susan--Ontario]

Originally posted by jmmom80
i have a daughter. if she wants to stay home with her future children, then she had better plan on having savings or an income from her husband, boyfriend or whatever to pay for it. i'm teaching my children personal responsibility, including being responsible for their own choices. if women want to stay home with their kids, great. but don't expect everyone else to pay for it.

i'm sorry that you can't see the point with me, i.e., what women choose to do when they have children is up to them, not me. it's also up to them to pay for it, not me.

Glad to see you're just like my Ma!! I only got 6 weeks off with my children so why should you get anything more than I did.

I am personally responsible for everything in my life. I just believe that we all have a moral responsibility to look out for the welfare of others. If that means giving babies a better start in life then I'm all for it. My employer is also for it. They topped up my EI payments so that I received 90% of my salary for the first 6 months of my mat leave. This is a benefit of my employer and I would hope that other employers would follow suit. Many, many have because they recognize that we are raising the leaders of tomorrow and they should get all the benefits that a wealthy nation can give them. Not just the select few who have the means to do it.

I get it that you don't agree with it. Is there anyone else reading these posts or are there only a few of us. If there are any lurkers who have a new opinion please post. Otherwise let's drop this thread and move on to something else.

 

[jmmom80]

I only got 6 weeks off with my children so why should you get anything more than I did.

nope, not at all. i got 10 weeks off, and that's because that's all i wanted. had i wanted more, i would have quit my job and not expected someone else to pick up the tab. i don't think that's a lot to ask. if my daughter wants to quit work and stay home full time, good for her, but she shouldn't expect someone else to pay for it.

I just believe that we all have a moral responsibility to look out for the welfare of others. If that means giving babies a better start in life then I'm all for it.

you are basing your opinion on the belief that babies that don't stay home with mom for a full year are worse off than babies that do. i don't share that belief. if i did, i would be in favor of social policy that promoted it, but i don't.

Otherwise let's drop this thread and move on to something else.

you're certainly free to drop out of the thread whenever you like, whereas perhaps some of the rest of us would like to continue the discussion.

 

[Susan--Ontario]

Originally posted by jmmom80 [/


you're certainly free to drop out of the thread whenever you like, whereas perhaps some of the rest of us would like to continue the discussion. [/B]

I guess your definition of discussion is different than mine. Generally a discussion goes forward with new ideas.

Since there are only two of you posting from the US I have to assume that everyone else has given up on this thread which is exactly what I'm doing.

Have a great weekend!! Enjoy some time with your children they grow up too fast. In the end I think our families come first and fore most in our lives. That may be why we are so passionate in our debate over this issue. You want to keep as much money as possible to raise your children with everything and I am willing to part with $800 a year so that everyone is equal in this department. My kids don't miss that money. They still get to go to Disney twice a year. But to the Mom's who are making minimum wage the opportunity to be home with their little ones makes me feel better about my contribution to the country. Someone posted about the village raising the children earlier. I love that about my country. There are many things about the US that I also love. Just except that we are different, just as we can't understand how the Scandanavian countries give over 60% of their cheque to taxes, you don't understand how we give well over 30% of our cheques to taxes.

You don't want have one year mat leaves but apparently there are states that do. Any government should do what the people they represent want. That's democracy. Let's be thankful that we live in countries where we are free to say what we want instead of living in fear that we could be killed for speaking out against them.

I wish you a great weekend and have enjoyed being part of this thread the last few days. I can't afford any more time here or I will need my EI benefits.

 

[maryliz]

Originally posted by Susan--Ontario

I wish you a great weekend and have enjoyed being part of this thread the last few days. I can't afford any more time here or I will need my EI benefits.

LOL - you can't collect EI if you get FIRED for spending 3 days solid on the Dis !

I personally would not make a good SAHM, nor could I ever provide home daycare for others -- but I certainly applaud those that wish to, and are able to. I just can't imagine going back to work when my body and mind haven't recovered from childbirth and late-night feedings. It was hard enough when my babies were 9 months old and teething I hope that your employers will begin to recognize that 6 weeks just ain't enough time, and you see some improvements in at least the job security aspect of it.

Have a great weekend! It's been an interesting couple of days here.

Mary Liz

 

[sha_lyn]

Why lets see so that if you happen to have children and when they get older they have kids well your daughters anyhow they can have the pleasure of knowing they had the first year of thier childs life to be with them and help them grow rather than shipping them off to a daycare to be raised by strangers. Seems like a darn good idea to me

Do you really not understand what we are saying. No one is against a mother staying at home with their children for a yr, or even more. We are against the government taking our money and paying out money for that purpose. Why is it so hard for you to understand that, to some people, self accountability is worth more than any government program. If that is not a value you hold, then it is a good thing you are in a country that holds the values that you hold. I live a country that holds values (in the most part LOL) that I hold. I have no desire for my government to start the policies that your gov. has. If I wanted to live in a socialist country I would move to one. If you wanted to live in Capitalistic country you are free to move from one. However you seem to be of the opinion that because you like the Canadian policies, that everyone in the US should be begging for the same policies.

 

[septbride2002]

nope, not at all. i got 10 weeks off, and that's because that's all i wanted. had i wanted more, i would have quit my job and not expected someone else to pick up the tab. i don't think that's a lot to ask. if my daughter wants to quit work and stay home full time, good for her, but she shouldn't expect someone else to pay for it.

I see that you are still throwing the word EXPECT around. Non one is expecting anything around here - you just can't seem to get past that though.

I agree it does take a village to raise our children. I was actually talking to a family of several generations about this thread last night at dinner. The older ones who raised their kids in the 50's basically said that when they were raising their kids it was all about putting the kids first. About raising the future generation with the values that they believe were important. But as time has moved on the value system in America has changed so that people actually have to choose between work and family. That instead of being friends with your neighbors - you are enemies. That everyone is so busy worrying about themselves and trying to get the most for themselves that the idea of helping your neighbor seems like a foreign concept.

People that raised their kids in the 70's and 80's talked about how they wanted to stay home with their kids more but that it became harder as cities, and suburbs grew. They lived to far from work to walk so they had to buy 2 cars instead of one, and that before they knew it they were working all the time. Plus they believed that their companies would take care of them through 401K plans, pensions, and such so they were dedicated to those jobs and hated the idea of calling in sick or abusing vacation time.

My generation - getting ready to have kids or have little ones talked about how we watched our parents work for companies that laid them off and cut their pay in the late 80's and early 90's. And we don't believe any company is loyal to their employees and therefore feel no guilt in taking the time off and actually feel that there should be more time off to help balance the economic dependcy of a job vs. wanting to have a family life. Many individuals had actually decided to not have kids because they couldn't see how they could do both and didn't want to be in the same trap that their parents are in. Some were saving every dime they had so that the Mom or Dad could take off for a year to care for their kids - but had concerns about trying to get back into their career in the same stage that they left it in.

These discussions say to me that over the last 60 years our society has become more money driven then they are by their families. That our focus is wrong. Of course companies are not going to cut any of us a break - they are part of the reason we are where we are.

~Amanda

 

[DarrenSt]

Sha you don't seem to be able to get past the fact that the govt isn't taing your money to let people stay home etc it goes to may other facets of the EI system like say your hubby lost his job your money and his money that were paid into it help you out. Say you got really sick or worse your child was really sick you are not trying to get out of work but you would be able to have the time to tend to the child or loved one using EI same with the mat leave it is there so you can help to give your child the greatr start it needs that first year without having to ship it off to a daycare or a relative etc for them to raise it during it's very impresionable first year of life. I do not expect anyone to pay my way it is nice to know people are contributing to this for the possability of needing it for any of the above reasons. Wether it be planed or unplanned it is great to know it is there for the use if need be.

 

[jmmom80]

I see that you are still throwing the word EXPECT around. Non one is expecting anything around here - you just can't seem to get past that though.

i'm sorry that the word expect is so offensive to you, but it is an apt description, imo. the canadians on this thread certainly expect to get payment for staying home with a baby, do they not? of course they do, because they paid the taxes that when put together with other people's taxes, pay them to do so. i fail to see why you are so hung up on the word expect. i think you are reading much more into it than is there. my point remains the same - if my daughter wants to stay home when she has a child great! but she should be prepared to pay for it herself, and not rely (is that more palatable to you) on others to pay the bills for her.

 

[sha_lyn]

DarrenSt
you seem not able to read the title of the post. This is about paid long term maternity leave.

 

[DarrenSt]

Exactly and it is EI that pays it and you folks eep saying that your EI sholdnt pay for people that choose to stay at home with a child for a year. Well our mat leave is covered under EI which also covers all those other things to so it is relavent when you keep saying you don't want to or expect to pay for others to stay home well you are when they stay home for any of these other reasons also.

 

[jmmom80]

Sha you don't seem to be able to get past the fact that the govt isn't taing your money to let people stay home etc it goes to may other facets of the EI system like say your hubby lost his job your money and his money that were paid into it help you out.

we have such a system, paid by employers. i think it's great because it helps out people that are INVOLUNTARILY unemployed. maternity leave for a year is completely voluntary, and i don't think it should be funded by the government, meaning us. unlike being laid off, maternity leave is a choice. helping people out during an unexpected layoff is one thing. paying a woman to stay home for a year when that is purely her choice to do so is something else entirely, and something i would never support as a government mandated program.

 

[jmmom80]

Originally posted by DarrenSt
Exactly and it is EI that pays it and you folks eep saying that your EI sholdnt pay for people that choose to stay at home with a child for a year. Well our mat leave is covered under EI which also covers all those other things to so it is relavent when you keep saying you don't want to or expect to pay for others to stay home well you are when they stay home for any of these other reasons also.

can you really not see the difference between involuntary job loss and voluntary job loss? i'm all for helping people in the former category, and totally against helping those in the latter.

laid off = involuntary - let's help those people
maternity leave = voluntary - their choice, let them handle it on their own.

 

[poohandwendy]

You don't want have one year mat leaves but apparently there are states that do. Any government should do what the people they represent want. That's democracy. Let's be thankful that we live in countries where we are free to say what we want instead of living in fear that we could be killed for speaking out against them.

LOL, what states? I can assure you, if Americans really wanted this, we would have it. Hate to burst your bubble, but not everyone wants this.

 

[DIZNYFAN]

I can see the difference but yuou missed one important thing of the post. You cover the mat leave but skip the sick relative would that not fit the same thing as involuntary and if that is ok then you have a double standard.

 

[sha_lyn]

I am so done with this thread. DIZNYFAN you are grasping at straws because you can't stand the fact that we don't want gov mandated paid paternity/maternity leave in the US. We have missed nothing. WE DO NOT WANT IT, Get it

 

[DIZNYFAN]

I am not grasping at straws I am simply stating a fact and pointing out one detail that I am sure people would want covered that is basically the same idea as voluntary leave for maternity leave.

 

[jmmom80]

Originally posted by DIZNYFAN
I am not grasping at straws I am simply stating a fact and pointing out one detail that I am sure people would want covered that is basically the same idea as voluntary leave for maternity leave.

and i disagree with your premise that staying home with a sick relative is involuntary. it's a sad situation, no doubt, but the choice to not work because of illness is in the family is still just that - a choice.

 

[poohandwendy]

Originally posted by DIZNYFAN
I am not grasping at straws I am simply stating a fact and pointing out one detail that I am sure people would want covered that is basically the same idea as voluntary leave for maternity leave.

If people wanted that (staying home with a sick relative) covered, we would be demanding it. We aren't.

Believe it or not, we are doing quite well without all of the ''benefits'' you seem to think we need mandated here.

 

[arminnie]

I can't speak for all 50 states, but California has mandatory short-term disability insurance that pays benefits up to one year. It is based on salary, but caps out at maybe $2000 a month. Premiums are paid by the worker and administered by the state.

Pregnancy is covered by short-term disability laws and is treated just like any other short-term disability. It is standard to return to work 6 weeks after child-birth just like it is fairly standard to return to work 6 weeks after major surgery. A pregnant worker can leave work prior to delivery if it is medically necessary.

For those of you that stated that your body was not physically capable of going back to work after 6 weeks, that would be covered under short-term disabiity if the doctor agrees - and a separate third party doctor maybe required to okay it.

It was illegal in CA for an employer to treat pregnancy disability any differently than any other disability. The focus of the law was to protect the rights of those unable to work because of physical limitations - not because of personal preferences.

There is a fundamental difference in the objectives - one is to provide income for an employee who is physically unable to work and the other (Canada) is to provide income to allow a parent to stay at home with the child (presumably for the child's benefit.)

A person who has a heart attack might prefer to take off a year and spend time learning about better nutrition, etc. If that is not medically necessary, then it is not covered. Pregnancy is not dealt with any differently.

Disability payments go to those whose disability prevents them from working.