Have a newborn FMLA is up, and wife will have to go back to work
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have. Evidence doesn't support long leaves being better than short leaves when it comes to outcomes. Most of our parenting/lifestyle decisions are transparent. While many would like them to mean more than they do, they just don't.
This study compares the 12 weeks of unpaid with 4 months paid and upt to 12 months unpaid.
ABSTRACT
A Flying Start?
Maternity Leave Benefits and Long Run Outcomes of Children*
We study the impact on children of increasing maternity leave benefits using a reform that increased paid and unpaid maternity leave in Norway in July 1977. Mothers giving birth before this date were eligible only for 12 weeks of unpaid leave, while those giving birth after were entitled to 4 months of paid leave and 12 months of unpaid leave. This increased time with the child led to a 2.7 percentage points decline in high school dropout and a 5% increase in wages at age 30. For mothers with low education we find a 5.2 percentage points decline in high school dropout and an 8% increase in wages at age 30. The effect is
especially large for children of those mothers who, prior to the reform, would take very low levels of unpaid leave.
Quote:
For policy implications we conclude that fostering policies to increase parents’ time with children the first year after birth may have an impact on children’s abilities later in life. This effect has been an important part of the goals behind expansions in maternity leave across countries; however this study is the first to show that this may actually be achieved. The situation with maternity leave is remarkably similar in the US today as it was in Norway before the reform. Parental leave is currently under debate in the US and an introduction of 4 months of paid leave and better job protection are typically within feasible policies.40 Using the rich set of family background variables to address heterogeneity of effects also gives us the advantage of making the study less dependent on institutional settings in Norway. For example by showing that the effects are bigger for children from lower educated households this may be important for policy
discussions related to lowering inequalities in general. Many countries, like the US, Britain, and South America have a substantial inequality in education and income. While increasing maternity leave for women and men in these countries will not solve these problems we have shown that it might reduce the existing gap.
Do you believe we should jump off a cliff just because everyone else does?
I consider long paid leaves a slap in the face to women. It sends the message they belong at home and makes them a liability to employers. This is a way of keeping women in their place not some great benefit. Yes, I believe what I've read about disrcrimination in countries that have long leaves. I have no reason not to believe it. I don't want to see that here.
I don't care how many people are jumping off a cliff. I'm not, blindly, following. I have a long history of bucking the trend and turning out to have been right all along in the end. I think this is one trend we do not want to join. Long paid leaves send the message that women belong at home. We fought too hard to get out of the kitchen to take that step backwards.
The disrimination I've read about is in choice of position for women and chances for advancement. Yes, they get jobs and they keep those jobs after they RTW but they are do not pay the same nor have the same potential for advancement as the jobs their male counterparts get. And to paraphrase a statement one article I read, "God help you if you're a 30 year old childless woman looking for a job".
If you want to take a long leave, then take one but the cost is yours to bear and I don't want the government making any declarations about how much time we should take off when we have kids. That is a personal choice and a personal responsibility.
One thing you are IGNORING is the reason the countries that do have longer leaves have them. It is to encourage births because their birth rates are falling. The US does not have this issue and those long leaves are not a bed of roses. Not only are they not addressing the falling birth rate problem, they're creating problems for women in the work force.
Here's a quote from an article on the downside of Canada's year long leaves:
"But many Canadian mothers complain they can’t find affordable child care when it’s time to head back to work, and that employers snub, demote or even fire them for having taken time off in the first place. "
From another article (this one about how long leaves impact kids)
"New research published this summer by economists Christian Dustmann and Uta Schönberg in the American Economic Journal found that policies that increased maternity leave did little to increase children’s future educational achievement. In fact, they found that extending maternity leave from 18 to 36 months actually decreased the kids’ future educational attainment—presumably because time out of the workforce hurt family income in the long term, making it harder for children to continue on to post-secondary education. "
" maternity leave is creating a great burden on many women and businesses. The legislation puts employers off employing women. Companies are reluctant to give jobs to women of childbearing age."
"Ten years ago, when Ottawa increased parental leave from 10 weeks to 35, bosses across the country quietly panicked. Combined with 15 weeks of maternity leave, the legislative change meant that companies would have to reserve a mother’s job for a year. In an anonymous survey conducted in Alberta at the time, anxious employers predicted heightened workplace tensions and potential discrimination against young job seekers. “People in childbearing years will be at a disadvantage when it comes to new positions opening up,” warned one, while another admitted, “We have learned to avoid hiring people we feel will be having families.”"
This bed of roses has lots of thorns. Women are still fighting to be taken seriously in the work force. Legislation that declares we belong at home is the last thing we need.
Still ignoring the facts eh Ivorytickler? I've noticed that once again you ignored the posts that point out that women are much better off in a system with proper parental leave - better employed, more equal wages, and better positions. You know that you are wrong and that is why you are ignoring the facts.
Long leaves do not tell women they belong at home, it does the opposite, it tells women that they no longer have to choose between work and staying home - they can do both, which is the best option for almost parent.
I guess you're going to keep ignoring the studies that show the benefits of longer leave and keep clinging to your wild beliefs.
Long leaves do not tell women they belong at home, it does the opposite, it tells women that they no longer have to choose between work and staying home - they can do both, which is the best option for almost parent.
The funniest bit, can't find it now, is the place where she says she does not want the government telling women how much leave they HAVE to take. WHAT? The laws are to protect the right TO take. They don't have to. Women can go back to work the next day if they want to.
The funniest bit, can't find it now, is the place where she says she does not want the government telling women how much leave they HAVE to take. WHAT? The laws are to protect the right TO take. They don't have to. Women can go back to work the next day if they want to.
Interesting logic she has!
I remember something weird about maternity pay here (the amount paid by the State rather than the employer) you can continue to get paid the maternity allowance even if you continue working during the leave.
When my mom and dad started a family they didn't have the medical leave act. Still, my mom left work for good. Oh wait she never went in the first place. It is funny how people think that they have to have the wife work. I know couples where both work and the wifes pay goes toward child care, car payment, clothes for work, and other areas that cost because both of them are working. That amazes me.
Leaving aside the idea that the mother should always be the one to stay home (which I strongly disagree with, but that's a personal opinion), I'd just like to say that the economic perception here isn't always the whole picture.
If I use one of those "can you afford to stay at home" calculators, it tells me I could do it even if I don't impute any income to myself working from home. (I worked from home while my daughter was a toddler/preschooler, so sliding back into that would be pretty easy if I ever chose to do it.) As it happens we do pay more in school tuition and summer/spring break childcare than I bring in after taxes. We don't have a second car and I don't have a separate work wardrobe, but the childcare alone should make it a slam dunk, right?
But that's not the whole story. One thing that calculator doesn't account for is that we save a huge amount on health insurance through my employer (as compared to my husband's) and that I get a generous match to my pretax retirement savings. Those two things alone cover summer & school break childcare. We might pay a smidge less on tuition if I weren't working, since that would put us under the threshold for a modest amount of financial aid at my daughter's school, but her school is a phenomenally good fit and I'd make any sacrifice I had to in order to keep her there. Me working makes that comfortable financially. If Social Security is still around when I retire I'll be able to get more because I'm working now.
And perhaps most importantly, I'll be in my early 40s when the kiddo is an adult. My working now almost certainly means I'll be qualified to make more at that point, when I can focus more singlemindedly on career. Our hope is that we'll be able to retire not too long after that, but even if that doesn't work out we'll be better positioned to handle the unexpected if I'm capable of earning enough to cover all the household expenses.
I don't care if you want to take a long leave. I don't want them to be sanctioned by the government because then it's assumed women will take them and that will impact hiring decisions and promotions. So then we'll need legislation against that and that will foster hostility in the workplace as people who didn't take leaves watch women who took, perhaps, years, out get the same raise and promotion they worked so hard to get.
You do know that most of the countries that offer really generous parental leave require that the leave be split among both parents in order for the family to receive the maximum benefits, right? For example, in Norway parental leave is either 46 or 56 weeks depending on what percentage of your pay you get. The mother is guaranteed the three weeks before and six weeks after the birth. Of the remaining weeks, the father must take 10 or they're forfeited. The family can split the rest in any proportion they'd like -- they can take off simultaneously or consecutively. Sweden has a similar system -- 13 months are available and each parent must take a minimum of two.
In a system like that I don't see how women would be disproportionately penalized.
Leaving aside the idea that the mother should always be the one to stay home (which I strongly disagree with, but that's a personal opinion), I'd just like to say that the economic perception here isn't always the whole picture.
If I use one of those "can you afford to stay at home" calculators, it tells me I could do it even if I don't impute any income to myself working from home. (I worked from home while my daughter was a toddler/preschooler, so sliding back into that would be pretty easy if I ever chose to do it.) As it happens we do pay more in school tuition and summer/spring break childcare than I bring in after taxes. We don't have a second car and I don't have a separate work wardrobe, but the childcare alone should make it a slam dunk, right?
But that's not the whole story. One thing that calculator doesn't account for is that we save a huge amount on health insurance through my employer (as compared to my husband's) and that I get a generous match to my pretax retirement savings. Those two things alone cover summer & school break childcare. We might pay a smidge less on tuition if I weren't working, since that would put us under the threshold for a modest amount of financial aid at my daughter's school, but her school is a phenomenally good fit and I'd make any sacrifice I had to in order to keep her there. Me working makes that comfortable financially. If Social Security is still around when I retire I'll be able to get more because I'm working now.
And perhaps most importantly, I'll be in my early 40s when the kiddo is an adult. My working now almost certainly means I'll be qualified to make more at that point, when I can focus more singlemindedly on career. Our hope is that we'll be able to retire not too long after that, but even if that doesn't work out we'll be better positioned to handle the unexpected if I'm capable of earning enough to cover all the household expenses.
Excellent post. I take zero issue with women ( or men!) choosing to be a stay at home parent, but I tire of the constant statements that those who don't could if they just tightened their belts or sacrificed or took less vacations. I choose to work for many more complicated reasons than simply paying the current bills for the month.
Many SAHMs do not factor in retirement earnings. That's a big one for me. I will not have my children supporting me financially when I'm old; they don't deserve that burden. I know this already from experience what a financial burden it is when parents don't properly save for retirement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
