Nine months of parental leave are coming to an end
- Thread starter TheSeeker
- Start date
Well, yes and no. There isn't a limit to the number of times you can do it, but you need to work a certain about of hours to get enough unemployment benefits to last a year, same with the company benefits. So if you got pregnant again while on maternity leave and then came back to work for only a couple of months before planning on leaving again, you wouldn't receive any benefits. So no, you couldn't get "chain pregnant" like that crazy woman with 19 kids and recieve benefits only working a few months every couple of years. You pretty much have to work for at least a full year to receive those benefit levels.
The system really isn't abused, not much anyway. Most women are not interested in being baby factories, so they only have a couple of kids max, or if they have more than that it's over a 5-6 year period. That's really not much when you consider the 30-50 years a person works and contributes over their lifetime. And they don't usually get pregnant right away either, as most women have a few years between kids. And while it's illegal to fire a woman because she got pregnant and needed mat leave, you could certainly make a case to fire a woman who only came to work for three months every year or so because she wanted to try to make four kids in five years. There is a point where, if you need to be extraordinarily dedicated to your pursuit of family, an employer isn't obligated to keep you on. I've never had to deal with it, and I'm not in HR, so I couldn't tell you what that point is, but it's there.
Also, I don't think it would be fair to say that most employers contribute to maternity leave over and above the 55-60% unemployment entitlement or whatever it is at the moment. That's almost certainly not the case, it's usually just the larger companies with the best group health insurance plans. And yes, Canadians buy extra health insurance to cover dental, eye care, and prescription drugs.
The system really isn't abused, not much anyway. Most women are not interested in being baby factories, so they only have a couple of kids max, or if they have more than that it's over a 5-6 year period. That's really not much when you consider the 30-50 years a person works and contributes over their lifetime. And they don't usually get pregnant right away either, as most women have a few years between kids. And while it's illegal to fire a woman because she got pregnant and needed mat leave, you could certainly make a case to fire a woman who only came to work for three months every year or so because she wanted to try to make four kids in five years. There is a point where, if you need to be extraordinarily dedicated to your pursuit of family, an employer isn't obligated to keep you on. I've never had to deal with it, and I'm not in HR, so I couldn't tell you what that point is, but it's there.
Also, I don't think it would be fair to say that most employers contribute to maternity leave over and above the 55-60% unemployment entitlement or whatever it is at the moment. That's almost certainly not the case, it's usually just the larger companies with the best group health insurance plans. And yes, Canadians buy extra health insurance to cover dental, eye care, and prescription drugs.
Some of you sound as if you´d think this paid leave is a vacation or something (correct me, if I have the wrong impression).... in my opinion caring for a child, and especially a very young one, IS work! And not an easy one at that, but quite demanding and exausting, even though it is a great work to the same time... Parents carry out a most important work for the child AND the society they live in. So, even when I repead myself here, there is nothing insane about allowing them to have a paid leave to take care of their young baby, so that this young baby may get the best start possible ... and if you just look only at the money- aspect... this good start will help a big deal that the baby may become an effcient, working member of society.
TerokNor
TerokNor
In Sweden we have a very long parental leave, and pretty generous also. It extends to be about 365 days, which you can choose to take out during the childs first 8 years. Most people take like 5 days a week (and unpaid weekends) and stretch it in different ways to stay home with the child for atleast a year, year and a half, and then still have a month or so for later on. And im pretty sure I dont have all the facts right here and am calculating it low. It is also made up so that the dad can take half of that time to stay home and it is encouraged that he do so for quality sake and bonding with the child. Otherwise 30 days is definitly to be used for the dad only.
Ontop of that the first 10 days after the child is born, both parents are allowed to stay home at the same time.
Now.. if you get twins.. you get double that..
I stayed home with my child for about 8 months, and then worked half time in the evenings, anything to stretch out the time so that he was 2 years before I sent him to daycare.
Ontop of that the first 10 days after the child is born, both parents are allowed to stay home at the same time.
Now.. if you get twins.. you get double that..
I stayed home with my child for about 8 months, and then worked half time in the evenings, anything to stretch out the time so that he was 2 years before I sent him to daycare.
Seeker, it was truly wonderful that you got to stay home with paid leave to be with that beautiful baby of yours! I'm sure your wife appreciated your help and that baby was so lucky to have her daddy around so much. I'm sure it will be a huge transition for all of you when you go back to work. Give both ladies in your life extra sweet kisses in the morning when you leave!
I understand that new parents need some time to bond with their child, but nothing addresses the toll on the co-workers.
At the hospital pharmacy Hubby works at, the bosses hired a number of bright young female pharmacists within the course of a year. A pattern developed with three to four of these pharmacists--they were hired, training began, and within 3 months (so training incomplete or barely complete), they got pregnant and were soon off on medical for up to six months--and then parental leave. Meanwhile, the hospital could not fire them and could not permanently replace them because then there’d be too many people on the books. Temps were not allowed due to budgets (and many were not interested in learning the procedures) and overtime was stretched, but minimally because even that was too much on the budget.
The women had a right to have children, but when they’re telling co-workers that they’re so glad they have the job because NOW they can get pregnant and go on leave? And then 2 of them get pregnant again within a year of the first? So they’ve never really learned their jobs and they’re not interested in learning anymore because they have a new child or children to focus on. These are people filling meds for children!
Oh, and one decided “after" her second kid and her leave ran out, that she would stay home. So all that time, she was getting benefits knowing she wasn’t staying, she couldn’t be replaced, and everyone had to cover the slack of her not being there. She had literally planned what was best for her and f**k everyone else; as long as she got what she wanted, that’s all that mattered.
There are some problems with the “guaranteed job” thing about maternity leave.
I realized that this post could be hurtful to the OP--disrespect and/or hurt feelings are not intended, so I apologize if I caused any. I wish you and your family have a healthy and happy new year and healthy and happy lives.
At the hospital pharmacy Hubby works at, the bosses hired a number of bright young female pharmacists within the course of a year. A pattern developed with three to four of these pharmacists--they were hired, training began, and within 3 months (so training incomplete or barely complete), they got pregnant and were soon off on medical for up to six months--and then parental leave. Meanwhile, the hospital could not fire them and could not permanently replace them because then there’d be too many people on the books. Temps were not allowed due to budgets (and many were not interested in learning the procedures) and overtime was stretched, but minimally because even that was too much on the budget.
The women had a right to have children, but when they’re telling co-workers that they’re so glad they have the job because NOW they can get pregnant and go on leave? And then 2 of them get pregnant again within a year of the first? So they’ve never really learned their jobs and they’re not interested in learning anymore because they have a new child or children to focus on. These are people filling meds for children!
Oh, and one decided “after" her second kid and her leave ran out, that she would stay home. So all that time, she was getting benefits knowing she wasn’t staying, she couldn’t be replaced, and everyone had to cover the slack of her not being there. She had literally planned what was best for her and f**k everyone else; as long as she got what she wanted, that’s all that mattered.
There are some problems with the “guaranteed job” thing about maternity leave.
I realized that this post could be hurtful to the OP--disrespect and/or hurt feelings are not intended, so I apologize if I caused any. I wish you and your family have a healthy and happy new year and healthy and happy lives.
^Well, the system is wrong to begin with there.
In Sweden it is customary that they bring in a temp for the timeperiod (which as i said often last about 1.5 years). So there is very little strain on the rest of the workforce. We mostly bitch about not having that person around for a while since we will miss her.
In Sweden it is customary that they bring in a temp for the timeperiod (which as i said often last about 1.5 years). So there is very little strain on the rest of the workforce. We mostly bitch about not having that person around for a while since we will miss her.
Sweden is a model for many things, in my opinion. I always look with envy at how far you are in this country when it comes to topics like education, family, how the "picture of the child or the human in general" is, working-conditions...
I know Sweden as problems as well, like every country...but I wish, my country would be as advanced in these things I just listed as yours.
TerokNor
I know Sweden as problems as well, like every country...but I wish, my country would be as advanced in these things I just listed as yours.
TerokNor
I had meant to reply to this sooner but ironically parental duties got in the way. I see most of the questions have been answered but I really take issue with this:
I don't know if you have kids or not but that is an incredibly sexist thing to say.
Some of you may have noticed but I have barely posted on the BBS over the last nine months. Reason? I was being a father to my daughter. Your idea of being a father might be sitting on the couch with a beer in your hand watching some random sporting event but it sure isn't mine.
For the last eight months I have been busy getting up in the middle of the night to feed my daughter, I have been getting up early in the morning with her, I have gone to every Doctor's appointment with her and have generally been doing everything that my wife does.
Your idea that the father does nothing and has nothing to contribute is just ridiculous. What is this, 1950?
So you're saying that since I didn't give birth I have no role to play? Again, that is incredibly sexist.
I know other's have explained how the parental leave works but I just thought I would clarify my position. First of all, my parental leave is not covered by our health care system. It's covered by Employment Insurance (EI) which I have been paying into for the last 25 years and have never dipped into. Furthermore, EI only covers 40% of my salary. The rest of my salary is covered by the benefits package of my employer.
Yes, I am lucky that my employer gives me this benefit and no, not everyone's employer gives them this but I see no reason to feel guilty about it.
I don't know if you have kids or not but that is an incredibly sexist thing to say.
Some of you may have noticed but I have barely posted on the BBS over the last nine months. Reason? I was being a father to my daughter. Your idea of being a father might be sitting on the couch with a beer in your hand watching some random sporting event but it sure isn't mine.
For the last eight months I have been busy getting up in the middle of the night to feed my daughter, I have been getting up early in the morning with her, I have gone to every Doctor's appointment with her and have generally been doing everything that my wife does.
Your idea that the father does nothing and has nothing to contribute is just ridiculous. What is this, 1950?
So you're saying that since I didn't give birth I have no role to play? Again, that is incredibly sexist.
I know other's have explained how the parental leave works but I just thought I would clarify my position. First of all, my parental leave is not covered by our health care system. It's covered by Employment Insurance (EI) which I have been paying into for the last 25 years and have never dipped into. Furthermore, EI only covers 40% of my salary. The rest of my salary is covered by the benefits package of my employer.
Yes, I am lucky that my employer gives me this benefit and no, not everyone's employer gives them this but I see no reason to feel guilty about it.
I have to say, I did all of the things you mentioned while still going to work full-time. The late night feedings, the doctor appointments, playing and bonding, etc. I wasn't home all day because I was working, but I still managed to do all those things.
I admit it sounds pretty nice to be in a country where you can take months off with pay just to stay home with your newborn, but it sounds like a very expensive benefit and I wonder what the true economic costs are.
Feel free to take offense from that, but it wasn't intended. Some people see attacks everywhere, i guess.
I don't know if your daughter has problems, so appologies if that's the case, but how often has she been seeing the doctor. Aside from feedings and changing (and for most of her early life, you don't have the equipment to breastfeed, so that probably wasn't all you), how intense has this been?
Again, once the early danger period is past, how much is required? Feeding, changing, playing/stimulation/bonding, but not sure it's a full time thing for 2 people. Not that's it's not great for both to be there, i doubt that both have their hands full 24/7, which is why i said what I did. If you WEREN'T able to spend any time on the internet, watching tv, or doing stuff around the house, what were you guys doing for 9 full months?
As is your strawman. I didn't say anything of the sort, and my only comment along those lines at ALL was about biology, and you not having the equipment to breastfeed, OR to develop complications from birth (or post-partum issues).
Again, I didn't say that, so you'd have to create a strawman first before calling it sexist. Just addressed this above, moving on.
And now you've addressed what I asked about, thanks! It's simply something that's foreign to how things work here, and can't wrap myself around how it would work in our system, which is why I asked. I love the idea of the extended leave, it's mostly the LENGTH of the leave that stood out as excessive in my mind. The first month or so makes perfect sense, but after that, it seems like a lot, especially to be losing the worker for that long a period (and having to hold their job open for them), plus providing pay/benefits over that period.
Sure, definitely important to be with the child, bonding, etc., but how was 9 months the number that was picked? Surely just as important for toddlers to have parents around all the time, right? 4 year olds? Anything up until the time they are in school full-time (6 or 7 year olds?) would be beneficial I'd imagine, so 9 months seems like a long time if you have to pick an arbitrary cutoff date...
+1 on that.
I worked swing-shifts, later shifts so I was gone after he went to bed, to make sure I was there for every doctor's check up, had time with my son, and still came home and helped with the house work, got up with the feedings, diaper changes, etc, etc.
That's great, but how much time did you get to spend with your child everyday? I don't consider spending 1 or 2 hours a night with my daughter a lot and I'm very thankful I got to spend the time I did with her.
We seem to be doing pretty good here.
I don't see attacks everywhere but can you tell me how I am supposed to see your question "at what point is the father just being paid to sit around the house and not do a whole lot anymore?" as anything other than sexist?
You do realize that not all women breast feed, don't you?
No, we weren't busy 24/7 but believe it or not a baby can still be more work than actual work. I did manage to get online and watch TV and do stuff around the house, but I didn't have nearly as much free time as I thought I would. And really, why should the amount of free time I have factor into my right to take time off for the birth of my child?
Strawman? really? How am I misrepresenting your position? Was your question "at what point is the father just being paid to sit around the house and not do a whole lot anymore?" not meant to imply that the father is unnecessary or redundant to childcare? Would you have asked the same thing of a mother?
Actually, you didn't address it. See question above.
I didn't pick the cut-off date but I think 9 months is better than nothing. Lucky for us my wife is not going back to work so we will have someone home all the time.
And to clarify, parental leave is not the same as maternity leave. Had my wife been working and wanted more time off than her 15 weeks of maternity leave we would have had to split the 35 weeks of parental leave between us. If she had wanted it all then I would have had nothing.
1-2 hours a night?
Your math is a bit off, here. I worked 8-5, and would be home no later than 5:30 most nights. Didn't go to bed until maybe 10 or 11, sometimes later. Count in 2-3 feedings a night and that's 7-8 hours a day, maybe a little less if you include time for me to eat and get ready for work. Hardly just a couple hours.Our per capita GDP is about 20% higher than yours, probably due in no small part to benefits like this. Not saying it's right or wrong, but there is absolutely an economic cost to these things.
Well factor getting home at 6:00 for me and her going to bed no later than 7:00 doesn't leave a whole lot of time to be together. She used to go to bed later when she was smaller but we have found that her sleep patterns are a lot better with an early bedtime.
Just out of curiosity, what country do you live in?
Just out of curiosity, what country do you live in?
There's a reason people in Canada are happier than Americans. This paid leave is one of the reasons and I think it's great that they do it. Apparently, so do most Canadians.
I can't believe the sentiment against new parents in this thread. TheSeeker has it pretty good with a government job; however the rest of us get paid 45% of our wage (only if topped up by the employer is it higher) during parental/maternity leave.
There's a HUGE disincentive to have children for the average (most of the population) person. How is one supposed to make ends meet with kids and hugely inflated property prices? Your choice, without government assistance, for many people is either have kids OR work.
And I'm not buying the "well don't have kids if you can't afford them" argument. From my experience, albeit not backed by numbers, most of the people I know that have large families are those that don't contribute to society or do so on a marginal level. For those of us that ARE educated, have good jobs and would raise responsible, productive and upstanding citizens, we are given a choice to work to put a roof over our heads or to have kids.
There's a HUGE disincentive to have children for the average (most of the population) person. How is one supposed to make ends meet with kids and hugely inflated property prices? Your choice, without government assistance, for many people is either have kids OR work.
And I'm not buying the "well don't have kids if you can't afford them" argument. From my experience, albeit not backed by numbers, most of the people I know that have large families are those that don't contribute to society or do so on a marginal level. For those of us that ARE educated, have good jobs and would raise responsible, productive and upstanding citizens, we are given a choice to work to put a roof over our heads or to have kids.
Last edited:
Similar threads
