I think it would be better if Americans had more paid leave time, either by law or by taxpayers footing the bill or whatever. But until that changes, I don't think it is fair to take from the few companies that offer generous benefits like that and then quit on them. I think that's a good way for companies to rethink offering those benefits in the future, too, so that screws over the women who want to come back and want to take paid leave in the future.
Bucky, we have a very very generous paid maternity leave (relative to benchmarks in our industry, comparing the length of time and flexibility on the back end) and when this employee turns in her resignation formally tomorrow, she will also be responsible for paying back the Maternity Leave pay according to her employment agreement.
She knew this going in, we require a certain number of months of service once the employee returns from Mat Leave to absolve her of paying for that benefit back. This is something that many other moms in the business (outside of our division) were really happy for - in that, they would rather have the longer than average paid leave knowing they had to come back to work for x amount of months on the back end.
This is awesome, and I think makes the entire situation easier to stomach from both sides.
I hope you find someone soon that is a good fit long term.
I do have some issue with women who KNOW they won't be back who don't say so until the end of their leave. That's really not fair. Anyone who knows they're not coming back should give her 2 weeks notice right before her leave. I have no sympathy for STD/leave/etc. Those are benefits if you're an employee. But if you're not coming back, you shouldn't be considered an employee while on leave.
Post by thedutchgirl on Dec 4, 2012 20:53:39 GMT -5
I'm sorry you are losing a good employee.
I'm a little confused. Are some people saying that companies owe benefits (insurance premiums, I presume) for maternity leave and thus people who know they are leaving are justified in withholding that info until the end of leave so that they receive paid insurance while they are out?
I totally agree that many employers' systems set women up to lie. At my work there is no technical maternity leave pay, but I'm entitled to use any built up sick or vacation leave, plus voluntary STD that I pay 100% of the premium. My vacation pay would be paid out if I quit before leave, but my sick time would be lost. If this IVF results in a pregnancy I should have over 5 weeks of paid sick leave when I go on maternity leave. I don't care whether it's "right" but I would not walk away from 5+ weeks of pay. I have to return for at least a month in order to not have to pay back the employer paid portion of my health insurance premiums from leave. A month is also the amount of notice I'm required to give if leaving.
I used to work in an office where a woman got fired for being pregnant. Yes, totally illegal, but that part is not my problem (she chose to not pursue it because she found another job easily and didn't want to deal with it). My boss was a woman, but not at all sympathetic to pregnancy. She had recently lost 2 or 3 employees to changed minds post maternity leave, and when she found out my coworker was pregnant she told her she no longer had a job.
Post by UnderProtest on Dec 4, 2012 22:47:40 GMT -5
Again, it is the current system. If my company required me to pay back benefits if i didn't return, I would have quit when I had my kids. It did not and I was encouraged to take paid leave even though I wasn't returning (I told a former boss as he was trying to recruit me to his new group with the same company).
What I don't understand is why women are against other women using the benefits that are offered to them. I get that public perception of women not returning to work after maternity leave is not good, but why not fight to change the system rather than trying to make other women feel bad?
What I don't understand is why women are against other women using the benefits that are offered to them. I get that public perception of women not returning to work after maternity leave is not good, but why not fight to change the system rather than trying to make other women feel bad?
Trying to make other women feel bad? No.
I'm against people abusing the system. The system sucks for everyone, and those people who abuse it by utilizing medical benefits and/or pocketing maternity pay then not returning are causing employers to reduce or nix such benefits altogether.
How do you know whether or not anyone in this post is "fighting to change the system"? Dishonesty is NOT the correct approach at changing the system. It's actually a way to take two steps back from what you ultimately want. This isn't something that can change overnight by snapping fingers. We all have to follow what's right/honest until federal/state policy changes. If it doesn't, then it's still best not to take advantage as that will decrease the benefit for future women.
I would love to see stats on how common it is for an employer to tell an employee to use their free medical benefits (or portion of premium) for 6-12 weeks post employment. (Not including during the duration of possible vacation time tacked on to the back end of their employment.) It doesn't really happen. It's rare and by far the exception.
Post by UnderProtest on Dec 4, 2012 23:01:04 GMT -5
But what about other benefits that are targeted for certain people? Should someone not use child care benefits or adoption benefits because they are expensive and don't benefit everyone? Or emotional or legal counseling?
Having good maternity benefits attract better emoloyees and while the company may lose money on the few that don't return, overall it benefits the company and is part of the cost of business. Health insurance doesn't benefit the company, so why should they offer that at all?
UP - You're really grasping at strings here. Benefits are for current employees only. End of story. You can't weigh who has children on the company plan vs. who does not, and who uses legal counseling if it's available. Apple and cows here.
How does health insurance benefit the company? Really?
I think part of the problem is that not everyone has a baby, so not everyone can take the benefit. It isn't fair to me if my coworker, who does the same job as I do, can take 3 months off paid and then quit, while I have to show up every day to work and don't get 3 months vacation. And realistically, I've probably also spent the last 3 months she was on "leave" doing at least part of her workload instead of getting a replacement hired to help me. So because I don't give birth (by choice, by biology, by being a man) I show up to work every day, work extra hard to pick up the slack, and then get rewarded less than some employee who up and quits.
Now I'm simplifying that and I don't mean to imply that there is anything wrong with a woman taking time off after giving birth, nor is there anything wrong with a woman deciding to stay home after having a baby. But a company needs to operate in a way that either a) benefits the company only or b) benefits all employees equally, thus benefiting the company by creating loyalty, satisfaction with the company, etc. The company isn't doing itself any favors by paying exiting employees 4x as much leave time as the rest of us who aren't leaving (I get 3 weeks vacation a year, so 12 weeks of paid leave is a lot more than I will likely ever take).
FTR, I know giving birth and taking a vacation are not the same thing, nor do I care at all if someone at my company gets more time off than I do because of it. I'm just using myself as a hypothetical example.
I think there would be a lot of benefit to a company who offered paid leave time because it would make it a very attractive employer!
I also think it just comes down to the principal of "don't abuse the system". Maternity leave (or healthcare, or other perks and benefits) is intended for employees. If you quit, you're not an employee and shouldn't benefit from what the company you don't work for has to offer.
Post by UnderProtest on Dec 4, 2012 23:23:08 GMT -5
If the company feels it is an expense they aren't willing to bear without risk, then they can put a repayment clause in their policy.
Cloudbee, truthfully I'm having a little trouble with your stance on women lately. This post, plus your post about SAHM not being equivalent to a full time job really makes me wonder.
Stance on women? If you take a step back you'll realize that I'm fighting for the same thing you are. And that logically starts with not trying to find ways to take advantage/abuse the MININAL maternity leave perks that are available out there.
Post by UnderProtest on Dec 4, 2012 23:59:53 GMT -5
But you are saying that because I chose to stay home with my kids, I am not entitled to the same benefits you are because you are returning to work. If a company feels the benefit should be only for those returning to the workforce immediately, they can write their policy accordingly. I am fighting for the ability to be honest with employers without fear of retribution for following their current policy. I was lucky that my company provided such great benefits, it is one of the reasons I continued to work for them despite challenges. And would be a reason that I would go back to them if I return to the workforce in the future.
You're taking this too personally. Didn't you say your boss or someone above you told you to utilize the benefit? Where do I say anything against that? I say it's rare, and that what I think is wrong for society as a whole is taking advantage of the implied expectation that ML benefits are for retention. It sounds like yours were offered up.
I'm not comparing myself to you. I don't use myself as an example. Not once.
It is the onus of the company to write their policies accordingly. It makes me sick to hear some of you blaming "women like that" for this shit. There is a problem with the system and blaming women does not help any of us.
Post by UnderProtest on Dec 5, 2012 0:51:43 GMT -5
I disagree that maternity leave is retention tool. Maybe that is the underlying difference of opinion. I see it as any other benefit offered by the company (insurance, 401k, pension plan, child care, transportation subsidy, etc). It was offered to me, I followed the guidelines presented. Should I not use my health insurance if I am thinking about quitting?
These things are called benefits for a reason. Maternity leave isn't listed in the employee handbook as a retention tool. Although I agree that companies need to set (and follow) more detailed guidelines. If a company wants it to be a retention tool, then feel free to set up a pay back clause. If it is a working benefit, then allow women to inform the company if they don't believe they will return. To me it's all about setting expectations and following through.
This still will not help women with managers who don't want to hire women because they might get pregnant and leave. Until men can bear children, we are stuck being the ones birthing babies and being out of work. And I don't understand how women looking down on women's choices helps anything.
And to CB's comment about health insurance benefiting the company, I would like to know what part of infertility coverage benefits the company. My company specifically chose to cover infertility, thereby increasing their costs. My infertility treatments took me out of work on numerous occasions and led me to get pregnant which took me out of work even longer. How did that benefit the company? To me, this, along with the generous maternity leave policy, is how my company attracted and retained employees. Not by forcing them to pay back their salary because they made a family decision.
Also, it is my belief that most companies require one to be there for a certain amount of time before being able to benefit from paid ML. Is that an inaccurate assumption?
Post by UnderProtest on Dec 5, 2012 1:00:45 GMT -5
Thanks applesauce. You beat me to it.
The benefits did attract and retain me as an employee, just not the way you are thinking. I would have quit years ago had the benefits and maternity leave not been good. And if I were to return to the workforce, I would want to go back to that company.
If it helps at all, I agonized with that decision after giving birth and still do to this day (DD is 10 months old). I don't think people generally take it lightly and I am sure there is a part of her that wants to come back.
I do not think it is always an agonizing decision for women. I think a lot of women know exactly what they want and the agonizing thing is actually a manipulative ploy.
I actually agree with this.
I do think companies as a whole and fellow employees would be best served if companies agreed to pay out the leave for employees with X amount of time in (1, 2 years?) regardless of whether they planned to returned. I think more women would be upfront and companies wouldn't waste time, money and productivity waiting 2-3+ months for an employee who already knew she had no plans to return.
I agree with this point. I do think it would be different if everyone could be upfront about things.
I am definitely not anti-woman, but I am pro- using financial resources wisely. Every time my company spends money on something that doesn't benefit it, we're hurting our bottom line. Replacing an employee is expensive - so is hiring a temporary replacement during a 3 month leave, and if you have to hire both a temp AND a new permanent employee it is even more expensive. Each time a company loses money there are greater chances of layoffs, cuts to benefits, lower raises, etc.
Maybe this is a non issue with very large very wealthy companies, but given the economy I find that doubtful. I am all for providing great benefits - including maternity benefits - for employees but ultimately that's only done if there is a benefit to the company. To me I see no benefit to paying out 3 months of salary to someone after they have left employment (which essentially they have done if they don't come back after leave).
I'm completely supportive of a policy that clearly states the leave should be paid back if they quit, and I would also support paying any "earned" leave such as accrued time off. You ("you" in the general sense here) can't tell me that working for 12 months means you "earn" 3 months of paid leave. That's 1/4 of the time you worked there. That would just be silly, particularly since your colleagues in that time probably "earned" 2-4 weeks of vacation in that time. The perceived (and real?) unfairness could really be an issue there.
I'm with those who see this as a retention benefit. It is incredibly difficult and expensive for a company to offer paid maternity leave and it really sucks when someone takes the leave and doesn't return when it's over. Yes, my company offers good maternity benefits as a way to attract good employees. But the benefit is there to keep those employees.
We offer 12 weeks paid leave. When an employee goes out on leave, she is paid 100% of her salary. Someone has to do her work while she is out. The options here are to either hire a temp, and pay them a full salary, or to try and divide the person's work up amongst other employees. The latter typically involves paying overtime to several employees. So one way or the other, the company is paying twice for one job for 12 weeks. Now, fast forward to the end of the leave, and the employee decides not to come back. Company has now paid out two salaries for one job, insurance benefits, and anything else that is paid on the employee's behalf while they are on leave. At this point, company now has the task of finding and training a new employee, which is not particularly easy or cost effective either.
I just don't see how paid leave, that the employee does not pay into on their own AT ALL, is somehow an earned benefit. By the very nature of the term, "maternity leave" implies a return. If I quit, my company does not continue paying me for 12 weeks. Yes, if you get pregnant and intend not to return to work, you effectively quit your job as of the last day you work. I don't see why people are up in arms that people think that benefits should cease at that point. It has nothing to do with a stance on women. If my male coworker decided that he was leaving to be a stay at home dad, he wouldn't be entitled to get paid for 12 weeks either.
Aw, that's a huge bummer. I hate losing good people.
I am on the fence re: the issue in general. On one hand, I can see why women wait to inform their employers about their post baby plans. On the other hand, it drives me NUTS how many people keep saying things like "if you decide to come back" to me when I have been perfectly clear I am returning following my leave (same thing happened the first time and I work at the same place).
Me too.
And then I returned from my last maternity leave at 10 weeks post-partum because I couldn't afford to take more time unpaid.
And was promptly laid off, the day my son started daycare, as the primary wage earner and the holder of the health insurance.
It sucks that you guys are losing a great employee. Knowing that she had to pay back all of the benefits, I can only imagine it was a hard decision for her.
As someone who was laid off on maternity leave (effective the day I was to return), I am firmly on team Under Protest. My job didn't give a damn that my baby had to eat and I had bills to pay when they made the best decision for them. I don't know why women who have babies are held to a higher standard.
After reading more in this thread about the Canadian system, it sounds awesome. That truly seems like a great way to have the best of both worlds. Men and women can take the time they need to take care of their children and come back when they are ready, and the other employees don't have to pick up the slack because there is a long term temp in place, who then has valuable experience.
Mothers that go on leave are set up to fail in the US. Usually, their co workers have to pick up the slack, and it's a burden on the rest of the company. Why are we blaming the women instead of the companies that don't come up with a better solution when employees are out for 12 weeks?
And then I returned from my last maternity leave at 10 weeks post-partum because I couldn't afford to take more time unpaid.
And was promptly laid off, the day my son started daycare, as the primary wage earner and the holder of the health insurance.
There's just no winning.
Ugh. I'm sorry this happened to you.
I think that sometimes our loyalty to companies/desire to do the right thing is misplaced. The only thing I would consider, other than looking out for myself, is how my actions would affect future women at my employer.
I want to clarify something, because this is a hot botton issue for me. First, some women have STD coverage during maternity leave (either thru their employers or paid by themselves) & get paid a portion or all of their salary for a certain number of weeks. This is for RECOVERY, either from a major surgery (c-section) or for your sore healing crotch. This is completely different from maternity leave benefits where they pay you your salary while you are out on leave to care and bond with your child (some even do it for adoption). Based on my experience, if mothers are receiving pay during maternity leave it is from STD--maternity benefits are not as common. With that said, I absolutely hate it when people refer to taking time off after you have a baby and being paid thru STD benefits as a "vacation" and added benefit they don't get. Would you tell someone who is getting chemo for cancer and is on STD, "oh, you're so lucky, you get all this time off and I don't." Yes, giving birth is a much more joyous occassion but STD is paying for your recovery, just as it does if you had a knee replaced, a kidney transplant, etc. FMLA, which allows ANYONE (if qualified, not just women who give birth) to take time off to care for a newborn (including adoption), yourself or another sick family member and have your job protected for up to 12 weeks. It is not a paid benefit--STD runs concurrently generally or it is concurrent with maternity benefits your employer provides you. I came back to work after I was out on maternity leave (part covered by STD and part unpaid), but I found a new job about a month later. This could have happened whether I had been out or not but my main motivation for looking was that I knew I was going to get screwed when it came to raises/bonuses because some in management felt like I was granted some sort of vacation--as if I was lounging in Tahiti the whole time or something and not trying to recover from surgery, sleep deprivation or figuring out how to care for a child. So I see it both ways. Companies get screwed if they pay for benefits and the employee leaves (but they can easily protect themselves by wording their benefits appropriately) and employees can get screwed because apparently to some the population should just die off so everyone can report to work.
And then I returned from my last maternity leave at 10 weeks post-partum because I couldn't afford to take more time unpaid.
And was promptly laid off, the day my son started daycare, as the primary wage earner and the holder of the health insurance.
There's just no winning.
Ugh. I'm sorry this happened to you.
I think that sometimes our loyalty to companies/desire to do the right thing is misplaced. The only thing I would consider, other than looking out for myself, is how my actions would affect future women at my employer.
I agree. I understand both sides of the argument here. At the end of the day though, I'm not going to have any misplaced loyalty towards any company.
I know people keep bringing up Canada, but I would imagine most of us would be freaking out at the additional taxes for those kinds of benefits (especially when they aren't something everyone can take advantage of).
We're paid for our 12 month leave out of the unemployment insurance benefits administered by the government. So everyone pays in while working, if you lose your job you collect the same benefit as maternity/paternity leave. You are also eligible for this benefit if you adopt, although not for the full year. The first 12 weeks (I think) are only for a birth mother.
The great thing about the year leave is a certain number of weeks (35?) can be shared. So I will be taking 6.5 months, my husband will take the last 5.5. Neither is gone from their job for too long, both of us will have some quality time with our child, the EI payment is a lot less then our salaries but we can afford to take that cut for the short term.
My boss will still hire a contractor for my 6.5 months (plus however long he wants to give me to transition the work to them). If the contractor is good, excellent chance they'll be extended when I return because we're a busy group anyway.
Our government paid leave is really no different for health care. And when I read what some of you pay in copays and until/after deductibles are met I'm pretty sure we're not actually paying more. It just seems that way because it's a lump sum tax and not pay as you go. Especially when I look at my friend with good health insurance who still had to pay $20,000 when her premature baby had to stay in NICU.
And it does let women be more honest with their boss about their plans to return. You don't have to worry you'll lose your health insurance or that EI benefit, that's between you and the government who really doesn't care either way what you do.
Aw, that's a huge bummer. I hate losing good people.
I am on the fence re: the issue in general. On one hand, I can see why women wait to inform their employers about their post baby plans. On the other hand, it drives me NUTS how many people keep saying things like "if you decide to come back" to me when I have been perfectly clear I am returning following my leave (same thing happened the first time and I work at the same place).
Me too.
And then I returned from my last maternity leave at 10 weeks post-partum because I couldn't afford to take more time unpaid.
And was promptly laid off, the day my son started daycare, as the primary wage earner and the holder of the health insurance.
I want to clarify something, because this is a hot botton issue for me. First, some women have STD coverage during maternity leave (either thru their employers or paid by themselves) & get paid a portion or all of their salary for a certain number of weeks. This is for RECOVERY, either from a major surgery (c-section) or for your sore healing crotch. This is completely different from maternity leave benefits where they pay you your salary while you are out on leave to care and bond with your child (some even do it for adoption). Based on my experience, if mothers are receiving pay during maternity leave it is from STD--maternity benefits are not as common. With that said, I absolutely hate it when people refer to taking time off after you have a baby and being paid thru STD benefits as a "vacation" and added benefit they don't get. Would you tell someone who is getting chemo for cancer and is on STD, "oh, you're so lucky, you get all this time off and I don't." Yes, giving birth is a much more joyous occassion but STD is paying for your recovery, just as it does if you had a knee replaced, a kidney transplant, etc. FMLA, which allows ANYONE (if qualified, not just women who give birth) to take time off to care for a newborn (including adoption), yourself or another sick family member and have your job protected for up to 12 weeks. It is not a paid benefit--STD runs concurrently generally or it is concurrent with maternity benefits your employer provides you. I came back to work after I was out on maternity leave (part covered by STD and part unpaid), but I found a new job about a month later. This could have happened whether I had been out or not but my main motivation for looking was that I knew I was going to get screwed when it came to raises/bonuses because some in management felt like I was granted some sort of vacation--as if I was lounging in Tahiti the whole time or something and not trying to recover from surgery, sleep deprivation or figuring out how to care for a child. So I see it both ways. Companies get screwed if they pay for benefits and the employee leaves (but they can easily protect themselves by wording their benefits appropriately) and employees can get screwed because apparently to some the population should just die off so everyone can report to work.
I see STD as different from straight "paid maternity leave time". I'm assuming the paid maternity leave is paid time off where your salary is paid by your employer and is separate from any vacation time or insurance that you've accrued.
TBH I think I would somewhat side eye someone who took 12 weeks off for cancer treatment or major surgery and then didn't come back after, either (assuming they are physically able to and are not still suffering from health issues/death, of course). If they took their employer's benefits and then quit because of non-health related reasons, I'd feel that they took advantage of the benefits as well. I don't see it any differently (and I'm 100% in support of employers giving employees time off to recover from any medical condition, including pregnancy).
I guess it isn't so much loyalty to a company, although I'm maybe a little biased because I do feel loyalty toward mine and do feel they are fair when it comes to stuff like this and appreciate that they treat us fairly. I think it is loyalty to other employees who may need/want to utilize these benefits in the future and may not be able to if people abuse them. Employers are not obligated to pay anyone for maternity or sick leave for 12 weeks and I think that those who do should be rewarded by receiving a return on their investment.
I don't think there is a person in this thread who would argue that the system sucks and it would be ideal if American employees could take extended leave for maternity/health reasons and not have it treated as a special privilege. But until that changes, I don't think it is fair to anyone to take extended paid leave unless you intend to return to work afterward.
FTR I do feel there is some grey area when it comes to health insurance, since presumably you do pay into that and your employers portion is considered a part of your compensation package. Also the cost of giving birth or cancer treatment is insanely high so as long as you continue paying for insurance, I'm ok with extending coverage into "leave" time even for those who don't return.