That's Sad.

EXTREMELY SAD!!!!

I've never quite understood why it's the company's responsibility to pay you salary when you have a baby though :dunno I can understand having to hold your job for 6 weeks or whatever, but I don't understand the concept of getting PAID maternity leave.

Alot of women, 6 weeks without pay could devistate their family financially.

Alot of women, 6 weeks without pay could devistate their family financially.

Not sure how that is the company's responsibility though. I do get what you're saying, I guess I just don't understand how that makes a company bad if they say it's not their responsibility.

Ok well look at it this way. When our dh's take their "maternity leave" to be with us after we have the baby they STILL GET PAID! How bad would it hurt us if they took the money out of their pay for the days they had off while they were home?

I mean I understand what you are trying to say.

Im just saying that not getting paid maternity leave could really hurt money wise right?

What's sad is that in European countries, new moms get help for a year, as in monetary help, same in Canada and Australia. We are the only industrialized nation that doesn't do some kind of government program for a year for new mothers. 12 weeks just isn't enough.

Ok well look at it this way. When our dh's take their "maternity leave" to be with us after we have the baby they STILL GET PAID! How bad would it hurt us if they took the money out of their pay for the days they had off while they were home?

I mean I understand what you are trying to say.

Im just saying that not getting paid maternity leave could really hurt money wise right?

Right, but paid paternity is NOT common in the civi world. Our husbands are actually EXTREMELY lucky that they get that time off and I think it's mostly b/c military families are usually in a situation where no family is around, a lot of people are overseas, etc. You made one of my points though... aside from the military, I don't know of any companies that pay for the man to take off 6 weeks and get paid for it. So, I don't see why women can.

Oh ya right it isnt common. Honestly that is kinda sad especially if she is the bread winner.

I got paid maternity leave when I had my youngest child, but I paid into a temporary disability fund which was for that purpose. I also had to use all my regular vacation and sick time before I could get temp disability, which was 3/4 of my regular pay for something like 3 weeks, then was reduced to 1/2 for 3 weeks. I am all for programs like that, where there is personal contribution, but to leave it up to the taxpayers to foot the bill is wrong, IMO.

I've never quite understood why it's the company's responsibility to pay you salary when you have a baby though :dunno I can understand having to hold your job for 6 weeks or whatever, but I don't understand the concept of getting PAID maternity leave.

You dedicate your life to your career - and your career should return the support.
If you're a lawyer or a manager and you have a child - without having the steady, uninterrupted income - you might end up having to give up your career and they might have to find someone else to do your job.

If a company really values you as an employee they should treat you as such.

The average Russian mother gets a full year of paid leave...A lot of Eurpean countires offer paid maternity leave that is longer than the average crappy 6 weeks in the US.
It's all about respect and loyalty - if they care for you and your family then you'll return the favor.

Imagine how much of an improvement that would bring to the average family dynamic if the average employee received paid maternity leave that was longer...6 months or so. It would just be more benificial nationwide, short and long term.

Right, but paid paternity is NOT common in the civi world. Our husbands are actually EXTREMELY lucky that they get that time off and I think it's mostly b/c military families are usually in a situation where no family is around, a lot of people are overseas, etc. You made one of my points though... aside from the military, I don't know of any companies that pay for the man to take off 6 weeks and get paid for it. So, I don't see why women can.

Yep! For us, my husband had to take his vacation time to get paid. The company gave him 2 or 3 days paid, but that was it and that, I'm sure, is not normal (the company paying even just those 2 days).

I got paid maternity leave when I had my youngest child, but I paid into a temporary disability fund which was for that purpose. I also had to use all my regular vacation and sick time before I could get temp disability, which was 3/4 of my regular pay for something like 3 weeks, then was reduced to 1/2 for 3 weeks. I am all for programs like that, where there is personal contribution, but to leave it up to the taxpayers to foot the bill is wrong, IMO.

I guess that's what I'm trying to get at... who actually pays for the leave? Because if you're getting paid for 6, 12, or however many weeks, that's a lot of money to be paid to get to stay at home with your baby. KWIM? It's getting paid to work but getting to be a stay at home mom, which is just weird to me. Who pays for the salary? They're losing man power at the company and if you're an important person or the only one who can do your job, how is it fair for the company to still pay even though they're losing money? I'm confused about how the salary is paid for and why it's anyone else's responsibility to pay for your salary when you're the one choosing to stay at home with your child.

You dedicate your life to your career - and your career should return the support.
If you're a lawyer or a manager and you have a child - without having the steady, uninterrupted income - you might end up having to give up your career and they might have to find someone else to do your job.

If a company really values you as an employee they should treat you as such.

But the thing is, if you look at statistics, people are changing jobs every three years or less right now (or the last time I read an article on MSN about a year ago, this was true). Most people don't "dedicate their life" to their career. Even so, why should women get to be stay at home mom and get paid for it, but dads can't? Isn't society pushing more fathers to be more nurturing and active in parenting? So, why pay moms to take all the time off, but not dads?

Imagine how much of an improvement that would bring to the average family dynamic if the average employee received paid maternity leave that was longer...6 months or so. It would just be more benificial nationwide, short and long term.

Honestly, I don't think it would change all that much.

The company and insurance (that you pay for) should cover maternity leave.
If not in full then at least in part.

The lack of this family support is a prime show of how selfish this country is - a company will happily pay you to work for years, but have a baby? Nope, no support there.
The employees are what make a business run - without them the business is crap.
Treat your employees like crap and that's what your business boils down too.

The company and insurance (that you pay for) should cover maternity leave.
If not in full then at least in part.

The lack of this family support is a prime show of how selfish this country is - a company will happily pay you to work for years, but have a baby? Nope, no support there.
The employees are what make a business run - without them the business is crap.
Treat your employees like crap and that's what your business boils down too.

I fail to see how a company is bad and selfish just b/c they don't want to spend THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars for someone to stay at home with their child, while losing important man power. Bigger companies can afford it but what about the smaller companies. If you're getting paid a $4,000-$5,000 salary per month and hold an important position in your company, unless you're working for a large company, I think it's very hard on them to have to pay $12K for you to take your 12 weeks of leave to stay at home, while they have no one filling your position.

If you pay for a special insurance that allows maternity and pays for it, then whatever, I don't know enough about how that works to comment, but I"m talking about companies having to foot the bill.

ok... this does sound sad BUT where did you find this statistic?

i'm a sociology major, so i've learned alot about how statistic can be skewed by other factors.
lets consider... whats the percent of women only working part-time?... part-time usually = no benefits. something like that could have messed with that statistic like crazy. i guess i'd have to read the article... but even then most news articles don't explain how they got their information anyways.

sorry, i just wanted to put that out there. it is sad if its completely true.. but at the same time, if you don't like your benefits get a new job.

It was on the today show. Here is a quote from an article. To put it another way, out of 168 nations in a Harvard University study last year, 163 had some form of paid maternity leave, leaving the United States in the company of Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland.http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-07-26-maternity-leave_x.htm
it's quite sad when the US is a major country and yet we don't offer any kind of maternity leave.

I got paid for all 3 months of my maternity leave...but I had to use my accrued sick and vacation time for it. If I had run out, it would have been unpaid.

You dedicate your life to your career - and your career should return the support.
If you're a lawyer or a manager and you have a child - without having the steady, uninterrupted income - you might end up having to give up your career and they might have to find someone else to do your job.

If a company really values you as an employee they should treat you as such.

The average Russian mother gets a full year of paid leave...A lot of Eurpean countires offer paid maternity leave that is longer than the average crappy 6 weeks in the US.
It's all about respect and loyalty - if they care for you and your family then you'll return the favor.

Imagine how much of an improvement that would bring to the average family dynamic if the average employee received paid maternity leave that was longer...6 months or so. It would just be more benificial nationwide, short and long term.

Yes that is very true! We are seriously lagging behind in that department.

In the US I believe 6 weeks should me the minimum.........most day cares and even home day cares won't take new infants until they are at least 6 weeks of age. What are people to do with no childcare available:dunno

That's why I'm going to live in Europe to have my children, lol.

actually, fathers can take PFL (paid family leave) =-- up to six weeks -- through the EDD, at least here in CA they can :)

and it's not "paid for" by employers - we pay for it in our taxes through our SDI (state disability insurance) -- it's a deduction on (at least my) paychecks. some companies, though, give additional paid leave for maternity....

I'm with Brandi on this I don't see how its the companies responsibility to pay for paid maternity leave. If thats the case you will see an increase of women having babies just to stay home..hell their getting paid to take care of their kid. I know at Time Warner Cable after working a year they give you 6 weeks of paid leave and if your husband works there too you either can add the weeks up and split them up together or he can give you the full 12 weeks to yourself. They have a wonderful insurance plan..but they are the only ones that I have ever worked for that I've seen those types of benefits. :(

that is terribly low considering so many working moms these days. I didn't even realize that.

But there are still plenty of those SAHM or part time workers too.

oh yeah, maternity leave isn't just to spend time with their child, but its also a healing time. I think it should be done.

I'm with Brandi on this I don't see how its the companies responsibility to pay for paid maternity leave. If thats the case you will see an increase of women having babies just to stay home..hell their getting paid to take care of their kid. I know at Time Warner Cable after working a year they give you 6 weeks of paid leave and if your husband works there too you either can add the weeks up and split them up together or he can give you the full 12 weeks to yourself. They have a wonderful insurance plan..but they are the only ones that I have ever worked for that I've seen those types of benefits. :(


your company doesn't PAY for it. SDI is something that's taken out of our paychecks, like Social Security. whether you use it or not, it's still taken out....

Not all states have the disability insurance. only like 8 states do. CA being one of them. then a few on the east coast. But in general unless you work for a fairly large company you won't get paid maternity leave. I don't see how giving someone paid leave for 6 weeks to recover from child birth is going to cause a rash of people wanting to have babies. They are not giving them an unlimited amount of time to have off.

Yes that is very true! We are seriously lagging behind in that department.

In the US I believe 6 weeks should me the minimum.........most day cares and even home day cares won't take new infants until they are at least 6 weeks of age. What are people to do with no childcare available:dunno

I didn't say they shouldn't give you time off, I just don't think it should be PAID time off. I do believe moms should get at least 6 weeks though (not paid, IMO) so they can recover and also not have a newborn in childcare before 6 weeks.

rosebud - i agree; i stand corrected - here in cali, i felt i DESERVED my PFL/disability... i pay for it every month, so why not :)

rosebud - i agree; i stand corrected - here in cali, i felt i DESERVED my PFL/disability... i pay for it every month, so why not :)

If it's a special tax or insurance, I guess that's somewhat of a different story. I still don't think I should be taxed to allow someone else to stay home with their child, so I'd much rather there be some sort of insurance or something offered for it. However, I completely disagree with companies having to foot the bill when there isn't tax or insurance for that type of thing.

I agree with Brandi. I dont think companies should pay unless THEY are dictating when I can have kids. Children are my choice not theirs, why should they have to pay me for decisions that I make in my personal life?

I guess I see it as being a responsible company. They want to keep their quality employees why not offer them things they will actually use. I mean we hear about companies who offer things like nap rooms or state of the art gyms, full time starbucks like coffee services. I mean i would rather that money go to fund things that I can actually use rather than things that are great at first but the novelty wears off quickly.

but if it's something they're offering, then it's just a perk for working for that company. they don't HAVE to give you paid disability/maternity leave... if the company WANTS to give it to you, awsome... if that's something you think you will want/need in the future, find a company that offers it... or live in a state that collects SDI like cali... i've had a job since i was 17 here in cali, and SDI has been collected for the last 9 years for me... i didn't get/take paid leave with Zoe, due to where i was working (family business) and definitely felt beyond justified to take my disability and paid family leave.

I guess I see it as being a responsible company. They want to keep their quality employees why not offer them things they will actually use. I mean we hear about companies who offer things like nap rooms or state of the art gyms, full time starbucks like coffee services. I mean i would rather that money go to fund things that I can actually use rather than things that are great at first but the novelty wears off quickly.

That's up to that company, I guess. As someone who is familiar with SMALL businesses though, most SMALL or even medium sized businesses would not be able to afford that type of thing though. Larger companies could but most small ones simply can't afford it out of pocket. Additionally, even if a company chooses to provide that sort of thing, I still don't personally agree with it.

lol if they want to spend that $$ on their employee, why shouldn't they?

Ok if you work for a small company you can wind up with NO maternity leave and even lose your job. You can only use FMLA if A) your company has more then 50 employees and B) you have worked there for a year or more. So if you work for a small company they are under no obligation to even hold your job for you. That is unfair all in all. I think as a nation we should have some sort of national maternity leave policy, which we don't, being paid would be nice since sometimes not having pay for 6 weeks can devastate you ( even with the best of planning)

lol if they want to spend that $$ on their employee, why shouldn't they?

I didn't say they SHOULDN'T, I said I don't personally agree with it. I'd rather have the funds go elsewhere... better health benefits, better raises to compensate for the ridiculous cost of living, better office or materials that ALL employees would benefit from. Companies can do what they want, obviously :dunno

I DO think an optional insurance should be offered or something, because I can see the need for it. However, I don't personally want to be paying taxes for it and I don't think it's fair that companies are called selfish or bad just because they don't want to foot the bill for it.

But companies ARE selfish and bad. LOL. If you leave it up to them they would have everyone working for $2/hour so they could make all the profit and leave the working class in poverty. They don't care about quality of life, they don't care about America, they care about PROFIT.

America is a RICH country. We have plenty of money. The fact that so many people are barely scraping by is shameful. The fact that corporations have the upper hand and that their profits come before the wellbeing of the people is an atrocious violation of freedom and human rights. I think working hard is a good thing, but people should not be punished for having children or getting sick. If we truly are the land of opportunity that should apply to everyone. Not just the multi-billion dollar corporations and CEO's who make more than enough to take unpaid time, but get paid anyway.

This country is never going to get better as long as its all about the worship of profit and the free market. For the "richness" of our country to have any value it should actually IMPROVE and not deter from the quality of life for everyone.

Companies give employees paid leave for unexpected surgeries. I just happen to feel that pregnancy should fall under a medical need, rather than be seen as a choice. I do think it should only be for employees that have been with a company for a long period of committed time....say a year or more.

My mother has worked for Norfolk Southern railroad for 36 years. As long as you've been married for 6 months time........your spouse draws HALF of what you draw in a separate check, for their ENTIRE lifetime. Talk about wasteful money down the drain. My stepfather never will have worked a DAY at the railroad but in less than 5 years from now (when my mother retires at 62) he will draw HALF......a check made out to HIM not her, EVERY month until he dies:oogle

She still gets the same amount she'd get regardless of marriage, so it's not that they are giving him half of her money. It's just crazy.

But companies ARE selfish and bad. LOL. If you leave it up to them they would have everyone working for $2/hour so they could make all the profit and leave the working class in poverty. They don't care about quality of life, they don't care about America, they care about PROFIT.

America is a RICH country. We have plenty of money. The fact that so many people are barely scraping by is shameful. The fact that corporations have the upper hand and that their profits come before the wellbeing of the people is an atrocious violation of freedom and human rights. I think working hard is a good thing, but people should not be punished for having children or getting sick. If we truly are the land of opportunity that should apply to everyone. Not just the multi-billion dollar corporations and CEO's who make more than enough to take unpaid time, but get paid anyway.

This country is never going to get better as long as its all about the worship of profit and the free market. For the "richness" of our country to have any value it should actually IMPROVE and not deter from the quality of life for everyone.

If companies WANT to pay for it and can AFFORD it, then more power to them. I personally know many small business owners though that BARELY scrape by and could absolutely not ever afford to pay someone full salary for 6 weeks, 12 weeks or more, ESPECIALLY while losing that man power. Big companies can, small companies simply can not afford it. So, I don't think it should ever be passed as any kind of law that a company has to come out of pocket for maternity leave, I think that's absolutely ridiculous.

We could include it as part of insurance, but then insurance premiums would go up even more than they are now, when most people can't afford insurance as it is, and I damn sure don't want to be penalized just for being a woman and "possibly" wanting maternity leave.

I'm tired of having to pay taxes on things that I don't use and won't ever use, and I HATE the way our tax system works. We pay out the ass in taxes and most of us see hardly any of it. I won't EVER use it, so I don't want to pay for it, period.

I don't think companies should be allowed to fire a woman over maternity leave, just as our soliders are (or are SUPPOSED to be) protected while they get called up for deployed when in the reserves. I do believe a woman's position should be held, but I have a huge problem with a woman taking up to a YEAR off of work and getting paid for it out of the taxes that I pay.

Whether a woman is with a company for a year or not is irrelevant, IMO. Who's to say she won't quit six months later and find another job? So, if you're at a company for a year and a half or two years, you should get 3 months or 12 months or however long of paid "vacation"? Sorry, I don't support that at all, and especially if I'm being taxed for it.

Wow, I seriously can't believe how some of you can say that there should be no paid maternity leave on a large scale. I think a lot of you would feel differently if you weren't married to a military man, and didn't work (work as in a "career-type job") in the first place. I am not trying to be a bitch, that is just my opinion. What about single moms, or for that matter moms who worked, their husband was killed or lost somehow, possibly even defending his country? You don't think she deserves paid maternity leave?

I am flabberghasted.

We ARE a rich nation, and look at the other nations that don't have paid maternity leave. Most of you have probably never heard of them. That 8% of our businesses that DO have paid maternity leave, well I would like to know the real breakdown of those statistics. As others have said, "paid" in the USA often is NOT full pay, more likely a percentage. Also, it is usually time/pay taken from other benefits EVERYONE has available to them already, not a "true" maternity leave pay. You often have to go back to work after 6-12 weeks, and have no other paid time off for the INEVITABLE days your child/children will get sick, or even when you get sick. Maternity leave pay in other countries is often a "benefit" factored into your pay. Just like any other benefits we have here in our country.

Our country, as well as many others, already treat childbirth as a "medical condition" so WHY NOT have it's own benefit of pay? Obviously, like any other benefit we have, NOT ALL companies (i.e.-small) are/would be required to do it. Also, there would be other "rules and regulations" surrounding it, just like workman's comp, insurances, any other covereages or laws/regulations that companies are legally bound to uphold.

The fact of the matter is we are all "paying" for it one way or another. Welfare, food stamps, etc. All those things poor mothers who don't and can't work have to use, because they are a one income family or aren't married in the first place (I think I read 38% or more of births these days are to single moms?). The free, and often poor, healthcare their children get because there is no other option for them. Mother's are the ones who in most societies are expected to raise the children, so give them maternity leave to get a good start on that!

I could go on an on, but I am not making much sense anymore. Too many emotions and thoughts flailing around in my head. I never realized how passionately I felt about this topic! I am not passionate about it for my own personal reasons, either. My current company isn't even required to protect my job with FMLA, due to being under 50 employees at this time. Thankfully, none of that will be a problem, neither financially or in regards to going back to work there.

All women on maternity leave are entitled to disability pay during the time they are away. FMLA, which is family medical leave act, is separate. A company does not have to pay an additional amount for it. I work for a school, non-profit organization, and we don't pay for FMLA at all, that includes maternity leave, medical leave, family care leave. the school cannot afford to pay for someone to be out, and then to pay for someone to cover the work of the person that is out. Not all companies are out for profits and are not all evil. ALL businesses, regardless of nature, are required to give FMLA time to employess, if they have more than 50 employees. So companies don't really have a choice if they can give the time or not, but they do have a choice whether to pay it or not. So its not all black and white as you can see. And its not that the employee doesn't deserve the paid time off, sometimes it just might not be fair. Also, if you all are talking about just mothers getting paid time off, what about people who chose NOT to be a mother? Why should a person who chooses NOT to get preggo be penalized and not be allowed to have 12 weeks of paid time off just because they chose a different life? That's really not fair to people who don't have children.

I don't see how that's not fair... if you needed time off to care for a family member or adopt a child, you could get paid leave. it's not like maternity leave is a vacation...

it seems, though, that the arguments for NOT having it come from those who have always stayed home or those who have chosen not to have kids. put yourself in the shoes of a working mom who wants to have kids for a moment. not all of us can afford to both have kids and stay home. but should that mean we shouldn't have kids at all? my personal income contributes about 40% of the household income. could i afford to not work? i suppose, but it would seriously change our lifestyle and the "novelties" we choose to give our children... had i not gotten paid for my 12 weeks off, i wouldn't have been able to stay home and bond with ellie... and i'm very grateful for that.... it's not like you get paid at 100% either, though... i believe disability is 60% as is PFL....

All women on maternity leave are entitled to disability pay during the time they are away. FMLA, which is family medical leave act, is separate. A company does not have to pay an additional amount for it. I work for a school, non-profit organization, and we don't pay for FMLA at all, that includes maternity leave, medical leave, family care leave. the school cannot afford to pay for someone to be out, and then to pay for someone to cover the work of the person that is out. Not all companies are out for profits and are not all evil. ALL businesses, regardless of nature, are required to give FMLA time to employess, if they have more than 50 employees. So companies don't really have a choice if they can give the time or not, but they do have a choice whether to pay it or not. So its not all black and white as you can see. And its not that the employee doesn't deserve the paid time off, sometimes it just might not be fair. Also, if you all are talking about just mothers getting paid time off, what about people who chose NOT to be a mother? Why should a person who chooses NOT to get preggo be penalized and not be allowed to have 12 weeks of paid time off just because they chose a different life? That's really not fair to people who don't have children.

By disability pay for maternity, do you mean SDL and LDL (short term and long term disability leave)? Isn't that a optional thing you pay into or don't. Therefore, if you don't you obviously don't get it? I don't have SDL or LDL. In past jobs, it was always an additional amount taken out of my check to pay for them both separately. There are also many caveats surrounding them. I think you have to be out a specific amount of time, have to use all sick and vacation time accrued first?

In a way I do agree that 12 weeks paid time off for maternity is a LITTLE unfair. On the other hand, I do not. Is ISN'T a vacation. It is mainly for medical reasons, for both the mother/child and father if the father is going to be taking care of the infant. Unfortunately, infants are 100% dependent on a caregiver. I think the maternity should be bundled up with other leaves, as it is at some places. You can take time off either for maternity or to take care of a serverely or terminally ill family member. To me, then it is all fair, even if you decide to not have children. You can use that paid time to take care of a family member.

Well when a woman takes 16 weeks of leave, is it really ALL healing? From what I've been told by all women who have taken leave, most of that time is to connect with the baby. And that is great and all, I don't deny they should have that time. And the state does pay disability time for that time, but I just don't agree that it should be paid additionally by the company. Getting preggo is still a choice, one that forces the company to find a replacement for the person for the entire time they are out, and which for the most part they have to pay for as well. What if I never have to take medical leave, or family leave or preggo leave? Should a company just give me 16 weeks of time for maybe personal leave? That doesn't really sound much more fair to me.

Well in CA you don't have a choice, you have to pay into state disability, I"m not sure how it is in other states.

8% thats sad

you can only get 12 weeks of paid leave; anything beyond that is unpaid.... i don't think companies should have to pay for it either. PFL is through the EDD as is disability/unemployment.... that's something that we pay for in our paychecks; whether we choose to use it or not is up to us... i've paid SDI (state disability ins) since i started working in cali... so to me, taking my 12 weeks was a no brainer and well deserved and earned.

True, that disability doesn't pay 100% of the pay, but I think that is a state problem, not a company problem.

all FMLA is stating is that you have to have a job of the same pay or position when you return from your leave. the FMLA doesn't guarantee you'll be paid for your time, from what i understand? :shrug

Actually, in CA pregnant mothers are entitled to an additional 4 weeks according the the CA FMLA, on top of the 12 weeks federally required. So in CA a mother can legally ask for 16 weeks.

Yea true, FMLA only requires that the company give you the time off and hold your job, it doesn't require the company to pay for that time. That is why mothers can request disability pay from the state

Actually, in CA pregnant mothers are entitled to an additional 4 weeks according the the CA FMLA, on top of the 12 weeks federally required. So in CA a mother can legally ask for 16 weeks.

right, but only 12 is covered (paid) - 6 as disability, 6 as PFL

right, but only 12 is covered (paid) - 6 as disability, 6 as PFL

Oh yea, when talking about disability the state only pays 12 weeks, you are correct.

Yea true, FMLA only requires that the company give you the time off and hold your job, it doesn't require the company to pay for that time. That is why mothers can request disability pay from the state

depending on what state you are in. As I said earlier only 8 states offer disability for pregnancy. what about the other 42 states? those ladies are out of luck.

I don't see how that's not fair... if you needed time off to care for a family member or adopt a child, you could get paid leave. it's not like maternity leave is a vacation...

I do view it as vacation... I absolutely do. If I have a job that is paying me to stay at home with my child, it is vacation time, IMO. It's certainly not work.

Wow, I seriously can't believe how some of you can say that there should be no paid maternity leave on a large scale. I think a lot of you would feel differently if you weren't married to a military man, and didn't work (work as in a "career-type job") in the first place. I am not trying to be a bitch, that is just my opinion. What about single moms, or for that matter moms who worked, their husband was killed or lost somehow, possibly even defending his country? You don't think she deserves paid maternity leave?

I am flabberghasted.

We ARE a rich nation, and look at the other nations that don't have paid maternity leave. Most of you have probably never heard of them. That 8% of our businesses that DO have paid maternity leave, well I would like to know the real breakdown of those statistics. As others have said, "paid" in the USA often is NOT full pay, more likely a percentage. Also, it is usually time/pay taken from other benefits EVERYONE has available to them already, not a "true" maternity leave pay. You often have to go back to work after 6-12 weeks, and have no other paid time off for the INEVITABLE days your child/children will get sick, or even when you get sick. Maternity leave pay in other countries is often a "benefit" factored into your pay. Just like any other benefits we have here in our country.

Our country, as well as many others, already treat childbirth as a "medical condition" so WHY NOT have it's own benefit of pay? Obviously, like any other benefit we have, NOT ALL companies (i.e.-small) are/would be required to do it. Also, there would be other "rules and regulations" surrounding it, just like workman's comp, insurances, any other covereages or laws/regulations that companies are legally bound to uphold.

The fact of the matter is we are all "paying" for it one way or another. Welfare, food stamps, etc. All those things poor mothers who don't and can't work have to use, because they are a one income family or aren't married in the first place (I think I read 38% or more of births these days are to single moms?). The free, and often poor, healthcare their children get because there is no other option for them. Mother's are the ones who in most societies are expected to raise the children, so give them maternity leave to get a good start on that!

I could go on an on, but I am not making much sense anymore. Too many emotions and thoughts flailing around in my head. I never realized how passionately I felt about this topic! I am not passionate about it for my own personal reasons, either. My current company isn't even required to protect my job with FMLA, due to being under 50 employees at this time. Thankfully, none of that will be a problem, neither financially or in regards to going back to work there.

How do you propose the maternity leave is paid for though? Should we all pay more taxes specifically for maternity leave? Sure, there are people who would use it, but there are a LOT of people who don't, and it falls right under the same bracket as welfare, IMO. I strongly disagree with the way our welfare system is run also. We ARE a rich country, but it's the middle class that is taxed to hell and I don't think it's fair at all. So, no, I don't think we need ANOTHER tax on top of what is already paid.

Maybe none of you know small business owners, but I really think you'd have a different outlook on this if you did. Big corporations can afford it but most companies are not that big. The small business owners I know do good to cover employees paychecks and barely make enough to pay their own bills. How and why in the world should they be EXPECTED to "Take care of" a mother who is on VACATION? The military can afford it, places like Walmart and Dell and Publix can afford it, but what about the companies that simply can not afford it? Do we then add another tax onto our social security, state and federal taxes so that we can pay for moms to take a year of leave after they have a baby?

What if I never have to take medical leave, or family leave or preggo leave? Should a company just give me 16 weeks of time for maybe personal leave? That doesn't really sound much more fair to me.



To me, that is kind of like saying that any money you pay into let's say, car insurance should be returned to you in full if you never wreck the car. Or, that all the health insurance costs you pay in should be returned to you if you never go to the doctor? yes? Again, you are making it sound like a vacation.

My point is it SHOULD be a federal requirement for certain sized companies. BUT, it would OBVIOUSLY need to have laws and regulations surrounding it....many of which someone would still find unfair. (NOTHING is ever 100% fair, we all know this) I also don't think it should be a year long. Would be nice in theory, but I think that is excessive.

I do view it as vacation... I absolutely do. If I have a job that is paying me to stay at home with my child, it is vacation time, IMO. It's certainly not work.




No, def not work, but it's not like we're going to aruba or something ;) I feel i earned my PFL/dis leave. my paycheck is seriously cut every month by taxes and my voluntary benefits (short term dis./long term dis) and SDI. it's kinda like a 401k; you start paying it when you get a real job in cali, and when you need it, you've paid into it for so many years, that you can use it (kinda like life ins in a sense); or like social security... you pay into it throughout your life so that when you need it, you can use it.

No, def not work, but it's not like we're going to aruba or something ;) I feel i earned my PFL/dis leave. my paycheck is seriously cut every month by taxes and my voluntary benefits (short term dis./long term dis) and SDI. it's kinda like a 401k; you start paying it when you get a real job in cali, and when you need it, you've paid into it for so many years, that you can use it (kinda like life ins in a sense); or like social security... you pay into it throughout your life so that when you need it, you can use it.

Well, to be honest I have no clue how it works here. I'm just going by what people are saying about wanting a company to be responsible for paying everything, or adding a tax onto everyone across America. If it's something you pay into like a 401K, I think that's a much better solution than saying "Hey company, I'm knocked up, you need to pay me full salary even though I won't be here for 3 months and may or may not decide to come back" KWIM? I just think it's a huge risk for any company to be forced to pay someone's full maternity leave, regardless of how long they've been there, how long they'll be there and especially since people are eluding that it should be up to a year long. I'd be much more supportive of it if it was closer to a life insurance or 401K type thing. I'm just so against making a company foot the entire bill for someone's paid time off after having a baby.

I WORKED AT A LOCAL HOSPITAL AND THEY GAVE ME 6 WEEKS PD VACATION WITH BOTH CHILDREN, I WAS LUCKY

I do view it as vacation... I absolutely do. If I have a job that is paying me to stay at home with my child, it is vacation time, IMO. It's certainly not work.



How do you propose the maternity leave is paid for though? Should we all pay more taxes specifically for maternity leave? Sure, there are people who would use it, but there are a LOT of people who don't, and it falls right under the same bracket as welfare, IMO. I strongly disagree with the way our welfare system is run also. We ARE a rich country, but it's the middle class that is taxed to hell and I don't think it's fair at all. So, no, I don't think we need ANOTHER tax on top of what is already paid.

Maybe none of you know small business owners, but I really think you'd have a different outlook on this if you did. Big corporations can afford it but most companies are not that big. The small business owners I know do good to cover employees paychecks and barely make enough to pay their own bills. How and why in the world should they be EXPECTED to "Take care of" a mother who is on VACATION? The military can afford it, places like Walmart and Dell and Publix can afford it, but what about the companies that simply can not afford it? Do we then add another tax onto our social security, state and federal taxes so that we can pay for moms to take a year of leave after they have a baby?

It should be as it is now. Taxes don't pay for the few companies out there now that offer maternity leave. It should be a "benefit" that is part of your job, just like long term disability, short term disability, retirement, etc.

I am familiar with small companies (I have in the past, and currently work for one), and they are often exempt from many things, such as FMLA, certain types of federally required insurances, certain types of income taxes, etc. I would see maternity leave being no different as I stated above. (more for middle to large companies). I don't have a perfect solution, and I don't claim to. I am sure someone will say it is unfair for middle sized/large sized companies to pay for mat. leave if small ones don't, and again I just maintain (in addition to the many other things, some of which I stated above, that small comps aren't held to) NOTHING is 100% fair. There is no way to make something such.

I am also not talking long term (more than 12 weeks) maternity leave, as I stated above.


Bottom line, I don't see it ANY differently than CURRENT job benefits offered, many of which are federally required.

OH YEA, countrywide (being that it is a fortune 500 and multi BILLION dollar company) does NOT pay for leave. i got my leave through my SDI (state disability ins) that i pay every month on my paycheck (not given an option, it's just taken out) and short term disability. it's not like countrywide said "hey, have babies, we'll pay 60% of your salary for 12 weeks" LOL. i view it like social security, or a 401k, or a life/auto insurance policy. you pay every month, whether or not you utilize the services paid for... just because i might not crash my car every month, i still have to pay for auto insurance... kinda like you pay into disability or social security. it's not like paying social security taxes is going to benefit me now (or how knows if it'll be around when we're older) but essentially, in theory, it will benefit me later... does that make more sense?

No, def not work, but it's not like we're going to aruba or something ;) I feel i earned my PFL/dis leave. my paycheck is seriously cut every month by taxes and my voluntary benefits (short term dis./long term dis) and SDI. it's kinda like a 401k; you start paying it when you get a real job in cali, and when you need it, you've paid into it for so many years, that you can use it (kinda like life ins in a sense); or like social security... you pay into it throughout your life so that when you need it, you can use it.

exactly. I guess I am not making that as clear as you are.

It should be as it is now. Taxes don't pay for the few companies out there now that offer maternity leave. It should be a "benefit" that is part of your job, just like long term disability, short term disability, retirement, etc.

I am familiar with small companies (I have in the past, and currently work for one), and they are often exempt from many things, such as FMLA, certain types of federally required insurances, certain types of income taxes, etc. I would see maternity leave being no different as I stated above. (more for middle to large companies). I don't have a perfect solution, and I don't claim to. I am sure someone will say it is unfair for middle sized/large sized companies to pay for mat. leave if small ones don't, and again I just maintain (in addition to the many other things, some of which I stated above, that small comps aren't held to) NOTHING is 100% fair. There is no way to make something such.

I am also not talking long term (more than 12 weeks) maternity leave, as I stated above.


Bottom line, I don't see it ANY differently than CURRENT job benefits offered, many of which are federally required.

Well, if companies want to pay for the leave and can afford it as part of their package, that's great, they'll probably attract a lot of people with that benefit. I just strongly disagree with making it MANDATORY for all companies to offer it since so many simply can not afford to offer it, even if they really want to. That's my only major beef here is that I can't stand the thought of every company having to abide by some sort of law stating that they HAVE to pay for 12 weeks of time off for every woman who has a child. For some companies, I really think that could hurt them badly.

OH YEA, countrywide (being that it is a fortune 500 and multi BILLION dollar company) does NOT pay for leave. i got my leave through my SDI (state disability ins) that i pay every month on my paycheck (not given an option, it's just taken out) and short term disability. it's not like countrywide said "hey, have babies, we'll pay 60% of your salary for 12 weeks" LOL. i view it like social security, or a 401k, or a life/auto insurance policy. you pay every month, whether or not you utilize the services paid for... just because i might not crash my car every month, i still have to pay for auto insurance... kinda like you pay into disability or social security. it's not like paying social security taxes is going to benefit me now (or how knows if it'll be around when we're older) but essentially, in theory, it will benefit me later... does that make more sense?

Is the maternity leave built in to your disability insurance? When I worked, I paid disability (this was in FL) but had no plans of babies so I didn't even think to look at what all it covered.

OH YEA, countrywide (being that it is a fortune 500 and multi BILLION dollar company) does NOT pay for leave. i got my leave through my SDI (state disability ins) that i pay every month on my paycheck (not given an option, it's just taken out) and short term disability. it's not like countrywide said "hey, have babies, we'll pay 60% of your salary for 12 weeks" LOL. i view it like social security, or a 401k, or a life/auto insurance policy. you pay every month, whether or not you utilize the services paid for... just because i might not crash my car every month, i still have to pay for auto insurance... kinda like you pay into disability or social security. it's not like paying social security taxes is going to benefit me now (or how knows if it'll be around when we're older) but essentially, in theory, it will benefit me later... does that make more sense?

Again, more or less exactly what I was saying. I just think companies should be required to offer 6-8 weeks. Doctors limit what you and the baby can do for that long, so it is obviously a "medical thing" to some.

When I worked for State Farm, THE largest insurance company in the USA, they didn't offer any paid maternity leave. My state doesn't take out SDI. SF offered SDL and LDL, but you paid out of your pay separately for each. To use either, you had to first use all of your vacation for the year and all of your sick leave. Therefore, there was a disincentive to even use SDL or LDL, because if you only wanted 6 weeks off to recover from birth and bond with your child for a limited time, you had to use all your sick and vacation time first, which usually takes up a good amount of the 6 weeks anyway.

yup. disability pays for 6 weeks after baby, and up to 4 weeks before :)

I will go ahead and apologize now for all of my run on sentences. I type how I think. lol

If companies WANT to pay for it and can AFFORD it, then more power to them. I personally know many small business owners though that BARELY scrape by and could absolutely not ever afford to pay someone full salary for 6 weeks, 12 weeks or more, ESPECIALLY while losing that man power.

There is no way that all but 8% of companies are small businesses. The fact is that the "unbridled free market" allows corporations to eliminate small business. I'm willing to bet that 90% of these companies are corporations that can afford it. At least those rich corporations could give back by letting their female employees take maternity leave? I mean I KNOW they don't pay taxes or contribute to society or anything...

I'm tired of having to pay taxes on things that I don't use and won't ever use, and I HATE the way our tax system works. We pay out the ass in taxes and most of us see hardly any of it. I won't EVER use it, so I don't want to pay for it, period.

LOL. Remember those big corporations? They don't pay their taxes, which is the reason the poor and middle class are taking on such a tax burden. They weren't paying their share BEFORE the Bush tax cuts and they damn sure aren't doing it now. Thats why I hate the system.

Aside from that, mothers who can't afford to take time off, what do you think happens to them? I will guarantee they end up on welfare or medicaid or being supported by the state in some way. As a society we should be concerned about the suffering of our fellow citizens. This attitude of "its not my problem to help people" is exactly what causes suffering and eventually, it will cause an uprising once enough people are poor and ANGRY about their situations. Things that are good for society are good for EVERYONE in that society. Thats why they provide medical care and stuff to prisoners. Because they KNOW abusing prisoners leads to violence. I don't know why the government doesn't see that in society.

In fact, the more I learn about terrorism the more I am ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED that it has been caused by decades of oppression and abuse of the Muslim people.

People take advantage of welfare because the ONLY way to get anything out of that God forsaken system is to take advantage of it. My husband makes enough money to support my family and feed us, etc. I was LITERALLY TOLD by the cancer foundation that he should voluntarily work part time so that we could qualify for medicaid to cover my daughters medical costs. If we do that then we will have no choice but to get food-stamps and energy bill help and other federal help, etc. We don't want to do that, we just need help with medical! We are good people and we are capable of working. The medicaid system FORCES us to choose between working to feed ourselves and providing for our child. So yeah, I agree the system needs to be reformed.

But when you intentionally don't help people they end up living off the system anyway. I think a little maternity leave would be cheaper than welfare and medicaid....

I don't think that all but 8% are small businesses... I never even commented on the 8% b/c I honestly doubt that's even accurate, to begin with.

That aside though, what do you think will happen to the MANY small business owners that do exist and can not afford to pay the maternity leave but are left with no choice? Do you think paid maternity leave should be mandatory, even if it means a small business struggling to the point of having to go out of business? You don't think there is just as much of a chance that the people effected by that would be on welfare? I think forcing businesses to pay out of pocket is the worst solution possible. Sure, there are hundreds of big companies that can afford it, but what about the thousands that CAN'T?

I think what Rebecca was talking about was the best solution possible, and one that I could definitely agree with... building the maternity leave into the disability leave. I don't see why this isn't an option in more places, honestly, it seems like a fair and good solution that would work.

But you don't agree with taxes and disability is mandatory... how would that take the cost off the general taxpaying population? Screw that, make businesses pay for it.

I think it would be easy enough to write into any law that if you are not a multi-bazillion dollar corporation then you don't have to follow the rule. They already do that with certain insurance benefits. I actually support small business, they are generally more socially conscious than the corporations anyway. But corporations and big business I have NO SYMPATHY for. I think they should pay, and I think they should pay BIG.

The 8% are LARGE companies with BIG Bankroll.....

So the largest corporations only employ 8% of all women? I don't believe that for a minute!

your company doesn't PAY for it. SDI is something that's taken out of our paychecks, like Social Security. whether you use it or not, it's still taken out....

No, I was in NC and I did not get taxed for that. You aren't even eligble for this paid maternity leave until after you work there a year. I didn"t have to pay for short term or long term disability...Time Warner Cable pays that for their employees. Heres the link. The Paid Maternity Info was discussed at our training orientation if I had a scanner I would scan it for you but yea their benefits are really to good to be true. wish I still worked there...


http://www.timewarnercable.com/MediaLibrary/1/1/Content%20Management/About%20Us/documents/BenefitsSummaryFinal.pdf

LOL this debate is funny. I have to admit, if I were an employer and had to pay maternity leave while I was already paying someone else to do that person's job for a choice they made, I just wouldn't hire women anymore. Too much of a financial risk that they might get knocked up (and cost me twice their pay, x for the mother, and x for the temp) in that case. Do we really want that kind of shit happening? No? OK then.

First, the beginning of maternity leave at all of the 5 companies i have worked at in my career is short term disability. 6-10 weeks fully paid (after you've been at the company a specific amount of time). Anyone is eligible for short term disability if you are injured, pregnant, etc. It is part of the benefits that companies give people. 2nd, very few companies give any kind of actual parental leave - my company happens to give 2 weeks which both mothers and fathers have to use. 3rd, the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requires a company to hold a person's position for up to 12 weeks - yes it can be unpaid, but it is more than 6 weeks.

So having said all that, some companies don't give medical benefits either. Also, the trend is to give more generous maternity leave type benefits and work-life balance opportunities because companies are losing women to stay at home. Companies are starting to notice that women are a very valuable part of the workforce and forcing them to choose between family and work is not fair. Now, I know a lot of women on this site feel that women should stay home, but many many women in the workforce don't want to. Short term disability is a benefit and some companies provide it and some don't. If a company provides it, it should apply to women on who have just had babies. Unfortunately, many companies can't afford to provide it, just like they can't provide medical insurance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/sep/29/discriminationatwork.workingparents

In the UK you get 90% pay and the company get reimburse by the government. I am shocked that a board full of women would oppose maternity leave. Really. And I don't think the above would cause people to stop hiring women. First off, its illegal and second of all since men can take maternity leave they can't use it to discriminate.

I am also shocked at the amount of concern for big businesses as opposed to AMERICAN FAMILIES.