any HR ladies out there?

gusabbey

i work for a fairly small company, so our hr dept isnt very versed in maternity leave. i was told that i might be allowed to get laid off when my baby is born instead of taking maternity leave. i planned my pregnancy around our slow season, since my job is commission based. they basically told me that i can take off til march 15 if i was laid off or get maternity leave for 12 weeks paid by the company. im wondering which would be a better idea. will taxes bite me in the butt come april if im laid off. pluses and minuses to either. thanks

payn0045

Not in HR, but... my two cents.... seems like you need to sit down and do the math. How much would your company pay you over the 12 weeks? I would double check on the DLLR website to make sure you'll be eligible for unemployment (usually the rule is that you have to be able/available to work - and they might require you to actively search for work at a certain point).  If you're definitely eligible, then figure out how much you'd get per week (the max is $430) x the number of weeks. You do have to pay taxes on unemployment, but I'm fairly sure you can have them deduct it just like a paycheck.  I don't think taxes would be a deciding factor at all.

The extra time of being laid off would certainly be nice if the other stuff works out!

chrissyp18

Not in HR either (though I did a brief stint...far from an expert).  What about your benefits if you're laid off.  You have to remember it's not just medical benefits (if you're under your insurance) but also 401k contributions and 401k match by your company if applicable.  Does your company have short-term disability?  Is that how they would pay part of the 12 weeks?  Many companies only pay a certain % of your salary for 6 or 8 weeks under STD.  I'm assuming your company is only going to cover the 12 weeks of your salary and no type of commissions at all? 

If you're laid off are there stipulations for being re-hired? 

I agree with PP about taxes not being the deciding factor here. 

gusabbey

Thanks for all the info!  I guess theres a whole lot out there that I dont know about.  I thought I had everything covered, until I started looking further into it.  Yikes.  Nothing like waiting til the last minute.  I guess I ought to do that sooner than later!

weezie825

Also not HR, but I have family that have been unemployed temporarily.

In industires where there is a slow time it is pretty typical for companies to lay people off temporarily.  As long as you have a call-back date, the date the company wants you to report back to work, you normally don't have to look for other employment. 

Example:  A relative of mine finishes concrete. He expects to get laid off in the for about 6 - 8 weeks each winter because construction slows.  He does not need to look for other work during this time, becuase he has a confirmed return to work date provided by his employer.

Being laid off may be beneficial to you, because you will not have to use any of your paid time off.  However, like others said, you need to verify with your HR if your medical benefits will continue during the period of time that you are out.  (Of course, that only matters if you carry the health insurance and not your spouse.)

 

swelchphr

I'm in Human Resources.  First, and most importantly, are you sure they said they will pay you for the 12 weeks (that's quite generous, even for a salary or hourly employee, much less a commission-only person).  What they are probably referring to is FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) which entitles you to up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per calendar year for a medical condition for yourself or to take care of someone in your immediate family (having a baby meets that criteria).  You'll have to show documentation and there are some guidelines, but it basically holds your job so that they can't fire you while you're on leave.  If they do pay you, there's no reason to choose the layoff option.

I would be very leary about the layoff option, because even though you may be eligible to collect unemployment, it's a smaller check and once you're gone from the company - they have absolutely no obligation to take you back (which is the part that makes me leary).

Do your research on both options, but especially check back to see if those 12 weeks are paid.  Here is some additional information on FMLA: https://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/benefits-leave/fmla.htm

gusabbey

Oh wow...Thanks for the info!  Its such a huge change from my previous employer (I used to work at Sheppard Pratt).  They knew the ins and the outs of FMLA, since it was a common thing for them.  My job now is basically 50, 50-year-old men.  Needless to say, they aren't experienced in this sort of situation.  I didn't want to mention this in the previous post, in case I would be getting my company in trouble, but its actually my parents' business.  So, I know for sure that my job would held for me.  Last winter, they laid off my co-worker, so I know they want to lay someone off (might as well be me, right?).  I also know they wont let me take leave unpaid, if anything, they would switch me to salary, instead of commission right before I take my leave in order to ensure that I get paid.  I'd rather get paid less (and in the winter I wouldnt be making much anyways) and get to spend more time with the kiddos.  I just wanted to make sure that it was more or less legal?

payn0045

gusabbey:

I just wanted to make sure that it was more or less legal?

It looks like it might be tough if your layoff is more than 10 weeks, and you may not qualify for the immediate time after delivery when you can't really work. From the DLLR website:

https://secure-2.dllr.state.md.us/net207/help.aspx

Lack of Work/Layoff of More Than 10 Weeks/Reduction in Force/Job Abolished

This separation reason covers any circumstance where the claimant has been separated from your company because there is not sufficient work available, the job no longer exists, the contract has ended, the company or section of the company has closed, etc. 

This may be a permanent layoff or a layoff that is for an indefinite time period that is more than 10 weeks from the claimant?s last day of work.  If the layoff is for more than 10 weeks, even though the claimant may be returning to work for you in the future, he/she will be required to actively look for work while filing for unemployment insurance benefits.

 

This page also talks about pregnancy:

https://www.dllr.state.md.us/uiappeals/decisions/8-903.shtml 

The pregnant claimant became unable to perform her duties as a cook which required heavy lifting up to 50 pounds, and therefore left her employment. The claimant continued to seek lighter work for which she was qualified and had experience. The claimant was able to work at a wide range of jobs for which she was qualified and therefore no disqualification was imposed under Section 8-903. However, a disqualification was imposed during the seven-week period in which the claimant was unable to work due to her advanced stage of pregnancy and during her postpartum recovery period. Hill v. Whitey and Dot's, 718-BH-84

 

It sounds like your employer would not challenge your eligibility, so the postpartum recovery issue would probably never come up, but it does sound like DLLR might require you to report on job search activities each week.