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).
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).
Why the face? I just don't see it as any different.
My mom had cancer 6 years ago and still has lingering health issues from the treatments. I don't mean it to sound heartless, and honestly if my mom didn't come back (since she still deals with health crap daily) I wouldn't blame her. But of course she didn't get 12 weeks paid time off, either. She gets something like 3 weeks, which sucks.
If someone is sick, gets paid for time off for months, gets well, and then decides he/she wants to retire or be a SAHM or housewife or whatever, that's up to them. But I don't think it's right to take advantage of an employee benefit and then leave for a reason unrelated to the reason you were gone to begin with (being a SAHM isn't the same as being on maternity leave). That hurts future employees who need/want to take the leave in the future and hurts the employer/colleagues for reasons I've already mentioned.
Why the face? I just don't see it as any different.
My mom had cancer 6 years ago and still has lingering health issues from the treatments. I don't mean it to sound heartless, and honestly if my mom didn't come back (since she still deals with health crap daily) I wouldn't blame her. But of course she didn't get 12 weeks paid time off, either. She gets something like 3 weeks, which sucks.
If someone is sick, gets paid for time off for months, gets well, and then decides he/she wants to retire or be a SAHM or housewife or whatever, that's up to them. But I don't think it's right to take advantage of an employee benefit and then leave for a reason unrelated to the reason you were gone to begin with (being a SAHM isn't the same as being on maternity leave). That hurts future employees who need/want to take the leave in the future and hurts the employer/colleagues for reasons I've already mentioned.
I don't know. I can't even imagine having to deal with cancer treatments while worrying about whether your job will be there for you. My dad was lucky that he was retired before he got sick, but even when he was briefly in remission he was always worn out and depressed as hell.
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.
This is where I am at. I would have no problem with everyone paying into the system via additional taxes in a manner similar to Canada. But I think that, in the cases where an employer is providing paid leave on its own because they think it's the right thing to do, it is a crappy thing to do to the company and your co-workers to take the money and not return (excluding extenuating circumstances). Whichever poster said that this deters companies from offering this benefit is absolutely right.
I guess I am glad that I work for an employer that has a repayment policy in place in the event of someone not coming back from paid leave. I'm also glad that in the 6 years I have worked here, there have been 11 babies born just to employees in my office and every single one of those employees still works here.
I know several women IRL who did not return from maternity leave, and none of them gave their employer advanced notice. Including the lawyer who got 18 weeks of paid leave. I really think the idea that they should smacks of sexism. Would anyone tell a man that was looking for a new job that he should give his employer warning? No, they would tell him to wait until he had an offer in hand. I think it's prudent of these women to wait until they know that SAH is for them before they give notice.
The lawyer btw is still doing consulting work on the side for her firm, so it's not like she burned bridges or anything.
I guess I am glad that I work for an employer that has a repayment policy in place in the event of someone not coming back from paid leave. I'm also glad that in the 6 years I have worked here, there have been 11 babies born just to employees in my office and every single one of those employees still works here.
I think that is an excellent policy and wish all employers had them in place.
Post by barefootcontessa on Dec 5, 2012 11:58:32 GMT -5
I favor the free market and as such think it should be up to employers to determine what they want to do. I agree with the others who say that employers who offer paid leave and doing it as a retention tool. Under those circumstances, I think an employee should have to pay back her leave if she does not in fact return.
That being said, it may be worth thinking about whether society would benefit from more generous maternity leave a la Canada. When social security began, there were 30 workers for every one retiree. Now there are three workers for every one retiree, while the fastest growing demographic group are those over 100. In this way, it seems society would benefit from higher birth rates. Would more generous maternity leave policies address achieve this goal? Maybe, maybe not.
Why the face? I just don't see it as any different.
My mom had cancer 6 years ago and still has lingering health issues from the treatments. I don't mean it to sound heartless, and honestly if my mom didn't come back (since she still deals with health crap daily) I wouldn't blame her. But of course she didn't get 12 weeks paid time off, either. She gets something like 3 weeks, which sucks.
If someone is sick, gets paid for time off for months, gets well, and then decides he/she wants to retire or be a SAHM or housewife or whatever, that's up to them. But I don't think it's right to take advantage of an employee benefit and then leave for a reason unrelated to the reason you were gone to begin with (being a SAHM isn't the same as being on maternity leave). That hurts future employees who need/want to take the leave in the future and hurts the employer/colleagues for reasons I've already mentioned.
I don't know. I can't even imagine having to deal with cancer treatments while worrying about whether your job will be there for you. My dad was lucky that he was retired before he got sick, but even when he was briefly in remission he was always worn out and depressed as hell.
I agree with you there. The post I was responding to compared being off for other medical leave, such as cancer or surgery, to being off for maternity leave. Presumably after maternity leave, the person is well and physically able to work. For the purposes of my post, I was assuming the person treated for cancer was also now well. If someone is sick and unable to work because of it, I absolutely think their job should be protected as long as needed, though again that protection is with the assumption that the person will return to work when they are able to.
Of course this is a hard issue too because obviously someone needs to be there to do the job, so if someone is sick for months on end I don't know what the right answer is. I don't want that person to lose their job but the employer/colleagues need someone to do that job in the meantime.
I also admit that based on these discussions and many others, I definitely hope to get pregnant before the other young woman at our firm. It is a very small firm with a generous owner and little/no ML history, and I'd like to be able to work with my boss to set the terms that are mutually beneficial without having others mess it up. And I absolutely think that others pretending they want to come back and then bailing would mess it up for me.
I think comparing 2 weeks notice of any employee is correct. Yes, everyone had to cover the ML person while they were gone and they could have been replaced sooner, but the employer also saved all those weeks of paying that new person. In the end, you got to do whats good for you. If your employer laid you off while on ML or went bankrupt, nobody would think they were mean. Shit happens.
I think comparing 2 weeks notice of any employee is correct. Yes, everyone had to cover the ML person while they were gone and they could have been replaced sooner, but the employer also saved all those weeks of paying that new person. .
My point, though, is that this is not necessarily true. My company isn't saving anything. It is paying the original employee full salary and benefits, then it is either paying a temp or paying overtime for current employees who are picking up the slack.
I think comparing 2 weeks notice of any employee is correct. Yes, everyone had to cover the ML person while they were gone and they could have been replaced sooner, but the employer also saved all those weeks of paying that new person. .
My point, though, is that this is not necessarily true. My company isn't saving anything. It is paying the original employee full salary and benefits, then it is either paying a temp or paying overtime for current employees who are picking up the slack.
This doesn't always have to be the case. I was out for 8 weeks and during those 8 weeks NONE of the work I would have done was actually done. It was put on hold until I got back. So... they pay my salary and benefits and nothing else. If I hadn't come back, they would have had to hire someone. The biggest issue I could see is them being delayed a couple months in the project.
I should say that my ML was not paid and I only received STD while out. This is sort of hypothetical... ish.
Honestly, I don't see taking the mat leave benefit and not returning/leaving shortly after as any different from people who wait until the annual bonus hits their account to hand in their resignation. It happens all the time, employers even expect it to an extent and they still pay out annual bonuses. The bonus is based on the previous year's results, you don't qualify for leave/job protection until you've been somewhere a year, they're both earned.
And I think everyone who has to work extra to pick up someone's work for 12 weeks plus whatever time it takes to replace them when they don't come back needs to be more upset with the employer then the person who chooses for whatever reason to not return. It's a business decision to offer paid or unpaid leave. It's a business decision not to backfill for 3 months. Suddenly it's personal because the person doesn't return? I'd say it's more a reflection on the business they're not returning to. The job is no longer worth the previous conditions of employment.
Same reason a lot of us change jobs. And if your job is so specialized that it's not easy to fill because you don't return from leave then I highly doubt 2 weeks notice for other reasons would have made a difference either.
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.
This. This is like people who blame women for quitting a job that isn't "family friendly" instead of pushing her employers to make the place more family friendly by staying within the system (Really, I've had this conversation with friends and it blows my mind).
And I think everyone who has to work extra to pick up someone's work for 12 weeks plus whatever time it takes to replace them when they don't come back needs to be more upset with the employer then the person who chooses for whatever reason to not return. It's a business decision to offer paid or unpaid leave. It's a business decision not to backfill for 3 months. Suddenly it's personal because the person doesn't return? I'd say it's more a reflection on the business they're not returning to. The job is no longer worth the previous conditions of employment.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. My friendship with a previous co-worker went completely downhill when I quit that job. The organization decided not to hire someone to replace me and just shifted my responsibilities to her plate. Instead of being pissed off at our boss, she was pissed off at me for quitting.
Honestly, I don't see taking the mat leave benefit and not returning/leaving shortly after as any different from people who wait until the annual bonus hits their account to hand in their resignation. It happens all the time, employers even expect it to an extent and they still pay out annual bonuses. The bonus is based on the previous year's results, you don't qualify for leave/job protection until you've been somewhere a year, they're both earned.
And I think everyone who has to work extra to pick up someone's work for 12 weeks plus whatever time it takes to replace them when they don't come back needs to be more upset with the employer then the person who chooses for whatever reason to not return. It's a business decision to offer paid or unpaid leave. It's a business decision not to backfill for 3 months. Suddenly it's personal because the person doesn't return? I'd say it's more a reflection on the business they're not returning to. The job is no longer worth the previous conditions of employment.
Same reason a lot of us change jobs. And if your job is so specialized that it's not easy to fill because you don't return from leave then I highly doubt 2 weeks notice for other reasons would have made a difference either.
Honestly, I don't see taking the mat leave benefit and not returning/leaving shortly after as any different from people who wait until the annual bonus hits their account to hand in their resignation. It happens all the time, employers even expect it to an extent and they still pay out annual bonuses. The bonus is based on the previous year's results, you don't qualify for leave/job protection until you've been somewhere a year, they're both earned.
And I think everyone who has to work extra to pick up someone's work for 12 weeks plus whatever time it takes to replace them when they don't come back needs to be more upset with the employer then the person who chooses for whatever reason to not return. It's a business decision to offer paid or unpaid leave. It's a business decision not to backfill for 3 months. Suddenly it's personal because the person doesn't return? I'd say it's more a reflection on the business they're not returning to. The job is no longer worth the previous conditions of employment.
Same reason a lot of us change jobs. And if your job is so specialized that it's not easy to fill because you don't return from leave then I highly doubt 2 weeks notice for other reasons would have made a difference either.
I think it's just a fundamental disagreement then, on whether paid ML is an "earned" benefit. I don't feel that it is. I view it similarly to accruing vacation. If I am eligible for 24 days of vacation per year, but accrue it at a rate of 2 days per month and quit on March 31st, I have only "earned" 6 days of vacation and would only expect to be paid for that when I left. I get the other 18 days if I continue to work there. To me, employer-paid ML is a looking-forward benefit. Performance bonuses look backwards to past behavior.
I have never been at a place that hires a temp when someone goes on Maternity leave. Instead, I get stuck doing extra work for no compensation.
I don't mind pitching in to help if that person is coming back, but if that person pretends they are coming back and then quits, I have now spent 12 weeks doing extra work and have to start searching for a new person. If that person had quit immediately, I could have started my search 12 weeks earlier.
I don't mind pitching in to help if that person is coming back, but if that person pretends they are coming back and then quits, I have now spent 12 weeks doing extra work and have to start searching for a new person. If that person had quit immediately, I could have started my search 12 weeks earlier.
I don't mind pitching in to help if that person is coming back, but if that person pretends they are coming back and then quits, I have now spent 12 weeks doing extra work and have to start searching for a new person. If that person had quit immediately, I could have started my search 12 weeks earlier.
Precisely.
This was my point in the beginning. If the system was "perfect" women could be honest about their intentions and the employer could fill the position or hire temps accordingly.
It boils down to companies being clear if it's a benefit or a retention tool. Without that clarification, people will determine what is best for them. As another person mentioned, companies have no loyalty to employees anymore (see ijack and another poster's stories), so why should an employee put the company good above their own?
UnderProtest - You are very self centered. You completely fail to realize how the decision to quit/give notice after receiving company sponsored pay & benefits often screws over the next woman.
"I empted the entire bowl of candy into my purse on the way out of the restaurant because the implication was that it was free to those who had paid for a meal. There was no sign stating that I was merelely allowed one piece."
For those of you who view it as something you should get only if you return, are there any circumstances that would change your opinion? For example, say employee A worked at a company for 10 years, and had 3 kids during that time, benefiting from 3 paid ML's and returning to work each time. Then there is employee B, who worked 10 years before having a child. Employee B decides not to return to work after having the child (and you do not know when she decided not to return; the employer doesn't find out until 2 weeks prior to her scheduled return). I am genuinely curious; do you stand by your opinion that employee B should not benefit from a paid ML?
For those of you who view it as something you should get only if you return, are there any circumstances that would change your opinion? For example, say employee A worked at a company for 10 years, and had 3 kids during that time, benefiting from 3 paid ML's and returning to work each time. Then there is employee B, who worked 10 years before having a child. Employee B decides not to return to work after having the child (and you do not know when she decided not to return; the employer doesn't find out until 2 weeks prior to her scheduled return). I am genuinely curious; do you stand by your opinion that employee B should not benefit from a paid ML?
No. Employee B is not entitled to paid leave and benefits if she does not return. Her years of service do not grant her that freebie on her way out the door.
UnderProtest - You are very self centered. You completely fail to realize how the decision to quit/give notice after receiving company sponsored pay & benefits often screws over the next woman.
"I empted the entire bowl of candy into my purse on the way out of the restaurant because the implication was that it was free to those who had paid for a meal. There was no sign stating that I was merelely allowed one piece."
Are companies helpless to do anything about this? And if they aren't then why don't they? Why do you continue to blame women when companies could do something to change it?
Women continue to face unequal pay and benefits. Blaming other women for screwing with these does not help. If some women are able to utilize these benefits, good for them. If a woman leaves a company after getting paid ML, and the company suffers, then the company needs to change the policy. This doesn't mean they have to do away with the ML policy or not promote/hire women. I have yet to hear a good reason why companies cannot simply write in stipulations in their ML policy. If you can provide me with a good reason, I might reconsider my stance.
UnderProtest - You are very self centered. You completely fail to realize how the decision to quit/give notice after receiving company sponsored pay & benefits often screws over the next woman.
"I empted the entire bowl of candy into my purse on the way out of the restaurant because the implication was that it was free to those who had paid for a meal. There was no sign stating that I was merelely allowed one piece."
Are companies helpless to do anything about this? And if they aren't then why don't they? Why do you continue to blame women when companies could do something to change it?
Women continue to face unequal pay and benefits. Blaming other women for screwing with these does not help. If some women are able to utilize these benefits, good for them. If a woman leaves a company after getting paid ML, and the company suffers, then the company needs to change the policy. This doesn't mean they have to do away with the ML policy or not promote/hire women. I have yet to hear a good reason why companies cannot simply write in stipulations in their ML policy. If you can provide me with a good reason, I might reconsider my stance.
They HAVE changed policies. Many companies no longer provide paid leave precisely because they've been screwed over in the past. Or they require women to pay their health care premiums while on ML (which can be extremely high) because they dont want to be out that money if she doesn't return.
For those of you who view it as something you should get only if you return, are there any circumstances that would change your opinion? For example, say employee A worked at a company for 10 years, and had 3 kids during that time, benefiting from 3 paid ML's and returning to work each time. Then there is employee B, who worked 10 years before having a child. Employee B decides not to return to work after having the child (and you do not know when she decided not to return; the employer doesn't find out until 2 weeks prior to her scheduled return). I am genuinely curious; do you stand by your opinion that employee B should not benefit from a paid ML?
Yes. As I stated earlier, IMO, paid ML is a forward-looking benefit.
Why do you continue to blame women when companies could do something to change it?
I blame women for purposefully lying about their intentions. I think it is WRONG to pretend like you are coming back when you know full well you aren't.
I realize companies could change their policies, and I do think more companies should adopt a repayment clause/policy, but none of that excuses the fact that it is wrong to lie to your employer and your co-workers and that it makes it harder for those women who intend to be honest and truthful.
Blaming other women for screwing with these does not help. If some women are able to utilize these benefits, good for them.
What some of you either fail to realize, or don't care about, is that you're not screwing the company. You're screwing OTHER WOMEN.
How is that okay? Why is it okay to lie so you can get ahead a few months financially if it results in the company turning around and nixing a benefit for everyone behind you?
Why not save up and take self ownership for sponsoring your own benefits and pay from the time you walk out the door if you have no intention of returning?
It makes absolutely no sense to me to abuse the system because the fine print doesn't state the obvious.
I'm for women here. Open your eyes and you will see that.
I can't change company policy. Most of us do not have that power... but WE as women, have the ability to help each other out by following the rules.
If a company doesn't write a stipulation about return/repayment, and someone utilizes this and doesn't return, it doesn't make sense to me that the company would entirely do away with the ML policy. Why not just add in the stipulation? Why are companies doing away with it entirely?