Motherhood and Careers

[stephbolt]

During orientation, one of the human resources specialists at my company told us that here in the US, employers are not required to give us the full twelve weeks of FLMA leave unless a doctor states that it's medically necessary because of complications, etc. Otherwise, the company only allows six weeks for an uncomplicated vaginal birth, and eight weeks for a C-section. Is this really the law?

If your company is covered under FMLA (more than 50 employees) and you've been working there more than a year before giving birth you are eligible to take the 12 weeks and have your job be there waiting for you. FMLA is a US law, so not sure what your employer meant. Perhaps they are talking about their short term disability coverage in terms of getting paid during your leave? Standard coverage for most of those is 6 weeks for vag. birth, 8 for c-section.

I'm not sure why women in the US don't get more worked up about their maternity leave rights. I think a lot of women right now feel lucky to have a job at all, so they are afraid to rock the boat.

 

[allycat0303]

TravelingGal,

So funny that you write that about an asian mother giving birth and being back at work 2 days later. My mother always told me that she did that too...and that there was no reason it should be different if I were to decide to have a baby.

Since the beginning of the cardio-thoracic program at Mcgill, there have only been 4 women accepted in the program. One dropped out and subsequently committed suicide. The other 3 (aside from me) would never even MENTION the vague desire for having children. Honestly, I think they would kick me out of the program if I got pregnant. Or encourage me strongly to leave. In this program, you are expected to be a robot that operates. As far as I know, there aren't any robots that procreate. I defnitely won't be the first.

I think a woman having a baby is always considered *more vulnerable, perhaps weaker* men get no such stigma.

 

[tuffyluvr]

So, the on-site child care is an incentive to be there 24/7?? Like, you don't need to go home, we're looking after your kids...work, already!

Seriously, I can't imagine how hard it must be,but I do I hope you can find a way to balance both parenthood and law, if that's what you decide to do. Maybe you'll be a trail blazer for family rights.

The firm I was talking about, only allows you to bring your child in the first 6 months after taking maternity/paternity leave. I guess to buy you some time when looking for a long term solution, and allow women to breastfeed?

I don't think the trail is ready to be blazed at all. I think women who sacrifice work in any way due to motherhood don't stand a chance at making partner or other "big league" legal career advancement. The only way I can see making it work is live-in help and a pregnancy with no or few complications.

also goes for accounting firms not just law firms. I think they say they are pro work/life balance but it is never the case, it is just a corporate jargon to throw in their handbooks to make them feel happy that they are doing the right thing.

I agree completely, and I think this can be expanded to encompass most corporate environments. My employer claims that they want us to lead balanced lives, yet all the salepeople put in a minimum of 50 hours a week--including at least 5-6 hours on Saturdays.

My guy and I make good money--if we were living in middle America we would be quite well-off, but in SoCal our income allows us to live comfortably, but modestly. I am really worried about what a burden childcare will be. I am honestly concerned and hesitant to have children because I won't be able to give them the kind of upbringing I had, and I worry that I will never see them because I have to leave them at daycare 10 hours a day.

 

[Bella_mezzo]

Yep Porridge, unpaid leave and your job is only protected for 12 weeks if your company has more than 50 employees...many, many, if not most American women have absolutely no job protection and are completely at their employer's mercy.

I agree that a full year is a better alternative (especially if it can be split between parents) as having a long-term temp trained and come in is a way better solution IMO than just expecting other employees to pick up the slack for 3 months! I had to do that at my previous job and it sucked, then at this job my colleagues had to do it for me when I was out, and now my associate will be out in the spring and I'll have to do it for her. It's not a great system at all...

Logan, that's great that you were able to bank so much leave, at my job you can't roll anything over so it just disappears at the end of the year, no banking

health insurance in the US is a whole n'ther (but related) can of worms. I am so upset about it that I can't even begin to talk about that...

 

[Missy]

Not my husband... With a co-parent who is a resident physician, my husband has never been anything resembling a babysitter. Aside from the fact that I am the one with the boobs, he is truly my equal in caring for our son. He drops him to daycare 99% of the time and picks him up in the evening 90% of the time. I have spent many, many nights away from our son while my husband never has!

I do agree that forcing women to leave their small infants is sub-optimal. Medicine, and my specialty especially, is still a male dominated world in the upper ranks. I am looking for my first attending job and looking at private practice groups as a young woman who does want more children is terrifying. I KNOW they see me as a liability, not a REAL team member, who is going to leave them with extra work when I have another baby. But truly, they are right in that everyone else (90% men!) does suffer when the team is down a member. So I do understand their concern and wonder why they should be expected to pick up my slack. I think Pandora makes a good point that making maternity leave a full year allows a company to hire a long-term replacement where it might not be such a hardship. Unfortunately, it is not incredibly easy to do that in medicine depending on your field.

While I believe women should have the right to extended maternity leave should they want it, I am not so certain that it is our government's job to fund that leave.

Interestingly, medicine is one of a few jobs where it's not uncommon to hire a temp to step in to pick up the slack. Hospitals are at least familiar with the idea of bringing in a locum tenens.

Like lots of hard political issues, there's no clear answer about who should pay for maternity leave. I do think women need better protections though, and really, only the government can ensure that happens. Alternatives to gov't funding leave? I can't really think of any.

While I do agree there is no clear cut nor easy answer regarding this issue I do not think that it should be the government's responsibility in the US. I mean, *we* are the government aren't we? Money coming from the government is coming in actuality from us.
I do think that it is important to be allowed to take (unpaid) maternity leave from your job and still be guaranteed your spot when you want to come back and I like Pandora's solution of allowing a year maternity leave and employing someone else to fill your spot for that year while you are gone but being assured of getting your job back when you return. The only problem I see for that in the US is the financial side if you expect to get paid for a whole year off (in the USA that is).

I hate to be the one to say this but why should anyone but you fund you taking time off to raise your child? It's great if you work for a big company who does this and I encourage anyone who needs to have long term paid maternity leave to get a job like this before you get pregnant. I empathize with the plight of women who want to have children in the US and I have seen my own sister and BIL struggle with this as she did not have any paid maternity leave and she had to return to work in 3 months. However why is it your *right* to have long term paid maternity leave?

It would be great if there was a surplus of money to go around so everyone who wanted to could get a year paid vacation whenever they had something important to do but facts are there is not enough to go around. We pay relatively low taxes compared to many countries who offer these great benefits so one way to fund this would be to raise everyone's taxes...a lot. There just is no way of getting around the question where will all this money come from.

Before everyone thinks I hate mothers/children and family I want to say I do not. I love mothers, children and family. I also love that we have the freedom to choose our path in life and the knowledge to make the best decision for each of our families. Before one has children the financial issues should be considered. Otherwise we will have a nation of welfare families who just keep having children without any care about the consequences. And I have seen what that does and it is not good.

Another question I have is for the career ambitious. If one has a child and one wants to go far in their chosen career and be successful I think the fact remains that one must dedicate lots of time to both. There are only so many hours in a day. I have often wished there were more hours to each day but that just isn't a possibility. So one must choose what is most important and prioritize. So how many hours do you want to spend with your little one and how many hours do you dedicate to work. It is a simple fact one cannot get around. You cannot dedicate 100% of your time and energy and resources to both. It just isn't possible. Even with your partner taking equal child rearing responsibility there still won't be enough time for 100% dedication to job and family. Sacrifices will need to be made.

It is rarely true in life that one gets to have it all. (Unless you are Angelina Jolie or someone like her and even then there are sacrifices). You can have a lot if you have a great support system but I am not sure why that support system should be from the government in the form of money. By support system I mean an equal partner and a loving supportive and helpful family. And it doesn't hurt if you are rich because it is really expensive raising children.

The thing is life is complicated and there are no easy solutions and it is so easy to say the government should take care of us. But I live in the US and there is more of an emphasis on individual responsibility than government support. And if the last few years have showed us anything it's that the government (here) cannot manage anything.

health insurance in the US is a whole n'ther (but related) can of worms. I am so upset about it that I can't even begin to talk about that...

Ditto

 

[Sha]

I agree that the U.S seems way behind a lot of countries when it comes to maternity leave and work-life balance in general. I live in an island in the Caribbean and all mothers get 3 months PAID maternity leave by law. Most take another month's vacation leave after that if they can.

I don't understand why U.S mothers aren't supported more when it comes to something as natural integral to the human race as giving birth? Why should women have to suffer for this? Unpaid leave is a form of suffering, in my book. It's like punishing the mother for having a child, at time when the mother probably needs the organizational/financial support most. And 6 weeks leave is just ridiculous - it's just not enough and the baby is so tiny then. And they wonder why women stop breastfeeding so quickly?

Where I live, for vacation- Managers get 27 days, Supervisors 21 days, and Junior employees get 14 days. It's easy to take two vacation blocks during the year if you're a Supervisor/Manager.

I've never lived in the U.S, but when I worked for an American company on the island a few years ago, I was shocked that the Managers only got 14 days per year. It just seemed so stingy, especially in light of the amount of work they expected from their Managers. The work/life balance there was awful - intense workload, 12 hr days, 1/2 lunch breaks only, etc - I ended up leaving after a year. I did love the work ethic of most of the American workers there... But it was so horribly unbalanced. I was always stressed.

And what's up with childcare rates in the U.S? Awful! I can't imagine having to think about quitting my job/go part-time, or limit my family size because of not being able to afford childcare. In my country, private daycares run about $25 (US$) a week. $7 for Government daycares. Quite reasonable overall.

And don't get me started on healthcare costs...... !! My friend's bill for her delivery was in the thousands - thankfully she had insurance. We pay $250 here for normal vaginal deliveries.

I don't understand it. The U.S is a leader in so many things - why not in these areas?

 

[Missy]

I don't understand it. The U.S is a leader is so many things - it's just strange to me that it lags me so badly in these areas.

Yes it does seem strange until you start thinking about the fact that there are sacrifices to be made in every country depending on the system. I do not pretend to have even a little knowledge about the way other countries work but I do know that no place is perfect. The US has so much to offer in terms of individual freedom, quality of life, etc. There are a lot of amazing countries and places to live outside of the US but the US also has a lot to offer and one has the right to make the choice to live where and how one wants to depending on the lifestyle one is looking for.

For the record though I agree 100% that not allowing enough maternity leave is detrimental to many families and I do wish that more employers would realize the importance of this. I really think it comes down to finances pure and simple.

 

[Bella_mezzo]

If in the US you had the option of 1 year unpaid maternity leave (split between the 2 parents however they deem best) with basic health insurance that continued through that time I would be ecstatic and I say that as someone who is the sole provider for my family and would have to make some serious life changes to afford 1 year of unpaid maternity leave, but I would really like to have that option.

IMO health insurance coverage during maternity leave is just as big an issue as take-home pay. That's the big kicker for me.

However as far as payment goes, I would prefer if women who have worked full-time for at least a year were eligible for assistance that equals the assistance available for unemployment...

Missy, I agree that in some ways it doesn't seem fair, or "American" to subsidize someone taking a year of government paid leave to raise their children, but I do have to say that I think raising children (particular the critical first year after birth or adoption) is not just "taking a year of paid vacation to do something important in their lives".

Children have a critical and fundamental purpose in our society. Not to sound cliche, but they are our future. Our economy and the fabric of our very society depends on children becoming productive citizens and a strong and well educated workforce. This is something that I do not think is adequately reflected in current American society or laws, the amount of money the US spends on programs like early intervention, fostercare, juvenile incarceration, etc. is staggering and while many PSers and their children may not fit that demographic, a whole lot of working moms do have children who end up in those situations. Perhaps if our laws and society offered more support from the very beginning, it could have a positive impact. If so, a year of paid maternity leave (at something modest like the levels of unemployment) would actually SAVE the government, and therefore the American people, money....just my two cents...

 

[MissStepcut]

Missy, you're right, and employers are never going to do it of their own volition en masse, because of finances. That's why we need the government to step in.

Once upon a time, it made sense to not demand too much of employers, for fear they would send our jobs overseas. But... they did that. They did it all they could. The jobs that are still hear are mostly un-outsource-able. Some have come back because the quality (of infrastructure, of education, of whatever) wasn't there. It's not a lack of maternity leave that's keeping jobs in the U.S. anymore.

 

[Missy]

Bella and MissStepCut I also agree with you. In theory. But in reality where is the money going to be coming from to support this?
There is so much wasteful government spending and so many abuses of the system.

I also agree that children are critical to our future. But why is it not up to the individual families to take care of them and raise them to be fine young adults who contribute to society? I do not have the government take care of me attitude like many of my (interestingly enough non American) friends do. I am not saying one way is more right than the other it just is. Again I need to emphasize that living in the US is different than living in another country where the government takes more care of their people. It does look rather attractive at (many) times to be in a country where you don't have to worry as much about your health care, your retirement and even raising your family. However I choose to live here and at times I do question why but in the end I always decide this is where I want to be.

 

[Laila619]

Missy, you make good points.

Other countries might have better maternity leave benefits, but nothing is free. The citizens of those countries pay much higher taxes than we do. Just like "free" health care.

 

[MissStepcut]

Bella and MissStepCut I also agree with you. In theory. But in reality where is the money going to be coming from to support this?
There is so much wasteful government spending and so many abuses of the system.

I also agree that children are critical to our future. But why is it not up to the individual families to take care of them and raise them to be fine young adults who contribute to society? I do not have the government take care of me attitude like many of my (interestingly enough non American) friends do. I am not saying one way is more right than the other it just is. Again I need to emphasize that living in the US is different than living in another country where the government takes more care of their people. It does look rather attractive at (many) times to be in a country where you don't have to worry as much about your health care, your retirement and even raising your family. However I choose to live here and at times I do question why but in the end I always decide this is where I want to be.

I agree with you in theory as well. The problem with leaving the burden of children on "families" is that it ends up disproportionately impacting women and their ability to contribute to society.

I don't expect the government or my employer to "take care of me" but I do think SOMEONE should defend me when it comes to wanting to be a mother and a lawyer. That means holding my job for me, even if I get put on bedrest, even if that exceeds 12 total weeks. I don't think I should be punished professionally for having the bad fortune of a difficult pregnancy. Furthermore, I don't think it's in the best interest of society that women should have to choose between prestigious, high-powered careers and motherhood. Do you??

I don't think it's right that I will be pushed out of my law firm for having a child or taking maternity leave. I don't think it's right that, structurally, U.S. companies haven't adjusted to the reality of having mothers in their (upper) ranks.

 

[mayerling]

I hate to be the one to say this but why should anyone but you fund you taking time off to raise your child? It's great if you work for a big company who does this and I encourage anyone who needs to have long term paid maternity leave to get a job like this before you get pregnant. I empathize with the plight of women who want to have children in the US and I have seen my own sister and BIL struggle with this as she did not have any paid maternity leave and she had to return to work in 3 months. However why is it your *right* to have long term paid maternity leave?

[/quote][/quote]

Missy, I don't mean to target you, but, ladies, I think we've got the answer as to why nothing changes in the US. There's probably more people with this kind of attitude who are not willing to change anything.

 

[Pandora II]

This is mainly in response to Missy's post...

Honestly, I cannot think of a single thing that you have in the USA that is better than what we have here in the UK (and here is far from perfect believe me) except more space!

We have exactly the same rights in terms of freedoms, and opportunities to make what you want of your life. We certainly pay more in taxes than you do, but in return we get:

- totally free healthcare - no-one has to go without treatment or medicines (small co-pay of $10 for those who can afford it) for fear of not being able to pay for them (agreed there are some procedures and drugs that aren't available on the NHS - mostly things like cosmetic surgery and some very expensive new drugs and for non-urgent conditions the waiting lists can be long). I walked out of hospital 9 days after having Daisy and I dread to think what the bill would have been for us in the USA.

If anyone remembers the story of the little girl Layla Grace, I couldn't fathom the horror of not only your child dying slowly in front of you like that, but also being left with $150k of medical bills to face.

- child benefit - $30 a week until the child turns 18 - regardless of income

- good maternity leave and benefits.

- Entonox during childbirth (this is a big one believe me! )

- very good employee protection. It's very hard to dismiss someone here, and you have to have proper reasons to do it. You can't just lay someone off from one week to the next unless they commit gross misconduct.

- a minimum of 28 days paid vacation for all workers (pro-rata for part-time).

- unemployment and housing benefit if you have no job

- child tax credits (extra money) if you have children and are on a low income

- state pension

- until recently free University education - at present the highest fees chargeable are $13k a year - the government pays the fees and you pay it back once you start work on a sliding scale. For people on an income of around $30k, the repay is about $60 a month. This has only come in because 47% of the population now go to college as opposed to 20% when I went 20 years ago. It cost my husband not a single penny to go to Oxford.

I would far, far rather pay more in tax and not have the worry about being ill, or becoming unemployed, or being unable to pay for college fees, or never having any vacation time, or never seeing my child.


For me, one of the huge issues with making it hard for women to be able to afford to have children - and I see this in the UK as well (childcare here is $$$$) - is that you end up with the only people who can afford to breed being those on welfare. Whilst not everyone on welfare is a feckless layabout with no brains etc etc etc, it can be said that those at the top of their careers, those who have done well at college, who have brains, talents, a strong work ethic are exactly the people that first world countries should be actively encouraging to have children.

Women and their husbands/partners have also paid their taxes and why shouldn't they see some of that being used for their personal benefit?

Finally, I would much prefer that a government gave women maternity leave - rather than went galavanting off to unnecessary and expensive wars (and I include the UK here - even, granted, if going to war is our National Sport)

ETA: Thought of one - you don't have to pay a whacking 20% VAT + duty to import jewellery/gemstones.... although we can still get Burmese Rubies...

 

[Missy]

I don't feel targeted Mayerling so no worries. I knew when I posted my thoughts that it would be unpopular. The funny thing is that I do agree with much of what is posted in this thread and I do think it is unfair that being a mother means that you cannot (for most women not all) have a high powered successful career. I also know that life is not fair and unless you are wealthy it is a financial burden to have children. ( Mayerling, I am not sure where I posted I didn't want to "change anything" because nothing could be further from the truth).

However I see from my sister and my friends how worth having children is for the right people. And from my viewpoint that takes away much of the sting of that financial burden. Hey, you get to have these amazing children who give you so much joy (and heartache as it all goes with the package deal) and love who will go on and become these hopefully amazing adults who may have happy families of their own. I mean, can you really compare all you are getting to what you are not? There are those though who do not feel that way and they choose not to have children for whatever reason. And it's OK because we are not all the same.

MissStepCut, I agree that one should be able to have children and take sufficient maternity leave. I am sorry that having children at certain high powered (and not so high powered as I see with my dear sister) careers means you do get "punished" professionally. This is undeniable. This is also where my post about having it all is not always possible. If you were in another field perhaps- author for example where you were more autonomous and more in control of where, when, how and what you do then this would be (almost) a non issue.

Again, it comes down to choices and knowledge. I cannot imagine how difficult it must be to try to climb up the corporate ladder with 2 infants at home. Raising children (in my view) is truly a full time job and as I posted before there never seems to be enough hours in the day. Never. So families compromise, kids get left in daycare or with relatives or nannies for much of the working day and then when the mom and dad or dad and dad or mom and mom come home their real job begins and all when they are exhausted from the stress and pace of their workday. Exhausting.

Pandora, I have many friends outside of the US and I respectfully disagree with some of what you have written. I also do not want to threadjack so suffice it to say that when they or their loved ones have needed medical care they cannot always get it where they are in the time frame they wish to. One example is my friend's father who needed hip surgery. He actually came here to do it because the waiting list for the surgery was 18 months and he was in pain everytime he stood/walked. Not a great quality of life for him. Now this is just one example and I have no wish to debate where it is better to live as I know all the drawbacks of living here. Many of them have been posted in this thread.

The USA is not perfect and I am disillusioned with our health care system as well and am by no means holding our system up as the ideal. No way. But just saying the grass is not always greener and for now, I'll take living here with all its drawbacks and financial burdens over living somewhere else because for me, now, this is where I choose to be. For the future who knows? I am not so foolish to think nothing will change and I will always want to live here. I would really like to be financially able to retire with my dh one day. Who knows if that will ever happen now whereas if we lived somewhere else that would be much more likely. And before you think we have it made in this country and that must be why we want to live here not so. I am an independent consultant and can be fired at any time. No notice. I get no benefits, no sick days, no personal days, no vacation, no healthcare benefits. I pay full social security because my "employer" is hiring me as a consultant so they do not have to pay half. I love what I do though and love my life here despite all the negatives and I also know there will be compromises wherever we choose to live.

And for those who might think I support our government and their actions well I don't. The damn thing is broken and I wish we could get some brilliant (non corrupt) people in there to fix it.

ETA: Thought of one - you don't have to pay a whacking 20% VAT + duty to import jewellery/gemstones.... although we can still get Burmese Rubies...

LOL well I thought of another thing you guys do have that we don't. Great custom boots. I love DUO and it is worth the extra taxes I pay on them to get them delivered here.

ps Laila, thanks for understanding the point I was trying to make. There really is no such thing as a "free lunch" unfortunately.

 

[QueenB29]

I've been following this thread with interest, as I'm hoping to get pregnant next fall

Woooooowowowwowowow waaaaaaaaait a second, hold up. This 12 weeks of maternity leave...it's UNPAID? Are you serious????? Or am I reading that wrong? That can't be normal?!?!

ETA ok maybe I should have read through properly before posting this - but is it true that it's not common to get paid maternity leave?! Holy...ladies, get out there and march!!

We get 9 months fully paid, 3 months unpaid for new employees. Also during this time you accrue the normal vacation, benefits etc. That's about normal. Some places will pay the full 12 months. Employees that have been with our company for a few years get that.

Porridge: Yes. This is true. It's a law called the Family Medical Leave Act, but you're only eligible if you've worked at the same place for at least a year and it only applies to employers who have more than 50 employees. So if you work for a small business or got the job right before you found out you were pregnant, you're SOL. You're also SOL if your baby has health problems that would require months of care.

I'm a federal employee and all I will be eligible for is 12 weeks of unpaid leave. (Possibly with some sort of short-term disability payment in there for a few weeks.) I can combine that with any accrued vacation time I have, but I can't add to it. So, for example, if I have 4 weeks of vacation/sick time, I can take those 4 weeks paid and 8 weeks unpaid. If my employer wants to they can let me take 4 weeks paid plus 12 weeks unpaid, but they are NOT required to. 12 weeks in one block is the max. And then any unpaid leave I take will adversely affect me when it comes time for promotions, raises, etc. Basically, that time will not be counted and my raise will be pushed back 12 weeks. DH works for a private company, and he'll only be able to use his vacation time to be with me and our future baby for a few days after the birth. Theoretically, he could also take FMLA after I used up mine, but while we could live without my salary for a little while, we couldn't live without his. So that won't be happening. My ideal situation would be then to go back to work part time, but my organization doesn't allow that. And if/when we have a second child, I would literally be working just to pay for daycare.

You also have to set FMLA up way in advance. My SIL is also a federal employee, and when she had her daughter last year, she decided to just use the 8 weeks of leave she had accumulated. Well, she had a very difficult delivery and had a hard time getting daycare, so after about 6 weeks, she asked if she could tack on an extra 4 weeks of unpaid leave. The answer was no. She also had absolutely no vacation or sick time left to take her daughter to doctor's visits. She's due with her second in December, and this time she's just doing the 12 weeks of unpaid leave.

In addition, if you're a female service member and you have a baby, you get six weeks. Period. A young soldier who I work with just had a baby and she brought him in her first day back and she was absolutely heartbroken at having to take him to daycare. I felt soooooo bad for her.

And after you go back to work, if you're breastfeeding and you need to pump....well, you have to do it in the bathroom and then store your milk in the disgusting refrigerator in the lunch room. Another girl I work with has to do this, and it's just WRONG.

I'm of two minds about all this. On the one hand, I'm not sure that my job or the government owes me in any way because I'll make a personal decision to have a family. I'm also very uncomfortable with the idea of my tax dollars going to pay people to sit at home. I've also had to cover for women who have to leave early to take care of their kids, and didn't understand why I was penalized and had to pick up the slack because I didn't have children.

However, as it becomes a more immediate, personal issue for me, I understand the other side a lot better too. There is nothing more important than raising a happy, healthy, productive future member of society. And I work very hard and do a very good job and have won a lot of awards and am paying out of pocket for a graduate degree that's helping me significantly at work, and I think that my employer should value me a little bit more. I shouldn't be penalized because I decide to do what women have been doing since the beginning of time. Sigh. At the very least, I think that if I'm willing to take leave without pay, they should darn well let me take it for as long as I want.

A long way of saying that it sucks, but I don't know what the answer is.

 

[Missy]

A long way of saying that it sucks, but I don't know what the answer is.

Beth, it really does suck and I agree with your post in every way. There are so many sides to this whole issue but I will say that unpaid leave should be a given and seeing what my sister went through was very upsetting. If she didn't go back when she did she would have lost her job and she has been there well over a decade. And she is a great doctor. But there are lots of people waiting in the wings to take her place...

I wish you all the best of luck in your endeavors to get pregnant next fall and while I am fairly certain we won't be (much) closer to any real solution at that time I am pretty certain you and your family will figure it out and do well. Sending good wishes your way!

 

[QueenB29]

A long way of saying that it sucks, but I don't know what the answer is.

Beth, it really does suck and I agree with your post in every way. There are so many sides to this whole issue but I will say that unpaid leave should be a given and seeing what my sister went through was very upsetting. If she didn't go back when she did she would have lost her job and she has been there well over a decade. And she is a great doctor. But there are lots of people waiting in the wings to take her place...

I wish you all the best of luck in your endeavors to get pregnant next fall and while I am fairly certain we won't be (much) closer to any real solution at that time I am pretty certain you and your family will figure it out and do well. Sending good wishes your way!

Thank you Missy I see I should have read all the posts before I posted rather than just skimming because I also agree with almost everything you said, and really respect you for offering a differing opinion and standing up for it **Ducks**

Our whole system of maternal care and leave in the U.S. is far from perfect, but I will take our messed system and be thankful for it, because in so many parts of the world, childbirth involves a very real and very high risk of death for the mother and baby. When I do have a baby, I won't have to worry about whether I can feed him or her or whether we have clean water. I can also do little things like vote and drive a car and have my own bank account. I am profoundly grateful for this

 

[iheartscience]

Bella and MissStepCut I also agree with you. In theory. But in reality where is the money going to be coming from to support this?
There is so much wasteful government spending and so many abuses of the system.

I also agree that children are critical to our future. But why is it not up to the individual families to take care of them and raise them to be fine young adults who contribute to society? I do not have the government take care of me attitude like many of my (interestingly enough non American) friends do. I am not saying one way is more right than the other it just is. Again I need to emphasize that living in the US is different than living in another country where the government takes more care of their people. It does look rather attractive at (many) times to be in a country where you don't have to worry as much about your health care, your retirement and even raising your family. However I choose to live here and at times I do question why but in the end I always decide this is where I want to be.

I agree with you in theory as well. The problem with leaving the burden of children on "families" is that it ends up disproportionately impacting women and their ability to contribute to society.

I don't expect the government or my employer to "take care of me" but I do think SOMEONE should defend me when it comes to wanting to be a mother and a lawyer. That means holding my job for me, even if I get put on bedrest, even if that exceeds 12 total weeks. I don't think I should be punished professionally for having the bad fortune of a difficult pregnancy. Furthermore, I don't think it's in the best interest of society that women should have to choose between prestigious, high-powered careers and motherhood. Do you??

I don't think it's right that I will be pushed out of my law firm for having a child or taking maternity leave. I don't think it's right that, structurally, U.S. companies haven't adjusted to the reality of having mothers in their (upper) ranks.

Exactly. And nothing will change until more women with children reach the upper ranks in the corporate world and the government, but women with children often CAN'T reach the upper ranks BECAUSE of their children. I should add that I don't expect the government to take care of me at the current tax levels, but I'm perfectly happy to pay higher taxes for the many, many benefits Pandora listed.

Another anecdotal story: my brother's wife is Swedish, he currently lives in Sweden, and he doesn't mind the higher taxes AT ALL because the benefits are so great. (Essentially free childcare, great, free schools, free healthcare, etc.) He also told me that the income tax really isn't that much higher than in the U.S., but that the VAT is much higher. So as an added bonus, people tend to buy less stuff. I know that's anathema to Americans, though. And I should add that he is a registered Republican with Libertarian leanings. Although something tells me that's changed a bit since he's experienced all the benefits of Socialism. Oh and as for the "but medical care is delayed!" trope, he's had 2 knee surgeries in the past year and a half and hasn't had an unreasonable wait in the least.

I just noticed this tidbit in an article about Nancy Pelosi that seems relevant to this thread: “One of the great pieces of unfinished business is high-quality child care; I wonder why we just can’t do that,’’ Pelosi said. Her spokesman Drew Hammill said later that she doesn’t have a specific child-care proposal at the ready; that’s what the legislative process is for. But the Nixon-era legislation of which she spoke approvingly subsidized child care for low-income parents and was available to anyone who wanted to pay for it. “She sees this as the next big problem to tackle,’’ Hammill said." There's more context in the article for anyone interested.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...care/2011/11/15/gIQACzY1VN_story.html?hpid=z2

 

[iheartscience]

A long way of saying that it sucks, but I don't know what the answer is.

Beth, it really does suck and I agree with your post in every way. There are so many sides to this whole issue but I will say that unpaid leave should be a given and seeing what my sister went through was very upsetting. If she didn't go back when she did she would have lost her job and she has been there well over a decade. And she is a great doctor. But there are lots of people waiting in the wings to take her place...

I wish you all the best of luck in your endeavors to get pregnant next fall and while I am fairly certain we won't be (much) closer to any real solution at that time I am pretty certain you and your family will figure it out and do well. Sending good wishes your way!

Thank you Missy I see I should have read all the posts before I posted rather than just skimming because I also agree with almost everything you said, and really respect you for offering a differing opinion and standing up for it **Ducks**

Our whole system of maternal care and leave in the U.S. is far from perfect, but I will take our messed system and be thankful for it, because in so many parts of the world, childbirth involves a very real and very high risk of death for the mother and baby. When I do have a baby, I won't have to worry about whether I can feed him or her or whether we have clean water. I can also do little things like vote and drive a car and have my own bank account. I am profoundly grateful for this

Right, but all of the other countries with the same standard of living as the U.S. enjoy much better benefits. Sorry, but the whole "At least I have food and clean water!" argument seems disingenuous. Yes, at least we don't live in Somalia-how does that solve anything? Not to mention the fact that many people in the U.S. do have to worry about whether or not they can feed their children.

 

[QueenB29]

A long way of saying that it sucks, but I don't know what the answer is.

Beth, it really does suck and I agree with your post in every way. There are so many sides to this whole issue but I will say that unpaid leave should be a given and seeing what my sister went through was very upsetting. If she didn't go back when she did she would have lost her job and she has been there well over a decade. And she is a great doctor. But there are lots of people waiting in the wings to take her place...

I wish you all the best of luck in your endeavors to get pregnant next fall and while I am fairly certain we won't be (much) closer to any real solution at that time I am pretty certain you and your family will figure it out and do well. Sending good wishes your way!

Thank you Missy I see I should have read all the posts before I posted rather than just skimming because I also agree with almost everything you said, and really respect you for offering a differing opinion and standing up for it **Ducks**

Our whole system of maternal care and leave in the U.S. is far from perfect, but I will take our messed system and be thankful for it, because in so many parts of the world, childbirth involves a very real and very high risk of death for the mother and baby. When I do have a baby, I won't have to worry about whether I can feed him or her or whether we have clean water. I can also do little things like vote and drive a car and have my own bank account. I am profoundly grateful for this

Right, but all of the other countries with the same standard of living as the U.S. enjoy much better benefits. Sorry, but the whole "At least I have food and clean water!" argument seems disingenuous. Yes, at least we don't live in Somalia-how does that solve anything? Not to mention the fact that many people in the U.S. do have to worry about whether or not they can feed their children.

Yes of course we can do better -- that's not what I meant. I'm sorry if it came off the wrong way. I just think that in a conversation like this, we're essentially discussing levels of privilege, benefits that many women in the world probably can't even contemplate. I just think that's worth keeping in mind. And being grateful for what I have doesn't mean that I don't recognize that there are real issues that need to be fixed

(And without getting into a debate and sidetracking this thread, yes, of course there are people in this country who have trouble feeding their kids. But at least they have SOME options other than watching their child literally starve before their eyes. There are at least some gov't programs that help.)

 

[NovemberBride]

While I agree with many things that have been said in this thread (I would love a longer, paid maternity leave), I am not sure the situation is quite as dire as it is presented. I actually do believe that women in the US can have it all if they want it. As I noted on the previous page, I am a female lawyer with a toddler. I would characterize myself as extremely successful and good at my job and I would also call myself a wonderful mother. Is it easy - no. Am I exhausted sometimes - of course. But by and large, I am very happy with both my personal and professional life. I think a huge part of it has to do with the fact that I have an extremely supportive DH - he does at least half of the parenting with no complaints. And no, he doesn't have a less demanding career than I do - he works in finance. But we have come up with a system that works for us.

I also know many other women in the same position as I am. My close friends are an ob/gyn, an engineer and the head of a marketing department - all extremely successful women, all great mothers. My boss - the mother of 3 young kids and at 40, the general counsel of a major company. We all work extremely hard, but you know what, we all also have a lot of fun.

 

[Circe]

Um ... a quick question for those as don't believe that it's the government's job to cover and/or force businesses to cover maternity leave or childcare: what, exactly, do you think government's job is? Just the thumbnail sketch. My own quick take is that government's job is to protect its most vulnerable members - all of us during war, the aged, the infirm, and the destitute at specific moments in their lives.

Motherhood appears to fit that class - and the drawbacks of not covering that period make themselves clear across the lifetime careers of high-earning, ambitious ladies, as this thread shows. So instead of being the most productive members of society they can be (and paying back whatever they leeched off the government in maternity benefits in taxes from the mil-+-a-year high-powered jobs), they become dependent on their male spouses. How does this benefit society as a whole, exactly?

Me, I'm in the highest tax bracket. I'd sort of like to see my government do something for me, as opposed to, oh, say, trying to make it a federal act of law that if I have life-threatening complications from a pregnancy, the hospital let me bleed out on the floor instead of trying to save my life, for fear of losing their government funding, a la the Let Women Die Bill (a fun recent development of the last month or so, for those of you playing internationally). That might just be me, though.

 

[Missy]

While I agree with many things that have been said in this thread (I would love a longer, paid maternity leave), I am not sure the situation is quite as dire as it is presented. I actually do believe that women in the US can have it all if they want it. As I noted on the previous page, I am a female lawyer with a toddler. I would characterize myself as extremely successful and good at my job and I would also call myself a wonderful mother. Is it easy - no. Am I exhausted sometimes - of course. But by and large, I am very happy with both my personal and professional life. I think a huge part of it has to do with the fact that I have an extremely supportive DH - he does at least half of the parenting with no complaints. And no, he doesn't have a less demanding career than I do - he works in finance. But we have come up with a system that works for us.

I also know many other women in the same position as I am. My close friends are an ob/gyn, an engineer and the head of a marketing department - all extremely successful women, all great mothers. My boss - the mother of 3 young kids and at 40, the general counsel of a major company. We all work extremely hard, but you know what, we all also have a lot of fun.

Good post NB.
I am in the car with 4 loud meowing cats right now so I cannot write all my thoughts here but just wanted to say that I agree. If you are willing and able to work hard and make sacrifices you can have both. It is about compromise and prioritizing. And the men I know who are in high powered careers do not have it "easy" either. They are giving up precious time with their little ones rhat they can never get back. Just in response to MissStepCut (I think it was MissStepCut) who said it is not fair that men with families can move up the corporate ladder more easily than women. They are sacrificing too. Sacrificing time that is precious. And if women with similar ambition are willing to sacrifice time with their babies they have this potential as well.

 

[Circe]

While I agree with many things that have been said in this thread (I would love a longer, paid maternity leave), I am not sure the situation is quite as dire as it is presented. I actually do believe that women in the US can have it all if they want it. As I noted on the previous page, I am a female lawyer with a toddler. I would characterize myself as extremely successful and good at my job and I would also call myself a wonderful mother. Is it easy - no. Am I exhausted sometimes - of course. But by and large, I am very happy with both my personal and professional life. I think a huge part of it has to do with the fact that I have an extremely supportive DH - he does at least half of the parenting with no complaints. And no, he doesn't have a less demanding career than I do - he works in finance. But we have come up with a system that works for us.

I also know many other women in the same position as I am. My close friends are an ob/gyn, an engineer and the head of a marketing department - all extremely successful women, all great mothers. My boss - the mother of 3 young kids and at 40, the general counsel of a major company. We all work extremely hard, but you know what, we all also have a lot of fun.

Good post NB.
I am in the car with 4 loud meowing cats right now so I cannot write all my thoughts here but just wanted to say that I agree. If you are willing and able to work hard and make sacrifices you can have both. It is about compromise and prioritizing. And the men I know who are in high powered careers do not have it "easy" either. They are giving up precious time with their little ones rhat they can never get back. Just in response to MissStepCut (I think it was MissStepCut) who said it is not fair that men with families can move up the corporate ladder more easily than women. They are sacrificing too. Sacrificing time that is precious. And if women with similar ambition are willing to sacrifice time with their babies they have this potential as well.

This works beautifully for the people who can afford child-care. What about the people who can't? Are we really making the ability to have kids into a privilege for the upper classes?

 

[Missy]

Job of govt as I see it...
Protect its citizens from invaders and terrorists
Clear the streets of the snow when necessary

Says this Libertarian

Tongue and cheek post fyi for those who think I am (100%) serious...

 

[Missy]

I am all for govt protecting those who cannot protect themselves but not at the expense of citizens' abdication of personal responsibility.

 

[Pandora II]

We also have the option of private healthcare - my husband pays $800 a year for his and if he needed a hip operation or similar then it would be done straight away rather than having to wait. The waiting lists for chronic conditions here is dire, but getting better, and I personally think that other countries like the Netherlands have far better health services than we do.

It worries me to hear people say that at least it's better than the 3rd world. That's like saying, oh well, only 1,000 mothers died in childbirth this year - but hey, 10,000 died in x country so we should be happy. Nope, you should be aspiring to have no mothers die.

All countries have good and bad - I've lived in many different ones so I've seen good, bad and ugly believe me - but populations, and women in particular need to fight for their rights.

Regarding female doctors, one of my best friends here is an OB. She currently has a 2 year-old and a 4 month old who was 6 weeks premature. She took a year's for the first, is taking a year for the second and plans to have a third and possibly a 4th all 2 years apart. She was made a Consultant 3 months before she gave birth to her second daughter. She also dropped to 60% of her pre-child workload after coming back from Maternity Leave.

Another friend is a senior government lawyer - she got 6 months full-pay and 6 months half-pay mat. leave and works 4 days a week since she went back. Didn't damage her career at all.

One of my very close friends tragically lost twins last November to twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. One was stillborn and the other died 20 hours after birth at 26 weeks. She is a very senior lawyer for one of the UK's biggest banks. As she gave birth after 24 weeks she was entitled to the full year of maternity leave - she went back after 6 months once she had recovered enough mentally. Her husband who is a Financial Exec with the same bank was told to take as much paid leave as he needed to help his wife through the situation. He took 4 weeks IIRC. They're happily expecting another baby in January. She will go back part-time at the end of her leave and that is seen as a normal decision.

It's not that any of us want to knock the US, far from it, we all just feel so sorry for you all having to deal with either giving up your career or handing your baby to someone else at such a young age - especially when we know it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[NovemberBride]

While I agree with many things that have been said in this thread (I would love a longer, paid maternity leave), I am not sure the situation is quite as dire as it is presented. I actually do believe that women in the US can have it all if they want it. As I noted on the previous page, I am a female lawyer with a toddler. I would characterize myself as extremely successful and good at my job and I would also call myself a wonderful mother. Is it easy - no. Am I exhausted sometimes - of course. But by and large, I am very happy with both my personal and professional life. I think a huge part of it has to do with the fact that I have an extremely supportive DH - he does at least half of the parenting with no complaints. And no, he doesn't have a less demanding career than I do - he works in finance. But we have come up with a system that works for us.

I also know many other women in the same position as I am. My close friends are an ob/gyn, an engineer and the head of a marketing department - all extremely successful women, all great mothers. My boss - the mother of 3 young kids and at 40, the general counsel of a major company. We all work extremely hard, but you know what, we all also have a lot of fun.

Good post NB.
I am in the car with 4 loud meowing cats right now so I cannot write all my thoughts here but just wanted to say that I agree. If you are willing and able to work hard and make sacrifices you can have both. It is about compromise and prioritizing. And the men I know who are in high powered careers do not have it "easy" either. They are giving up precious time with their little ones rhat they can never get back. Just in response to MissStepCut (I think it was MissStepCut) who said it is not fair that men with families can move up the corporate ladder more easily than women. They are sacrificing too. Sacrificing time that is precious. And if women with similar ambition are willing to sacrifice time with their babies they have this potential as well.

This works beautifully for the people who can afford child-care. What about the people who can't? Are we really making the ability to have kids into a privilege for the upper classes?

Circe, I completely agree with you. My response was more geared towards the OP regarding women in high-powered careers and motherhood. I was presupposing that said women in high-powered careers could afford childcare with little to no difficulty. I am extremely fortunate in that I am able to send my daughter to an amazing daycare/school where I know she is in safe, capable hands and is happily learning while I work and while it is not cheap, the cost was easily absorbed into our household budget.

The question of the cost of childcare and support for women who are not in the higest socio-economic classes is a bit of a different question from the one posed by the OP. I imagine that situation to be much more difficult that my own. While my job is stressful and I work long hours, I also am afforded a lot of flexibility due to my position which someone who is punching a time clock doesn't have.

 

[Logan Sapphire]

Bella, that totally sucks that your leave doesn't roll over. We can roll over 240 hours of annual leave, but no more. Sick leave is unlimited, fortunately.

Vc10um- hello from the Justice Department! I work in Gallery Place/Chinatown, but live in Springfield. Some leave tips- if you do plan on taking any amount of leave without pay, it's important to take at least some paid leave during that pay period, which keeps you in a paid status. Being in a paid status, as you know, means you keep accruing your sick/annual leave while you're out. Once you take more than 6 months of LWOP in a calendar year, it starts to affect your service comp date. So I took a 5 month leave with my 2nd child; I took one day each of sick and annual leave and otherwise used LWOP. It's also nice to have *something* coming in, in terms of a paycheck, even if it's only 16 hours worth of pay. Also, take any paid leave either the day before or after a federal holiday- for reasons I don't understand, that also allows you to get the holiday paid to you. It has to be immediately before or after, not just in the same pay period.

My agency's policy is to allow 9 months of maternity leave. My old agency, the Labor Dept, allowed women to take a year. DH's employer (Health and Human Services) allowed him to take leaves of 3 and 1 months respectively (not to make it appear they limited him to that amt- that was all we felt comfortable affording) and his supervisor didn't ask him to invoke FMLA. DOJ did, however.