Nine months of parental leave are coming to an end

[TheSeeker]

Hard as it is for me to believe, I've been off since last March and I finally go back to work on Monday. I think it's going to be a tough adjustment. I'm going to go from having unlimited time with my daughter everyday to just a couple of hours each night.

Still, I have to count my blessing that I have a job that allowed me to take so much time off with my daughter in the first months of her life.

I guess the one upshot of going back to work is that I'll have more time for the BBS now.

 

[Scout101]

Nine months? How much of that was paid leave?

 

[TheSeeker]

All of it.

 

[Mr Silver]

All of it.

Seriously?!

You must have like the best job and the most generous Boss in the world

 

[TheSeeker]

The federal government has a pretty good plan.

 

[Mr Silver]

I suppose Epic Parental Leave makes up for having a costly Health System...

 

[Scout101]

That's obscene. How much of the health care problems in Canada could be corrected by cutting that down to a reasonable number? I mean, it'd be awesome to have, but how can you really justify paying someone full salary/benefits for 9 months after having a child? Worse than that, you're really paying 18 months of salary/benefits for every child born, because this goes for mother AND father.

Would love to have this, but can't see how the numbers make any sense at all, seeing the amount you're paying for people to take most of a year off from work during their most productive years. Are there any limits to this system? Could see having children as almost a full-time job that way...

Also, while the mother should definitely get some time off after this (physical trauma and all, and required to keep the baby alive), at what point is the father just being paid to sit around the house and not do a whole lot anymore? After a few weeks, or a month maybe, mother and child should both be doing just fine (complications excepted), so what did you really do for the next 8 months?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Nine months of fully-paid leave. That's insane.

In the US, you aren't entitled to any paid leave at all. You can take unpaid leave, but that's it. A few (very few) jobs offer paid leave but it's a perk, not a law.

Who actually foots the bill for this, your employer or taxpayers?

 

[Mr Silver]

Here in the UK, I think that you get 3 months Unpaid Maternity Leave and thats not always an option in some areas of employment, but you still get the usual massive 33% in Tax and National Insurance deductions after the £6.5k Personal Allowance threshold

 

[TheSeeker]

Scout, you are way off base. When I have something better than an iPhone to type with I will respond but some of your assumptions are ridiculous.

 

[trampledamage]

Good luck with going back to work TheSeeker! I know it was a huge adjustment for mr trampledamage when the little miss was born and he was only off for a month!

 

[TerokNor]

Hmm... I don´t find it insane. After all for the childs development (especially in the first year) it is important to have high quality interaction, bonding and care with/from the closes people they have. Those are normally the parents.

Here people get up to 14 months, they can decite how to take it...only the mother, partly mother, partly father or both together, but when they do that the time shortens.
However you don´t get 100% of your former salary, but still quite a lot...67% I think (from the Netto-Income). If you had a very small income before you get 100%. If you are very rich, like normally have an income of 20000 Euro a month or so, you do not get 67% but 1800 Euro per month at the most. If you have more children in the household you get a 10% raise.
Though if I remember correctly they got rid of the parents-money for the Hartz 4-families... because those parents were not in employment. First they had it the way, that also these parents could get extra money (300 Euro per month) for up to 14 months when having a child, but because of trying to save money, they have it no more...

TerokNor

 

[Scout101]

Scout, you are way off base. When I have something better than an iPhone to type with I will respond but some of your assumptions are ridiculous.

Which parts? I honestly don't know how it works, so am asking. All I have to go off of is you said that you've been on paid leave for 9 months, and going by the "male" symbol, you're the father of the child rather than giving birth yourself.

I certainly can't speak to the details of the system, it just seems insane to give someone 9 months of paid leave for the birth of a child. Great to be there and bond, help raise them, etc, just the time alloted seems way out of whack, and also detrimental to your workplace to lose you that long (plus not being able to replace you permanently, so they have to suck it up and work harder to make up for you, let stuff go undone, or hire temps).

 

[Deranged Nasat]

As far as I'm concerned, it's important for parents and children to bond closely, and I'm glad to hear that some governments are accomodating to this need. There is no function more important than being a parent; certainly I intend to work part time when I have offspring, so as to spend as much time directly with the child as I can. For me, all community responsibility, education and service begins in the family home, as parents tend to and educate children and children are taught the value of loyal service and loving attention. I can only hope the system of government plays into this worldview and reinforces these lessons.

It seems almost obscene to me to produce a child and then just abandon it for most of the day; at the least, the parents should alternate so that one of them is near always present while the other works or performs a public function.

And I don't understand the reasoning behind some people that a public function is somehow more important than a private one.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

...detrimental to your workplace to lose you that long (plus not being able to replace you permanently, so they have to suck it up and work harder to make up for you, let stuff go undone, or hire temps).

...And if he isn't at home helping with the child, either his partner must work harder and put in more time there to make up for it, or they'd have to hire someone to watch/care for the baby part of the time. What's the difference?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Scout, wikipedia says 15 weeks maternity leave + 35 weeks of parental leave (shared between the two) for 55% of wage. Either wikipedia is wrong or I'm thinking this isn't a general program.

Anyway, I had a high school teacher who took paternity leave. I can't remember how long it was (it was at least a month). He waited until his wife's maternity leave ended and then started immediately after. It was a good way to ensure the child had someone continuously home.

 

[Finn]

...detrimental to your workplace to lose you that long (plus not being able to replace you permanently, so they have to suck it up and work harder to make up for you, let stuff go undone, or hire temps).

...And if he isn't at home helping with the child, either his partner must work harder and put in more time there to make up for it, or they'd have to hire someone to watch/care for the baby part of the time. What's the difference?

I'm not defending Scout, but that's not a logical statement. In most cases, it is unlikely that "the" partner or babysitter/nanny works for the company, so it's not the comapny time and money anyway. So one can't compare it to the coworkers picking up the workload while one's taking leave.

 

[TerokNor]

...detrimental to your workplace to lose you that long (plus not being able to replace you permanently, so they have to suck it up and work harder to make up for you, let stuff go undone, or hire temps).

...And if he isn't at home helping with the child, either his partner must work harder and put in more time there to make up for it, or they'd have to hire someone to watch/care for the baby part of the time. What's the difference?

And also there are positive points for a family frendly company, that saves them money...cause the parents feel more valued in their needs, more secure and content with their working place, which leads to lesser illness, more motivation for the work and more reliabilty to stay for a longer time in the company. (Stands in some staate research report...though don´t ask me which one.)

TerokNor

 

[Deranged Nasat]

...detrimental to your workplace to lose you that long (plus not being able to replace you permanently, so they have to suck it up and work harder to make up for you, let stuff go undone, or hire temps).

...And if he isn't at home helping with the child, either his partner must work harder and put in more time there to make up for it, or they'd have to hire someone to watch/care for the baby part of the time. What's the difference?

I'm not defending Scout, but that's not a logical statement. In most cases, it is unlikely that "the" partner or babysitter/nanny works for the company, so it's not the comapny time and money anyway. So one can't compare it to the coworkers picking up the workload while one's taking leave.

You're right, sorry. But...

You can if it was viewed in terms of society as a whole and the interconnectedness of everyone in it (and their time/labour) - as in a functional symbiotic whole -, rather than in competition against itself. But then again, my outlook is different from the way things currently work, sadly. Yes, from the point of view of the company giving leave the comparison isn't logical, but I (personal opinion here of course) don't much care for a system whereby competitive profit-hungering trumps personal and social commitments, and "the company" is prioritized over parent-child bonding. I know that's not very useful; what I mean is that you're right the comparison doesn't work within the framework of the social system we're talking about, but I tend to (not very usefully, I know) say things as I think they should be seen rather than as they are.

That sounds hopelessly garbled, I know. I just personally view the family and child-care as the centre of all social responsibility and I don't like other commitments being prioritized over it. Having impact and detracting from it, yes, that's unavoidable, but I personally believe family must come first.

 

[FordSVT]

Scout, wikipedia says 15 weeks maternity leave + 35 weeks of parental leave (shared between the two) for 55% of wage. Either wikipedia is wrong or I'm thinking this isn't a general program.

Anyway, I had a high school teacher who took paternity leave. I can't remember how long it was (it was at least a month). He waited until his wife's maternity leave ended and then started immediately after. It was a good way to ensure the child had someone continuously home.

In Canada, you get about a year (15+35 weeks) of leave that can be shared by the two parents or used by one. It's basically the same benefit as going on unemployment assistance. Some companies will top the benefit up in full or by a partial amount, for the entire period or for part of it.

At my work, they'll top the amount up to 100% of full income for six months, but not the entire year. You can still take the entire year off, you're entitled to it, but you'll only get the basic government amount. Some people only take the six months because they can't afford to give up half of their income, but a lot of people take the year, especially in dual-income families.

And I say to those who think it's "insane" to let people do this: I think it's insane that people are forced to put their month old babies into day care or quit their jobs. I'm sure that many of the social problems a society has can be mitigated by good parenting in the formative years of a child's life, and the first year bonding experience will influence a child until the day they die.