Is 3 to 6 month maternity leave fair?

[Its Z]

Is it?

While the employer scrambles to find and fill the spot with non-benefitted employees while the FT employee goes out on maternity for 6 months? Then when she/he comes back from maternity..only to terminate the as needed employee who saved your ass?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[KARM12]

Is it?

While the employer scrambles to find and fill the spot with non-benefitted employees while the FT employee goes out on maternity for 6 months? Then when she/he comes back from maternity..only to terminate the as needed employee who saved your ass?

I thought most places were less...6 months is a lot.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Is it?

While the employer scrambles to find and fill the spot with non-benefitted employees while the FT employee goes out on maternity for 6 months? Then when she/he comes back from maternity..only to terminate the as needed employee who saved your ass?

How are they getting six months? Using all banked leave + FMLA + something else?

I will say that an "as needed" employee should understand that the position isn't permanent, and not expect differently. So that part is fair, IMO.

 

[cycloketocaine]

Huh.

 

[BidingMyTime]

Is it?
While the employer scrambles to find and fill the spot with non-benefitted employees while the FT employee goes out on maternity for 6 months? Then when she/he comes back from maternity..only to terminate the as needed employee who saved your ass?

Most likely it is fair. Legally only 12 weeks are mandated by law.....if the employee is taking longer than that, then she either has 1) disability requiring extra time off 2) enough vacation/sick time to cover the extra 3 months (unlikely, since every place I know requires vacation/sick time to be used up during the 1st 3 months, or 3) human resources has specially approved her non-legally mandated leave.

Obviously, #1 & #2 would be fair, since someone meeting the same requirements would be entitled to the same amount of time off. Whether or not #3 is fair, depends on your human resources department, it would only not be fair if someone else in the same situation were being denied extended maternity leave (I say same situation, since the human resources department may have considered other factors besides the woman just giving birth to a baby, when they approved her non-legally mandated leave.)

As for the fill-in employee, one would assume they knew from the get-go that the position was temporary, so yes they are being treated fairly. Certainly if they were lied to and told the position was permanent, or likely to become permanent, when that was not the case, that would not be fair.

If your question is whether or not this is fair to the Business (as opposed to being fair to co-workers), I don't see how this is an issue since the Business is the one who either offered the disability leave as a benefit or who approved the non-legally mandated extended leave. The Business is free to change their employee benefits or how extended leaves are approved, if they feel the current situation is more harmful to their business then helpful.

 

[Old Timer]

Life is not fair. You must have figured that out by now. FMLA allows them 12 weeks off. Whether you decide to pay them is up to you. After 12 weeks you don't have to take them back.

Whether or not that is a good policy for your organization is up to you. In today's economic climate, it might be ok, Other times not so much,

 

[npage148]

Ah, genusous american labor laws.

 

[Old Timer]

Ah, genusous american labor laws.

Before FMLA, there was zero legal maternity leave. We are slow here in the most advanced country in the world.

 

[Its Z]

Not sure I would call these labor laws "advanced" by any means.

Welcome to CA where there's another 6 weeks of "baby bonding" period...both moms and dads can participate.

I say...take all the time off you want... but no guaranty there will be a job... reapply for your position.

Is having a baby "Medical Necessity" or lifestyle choice?

Why do employers have to suffer?

 

[Momus]

It's always fair when you are the one who takes the time off.
It's NOT fair when you never need the time off.

 

[Its Z]

I took off total 2 days for 2 kids. Wife stopped working post kids.

 

[owlegrad]

It's always fair when you are the one who takes the time off.
It's NOT fair when you never need the time off.

Insightful.

 

[xiphoid2010]

that's why hire only male pharmacists or female ones that are done with having babies. LOL.

 

[npage148]

Not sure I would call these labor laws "advanced" by any means.

Welcome to CA where there's another 6 weeks of "baby bonding" period...both moms and dads can participate.

I say...take all the time off you want... but no guaranty there will be a job... reapply for your position.

Is having a baby "Medical Necessity" or lifestyle choice?

Why do employers have to suffer?

That was sarcasm because once again our country ranks in dead last compared to other developed countries. Your idea that a woman should reaply for her positon post-partum is crazy

 

[Its Z]

That was sarcasm because once again our country ranks in dead last compared to other developed countries. Your idea that a woman should reaply for her positon post-partum is crazy

Its crazy because?

 

[JoBreeze]

This article from a recent thread is somewhat relevant here, though from a different perspective. Different profession, but nonetheless:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/opinion/12sibert.html?pagewanted=all

 

[npage148]

Because its descrimnatory and punitive. If you really question these things, maybe that kids wasn't so crazy in turning down your job offer of a lifetime

 

[Its Z]

Because its descrimnatory and punitive.

How's it a discrimination when both moms and dads do it? Seems like it's a discrimination against those who do not have kids? Can they take off on FMLA for pseudo maternity?

If you really question these things, maybe that kids wasn't so crazy in turning down your job offer of a lifetime

Assume much?

This has nothing to do with my practice at work. I abide by the labor rules.

Funny thing is men at work are so pussified to say anything pertaining to female labor law in fear of "sexual harassment."

It's actually female employees who come up to me and tell me we shouldn't hire "reproductive phase" females.

turning down your job offer of a lifetime

Has nothing to do with me. He broke up with his gf and getting outta town as fast as he can.
There are plenty who's salivating over the job. I just wanted to hire from within and it was an opportunity he asked for previously.

 

[Its Z]

totally hypothetical..

So woman A is hired fulltime. . 6 months later is pregnant and goes on leave.
Woman B is hired to fill in. No benefits. Works those hours for Woman A. Then B becomes pregnant by the time A comes back. B goes on maternity...no benefits.

The differentiating line here is "being hired FT" which makes the world of difference in these 2 people's lives.

Fair?

 

[Its Z]

So don't make ad hominem arguments.

You have no idea what my beliefs are on this issue.

Discuss the issue.

 

[abc1234567]

Not sure I would call these labor laws "advanced" by any means.

Welcome to CA where there's another 6 weeks of "baby bonding" period...both moms and dads can participate.

I say...take all the time off you want... but no guaranty there will be a job... reapply for your position.

Is having a baby "Medical Necessity" or lifestyle choice?

Why do employers have to suffer?

I understand your frustration.This particular post of yours is going in to the territory of harshness.
I read your posts enjoy them but this is harsh.

 

[Sparda29]

At my hospital, sick leave, maternity leave, paternity leave, and even academic leave, you get 18 months off with a guarantee that they hold your position. Director was telling me I could do a residency, take a leave for that, and come back and still have my position open (albeit, higher pay).

 

[KARM12]

At my hospital, sick leave, maternity leave, paternity leave, and even academic leave, you get 18 months off with a guarantee that they hold your position. Director was telling me I could do a residency, take a leave for that, and come back and still have my position open (albeit, higher pay).

Thought you were a prn employee...most of the time the benefits don't apply. I find it hard to believe an employer would hold a job for 18mo for someone who went to go work at another hospital. Sick leave/maternity leave is one thing...

 

[Dr Wario]

I believe that all employees should be given a set amount of vacation time to be used for "whatever" reason, thus making it fair across the board (the legal mandates of being able to return to the job after a LoA is a different issue). I think the same thing should be done with non-taxed benefits such as healthcare, 401k match, pension etc so that there is no discrimination against anyone. Under the current system, most employers discriminate in favor of people who get sick often, get pregnant, have a family and decide they have enough money to contribute to a retirement account. This is simply a product of the government, yet again, trying to mandate how we should live.

My company highly discriminates in favor of people who are sick often with its "unlimited" sickday policy. You can take as many sick days as you want as long as it is not more than 1 week consecutively (at that point you need to go on STD). I have never taken a sick day in the ten years I have worked for my company, guess I am really the stupid one.

 

[Dalteparin]

totally hypothetical..

So woman A is hired fulltime. . 6 months later is pregnant and goes on leave.
Woman B is hired to fill in. No benefits. Works those hours for Woman A. Then B becomes pregnant by the time A comes back. B goes on maternity...no benefits.

The differentiating line here is "being hired FT" which makes the world of difference in these 2 people's lives.

Fair?

Woman B knew going in that she was just a PRN employee and didn't have benefits. Most likely she was just grateful to be off the unemployment line and back to earning a paycheck and getting experience which could help her land a FT gig.

I've been the PRN RPh who covered for someone on maternity leave and had to abandon the job when that person returned, and yes, essentially getting canned was no fun, but I wouldn't really call it unfair. After all, the person I covered for had much more experience than I did, and if we were both applying for the same job, they probably would have chosen her over me. But, I got great experience there which helped me get the job I have now, and I made some good connections.

As long as the PRN person accepts the position for what it is and doesn't come in with unrealistic expectations, it can be a great deal.

 

[Jackie B]

I'm surprised to see this post and more surprised that no one else is offended by it. America is really behind all the socialist countries where it's completely normal for both men and women to take time off for having kids, and it's encouraged. This country values working like crazy while having no time for friends or family or your health. You only took off 2 days when you had a kid?? I dunno that sounds ridiculously little to me.

Plenty of jobs are posted as temp 12-wk jobs to fill in for women going on pregnancy leave. You're paid to be a manager to deal with staffing issues. There's nothing wrong with advertising a position as temp.

I would personally be hesitant to work for a company that didn't guarantee my job if I went on pregnancy leave...I would probably not take the job and look for something better. Technically it's their loss because I could have been a great employee who who have stuck around for 30 years if just they let me take a grand total of 6 months off at some point for ~2 kids. I guess it's different now cuz there are no jobs but typically jobs that don't have great benefits don't attract great candidates.

As a side in France they PAY you to have kids (mostly because in Europe their population is aging faster than it is growing and they're concerned about not having enough workforce in the future...but still...)

 

[Its Z]

I'm surprised to see this post and more surprised that no one else is offended by it. America is really behind all the socialist countries where it's completely normal for both men and women to take time off for having kids, and it's encouraged. This country values working like crazy while having no time for friends or family or your health. You only took off 2 days when you had a kid?? I dunno that sounds ridiculously little to me.

Plenty of jobs are posted as temp 12-wk jobs to fill in for women going on pregnancy leave. You're paid to be a manager to deal with staffing issues. There's nothing wrong with advertising a position as temp.

I would personally be hesitant to work for a company that didn't guarantee my job if I went on pregnancy leave...I would probably not take the job and look for something better. Technically it's their loss because I could have been a great employee who who have stuck around for 30 years if just they let me take a grand total of 6 months off at some point for ~2 kids. I guess it's different now cuz there are no jobs but typically jobs that don't have great benefits don't attract great candidates.

As a side in France they PAY you to have kids (mostly because in Europe their population is aging faster than it is growing and they're concerned about not having enough workforce in the future...but still...)

You have not built a case for why a long maternity leave is fair.

Really not concerned with what socialist countries and france do..

 

[npage148]

You have not built a case for why a long maternity leave is fair.

Really not concerned with what socialist countries and france do..

http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/21/study-why-maternity-leave-is-important/

Because science says it is

 

[Jackie B]

You have not built a case for why a long maternity leave is fair.

Really not concerned with what socialist countries and france do..

Because why should a woman have to be punished for choosing to have kids? By "punished" I mean basically leave her job and have to reapply for it. That's BS. There are plenty of studies (I'm not gonna go look for an article) that show babies that stay with their mom longer and drink breast milk longer are healthier. SO as an employer who cares about the well being for your employee and their family you should let them take a break.

And we should be concerned with other countries and how they compare to us b/c we consistently rank last in almost everything for being a 1st world country. We're not doing a lot of things right.

 

[Its Z]

http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/21/study-why-maternity-leave-is-important/

Because science says it is

The question isn't "is maternity leave important?" The question is "is maternity leave fair?"

The article stresses 4.5 years after labor... so if we follow the psedosicence article you linked, then the employer has to hold the position for 4.5 years?

 

[Sparda29]

Thought you were a prn employee...most of the time the benefits don't apply. I find it hard to believe an employer would hold a job for 18mo for someone who went to go work at another hospital. Sick leave/maternity leave is one thing...

I'm PRN at the independent, fulltime at the hospital. Hospitla is a union job.

 

[Its Z]

Because why should a woman have to be punished for choosing to have kids? By "punished" I mean basically leave her job and have to reapply for it. That's BS. There are plenty of studies (I'm not gonna go look for an article) that show babies that stay with their mom longer and drink breast milk longer are healthier. SO as an employer who cares about the well being for your employee and their family you should let them take a break.

Well...that's fairly self centered... there are plenty of women who choose not to have babies including lesbians. Also, why is maternity leave granted to people who adopt?? Certainly not medical.

Well... then give up your job and be a stay home mom....why burden the employer who must provide "lactation" time for nursing moms??? Can I have a "nap time" since science says it's healthy for me?? Should employers allow a nap time?

And we should be concerned with other countries and how they compare to us b/c we consistently rank last in almost everything for being a 1st world country. We're not doing a lot of things right.

Show me a ranking where we rank last.

Again, you're letting your emotion get in the way of the argument. Because you want to potentially have a baby and want the employer to allow you to take time off and hold the spot for you.

We are not arguing the merits of maternity leave. We're debating why it's fair to everyone even though not everyone can benefit.

 

[BidingMyTime]

You have not built a case for why a long maternity leave is fair.

Really not concerned with what socialist countries and france do..

You keep going back and forth between a normal maternity leave and a "long" maternity leave. A 6 week maternity leave is fair to everyone because its considered disability (8 week for C-section) If your your employer offers disability, then its offered to all full-time employees. Might not be "fair" if one of the employees is a not very good mountain climber or cave spelunker who ends up injurded. Or an employee has diabetes and doesn't control it well and ends up in the hospital a couple of times a year. Disability is disability....whether or not the employee has a "choice" or not, it doesn't matter, it is the same for everyone. Including you.

Whether or not government should be mandating the length of maternity/paternity leave is a separate issue, but its "fair" in that its available to both men & women, that all businesses of a certain size must adhere to it, and even single people can choose to adopt to qualify for the leave.

You may be able to make a case on several different bases, that a business shouldn't provide disability leave or that the government shouldn't mandate maternity/paternity leave.....but I don't think it not being "fair" is one of those bases.

 

[Its Z]

Because why should a woman have to be punished for choosing to have kids? By "punished" I mean basically leave her job and have to reapply for it. That's BS.

Why should people who choose not to have kids be punished for choosing to not have kids? By "punished" I mean basically not able to take 4.5 months off when people who choose to have kids can. That's BS.

fify

 

[Its Z]

You keep going back and forth between a normal maternity leave and a "long" maternity leave. A 6 week maternity leave is fair to everyone because its considered disability (8 week for C-section) If your your employer offers disability, then its offered to all full-time employees. Might not be "fair" if one of the employees is a not very good mountain climber or cave spelunker who ends up injurded. Or an employee has diabetes and doesn't control it well and ends up in the hospital a couple of times a year. Disability is disability....whether or not the employee has a "choice" or not, it doesn't matter, it is the same for everyone. Including you.

Whether or not government should be mandating the length of maternity/paternity leave is a separate issue, but its "fair" in that its available to both men & women, that all businesses of a certain size must adhere to it, and even single people can choose to adopt to qualify for the leave.

You may be able to make a case on several different bases, that a business shouldn't provide disability leave or that the government shouldn't mandate maternity/paternity leave.....but I don't think it not being "fair" is one of those bases.

Probably a better argument than others.

However, everyone is allowed medical/disability. But people who choose to have a baby vs. who don't/can't, it's not a fair benefit. Everyone should be allowed "maternity/can't have baby so maternity equivalent time off" benefits. To be fair.

 

[rxlea]

Z,

Lesbians have babies you dork. Plenty of my gay friends have babies.

In response to your argument, it depends on what that employee is worth to you. Are they hard workers with true talent? Specialists that are exceptional? I would give 6 months off to someone who is dedicated, talented, and plans on growing with the company. Why take a chance with the unknown when you know you already have a committed employee? It's the common course of events for people to get a job they want to be in, get married/find a partner, have children and a life, and continue working somewhere they like for a long time. Are you a jackass for really pondering whether or not someone "deserves" maternity leave? Not really. From an economic standpoint, it's important to evaluate. But, think about the long term investment. It costs money to replace/train someone and without the guarantee that the replacement is equivalent to your regular employee.

 

[cycloketocaine]

Why should people who choose not to have kids be punished for choosing to not have kids? By "punished" I mean basically not able to take 4.5 months off when people who choose to have kids can. That's BS.

fify

Lol I had to look up what fify meant.

 

[BidingMyTime]

I say...take all the time off you want... but no guaranty there will be a job... reapply for your position.

That is how it was done in the old days. I worked with a technician in the 80's, she took off exactly the 6 weeks allowed by disability to have her baby. When she came back, she was then informed that she was being rehired......she lost her seniority and her vacation leave and was stated back as a "new" employee. This was especially nasty, because she wasn't told any of this before hand, human resources had told her there was no problem with going on maternity leave, they never said a word about being knocked down to a "new" employee until she came back. And this was a SUPERB technician, one of the best ones I've ever worked with.

It's pretty crappy that a business would treat an employee that way. This wasn't the only way this business showed it didn't have a lot of value for its employees, which helped explained why its turnover was pretty high.

 

[BidingMyTime]

We are not arguing the merits of maternity leave. We're debating why it's fair to everyone even though not everyone can benefit.

But everyone can benefit. Almost everyone can adopt a child. If they choose not to, and then they are choosing not to avail themselves of that employee benefit.

My employee offers 3 days funeral leave for the death of a parent/sibling/spouse/child, is it "fair" if I don't get to use those days, either because everyone in my family is already dead, or maybe I was raised in an orphanage and don't have any relatives?

My employee offers a discounted rate if one gets their cell phone through a certain provider, is it "fair" if I want to use a different cell provider, so I don't get the discounted rate?

Is it "fair" that my comprehensive health insurance includes vision benefits, but I don't wear glasses, so I'm paying higher premiums without any benefit, in effect, subsidizing my co-workers who wear glasses?

Or cancer insurance. Is it "fair" that my co-worker gets cancer and gets all the benefits of her/his cancer insurance, but I'm paying the same premiums and don't get any benefit because I'm healthy?

Do you see how ridiculous this sounds?

"Fair" means everyone is being treated equally, whether or not an employee chooses or is able to cash in on any particular benefit does not mean they are not being treated "fair"

 

[rxlea]

Yeah what about free smoking cessation? Tuition reimbursements? Infertility services? Adoption assistance? Those are all benefits but not everyone "gets" to use them.

Hell, I got paid to sit on a jury for 4 days. Is it fair that other people don't get jury duty?

 

[npage148]

I get cheaper health insurance through work because I'm "healthy" because I run a lot but I'm always at the sports med doctor/pt because i hurt myself from running so much. So in the end im a heavy benifit user is that fair?

 

[Momus]

I get cheaper health insurance through work because I'm "healthy" because I run a lot but I'm always at the sports med doctor/pt because i hurt myself from running so much. So in the end im a heavy benifit user is that fair?

Nah you are just an addict who wants Vicodin

 

[WVUPharm2007]

No, its not fair to anyone to allow someone to just walk off of work for an elective medical procedure or in support of that procedure.

If it is a thing that must be allowed, people who do not have children should either get paid more or be allowed to take a 3-6 month sabbatical without recourse one time in their adult life.

I'm beyond sick and tired of people who have crapped out a baby pretending they are superior to everyone else and entitled to everyone's servitude. I park in "parents with small children" and "pregnant women" spots on purpose and whenever I can. Yeah, you can spend an hour walking 1/4 mile inside the store buying bon-bons, but its so horrible if you have to walk an extra 30 yards in the parking lot.

 

[npage148]

/endthread

 

[Its Z]

No, its not fair to anyone to allow someone to just walk off of work for an elective medical procedure or in support of that procedure.

If it is a thing that must be allowed, people who do not have children should either get paid more or be allowed to take a 3-6 month sabbatical without recourse one time in their adult life.

I'm beyond sick and tired of people who have crapped out a baby pretending they are superior to everyone else and entitled to everyone's servitude. I park in "parents with small children" and "pregnant women" spots on purpose and whenever I can. Yeah, you can spend an hour walking 1/4 mile inside the store buying bon-bons, but its so horrible if you have to walk an extra 30 yards in the parking lot.

 

[Its Z]

But everyone can benefit. Almost everyone can adopt a child. If they choose not to, and then they are choosing not to avail themselves of that employee benefit.

My employee offers 3 days funeral leave for the death of a parent/sibling/spouse/child, is it "fair" if I don't get to use those days, either because everyone in my family is already dead, or maybe I was raised in an orphanage and don't have any relatives?

My employee offers a discounted rate if one gets their cell phone through a certain provider, is it "fair" if I want to use a different cell provider, so I don't get the discounted rate?

Is it "fair" that my comprehensive health insurance includes vision benefits, but I don't wear glasses, so I'm paying higher premiums without any benefit, in effect, subsidizing my co-workers who wear glasses?

Or cancer insurance. Is it "fair" that my co-worker gets cancer and gets all the benefits of her/his cancer insurance, but I'm paying the same premiums and don't get any benefit because I'm healthy?

Do you see how ridiculous this sounds?

"Fair" means everyone is being treated equally, whether or not an employee chooses or is able to cash in on any particular benefit does not mean they are not being treated "fair"

Nickle and dime benefits vs. 3 to 6 months off.

 

[Momus]

If it is a thing that must be allowed, people who do not have children should either get paid more or be allowed to take a 3-6 month sabbatical without recourse one time in their adult life.

How do we petition to make this happen?

 

[JoBreeze]

But everyone can benefit. Almost everyone can adopt a child. If they choose not to, and then they are choosing not to avail themselves of that employee benefit.

My employee offers 3 days funeral leave for the death of a parent/sibling/spouse/child, is it "fair" if I don't get to use those days, either because everyone in my family is already dead, or maybe I was raised in an orphanage and don't have any relatives?

My employee offers a discounted rate if one gets their cell phone through a certain provider, is it "fair" if I want to use a different cell provider, so I don't get the discounted rate?

Is it "fair" that my comprehensive health insurance includes vision benefits, but I don't wear glasses, so I'm paying higher premiums without any benefit, in effect, subsidizing my co-workers who wear glasses?

Or cancer insurance. Is it "fair" that my co-worker gets cancer and gets all the benefits of her/his cancer insurance, but I'm paying the same premiums and don't get any benefit because I'm healthy?

Do you see how ridiculous this sounds?

"Fair" means everyone is being treated equally, whether or not an employee chooses or is able to cash in on any particular benefit does not mean they are not being treated "fair"

End thread indeed. Well played.

 

[Its Z]

But everyone can benefit. Almost everyone can adopt a child. If they choose not to, and then they are choosing not to avail themselves of that employee benefit.

How is adopting a child considered medical and qualify for FMLA?

My employee offers 3 days funeral leave for the death of a parent/sibling/spouse/child, is it "fair" if I don't get to use those days, either because everyone in my family is already dead, or maybe I was raised in an orphanage and don't have any relatives?

3 days vs. 3 months plus. You don't choose death.

My employee offers a discounted rate if one gets their cell phone through a certain provider, is it "fair" if I want to use a different cell provider, so I don't get the discounted rate?

cell phone discount is through your GPO typically and if you decide to go with tmobile or metroPCS....then you're already getting a discount.

Is it "fair" that my comprehensive health insurance includes vision benefits, but I don't wear glasses, so I'm paying higher premiums without any benefit, in effect, subsidizing my co-workers who wear glasses?

Most vision insurances are optional and additional premiums are passed on to employees.

Or cancer insurance. Is it "fair" that my co-worker gets cancer and gets all the benefits of her/his cancer insurance, but I'm paying the same premiums and don't get any benefit because I'm healthy?

Cancer is not an option you choose. Often having a baby is.

Do you see how ridiculous this sounds?

Yes, your arguments are ridiculous.

"Fair" means everyone is being treated equally, whether or not an employee chooses or is able to cash in on any particular benefit does not mean they are not being treated "fair"

That's right. Maternity provides preferential treatment.

 

[owlegrad]

That's right. Maternity provides preferential treatment.

It discriminates against the people who choose not to use it? But that is still a choice. Which part of that in unfair?