- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Working Moms
itsmevkb
member
Government paid maternity leave - how long?
itsmevkb
member
in Working Moms
So ladies I'll play devil's advocate and ask, if you believe the government should pay for maternity leave my question is for how long? 12 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, 12 years?
I always see the argument being made that it's best for babies and mom to be home with their child but then I wonder for how long and I wonder why the dad is such a small part of the equation. If it's important to bond with the baby isn't it equally important that dad get the time to do so as well? And if we give say a year off then what are we saying - that after a year it's not as important to be home with your children? If it's important, it's important and in which case shouldn't each mom and dad be afforded the ability to stay at home as long as they see fit?
Isn't the line each government is drawing somewhat arbitrary?
Personally, if I was going to be given a year off I'd rather be given a year of time in something like a bank account that I could draw on throughout the entire life of my child, not just the first year. To me, that first year isn't even the most important when compared to when you're actually able to fully communicate and teach your child things and then when you're dealing with all the issues they have growing up and as teenagers. I don't feel as though I was cheated out of having enough time with my kids as babies but the older they get the more I feel like I actually need more time - more time with them and more time just to tackle all the school and extra activity type stuff. What would you even call that - "school age leave"?
Kelly, Mom to Christopher Shannon 9.27.06, Catherine Quinn 2.24.09, Trey Barton lost on 12.28.09, Therese Barton lost on 6.10.10, Joseph Sullivan 7.23.11, and our latest, Victoria Maren 11.15.12
Secondary infertility success with IVF, then two losses, one at 14 weeks and one at 10 weeks, then success with IUI and then just pure, crazy luck. Expecting our fifth in May as the result of a FET.
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Government paid maternity leave - how long?
I'll bite, but let me clarify one thing - while I do think its good for babies, mothers, fathers, families to have an extended leave, I also think its a great long term benefit for our country, our society, our government, future employers and taxpayers for children to have excellent care. One of the best ways we can ensure healthy citizens is by giving our children strong healthy bonds with their immediate caregivers, presumably, their parents in most instances. Various health authorities are always pushing how important BFing is for long term health of children and while I'm not 100% on board with that view, if that's the case and we collectively decide that is something we value as a society, then let's put our money where our mouths are and support BF women and make it easy for them to BF instead of forcing them to jump through hoops to work and pump remotely.
I'd like to see the government sponsor/pay for or at least subsidize some portion of maternity leave for 6 months for at least one parent. So, maybe the wife takes off 4 months and then Dad does 2 months or they alternate or they both take off 3 months, etc. something like that. And, then I'd like to see some kind of more regulated and subsidized group daycare arrangement where the ratios for kids to caretakers is a national standard - so whether you make 400K in Connecticut or 40K and live in Mississippi you can have some standard of care.
yay! I love all of this.
I completely agree with your thought process and that the line is arbitrary.
I don't believe the government should pay parents for one cent for their leave. Less govt the better. I mentioned in the post below that I think 6 months of job protection would be ideal. You can't tell me that I need to breastfeed for at least 6 months but that I have to leave my LO to go back to work in 6/8/12 wks. DS wasnt even on a schedule yet at 12 weeks, he was up three times a night, I was a zombie! And not a great employee anyway. Even though that is no ones problem but my own, I think more mom's would come back to work HAPPIER if they had an option and choice to extend leave.
As for the bonding thing, I bonded fine with DS, even when I went back to work so I dont get this argument.
Well, I don't think the gov't should pay my salary or my husband's. But I suppose I would support some sort of equivalent of unemployment (a fraction of salary up to a cap) that either parent could use up to some max amount of time or dollar amount for both of them. As it is, my husband gets six weeks of fully funded paternity leave. I am grateful he works where he does.
The time component is a stickier, and I wish there were more flexibility. If a woman spends a long time on bedrest, should she have the same time with her baby as someone who didn't? Seems to me she should. Pegging it to breast feeding makes sense to me, as Kathryn alluded to.
At the end of the day, we are all doing a public service by producing the next generation. I feel like that gets papered over in this discussion. Yes, we have a choice, and yes, we derive a personal benefit, but it comes at great personal cost.
To me, it's the obvious place for government to step in, because we need children as much as we need roads, bridges, water infrastructure, etc. I understand the hesitance to increase government's role in this matter, but I think it as vital as infrastructure. Employers have largely shown they will not do it willingly. As James Madison so famously said in that canon of conservative theory, the Federalist Papers, "if men were angels, no government would be necessary."
To me, these time amounts on ML should be connected to the time it takes to phyically recover from birth (8-12 weeks in most cases), policies being in place to support BFing (6 months-1 year as recommended by several public health organizations), and to support bonding with the baby in its early years (studies have shown that kids develop a personality before they enter grade school and early, positive interactions with primary caregivers pave the way for kids to become good public citizens).
For these three reasons, I think the first year of life is the most important time for parents to be home with their kids. Also, because only mom can BF (obviously) and women still do the majority of the childcare in the US, women should get more of the maternity leave time then men. I do think, however, that men should have the option of using some of their wife's available time.
BFP#2: EDD 2/11/14, MMC confirmed 7/15/13 (growth stopped at 6 weeks), D&C @ 12 weeks 7/25/13
yes, I don't think this point gets made often enough or well enough. Producing children, raising children, etc. on many levels is a personal and selfish choice, but on the other hand, investing in children/families, etc. SAVES money over the long term and results in increased GDP, greater tax base, etc.
dup
BFP#2: EDD 2/11/14, MMC confirmed 7/15/13 (growth stopped at 6 weeks), D&C @ 12 weeks 7/25/13
I agree with all of this and to go into the second part of the question I think more employers need to be flexible with their employee?s time when they can. For example many companies, especially in this economy, want their employees to work 50 hours a week and basically be on call 24 hours a day via blackberry etc? I think in return they should be more flexible. I know in my company we can let our employees flex time so if my employee has school age children and asked to work say 6:30 to 3:30 ( we have to take unpaid hour for lunch) I would be fine with that as long as when needed she was available to work a standard day (8-5).
I also think we need to remember that there are alot of women in this country working in very, very sh!tty postions who have very long, sh!tty commutes - and that everybody isn't a professional w/ an office job who posts on online message boards all day while waiting for her reports to print, etc.
Look at the janitors at your building, waitresses, sales clerks, bus drivers, etc. those women all have kids too and most of them are working in very low wage jobs for contractors who keep their costs low by offering no benefits.
I have heard it said elsewhere, and I wholeheartedly agree, that we are approaching a situation where the only people who can afford to have kids are those living on government assistance and the fairly well-off. Definitely, a part of that equation is a lack of employer benefits.
My feelings towards paid maternity leave have more to do with the health of the mother. I think that women should be paid 100% of salary for 6-8 weeks. Any time on bed rest should also be paid since it is also medical. I'm now going to contradict myself now to say that Mother's who adopt should also be granted that paid time.I also think it should apply to all working status's. If you work part-time then 100% of your average part-time hours should be paid.
Although, I think it would work best to be a government mandate paid for by taxes, I am hesitant about this however because of the governemnt's lack of ability to control money.
I definitely don't think the government should be paying lawyers at large law firms $3k+/week for 8 weeks of maternity leave. Of course, most firms are doing it voluntarily, but any government-mandated plan would run into that kind of issue.
I think it would be fair to say that people who make a lot of money should be expected to plan more for their own financial needs. But, they need their jobs held for them as much as anyone else.
I don't think the first year is all that arbitrary. Its just a grunt year of heavy lifting when it comes to dealing with a newborn - heavy lifting on little sleep. And throw bf-ing in there and its just more intensive.
I do agree that dad's should be a bigger part of the equation but, for us, if we were offered a collective year off, my husband would work and I would stay home the entire year. And he's very much a hands on parent but I'm the food supply for D2. She screams bloody murder for DH but will react calmly when it me. The girl likes her food, even just having it close by, I don't have to nurse her to calm her down.
I think it's hard to answer this without asking the question...how much more would you want to be taxed to enable this? I work for a global company. Other county's tax at a MUCH high rate than we are, and yes, working mom's....they do get some amount of paid mat leave...but it's not 100% of their salary for the full time.
Kathryn, you said this more succinctly than I could. I also agree that while parents do derive some benefits from having children, society needs children (people to reproduce) in order to sustain itself. We need that tax revenue, among other things.
First off, let me explain how our benefits work (Quebec is a little different). Every single working person pays 1.83% of their pay into EI (Employment Insurance). We pay up to a maximum amount that continually increases (for 2012, the maximum is $839.97). Our employer pays 1.4 times what the employee pays.
If you are laid off, you are eligible for regular EI benefits and there are other requirements to be eligible for regular EI (that's why 100% of employees pay into the system). However, there are maternity benefits available (you have to have worked "x" number of hours before you are eligible for benefits - I believe it is 600 hours), and in Canada, if you have been at a job for a year, they must hold your job for a year. Your benefits are maxed out at 55% of your weekly earnings, up to a maximum of $485 per week. This makes it very difficult for higher earning mom's as our benefits are a much lower % of our normal weekly earnings, but I'm not complaining.
The first 13 weeks are considered "Maternity" benefits and MUST be taken by the mother. These benefits are not available if you adopt. However, the remaining 27 weeks (total of 50 weeks) are "Parental" benefits and are available for any parent to take. This means that dads can take the time (and their jobs are protected as long as they have been with their employer a year), as well as adoptive parents. Parents can even take the time off simultaneously, as long as the combined weeks of benefits do not exceed 27 (for example, both parents could take 13 weeks off together with one parent taking an additional 1 week).
Overall, I believe that the system is a good one. Although higher earning people do receive a smaller % of weekly earnings as benefits, the amount that each person pays IS capped (you will pay the max if you make over $45,900). Therefore, you do not pay into the system on any earnings over $45,900. Everyone is eligible, as long as they have worked the required number of hours (so SAH parents are not eligible). Lower earning people will still receive 55% of their weekly income, which although is not a lot, it helps. Dad's can take/share the paternity leave. It's not overly common, but I've seen it done.
"God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it" 1 Corinthians 10:13I don't know. .. 1-3% of my salary? How much do we pay in Social Security taxes ~ 7.5% on the first 100K of income?
I'm a teacher and I have been docked for every day of both of my maternity leaves. I don't think I need the government helping me with my leave. I chose to have the baby, I can take care of the consequence of losing my pay for a while.
Sure the 45 minute drive to daycare sucks-plus the 15 minute drive to my job---but it was ok. My kids were both breastfed for a year and were well cared for.
That is just one piece of tax. For example, in many Nordic countries, their full federal tax is around 50-60% of salary.
At which income brackets? How does that compare to the U.S. after state, city, county and sales taxes? Our overall tax burden is close to 50%, and then we have to pay out of pocket for healthcare and student loans and maternity leave... Back of the envelope calculation, seems like we'd be better off in one of these Nordic countries!
DUUDE - I'd be totally on board w/ paying more taxes like in a Nordic country for more services, better services.
I am not even sure right now I am paying less for the inferior services I am getting, after all the taxes are tolled.
I think maternity leave should be at least 12 months. In Canada it is. I live in Ontario and part of the leave is actually pregnancy leave while the other part is maternity leave (parental leave)....which can be used by the father as well. (which would be parental leave.) My sister lessened the amount she was entitled to because her husband took time as well. Ideally I think a parent should be able to stay home as long as they see fit. (the first 5 years especially) While many fathers would like to stay with their child, many are fine with their wives taking the time. Each family should be able to decide for themselves. (and they do)
I don't agree that the first year isn't that important. There is so much going on in that first year and in the first five years. You can't have a conversation with them but things that happen during the early years can stay with a child forever and a good foundation can make all the difference later on.
I think what is best for children is to have one parent at home as a stay-at-home parent. This is not always possible and that's too bad. Time spent with kids as babies might not be as fun to some people but it's so important to the baby.
EDIT It is hard for lower middle income families and middle income families to care for their children well but there are some government efforts that can help. As for helping families with the cost of raising children there are some things the government does. I am not talking about social assistance(welfare). The government also pays a certain amount to everyone who has a child under (I think age 7) a certain age no matter what your income is. It's about $100/child/month. It is paid each month to help with child care costs. This is in Ontario.
Another amount is paid by the government each month depending on how much money you make. It is the Ontario Working Family Supplement for families who do not earn a lot. (but are working)
Yet another benefit is the Child tax benefit which is available to anyone who has a child. (the amount drops after you earn over a certain amount and is gone after you reach a certain point)
I don't think the government should pay for maternity leave either. I do think jobs should be more family-friendly and flexible.
I think the couple should financially pre-plan so that time can be taken off for one of the parents (or a mixture of the two flip-flopping) for the amount of time they desire and is financially doable.
From what I understand, children form their personalities within the first five years, so based off of that research, I think a parent should spend a lot of time with their child during those years (the other parent would spend time also but more so bringing in the household income) while simultaneously having a secondary child care resource who shares the same values as the parents to assist when needed.
The other years after age five are important as well, hence the need for more family-friendly/flexible jobs.
Great responses, ladies.
I didn't read any of the comments to this post so I'll apoligize if this point has already been made....the "government" doesn't pay for anyting. Tax paying workers pay for everything. And no, as a tax paying worker I do not want to pay for anyone's maternity leave.
Well, that's true... but also, not entirely true. Like social security or employment insurance, everyone pays in and many people take a pay out. A woman in childbearing years (younger, not as established as she will one day be) is in a position where it may well make more sense for us all to lend her the time and money to have children, and then expect her and her family to pay us all back.
Yes, there will be freeloaders and not a perfectly fair distribution, but I think shutting down social nets due to fear of abuse is letting the perfect get in the way of the good.
ITA. In addition to the societial goods I think paid maternity leave would provide, it just makes logistical sense to me. Right now, my earning potential is high, but my current salary is low. My family will be in much better financial shape 10-15 years from now. But I didn't want to wait that long to start and grow my family. I'd rather start having kids early so I can avoid AMA-related complications and have ample time to have the largish family that my husband and I want. In my mind, paid maternity leave would be like borrowing from my future, well-off self to have kids now while I am young but don't have money.
BFP#2: EDD 2/11/14, MMC confirmed 7/15/13 (growth stopped at 6 weeks), D&C @ 12 weeks 7/25/13
The other Canadian posters above have summarized it well, I just wanted to add they reason Canada's policies are so generous.
As a country with a very low population density, we really encourage family growth, you can see this especially in Quebec with the subsidized day care policies. Canada has a fairly low birth rate and the government is trying to encourage larger families as the shortfall in population growth has to be made up with immigration. I believe the US doesn't have the same degree of demographic issues with an aging population and a low birth rate, though many European nations do. While I appreciate Canada's policies and I am about to benefit from them, I'm not sure that they would be as generous as they are without the demographic issue driving them.
Lend someone time and money to have children? I don't see this ever happening.
What would the government use as leverage if they didn't pay it back? What would the penalties be? Sounds like the plot of a science fiction book.
And, how could you draw the line at "lending" money out to people who want to take maternity leave. What if you have a sick parent you want to care for, or what if you want to "find yourself" or take time off for "spiritual reasons". Would you want the government to lend young people money for these reasons too?
Seems to me like some people are just way too comfortable living above their means with an idea they will, to quote the PP, "pay it all back".
PP didn't mean that the money would be literally lent, but just that most people would use the service when they were younger and pay more into it when they were older (like disability or social security, but using the service when you're young instead of old).
Taking care of a sick parent can count under FMLA, but I'm not sure if it would ever be paid time off. I don't think most people would equate "finding oneself" the same as recovering from childbirth and caring for a newborn.
BFP#2: EDD 2/11/14, MMC confirmed 7/15/13 (growth stopped at 6 weeks), D&C @ 12 weeks 7/25/13
Like lisagde pointed out, you're understanding it too literally. Also, like lisagde explained, the concept is like social security, except you pay in after instead of before. And also like social security, some people pay in more than they ever get back out, and some people pay in less, which is what makes it a social net instead of an actual savings account or loan.
It's not designed to be fair, it's designed to be good for society.
Sweden pays for both parents to take leave. Not equal to their salary, but enough for they to live on for a year.