Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-15-2010, 11:33 AM
 
4,267 posts, read 6,160,179 times
Reputation: 3579

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by progmac View Post
i think the root of this problem is that we expect women to be back working when they just had a child 8 weeks ago.
Thank you for bringing this important point up!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-15-2010, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Denver 'burbs
24,012 posts, read 28,343,998 times
Reputation: 41121
Quote:
Originally Posted by progmac View Post
i think the root of this problem is that we expect women to be back working when they just had a child 8 weeks ago.
Who exactly is "we"? No one forces women to return to work. Each family makes that choice based on their own circumstances. You do what you need to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 11:37 AM
 
1,302 posts, read 1,801,316 times
Reputation: 1947
I worked with a woman who pumped at her desk. She just threw a blanket over herself. Nobody cared or gawked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 11:37 AM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX, USA
5,142 posts, read 13,067,227 times
Reputation: 2515
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciesmom View Post
Who exactly is "we"? No one forces women to return to work. Each family makes that choice based on their own circumstances. You do what you need to do.
We is most likely the employer who needs a critical employee back to work or the employee who needs to get back to work because there is no money coming in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 11:47 AM
 
14,780 posts, read 43,489,122 times
Reputation: 14621
Quote:
Originally Posted by progmac View Post
i think the root of this problem is that we expect women to be back working when they just had a child 8 weeks ago.
That's not true. FMLA provides for 12 weeks. The issue here was going on short term disability before giving birth. That may or may not have eaten into her FMLA time. The company would have had to provide her with a written notice that her short term disability was being counted concurrent with her FMLA.

She seemed to think that her time to return to work was about 3 or 4 weeks later than the company informed her it was. My guess is she went out on short term disability, the company informed her this was being used concurrent with FMLA. For some reason she thought she was getting short term disability up until the birth and then switching to FMLA and had the full 12 weeks, which isn't the case.

If she remained on short term disability the entire time and was collecting a check, then she should count herself lucky that she was getting anything after the birth as she was no longer "disabled". The actual facts are unclear and this isn't the crux of her suit, but it makes sense to me that she was upset she had to return earlier than expected, but she didn't seem to be upset about collecting a check the whole time she was out.

How long is it reasonable to expect an employer to hold a job and continue to pay their share of your benefits?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati
3,336 posts, read 6,912,917 times
Reputation: 2084
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
That's not true. FMLA provides for 12 weeks. The issue here was going on short term disability before giving birth. That may or may not have eaten into her FMLA time. The company would have had to provide her with a written notice that her short term disability was being counted concurrent with her FMLA.

She seemed to think that her time to return to work was about 3 or 4 weeks later than the company informed her it was. My guess is she went out on short term disability, the company informed her this was being used concurrent with FMLA. For some reason she thought she was getting short term disability up until the birth and then switching to FMLA and had the full 12 weeks, which isn't the case.

If she remained on short term disability the entire time and was collecting a check, then she should count herself lucky that she was getting anything after the birth as she was no longer "disabled". The actual facts are unclear and this isn't the crux of her suit, but it makes sense to me that she was upset she had to return earlier than expected, but she didn't seem to be upset about collecting a check the whole time she was out.

How long is it reasonable to expect an employer to hold a job and continue to pay their share of your benefits?
Yeah, FMLA is so great. 12 weeks unpaid leave. How generous.

Every new mother and father should get a minimum of 6 months fully paid leave.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Denver 'burbs
24,012 posts, read 28,343,998 times
Reputation: 41121
Quote:
Originally Posted by progmac View Post
Yeah, FMLA is so great. 12 weeks unpaid leave. How generous.

Every new mother and father should get a minimum of 6 months fully paid leave.
"fully paid" by whom?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 12:24 PM
 
14,780 posts, read 43,489,122 times
Reputation: 14621
Quote:
Originally Posted by progmac View Post
Yeah, FMLA is so great. 12 weeks unpaid leave. How generous.

Every new mother and father should get a minimum of 6 months fully paid leave.
Yeah, that'll work.

Let's see, there are about 100 million workers in the U.S. There are about 4 million births per year. So, that would mean that up to 8% of the workforce could be out on "family leave" at any given time. Great idea, but whose going to pay for that? Do you have any idea what that would do to our economy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati
3,336 posts, read 6,912,917 times
Reputation: 2084
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciesmom View Post
"fully paid" by whom?
1/3 by the employer and 2/3 by us - the government
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati
3,336 posts, read 6,912,917 times
Reputation: 2084
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Yeah, that'll work.

Let's see, there are about 100 million workers in the U.S. There are about 4 million births per year. So, that would mean that up to 8% of the workforce could be out on "family leave" at any given time. Great idea, but whose going to pay for that? Do you have any idea what that would do to our economy?
works fine in a lot of countries. it's a moral obligation in my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top