You're forgetting that corporations are big, evil, rich, soulless money-gouging groups of old white guys, and the workers are good, decent, hard-working, and have no choices, but must do whatever they are told by whoever is in authority over them.

It's not the WORKERS' fault that they are sucked into buying things they don't need and running up credit card debt, not saving money, etc. instead of preparing for eventual illness, parenthood, or loss.

Amy, how can you be so insensitive?!

"The law requires larger employers and public agencies to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave -- as well as continuation of health benefits -- for the birth or adoption of a child, or to care for an opposite-sex spouse, a parent or a child who has fallen ill (or to deal with your own health problem)."

Congratulations, Ms. Bernard: you are lamenting an inability to get welfare, calling "America among the least generous". Is that what you think America is about?

Maybe you should have a job with a government agency or contractor. I can show you personally - well, I could if their names weren't protected by regulations on the subject - how YOU are paying individuals working for your government more than fifty thousand dollars each in direct wages to stay home - for EACH child they have. Their work must be done by others, and that's okay - contractors hire more people under other terms to pick up the slack. Also on your tax dollar. Feeling warm and fuzzy yet?

Go read the US Government Manual. Try to see how many Federal employees there are. Add to that the number of contractors to which these Federal laws are applied, and you can count the tax money vanishing from your own pocket. Good thing you're pro- family, huh?

I work for a Federal contractor. The level of stupidity is astonishing at times, and I can point to my influence in reducing it in material terms. The idea that something is "good enough for government work" was never good, it isn't now, and we, the public have to start paying attention and doing our job running the country.

There's no paid time off from that. Slack off, and someone else will TAKE that job from us. You can see it happening in the news, if you can take your eyes off Honey Boo Boo.

Having worked in Personnel/Labor Relatons (I can not bring myself to use that ridiculous euphenism "Human Resources) for over 20 years, I can tell you that the Family Leave Act is the most abused regulation governing employers.

It is responsible for thousands of dollars of excess cost to cover for employees who can buy a medical excuse for a few dollars.

Oddly enough, if you look at the BIRTHRATE

10 Best Countries for Paid Maternity Leave:
* Sweden – up to 80% of average wage for up to 480 days (for mums or dads) & expected to share parental leave either in equal halves or greater part dependant on the partners consent
* Croatia – 100% of wages for one-year plus for mums
* Denmark – up to 100% of wages for 1 year (18 wks for the mums, 2 wks for the dads & the remainder to be split as the parents see fit)
* Serbia – up to 100% of wages for 1 year
* Bosnia & Herzegovina – up to 100% of wages for 1 year
* Albania – up to 80% of wages for 1 year
* Norway – pays up to 100% of wages for 42-52 weeks
* UK – up to 90% of wages for 39 weeks & 2-weeks  paternity leave
* Iceland – up to 80% of wages for 36 weeks
* Ukraine – up to 100% of wages for 18 weeks & a child’s carer can request leave any time before their charge reaches the age of 3

10 Worst countries for Paid Maternity Leave:
* United States – pays nothing for 12 weeks off
* Macedonia – pays nothing for 9 months off
* Australia  – pays nothing for one year off
* Kuwait  – pays 100% of wages for 10 weeks off
* Bangladesh  – pays 100% of wages for 12 weeks off
* Rwanda, Somalia & Tanzania – pays for 12 weeks off (similar to most African countries)
* Peru, Columbia & Ecuador – pays 100% of wages for 12 weeks off  (similar to most South American countries)
* Fiji  – pays a flat rate for 12 weeks off
* New Zealand  – pays up to 80% of wages for 14 weeks off
* Afghanistan  – pays 100% of wages for 13 weeks off

From a Australiam blog on: http://www.creditcardcompare.com.au/blog/best-worst-countries-in-the-world-for-paid-maternity-leave.php

Now, let's compare that to birthrates:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Birth_rate_figures_for_countries.PNG

On this handy map, you can see that NONE of those top 10 countries are having a baby boom, in fact, none of them are at replacement.

What they don't bother to say in relation, is you have to have a job in the first place to take leave of it... so in poorer countries, how much does this EVEN apply?

Bottom line Q? Is, are European countries trying this in an effort to pull their birthrates out of a crashdive?
If so... it ain't workin'

Marissa sez: Git yer ass in here.

" . . the United States is among the least generous in the world . . ."

As many here will agree, one cannot, should not, be "generous" with someone else's money.

If Tara, or any other person, wants to offer "generosity," they are free to do so with THEIR money. But, not with mine, or with someone else's (in this case companies, i.e., shareholders' money)

If the job market weren't being so screwed over by government then companies would offer "generous" benefits because the market place would push them to do so as they would be competing for employees with other companies.

With a better eceonomy, there would not be a need for laws to "force" campanies to offer decent pay and benefits. There would be no laws requiring companies to keep the mother's job open for her. (and what happens to the poor sucker who fills in for her, maybe doing a better job, who is then throw out when mother decides to return to "work"?)

Excellent point, Charles.

There are no minutely intellectual shades of meaning at work in Siegel's use of the word "generous." There are people who sincerely think that's how the world works, and they used that word in its precise third-grader sense. They honestly believe that policymakers wake up and decide how nice wealthy people are going to be to the defenseless and the downtrodden.

I hate the human heart: It's cowardly and lazy.

The United States is the military bulwark for all those nations that are so "generous." We, the United States taxpayers, execute the first responsibility of government: We defend them from foreign threats.

Someone's gotta gota work in the morning.

If you want to see some over-the-top rationalization of truly twisted crap, check THIS out, and weep at some of the implications.

"However, thanks to a government that employs nearly half of its labor force, Belarus has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world."

Obviously this means a productive, fulfilled population - yet it's on the misery list. If we could just be like them!

"Liberia's economy is in shambles due to civil war and government mismanagement. In 2010, $5 billion worth of international debt was permanently eliminated. The country's rich natural resources have helped the economy grow. But due to its heavy exposure to commodities, which can be volatile, much of its labor force have been unable to find steady work."

Notice they don't say that debt was PAID. And those damned commodities!

"Income inequality is absurd here: Even though the country boasts a high GDP per capita, Namibia holds the world record for the highest GINI coefficient at 70.7 percent."

A measure of the ratio between the richest and poorest, this moans about the unfair practice of not paying everybody for the work of a few thousand miners.

The authors apparently miss the fact that every nation mentioned on the misery list employs a failed policy being championed by assorted Americans!

FMLA can have benefits for businesses. I considered making use of it several years ago when I was taking care of my parents. Had I done so, I would have gone back to work once my leave was up, with no added responsibilities, and my company would not have had to replace me and train someone new. I was good at my job, and it would have been worth it for them.

My co-workers would have had to take up the slack while I was away, but we all did that for each other at one point or another. Two employees took paternity leave and one took time off for some health problems he was having, so it would have been fair all around.

I don't see FMLA as a means of encouraging higher birth rates, because businesses shouldn't have to give a crap about that. But it can be very useful for keeping turnover low when people are experiencing a temporary need for time off to deal with family issues. Expecting people to prepare for the birth of a child is one thing. Expecting them to prepare for the often unexpected burden of caring for sick parents or spouses is something else. Often those things just come out of nowhere.

Monica, I hate to say this, but you've just admitted that your position is underutilized, if not superfluous.

WHERE DID ANYONE GET THE IDEA THEY SHOULD BE PAID FOR NOT WORKING?

Monica, I hate to say this, but you've just admitted that your position is underutilized, if not superfluous.

Perhaps. But I don't think so. We needed all the people we had, but we could make do for a few months without any one person when we prepared for the departure. I bet a lot of jobs are like that.

WHERE DID ANYONE GET THE IDEA THEY SHOULD BE PAID FOR NOT WORKING?

FMLA doesn't pay people for not working. It just saves your spot for you. Assuming the employee is worth that kind of effort, it's a good thing. My husband actually WAS paid for not working when he took paternity leave. His job doesn't have a leave policy. People take the time they need, with pay. They are very selective in their hiring process, and they treat their employees well. He works hard to earn that kind of treatment.

"We needed all the people we had, but we could make do for a few months without any one person when we prepared for the departure."

No. This means - and this is a matter of logic, not my opinion - that your office was not working at capacity. Maybe you could hide this from yourselves as well as your customers, but if your productivity did NOT drop when you left, you're just not being used effectively. Do you not appear at work to produce something?

"FMLA doesn't pay people for not working. It just saves your spot for you."

And if your job was indeed NOT superfluous, the company had to pay someone else to do your job. What part of that is your right? What part of that is or should be a legal obligation of an employer based on how many employees they have?

It is not an employer's job to hold your hand, feed you, send you flowers or even pay you beyond what is necessary to get you to work. It is your job to sell your effort to the employer. If you have a problem with this model, just take some time off and apply to work for a Mexican landscaper. Don't show up, don't get paid, period.

Then, complain to the government that it isn't fair!

> As many here will agree, one cannot, should not,
> be "generous" with someone else's money.

I like that sentence so much I pasted it up in here again.

There are of course uncounted millions of people who are gaming the system in their own best interests, in this country and in others.

But people you would otherwise regard as decent and forgivable trip badly on this principle, and they do it because they're cowards. It's easier to act as if civilization is, y'know, "basically" a well-run enterprise with a few difficult offices than to admit that there's evil in all hearts, including one's own... And quite a bit in the hearts of those who claim to be our servants, but who will challenge us in uncomfortable ways if we call them on their bullshit.

Everyone reading these words will live for many more years, almost certainly... So throw away one day on my behalf. Next time you think someone's doing something sort of shady, but they're greasing the moment with the presumption that you agree that they're "basically" a good person, perhaps notably good, I want you to speak up. You have other friends, and you have other vendors or coworkers, and there are going to be conflicts in everyday life anyway, right? So have some fun...

As Bowie put it, just for one day, don't let anyone pretend to be kinder or more charitable or more honest than you are merely to avoid social awkwardness.

Because unless you see their cancelled checks to the orphanage Christmas fund, they're almost certainly not.

Charles, one more time:

> As many here will agree, one cannot, should not,
> be "generous" with someone else's money.

It always pains me to agree with Raddy, but I admire his fussiness on this point.

This is not a challenge to Monica or her husband, their family, or the progress of their careers. But government adores big business because there's [surprise!:] almost no limit to the number of tiny adjustments that can be made for these productivity losses... Or at least, no limit to the ways to mask them with bureaucracy and bullshit. That's how government employment works as well. But it's not just affinity, it's the reason government prefers big business to small: They hate small businessmen (and their small profits) for being so fragile. They don't know how to deal with someone who pays attention to the books because it's his own money.

This is where the Charles principle breaks hearts and lives.

Christ, that is a cocksucker chart.

It's dark. Maybe America will be prettier in the morning.

Buh-dum-PUM.

On point!

Includes Kafka!... Can get you laid!

When a co-worker has gone out for an extended amount of time it has been bad. In a couple of cases the rest of us had to cover. One time was quite bad...were all at least puting in 10 hour days every day. When my manager was out it didn't seem so bad and I mentioned that to another co-worker and he said while it was not so bad for us, this other manager was really dying - working a lot of 12 hour days, working on the weekend etc.

The other times they hired a contractor...which is quite expensive...you not only have the actual cover time but the ramp up time and transfer back.

I think the hidden thing is how work can really be divided up.

Perhaps it is like this you have 1000 documents that have to be processed each day by 10 people (100/person)...if you lose one then it is 1000/9=111 per person..not too bad..11% increase. now imagine 2 offices where the work cannot be easily sent to the other office...500/4=125..25% increase or worse yet 5 regional offices 200/1 or a 100% increase in work.

FMLA is a pain in my ass. I hate it. I am a salaried employee expected to work a minimum of 45 hours a week with zero comp time when I work mandatory weekends or in the case of business trips 17+ hours a day for 7+ days in a row yet, if I take more than two hours for a prenatal appointment (45 minutes away) my pay is "docked" those hours (even though I am not an hourly employee). Had I been "sick" and went to the doctor, there is no charge to my payroll.

I get 12 weeks unpaid. I have short term disability that I am paid for approximately 5 weeks (taxed). Which is peanuts.

I have been squirreling away money since I found out I was pregnant and paying off as many bills as I can to reduce my liabilities during my leave.

My company has a strict work from home policy. This is where they are really ridiculous. Because I am going to stay home for 9 weeks to recover and bond - but if I was working from home, I'd probably only need half that time. So ImHo - thy can save my spot or not (which I know they will with or without FMLA) I don't care. The fact is you have a company you work for willing to invest in the individual or not (the more voluntary the better). And to those like my company (who I believe do not by working FMLA to their sole favor and then prohibiting their employees a minimal accommodation when they don't WANT to be absent the entire time) deserve what is coming to them - lots of turnover!

I think where employees can del directly with employers without restrictions and middlemen - individual to their talents and capabilities, that is best. But these companies are also partly to blame too. They make their deals with the devil (guv) take all their tax writeoffs, handouts, lobbyists and onesided interpretations of the law... And provide no flexibility to their decent employees ("treat everyone the same") they honestly can find someone else.
I am using my nine weeks unpaid (or a portion thereof) to find another job. And the'll be out that turnover cost and my talent.

This works both wAys.

I like you Feebie.

Feebie - You might want to talk to an attorney. Their actions maybe illegal...it sounds similar to a lawsuit my father was involved in when I was a kid that the workers won. The ruling was basically that the employer had to treat employee's that they paid salary (not hourly) like salaried people...that is, by the job not track each little hour.

Feebs be totes faboo.

My letter to the editor, translation to follow:

Vous allez me prendre pour une égoïste, car je vote mon intérêt cette élection. Je suis mère au foyer, et j’avoue que l’idée d’avoir une augmentation d’impôts sans voir de bénéfice personnel me trouble. Donc, je vote non sur l’arrêté fédéral sur la politique
familiale.

Que c’est horrible de ne pas penser aux autres! Car même si on est pas bénéficiaire d’une loi, elle peut quand-même être bonne pour la société, n’est-ce pas?

Oui, bien sûr, et c’est aussi pourquoi je vote non sur l’arrêté fédéral sur la politique familiale.

Ceux qui soutiennent l’arrêté supposent qu’une société ou les deux parents travaillent, c’est l’idéal, et qu’il faut tout faire pour les soutenir. Mais cette loi aura des conséquences inattendues auxquelles il faut bien y penser.

Il y a deux problèmes principaux... le premier, c’est que cela nous fera une housse d’impôts. On ne peut pas construire de crèches sans payer. Le deuxième, c’est l’inflation. La loi favorisent les familles à deux salaires, et mets plus d’argent dans leur poches. Les familles à deux salaires ont déjà plus d’argent que les familles à un seul salaire, maintenant ils en auront encore plus. L’écart financier entres les familles deviendra de plus en plus grands. Les familles à deux salaires, ayant encore plus d’argent qu’avant, auront plus a dépenser, et avec cela on aura une inflation de prix de loyers, d’immobilier, et d’autres biens.

Le Sénateur américain, Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), qui était professeur à Harvard avant d’être sénateur, a bien étudier les ramifications de la nouvelle norme ou les deux parents travaillent. Dans son livre, “The Two-Income Trap” (“Le Piège des Deux Salaires”), elle explique que tous les statistiques montrent que la norme des familles à deux salaires a eu un effet désastreux sur l’économie américaine. Les familles à deux salaires ont moins de sécurité financières part apport à leurs homologues à un salaire. Si un tombe malade ou meurt, il n’y a plus cette assurance d’avoir un employé en “réserve”, qui peut reprendre s’il faut. Avec deux salariés, dont un, étant le deuxième salaire, est d’accord de travailler pour un peu moins, la récompense des travaux baisse, et s’il y a assez de familles a deux salaire, il devient nécessaire d’avoir deux salaire pour gagner le même niveau de vie ou auparavant il n’en fallait qu’un. On fini par travailler deux fois plus pour le même niveau de vie!

Dans une société ou la majorité des familles ont deux salaires, les familles qui n’ont qu’un en souffrent beaucoup, car ils ont la moitié de la norme. “Bah!” vous me répondez, “Les mères à la maison n’ont qu’a aller chercher du travaille! Faut être moderne!” Vous oubliez les parents célibataires, qui n’ont pas la possibilité d’avoir un deuxième salaire. Vous oubliez les veufs. Vous oubliez aussi les familles ou un parent est trop malade ou handicapé pour travailler. Vous oubliez les familles ou un parent n’a pas la nationalité, et ne peut pas exercer sa profession en Suisse. Vous oubliez les familles ou un parent n’arrive pas à trouver de travail. A l’époque ou il n’y avait qu’un parent qui travaillait, un salaire suffisait pour soutenir une famille, et ces familles-la souffraient moins. Si on normalise les familles avec deux salaires, les autres familles souffrent énormément.

“Quelle sexiste!” vous dites? C’est vous qui êtes sexistes, car vous supposez que ça doit être la femme qui reste à la maison. Rien n’empêche les hommes d’être père à domicile, ou aux parents de s’arranger pour les deux travailler à mis-temps.

Que les parents qui veulent avoir deux salaires le fassent. C’est un pays libre, ils peuvent faire comme il veulent. Mais qu’ils payent eux-mêmes les frais. Il y a tellement de méthodes d’élever les enfants: il y a les écoles Montessoris et Waldorfs, les crèches de villages, les maman de jours, et les parents à domiciles: laissez-nous le choix. En favorisant les familles à deux salaires, l’état nous enlève le choix. Sans la possibilité d’avoir un parent à la maison, beaucoup de méthodes tel que le parentage à proximité et l’allaitement prolongé deviennent impossible. Laissez aux parents les moyens de choisir l’éducation et la philosophie qui conviennent le mieux à leurs enfants. Chaque enfant est unique.

Vous parlez d’égalité, mais en réalité, cette loi crée un monde moins égal, un ou les parents célibataires, les couples ou un parent est malade ou handicapé, et oui, aussi les familles traditionnelles en souffrent. Cette une loi qui propose aider les parents célibataires, mais qui contribue a un mode de vie qui, au contraire, les fait souffrir encore plus. C’est une loi qui pousse la Suisse envers une inégalité économique, ou la classe moyenne devient de plus en plus petite, et nous tous sommes poussés vers la richesse ou la pauvreté.

Votez “non” sur l’arrêté fédéral sur la politique familiale ce 3 Mars.

Translation of my letter to the Swiss papers:

You'll find me very selfish, as I voted my personal interest this election. I'm a SAHM, and I admit that the idea of a tax hike without seeing any personal benefits troubled me. So I voted no on the federal proposition on family politics [to get the federal government in the business of mandating and building daycare facilities].

How horrible not to think of others! Because even if one doesn't directly benefit from a law, it can still benefit society, right?

Yes, of course, and that's also why I voted no on the federal proposition on family politics.

Those who support the proposition suppose that a society where both parents work is ideal, and that all should be done to support them. But this law will have unexpected consequences one would do well to think on.

There are two principal problems: first, that this would require a tax hike. We can't build daycares witout paying for them. Second, there would be inflation. Two-salary families already have higher salaries than single-salary families, this would put even more money in their pockets. The financial gay between the families will grow wider and wider. Two-family salaries, having more money, will have more to spend, and with this there will be inflation of rents and real estate prices, and other goods.

The American senator, Elizabeth Warren(D-MA), who was a professor at Harvard before becoming senator, thoroughly studied the ramifications of the new norm where both parents work. In her book, "The Two income trap" she explains that the statistics show that the two-income norm has had devestating effects on the American economy. Two-income families have less financial security than their single-income counterparts. If one gets ill or dies, there is no longer the insurance of having a "reserve" worker who can pick up the slack if necessary. With two salaries, with one, being a second income earner, being more willing to work for less, work compensation decreasing, and if there enough two-income families, it becomes necessary to have two incomes to have the same lifestyle that one could support before. In the end, we work twice as much for the same standard of living!

In a society where the majority of families are dual income, the ones who have only one suffer greatly, as they have half of the norm. "Bah!" you say "Let the SAHMS get to work! Be modern!" You forget single parents, who don't have the option of a second salary. You forget widows. You forget families where one parent is too sick or handicapped to work. You forget those where one parent isn't a citizen and can't work in Switzerland. You forget those where one can't find work. With a single-income norm, where one salary is enough to support a family, those families suffer less. If we normalize two incomes, other families suffer greatly.

"What a sexist" you say. It is you who are sexist, for you suppose the woman must stay home. There's nothing stopping men from being SAHDs, or for parents to both work part time.

Let those who wish to have two salaries do so. It's a free country, they can do as they like. But let them pay the fees themselves. There are so many ways to raise children: Montessori and Waldorf schools, village day cares, home day cares, SAHPs: leave us the choice. By favoring families where both work, this choice is taken from us. Without the possibility of a SAHP, many methods such as attachment parenting and prolonged breastfeeding become impossible. Let the parents the means to chose the education and philosophy which most suit their children. Every child is unique.

You speak of equality, but in reality, this law creates a more unequal world, one where single parents, couples with a sick or handicapped parent, and yes, also traditional families suffer. It is a law that proposes to help single parents, but contributes to a lifestyle which, on the contrary, makes them suffer more. It is a law that pushes Switzerland towards an eqconomic inequality, in which the middle class becomes smaller and smaller, and we are all pushed towards riches or poverty.

Vote "No" on the federal proposition on family poltics this march 3.

***

Yeah I oversimplified Warren's arguments but its a letter to the editor, not a dissertation

Thanks, kids. Feeling is mutual-fo sho!

Fmr Banker. This was pre FMLA right? Because with FMLA it allows employers to do this. Most don't, but many do. It's another redistribution scheme if you ask me. This works out better for people who don't do their jobs and/or have low wage work. They get a place holder for their job when they get ready to come back and their low wage qualifies them for govt assistance programs while they are out and the employer gets the tax deduction.

People like me get screwed big time and the employer Nickle and dimes our time and we are still expected to work as expected even if it's a 70 hour work week last week and if we have a 38 hour one with time taken for doctors appointments the NEXT week we have to fill out paperwork like non exempt employees and our pay is docked.

Thank you Slick Willie you asshole.

I want to be clear. Not all employers choose to do this. But some do. I happen to work for one. But not for long.

It probably was pre-FMLA. I just did a little reading and it looks like it is a complicated mess now. The case my father was in did not specifically deal with medical issues...say you took 1 hour and 15 minute lunch to run an errand...they would deduct 15 minutes from your pay even if you worked 10 hours that day. The ruling was (based on my father's description) that if they tracked time like that the person had to be considered hourly and paid overtime as appropriate.

In what little reading I did, all the examples were wear the hours dropped below 40/week.

Some interesting stuff here. I'll add my two cents.

First, lets assume that at some point most people will need a sick day for something in their working lives. And I mean need like when you have the flu and can't walk straight better yet drive or be productive.

Given that, it makes sense to not be at 100% capacity at all times.

I used to joke about a particular guy (who did a lot of very hard work) getting hit by a bus (because it had happened). I'd say, "we need to make sure this is well documented in case 'Joe' gets hit by a bus again." After all, if somebody dies (heaven forbid) and you are at 100% capacity you are now screwed.

It also doesn't leave room to expand or take up new projects.

My husband did an interesting piece of theoretical analysis on this. I think it was assuming everyone was at work 95% of the time and working at full capacity when at work (it was basically two weeks of leave plus a couple sick days a year off), and you had one project or job per person. When he looked at this, it actually amounted to something like 65% of the work was covered, not 95% or 100%.

So, that does make the argument for at least a minor amount of redundancy (for running my website, it's just me. If I get too sick to work it, nothing happens).

That said, there are companies with tremendous employee benefits. The biggest problems reported are that its hard to advance because nobody leaves (retire & die are pretty much it). The particular company I'm thinking of (SAS) saves oodles in training/recruitment. Remembering that every time you have to replace a person not only is that job not being done, but several people have to add work in terms of interviewing/reviewing resumes/etc.

Some companies decide to lavish employees. Others skrimp. It should be the employers decision.

HOWEVER, I do think that FMLA, if not abused, is a good thing. If you are in a car accident and, through no fault of your own, in the hospital for 5 weeks, you can't be fired. This ads a stability that I think is a good thing. That said, I used my saved leave when I had my son (once I was showing, people finally stopped asking why I never seemed to take vacation). :)

I should be able to opt out.

The concept behind FMLA is good. If crap happens to you or a loved one, you aren't totally screwed.

The problem is the same as any other program, it will be abused. The same as the 99 weeker issue, the food stamp scammers, etc.

I've had two co-workers whose jobs were saved by FMLA within the last two years (car accident and a bad infection). But another one took her six weeks of disability for maternity, including disability pay. That is one that I'm torn on.

Pregnancy is a choice. I don't want to penalize for it, but at the same time asking me to pick up the slack isn't quite fair.

Feebie, your company sucks.