Frankly an instance like this should be counted as one of blatant fraud. She accepted a job for a huge salary that she would not be able to do for more than a few weeks, before she takes off for what will probably be over a year.

Quite frankly I dont see why every position doesnt have a clause asking "are you planning on taking an extended leave FOR ANY RESON within (said time frame)?"

It side steps the pregnancy question and leaves an out for the company to cancel her contract or fine her for the amount of money the company will lose.

I am all for career women having babies, but it is a volentary choice, why shouldnt their be consequences to your career?

If all she does is take off a week around the delivery thats one thing, but if she takes off a few months why should she still be getting paid?

And how hard would it be to word a contract to require the employee work so many hours per month, allowing for the occasional sick day or vacation, so should they decide to take a few months or a year of leave the company can claim breach of contract?

At least we know what she has been doing in her spare time.

In my line of work, even though there is extensive maternity leave, it would be more expensive for us to interview, hire, and train replacements for the employees who have babies. And because of the generous maternity leave, all of the women in my department have returned to work after having their kids. While they're out on leave, we use floaters or hire temps so that their team members are not unfairly burdened. It's in the company's best interest to do all of these things.

And "preghead"? Please. Every woman experiences pregnancy a little differently. My first trimester I was pretty tired, but during the second and third I felt like Superwoman, and regularly worked 10-12 hour days. I worked up until my due date, and returned to work nine weeks after my son was born, even though 6 of those weeks had been spent with him in the NICU.

And those of you arguing against maternity or medical leave, what happens when your spouse or parent gets seriously ill and needs your care? Or when you get cancer and need weeks of chemotherapy that leaves you too weak and nauseated to work? Or need hip replacement surgery as I recently did? In the US, FMLA allows you to take a medical leave for these reasons as well. We've had staff out on leave for all of these reasons and they always return to work. "Family" leave isn't just for pregnant women.

"I am all for career women having babies, but it is a volentary choice, why shouldnt their be consequences to your career?"

If you decline to come back after maternity leave or only work 75% of the time (officially or unofficially) after you return, then sure, there should be consequences to your career. But if you take your maternity leave and then return giving 100% effort, then no, I don't see why there should be consequences to your career. Having a child doesn't automatically make a woman a bad employee, just as it doesn't automatically make a man a bad employee. I've never had kids, but in the times of my life when I've had a lot going on outside the office, I become much more efficient at the office, eliminating coffee breaks and chats with co-workers that make up every job. Not everyone is this way, but it's not exactly an unusual response.

Is this woman going to look hideous and want to take a year off? Maybe. Or maybe she'll look like Hunter Tylo, who had to tell the court that she was eight months pregnant because no one could tell otherwise, and want to return to work in two months. For the record, I supported Aaron Spelling, not Tylo, in that case. If you hire someone to play a sexy soap siren who will be wearing skimpy clothing a lot of the time, then that sexy soap siren needs to be non-pregnant when she's establishing her career. But that's a very specific job with very specific requirements. Most jobs aren't like that. I'm betting the Kaplinksky woman is going to be sitting behind a desk most of the time. And, you know, giving the growing obsession with celebrity babies, ratings may well go up as people tune in to see if they can catch her bump.

I'm not in favor of anyone, male or female, doing a bad job at his or her work and expecting no consequences for that because he or she has kids. But this writer seems to take that to another level. I've met a hell of a lot of women who had kids, took two or three months off, returned to work and are at the same company 20 years later, definitely working a full day and carrying a full load. If you want to argue that the pendulum has swung too far in terms of giving women maternity leave et al, I'm more than sympathetic to that argument. But this writer's viewpoint of pregnant women as hideous ticking time bombs is rather offputting.

> then no, I don't see why there
> should be consequences to your
> career.

Why not? What do you mean by "should"?

I hate these discussions, because people start throwing "shoulds" around with a certainty completely unreliant on physics or any other testable principles. It's like saying a plane "should" be able to fly on one wing, because the maintenance costs would be substantially reduced.

People are hired by others because they can generate value. Your boss doesn't hire you because you need a new car, or a vacation, or because you want to raise your needy children in a safe, loving environment of dignity and encouragement. Your boss hires you because you can generate value for him. Creating wealth should be the thing that determines the "consequences to your career."

A lot of people aren't good at generating value. Having kids is one reason; raising them well takes a lot of attention. But the world never asked you to make babies. It breaks many hearts to be told that, but a lot of the finest truths are "offputting." The world, and the economy in particular, is not a Christian coffee klatch in a suburban setting. Making money is important. To do that, people compete with all their might.

I'm compelled to Google Hunter Tylo again, that paragon of compassionate working motherhood who twice threw the fathers out of her childrens' lives. Turns out she only took $4.89 million out of Spelling's coffers... That's not a tiny amount, but I'd thought it was more because the judgment was so odious. Anyway, many bad things have happened to her in the intervening years (including her plastic surgery), and to her brood.

Your boss hires you because you can generate value for him. Creating wealth should be the thing that determines the "consequences to your career."

Agree totally.

You want to get pregnant, the cost should be yours to bear.

Per Deja's question -- what if you get sick, etc.? -- consider those of us who don't work for big companies. Who should pick up our tab?

Because some women do get pregnant, and at considerable cost to employers, especially small employers, I'd bet an employer would tilt toward hiring a man in his 30's over a woman. Or early 40's, what with all the long-in-tooth pregnancies happening lately.

Sounds like a fraud to me.

Let's just say it was a man with a disease instead. Would he had kept his job or got fired at the second he asked for extended sick leave?

As God is my witness, I didn't even notice that Marion had mentioned Hunter Tylo too.

And, Dear Deja- I'm a freelancer. In the middle of this decade, a senior in my family got sick in a distant city, and providing care took a lot of time, money, and momentum out of my career. Will you please compensate me?

Or are you assuming that my boss should cover it? But I've had dozens of them over the years. They'd quibble too much. So it would be better if you personally could just cut a check. It would be the right thing to do. OK? Fabulous. Because no worker should ever have to make sacrifices for the well being of family... Know what I mean, Jellybean?

I hate it when people talk about government rules like ADA and FMLA as if these were extra biblical commandments. There's a certain kind of person who thinks the American economy was constructed like this:

1. Some guys got money, others don't, but the money actually belongs to everyone.

2. The GotMoney guys will give some to the Don'tGots, but they insist on a charade of "earning" it. To reduce the incidence of shouty arguments, we appease them by going in to work a lot.

3. But everyone knows what's really going on, so every now and then the government makes a new rule, and it's like Christmas, where stuff just appears under the tree.

Per Deja's question -- what if you get sick, etc.? -- consider those of us who don't work for big companies. Who should pick up our tab?

Amy, we all make our choices, we get some things and give up other things in return. I chose to work for a big company for opportunity to advance, good benefits (including health insurance and retirement plans) and a regular paycheck. You chose a different path, knowing the ups and downs. I don't bemoan the fact that you can go work in a coffee shop or take off for Paris for several weeks.

Companies that offer good benefits are doing so because it benefits their bottom line to retain good workers. But they don't let me set my own hours or split for a few weeks at my own convenience, and I accept these limitations for what I do get in return.

> I chose to work for a big company
> for opportunity to advance, good
> benefits (including health
> insurance and retirement plans)
> and a regular paycheck.

Why, that's remarkable! It just so happens that your choice of career venues lines up with those particular aspirations.

As if advancement, benefits and security are something the rest of the world isn't interested in.

> I accept these limitations
> for what I do get in return.

You're so humble.

Like I said, these discussions are always gruesome. When you see what's actually going on in the minds of those around you, it can sting and annoy.

And just in case anyone is confused, FMLA is not *paid* leave. It means that your employer must hold your job or offer a similar job at the end of 90 days, should you choose to return.

Crid, you chose to freelance, I'm assuming because that's how your field operates. If you wanted to do the kind of administrative work I've chosen to do (not because it was my passion, but because it pays the bills and is reasonably secure, as much as any job can be in these days of frenzied outsourcing).

--oops, hit enter too soon.

(con't) you could probably get a similar situation with similar benefits. It's always amusing how some people's trumpting of free markets and choice stops at the point they perceive someone else is getting a better deal. There are no free rides.

"trumpeting"

Sorry, have become too spellchecker-dependent.

FMLA is not *paid* leave

That is certainly true for an hourly wage employee, but not so for those with a contracted yearly salary

Lujlp - false. I'm contracted, on a yearly salary, and when I was off for my hip surgery this year, my paychecks stopped. Likewise, if I were to take time off to care for an ailing relative, I would not be paid for that time.

Deja, I think you're dothing and protesting a little too much, if'n you catch my drift. Your tone suggests that the whole enterprise is about protecting you, a tortured little soul just making her way through a world that doesn't care. But your needs are no more unique than is your burden to you bring value to the people who pay you.

I'm not the one who's asking for leave for families: If you'll check the tone of my "complaint" above, you'll spot the insincerity. In the case Amy cites, it's *not* the live-for-today, "pursuing our passion" freelancers who are complaining about free markets. And no, I don't do my work for fun, either. I haven't owned a fucking TV set for 16 years. (Amy's probably not the wild-assed Paris-visitin' animal you think she is.)

I was thinking about IBM yesterday, which was just about the biggest toughest company in the world when I was little. Then they got their ass handed to them. And I imagined all those thousands of unimaginative clock-punchers who suddenly had to wake up, and how they were probably saying 'I gave all those years to that company...'

They call that technocracy, when a useless person becomes convinced that they're part of something worthwhile

{I live very frugally, buying my clothing used, for the most part, on eBay, at Goodwill, at Loehmann's January and August clearance sales, and on designer resale sale racks. I buy office supplies in bulk, and spend money on entering journalism contests and going to professional conferences.} = Prize!

I have discovered that the laws regarding some of the employment claims above are not easy to collect, but I suggest a look here.

And here's another conundrum.

My mom runs a successful business. She started it ten years ago and not only built the company from the ground up, but is becoming one of *the* names in the industry (and I am shamelessly riding her coattails to a doctorate). Quite a few people work really hard for her (including me).

But we're only keeping our noses above water. New contract opputunities are coming in faster than we can keep up - but we need them if we're going to ride out the next few years and go from a entrepenurial business that survives because of one woman's will to a business that is self-perpetuating.

We need to hire another fifteen people. We already have forty employees. Herein lies the problem. At fifty employees you have to adhere to the FMLA.

At the moment (and for the foreseeable future) all of our employees are key. If I got pregnant and decided to take three months off - even unpaid - it's a hit that would seriously hurt the company. And I am the lowest peon in the company.

So, do we limp along, doing the best we can with 49 employees and hope they can keep up?

Or do we hire the number of people we need (at least 55) and pray that no one gets pregnant/ has a family medical emergency?

Amy, I absolutely believe that you don't live high on the hog, and are quite frugal. My comment about going to Paris was more about the *freedom* to go rather than the financial ability. I don't doubt that your situation feels tenuous at times; I don't have the stomach for that, which I why chose the work I did.

Crid, no damsel in distress am I. I'm a realistic old broad who does just fine, thanks. I've ridden through more "reorganizations" than I care to recount, and have no illusions that next time it might be my turn. I do my best to maintain my value to my employers, but I know that sometimes the "bigger picture" isn't the one I'd paint.

This is funny in anyway... Because it's happening to TV news people. It's not an industry beloved for its reliable depictions of the human condition. In every corner of the world, fuckable women often become pregnant in short order, and if anyone deserves to have their efforts to sex up the product derailed, it’s the TV clowns.

Years ago I was worked at a TV station that did about a hundred treacly stories covering an anchor's pregnancy. (These included a postpartum story about nearby scuba sites, with lots of warm-water footage: A transparent effort to say “And look! She’s slimmed right down and pervable again!”) Eventually viewers started leaving messages on the overnight phones: "Enough! It's not my baby!"

Radio guy Prager talked about a football star who sat out a game during the birth of his child, and made a convincing case that the game was more important. Football seasons are only a dozen or so games (right?). A handful of seasons is a career, and these guys are paid enormous sums for each performance. Sure, by some cosmic arithmetic, the birth of a daughter is important. But when huge sums are paid to such individual people for such trivial distinguishing characteristics, it's pretty fuckin’ rude.

Deja's note that people on leave aren't paid is important. But so is Elle's point that it's an intrusion upon the rest of the enterprise, one that’s usually not repaid.

what's the upshot of all this, then? It's not like our intrapid reporter said, "oops, er, so it looks like this will be short, so can we negotiate our way out? That way you can bring someone else in, and maybe when I come back to working someone else will want to hire me?" That'd be the other extreme.

This sort of thing reinforces for individuals WHY there is a risk involved with hiring a young woman. I'm not using risk in a negative way, but in terms of it being a risk of change. This risk has to be priced into the transaction. Because of laws about gender descrimination, it's not talked about overtly, and probably shouldn't be, but there should alse be no surprise that people keep this sort of thing in the backs of their minds when hiring. "Is this person replacable for the 3 months she will be taking off, and what will transpire if she decides to not return?"

If it's a generic job, and easily temped, it's prolly no big deal. If it's a specialized job that cannot be temped, like nuclear scientist? Perhaps they will hire easily, but if the famale scientist takes time off for kids maybe she will have a hard time coming back, because she is a risk. Or perhaps hiring will unconsciously choose to take a qualified male candidate instead.

The response to that may be that women in the field realize there is a risk to having kids, and choose not to, for the sake of their careers. It would spawn something known as "the mommy track" Where professional women that stop and have kids can't step back into the same river. Once legal remedies are tried, then companies simply are wary about hiring women.

So much of this takes place at an almost unconscious individual level... but it is there. I work at a firm with many engineers... The benes are good as well as the pay, and they seem to hire as many qulified females as they can get their hands on. [which is still not 50/50... there just aren't enough available] The catch is, of the 12 that have been hired in the last year, 2 have already gone out on maternity leave. So they had to be replaced. In a tightly scheduled and deadline driven environment, they won't be able to drop right back in to where they left. They will have similar jobs, but this particular project is closed to them, because it will be too hard to catch up. The time flowed. They may get relegated to lower risk jobs in the future, because deliverables are inflexible, and the time that they spend gaining the knowledge of the project is LOST if they go on leave.

So where does that leave us with truth? People who behave irresponsibly, drag down everyone. But the case where I hire on to a job, knowing I have only months to live bacause of some disease? Obvioiusly fraud. Same as if you hire in while preggers, EXCEPT that is a temporary situation. In either case, it is the individual who is at fault, for LYING.

Much more subtle is the precedence set by women who become pregnant. If they go out for a few months, and then come back... In the ebb and flow of a 40 year career, this is not very much time. Unfortunately there are those that go out, and then decide at the last possible minute not to come back, and leave their team stranded. As individuals they don't feel anything from this. They may never go back to work again, and this is just one of those things in our society. Their employer and team on the other hand... They remember. They may be less inclined to take on that female bright star again down the road, because of the possibility that they will train and integrate, and put all those resources into getting the team together. Only to have her suddenly take them and walk away. In this I think women are doing themselves a disservice, because they want it both ways.

In certain states, you are allowed to ask what are your family plans/situation.

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5momlaw.5812858mar17,0,3847071.story

"this type of questioning is not against the law in Pennsylvania.

Employers can and do ask questions about marital and family status and make decisions based on the answers."
...
"Federal laws prohibit discrimination based on sex, age, race, religion, national origin and disabilities, but not marital or family status.

Pennsylvania is not the only state where questions about marital and family status are allowed. In 28 states it is legal for interviewers to ask job applicants questions about their marital status, family plans and caregiving responsibilities. Neighboring states New York, New Jersey and Maryland are among the 22 states that have laws making such questioning illegal."

And how hard would it be to word a contract to require the employee work so many hours per month, allowing for the occasional sick day or vacation, so should they decide to take a few months or a year of leave the company can claim breach of contract?

And still be protected from claims of sexual discrimination? Impossible. What if she'd gotten pregnant the night after she accepted the contract? Could the company then still hold her responsible for knowing she would miss work due to pregnancy? No, no matter how they worded the contract. Could they deny her time off? No.

Even the hint that the questions you're asking are intended to weed out the pregnant and the soon-to-be-pregnant is grounds for a lawsuit in most states.

I am all for career women having babies, but it is a [voluntary] choice, why [shouldn't] [there] be consequences to [their] [careers]?

It's only voluntary when the feminist organizations want it to be: during the abortion debates. During the equal pay debates, pregnancy is a biological prison for women and women should not be punished with lower rates of pay for being forced by nature to bear children and have to miss work and to deal with the side effects.

Let's just say it was a man with a disease instead. Would he [have] kept his job or got[ten] fired at the second he asked for extended sick leave?

Pregnancy is hardly a "disease." The woman will eventually "recover" from her "condition" - assuming that she then doesn't become one of those workers (men, too) who are always taking time off for childrens' medical or school appointments, unable to work late because of daycare, leaving early for baseball games and recitals, etc.

But, yes. If a man knew he was about to enter extensive surgery and rehab requiring him to miss 2-3 days of work per week or whole weeks of work before accepting a multi-million dollar contract requiring him to meet strenous physical challenges, his acceptance could be construed as fraudulent. Could the company sue? I don't know.

Oh, please. You cannot equate sickness covered by FMLA with pregnancy. People don't CHOOSE to have cancer, but people CHOOSE to reproduce. I am so sick of all this "I'm special because I had a kid" crap. It's because of women like this twit that women who DO want to work can't get jobs - who in their right mind would hire a woman of reproductive age (which thanks to medical science is now ridiculously late) when there's a decent chance she's not going to be there? You chose to have it, YOU deal with the consequences. Quit making life miserable for the rest of us.

*Quit making life miserable for the rest of us.*

THANK you. I'm tired of hearing "Congratulate me, I'm taking off for months while you handle my workload. I want my job waiting for me when I return, and incidentally I'll be disappearing at odd times to take care of the kid. You can cover for me."

Please stop telling me how "equal" this deal is. It's abusive.

As Elle points out, only companies with more than 50 employees must allow FMLA.

I'm not an HR expert, but I *believe* There are a few other important qualifiers: FMLA leave does NOT have to be paid, and employees can only use FMLA if they have been employed for more than one year.

Under FMLA, this TV gal planning to take off 8 months into her lavishly paid gig would NOT be entitled to paid leave, or to get her cushy job back.

Re. what's "fair" or "good" regarding maternity leave, I say let the market decide. In my field, professional openings are usually filled via recruiting firms, which charge a huge fee. Our learning curve is also very steep and it takes people several months to become truly productive at work. So it's worth it for MY COMPANY to let a woman go out for a few months on unpaid leave and come back, rather than trying to replace her. If this were a coffee shop or assembly line, that probably wouldn't be the case.

PS FMLA also covers people who need to take time off to care for a sick family member - spouse, parent, or child.

Those of us who resent the pregnant women dumping their workloads on us and coming whistling back in three months later might spare a thought for what we'd hope our employers might allow if our spouse had a stroke or our aged parent were in the final stages of a terminal disease.

I'm not saying FMLA is a perfect system or some kind of inalienable right; I'm just saying it's not a totally unreasonable way of dealing with the exigencies of real life, and it's not only about having babies.

"I'm just saying it's not a totally unreasonable way of dealing with the exigencies of real life" Should it be mandatory is the big question. Should a company be able to offer such packages to employees as the company sees fit? Yes, no one is arguing that. I just don't understand it being mandatory as per the federal government. If it's a short term thing fine but if your going to be primary care taker for a sick or crippled loved one you should get a job that facilitates that. I should not be required as your co-worker to help convert your current job into such a situation.

"spouse had a stroke or our aged parent were in the final stages of a terminal disease." Also unless your a doctor or a nurse precisely what would you be accomplishing by doing it your self. People can take YEARS to die, having this happen at home is a huge drain on everyone with basically no positive outcome. Everyone is miserable with no light at the end of the tunnel.

Were I in the situation of the dieing relative I'd get stoned out of my mind constantly in a room above the garage. Having set up a fundamentally automated self care system so that when my loved ones visit it's about spending time with them and not cleaning and feeding me.

"And I imagined all those thousands of unimaginative clock-punchers who suddenly had to wake up, and how they were probably saying 'I gave all those years to that company...'"

Your posts have been making me smile today, Crid. " ...people start throwing "shoulds" around ..." - Can we please add the word "deserve" to that list? Nothing makes my back hair curl more than hearing "deserve" - you deserve this, I deserve that, when deserve has absolutely nothing to do with reality. As Yoda might say, there is no deserve. Do, or do not.

I heard one of those "gave all those years to the company" remarks one time, and from someone I thought knew better. It came up within the context of a discussion about retirement benefits. Friend A was saying how yes, it would be nice to work for a company for a while and then have the company pay you to sit on your ass for the last thirty or forty years of your life, but how on earth can companies afford to pay pensions and medical benefits for people who AREN'T EVEN WORKING THERE? He went on to observe that these demands, having been made mostly by union workers, had gone on to bankrupt some companies and kill the golden goose. So how could people think that this approach was getting them anywhere, anyway? Friend B then came up with the "but they gave all those years" remark, to which I finally responded, "Yes, but weren't they also getting paid during all of those years?" Friend B just became redfaced and angry - you simply aren't going to dislodge a misplaced sense of entitlement from the mind of someone determined to hold onto it.

I was witness to another conversation where a woman got angry when it was explained to her that the contributions she has paid into Social Security have already been spent. She actually got mad, not at the government who had squandered her money, but at the person telling her the news! Talk about dumb, but then again here was a woman in her 50's who was too ignorant to know that Social Security is a pyramid scheme.

Some people are really out there in la-la land. But they will be the first ones to tell you that people "deserve" or "should have" this or that, regardless of where the money's supposed to come from. The preggos are yet another parade of entitlement-seekers, wanting their lifestyle subsidized at the expense of others.

*The preggos are yet another parade of entitlement-seekers, wanting their lifestyle subsidized at the expense of others.*

True, that. A Catholic acquaintance of mine has a large family and was complaining that his wife got questioned by her company for taking yet another pregnancy leave - her fourth.

His position is that since she has a "job" there, the company should cover her pregnancy costs and time away from the desk, regardless. Mind you, this is four pregnancies in seven years. I'm wondering when the company actually got any work out of her.

Meanwhile, he likes to drone that the problem with America is lazy liberals and their fat entitlement programs.

WTF?

Some actual examples might be useful to back up all these histrionics about the horrors of hiring women of childbearing age. For example, anyone remember how Katie Couric got her job? NBC shuffled the aging Jane Pauley off to evening news programs, and hired the beautiful, sexy Deborah Norville in her place. When she took maternity leave, the girl-next-door Katie Couric took over--though she was ALSO pregnant. As audiences greatly preferred Couric to Norville, Norville did not return when Couric went on maternity leave, and Couric came back after her leave to continue for many more successful years with the Today show. Neither pregnancy affected the show or the women's ability to do the job, save for their time off. They each succeeded or failed on their own merits, pregnancy or no. Had NBC decided not to hire a pregnant woman to co-host the Today Show, they'd have lost the very lucrative talents of Couric. And while Norville's maternity leave presented a convenient window during which to test out Couric, Norville didn't fail or succeed as a result of that leave. The U.S. is a strange place in the industrialized world. Very little sick leave, very little vacation, very little opportunity in most companies for wiggle room in case of personal crisis, whether medical or familial or both. If they don't have laws protecting people from being fired at these points (and those laws only apply to large companies, anyway), then most companies will plead that "to stay competitive" they've got to start letting people go with any crisis. Which will ultimately be bad for everybody. If you make these things just part of the cost of doing business for everyone, there will not be an undue burden on any one group. And Minette Marin's comment that this makes it difficult for every woman is just offensive. Might as well argue that NO women of childbearing age should work (because most pregnancies are unplanned, you really can't gauge whether or not a woman will get pregnant). And the part about women being stupider when pregnant--also offensive. Sure, might be the case with some women, but that's hardly a reason to tar all pregnant women. Might as well fire all women when they get menopausal, because that can cause memory problems. Women: can't hire them during child bearing years, can't hire them AFTER childbearing years.

*Might as well argue that NO women of childbearing age should work (because most pregnancies are unplanned, you really can't gauge whether or not a woman will get pregnant).*

Again, pregnancy is a CHOICE. Say it with me now, a CHOICE. It's not MY problem you're too stupid to, oh I don't know, take a PILL or use a CONDOM, but it IS my problem when you know damn well you're pregnant and take a job just so you can skip off on maternity leave in six months.

And frankly, if you can't figure out how NOT to get yourself knocked up, you're probably too stupid to have a job, anyway.

It takes two people to make a pregnancy - a man and a woman. Yet nearly every post here assumes that the consequences of the pregnancy should fall entirely on the woman. A touch unfair, no?

Of Course it should fall on the Woman! If She doesn't let it in her hole she doesn't get pregnent ...