I Really Can't Understand This "Other People Should Pay For My Life Choices" Thinking
I'm once again going to say the thing we're not supposed to say: If you want to have children, you should save up for the time off you need. You should also work very hard before you take this leave to see that the business you work for isn't hurt (or hurt very much) by your absence.
It is just amazing that parents expect businesses (and effectively, other co-workers) to pay for their choices.
Yet, Claire Prestwood, interviewed by Diane Lincoln at PBS.org, is yet another mother who is a bit aghast at having to pay for the time she won't be working. In other words, she's aghast that somebody else isn't picking up the tab:
Claire Prestwood: I get the 12 weeks I'm entitled to under the Family Medical Leave Act. So it's all unpaid. And the only opportunity I would have to receive additional paid leave would be to use my vacation time or accrued sick leave. In some cases, we can solicit leave donations within the agency, and colleagues or work friends will donate. So far, I've received two donations, which is fantastic. Any little bit helps.Diane Lincoln: Besides the donated days are you going to use any vacation or sick time?
Claire Prestwood: I've used pretty much all of my sick and leave time already, because when you have a young child, almost all of your paid leave goes to their sick days or any time you need to take off to bring them to the doctor for a regular checkup, so I rarely use sick time for myself. It usually goes to my first child, and I have used all of it this year to take care of her. So when the maternity leave came around for the second time for Declan, I basically was out of leave. So I have to take 12 weeks unpaid.
...Diane Lincoln: Why do you think maternity leave is important?
Claire Prestwood: I think first, women have to heal after they have children. To expect someone to be back at work two weeks after they have a baby is really a high expectation given the lack of sleep and the physical process that your body goes through.
Second is being able to care for your baby. There's no one else except the mother who can really best care for the child in the first two weeks of their life given needs for nursing and bonding and the fact that you're the only human being that baby's really ever known.
Third is if anyone expected me to go back to work two to six weeks after I had a child, I would be the most unproductive employee in the office. I would be exhausted, and I would be worried about my child. It really wouldn't be worth it for me to be in the office or for them to have me there trying to work, because it just wouldn't work well.
What does this tell businesses? If you have a choice between hiring a possible mommy and hiring a man, you should hire the man.
I love the phrase "mere 12-week maternity leave."
You're dealing with a group of people who receive free schooling for their children, along with free transportation, (often) free breakfast and lunch, as well as tax breaks, and yet have convinced themselves it's the conservative position to get "vouchers" from the government to send "Ainslee" and "Declan" to the school of their choice.
Wny that's different than getting food stamp vouchers and demanding they be good for the restaurant of their choice, no strings attached,I don't know, but it makes perfect sense that they expect the rest of us to pay for Ainslee-Declan-and-Mommy time.
This woman says she uses all her sick time for her kid, so I only can presume she intends to come to work sick and infect her fellow employees. She says she "would be the most unproductive employee in the office" if she had to go back to work after having a kid. In other words, she tells me everything I need to know to look at other candidates for the job.
Kevin at September 21, 2015 11:23 PM
The "It takes a village ..." people (ha ha) forget or ignore that this logic gives the "village" total control over the care dispensed out by "the village".
Yes it takes help from others to get through major life events (grief, medical surgeries, raising a child, getting started in life).
BUT just like with the VA, Obamacare, or signing up for military service, when you sign up for the "village" to "help" you give up control on who, what, when, how, and so on.
I say give the lady what she wants and require her take of other mother's kids at the same time so those that have to work can do so.
She might not like the answer but if I'm the "village person" I think it is an answer that meets her needs and the "villages'".
Bob in Texas at September 22, 2015 5:33 AM
Oh, but it's a known fact that a woman has to work ten times as hard as a man to get just as far in the workplace, so you're still better off hiring the woman.
Patrick at September 22, 2015 5:43 AM
I worked with an RN so pregnant she was about to pop, the other day. I won't say she gave unsafe care, but she certainly was giving subpar care. So yes, I can see how a brand new mom would be a crappy employee. I don't see how saying "pay me to stay home or I'll just be at work not working" is anything other than extortion.
I work my "hysterectomy, and older school age kids" fact into every interview I do. I stayed home and raised my kids. NOW I work. We can have it all in life, just not all at the same time. One reason I've never understood women who put off having kids to get started in their career: why? Makes more sense to have them young, then get your degree and start the career once they're in school. Otherwise, you start your career, have either a large gap in employment, or several years where you are a subpar employee taking lots of time off, then trying to get back into your career at the level you think you belong. Illogical. And that doesn't even mention the fertility issue.
Companies that want to offer paid parental leave rock-they'll probably get a larger pool of highly qualified applicants to choose from. But mandate it? Hells no.
And WTF is up with asking your coworkers to lose THEIR leave so you can have more??? I mean, anything short of deadly illness-fuck you. That's MY time off.
momof4 at September 22, 2015 6:01 AM
Kevin,
You are pretty far off with your analogy. For one, you can use food stamps at the vendor of your choice. They are vouchers. Two, sending your kids to school is not a choice. It is mandatory and there are penalties for not complying. Three, you don't send your kids to school till age 5. This lady is talking about age 1 and 3. To top it off, where does she claim to be a conservative? Dollars to donuts she is a single mother and has voted democrat any time she actually made it to the polls. It isn't conservatives pushing for longer maternity leave, it is liberals.
And as a conservative this may mark me as the dinosaur that I am. Where is her husband? Where are her parents? Why can't the grandparents take care of the kids? It's not like child care is a new issue.
"There's no one else except the mother who can really best care for the child in the first two weeks of their life given needs for nursing and bonding and the fact that you're the only human being that baby's really ever known."
It's called formula. There are also pumps and refrigerators for those so inclined. Her complete dismissal of men is sexist. Time to call PC principal on her ass.
Ben at September 22, 2015 6:15 AM
I work my "hysterectomy, and older school age kids" fact into every interview I do.
This is smart, momof4. I also sense from your comments here (reading between the lines) that you're a hard worker, and I'm guessing that comes through in interviews.
Amy Alkon at September 22, 2015 6:40 AM
"To expect someone to be back at work two weeks after they have a baby is really a high expectation..."
Lots of women of my age cohort did it in the 1980s. Are today's young women more fragile?
Cousin Dave at September 22, 2015 6:56 AM
Gee, 12 whole weeks of unpaid maternity leave.
Someone whining like this should NEVER be hired for ANY job: they're a grievance lawsuit waiting to happen.
When my wife and I had kids? I got to take 2 days off each. The day she delivered, and the day she brought each daughter home. And that came out of personal leave.
And that was when a delivering mother was kept in the hospital for a day or two after delivery.
As for "healing" and "recovery" time, I'd have liked to have introduced her to my late great-grandmother. Who had 7 children, living in a prairie sod hut on the family farm with my great-grandfather. Back then, maternity leave was maybe a whole hour after delivering the afterbirth. . . .
Keith Glass at September 22, 2015 7:00 AM
The issue is one of unknown and unplanned risk to the employer when hiring a woman of child-bearing age.
The way we handle unknown and unplanned risk is by insurance.
So have women of child-bearing age buy additional insurance, to cover the costs of maternity leave. Not able to, or planning to, have children (for whatever reason) = don't buy the insurance.
It's no different than buying long-term disability insurance, which is (effectively) what maternity leave is.
If I rack myself up on my motorcycle going home tonight, and I have to be off work for 3 months, my employer (bless him) pays my salary for 30 days or 60 days, or whatever it may be, and after that, I'm on my own. That's why I buy LTD insurance, to pay my salary while I'm unable to work. My employer provides this insurance through a group plan that reduces the premiums, but it's me that pays them. Why should having a child (which is, again, a completely voluntary choice these days) be any different? Make the premiums pre-tax if you want to add an incentive. It's not expensive.
If the employer wants to subsidize the premiums, or offer it for free, that's part of the benefits package that they choose to offer, and is between them and the employee. No need for any laws.
Once again, the free market offers the most-equitable solution. However, that does not prevent the perpetually-entitled from demanding that others pay for the costs of their life choices. And mandatory paid maternity leave is a liberal politician's dream - you tax the employer to provide it, and get the votes of all those female voters - for nothing. Why would you be surprised that liberal politicians would clamour for this?
llater,
llamas
llamas at September 22, 2015 7:17 AM
As for "healing" and "recovery" time, I'd have liked to have introduced her to my late great-grandmother. Who had 7 children, living in a prairie sod hut on the family farm with my great-grandfather. Back then, maternity leave was maybe a whole hour after delivering the afterbirth. . . .
Posted by: Keith Glass at September 22, 2015 7:00 AM
I know I am here on this earth because my female ancestors weren't going it alone.
They had loving fathers who made their children a priority.
My father used to tell stories about my grandfather, and how they kept him, and his siblings alive who were born in the dead of winter alive.
My grandfather was a very quiet sleeper who always slept on his back. If there was a newborn in the house, the baby slept on his chest at night, until the weather was warm enough for the baby to move to the dresser drawer.
They never lost a single child. Neither did my great grandparents.
Isab at September 22, 2015 7:23 AM
To pile on this woman further:
In some cases, we can solicit leave donations within the agency, and colleagues or work friends will donate. So far, I've received two donations, which is fantastic. Any little bit helps."
Any little bit?"
Really? Someone else just gave you THEIR time off and you call it a little bit!
Selfish prick. I'm glad that I don't work with her.
Oh wait, I did. Last year I worked with a woman going out on maternity leave. The rest of us were expected to schedule meetings around her doctor's appointments; pick up her work (without extra compensation); and then chip in for a baby gift! Fuck no! She was permanent with benefits; I was a temp with only an hourly wage. She can buy her own damned baby clothes!
charles at September 22, 2015 7:46 AM
I'm amazed how women stumble into these jobs and then yikes! They wanna have a BABY! Who knew? Who did any preparation for this unexpected blessed occurrence?
Work from home. I chose my career and worked toward the goal that I would like to be there when my kids get in from school. Much thought and preparation went into this decision. Years making it happen. Now that my girls are getting older, I am pushing them to pick majors and careers where they can put their career on hold and still jump back in at the point they wanna go back to work (if they see babies in their future - which they really don't). See the future you want and go make it happen. But don't expect for someone else to subsidize it. Ridiculous.
gooseegg at September 22, 2015 8:42 AM
You are pretty far off with your analogy. For one, you can use food stamps at the vendor of your choice. They are vouchers. Two, sending your kids to school is not a choice. It is mandatory and there are penalties for not complying. Three, you don't send your kids to school till age 5. This lady is talking about age 1 and 3. To top it off, where does she claim to be a conservative? Dollars to donuts she is a single mother and has voted democrat any time she actually made it to the polls. It isn't conservatives pushing for longer maternity leave, it is liberals.
I don't give a fig about her political opinions, or yours; I'm pointing out that gimme-government-vouchers for school has somehow become a tenet of modern conservatism. This gimme-entitlement always seems to come from a certain type of middle- to upper-middle-class woman in a white-collar job.
Further, my analogy is spot-on. Someone who takes government funds for personal food needs can use SNAP benefits at the vendor of their choice; they just can't demand they be spent at the restaurant of their choice. If they take government funds for personal school needs, there should be similar strings attached. In my ideal world, those strings would involve a certain number of hours worked at the school and at least a middling grade point average for the kid, but I realize I'm living in a fantasy world on that one.
And as a conservative this may mark me as the dinosaur that I am. Where is her husband? Where are her parents? Why can't the grandparents take care of the kids? It's not like child care is a new issue.
On this we can agree. Two parents are nice to have. So are extended families. I don't care about her particular family arrangements — she could be the town pump and it wouldn't matter to me as long as it didn't affect her work. I once supervised a woman who intimated she wanted to bring her child into work every day during the summer. As the date grew closer, I told her that wouldn't be possible except in the most dire emergency.
She was nonplussed: "What do you expect me to do?"
"What did you do last year?" I said. "Do that."
Kevin at September 22, 2015 9:17 AM
The Facebook page, "A Mighty Girl" is cheering a photo of a few Army females breastfeeding in BDUs.
What I see is "soldiers" totally unavailable for duty, a progressively more obscure term for a condition in which the mission, not the individual, comes first.
Thus died Rome.
Radwaste at September 22, 2015 9:56 AM
@ Kevin, who wrote:
'I'm pointing out that gimme-government-vouchers for school has somehow become a tenet of modern conservatism.'
To be fair, in the US at least, taxes to pay for schools are generally collected locally and specifically, so it's not hard to identify what a school district is being paid for a pupil's attendance. Asking to be able to take one's taxes to a school more to one's liking doesn't seem completely unreasonable. It's not as 'gimme' as, say, demanding that an employer pay an employee not to show up for 3 months, or 6 months, or whatever the demand is today, and threaten him with fines and jail if he does not do so.
While school vouchers are often a conservative issue, we should not overlook the large number of cases of minority parents in truly-ghastly school systems who desperately clamor for vouchers as a way to get their kids out of the indentured servitude that is the union-and-Democrat-dominated public school gulag.
llater,
llamas
llamas at September 22, 2015 10:15 AM
And yet, for the whole of human existence... there has been work, and there have been children. Somehow, those crazy humans have made it all happen.
:shrug:
These sort of people NEVER think about what the needful things of life are about... only that they have decided that the baseline of their life is the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM required to exist.
Some of you see this everyday... you come through in the clutch in an emergency?
Suddenly that is your minimum operating threshold.
She sounds kinda unhappy, that she doesn't have to spend 6 hours a day carrying water for her family.
The pendulum of society swings, back and forth... people should be reminded that there is a blade on it's end.
SwissArmyD at September 22, 2015 10:34 AM
It depends on how much you value a replacement birth rate or not. If as a society you are happy with a below-replacement rate, then there is no need for these structures. You can always import immigrants.
But don't then whine about all the immigrants coming in... odds they aren't gonna be from other western secular countries.
If you'd rather a higher birth rate, then make policies that support families.
NicoleK at September 22, 2015 10:42 AM
Kevin,
You analogy stinks. A more appropriate one would be expanding SNAP and raising taxes on local business to pay for it. This is asking for a new benefit, not asking to change how a current program is administered. And the correct analogy between school vouchers and SNAP is changing SNAP to only be used at government soup kitchens.
As for why her politics matter, you keep trying to tie conservatives and maternity leave together. That's not reality. This is a left wing desire, not a right wing one.
NicoleK,
I reject your false choice. Look at all the nations that have implemented maternity care like this. They have low birth rates. And implementing these programs if anything lowered the birth rate. The solution lies elsewhere.
Ben at September 22, 2015 11:27 AM
As for why her politics matter, you keep trying to tie conservatives and maternity leave together. That's not reality. This is a left wing desire, not a right wing one.
No, I do not. I know few libertarian-conservatives in favor of government-mandated maternity leave.
I know quite a few libertarian-conservatives who feel entitled to public tax dollars being used to subsidize their children's private education.
My point was that parents across the ideological spectrum seem to feel they're entitled to these sorts of breaks, and profess sweet astonishment when the rest of us say, "No, enough; I don't want to work while you sit home and collect money" or "No, enough; I already subsidize your child's education, and if you want a private education for that child, pay for it yourself."
Kevin at September 22, 2015 12:16 PM
Here is a study that argues that maternity leave encourages Australian women to have kids and remain in the workforce, as opposed to baby bonus policies with correlate with higher birth rates but may cause women to drop out of the workforce.
https://business.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/D2_-_2006Risse.pdf
So of course it depends if you want both parents working or not... or, if like Elizabeth Warren, you believe two-income households lead to economic instability.
NicoleK at September 22, 2015 12:23 PM
Most European countries are below replacement but the ones who have more benefits for moms, and more working moms, have higher rates than the ones with less support
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
"According to Hans-Peter Kohler of the University of Pennsylvania, analysis of recent studies showed that “high fertility was associated with high female labor-force participation . . . and the lowest fertility levels in Europe since the mid-1990s are often found in countries with the lowest female labor-force participation.” In other words, working mothers are having more babies than stay-at-home moms. "
"This is a crucial difference between the north — including France and the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries — and the south. The Scandinavian countries have both the most vigorous social-welfare systems in Europe and — at 1.8 — among the highest fertility rates."
NicoleK at September 22, 2015 12:31 PM
I bought maternity disability insurance knowing I'd likely have kids at some point. It paid before delivery if any complications forced me to be off work. It then paid for 6 weeks afterward for vaginal delivery and 8 weeks if cesarean. It only cost $30 a month for the premiums. On top of that, I put a little money aside ($100 a paycheck) and volunteered for overtime, volunteered to work on holidays (2-1/2x pay) and saved all that extra too. I also tried to have positions where my shift started in the afternoon and included at least one weekend day so I wouldn't have to miss work for appointments. I worked full-time and took the minimum times off through three kids. I got laid off when #3 was 6 months old and at that pointed we decided I'd stay home and raise the kids and when they are all in school full time I would go back to work part time or to school for a new/better career.
I have a friend living in Austria right now. She has three kids. They have extremely generous maternity benefits and the choice of how to use them. She takes full advantage to get the maximum possible out of it. She had her third child a couple months ago. Society in general frowns upon having more than two kids and the preference seems to be to only have one child. She has been called selfish and told she's wasting resources ever since she had her second child. She said that while they are very generous to those having a child, they really don't want you having any and using the benefits.
Another friend is living in Singapore right now and she and her husband are viewed as freaks for having four children and are often called greedy foreigners because of it. They are both from Singapore originally but moved to the US as children. They are back in Singapore now for work. They had two kids when they moved there and had two more while there. She says they are mostly ostracized by people when out as a whole family.
Countries imlemented their generous maternity benefits because of dropping birth rates and it still hasn't done anything to bring them up. Why have kids when societally it's not viewed as a good thing?
BunnyGirl at September 22, 2015 12:34 PM
So basically, it is a choice. You can implement policy that supports a higher birthrate, or you can have more rugged individualism.
Not saying one is better than the other, just that it is a choice.
NicoleK at September 22, 2015 12:35 PM
I know quite a few libertarian-conservatives who feel entitled to public tax dollars being used to subsidize their children's private education.
My point was that parents across the ideological spectrum seem to feel they're entitled to these sorts of breaks, and profess sweet astonishment when the rest of us say, "No, enough; I don't want to work while you sit home and collect money" or "No, enough; I already subsidize your child's education, and if you want a private education for that child, pay for it yourself."
Posted by: Kevin at September 22, 2015 12:16 PM
I'm one of those libertarian conservatives which see vouchers as a mixed bag, but generally better than the union/bureaucrat dominated public schooling that exists now.
Most people who have children also pay taxes, and do so for long after their children have grown up.
People who want to either privately school their children, or home school their children should be entitled to a big fraction of the support that goes to the public schools, possibly in the form of a serious rebate on their local and county taxes.
And certainly in the form of free textbooks through either the schools or the county library.
Just like a lot of teachers don't want to see their mandatory union dues flowing into the coffers of the Democratic Party, I don't like seeing my tax dollars going there either (indirectly through the teachers union.)
I personally think that public education in this country is going the way of the taxi medallion. It is dying a slow death, but the obscene pensions for people effectively working a part time job will put the nail in the coffin.
Too much good stuff available either for free or minimal cost on the Internet.
DuoLingo is at least twice as good as any foreign language college course I have ever taken. Wish it had been around when I was homeschooling my son.
Isab at September 22, 2015 12:54 PM
Nicole, when the U.S. was becoming a great nation, we had both. As others have pointed out, bribes to have children haven't done much for western Europe's birth rates. Or, for that matter, its economies. If paid-leave policies are not having much negative impact, it's because the country in question is already rationing work, and the person on leave was redundant anyway. It's the same principle as France's anti-overtime laws.
Cousin Dave at September 22, 2015 1:03 PM
Most people who have children also pay taxes, and do so for long after their children have grown up.
Most people who don't have children also pay taxes.
And certainly in the form of free textbooks through either the schools or the county library.
Parents sure love to drop their free market beliefs like a hot potato when their gimmes are threatened.
I don't have kids. Which "free" books do I get?
Kevin at September 22, 2015 1:13 PM
have kids. Which "free" books do I get?
Posted by: Kevin at September 22, 2015 1:13 PM
Anything that a library card will get you. You are paying for the library too or haven't you noticed?
My free market beliefs are tempered by the reality that some stuff is the provenance of the Republic, like the military, the roads, and the court system.
Public schools have been captured by the teachers unions. While I would like to see them mostly eliminated I moved away from libertarian la la land some time in my late forties.
Send me a postcard when you get to Realsville, or some place with no property taxes. (Those places do exist you know)
Alaskan education is largely funded by mineral taxes. They have no state income tax, and there are many small towns with no property taxes.
Is is quite easy to minimize your tax burden, and your responsibilities to your fellow citizens with just a little bit of planning.
But if your high income depends on you living in a high tax state, suck it up buttercup. You bought it, you own it. Your fellow citizens voted for it, and now you have to pay or leave.
Isab at September 22, 2015 1:38 PM
Why is the only education system that is acceptable to receive tax dollars the one run by the government?
If the government is obligated to provide for an education for all children, why isn't subsidizing a private school acceptable? Why is asking for a subsidy for that greedy?
Just because the government is obligated to provide for it doesn't mean the only way it can be delivered is if the government provides it. Using a subcontractor is a legitimate provision of the service.
Conan the Grammarian at September 22, 2015 1:54 PM
Conan wrote :
I know quite a few libertarian-conservatives who feel entitled to public tax dollars being used to subsidize their children's private education. ~ Posted by: Isab at September 22, 2015 12:54 PM
I didn't post that. It was a quote from Kevin.
Isab at September 22, 2015 2:24 PM
NicoleK,
Do you want to know the most effective way to increase the birth rate? Religious revival. It is no secret that people who are active in an organized religion tend to have large families. This is as true in Europe as it is for the US. The costs are minimal, especially compared with welfare benefits.
Another alternative, tax people with too few kids. Its been done before to spectacular effect. I don't recommend it but if you really want more babies it will certainly get you there.
Ben at September 22, 2015 3:04 PM
"We can have it all in life, just not all at the same time."
Bingo! This! So much this there isn't enough this for it all.
Hegwynne at September 22, 2015 3:07 PM
Another alternative, tax people with too few kids.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2015 3:04 PM
It's ALREADY being done in the U.S., from what I hear, over and over, from very annoyed childfree people. It's just not being done in those exact words. That is, even if there were a high birth rate, childfree and childless people would STILL be taxed at a higher rate than parents.
lenona at September 22, 2015 4:05 PM
ADY being done in the U.S., from what I hear, over and over, from very annoyed childfree people. It's just not being done in those exact words. That is, even if there were a high birth rate, childfree and childless people would STILL be taxed at a higher rate than parents.
Posted by: lenona
Yes, certain child related expenses are either tax deductible or you get a tax credit for.
A family also gets a small exemption for each eligible individual on a joint return.
But no, single and child free couples are not getting taxed at a higher *rate*. than those who have kids. If you want to pay the same percentage of your income, you just need to put more money into either tax deferred investments, deductions, or things you can get a tax credit for, that will lower your overall tax rate.
Isab at September 22, 2015 4:44 PM
Wow BunnyGirl, you are a hero!
No one paid for the 9 months I took off to take care of my parents. No one paid for that or for my COBRA ($660 a month). I lived cheap and have. $10 year old car and used some of my "if the worst happens" savings.
Most companies pay disability when you are on maternity of any surgical leave (six weeks the standard). Then for about for about $10 a month I get a sort of Aflac plan that would cover above and beyond whatever the length of my illness (like if I had treatment for cancer or rehab say after hip replacement that kept me out longer to cover my bills). At one place I worked it was $6 pre tax and most people don't take advantage of it! An office manager told me so many under 40 (as I Was at the time) think aaah my mom will take care of me! Will mom pay your rent? Your heat? I also bought for an extra $25 for accidental death/dismemberment. Bargain!
PS how many women take the leave and say they are coming back to use their disability or whatever and then quit? Happens all the time wherever I worked. Would like the numbers.
CatherineM at September 22, 2015 5:01 PM
I've been in a lot of workplaces where a female coworker took maternity leave to have a second or third child and didn't return when maternity leave ran out.
So, instead of announcing her intention to not come back, she got money from the company and delayed the hiring of her replacement. The rest of us ended up doing her work when we could have hired a replacement before she left.
In a way, I can't blame them. They maximized their income. However, in that it doubled my workload, it was kind of underhanded.
==============================
Sorry. It was hard to tell that it was a quote from the way you posted it.
Conan the Grammarian at September 22, 2015 5:22 PM
"It's ALREADY being done in the U.S., from what I hear, over and over, from very annoyed childfree people."
That's a nice story Lenona. But if you look at the actual statistics I doubt it's true.
"I also bought for an extra $25 for accidental death/dismemberment. Bargain!"
I just save the extra $25 and self insure. It's an even better bargain since I'm not paying someone else to save it for me. Same with my car. If I get in an accident and it is my fault insurance will replace the other guy's car. But my car is my responsibility.
Ben at September 22, 2015 6:18 PM
At my last job, if you didn't work a minimum of 120 hours after maternity leave you were responsible for paying for all the benefits they paid while you were off. As a result, everyone came back from leave but most quit in a month. That's not any better than not coming back at all. I think they thought they'd retain employees by basically forcing them to come back, but it didn't work out that way in the end.
BunnyGirl at September 22, 2015 9:11 PM
"I just save the extra $25 and self insure. It's an even better bargain since I'm not paying someone else to save it for me. "
Either approach is valid. Whatever works best for you. The point was, as I'm sure you got, that a lot of people don't do either, and then when Black Friday comes, they expect someone else to cover them.
"So, instead of announcing her intention to not come back, she got money from the company and delayed the hiring of her replacement. "
I posted in a previous thread about a co-worker at a place I used to work, who strung it along for a year. She used up her leave and short-term disability, came back to work for about two days, and then told management she wasn't ready to work and needed more time. This pattern repeated every month or so. For that whole period, they had to hold her slot open and the rest of us in the group had to pick up her work. Every now and then she'd show up, but then one of us would have to fill her in on everything that had happened in the meantime, so not only did she not get any work done, but it took one of us away from our jobs to bring her back up to speed. Than bam, she'd go on leave again. After a year, the company finally told her she needed to either commit to at least 30 hours a week or turn in her notice. She came in to get her stuff (including the plants that we'd watered and kept alive in her absence), and left without saying goodbye to anyone.
Cousin Dave at September 23, 2015 7:14 AM
Tis true Cousin Dave, tis true. I just object to the insure everything mentality. Insure your house, and your car. But a TV? A scanner? What's next, a pair of shoes? Or the lunch you just ate? It doesn't matter if it is cheap. Often those deals still aren't worth it.
Ben at September 23, 2015 6:44 PM
She came in to get her stuff (including the plants that we'd watered and kept alive in her absence), and left without saying goodbye to anyone.
Posted by: Cousin Dave at September 23, 2015 7:14 AM
She probably felt guilty and embarrassed by what she had done to you guys.
The only thing that really annoyed me, were those people who were either always sick themselves (usually drunk or hungover). Or took copious amounts of sick leave to care for children and parents, and then when they really got sick themselves expected their fellow employees to donate regular leave to them so they could continue to get paid while they took a month or two off.
Most the people who did this in my office were retired military, already double dippers, and expected the rest of us to chip in to keep that second pay check fat.
Isab at September 23, 2015 9:23 PM
You are a troll. This is one of the most sickening things I've ever read. What a bunch of sexist, misogynistic, Trump supporting, narcissistic jerks.
For every mom out there, like myself, who not only has a full-time, high paying job and is happily married to a man who supports my career and is a partner in parenting our kids, you all can thank me later for raising the next generation of engineers, physicists, doctors and teachers. I am setting an example for my daughters that you can have a career you are passionate about and successful at while balancing a loving, nurtured family.
I had two c-sections which required 8 weeks of physical recovery each, (yes, 8 weeks. It is major abdominal surgery you know), and because of my dedication to my company and my job, was back on email shortly after each while being home recovering and caring for my newborn. I returned to my job after both maternity leaves just as competent, respected and hard-working as I had been when I left and continued to execute my responsibilities exceeding the performance measures laid out by senior leadership. I say this because the assumption that a woman returning from maternity leave is just punching the clock till she can leave the company or go home for more "vacation time" with her kids is such a gross misrepresentation of the majority of women out there and such an overgeneraliztion of what is the rare case and not the norm.
If Advice Goddess had actually covered the entirety of the PBS interview and not just excerpted the portions that support her ridiculous point of view, you readers would have learned that Claire and her HUSBAND, who both hold down full-time careers, carefully planned financially for the 12 weeks without pay that she would incur. She is not on government assistance or taking your hard earned tax dollars to support her children. Insulting a strong, smart, capable career woman by suggesting she's just popping out kids to be on government assistance is low-minded and assinine.
Claire brought to light a perspective that many FAMILIES - and I say families in support of the men/women, men/men and women/women who chose to start families TOGETHER- share. Believe it or not, there are men out there that support their wives having careers and bearing their children- GASP!
And to those of you who brought her children into this by name, you are sick.
Maggie at May 13, 2016 9:42 AM
100% right Isab. This is totally sick. This attitude is what is leading to fragmented families along with deteriorating values and empathy. I'm quite speechless.
TPS at May 13, 2016 12:24 PM
Leave a comment