CNN article on mandatory paid leave

TheBorg7of9

It's an article where she did an informal study of businesses in the three states where paid maternity leave is law.  

https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/18/opinion/lerner-paid-family-leave/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

What do you think?

welly01

I think mandatory paid leave is a good idea, mainly because I would use it in the next 5 years.  But I wonder how this benefit differs from STD insurance, which many corporate employees have access to.

cecilyandgautam

There is one line in there about some companies using the state run program (that covers a portion of the salary for up to 6 weeks) to replace the full salary benefit they had previously offered. While it would benefit more women than not, I think that's something to consider. When you mandate a benefit, you loose the variety currently in place in the private market - what incentive would Google, Facebook, or Deloitte have to continue their 5+ months fully paid programs when the state takes it over with a cheaper program? Hopefully the companies currently offering a better package would be able to opt out of the tax associated with funding the state run program and the tax could just apply to those that don't already have at least a good a deal in place. I think that would provide the right kind of incentive. 

TheBorg7of9

K3am said:

PrivacyWanted said:

Google and Facebook and lots of other large employers in CA do offer extended paid leave that's better than the state benefits. The incentive is to retain better employees.

Eta to add words to make it clear google and fb are CA companies

I am so bitter about this. MH consults for FB - he's there every day and has been for a couple years, but he's not on their payroll. He's gotten job offers a few times from them and turned them down. Not only do they offer paid leave, they offer 4 months of paternal leave to the mother OR the father, and a check for $4k. Sure would have been nice... 

----
Why?

TheBorg7of9

K3am said:

TheBorg7of9 said:

K3am said:

PrivacyWanted said:

Google and Facebook and lots of other large employers in CA do offer extended paid leave that's better than the state benefits. The incentive is to retain better employees.

Eta to add words to make it clear google and fb are CA companies

I am so bitter about this. MH consults for FB - he's there every day and has been for a couple years, but he's not on their payroll. He's gotten job offers a few times from them and turned them down. Not only do they offer paid leave, they offer 4 months of paternal leave to the mother OR the father, and a check for $4k. Sure would have been nice... 

----
Why?

I guess I should clarify.. I'm not bitter that the companies do it, I think it's completely awesome. I'm bitter that MH refuses to take a job there so we can benefit from it! 

-----
I meant why does he refuse to take the job?

Sept07b2b

Very interesting article and really not all that surprising.  I will also add that while it's a large component of leave, maternity leave isn't all about "bonding with a newborn."  Some of it is genuinely recovering from birth and getting adequate rest, and many daycare centers will not accept a newborn under 6 weeks old.  For many people 6 weeks unpaid is a HUGE financial burden.  

And I agree that the private sector will still continue to pay extended benefits for retention.  Law firms went through a major maternity leave war several years ago, which ultimately ended up with most large firms offering 6 months off with 5 months of those paid at full salary.  The fact that FMLA is only 12 weeks didn't play into that.  They wanted to offer more than the law permits, and hopefully that would continue even if states started funding leave.  

jlaOK

PrivacyWanted said:

Google and Facebook and lots of other large employers in CA do offer extended paid leave that's better than the state benefits. The incentive is to retain better employees. Eta to add words to make it clear google and fb are CA companies

A lot of the big oil and gas companies around my area are the same.  A friend of mine works for Schlumberger and gets 4 months paid and double sick leave while out (because babies get sick the first year and they want to make sure their employees have ample sick leave).  So jealous.

cecilyandgautam

It's great that so may big companies are offering more than what's legally required, but the article did find a few out of the 18 opted to just replace their better package with the state run program. Not a representative, definitive study of course, but surely that's a plausible outcome - some firms will opt for the cheaper package and I'm just wondering, what if anything could be done to give them an incentive to keep their better benefits package should this mandate come on board?

ss265

LibraryChica said:

amy052006 said:

welly01 said:

I think mandatory paid leave is a good idea, mainly because I would use it in the next 5 years.  But I wonder how this benefit differs from STD insurance, which many corporate employees have access to.

I had STD insurance -- I could not touch it until I exhausted my sick AND vacation leave, and it could only be used for six weeks with a vaginal delivery, or eight with a c-section.

Basically, no one used it.  They banked their sick time, used what they could, and then banked vacation for the remainder of leave.  And many people returned to work, with an infant getting sick at daycare, with no PTO.

Also, unpaid leave was not an option -- if you wanted to be out 12 weeks, and had PTO on the books, it got spent.

This is such crap. I am beyond grateful my employer doesn't pull that nonsense!

I work for an employer who does exactly this - STD and you have to use all your vacation and PTO before the STD kicks in. My previous employer had awesome benefits and I knew when I took my current position that the benefits weren't great but the pay was a lot better so it kind of worked out. And luckily even though I will have no PTO when I return to work, my direct manager is very understanding and will let me work from home if I have a sick infant.

SoMoNY

LibraryChica said:

amy052006 said:

welly01 said:

I think mandatory paid leave is a good idea, mainly because I would use it in the next 5 years.  But I wonder how this benefit differs from STD insurance, which many corporate employees have access to.

I had STD insurance -- I could not touch it until I exhausted my sick AND vacation leave, and it could only be used for six weeks with a vaginal delivery, or eight with a c-section.

Basically, no one used it.  They banked their sick time, used what they could, and then banked vacation for the remainder of leave.  And many people returned to work, with an infant getting sick at daycare, with no PTO.

Also, unpaid leave was not an option -- if you wanted to be out 12 weeks, and had PTO on the books, it got spent.

This is such crap. I am beyond grateful my employer doesn't pull that nonsense!

This is pretty common

shakinros

I'm trying really hard not to get too excited about the firm talking about its employees choosing which state to file in. I work in PA but live in NJ and it would be amazing to have access to NJ's program! I work for a tiny company now - no leave benefits at all. We lived in CA when DD was born so I've already been spoiled by state benefits.

Myaflowers

SoMoNY said:

LibraryChica said:

amy052006 said:

welly01 said:

I think mandatory paid leave is a good idea, mainly because I would use it in the next 5 years.  But I wonder how this benefit differs from STD insurance, which many corporate employees have access to.

I had STD insurance -- I could not touch it until I exhausted my sick AND vacation leave, and it could only be used for six weeks with a vaginal delivery, or eight with a c-section.

Basically, no one used it.  They banked their sick time, used what they could, and then banked vacation for the remainder of leave.  And many people returned to work, with an infant getting sick at daycare, with no PTO.

Also, unpaid leave was not an option -- if you wanted to be out 12 weeks, and had PTO on the books, it got spent.

This is such crap. I am beyond grateful my employer doesn't pull that nonsense!

This is pretty common

I was in the same boat, but our STD only pays for 6 week for a c-section, which I had. I also had HELLP syndrome and had liver and blood pressure issues post partum but still only got 6 weeks. My employer also makes you take FMLA for prenatal appointments as soon as they find out you're pregnant. I managed to hide my pregnancy until about 15 weeks and then I got a packet from HR saying I had 2 weeks to return my FMLA paperwork and all OB appointments after that time would be subtracted from my 12 weeks (even though I had enough sick time to cover all my appointments). I started my maternity leave with only 10.5 weeks of FMLA leave because of OB appointments. That sucked!

welly01

Myaflowers said:

I was in the same boat, but our STD only pays for 6 week for a c-section, which I had. I also had HELLP syndrome and had liver and blood pressure issues post partum but still only got 6 weeks. My employer also makes you take FMLA for prenatal appointments as soon as they find out you're pregnant. I managed to hide my pregnancy until about 15 weeks and then I got a packet from HR saying I had 2 weeks to return my FMLA paperwork and all OB appointments after that time would be subtracted from my 12 weeks (even though I had enough sick time to cover all my appointments). I started my maternity leave with only 10.5 weeks of FMLA leave because of OB appointments. That sucked!

That is beyond ridiculous!!!  Can I ask what industry you're in?  I would seriously never want to work for a company like that.

Myaflowers

welly01 said:

Myaflowers said:

I was in the same boat, but our STD only pays for 6 week for a c-section, which I had. I also had HELLP syndrome and had liver and blood pressure issues post partum but still only got 6 weeks. My employer also makes you take FMLA for prenatal appointments as soon as they find out you're pregnant. I managed to hide my pregnancy until about 15 weeks and then I got a packet from HR saying I had 2 weeks to return my FMLA paperwork and all OB appointments after that time would be subtracted from my 12 weeks (even though I had enough sick time to cover all my appointments). I started my maternity leave with only 10.5 weeks of FMLA leave because of OB appointments. That sucked!

That is beyond ridiculous!!!  Can I ask what industry you're in?  I would seriously never want to work for a company like that.

I am a therapist in a psychiatric practice. Every day that I am gone means that they lose about $1200 in billable hours (I see very little of that money, lol). They are focused on the bottom line and obviously want to minimize our leave time. Very sucky. They were also not very supportive about pumping at work because it cut into patient time, but I managed to make it work. 

ss265

Myaflowers said:

welly01 said:

Myaflowers said:

I was in the same boat, but our STD only pays for 6 week for a c-section, which I had. I also had HELLP syndrome and had liver and blood pressure issues post partum but still only got 6 weeks. My employer also makes you take FMLA for prenatal appointments as soon as they find out you're pregnant. I managed to hide my pregnancy until about 15 weeks and then I got a packet from HR saying I had 2 weeks to return my FMLA paperwork and all OB appointments after that time would be subtracted from my 12 weeks (even though I had enough sick time to cover all my appointments). I started my maternity leave with only 10.5 weeks of FMLA leave because of OB appointments. That sucked!

That is beyond ridiculous!!!  Can I ask what industry you're in?  I would seriously never want to work for a company like that.

I am a therapist in a psychiatric practice. Every day that I am gone means that they lose about $1200 in billable hours (I see very little of that money, lol). They are focused on the bottom line and obviously want to minimize our leave time. Very sucky. They were also not very supportive about pumping at work because it cut into patient time, but I managed to make it work. 

I could not work for an employer like that. Especially considering all the time I had to take off from work in the first year due to LO getting illnesses from DC.

Myaflowers

@PrivacyWanted, I don't think anyone has ever challenged the policy. My understanding of our FMLA/STD policy is that anytime you will be out 3+ consecutive days for an illness or injury, you have to do FMLA/STD. I wish I had thought to consult an attorney at the time, but at this point we are most likely OAD due to HELLP/pre eclampsia, and if I did have another pregnancy, it would definitely be high risk. That's a major reason we are OAD...I could potentially be put on bedrest way before my due date and use up all my leave before I even have the baby. We are super lucky that didn't happen with DD!

SoMoNY

3+ says seems pretty strict.

I've missed 3+ days a few times due to sinus and respiratory infectiuons and have never been told to start at FMLA case.