CloudBee, I think we are interpreting the rules differently then. If it's not written into the policy, I don't see it as a rule. How do you differentiate between someone who lies and doesn't come back from someone who truly changes their mind? A repayment stipulation seems to solve this problem. There would still be the benefit and no one would have incentive to lie.
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?
It's a lot easier to delete a policy from a handbook than to have it re-written and reviewed by an external law firm. That costs a lot of money. I also see a company being bitter when someone takes advantage, which results in removing the benefit altogether vs. taking the time and money to have the policy re-written.
So every employee should tell their employer when they are looking for a new job? Aren't they also being "dishonest" about their intentions?
No. Presumably most people are still coming in and working everyday while they job search. Once a woman leaves for ML, if she has no intention of returning, she has effectively left her job as of that date.
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?
Because it costs time and money to recoup money from a former employee. How are you going to get this money back if she decides not to pay it? You'll need to sue. $$. Easier to do away with it.
I still think they are a good idea, especially for a larger company, but for a small employer, it may not be worth the effort.
CloudBee, I think we are interpreting the rules differently then. If it's not written into the policy, I don't see it as a rule. How do you differentiate between someone who lies and doesn't come back from someone who truly changes their mind? A repayment stipulation seems to solve this problem. There would still be the benefit and no one would have incentive to lie.
It's maternity leave. Not maternity "goodbye".
Do you really think the benefit is a parting gift?
So every employee should tell their employer when they are looking for a new job? Aren't they also being "dishonest" about their intentions?
To me, that is an matter of omission. You are simply not telling your employer about your future plans.
When you go on ML you are telling your employer "I will return on xx date." The company is making decisions based on this (false) statement. They are holding your job for you. They are asking other employees to pick up your work, hiring temps, etc. all based on the LIE THAT YOU TOLD when you said "I will return to work on xx date."
I honestly do think it is very different than looking for a new job or leaving under other circumstances.
So every employee should tell their employer when they are looking for a new job? Aren't they also being "dishonest" about their intentions?
To me, that is an matter of omission. You are simply not telling your employer about your future plans.
When you go on ML you are telling your employer "I will return on xx date." The company is making decisions based on this (false) statement. They are holding your job for you. They are asking other employees to pick up your work, hiring temps, etc. all based on the LIE THAT YOU TOLD when you said "I will return to work on xx date."
I honestly do think it is very different than looking for a new job or leaving under other circumstances.
So every employee should tell their employer when they are looking for a new job? Aren't they also being "dishonest" about their intentions?
To me, that is an matter of omission. You are simply not telling your employer about your future plans.
When you go on ML you are telling your employer "I will return on xx date." The company is making decisions based on this (false) statement. They are holding your job for you. They are asking other employees to pick up your work, hiring temps, etc. all based on the LIE THAT YOU TOLD when you said "I will return to work on xx date."
I honestly do think it is very different than looking for a new job or leaving under other circumstances.
Post by UnderProtest on Dec 5, 2012 15:24:04 GMT -5
With all the money that companies waste (especially bigger companies), they can afford to rewrite their policies if they disagree with how maternity leave is used. I am all for companies clarifying how they deem maternity leave. But for everyone here to insist that it is a forward benefit, yet so few companies even put a repayment clause in their policies, makes no sense to me.
CloudBee, I think we are interpreting the rules differently then. If it's not written into the policy, I don't see it as a rule. How do you differentiate between someone who lies and doesn't come back from someone who truly changes their mind? A repayment stipulation seems to solve this problem. There would still be the benefit and no one would have incentive to lie.
It's maternity leave. Not maternity "goodbye".
Do you really think the benefit is a parting gift?
I do not see it as a parting gift.
I don't actually agree with women flat out lying if they know they aren't going to return. The problem though is that there's no way to effectively differentiate between women who lie about this and women who change their minds or giving birth having a child changes things in ways they did not anticipate. I have a hard time faulting for someone getting paid when they truly intended to return, especially when there is no policy in place to dictate otherwise. I'm in favor of giving the benefit of the doubt, especially when women still face unequal pay and status.
You all have given me some things to think about though.
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?
Because it costs time and money to recoup money from a former employee. How are you going to get this money back if she decides not to pay it? You'll need to sue. $$. Easier to do away with it.
I still think they are a good idea, especially for a larger company, but for a small employer, it may not be worth the effort.
This is where I realize my naivete. I didn't even think about the issue with getting the money back, just assuming that everyone would diligently do so if they are supposed to.
I still think there are other better solutions out there, but I can better see where some of you are coming from now.
applesauce - I haven't had my baby yet, so I don't have this experience myself. I'm sure that once you deliver things can change. I really feel that in some instances people may realize they don't want to return to work, and can't stand the thought of returning. I just think it's important (and their responsibility) to all women to make that decision as soon as they can so they don't take advantage and possibility cause benefits to be limited to others in the future. It's a decision, it's not out of the mother's hands. She has to buckle down and make that decision.
Then the thought of just flat out telling a lie to receive benefits - that fires me up. That is so wrong.
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?
Because it costs time and money to recoup money from a former employee. How are you going to get this money back if she decides not to pay it? You'll need to sue. $$. Easier to do away with it.
I still think they are a good idea, especially for a larger company, but for a small employer, it may not be worth the effort.
In the case of STD, they also can open themselves up to a huge discrimination suit (baby vs surgery vs chemo)
Do you really think the benefit is a parting gift?
I do not see it as a parting gift.
I don't actually agree with women flat out lying if they know they aren't going to return. The problem though is that there's no way to effectively differentiate between women who lie about this and women who change their minds or giving birth having a child changes things in ways they did not anticipate. I have a hard time faulting for someone getting paid when they truly intended to return, especially when there is no policy in place to dictate otherwise. I'm in favor of giving the benefit of the doubt, especially when women still face unequal pay and status.
You all have given me some things to think about though.
I don't think it matters if you intended to return or not. At the end of the day if you take leave and then quit you are screwing your employer and co-workers.
I really don't understand how the eff you will be able to differentiate b/w someone who truly changed her mind while on leave vs someone who planned on never coming back in the first place. This is why companies decide to provide maternity benefits or not and include stipulations if they are smart enough. Plain and simple.
Post by liveintheville on Dec 5, 2012 16:27:28 GMT -5
I don't think people should knowingly lie about returning. I believe there are people who legitimately are undecided.
I disapprove of the rah rah sisterhood stance, though. The system is flawed. It's ridiculous to say, "you're a woman and ruining it for all other women!" in this case. People do what's best for their career and their families all the time. If you're undecided I don't think you should be required to state you're not returning just out of some obligation of taking one for the team.
Because it costs time and money to recoup money from a former employee. How are you going to get this money back if she decides not to pay it? You'll need to sue. $$. Easier to do away with it.
I still think they are a good idea, especially for a larger company, but for a small employer, it may not be worth the effort.
This is where I realize my naivete. I didn't even think about the issue with getting the money back, just assuming that everyone would diligently do so if they are supposed to.
I still think there are other better solutions out there, but I can better see where some of you are coming from now.
I wonder what people would think if employers decided to not pay out the maternity leave benefits until the employee returns to work. That would essentially reverse the role and force the employee to trust that the employer will pay them. Right now, employers pay the employee on the promise that said employee will come back.
shoegal - this was a failure at not being the mommy wars
Darn it!!! We did so well on the first few pages everyone!! An update for those still playing along at home...
My former direct report turned in her resignation today and her job is now posted for hiring. She brought part of her repayment in today and will be sending us the rest via an electronic funds transfer next week. She told me (I did not ask) that she and her husband had been building a substantial e-fund pre-baby so she was able to pay us back without hardship, phew.
The guys on the leadership team said exactly what I expected, that they were right and I was wrong about her returning. Sad. I reminded them that I am wrong about once every 5 years so they should savor it. ;D
So every employee should tell their employer when they are looking for a new job? Aren't they also being "dishonest" about their intentions?
I have done this on the two occasions I have been looking for a new role, actually, and both times I ended up staying with my current group but in an improved situation. Once I got a substantial increase in base pay and more recently they started a new team for me.
I have a great boss and awesome company that I work for, so I recognize that this may be unique...but not unheard of.
In Canada, a few companies top up the maternity benefits paid by the government. Those companies (that I know of) require repayment if you dont return (ask token) But since maternity leave is paid by the government, there are laws that your company must hold your job and also must continue any benefits. So here, in Canada, the government seems to think the benefits are earned before hand.
In Canada, a few companies top up the maternity benefits paid by the government. Those companies (that I know of) require repayment if you dont return (ask token) But since maternity leave is paid by the government, there are laws that your company must hold your job and also must continue any benefits. So here, in Canada, the government seems to think the benefits are earned before hand.
I was just wondering what happened with a top up!
I was self employed (owned a business) when I had kids so I didn't draw a penny of mat leave to begin with (apparently, self employed can now) but the thought of making 95% of my wage for a year would make a lot of jobs a lot more enticing! ;D
In Canada, a few companies top up the maternity benefits paid by the government. Those companies (that I know of) require repayment if you dont return (ask token) But since maternity leave is paid by the government, there are laws that your company must hold your job and also must continue any benefits. So here, in Canada, the government seems to think the benefits are earned before hand.
I was just wondering what happened with a top up!
I was self employed (owned a business) when I had kids so I didn't draw a penny of mat leave to begin with (apparently, self employed can now) but the thought of making 95% of my wage for a year would make a lot of jobs a lot more enticing! ;D
I don't think most top up your salary for the full year. Mine is 12 weeks. (not that I'm complaining, anything is great, but if it was the full year I would probably be less willing to share the leave with DH )
I have no loyalty to my employer. They have no loyalty to me. We know what this is.
My awesome maternity benefits (I get paid 93% of my salary for the full year) will act as a retention incentive to me until exactly 2 years after my second child is born. And only because they DID write in that if I leave before I am back for an equal period to my leave, I owe them my top-up money back. If they didn't write that in, I'd probably job hunt on mat leave.
Loyalty to employers in this day and age is misplaced. I have to watch out for my family and my career. They'd cut me (like they've cut thousands of other people this year) without a second thought.
I fully realize it is an amazing benefit. It has kept me in a job that I really haven't enjoyed in a few years (although perhaps things are turning around now). It's possible that it will work - that this new position will pan out into something that I don't despise and I'll decide to ride out my career for a while longer here.
Or it's possible Stevie will keep cutting the public service and I'll be out on my ass next week. No guarantees on their end, and none on mine.
Token, I don't see anything wrong with your plan. They will pay you for a year (although I thought in Canada it was the government paying you, at least partly?) and then they'll get another year of work out of you. I don't think paid maternity leave means an employee should feel chained to that employer for life, but they'll be getting another year of work out of you so I feel like that's enough of a reciprocal relationship/benefit.
That's the way my company does tuition reimbursement (which I believe is fairly standard) - they invest in an employee's education, they get a return on that investment for a year and then it's fair game for anyone to move on.
I was self employed (owned a business) when I had kids so I didn't draw a penny of mat leave to begin with (apparently, self employed can now) but the thought of making 95% of my wage for a year would make a lot of jobs a lot more enticing! ;D
I don't think most top up your salary for the full year. Mine is 12 weeks. (not that I'm complaining, anything is great, but if it was the full year I would probably be less willing to share the leave with DH )
I think a few of the Crown Corps in SK do? And there were a few of the bigger companies that did, too. The Feds might, as well?
It's foggy for me because I never hit that jackpot, but I know a few friends were at almost full pay for most of the year.
I have to admit that it's been a real surprise to me looking into the differences here (in the US) in terms of all of this. From needing to contact insurance to find out what another baby would cost us to not having the option of my husband taking a bunch of parental leave - just very, very different from what I've taken for granted having had a baby in a different country.