Home FMLA... why did I get married?

[Kunzite]

DH and I are in the planning stages that come before TTC. Naturally we started looking into FMLA and what it entails. That might have been a mistake because now I’m devastated. Because we are married and because we work for the same employer (not a small company, mind you) we are only allowed HALF the time off, under FMLA, that any other new parents would be allow. Are you kidding me? We’re being punished because we’re committed to each other and because we are loyal to the same company? My heart is broken that we are allowed less time to bond with our future baby because we’re committed.

I honestly don’t get it. So either we can only take off 6 weeks together, or I have to send DH back to work immediately if I want to take my full 12 weeks. I know there are probably some HR folks out there…. any advice?

DH doesn’t like my drastic plan for divorce…

 

[taovandel]

My husband and I work together....He was only planning on taking 2-3 weeks off to be with the two of us and he would use his vacation time.

I''m planning on using the entire 12 weeks for myself (using my own vacation/personal time).

 

[MonkeyPie]

Be glad you get more than 6 weeks at all - I only the 6 weeks period.

Most companies are you like yours, I believe. It really sucks, but they tend to think of as the mother needing the time to be home and recoup, not so much for the dad.

 

[D&T]

Date: 8/22/2009 6:56:44 PM
Author: MonkeyPie
Be glad you get more than 6 weeks at all - I only the 6 weeks period.

Most companies are you like yours, I believe. It really sucks, but they tend to think of as the mother needing the time to be home and recoup, not so much for the dad.

agreed- DH only took one week off and used his vacation. He works for a large firm. you are quite fortunate imo.

 

[decodelighted]

I think you are vastly overestimating what most people "get". This is one of those, um, High Class problems. Sorry you''re upset but having kids is rough. Involves sacrifice. But NOT on the part of your employer. Not THEIR choice.

 

[Kunzite]

Call me naive (because I certainly am about these situations) by why is this a high class problem and why would anyone only get 6 weeks off? It''s the law, under FMLA that new parents are required to be allowed to take 12 weeks. Am I truly reading the law incorrectly? I hope I am, because then I would feel much better and less like we''re being treated different as opposed to couples who work for the same company but aren''t married.

 

[D&T]

are you talking about 6 weeks paid leave and 6 weeks unpaid? or 12 weeks for the both of you unpaid? not sure how that works, as I was only able to afford to have 6 weeks maternity paid leave, then with my former employer the additional 6 weeks were unpaid. Not sure if that makes sense?

 

[Kunzite]

Date: 8/22/2009 8:24:06 PM
Author: D&T
are you talking about 6 weeks paid leave and 6 weeks unpaid? or 12 weeks for the both of you unpaid? not sure how that works, as I was only able to afford to have 6 weeks maternity paid leave, then with my former employer the additional 6 weeks were unpaid. Not sure if that makes sense?

Unpaid.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 8/22/2009 8:13:37 PM
Author: Kunzite
Call me naive (because I certainly am about these situations) by why is this a high class problem and why would anyone only get 6 weeks off? It''s the law, under FMLA that new parents are required to be allowed to take 12 weeks. Am I truly reading the law incorrectly? I hope I am, because then I would feel much better and less like we''re being treated different as opposed to couples who work for the same company but aren''t married.

I''ve been freelancing for almost 15 yrs now -- I don''t get HEALTH INSURANCE much less maternity leave. And there''s a whole world of people like me out there who don''t fall under any "labor laws". I have a much more independent philosophy of work & "loyalty". It is naive to expect companies to be "loyal" to you these days. At least IMHO. But I work in a ruthless industry that treats its "talent" like rubbish.

Sidenote: some folks would consider it pretty dicey to be working at the same company anyway long term. Maybe its time for one of you to start looking at other employers?

 

[taovandel]

Do you get vacation time? If so, start saving it now. That''s what my husband and I did. We knew going in that both of us wouldn''t get the same amount of time off and we were definitely okay with that. I have a TON of vacation time built up (I work for a wonderful company) and plus we would get the 6 weeks of short term disability. He has enough time to probably take 2 weeks off initially and then probably another week later on during my 12 weeks. It''s all in the planning and not depending on FMLA to get you where you want to be.

And my husband and I have worked together for 5 years and we''ve had no issues..so I don''t think you need to run off and find another job just yet.

 

[packrat]

I don''t know how it works either. I did look it up tho, and it does say:

Spouses employed by the same employer may be limited to a combined total of 12 workweeks of family leave for the following reasons:

* birth and care of a child;
* for the placement of a child for adoption or foster care, and to care for the newly placed child; and,
* to care for an employee''s parent who has a serious health condition.

It says "may be limited" so maybe it''s something companies can decide for themselves, and that''s what your company decided? How long have you each worked there? Do you both work full time? Those are factors in it too, I read.

I''d check w/whoever takes care of it at your company, so you''re getting it straight from the horse''s mouth. If nothing else, ask a lawyer to explain it.

 

[D&T]

Date: 8/22/2009 8:42:58 PM
Author: packrat
I don''t know how it works either. I did look it up tho, and it does say:

Spouses employed by the same employer may be limited to a combined total of 12 workweeks of family leave for the following reasons:

* birth and care of a child;
* for the placement of a child for adoption or foster care, and to care for the newly placed child; and,
* to care for an employee''s parent who has a serious health condition.

It says ''may be limited'' so maybe it''s something companies can decide for themselves, and that''s what your company decided? How long have you each worked there? Do you both work full time? Those are factors in it too, I read.

I''d check w/whoever takes care of it at your company, so you''re getting it straight from the horse''s mouth. If nothing else, ask a lawyer to explain it.

awww thanks for looking it up... I was going to and had to leave to tend to the kiddos.

Maybe on your employer''s part, the additional lost in man power might be a concern to them? just a thought?

but definitely agree with Packrat about checking in with HR on this.

 

[packrat]

It sucks, the possibility of you each not being able to get the full 12 weeks, but-I think it''s done that way for a reason. I think the gov''t came up w/FMLA for a reason, and they undoubtedly added the exception for 2 people in the same company to add a measure of security on the company''s side as well. If JD and I both were Foremen at the pack, they''d be in a world of hurt if we were both gone for 12 weeks. But, if JD was a Foreman, and I was a lineworker, or in the office as a secretary or whatever, it wouldn''t be a problem at all. So, that might be something to look into.

Something else to keep in mind as well-FMLA is 12 weeks PER YEAR, so if you each use up your time all at once, you''re not guaranteed anything else, the rest of the year, the way I understand it. Again, check w/HR to make sure, but that''s how I read it:

A covered employer must grant an eligible employee up to a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave in a 12 month period for one or more of the following reasons:

* for the birth of a son or daughter, and to care for the newborn child;
* for the placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care, and to care for the newly placed child;
* to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent — but not a parent "in-law") with a serious health condition; and
* when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition.

 

[Kunzite]

Deco - I''m truly not sure why my post seems to have rubbed you the wrong way, but I don''t expect my company to be loyal to me and I hardly think this is worth looking for a new job over. I don''t take issue with my employer, rather the law making a distinction between married and unmarried parents.

taovandel - Thank you so much for your insight. That is exactly the type of information that I was looking for. Up until this point we had been saving sick time during our "planning phase" but it looks like we''re going to have to switch to saving vacation time. DH and I have worked together for years as well and it''s great.

packrat & D&T - Thank you for the advice! I do plan to sit down with HR when I have time since I know FMLA is just the minimum and we might get lucky. I was just hoping that there might be some HR ladies on PS with a wealth of knowledge. PS ladies are so knowledgable about everything!

Well... and of course I need to vent about the married/unmarried thing...

 

[lucyandroger]

I''m not sure what your leave policy says but maybe you can look into taking leave at separate times. My firm''s leave policy is based on whether you are the primary caretaker or secondary caretaker. There is a couple that both work for my firm and they both wanted to get their 12 weeks so she took leave the first 12 weeks, then she came back to work and he took his leave that way they were both the primary caretaker at that given time. That only works though because our policy says that you can take leave at anytime within the first year of the baby''s life. The husband also took vacation to be there the first week or so.

If the husband had taken his family leave at the same time as the wife, he would have only gotten six weeks. So, maybe there''s an out in your policy? Do you have the exact wording of the policy?

My BF''s firm prevents that scenario by wording the policy to say that family leave must be taken within the first 18 weeks of the baby''s birth so it would end up that only one person would get 12 weeks and the other person would get 6 weeks no matter what.

 

[Logan Sapphire]

Date: 8/22/2009 9:25:24 PM
Author: lucyandroger
I''m not sure what your leave policy says but maybe you can look into taking leave at separate times. My firm''s leave policy is based on whether you are the primary caretaker or secondary caretaker. There is a couple that both work for my firm and they both wanted to get their 12 weeks so she took leave the first 12 weeks, then she came back to work and he took his leave that way they were both the primary caretaker at that given time.

We did this too...I took the first 3 months off and my husband took the second 3 off. He also took 1 week off upfront. I invoked FMLA because my boss wanted to make sure all my ducks were lined up in case of an audit. My husband''s boss didn''t care if he invoked FMLA so he didn''t end up doing so, and just put in for regular sick and annual leave. Technically we both work for the same employer (Uncle Sam), but for different departments, so that''s probably why it wasn''t as standardized.

 

[Puppmom]

I understand your disappointment, Kunzite. DH and I are TTC and I get six weeks paid and six weeks unpaid. DH gets zip. I work for a Fortune 500 company so I was hoping for more but learned this is pretty standard. My vacation time is fairly generous (although that will be pro-rated for the year I take leave) Luckily, you found out in the planning stages so you have time so save up those days and a little cash!

 

[Dreamer_D]

The law is parallel in Canada, though it isn''t because we work for the same companies, it is because our parental leave is paid for my the same body -- social services. The gov''t will pay 12 months of parental leave per child (or children in the case of multiple births/adoptions) because the theory is that the reason for the leave is to care for the kids, and they figure it doesn''t tale two parents. So usually the mother takes it. I guess in the case of working for the same company, they are also only willing to pay for one person to care for the child.

I don''t think being married is what matters, it would rather matter that you were both requesting to take time off to care for the same child/children, and that is the operative issue. Even if you were unmarried, the same reason for declining your request may be invoked.

 

[neatfreak]

I''m fairly sure that you can each take 12 weeks but you just have to do it at different times, no?

 

[lili]

Kunzite--
DH and I were bummed initially that we had to split our 12 wk of FMLA for our newborn,
but later found out that we only get 6 wks w/ paid(55% or your pay or $950, whichever is higher).
So even if we each can take 12 wks, DH is not going to take the 6wks w/o paid since that is a huge dent to our income.

Anyway, I don''t know how your company handles FLMA and maternity,
but this is what we did w/ mine.
I took 6 wks (partial SDI pay supplemented w/ my sick leave to make a full paycheck) when I went into delivery.
I took 6 wks (partial FLMA pay supplemented w/ my vacation days to make a full paycheck) for baby bonding.
DH took 6 wks (partial FLMA pay supplemented w/ his sick leave to make a full paycheck) for taking care of a sick member.
He was able to use sick leave to supplement his pay because he''s taking care of me after my delivery.
If he was to use the 6 wks any time after my 6wk leave from deliver, he will have to supplement it w/ his vacation because then his FMLA was considered as baby bonding.

Then the rest of my 4 months (4 wks) leave came out of my vacation pot.
DH can certainly take time off after his 6 wks, but then it''ll be all vacation pay or leave w/o pay if he didn''t have enough vacation to cover him.

 

[Po10472]

I''m an HR professional but in the UK so can''t help in terms of maternity/paternity leave rights in the US.

I am interested to know what the statutory rights are for mat leave, can anyone advise?

In the UK women are entitled to take up to 52 weeks maternity leave, with 39 weeks being paid, not in full, but on a sliding scale and the remaining 13 weeks unpaid. You can decide to return to work anytime within that period as long as you do not return within the first mandatory 2 week period after birth. The EU are looking to extend the payment terms to the full year but it''s on hold just now due to the current economic climate. Parental leave is 2 weeks paid leave and again, they''re looking to extend that, paternity is in addition to maternity leave. Also, there is a statutory right for parents to take parental leave which is unpaid too.

Where I work we also have access to flexible working, flexi leave, special leave and unpaid leave plus we receive 12 days public holiday plus 25 days annual leave. It''s great.

 

[cara]

At least from some quick googling, it looks like Kunzite is correct, an employer only needs to grant married parents a total of 12 weeks of FMLA in one year for the birth of a healthy child. It makes sense, in the twisted way that US regulations and law make sense. Imagine corporate interests are complaining about the "cost" of giving unpaid leave with benefits to employees, and especially about getting hit twice if they employ both halves of a married couple. Hence, the law is written to spare those companies that burden, also with the idea that only one parent is needed to care for the child. (For sick child, it looks like both parents are entitled to leave even if married with the same employer.)

That _un_married parents with the same employer are both allowed to claim 12 weeks was probably an oversight, but maybe was intentional if they thought unmarried parents might not be cooperating or sharing a household or something.

Kunzite, maybe your employer is more generous than required. Or at least hopefully your husband can bank some vacation and sick time to take off in the beginning. But US maternity/paternity leave policies suck in general, and this isn't the only case where getting married is no benefit with the government. Two people with similar incomes are usually better off unmarried than married for income tax purposes... I guess our government only likes to encourage marriage between couples with highly disparate incomes?? And apparently some unwed parents get better FMLA coverage than their married counterparts...

What can you do? At least one of you gets the piddly 12 weeks. Better than nothing.

 

[cara]

Po, I am no HR pro but here is a website that describes FMLA, the main piece of law granting maternity/paternity leave rights: here

My general understanding is:
FMLA grants 12 weeks unpaid leave per year (but company must keep paying benefits) to people to care for a new baby or sick family member, etc, if they have worked a minimum amount in the previous year. Small employers are exempted from the requirement.

Separately, pregnancy or childbirth related disability cannot be treated differently than other disability. So if the company grants extended sick leave for heart attack recovery, it must also grant such leave for pregnancy related disability. This is why a lot of new moms get some paid for some portion of their leave, but then it switches to unpaid for the later portion which is categorized as "bonding" time rather than recovery from childbirth.

More knowlegable people, please correct/chime in.

 

[HollyS]

I''ve been HR for more than one company. No one I worked with ever took FMLA leave for having a baby, and certainly their husbands did not. If the woman was coming back to work, she usually wasn''t gone more than a month, unless she had had a C-section or other medical issues slowing her recovery. It is commonplace (in the US) for the majority of companies to allow a month off for maternity leave after delivery. Most companies will extend that leave to include doctor-ordered rest prior to delivery.

FMLA leave is used by most people for a catastophic medical situation; and I''ve known only one person to use it.

As an employer, I would be pretty perturbed that my employee expected that she (and her spouse!) could hang onto their jobs while having a three month hiatus. Are you really that irreplaceable? Probably not. If they couldn''t legally get out of giving you the time off, you can bet that you would be the last person thought of when promotion time comes around again. . . ''cause you don''t care about your employer.

BTW, can you really afford to be without two paychecks during your mini-vacation? It is unpaid leave.

Either your career is important, or it is not. Either you need your job, or you don''t. If you don''t need the money, be a stay-at-home mom; it is in your child''s best interests. Your employer understands that, and can get your replacement trained before you leave. But feeling entitled to special treatment for having a baby will not win you any friends in the workplace.

 

[cara]

Holly, your attitude is what scares me about having a family. Isn't it possible to both value your career AND your new baby? Can't you care about your job and career AND want to do right by your new baby? 1 month old is young, and FMLA doesn't even require pay. Yes there are still employer costs for benefits and dealing with replacement workers or being short workers. But day care at my workplace woln't even take the baby until it is 6 weeks old, so I hope they don't expect all new moms to come back to work after a month or write them off as not career focused. And that it would be held against you after you returned from FMLA, which specifically allows one 12 weeks for either birth of a child *or* adoption of a new child and NOT just care of an ill family member, well, I guess it is appalling and typical all at the same time. It'd be nice not to have it held against you in the workplace that you want to care for your new baby for the first few months (not to mention that unless you are wealthy enough for a night nurse you are unlikely to be getting anything close to a functional amount of sleep taking care of a one-month old at night) but maybe its hoping too much. BTW, it would be illegal for an employer to retaliate against a new parent for taking FMLA, but you know that right? I guess just the more subtle forms of discrimination and retaliation are hard to prove, and a new mom would be subject to them. Great. I would hope that working in HR your attitude (don't take maternity leave to which you are legally entitled or it will be held against you and you will be passed over for promotions) would be different but I guess its good to know.

 

[HollyS]

Yes, it is possible to care for both. And your job should not take precedence over your child. If anyone feels they would be shortchanging themselves or their child, they should stay home. It is, after all, the best solution for those who can afford to do so.

However, your employer can and should demand that you be at work a majority of the time; and they expect that you will have proper care available for your child. If it is an impossible expectation that your job will be the focus of your attention during normal work hours, you should not work. If they cannot rely on you consistently, then why would they want you in their employ?

Your employer (with very few exceptions) will never care about your personal problems, your personal goals, your family, etc. They simply won''t. They care about their bottom line, and whether you are an expense or an asset. And if you think employers are harsh these days, perhaps you should have entered the workforce when I did. In the dark ages.

They didn''t even have to pretend to give a hoot then; there were no federal laws protecting your job. They could, and would, fire at whim. That may seem harsh, but it certainly separated the wheat from the chaff.

 

[neatfreak]

Holly that was pretty crass. I don''t think anyone should have to go back to work with a one month old on their hands. I assume you don''t have children huh? Because if you did I can''t imagine you''d advocate someone coming back to work after a month...

And people are very much entitled to take FMLA leave for the birth of a child-and any employer who denies someone that (or fires them afterwards, or otherwise discriminates because of it) should have a whopping lawsuit on their hands.

 

[cara]

Date: 8/24/2009 1:16:20 AM
Author: HollyS
Yes, it is possible to care for both. And your job should not take precedence over your child. If anyone feels they would be shortchanging themselves or their child, they should stay home. It is, after all, the best solution for those who can afford to do so.

Which is exactly what FMLA allows - those who can afford to do so may take a *temporary* leave from their job to care for a newborn child. The employer is not required to pay them their salary during that leave; they are required to hold the job open for the parent to return in 12 weeks if that is their intent. My husband and I could afford to forgo my salary for a few months for something as important and difficult as caring for a newborn; we could not forgo it indefinitely nor am I really interested in being a SAHM long term. Its not even a matter of not prioritizing my job - its just that if you decide to also have a kids they generally start out as newborns and require ungodly amounts of care. At least my friends that I remember at one month postpartum were a sleep-deprived mess, even if they had helpful husbands with flexible schedules. I'm sure women do manage to go back to work at one month, but I am also sure they aren't usually getting enough sleep to be at 100% or anything. Doesn't mean they aren't committed their careers, its just that somethings family things will interfere with work.

As for 'stay home if you feel you would be shortchanging yourself or your child' - its not really as clearcut as you suggest. Most moms feel some amount of guilt leaving their new baby to go back to work, but many also know its best for the family long term for a variety of reasons, which is why they are going back to work. But a one-month old is different than a 6-month old is different than a 6 year old. The reason for the FMLA maternity leave is to give the woman some option besides SAHM forever and returning to work the day after she gives birth. Yes, its not a manifestation of absolute capitalism in the labor market, which would prefer employees not have human needs like sleep or illness or new babies in need of care, but it is a legal protection provided by our democratic govenment that allows some minor protections for working mothers, presumably because of the societal value placed on allowing them to take care of a new baby for a few months without losing their job. At least the more blatant forms of pregnancy discrimination are illegal, even if the more subtle forms are widely practiced at companies that have employed you.

Oh, in the old days companies also threw out a lot of wheat with the chaff - women would be preemptively fired upon marriage in my grandmother's day - why bother waiting for them to get pregnant?

 

[Pandora II]

Can I just say that I am truly horrified by the maternity rights in the USA. It really appears that your legislators do not value families in any way.

Surely it cannot be good for employee, employer or child with the current system? In many cultures a woman isn''t allowed to lift a finger for 40 days after a birth.

In the UK we can take up to 12 months during which you are piad 90% for the first 6 weeks and then Statutory Maternity Pay for the next 33 weeks. Plus any time taken off for pregnancy related medical reasons before the birth is paid at full wages and does not count as maternity leave.

Many companies that value their staff will pay extra in order to recruit and retain good staff - my company is paying me 12 weeks full pay, 12 weeks half pay and then 12 weeks statutory. In addition I retain my holiday accrument (which will be 53 days by the end of my maternity leave), my employer''s pension contribution and any other benefits.

How come European companies can afford to treat their pregnant employees this way without being economically compromised and yet the USA can''t? Seems to me that American women need to start demanding better rights for themselves and their families!

 

[Logan Sapphire]

Holly, what would your employers have thought in my case? We adopted, and per our adoption agency's rules, were REQUIRED to take off a mininum of 6 weeks to care for and bond with our child. So according to your employers, I shouldn't have bothered to adopt to begin with because I would've needed 6 weeks off?