But that already happens in the US. It shouldn't, because it's not really legal, but it's definitely a factor in the minds of some hiring managers.
I feel like, as a woman in my early 20s, I was probably judged for being frivolous and not responsible enough. As a woman in my late 20s/early 30s, I'm probably judged because I'm in my prime child-bearing years. And hey, look, when I'm approaching 40? I'll be starting to get old, more expensive to hire than a 25 year old, or not as talented with new technology and methods. Women can't win in the work force.
Oh, and with Canada's system, for example, where you get up to 12 months off? They actually hire TEMPS, surprise, surprise, to take on the work, because the company isn't paying mat leave to their employee, it comes from the government (UEI/mat leave pre-tax deductions). So an added benefit is that existing workers don't get screwed over by having to pick up the brunt of their co-worker's work load. I know, I've done it. So it seems like everyone wins - parents, other workers, people looking for a 6-12 month assignment (and who can actually make a sort of career out of taking these temp jobs in certain industries).
It's such a catch-22. Under the current system a young woman has trouble getting hired because the assumption is that once she gets pregnant, she'll quit her job and all that investment the company made in her training will be lost. And then the assumption is ALSO that if you had a government funded true maternity leave, women wouldn't get hired because the assumption is that she'd take that maternity leave and be gone from her job for whatever the period of time is that she's allowed to be gone. So what is it? Women quit their jobs and you lose your investment; or women take a year maternity leave and come back and you're without her for... one year. Or really, is this all just a back-handed way to keep the glass ceiling in place.
*Nods vigorously* Honestly, I don't even think companies are worried a woman will quit her job (and that they'll have to find a replacement). Sometimes it's just the fact that it will be a PITA to have her take 8-12 weeks off. Not seeing the forest for the trees? Of course.
The old head of my company once made a remark to another officer about "too many people getting pregnant" at our company. None of the women who have worked for us have quit - of the 5 I can think of at a company of less than 30 people, they've all taken leave and come back. But it was completely unsurprising that said person's assistant only took THREE weeks off after having a baby (working from home the majority of that time, I can promise you), in a state that actually gives 6 weeks of STD to new mothers by law.
The quotes from the pro athletes are horrible. I think it is important to have dad around the early days. It was essential with my first. The two of us together could barely get our daughter to latch. I never would have been able to do it on my own. I am also not a fan of scheduling a c-section for convenience.
I don't think we will ever have a year long maternity leave like other countries. However even 6-8 weeks at partial pay would be helpful.
The article is also misleading on FMLA. You may have a year to us it, but you only get 12 weeks.
and regarding FMLA- DH and I work for the same company, that means we get a TOTAL of 12 weeks. Can be split however, but between the two of us, only 12.
The quotes from the pro athletes are horrible. I think it is important to have dad around the early days. It was essential with my first. The two of us together could barely get our daughter to latch. I never would have been able to do it on my own. I am also not a fan of scheduling a c-section for convenience.
I don't think we will ever have a year long maternity leave like other countries. However even 6-8 weeks at partial pay would be helpful.
The article is also misleading on FMLA. You may have a year to us it, but you only get 12 weeks.
and regarding FMLA- DH and I work for the same company, that means we get a TOTAL of 12 weeks. Can be split however, but between the two of us, only 12.
The quotes from the pro athletes are horrible. I think it is important to have dad around the early days. It was essential with my first. The two of us together could barely get our daughter to latch. I never would have been able to do it on my own. I am also not a fan of scheduling a c-section for convenience.
I don't think we will ever have a year long maternity leave like other countries. However even 6-8 weeks at partial pay would be helpful.
The article is also misleading on FMLA. You may have a year to us it, but you only get 12 weeks.
and regarding FMLA- DH and I work for the same company, that means we get a TOTAL of 12 weeks. Can be split however, but between the two of us, only 12.
Typically, an eligible employee is entitled to 12 weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for a qualifying reason. However, when a **husband and wife are employed by the same employer, FMLA leave is limited to a combined total of 12 weeks in a 12-month period when leave is taken for the following reasons:
The birth, adoption or foster care placement of a child. To care for the employee’s parent with a serious health condition.
If leave is taken for other reasons, such as the employee’s own serious health condition or to care for a child with a serious health condition, the husband and wife can each use up to 12 weeks of leave individually. When the husband and wife both use a portion of the total 12-week FMLA leave entitlement for the birth of a child, placement for adoption or foster care, or to care for a parent, the husband and wife would each be entitled to the difference between the amount he or she has taken individually and 12 weeks of FMLA leave for other purposes. For example, if each spouse took six weeks of leave to care for a parent, each could use an additional six weeks due to his or her own serious health condition or to care for a child with a serious health condition (FMLA Regulation 825.201).
It is important to note that the FMLA regulations only address married spouses under the same employer limitation. Unmarried couples, including both same- or opposite-sex partners not recognized as married under state law, are not subject to the same restrictions and, if eligible, may each use 12 weeks of FMLA leave, regardless of the reason. The FMLA regulation 825.122 defines spouse as “a husband or wife as defined or recognized under State law for purposes of marriage in the State where the employee resides, including common law marriage in States where it is recognized.” The National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) provides a source for state common law marriage laws. Employers should also check state laws as some state family and medical leave laws provide greater coverage for same-sex partners than the federal law does.
The quotes from the pro athletes are horrible. I think it is important to have dad around the early days. It was essential with my first. The two of us together could barely get our daughter to latch. I never would have been able to do it on my own. I am also not a fan of scheduling a c-section for convenience.
I don't think we will ever have a year long maternity leave like other countries. However even 6-8 weeks at partial pay would be helpful.
The article is also misleading on FMLA. You may have a year to us it, but you only get 12 weeks.
and regarding FMLA- DH and I work for the same company, that means we get a TOTAL of 12 weeks. Can be split however, but between the two of us, only 12.
Section 29 USC 2612(f) specifically limits the total aggregate number of workweeks of leave to which an “eligible” husband and wife are both entitled to if they work for the same employer. This “spousal limitation” provides that a combined total of 12 workweeks of FMLA leave may be taken between the two for the birth or adoption or foster care placement of a child or to care for a sick parent. The “spousal limitation” does not apply to husbands and their wives, however, if the reason for leave is for a serious health condition of the employee or the employee’s spouse or child. According to the legislative history of the Act, the limitation on leave taken by spouses who work for the same employer is intended to eliminate any employer incentive to refuse to hire married couples.
and regarding FMLA- DH and I work for the same company, that means we get a TOTAL of 12 weeks. Can be split however, but between the two of us, only 12.
Section 29 USC 2612(f) specifically limits the total aggregate number of workweeks of leave to which an “eligible” husband and wife are both entitled to if they work for the same employer. This “spousal limitation” provides that a combined total of 12 workweeks of FMLA leave may be taken between the two for the birth or adoption or foster care placement of a child or to care for a sick parent. The “spousal limitation” does not apply to husbands and their wives, however, if the reason for leave is for a serious health condition of the employee or the employee’s spouse or child. According to the legislative history of the Act, the limitation on leave taken by spouses who work for the same employer is intended to eliminate any employer incentive to refuse to hire married couples.
Section 29 USC 2612(f) specifically limits the total aggregate number of workweeks of leave to which an “eligible” husband and wife are both entitled to if they work for the same employer. This “spousal limitation” provides that a combined total of 12 workweeks of FMLA leave may be taken between the two for the birth or adoption or foster care placement of a child or to care for a sick parent. The “spousal limitation” does not apply to husbands and their wives, however, if the reason for leave is for a serious health condition of the employee or the employee’s spouse or child. According to the legislative history of the Act, the limitation on leave taken by spouses who work for the same employer is intended to eliminate any employer incentive to refuse to hire married couples.
This is so utterly ridiculous.
As a mom, I see your point about it being ridiculous.
As an HR Director, I can see why the law passed the way it was. We have about 17,000 employees in our system now and a LOT of them are married couples. Trying to cover staffing when you have thin margins as a non-profit healthcare employer is hard enough when one nurse goes on maternity leave. If two nurses that are married go - it is really difficult. You cannot just hire a "temp" nurse and maintain quality. Sure there are travel nurses that temp, but they don't know your hospital's standard business practices, electronical medical records, etc. So to cover for leave situations you have to have a float pool of PRNs (as needed) workers who are basically FT at another hospital and pick up shifts at your hospital. For extremely high rates. For example, an experienced nurse makes about $36/hr. Some float pool nurses make $50/hr. That is expensive!! If you double that for two nurses out for the same kid, that is a heavy hit for the organization.
Also I think SBP asked if FMLA was Clinton's gig. It was. But he compromised to get the first step in, which is job protection. Hallelujah. Compensation coverage is provided by organizations who can afford it and use it as part of their strategy to be an employee-friendly organization. As the world gets used to job protection, then next steps would be full-on pay.
But as an employer, I would still consider it reasonable that only one person gets paid job protected leave for each childbirth incident.
As a mom, I see your point about it being ridiculous.
As an HR Director, I can see why the law passed the way it was. We have about 17,000 employees in our system now and a LOT of them are married couples. Trying to cover staffing when you have thin margins as a non-profit healthcare employer is hard enough when one nurse goes on maternity leave. If two nurses that are married go - it is really difficult. You cannot just hire a "temp" nurse and maintain quality. Sure there are travel nurses that temp, but they don't know your hospital's standard business practices, electronical medical records, etc. So to cover for leave situations you have to have a float pool of PRNs (as needed) workers who are basically FT at another hospital and pick up shifts at your hospital. For extremely high rates. For example, an experienced nurse makes about $36/hr. Some float pool nurses make $50/hr. That is expensive!! If you double that for two nurses out for the same kid, that is a heavy hit for the organization.
Also I think SBP asked if FMLA was Clinton's gig. It was. But he compromised to get the first step in, which is job protection. Hallelujah. Compensation coverage is provided by organizations who can afford it and use it as part of their strategy to be an employee-friendly organization. As the world gets used to job protection, then next steps would be full-on pay.
But as an employer, I would still consider it reasonable that only one person gets paid job protected leave for each childbirth incident.
But if the couple having the child were unmarried, they would still each get the individual benefits entitled to them under the law, right? But because they're married, they forfeit that benefit. That's absurd to me.
And for an organization, what's the difference if you have two people going out for the same kid or two people going out for two kids? By that logic, people who have twins should get double time.
I was about 10 weeks pregnant sitting in a operations leadership meeting where a director was complaining that 3 of her 7 or 8 case managers were all out on maternity leave and the manager over them was out too. She flippantly said that she refused to hire any more women of child bearing years. My eyes got big and before I could say something the executive called her out and put her in her place. What was nice was it wasn't just because HR was there. The executive was a single mom with a 6 year old. Dumb director. Dumb.
But in other situations there aren't those executive moms and there are people who nod their heads in agreement. And HR isn't usually there to call them on it and then watch the applicant flow to make sure it isn't happening.
As a mom, I see your point about it being ridiculous.
As an HR Director, I can see why the law passed the way it was. We have about 17,000 employees in our system now and a LOT of them are married couples. Trying to cover staffing when you have thin margins as a non-profit healthcare employer is hard enough when one nurse goes on maternity leave. If two nurses that are married go - it is really difficult. You cannot just hire a "temp" nurse and maintain quality. Sure there are travel nurses that temp, but they don't know your hospital's standard business practices, electronical medical records, etc. So to cover for leave situations you have to have a float pool of PRNs (as needed) workers who are basically FT at another hospital and pick up shifts at your hospital. For extremely high rates. For example, an experienced nurse makes about $36/hr. Some float pool nurses make $50/hr. That is expensive!! If you double that for two nurses out for the same kid, that is a heavy hit for the organization.
Also I think SBP asked if FMLA was Clinton's gig. It was. But he compromised to get the first step in, which is job protection. Hallelujah. Compensation coverage is provided by organizations who can afford it and use it as part of their strategy to be an employee-friendly organization. As the world gets used to job protection, then next steps would be full-on pay.
But as an employer, I would still consider it reasonable that only one person gets paid job protected leave for each childbirth incident.
But if the couple having the child were unmarried, they would still each get the individual benefits entitled to them under the law, right? But because they're married, they forfeit that benefit. That's absurd to me.
And for an organization, what's the difference if you have two people going out for the same kid or two people going out for two kids? By that logic, people who have twins should get double time.
Yeah the husband and wife thing is a bit archaic. We had a situation come up where an unmarried couple of the same child wanted to take FMLA... I cannot remember what was decided - I am sure it got turfed to legal counsel but it doesn't come up as often as the other situation.
You will notice I put "per childbirth incident." So whether it is multiples or not, it is taking off work to care for newborn(s) from the same pregnancy.
Also, in our company men can usually take a week or two off when their partner has a baby - it is part of our values to support family care like that. They just save up their PTO and use that. It's them choosing how to use the company-provided paid time off. If they haven't saved it, they would then either take an excused absence without pay or not take the time.
Having to pay MORE because they'd have a new paid maternity leave benefit would be very expensive. We already pay STD at 100% for every week you worked for the company. So I'd have the full 6 or 8 weeks of maternity paid at 100% if I had another baby. And then I'd use PTO for the rest of the FML time. We even roll all our PTO over year after year... but we are super generous with our benefit plan that way.
Also, in our company men can usually take a week or two off when their partner has a baby - it is part of our values to support family care like that. They just save up their PTO and use that. It's them choosing how to use the company-provided paid time off. If they haven't saved it, they would then either take an excused absence without pay or not take the time.
It's family values to be allowed to use the time off you've already earned and are entitled to?? :?
Also, in our company men can usually take a week or two off when their partner has a baby - it is part of our values to support family care like that. They just save up their PTO and use that. It's them choosing how to use the company-provided paid time off. If they haven't saved it, they would then either take an excused absence without pay or not take the time.
It's family values to be allowed to use the time off you've already earned and are entitled to?? :?
OMG twisty twisty.
In a hospital environment, getting more than one week off at a time is really difficult. The last time I did that was... 2007 for maternity leave. A husband is generally going to be able to take the time he needs whether protected or not, and his job will be protected. That is the family values piece. Go to a for profit hospital system or even some of our nonprofit competitors and see if you get that. Not happening (eta except begrudgingly under legal protection, but I don't know of other employers anywhere in our area who allow endless rolling over of PTO year after year so it is actually feasible to save up and take all your time off and take full FML protection to be home with your spouse... I have seen PTO accrual rates of over 2400 hours... now THAT much time wouldn't be protected, but it speaks to an overall rich benefit plan and culture).
It's family values to be allowed to use the time off you've already earned and are entitled to?? :?
OMG twisty twisty.
In a hospital environment, getting more than one week off at a time is really difficult. The last time I did that was... 2007 for maternity leave. A husband is generally going to be able to take the time he needs whether protected or not, and his job will be protected. That is the family values piece. Go to a for profit hospital system or even some of our nonprofit competitors and see if you get that. Not happening.
Money doesn't grow on trees, TTT. If it's government-paid, maybe that can be the equalizer and it will spread across all workers and all industries. But for it to be employer paid, the revenues would have to be so much higher for the affected organizations. You think your healthcare costs are high now? Implement this paid leave for spouses and the cost will come back to the consumer - you - because hospitals will have to charge even more to get enough revenue to cover those additional labor costs.
Of course... if you give an opposing POV on CEP one is just WRONG WRONG WRONG and ridiculed. Why do we do that to each other? Why not just join in the discussion ringstrue rather than just ridicule?
But if the couple having the child were unmarried, they would still each get the individual benefits entitled to them under the law, right? But because they're married, they forfeit that benefit. That's absurd to me.
And for an organization, what's the difference if you have two people going out for the same kid or two people going out for two kids? By that logic, people who have twins should get double time.
Yeah the husband and wife thing is a bit archaic. We had a situation come up where an unmarried couple of the same child wanted to take FMLA... I cannot remember what was decided - I am sure it got turfed to legal counsel but it doesn't come up as often as the other situation.
You will notice I put "per childbirth incident." So whether it is multiples or not, it is taking off work to care for newborn(s) from the same pregnancy.
But I still don't understand why that matters. Why does it matter if you have two employees taking time off for one "childbirth incident" or two employees taking time off for two "childbirth incidents"?
Money doesn't grow on trees, TTT. If it's government-paid, maybe that can be the equalizer and it will spread across all workers and all industries. But for it to be employer paid, the revenues would have to be so much higher for the affected organizations. You think your healthcare costs are high now? Implement this paid leave for spouses and the cost will come back to the consumer - you - because hospitals will have to charge even more to get enough revenue to cover those additional labor costs.
Yes because there is definitely nowhere else in a hospital system to make up for those costs....God forbid we not pay executives millions and millions, for example.
Money doesn't grow on trees, TTT. If it's government-paid, maybe that can be the equalizer and it will spread across all workers and all industries. But for it to be employer paid, the revenues would have to be so much higher for the affected organizations. You think your healthcare costs are high now? Implement this paid leave for spouses and the cost will come back to the consumer - you - because hospitals will have to charge even more to get enough revenue to cover those additional labor costs.
I'm side eyeing this for tone AND content reasons. And just so I'm not accused of not joining the conversation, unless your 17000 employee hospital system is doing something seriously seriously fucked up, they have the scratch for two employees to be off in connection with the same baby.
two? Of course. Two compounded by 12 full week of paid leave times hundreds of married couples times multiple births? That adds that up quite a bit. Plus the additional full pay for 12 weeks of leave for every new mother not married to a fellow employee. With a workforce that is 86% women. The costs involved in what tot proposes overall are quite high when average salaries are 70k.
Money doesn't grow on trees, TTT. If it's government-paid, maybe that can be the equalizer and it will spread across all workers and all industries. But for it to be employer paid, the revenues would have to be so much higher for the affected organizations. You think your healthcare costs are high now? Implement this paid leave for spouses and the cost will come back to the consumer - you - because hospitals will have to charge even more to get enough revenue to cover those additional labor costs.
Yes because there is definitely nowhere else in a hospital system to make up for those costs....God forbid we not pay executives millions and millions, for example.
well I am not arguing with you there. Totally agree exec comp is outta control.
I'm side eyeing this for tone AND content reasons. And just so I'm not accused of not joining the conversation, unless your 17000 employee hospital system is doing something seriously seriously fucked up, they have the scratch for two employees to be off in connection with the same baby.
two? Of course. Two compounded by 12 full week of paid leave times hundreds of married couples times multiple births? That adds that up quite a bit. Plus the additional full pay for 12 weeks of leave for every new mother not married to a fellow employee. With a workforce that is 86% women. The costs involved in what tot proposes overall are quite high when average salaries are 70k.
But not every couple is planning to ever be pregnant and/or getting pregnant at the same time yes?
Money doesn't grow on trees, TTT. If it's government-paid, maybe that can be the equalizer and it will spread across all workers and all industries. But for it to be employer paid, the revenues would have to be so much higher for the affected organizations. You think your healthcare costs are high now? Implement this paid leave for spouses and the cost will come back to the consumer - you - because hospitals will have to charge even more to get enough revenue to cover those additional labor costs.
Yes because there is definitely nowhere else in a hospital system to make up for those costs....God forbid we not pay executives millions and millions, for example.
As a mom, I see your point about it being ridiculous.
As an HR Director, I can see why the law passed the way it was. We have about 17,000 employees in our system now and a LOT of them are married couples. Trying to cover staffing when you have thin margins as a non-profit healthcare employer is hard enough when one nurse goes on maternity leave. If two nurses that are married go - it is really difficult. You cannot just hire a "temp" nurse and maintain quality. Sure there are travel nurses that temp, but they don't know your hospital's standard business practices, electronical medical records, etc. So to cover for leave situations you have to have a float pool of PRNs (as needed) workers who are basically FT at another hospital and pick up shifts at your hospital. For extremely high rates. For example, an experienced nurse makes about $36/hr. Some float pool nurses make $50/hr. That is expensive!! If you double that for two nurses out for the same kid, that is a heavy hit for the organization.
Also I think SBP asked if FMLA was Clinton's gig. It was. But he compromised to get the first step in, which is job protection. Hallelujah. Compensation coverage is provided by organizations who can afford it and use it as part of their strategy to be an employee-friendly organization. As the world gets used to job protection, then next steps would be full-on pay.
But as an employer, I would still consider it reasonable that only one person gets paid job protected leave for each childbirth incident.
Ok so I might get accused of being too raa-raa-Sweden but really this could be about Canada too. Or Finland. Or any other country really. I promise you it works. I used to work in a highly specialized unit at a hospital here (when I say highly specialized I mean only one of two in the entire country) and our nurses got pregnant and had babies and went on mat leave like all other people. When they did we hired temps and really quality did not drop, our patients didn't suddenly start to die like flies. I guess what helps though is that any mat leave temp is for a longer time, usually at least 6 months but probably more like 1 year. I guess if it's only for 6-8-12 weeks it might be harder...?
I should say though that eventhough parental leave can be divided between both parents you cannot both claim it for the same time. So it's either dad or mom staying home, except for the first two weeks when dad gets special daddy days. So apparently they changed the rules in 2012 and now you can both stay home and claim for the same days for up to 30 days. This would shorten the total time home though as you would then lose 2 days for every day you are both home. For multiples you don't get double the time but you do get 180 additional days, so 480 + 180. Triplets would be 480+ 180+ 180 and so on. So then both parents can be home at the same time by drawing days from separate kids. Again this is paid for by social security so no extra cost for the company.