Military Significant Others and Spouse Support - MilitarySOS.com
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: S/O.. Paid Maternity Leave

  1. "If you don't like my attitude, quit talking to me"
    TrishAFSpouse's Avatar
    TrishAFSpouse is offline
    "If you don't like my attitude, quit talking to me"
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    12,308
    #21
    Advertisements
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenity View Post
    Well, why didn't they go back? I assume having childcare might be one reason.

    Most women here go back. No why... cause we have affordable or even subsidized childcare. You gotta be able to afford to work.

    And it's a high percentage. It's not like pocket change And of course only applies to women who work, and dads.
    With the women I know, it wasn't childcare. For the ones that didn't decide before hand, it was just a 'I can't leave my baby' thing. not that they couldn't afford childcare, just they didn't want to leave theier baby.. at the time they were required to go back to work (some it was 6 weeks, others is was 6 months).

    For the ones that knew ahead of time, they just wanted to take whatever money they could from the company, knowing they weren't going back. Child care cost wasn't their reason for knowing ahead of time they didn't want to go back.


    Don't get me wrong, a woman can decide if she wants to go back or not, for whatever reasons are her own. For me, as a tax payer, if her only paid maternity leave was from govt funds and she knew she wasn't going back, that's abuse to me. Its ones of the slippery slopes. Because, to me, a women who decides after on leave she can't leave her baby is far different than one who knows ahead of time. Hard to explain I suppose.

    There are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that don't
  2. Team Rocket
    rocket_lizz's Avatar
    rocket_lizz is offline
    Team Rocket
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    San Diego!!!
    Posts
    9,069
    #22
    Also, Japan went the route of not having government support for new mothers and shitty working hours for new fathers, and their population is the most declining in the world. The gov't is literally begging couples to have sex and reproduce. Very few women can get out and back into the workforce easily, and with high cost living in most of the country, and ridiculously expensive school costs, it's just easier to only have 1 and be a SAHM or have none and make enough $$ to actually have a nice-ish lifestyle.
    WiggleWiggle~ is my Wifey
  3. Senior Member
    RetepDoc's Avatar
    RetepDoc is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6,618
    #23
    Quote Originally Posted by TrishAFSpouse View Post
    I can get on board with a shared thing that can be used over time. I can also be on board if part is paid by employer and part by govt.. My issue is all government.



    These I can agree with. I do think knowing I would be paid while on maternity leave would make me a better employee, but for me I would want it limited to the 9-12 weeks. IMO more at one time isn't needed. I know its different for each parent, as some need/want only 2 weeks and others want 6 months. I think 9-12 weeks is a happy medium to accommodate most (or many). But I can see your point here.



    Legally, if you've been with the employer for a year or work 1750 hours (which ever comes first) then you are protected under FMLA to get 6-12 weeks of leave. It will be unpaid, but by law it would fall under the FMLA and your employer would be hard pressed to deny it.
    I could take FMLA leave but the way it would work is that first my employer would take away all of my vacation days and then I would actually be responsible for paying my employer back for the amount of FMLA leave I use since I am in residency. Medicine is not exactly family friendly.

    So if I take 6 weeks off then it means I go back to work in october and cannot take any days off (and we work 6 days a week with 60-80 hour weeks) until the following August...so almost an entire year of no vacation, no sick days, no days off to take baby to her doctors appointments. And then instead of being done with residency in July of 2017 I would actually have to stay on a pay my program back with however many weeks of time I took off through FMLA. So it can be done but they make it totally not worth it at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twinderella View Post
    I had two weeks after each of my kids, too. SUCKED, and I was lucky enough to work from home. I can't imagine if I had to actually be away from them while I was working, too.
    Yeah it will suck but its life. Thankfully I will have my MIL and my mom here to help watch her while I am at work so that will help put my mind at ease.

    I just wish our country was more family friendly.
  4. "If you don't like my attitude, quit talking to me"
    TrishAFSpouse's Avatar
    TrishAFSpouse is offline
    "If you don't like my attitude, quit talking to me"
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    12,308
    #24
    Quote Originally Posted by rocket_lizz View Post
    I guess I don't see it really as abuse of benefits, because it's temporary. I doubt it would be enough to inspire any woman to get pregnant again after the 12 weeks are up. But it is something that the gov't can do to invest, not only in families, but in the future of society as a whole. Babies with not-financially-stressed parents are healthier, happier, etc. And it would give the parents time to decide who, and if, either are going to become a SAHP. I feel like lots of people ASSUME they will be a SAHM or assume they won't, but the feelings change when baby is born. Or maybe the kid comes out broken, like I did, my mom was forced into a role of SAHM for 5 years due to my ridiculous medical problems, and I know it was very tough financially, even with Medicaid. Paid parental leave would have made the transition smoother, imo.

    As for it being a personal choice, I agree that it is, but I think the US puts too much stock in "personal choice". Economics has shown that your earnings and job outlooks are rarely driven by personal choice, even engineers and computer scientists are under/un employed. If we can't invest in the people who drive society, why do we expect the economy to survive? And, in many parts of the US with shit-tastic sex education, having a kid is much less of an actual choice, especially if you don't have a planned parenthood or something to help with birth control.
    Quote Originally Posted by Twinderella View Post
    Plus the NIH has studies that prove that providing maternity leave increases the number of women who go back to work so... if that's the concern, it seems like offering MORE would be part of the solution, not the problem.

    Very good points. I didn't see these. Looking back to my days when my kids were babies and I was a working mom, while I didn't have to worry, I could see where knowing I could go back whenever and have that assistance available it would be less stressful.

    My vision is a bit skewed because I am probably not like most mothers. I never wanted to be a SAHM, I got paid for 3 out of 4, and even the one I didn't we were financially secure enough that my time off didn't hurt us.


    Its still a slippery slope though because there are just so many moving parts to consider.. like an agreeable length of time that would suit most, or the amount of pay (such as is it 50% or 100%), etc.

    There are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that don't
  5. Senior Member
    Serenity's Avatar
    Serenity is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,130
    #25
    Quote Originally Posted by TrishAFSpouse View Post
    With the women I know, it wasn't childcare. For the ones that didn't decide before hand, it was just a 'I can't leave my baby' thing. not that they couldn't afford childcare, just they didn't want to leave theier baby.. at the time they were required to go back to work (some it was 6 weeks, others is was 6 months).

    For the ones that knew ahead of time, they just wanted to take whatever money they could from the company, knowing they weren't going back. Child care cost wasn't their reason for knowing ahead of time they didn't want to go back.


    Don't get me wrong, a woman can decide if she wants to go back or not, for whatever reasons are her own. For me, as a tax payer, if her only paid maternity leave was from govt funds and she knew she wasn't going back, that's abuse to me. Its ones of the slippery slopes. Because, to me, a women who decides after on leave she can't leave her baby is far different than one who knows ahead of time. Hard to explain I suppose.
    Honestly, I wouldn't wanna leave my child at 6 weeks either... So what about women who get hired and then plan a pregnancy a year out? Cause I sure know quite a few friends who are doing that. That's the way to have children. Find a permanent job so you can actually provide for your children. And then have something to go back to. Which most do.

    I really don't see the abuse. So what, they got money for a little while after having a child. They didn't get rich. Maybe it's cause I'm from a country where you get money monthly for your children as help, but I really don't see the issue. Children are important. Even more so with an ever aging population. Governments should do more to fund that.

    There's nothing slippery slope. She won't have one baby after the other for some little money for the kid
  6. Keep Calm and Ride Unicorns
    Twinderella's Avatar
    Twinderella is offline
    Keep Calm and Ride Unicorns
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    48,077


    #26
    Quote Originally Posted by TrishAFSpouse View Post
    With the women I know, it wasn't childcare. For the ones that didn't decide before hand, it was just a 'I can't leave my baby' thing. not that they couldn't afford childcare, just they didn't want to leave theier baby.. at the time they were required to go back to work (some it was 6 weeks, others is was 6 months).

    For the ones that knew ahead of time, they just wanted to take whatever money they could from the company, knowing they weren't going back. Child care cost wasn't their reason for knowing ahead of time they didn't want to go back.


    Don't get me wrong, a woman can decide if she wants to go back or not, for whatever reasons are her own. For me, as a tax payer, if her only paid maternity leave was from govt funds and she knew she wasn't going back, that's abuse to me. Its ones of the slippery slopes. Because, to me, a women who decides after on leave she can't leave her baby is far different than one who knows ahead of time. Hard to explain I suppose.
    In Canada you have to work before you qualify, and you get a percentage of your earnings for maternity benefits for 15 weeks, then after that you can take parental benefits for a percentage. It adds up to just less than a year total. If they take sickness benefits for things like complications, hospitalizations, etc, they can have up to 65 weeks I believe. They can also split the parental benefits (35 weeks) with the other parent. The amounts vary depending on the leave, I believe. I would take a reduced rate during maternity leave if it meant I could stay home longer, and I would have done so much better at nursing and saved so much money on formula. That would have also helped a lot with my PPD.

    Of course that system may not work perfectly here, Canada has a lot of government benefits that we do not and their taxes are obviously different, but it's an example of how it CAN work.


  7. "If you don't like my attitude, quit talking to me"
    TrishAFSpouse's Avatar
    TrishAFSpouse is offline
    "If you don't like my attitude, quit talking to me"
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    12,308
    #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenity View Post
    Honestly, I wouldn't wanna leave my child at 6 weeks either... So what about women who get hired and then plan a pregnancy a year out? Cause I sure know quite a few friends who are doing that. That's the way to have children. Find a permanent job so you can actually provide for your children. And then have something to go back to. Which most do.

    I really don't see the abuse. So what, they got money for a little while after having a child. They didn't get rich. Maybe it's cause I'm from a country where you get money monthly for your children as help, but I really don't see the issue. Children are important. Even more so with an ever aging population. Governments should do more to fund that.

    There's nothing slippery slope. She won't have one baby after the other for some little money for the kid
    Like I said in another thread.. some women can/want to leave their baby or go back to work after just 2 weeks, others want 6 months or a year. It really is dependent upon the woman.

    I mean abuse in the sense of govt funds... for many of the govt programs we have, there is abuse.. abuse in the sense people take money knowing they no longer qualify, or the like.
    We don't know what the amount of money would be. Would it be 100% pay, or something less, like 50%. This where it gets slippery because how do we determine the amount of pay and for how long? Would it matter the job, the person, the location? What is the deciding factor? or is it a set amount for all working women regardless of what their pay is?

    I know the concept seems simple.. just have the govt pay.. but there are a lot of scenarios and the govt is prone to pleasing the majority.

    There are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that don't
  8. Senior Member
    JaneSays's Avatar
    JaneSays is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,588
    #28
    I'm just gonna leave this right here... http://youtu.be/zIhKAQX5izw

    It's long but it's good.
  9. "If you don't like my attitude, quit talking to me"
    TrishAFSpouse's Avatar
    TrishAFSpouse is offline
    "If you don't like my attitude, quit talking to me"
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    12,308
    #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Twinderella View Post
    In Canada you have to work before you qualify, and you get a percentage of your earnings for maternity benefits for 15 weeks, then after that you can take parental benefits for a percentage. It adds up to just less than a year total. If they take sickness benefits for things like complications, hospitalizations, etc, they can have up to 65 weeks I believe. They can also split the parental benefits (35 weeks) with the other parent. The amounts vary depending on the leave, I believe. I would take a reduced rate during maternity leave if it meant I could stay home longer, and I would have done so much better at nursing and saved so much money on formula. That would have also helped a lot with my PPD.

    Of course that system may not work perfectly here, Canada has a lot of government benefits that we do not and their taxes are obviously different, but it's an example of how it CAN work.

    Ok, now this makes sense.
    All I've been hearing from people is how it wouldn't ever work, or rather, no one wants it to work.

    This is what I was sort of gearing towards in my comments. What are the percentages, etc. Its almost like a long term disability plan.. you get like 50%-60% of pay for however long.. BUT that's a benefit paid into by the employee..

    There are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that don't
  10. Senior Member
    Serenity's Avatar
    Serenity is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,130
    #30
    Quote Originally Posted by TrishAFSpouse View Post
    Like I said in another thread.. some women can/want to leave their baby or go back to work after just 2 weeks, others want 6 months or a year. It really is dependent upon the woman.

    I mean abuse in the sense of govt funds... for many of the govt programs we have, there is abuse.. abuse in the sense people take money knowing they no longer qualify, or the like.
    We don't know what the amount of money would be. Would it be 100% pay, or something less, like 50%. This where it gets slippery because how do we determine the amount of pay and for how long? Would it matter the job, the person, the location? What is the deciding factor? or is it a set amount for all working women regardless of what their pay is?

    I know the concept seems simple.. just have the govt pay.. but there are a lot of scenarios and the govt is prone to pleasing the majority.
    Well, and no one is stopping them going back, is there? I just think maternity leave should be longer to at least cover the time till day care takes the kids. I think it's six months here.

    But she did qualify if she was working beforehand. Whether she plans to go back to work or not should be kind of irrelevant. Why is it slippery? The percentage is something the government can easily set as fixed. They did here. There's a maximum amount and the less you earn, the higher your percentage gets. It's not rocket science, it's math.
    Why would the job matter? Why the person (and I'd really like a reason for why person should matter). Location, maybe, but if it's tied to income, then it becomes irrelevant.

    The concept is simple. The government pays and decides. Maybe I'm just not as attached to my tax money... I like it providing to people for children, education and infrastructure and so on. They are usually spending it on lots of worse things.
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •