No maternity leave?

[nskjerven]

As someone has already clarified, the funds for EI in Canada do not get sucked dry. We actually have a surplus. I can't see how it wouldn't work in the US. People pay in and get back some of the money that they have payed in. You could have a baby every couple of years and collect EI if you work enough hours in between and pay in enough money.



I think you are completely misunderstanding how this system works in Canada. The money paid out for maternity and parental leaves DOES NOT come from taxes. It comes from Employment Insurance which every worker pays into. Employment Insurance can be used for a variety of situations, not just babies. We are the ones making the decisions about this.



Yes, you can't just stay on EI indefinitely. I have no idea if our taxes are higher to tell you the truth but taxes have nothing to do with EI (hence nothing to do with maternity and parental leave).

I see that a lot of people are skeptical to this system but I think it might be that many people don't understand how it works. I would say that most Canadians would praise it for giving parents the chance to parent their very young babies if asked.

So are you saying that your EI system is VOLUNTARY?

"It comes from Employment Insurance which every worker pays into. "

This statement makes me think that it is not voluntary, but mandated.

That to me = a tax!

EI from which maternity leave is paid is completely separate from taxes and actually runs at a surplus. People pay for their own services out of their EI deductions.

Everyone assumes taxes are higher in Canada, but Its happened more than once where I've had to run the numbers for work and they were dead even or Canada was less.

I don't assume your rates are higher, as I don't know what they are. I assume that a government that funds programs of the nature that you have spoken of costs alot of money and that not all people would be willing to support such programs, especially if they choose not to have children but are required to pay into a program that supports payments to people that choose to have children. (again, not sure if you program is mandatory as I asked above)

As it was pointed it out by another Canadian poster, they do this because they value families.

You're right about there being a real cultural difference when it comes to that.

This is frankly silly in my mind. I do not think one can personally judge what my personal family values are based on a government policy regarding maternity leave.

I'm amazed to hear it implied that American Family values are sub par to Canadian Family values.

Again, I'm glad I'm here. I'm sure you are glad you are there. If either of us had complaints I bet we'd be able to look into living in another environment to suit our needs.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

No EI is not voluntary and it is not a tax. As the name implies, it is "insurance". A tax is money that goes into a large pool that is spent for the common good for programs and services mandated by the government. This is a personal, individual investment that kicks in when you are unemployed, whether temporarily (for maternity and parental leave) or more permanently (got laid off or relocated for your spouse's job, etc.). Like the Canada Pension Plan. Would you call paying into your retirement a tax? Just because something isn't American doesn't mean it's bad.

 

[Pumbaa_]

I want puppy leave then. I want to add to my family and want leave (paid) to nurture my new addition and bond the family

What do you think my chances are?

 

[merryweather20]

So are you saying that your EI system is VOLUNTARY?

"It comes from Employment Insurance which every worker pays into. "

This statement makes me think that it is not voluntary, but mandated.

That to me = a tax!
I don't assume your rates are higher, as I don't know what they are. I assume that a government that funds programs of the nature that you have spoken of costs alot of money and that not all people would be willing to support such programs, especially if they choose not to have children but are required to pay into a program that supports payments to people that choose to have children. (again, not sure if you program is mandatory as I asked above)

This is frankly silly in my mind. I do not think one can personally judge what my personal family values are based on a government policy regarding maternity leave.

I'm amazed to hear it implied that American Family values are sub par to Canadian Family values.

Again, I'm glad I'm here. I'm sure you are glad you are there. If either of us had complaints I bet we'd be able to look into living in another environment to suit our needs.

Employment Insurance is voluntary only in very limited circumstances. One would be if you employ your spouse you can elect not to pay EI, but then the spouse can not collect EI based on that particular period of employment.

I agree with one of the above posters who said just because its not voluntary (or in this case extremely difficult to opt out of) doen't mean its a tax In my company we are required to pay $12 a month for life insurance, I don't consider it a tax it is what it is... Life Insurance.

I don't feel like its a case of others subsidizing someone's choice to have children, because this applies to everyone. At some point someone gave birth to everyone. Maybe I think of EI as a reverse pension

 

[nskjerven]

No EI is not voluntary and it is not a tax. As the name implies, it is "insurance". A tax is money that goes into a large pool that is spent for the common good for programs and services mandated by the government. This is a personal, individual investment that kicks in when you are unemployed, whether temporarily (for maternity and parental leave) or more permanently (got laid off or relocated for your spouse's job, etc.). Like the Canada Pension Plan. Would you call paying into your retirement a tax? Just because something isn't American doesn't mean it's bad.

I think this is semantics. We have such a "tax" as I continue to believe it is and should be called in the state of California, it is called State Disability Insurance. It is also manatory and as well covers maternity and illness.

I don't think of this as a pension and frankly I think a Pension that you must pay into is a tax. We can argue this point, or better yet agree to disagree.

The difference in my mind is the voluntary aspect. I went to Wikipedia to look this up and moreover confirmed my feelings. Tax not voluntary, insurance voluntary.


Oh my heavens, never in a million years would I be the person to suggest that it should be "American" to be good and not American would be bad. I'm not that person, so this comment makes me again sad. I think we have different ways of looking at this and I'm glad that we do.

I also do think that a retirement that is madatory is a TAX! We don't have a retirement fund in the US under our federal or state (CA) taxing authority. We pay into Social Security, it is not meant to be a "retirement" for which a person is able to live off of. It was set up as a supplemental system many years ago.

Wikipedia
"Although Social Security is sometimes compared to private pensions, this is an incorrect comparison since Social Security is social insurance and not a retirement plan. The payment of disability benefits also distinguishes Social Security from most private pensions. In other ways the two systems are fundamentally different as well. A private pension fund accumulates the money paid into it, eventually using those reserves to pay pensions to the workers who contributed to the fund; and a private system is not universal."

Being self employeed I still have to pay into SS tax, but I by no means think it will be here when I retire. For that I have private investment. I won't believe that it's my government's job to offer me retirement, again, this is my opinion, I suspect we differ in our thougths on this too.

Employment Insurance is voluntary only in very limited circumstances. One would be if you employ your spouse you can elect not to pay EI, but then the spouse can not collect EI based on that particular period of employment.

I agree with one of the above posters who said just because its not voluntary (or in this case extremely difficult to opt out of) doen't mean its a tax In my company we are required to pay $12 a month for life insurance, I don't consider it a tax it is what it is... Life Insurance.

I don't feel like its a case of others subsidizing someone's choice to have children, because this applies to everyone. At some point someone gave birth to everyone. Maybe I think of EI as a reverse pension

You can't opt out of the company policy on Life Insurance?

Your logic is fine for you, but I don't buy it. The taxes I pay (as an employee in CA, which I'm not at present time, just giving you an example) are not being used by my parents to support my birth. They are being used to support other people using the system.

I guess we can go into a long discourse on a Pension here too, but again I think we would find ourselves on opposite ends of the arguement.

 

[toto2]

So are you saying that your EI system is VOLUNTARY?

"It comes from Employment Insurance which every worker pays into. "

This statement makes me think that it is not voluntary, but mandated.

That to me = a tax!




I don't assume your rates are higher, as I don't know what they are. I assume that a government that funds programs of the nature that you have spoken of costs alot of money and that not all people would be willing to support such programs, especially if they choose not to have children but are required to pay into a program that supports payments to people that choose to have children. (again, not sure if you program is mandatory as I asked above)




This is frankly silly in my mind. I do not think one can personally judge what my personal family values are based on a government policy regarding maternity leave.

I'm amazed to hear it implied that American Family values are sub par to Canadian Family values.

Again, I'm glad I'm here. I'm sure you are glad you are there. If either of us had complaints I bet we'd be able to look into living in another environment to suit our needs.

WE are not saying that American have no familly value. We are saying that , as a society , we do put put our money in a systhem that trully support familly , we just dont use the word to win elections

 

[momof3disneyholics]

I just found out that the company I work for does not have any maternity leave. You have to save your vacation, and then if you want more time off you have to work a week without pay and then short term disability will kick in and then you get paid 60% of your salary.

Now I found this out because my boss is having her baby any day now. She saved 2 of her 4 weeks vacation. Because of other medical bills, she will not be able to do the week of no pay and then get paid at 60%. So unless someone here approves for her to work at home, she will be back after 2 weeks.

Is this normal?

I only took a week and a half off this last time. I had a csection too. My company doesn't offer any type of maternity leave and only 1 week paid vacation a year which I always take when my kids are out on Spring Break, so I simply couldn't afford to take alot of time off and had to come back.

 

[merryweather20]

I think this is semantics. We have such a "tax" as I continue to believe it is and should be called in the state of California, it is called State Disability Insurance. It is also manatory and as well covers maternity and illness.

I don't think of this as a pension and frankly I think a Pension that you must pay into is a tax. We can argue this point, or better yet agree to disagree.

The difference in my mind is the voluntary aspect. I went to Wikipedia to look this up and moreover confirmed my feelings. Tax not voluntary, insurance voluntary.


Oh my heavens, never in a million years would I be the person to suggest that it should be "American" to be good and not American would be bad. I'm not that person, so this comment makes me again sad. I think we have different ways of looking at this and I'm glad that we do.

I also do think that a retirement that is madatory is a TAX! We don't have a retirement fund in the US under our federal or state (CA) taxing authority. We pay into Social Security, it is not meant to be a "retirement" for which a person is able to live off of. It was set up as a supplemental system many years ago.

Wikipedia
"Although Social Security is sometimes compared to private pensions, this is an incorrect comparison since Social Security is social insurance and not a retirement plan. The payment of disability benefits also distinguishes Social Security from most private pensions. In other ways the two systems are fundamentally different as well. A private pension fund accumulates the money paid into it, eventually using those reserves to pay pensions to the workers who contributed to the fund; and a private system is not universal."

Being self employeed I still have to pay into SS tax, but I by no means think it will be here when I retire. For that I have private investment. I won't believe that it's my government's job to offer me retirement, again, this is my opinion, I suspect we differ in our thougths on this too.




You can't opt out of the company policy on Life Insurance?

Your logic is fine for you, but I don't buy it. The taxes I pay (as an employee in CA, which I'm not at present time, just giving you an example) are not being used by my parents to support my birth. They are being used to support other people using the system.

I guess we can go into a long discourse on a Pension here too, but again I think we would find ourselves on opposite ends of the arguement.

I could opt out by finding another job

As an example what do you think your company Health Insurance Company does with your money? Some of it is going to cover your expenses, the rest is to cover profits and payouts for other policy holders. Its the same deal with EI (minus the corporate profits).

 

[yasmina]

I just want to re-emphasize what I posted earlier. Obviously this applies only in the US.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 requires ALL employers to treat pregnant employees as they would any other disabled employees (I have a problem with that too, but that's a discussion for another thread).

IOW, if a colleague has a heart attack and is unable to work, a pregnant woman is entitled to the SAME benefits for the length of time that her dr. (or other certified caregiver, i.e. midwife) deems medically necessary.

This issue is very important to me, because for years my employer broke the law and forced pregnant women to take unpaid leave, when they could have used their sick days, and if necessary go into the sick bank (as I am right now due to my surgery).

 

[SunFloridaDisney]

I can't see how it's the obligation of my fellow citizens to pay for me to take a nap??? This is a real cultural difference.

I think I heard "it takes a village".... I do believe we all need help at times, and help for new moms should be a priority. As previous posters have stated, it is a point of view that values family, and we certainly need more of that in this country.

 

[nskjerven]

I could opt out by finding another job

As an example what do you think your company Health Insurance Company does with your money? Some of it is going to cover your expenses, the rest is to cover profits and payouts for other policy holders. Its the same deal with EI (minus the corporate profits).

Not the same thing, you can opt out of most health plans, unless they are 100% paid for by employers. (again, I'm stating this as a CA employer) Taxes are MANDATED.

We aren't talking apples to apples here.

But I'm ready to be done with this conversation as it's not moving either of our points forward.

I'm glad you are happy with what you have and I'm even more glad that I live in a country that doesn't mandate these kind of programs. I'm a take care of it myself kind of person.

 

[nskjerven]

WE are not saying that American have no familly value. We are saying that , as a society , we do put put our money in a systhem that trully support familly , we just dont use the word to win elections

so you won't say it is subpar, just imply it. Same thing in my book. I'm finished with this discussion as it isn't expressing opinions to a positive point I think it's bashing.

 

[Kath2003]

In the UK you're legally entitled for up to 52 weeks maternity leave.

You're entitled to 39 weeks on either $220/week or 90% of your wage (whichever is lower), although the first 26 weeks are normally at 90% of your wage even if it's more than $220/week. After that it depends on your circumstances but your employer cannot fire you for taking up to the full 52 weeks (which can start up to 11 weeks before your due date depending on when you want to stop working).

 

[chobie]

WE are not saying that American have no familly value. We are saying that , as a society , we do put put our money in a systhem that trully support familly , we just dont use the word to win elections

Exactly. I am American and I think that countries that have policies like that do have governments that value families. I don't think being against gay marriage is valuing families, which is all that phrase seems to mean in this country.

I think our nation can do better in regards to family friendly policies and programs. Rather than leaving this country for another (as is bound to be suggested to me after this post), I would rather stay here and fight for policies that value families by helping them. JMHO.

 

[Arielle22]

I just want to re-emphasize what I posted earlier. Obviously this applies only in the US.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 requires ALL employers to treat pregnant employees as they would any other disabled employees (I have a problem with that too, but that's a discussion for another thread).

IOW, if a colleague has a heart attack and is unable to work, a pregnant woman is entitled to the SAME benefits for the length of time that her dr. (or other certified caregiver, i.e. midwife) deems medically necessary.

This issue is very important to me, because for years my employer broke the law and forced pregnant women to take unpaid leave, when they could have used their sick days, and if necessary go into the sick bank (as I am right now due to my surgery).

Not to nit pick, but you have to have an employee who is a similar length of employment. So if a 25 yr employee has a heart attack and their job is held 4 months, a 2 year employee who has heart attack might only get their 12 weeks of FMLA. Now if a 2 year employee got 4 months then a 2 yr employee who is pregnant could expect to get the 4 months.

 

[yasmina]

Not to nit pick, but you have to have an employee who is a similar length of employment. So if a 25 yr employee has a heart attack and their job is held 4 months, a 2 year employee who has heart attack might only get their 12 weeks of FMLA. Now if a 2 year employee got 4 months then a 2 yr employee who is pregnant could expect to get the 4 months.

You're absolutely right. My apologies for the oversight.

In my school district, a 5 yr. employee cannot use the same number of days in the sick bank as I can. There is a specific formula in our contract - so many days per year of service. I don't remember off-hand exactly what it says.

Our sick bank is limited to 750 days per year for all professional employees (ie: teachers) This year we have 30 pregnant teachers, and if all of them need to use the sick bank, minus their accumulated sick days, personal days, and 3 days allotted for the birth, well, you can do the math and realize that those 750 days are going to evaporate pretty quickly. Before I left to have my surgery, my union rep said he was glad I was having it early in the year, because there won't be any days left by spring.

 

[Becky2005]

When I had dd (10 years ago) I worked for the Federal Gov as an air traffic controller. There was no paid maternity nor short term disability. You used vacation, sick leave or time without pay. I always wondered when everyone talked about the great federal benefits. I was always looking for them....LOL.

I was similar when I had DD & DS -- there was FMLA and I got 12 weeks off but I had to have sick/vacation time or else it would be unpaid. I worked for a government subsidary basically (I don't really know what it's officially called -- we weren't officially government so not all the Federal holidays but we were a trickle down affect that we got paid by the Department of Energy). For that matter, they started shutting down the 2 weeks of Christmas/New Years and if you didn't have vacation time saved up for it, those 2 weeks would be unpaid unless of course you were essential personnel and then you had to work. I was no where near considered essential personnel when it came to bare minimums to have the place operate.

I didn't know some companies actually PAY for the 12 weeks off not counting it against sick/vacation time. That would have been sweet. I don't know of any around here that do that. All I have ever heard was that they basically have to hold your job for 12 weeks if you so choose to use all but don't think pay was required.

 

[connorlevismom]

We get nothing. I took 12 weeks off unpaid, no 60% disability pay either. That would have kicked butt! But I used my sick and vacation time and saved up the money I would need to take the additional time off. People should not complain bout only getting 60% disability pay, some people get nothing.

Kristine

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

Not the same thing, you can opt out of most health plans, unless they are 100% paid for by employers. (again, I'm stating this as a CA employer) Taxes are MANDATED.

It might be different in the US but that's not the case here. My case is typical of any professional worker. I have a core health insurance plan (for dental, eye care, and prescriptions) that I must take unless my spouse has a better plan that I am covered under. I pay into that plan as does my employer. There is no way to opt out of my pension plan. Now, there is additional health coverage that I can add or choose not to but I have to take the core. The point is, I absolutely have to have health insurance to work.

I am really having a hard time believing that there are human beings out there who don't believe in taking care of one another. I think it's incredibly sad that there are women in the US who have to return to work immediately after giving birth to a vunerable little baby.

 

[Kath2003]

I am really having a hard time believing that there are human beings out there who don't believe in taking care of one another. I think it's incredibly sad that there are women in the US who have to return to work immediately after giving birth to a vunerable little baby.

I agree. There are some basic rights. The right for the mother to take care of her baby. The right for rest time. The right for healthcare. All of these should not be dependent on your income or "extras" that your employer offers!