Maternity Leave: How long do you think it SHOULD be?

Valancyy · May 2014

We just had a thread about how long everyone is getting for maternity leave. How about a thread discussing how long you think should be given?

I really think a minimum of 6 months should be allowed. How much of this should be paid is another question. I know a lot of women can't take too much time off without compensation. I think 6-8 weeks fully paid, and then maybe 50% pay after that? Or maybe 3 months fully paid and then 50% for the next 3? I don't think it's totally unreasonable to expect families to save up a little bit for maternity leave.

Of course, a year off would be even better! I'm not sure if I would expect to be paid for a full year, but maybe the option to take another 6 months off unpaid would be nice.

I think a big issue is that breastfeeding is pushed, but it's really hard to continue breastfeeding when the baby is still so little (6 or 8 weeks), if you aren't with them. Pumping at work is a PITA, and depending on your job can be almost impossible.

chase16 · May 2014

My ex SIL is German and she got 18 months with 50% pay. I would like a year with 50%. I feel grateful that I get 8 weeks paid... But I still feel like it's short compared with other countries.

rockyrollgirl · May 2014

Yeah, 6 months.

Valancyy · May 2014

ThoseThreeWords said:

Arg! My work computer won't let me paste an infographic.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/maternity-leave-paid-parental-leave-_n_2617284.html

I've seen that before. It's really sad how far behind the US is with maternity leave. Is it even on the radar? I don't hear much about any plans to change it.

+RBL+ · May 2014

I think 6 months with some kind of pay would be ideal for me.

I am taking 5-6 months, but most of it will be unpaid (maybe 8-9 weeks paid, depending on how much PTO I take before Lo arrives). My company policy is that I could actually take up to 52 weeks unpaid leave for family. However, there is no kind of job holding for that period of time. I am also fortunate enough that H and I are fairly good with money and have enough saved for me to take a couple months unpaid without a huge impact on us.

megmarissa · May 2014

4-6 months with some type of pay... that way baby is hopefully in a good sleep pattern (and momma is somewhat rested), immune systems are building, etc.

tabaskoa · May 2014

I agree with pretty much everything you said @Valancyy. 6 months would be an ideal amount of time to be off, get established with breastfeeding and as a parent. 12 weeks is not enough, I was JUST getting the hang of breastfeeding after a rough start with DS and going back to work made it even harder. I think everyone should get 6-8 weeks fully paid, and then maybe 50% after that.

sarahg8r · May 2014

I think 12 weeks paid with an option to take 12 more weeks unpaid would be ideal. Also, my aunt used to work for one of the big accounting firms and they allowed new moms to come back to work at whatever percentage they wanted to for the first year. Of course it was also a percentage of pay as well, but I think that would be really nice.

For example, you could come back at 50% (or less) at first, then work up to 75% and eventually back to full time.

JadaBlue · May 2014

I'm also a federal employee and just wish I could I use my sick leave for FMLA time. I'll have to go unpaid with 900 hours of sick leave...

teachermommy2014 · May 2014

I think if FMLA is 12 weeks...it should be paid through our government. Not to kick up political views, but if the government can pay people welfare, why can't they pay my maternity leave!

In the perfect world, I would take one year paid

chase16 · May 2014

djhar said:

zoegirlTX said:

djhar said:

I don't think there should be any government mandate as far as maternity leave. I do think government protections as far as jobs like FMLA are good, but they don't cover anyone in a company with less than 50 employees, which is an issue for many women. I think the government is too involved in our lives and they don't need to be.

I think expanding maternity leave would just make it even harder for women to advance in the workplace at all. I have been asked "off the record" in job interviews about my family plans and been in meetings at a former employer where qualified women weren't hired just because they were of childbearing age. It's not something that you can generally prove, so the women are just out of luck.

I think rather than government mandates, an improved economy will help more than anything. As employers have to go back to competing for the best employees, they are more likely to improve leave policies as a way to attract and retain the best employees.
I"m more concerned about all the minimum wage/low wage workers out there that go back b/c of necessity at just a few weeks than with those trying ot make career options more equitable for middle class/upper class working career women.

sorry, but an improved economy has nothing to do with women- if anything, they will hire a man b/c they know he won't be "missing" a few months..

ETA: if anything, yes, let's get the government out of my UTE before & during pregnancy. They need to stop dictating BC options & passing outrageous laws trying to ban abortion.

The same issues that impact higher earners are going to impact lower wage workers. If the employers are going to be responsible for any part of the cost (whether through something like unemployment, directly funding maternity leave, etc.), they aren't going to be as eager to hire women or will look for ways to get rid of someone before it's an issue. The burden of proof to dispute a firing that you believe is based on pregnancy is on the pregnant woman, not the company to prove it didn't happen. How many minimum wage workers are going to have the time and resources to know how to fight an unjust firing?

I think it's ridiculous to say the economy improving won't help women. Women make up almost half the workforce, so clearly, they're involved. Many of the top companies that have generous maternity leave policies do so because they want to attract and retain top talent. It's not (generally) just because the CEO is a generous guy. And as women make up more and more of the talented, qualified employee pool, more companies will follow suit.

But yes, let's just continue to be hypocrites and say "Hey, stay out of my childbearing plans until I decide I want you involved, government!"

1. I fail to see how employers compete for the best employees. It is the other way around- employees compete for the best jobs. There are no shortage of qualified workers in this country. There is, however, a shortage of jobs.

2. I'm more than a little annoyed with your assertion that those who support women's rights are hypocrites for wanting the government to stay out of their uterus. Women's rights go beyond healthcare. And yes, it is a little ridiculous that we are the only developed country that does not offer any paid maternity leave to women. Even if it was 8 weeks paid maternity leave, at least that would be something. Unpaid maternity leave results in hardship for families, which in turn hurts the economy.

rstarrlemaitre · May 2014

I think we need to do as Sweden does, and offer both maternal AND paternal leave, else how are societal norms ever to shift. ::Sigh:: darn USA.

JadaBlue · May 2014

@thosethreewords yeah, I'm positive. I can use sick leave for my own recovery 6/8 weeks following the birth, but it can't be used for fmla leave if your baby is well.

Re a good economy or government being the path to maternity benefits I have a couple of thoughts. First, the economy has been good before, and it's yet to extend maternity benefits beyond highly skilled workers. Two, let's look around the world at countries with enviable maternity schemes and find out whether they got there through government guarantees or a good economy.

chase16 · May 2014

Peripatetic14 said:

@thosethreewords yeah, I'm positive. I can use sick leave for my own recovery 6/8 weeks following the birth, but it can't be used for fmla leave if your baby is well. Re a good economy or government being the path to maternity benefits I have a couple of thoughts. First, the economy has been good before, and it's yet to extend maternity benefits beyond highly skilled workers. Two, let's look around the world at countries with enviable maternity schemes and find out whether they got there through government guarantees or a good economy.

The only issue I see is that between the rising cost of childcare, and unpaid maternity leave, many women choose not to go back to work (if you look at statistics on pew research center's site, the number of SAHM is increasing steadily for the first time in decades). I don't think this is a good trend. As a nation, I really see us going backwards in terms of women's rights. (Yes, I understand that women choose to SAHM, but if your choice is between that and going broke due to the cost of childcare, is that really your "choice?") If women don't represent at least 40% of the work force, our country may slip backwards in terms of rights. (It's already happening- abortion laws, anyone?)

Allison7 · May 2014

I think there should be at least 3 months at 100% pay and then the option for another 3 months at a reduced rate. But I think there should be an option for the second 3 months to be paternity leave if the parents prefer. I also think that something needs to be done for part time employees and for people at companies with less than 50 people.

I am fortunate and I get to keep my job, but I did just make a change in October 2013 so my job is not protected by FMLA. It is unfortunate that we cannot rely on companies to do right by their employees anymore, but we can't. There are still good places to work out there (I switch from a terrible workplace to a good one) but it is the bad places that make the government mandates necessary. History has already shown us what happens when companies can operate unchecked by regulation.

Valancyy · May 2014

chase16 said:

Peripatetic14 said:

@thosethreewords yeah, I'm positive. I can use sick leave for my own recovery 6/8 weeks following the birth, but it can't be used for fmla leave if your baby is well. Re a good economy or government being the path to maternity benefits I have a couple of thoughts. First, the economy has been good before, and it's yet to extend maternity benefits beyond highly skilled workers. Two, let's look around the world at countries with enviable maternity schemes and find out whether they got there through government guarantees or a good economy.

The only issue I see is that between the rising cost of childcare, and unpaid maternity leave, many women choose not to go back to work (if you look at statistics on pew research center's site, the number of SAHM is increasing steadily for the first time in decades). I don't think this is a good trend. As a nation, I really see us going backwards in terms of women's rights. (Yes, I understand that women choose to SAHM, but if your choice is between that and going broke due to the cost of childcare, is that really your "choice?") If women don't represent at least 40% of the work force, our country may slip backwards in terms of rights. (It's already happening- abortion laws, anyone?)

I get where you're coming from. It isn't good for women to be forced to stay home because they can't afford to work. I'm a SAHM, but it's not because of that reason. Even with 3 in daycare we still would have come out a LITTLE ahead with my working. Factor in 401K match and it would have been worth it even more. But, I wanted to stay home.

I'm looking at maternity leave policies around the world and don't understand why other countries can do government paid healthcare and maternity leave and the US can't.

exhibitv · May 2014

In my ideal world, I would want 3 months paid (but maybe through a gov't subsidized program that you pay into, like social security) where it kind of works like short term disability and then an option to take another 12 weeks off unpaid. My firm allows up to 6 months off (2 of them paid, 3 are only covered by FMLA), but you lose that "guarantee" of your job being held for you for FMLA purposes. My problem is that most employees don't qualify for FMLA since small businesses still are the primary employers in this country.

Anyway, I have a "choice" to take longer, and would love to take at least 4 months off this time, but I am going back to work more to not derail my career, rather than money. I'm an accountant and NEED to be back by January, so I would like at least a month to get caught up on my files and such before I start back in full force.

torooji · May 2014

I agree with the ladies that say the gov't should stay out of paid family leave. I think employers can offer PTO, private STD insurance and paid leave as a benefit if they want, but that should be the decision of the employer. Otherwise, I think it is up to us to do whatever we can afford to do. I don't think it's fair to tax people that don't have kids, and inevitably a gov't subsidized leave would do that.

I live in CA and so part of my leave will be paid, but that's because I pay an SDI tax. If I calculate out how much I will spend over the years on that tax vs. how much I'll get out of my paid maternity leave, it just isn't worth it to me.

I do, however, think job protection is fair... but I think the 12 weeks under FLMA are more than enough because anything longer is actually penalizing the employer from adjusting and doing whatever is best for their company.

FrodaBaggins · May 2014

I like the 12 week protected rule under FMLA but wish it was maybe a bit longer - more in the realm of 4-6 months. I also live in CA so pay into the SDI and through it, I'm getting 6 weeks fully paid (8 if c-section.) Then I use whatever paid time off I have, then it'll either be unpaid or Paid Family Leave if I can figure it out.

I'd like it if it was up to the employer and they could decide, like my friend in Oregon, to give her 6 months fully paid

But I am happy with how my company is treating me. They didn't have to extend FMLA benefits to me, due to where our branch is located and how many people work here, but they still are.

lookame3639 · May 2014

I am employed at a company which will not grant me FMLA. I have been with this company for 5 years and I do not receive job protection based on the company doesn't employ more than 50 people in a certain mile radius of my current store. I am faced with a decision when it comes to after birth...go back to work as soon as possible or just quit and hope for the best.

So do I believe the us system needs a reform...yes! However, as I've seen is happening with the affordable care act, employers are limiting full time positions (in fact my company will only employ 3 full time positions and the rest are limited to 4.5 hour shifts up to 6 days a week). So I can see a reform as having a bad effect on this country.

In a perfect world i would have job security for 6 months, or 3 months job security and the ability to take your newborn to work with you for 3-4 months after (when they are awake more and need more time playing they should then be left with a sitter but until then they are asleep most of the time and wouldn't cause to much distraction...well aside from everyone oooing and awing the newborn). Would a prefer or want some sort of pay, yes but I can see that being limited to companies who are larger because "it's a burden" on smaller companies.

Allison7 · May 2014

@lookame3639‌ I think what is happening with companies trying to skirt the Affordable Care Act as a perfect example of what is wrong with big business today. Instead of doing right by their employees and offering benefits, they cut full time positions. I understand the business perspective of minding the bottom line, but companies often forget that happy employees = more productive employees.

As to wanting pay from small companies, in other countries there are taxes that either cover the parental leave or they have seem or of national health service so companies aren't paying for those benefits too. I understand people not liking taxes that you may never use (if you choose not to or can't have children), but we do have those already. There are plenty of things that I pay into with every paycheck and on my federal and state taxes that I hope I will never have to use. Ultimately though, I think job security is more important than pay.

lookame3639 · May 2014

@Allison7‌ i completely understand what you are saying. In cases that I've seen with my company there are employees who were getting 40 hrs a week and working 8-12 hour shifts and now they are suddenly limited to 4.5 hours. This change may be because of the care act or it may be because of something else I'm not sure. There just seems to be a clench on full time jobs.

I also agree that job security overall is most important. I feel it should be extended to all employees though (restrictions could involve that you must work for the company for a certain period of time) but if you work for a company for a year or more even if the job doesn't employee x or more people you should still have the ability to get your job back...

BeachM · May 2014

I'm torn about this. On one hand I think 6 months would be amazing. On the other, I can see from my dad's perspective how this would kill his business. He owns a very small civil engineering/survey firm and could not go without one of his engineers for 6 months. However, he is also a really chill boss and if your kid is sick then your kid needs you at home. There is no set amount of vacation days, sick days, etc. at his company. You just sort of do what you need to do. This works because he has so few employees though.

As far as the taxes thing goes, I'm not sure how some sort of maternity/paternity leave tax is much different from childless folks paying local taxes that fund schools when they'll never use those schools.

Scaura · May 2014

I think it would be nice to have 3 months but do not believe the government or an employer should pay for it at all. It is a responsibility issue. Families should plan and save for the time off. When a woman is not working, the company is getting zero productivity from her...why would they pay for that? It has just never made any sense to me. I will take about 7-8 weeks off but I have saved leave for 2 years, not been on a vacation in over 5 years and am prepared now to be out that long.

ungraceful13 · May 2014

6 months paid with the option of 6 more months either 1/2 paid or just off.

sekura · May 2014

chase16 said:

djhar said:

zoegirlTX said:

djhar said:

I don't think there should be any government mandate as far as maternity leave. I do think government protections as far as jobs like FMLA are good, but they don't cover anyone in a company with less than 50 employees, which is an issue for many women. I think the government is too involved in our lives and they don't need to be.

I think expanding maternity leave would just make it even harder for women to advance in the workplace at all. I have been asked "off the record" in job interviews about my family plans and been in meetings at a former employer where qualified women weren't hired just because they were of childbearing age. It's not something that you can generally prove, so the women are just out of luck.

I think rather than government mandates, an improved economy will help more than anything. As employers have to go back to competing for the best employees, they are more likely to improve leave policies as a way to attract and retain the best employees.
I"m more concerned about all the minimum wage/low wage workers out there that go back b/c of necessity at just a few weeks than with those trying ot make career options more equitable for middle class/upper class working career women.

sorry, but an improved economy has nothing to do with women- if anything, they will hire a man b/c they know he won't be "missing" a few months..

ETA: if anything, yes, let's get the government out of my UTE before & during pregnancy. They need to stop dictating BC options & passing outrageous laws trying to ban abortion.

The same issues that impact higher earners are going to impact lower wage workers. If the employers are going to be responsible for any part of the cost (whether through something like unemployment, directly funding maternity leave, etc.), they aren't going to be as eager to hire women or will look for ways to get rid of someone before it's an issue. The burden of proof to dispute a firing that you believe is based on pregnancy is on the pregnant woman, not the company to prove it didn't happen. How many minimum wage workers are going to have the time and resources to know how to fight an unjust firing?

I think it's ridiculous to say the economy improving won't help women. Women make up almost half the workforce, so clearly, they're involved. Many of the top companies that have generous maternity leave policies do so because they want to attract and retain top talent. It's not (generally) just because the CEO is a generous guy. And as women make up more and more of the talented, qualified employee pool, more companies will follow suit.

But yes, let's just continue to be hypocrites and say "Hey, stay out of my childbearing plans until I decide I want you involved, government!"

1. I fail to see how employers compete for the best employees. It is the other way around- employees compete for the best jobs. There are no shortage of qualified workers in this country. There is, however, a shortage of jobs.

2. I'm more than a little annoyed with your assertion that those who support women's rights are hypocrites for wanting the government to stay out of their uterus. Women's rights go beyond healthcare. And yes, it is a little ridiculous that we are the only developed country that does not offer any paid maternity leave to women. Even if it was 8 weeks paid maternity leave, at least that would be something. Unpaid maternity leave results in hardship for families, which in turn hurts the economy.

You're kidding with #1, right, chase? I'm a highly skilled worker, and companies are CONSTANTLY competing for me. I work where I do (a major bank) because the infertility, maternity leave, and flex time benefits are so damn good. If they weren't, I'd go somewhere else, and be snatched up in a heartbeat.
Highly skilled (STEM) workers are in high demand, and companies DO compete for us.

JadaBlue · May 2014

@sekura It's great this is your experience and maybe we don't need to worry about the "best" workers, but I 'm unsure of the evidence that a "good economy" will spread this effect beyond X% of workers. I hope many of us would aim for minimal job protection and time with a newborn/physical recovery for all workers.

chase16 · May 2014

jillielizabeth said:

sekura said:

<

You're kidding with #1, right, chase? I'm a highly skilled worker, and companies are CONSTANTLY competing for me. I work where I do (a major bank) because the infertility, maternity leave, and flex time benefits are so damn good. If they weren't, I'd go somewhere else, and be snatched up in a heartbeat.
Highly skilled (STEM) workers are in high demand, and companies DO compete for us.

**********

That's great that that is your situation, but unfortunately I wouldn't say that's the norm at the moment. That's like saying: I have an Ivy League degree, great connections, fantastic experience and impeccable references...the economy is booming! Surely you see that your anecdotal experience is specific to a narrow set of people?

All of this.

Want a personalized experience?

Maternity Leave: How long do you think it SHOULD be?

Re: Maternity Leave: How long do you think it SHOULD be?

BFP#1 10/11/11 - DD born 6/6/12;
BFP#2 7/6/13 - Due 3/8/13, MMC at 12w D&C on 8/31/13;

Choose Another Board

Search Boards

Want a personalized experience?

Maternity Leave: How long do you think it SHOULD be?

Re: Maternity Leave: How long do you think it SHOULD be?

BFP#1 10/11/11 - DD born 6/6/12; BFP#2 7/6/13 - Due 3/8/13, MMC at 12w D&C on 8/31/13;

Choose Another Board

Search Boards

BFP#1 10/11/11 - DD born 6/6/12;
BFP#2 7/6/13 - Due 3/8/13, MMC at 12w D&C on 8/31/13;