Nine months of parental leave are coming to an end

[Robert Maxwell]

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.

Well, shit, if they were offering me months of paid leave, I'd sure as hell take it, too!

 

[Warp Coil]

The company I work for offers eight weeks of paid maternity leave for new mothers, and (surprisingly) three weeks of paid paternity leave for new fathers. To me, that's pretty impressive. Canada sounds way better, though!

 

[Finn]

This makes me of my old job back in Cincinnati. In that workplace, women were having babies left and right, plus a couple of guys had babies at home. That would mean more than half of the staff would be on leave all year around if they all took 9 month leave.

 

[hamudm]

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.

These exceptions / abuses should be monitored and managed, but you can't create a set of rules based on the behaviour of the select few.

 

[propita]

<snip>

These exceptions / abuses should be monitored and managed, but you can't create a set of rules based on the behaviour of the select few.

How could this realistically be monitored and managed?

The woman applies for the job and is hired based on her apparent qualifications. No questions regarding children/family are usually allowed in interviews. It’s only after probation is complete that the woman states she’s pregnant. Now the hospital has an employee who is going on leave for an undetermined time, no way to fire the employee, no way to justify hiring another to replace her (because unless the woman informs management, she’s going to return)--so they’re stuck with a non-employee on the books until she either returns or states she’s leaving permanently, which may not be for 6 months.

I would think this was unique to Hubby’s department, but I’ve heard of similar happening in other businesses.

 

[sidious618]

If one person abuses the system but 99 people are helped then I say the good far outweighs the bad.

 

[Kestra]

I don't think it's even really about people abusing the system. For many people outside Canada (okay, maybe just Americans) the entire system probably seems unnecessary or lavish or something like that, because we do without. I can see why, especially for people who don't plan on having kids or those who managed to raise kids while working grueling schedules. But just because we've done without something doesn't mean it's not a good idea, and I would like to see more maternity and paternal leave in the US, personally.

Obviously there are a lot of pros and cons, and we don't have the same setup as the Canadians so I'm oversimplifying things quite a bit.

 

[Colonel Green]

There's nothing quite like the self-loathing of the American worker.

Somebody is a similar position has better benefits than you? In most places, the worker in question would wonder why they don't get the same treatment. In the US? "That's ridiculous! Everyone should be as bad off as me!!1!"

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.

Per capita GDP is quite possibly the worst measure of collective well-being ever devised. By that standard, a community comprised of Bill Gates and 10,000 starving orphans is better off that a community comprised of 10,000 people who each earn $75,000 a year. The gap between rich and poor is much narrower here, and the quality of life is consistently shown to be better.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

There's nothing quite like the self-loathing of the American worker.

Somebody is a similar position has better benefits than you? In most places, the worker in question would wonder why they don't get the same treatment. In the US? "That's ridiculous! Everyone should be as bad off as me!!1!"

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.

Per capita GDP is quite possibly the worst measure of collective well-being ever devised. By that standard, a community comprised of Bill Gates and 10,000 starving orphans is better off that a community comprised of 10,000 people who each earn $75,000 a year. The gap between rich and poor is much narrower here, and the quality of life is consistently shown to be better.

The gap between rich and poor being narrower just means the wealthy are taxed enough to keep it that way. Until fundamental attitudes about this change in the US, that's how it's going to stay.

Is productivity per worker a better benchmark? The US is second only to Luxembourg according to this data. I looked at some other sources and found fairly similar numbers. The US is always at or very near the top.

I think it's great that these benefits are available in some countries and I wish we had similar programs here, but Americans are extremely cost-obsessive on a political level. If something impacts corporate America's bottom line you better believe the political will is against it.

I'm about as liberal as they come so I very much wish we had universal healthcare, better benefits, better worker protections, etc. But I am in a distinct minority here.

 

[Marie1]

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.

9 months? You could be having a second kid and getting another 9 months off!

That's nice though- you get to bond, and can still afford the expenses of a child! Also, I didn't know you had a baby -congrats!

 

[TheSeeker]

9 months? You could be having a second kid and getting another 9 months off!

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. I have to work a minimum of another nine months again before I can qualify.

That's nice though- you get to bond, and can still afford the expenses of a child! Also, I didn't know you had a baby -congrats!

Thanks!

 

[hamudm]

TheSeeker, all the best to you. I have baby#1 on the way at the end of February

However, my wife will be taking maternity leave instead of me

 

[sidious618]

There's nothing quite like the self-loathing of the American worker.

Somebody is a similar position has better benefits than you? In most places, the worker in question would wonder why they don't get the same treatment. In the US? "That's ridiculous! Everyone should be as bad off as me!!1!"

You fucking nailed it. I'm going to steal that first line when I'm talking to people in person from now on.

 

[Colonel Green]

There's nothing quite like the self-loathing of the American worker.

Somebody is a similar position has better benefits than you? In most places, the worker in question would wonder why they don't get the same treatment. In the US? "That's ridiculous! Everyone should be as bad off as me!!1!"

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.

Per capita GDP is quite possibly the worst measure of collective well-being ever devised. By that standard, a community comprised of Bill Gates and 10,000 starving orphans is better off that a community comprised of 10,000 people who each earn $75,000 a year. The gap between rich and poor is much narrower here, and the quality of life is consistently shown to be better.

The gap between rich and poor being narrower just means the wealthy are taxed enough to keep it that way. Until fundamental attitudes about this change in the US, that's how it's going to stay.

Is productivity per worker a better benchmark? The US is second only to Luxembourg according to this data. I looked at some other sources and found fairly similar numbers. The US is always at or very near the top.

I think it's great that these benefits are available in some countries and I wish we had similar programs here, but Americans are extremely cost-obsessive on a political level. If something impacts corporate America's bottom line you better believe the political will is against it.

I'm about as liberal as they come so I very much wish we had universal healthcare, better benefits, better worker protections, etc. But I am in a distinct minority here.

Productivity is also meaningless as a measure of quality of life, and it's a testament to the skewed political culture of the US that a self-described "liberal" would even consider holding it up as such.

Median income (although still flawed) gives a better impression of the economic well-being of a typical person, but throughout most of the world things like life expectancy, social mobility and access to health care and education are far more important than a crass consideration of how much the average worker contributes to an economy from which they will never receive fair compensation for their labour, which is all that measures like per capita GDP and worker productivity represent.

Even by American standards, the rich in Canada, Sweden or any other developed nation can only been seen as heavily taxed if one completely disregards all but the last 25 yrs of American history.