Same story here working for the state gov't in a professional union position. ALso -- Both mothers and fathers could take up to six months of leave. If you had any vacation and sick time, you could use any or all of it during your leave. Otherwise it was completely unpaid.I work for the govt, and we have maternity leave exactly as described by the OP, except there is no short term disability. You save up your leave, both vacation and sick leave and use that, or take leave without pay.
In our case, bec we'd begun saving for leave when we first started to try to conceive and then we had infertilty and it took forever, we were able to save quite a bit of money. Because we'd been saving for so long and between the two of us, we were able to take a year off (a definite example of something negative turning into a positve). But most people returned to work any where from 2-6 weeks after birth. We were the definite exception.
The truth is that employers not only do not want pregnant employees, they actually do not want parents working for them either. They therefore want to do everything in their power to discourage people from returning to work after having a baby bec their first allegiance will no longer be with the company (the mistake being in thinking that an employee's first allegiance was EVER first to the company). Parents are unreliable and expensive employees in the eyes of most employers. They make say otherwise, but that is definitely how most employers in my experience reallly feel.I think if I were in the US I would be demanding more of the government around this issue. It sounds to me like they hardly get involved.
in california it's based on your salary with the top being $882 per week. they also enacted the family leave sdi program, so if a baby is born or adopted the dh could take 6 weeks of paid (through sdi) leave as well (what a godsend for a new mom to have new dad home those first 6 weeks to help out)
Wonder what family leave would be like if it was the men giving birth to the babies?