Home FMLA... why did I get married?

[HollyS]

Date: 8/24/2009 1:18:35 AM
Author: 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.

Folks, this isn''t "My Opinion". It is the way it is for most Americans. It is not my choice, my decision, my personal opinion. I''m merely stating what I know to be true after 30+ years in the workplace. That hardly makes my post crass. The only personal opinion I offered was the disbelief that anyone would assume that both mommy and daddy could be off work from the same company for three months and not feel the annoyance of their employer. Believe me, they would.

I''m sorry you all cannot have the leave you feel is warranted. But some of you will have to adjust to your company''s less lenient policies, if you want to remain their employee. It is a fact.

If you are fortunate enough to have a great deal of leave sanctioned by your workplace, that''s wonderful. If you don''t, you will have to make some choices. It isn''t meant as a diatribe against working mothers, women trying to conceive, or any other scuzzy notion being attibuted to myself. It is merely the truth of the matter. Obviously the original OP has already come up against this very real situation in her workplace.

 

[swimmer]

Cara, excellent post!

Pandora, it is really shocking that the US, when we claim to be a model of excellence in so many things that we really fail at (maternal death rates, infant mortality rates, lack of prenatal care, all things that cost us later far more than the prevention would have). I am not going to mention the health care reform debate going on now...
I just wonder if the discrepancy between the levels of care in most European countries is because the birth rates are so low there (more so further north than you)? In the US our birthrates are not replacing our pop, but thank goodness immigration keeps our numbers up so that there will be a workforce to pay for our social security.

ETA: sorry to the OP, no words of advice as I have never looked into fmla, but good luck with TTC, may your journey be short.

 

[applequeen]

I found out just recently that when my sister and I were born my mother took 1 WEEK off work. We (twins) were 2 months premature and were in the hospital for a month after we were born. The hospital was about an hour from where my parents lived so I''m not sure how much they were even able to visit us while we were there since they were both working.

It''s unbelievable. My parents both had good jobs but I guess that'' s just how it was ( I remember my Aunt saying she only took a week off as well when my cousin was born). I can only imagine the stress they were under... they didn''t even know they were having twins until we were born. I''m sure taking even unpaid leave would not have been feasible considering the unexpected expenses they were suddenly faced with.

 

[Jas12]

Holly--it''s only true that employers resent ppl who take more than a month off, b/c we have allowed it to be true and perpetuated a culture that somehow prioritizes work and efficiency over family and community. It is ludicrous & sad to think that a company can''t allow an employee a year off and still happily take them back when that year is up. Guess what, it happens every day in canada. I don''t have a single friend, white or blue collar, who has taken less than the full year, and who has not gone back to their old position. My family runs a small business and 2 girls just left around the same time for a year to have babies. It was a PITA to train new workers. but we easily found replacements for the year (and they gained experience for their resume) and it would never cross our minds that the girls on leave were uncommitted employees. It is usually assumed that a new mom will take her 52 week maternity leave. I am certain there are some employers who secretly curse this arrangement--or worse, denied a promotion etc. but it is never expected that a women come back to work one month (or 3!) after giving birth

I am not denying that you see if happen every day. I fully believe it, i just think it is utterly sad and not at all necessary!

 

[MustangGal]

Kunzite - I also work in HR, doing benefits and disability. While it is true that your company can limit you to 12 weeks total for you and your DH, that''s just the minimum they have to provide. They may be willing to do more, and might also not even be aware of that part of the law, since it isn''t too common that spouses work at the same company. You may want to approach your HR with the hypothetical "what if", but not mention the combined FMLA, just ask what you and your DH would be eligible for, you might be surprised.

For others questioning US FMLA policies, I work for a huge company that has no issues with mothers taking all 12 weeks (or longer!). We have allowed women 6 months and sometimes more depending on their years of service. Earlier this year I took 9 weeks for my maternity leave, even though I had not been with the company a year yet and was not even eligible for FMLA.

FMLA is a once a year for one health issue thing though. So if you use it for maternity leave, and have another illness later that year, you''re out of luck for the second issue. Even if you don''t use all the 12 weeks for the first issue, FMLA can only be used for the same illness for that year. And you don''t have to request that your time be FMLA, your employer can call it that as long as they send you the notice.

 

[stepcutnut]

Just to get your concerns clear: are you upset that you only get 12 weeks maternity/paternity leave or that you feel it is unfair because you are married?

 

[cellososweet]

Date: 8/23/2009 11:43:30 PM
Author: 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.

I''m not sure what sector you work in, but this seems like a lot of generalizing that the majority of companies allow a month off for maternity leave and that FMLA is used for most people for a catastrophic medical situation. If that were the only use for it, there wouldn''t be all the clauses about having children.

I also think it''s unfair to say that taking three months off to have a child means you don''t care about your employer. For some people, they will be more productive if they have time off to recoup from having the child (physically and mentally) and can find proper childcare with someone they trust. I can''t imagine having a child and then throwing him/her into daycare 4 weeks later. Sometimes it takes 4 weeks to even find a good nanny or to get into a good daycare (who am I kidding. I live in Boston. You have to be on the waiting list when you''re still pregnany for daycares and a lot of them won''t take infants less than 12 weeks old. 6 is the youngest I''ve seen).

And as for that first month of having a baby being a mini-vacation? You mentioned that you''ve been in the workforce for 30+ years. I''m not going to guess that you don''t have children at all, but maybe it''s been a while since you had a child for the first time. A colicky child. Who craps tar all day long, sucks the living life out of your nipples, and wakes up screaming the minute you put your head to the pillow for a 5 minute nap. I don''t know what type of mini-vacations you take, but it''s that''s not my idea of one.

Anyways, I hope I''m not coming across strong, but I think that your statement that people don''t care about their employer or that having a newborn would be a mini-vacation probably rubbed other people the wrong way as well.

Now, for the OP, I don''t have a lot of advice. DH will not be taking anymore than probably a week off when I deliver and that''ll be vacation time more than likely. As for people that I''ve worked with, every single woman who has had a baby in my past positions has taken the 12 weeks off. Even the CEO of the corp. I worked for. Granted she ended up working from her blackberry half the time anyway, but still. And I know a lot of the ladies on the pregnancy thread have taken off the maximum time alloted. So this notion that nobody takes the 12 weeks? I don''t know where that is coming from.

 

[packrat]

I don''t mean to threadjack, but Pandora and Jas, do you guys pay thru the nose in taxes? I just wondered how come there''s such a huge difference in maternity policies from here to there.

 

[icekid]

Date: 8/24/2009 6:14:39 PM
Author: packrat
I don''t mean to threadjack, but Pandora and Jas, do you guys pay thru the nose in taxes? I just wondered how come there''s such a huge difference in maternity policies from here to there.

Of course these programs are funded through taxes

I suppose it just depends on how you prioritize. They can take the money out of your pay now, and then give it back to you later when you are pregnant

but this seems sort of silly to me. Personally, I would prefer to save up myself and then take time off if is needed. Regardless, I will probably only have 4 weeks off from work after we have a baby (planning to get pregnant in 8 months or so.)

 

[swimmer]

Actually many of the very generous countries have lower tax rates than the US. Some only slightly higher.
2005 data, so not totally current, but the US pays more income tax than Ireland, Iceland, New Zealand...many other countries do pay much higher taxes than US citizens, but they get far more from their govt. OP, I bet you will be thrilled when you pay lower taxes once you have children, check out the chart.

link

 

[natalina]

Don''t have much to help the OP, but I did want to hop in and say that every working woman I know that has had a baby has taken the full 12 week (or longer) leave. Most of the husbands just took a week or two of vacation leave. I''m in the US. I intend to take my full 12 weeks (6 weeks FMLA, 6 weeks sick/vacation combo) and DH will probably take a week vacation.

 

[Jas12]

Packrat--actually, in some parts of the country middle income canadians contribute less, or close to the same, in income tax. In my province (which has the highest tax rates) it is slightly higher than the average american (something like 34% vs 30%)It is a myth that canadians are taxed way more than americans.

 

[packrat]

Hmph. I do believe we''re getting the short end of the stick!

 

[Pandora II]

UK Tax:

First £6.5k GBP - tax free

Up to £37k GBP - 20%

Over £37k GBP - 40%

So, if you earn £50k GBP you would pay 20% on £30.5k GBP and then 40% on £13k GBP.

Plus we pay National Insurance which is around 8% of your gross yearly income and pays towards Healthcare, State Pension, Statutory Maternity Pay, Statutory Sick Pay, Income Support (if you lose your job), Housing Benefit etc

So someone on the average UK salary of £24k GBP gross is paying a total of £5.5k GBP in Income Tax and National Insurance each year.

As well as Maternity Pay, we also get Child Benefit which is paid weekly until the child is 19 and is currently £20 a week, plus there are various grants - a Child Trust Fund voucher for £250 at birth and another at age 5 to be invested in a choice of schemes to provide a lump-sum at age 18; a £190 maternity health grant payable after 25 weeks of pregnancy to help with nutritious food for the mother and for those on low incomes a further grant of £500 towards buying things like cots/prams etc.

So, not a bad deal for our tax money... but we all complain none the less!

Plus by law employees have to have a minimum of 28 days holiday a year, although most companies I know of give 6 weeks plus all statutory plus a week at Christmas so you get a total of 43 days paid vacation a year.

 

[swimmer]

Fascinating NPR broadcast on looking to see what works with healthcare costs around the world and what the US can learn from others'' experiences: link

 

[brgirl]

Date: 8/23/2009 11:43:30 PM
Author: 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.

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

I agree with whoever said you are making huge generalizations. At my company, and all of the ones my friends work for, FMLA was actually used CONCURRENTLY with short term disability - 6 weeks STD after giving birth for recovery, then you could take an additional 6 weeks of unpaid FMLA, totalling 12 weeks. It wasn''t just a ''catastrophic medical situation;'' I had no choice but to take FMLA!

And my husband and I both worked for the same company and had the limit of 12 weeks total as well...he only took 2 weeks of vacation and I used the FMLA.

 

[swimmer]

link

A brief narrative description of the journal article, document, or resource. This study examined individual, marital, and social--contextual factors associated with the length of maternity and paternity leave and the parents'' work adaptation at the transition to parenthood. Ninety-eight dual-earner parents of 3- to 5-month-old infants were surveyed following the mother''s return to work. A shorter maternity leave (less than 12 weeks) was associated with higher maternal depression, lower parental preoccupation with the infant, less knowledge of infant development, more negative impact of birth on self-esteem and marriage, and higher career centrality. Fathers took an average of 6.5 days as paternity leave and longer leaves were related to positive employer reaction, higher paternal preoccupation with infant, more marital support, and higher family salience. Mothers'' work adaptation was related to shorter work hours, higher marital support, lower depression, and career centrality, whereas marital support and career centrality predicted fathers'' work adaptation. Shorter parental leave combined with perceived low-quality childcare predicted lower parental adjustment to the work role. Risk indicators at the transition to dual-earner parenthood and implications for social policy are discussed.

 

[House Cat]

In California, fathers are allowed to take six weeks of paid leave through EDD. http://www.edd.ca.gov/Disability/Paid_Family_Leave.htm The six weeks can be all at once or taken sporadically throughout the course of twelve months. I''m not sure if FMLA runs concurrently with this leave or not. Maybe you should check and see if your state has something like this.

Also, in California, mothers are entitled to six weeks maternity leave, unless they have had a c-section, then it is eight weeks. Also through EDD.

Check your local disability office to see what your state laws cover. FMLA is just one piece of the puzzle to family bonding and maternity leave.

 

[fatafelice]

Sheesh. I am sure glad I am a teacher. Once you have tenure, you can have up to two years unpaid off (without benefits, though) and still get your job back. And Holly, women do it all the time, and no one thinks less of them for doing so. One woman I work with actually took FOUR years off because she had twins (they have since closed the loophole that gave two years per child), and she is back in the same school, teaching the same subject, having only lost seniority on things like room assignment.

For the OP, as others have said, the best thing to do is just talk to your HR and see what they will offer. Good luck!

 

[Kunzite]

Thanks everyone for the suggestions! Hearing from everyone else how little time their DHs took off makes me feel a little better. In my office every new dad has always taken off their full 12 weeks so I guess I just figured that was the norm everywhere. Actually, every new parent in our office has always taken their full 12 weeks so I think that''s why I was so upset that the two of us would be treated differently. And for those that asked, my job and DH''s job don''t interact AT ALL. We wouldn''t be allowed to both work there if they did. And also, for someone who asked, the part that I was venting about was the fact that if DH and I weren''t married the law wouldn''t apply to us because it specifies spouse.

I wish I could reply to everyone individually, but I''ve been swamped with projects for work (even though I guess I shouldn''t even bother since they''re going to deny me a promotion when I eventually get knocked up

)

Hi to all of the non-US posters out there, I''m certainly jealous of your generous leave!

 

[LtlFirecracker]

I have a lot of working friends, and I work with children. I have never heard anyone going back to work at 4 weeks, that does not seem common to me at all.

My my work place, the woman gets 45 days of paid leave and that is it. The men recently got 10 days of paid leave which I think is important because those first 2 weeks are really rough. I mean a newborn needs to be fed every 2-3 hours, and they are still learning to eat so they often take a half hour to BF. Plus, young babies are very high risk for infection, and a 1 mo old will get a pretty involved workup if a fever develops, so I don''t see how it would be useful to have that baby in daycare with a bunch of sick kids. At least at 6 weeks the immune system really starts to kick in and they can get shots. They will still get a workup if they get a fever, but if they are well appearing, and don''t need antibiotics, it doesn''t need to be as invasive.

I think we as a country need to start seeing family as part of a women''s career and not something that competes with it. I mean many women hide their pregnancies until they show, and get a lot of harsh criticism about giving up their careers when it comes out. I think that if a company sat down with a women and made a career path that worked a family in, instead of making women feel like they have to choose between family and career, than it would be a win-win situation. The woman would be a lot less stressed out trying to figure out what is more important, and the company would get a more productive worker. I have seen many of my friends quit their jobs because they just can''t deal with both. It is nice that they are married and in a financial place to do that, but not everyone is in that situation. I often find myself writing letters to employers for single mothers stating that their babies need to be out of daycare for x days. Many of them still take their vacation time, which is upsetting to me.