Is 3 to 6 month maternity leave fair?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm sure as a guy you never received preferential treatment even once. Never been paid more or selected for a promotion, etc
Members don't see this ad.
 
owlegrad said:
It discriminates against the people who choose not to use it? But that is still a choice. Which part of that in unfair?
Click to expand...

Ehh...maternity benefits aren't available to non-reproductive employees choice or not.
 
npage148 said:
I'm sure as a guy you never received preferential treatment even once. Never been paid more or selected for a promotion, etc
Click to expand...

And if that is true, I will be the first to say that's not fair.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Z isn't arguing from the standpoint of interpersonal fairness, he's arguing that it is unfair to businesses. Which it is.

I also believe there should be an argument against the personal fairness of this. Like I said, if one type of elective medical procedure allotted x amount of recovery time, then others should as well. If I wanted a sex change operation, I should get the same recovery time as a person having children. Both are elective procedures, mostly for the sake of vanity - though psychologically fullfilling vanity, which I could see bring argued as a psychiatric need. But why is one federally protected and the other not. That would be true fairness. Why only extend this to people with reproductive instinct. Those without the instinct towards desiring reproduction or the asexual are clearly not possibly eligible for this, but may need medical procedures of their own to fulfill needs in vanity.

People should also be rewarded for dealing with absentee coworkers. A tax credit would suffice. I also think there should be a holiday celebrating childfree school tax payers. And we should get a coupon for a free water ice from Ritas on that day.
There will be a parade. And all of the breeders will applaud us as we walk down the street, thanking us for selflessly paying to educate their children. People with more than three children are forced to attend.


Make these changes and I'll be satisfied.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
Z isn't arguing from the standpoint of interpersonal fairness, he's arguing that it is unfair to businesses. Which it is.

I also believe there should be an argument against the personal fairness of this. Like I said, if one type of elective medical procedure allotted x amount of recovery time, then others should as well. If I wanted a sex change operation, I should get the same recovery time as a person having children. Both are elective procedures, mostly for the sake of vanity - though psychologically fullfilling vanity, which I could see bring argued as a psychiatric need. But why is one federally protected and the other not. That would be true fairness. Why only extend this to people with reproductive instinct. Those without the instinct towards desiring reproduction or the asexual are clearly not possibly eligible for this, but may need medical procedures of their own to fulfill needs in vanity.

People should also be rewarded for dealing with absentee coworkers. A tax credit would suffice. I also think there should be a holiday celebrating childfree school tax payers. And we should get a coupon for a free water ice from Ritas on that day.
There will be a parade. And all of the breeders will applaud us as we walk down the street, thanking us for selflessly paying to educate their children. People with more than three children are forced to attend.


Make these changes and I'll be satisfied.
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha.

I might be able to construct an argument that you benefit from paying for everyone else's kids' educations, but I'm not going to take the time.
 
JoBreeze said:
Hahahahaha.

I might be able to construct an argument that you benefit from paying for everyone else's kids' educations, but I'm not going to take the time.
Click to expand...

I have no problem educating and caring for children. I will need someone to pay into social security when I get old. And walk around with meat on sticks at Fogo when i'm 60. This isn't about children. It's about how one vanity-driven medical procedure is covered and others aren't.
 
Don't hate the playa, hate the game. Yes, I dislike this >3 months maternity leave thing (along with people calling sick every week, but that's a different story for a different post)

Personally, the issue isn't about the temp worker. They understand the position is temporary so when the mother comes back, and they have to leave, there won't be any misunderstandings. The issue is with the employer and FELLOW COWOKERS. The workload shifts around due to the mother on leave. It's almost like someone calling in sick or being on vacation every single day. The increased workload chips away at morale and productivity.

I know because I've been in that position before. Usually I'm asked to take the late shift or weekend shift because I don't have family. I just suck it up and take it in stride. In the end, I'm the one who gets rave reviews and will get promoted quicker than anyone else.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
I have no problem educating and caring for children. I will need someone to pay into social security when I get old. And walk around with meat on sticks at Fogo when i'm 60. This isn't about children. It's about how one vanity-driven medical procedure is covered and others aren't.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with you getting FMLA for your sex change operation. :thumbup:
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
Z isn't arguing from the standpoint of interpersonal fairness, he's arguing that it is unfair to businesses. Which it is.
Click to expand...

It's not unfair to businesses, because all businesses must abide by the same federal & state laws. If he wants to argue that businesses can't afford this benefit, or that government has not right to legally mandate FMLA leave, or that allowing FMLA leave hurts businesses....then he should argue that. But the law IS very fair, as it applies to everyone equally.

Like I said, if one type of elective medical procedure allotted x amount of recovery time, then others should as well. If I wanted a sex change operation, I should get the same recovery time as a person having children. Both are elective procedures, mostly for the sake of vanity - though psychologically fullfilling vanity, which I could see bring argued as a psychiatric need. But why is one federally protected and the other not.
Click to expand...

Well, you are completely wrong. #1 sex change operations are technically considered medically necessary and not elective and #2 even if they were considere elective, "major" elective surgury IS covered under FMLA. So now you know, if you don't want to have a child, you can still avail yourself of FMLA leave by having a sex change. (you might not get the extra 6 week under California law, which I know nothing about, so that might not be "fair", but under federal law, you can get the same 12 weeks as the woman having a child.)

It should also be pointed out that many times pregnancies are not elective. People take a crazy change, or their birth control fails, or they are raped, or they just don't think....I think I read before that statistically only 50% of pregnancies are planned.

People should also be rewarded for dealing with absentee coworkers. A tax credit would suffice. I also think there should be a holiday celebrating childfree school tax payers. And we should get a coupon for a free water ice from Ritas on that day.
Click to expand...

I think you should write up a proposition for this, and send it to your legislator. After all, this would be fair, since even breeders would qualify for the tax credit, since they probably have to deal with absentee coworkers in between their own births.
 
Its Z said:
Nickle and dime benefits vs. 3 to 6 months off.
Click to expand...

The cost of the benefit has absolutely nothing to do with how "fair" it is. As I noted in my post above, if you want to make an argument on why maternity leave is harmful to businesses, or to costly to businesses, then do so. But whining that its not fair, makes no sense. Because it is fair, and just because YOU decided to pass up on this benefit of 12 - 18 weeks and only take off 2 days.....that is your choice. Maybe you should just talk your wife into having another child, then you can take off the 18 weeks and feel gratified that you finally got your FAIR due.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Its Z said:
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?



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.
Click to expand...

LOL my emotion? Do you know anything about me?

1- Infant mortality rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

2 - Education
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/education-olympics-how-do_n_1707968.html
#31 in math and #23 in science....horrible...

3 - 49th in life span expectancy even though we spend 3-4x more on healthcare and we smoke less and drink less than other countries!
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/02/us/american-exceptionalism-other-countries-lessons/index.html

lifespan, education, infant mortality rate...these 3 things are commonly measured to determine how "advanced" a nation is. we kind of suck.

Anyway, most women get pregnant. Sure, some are lesbian, some don't want kids. But MOST women get pregnant. If it's something that happens to MOST women why would businesses not accommodate it? It doesn't make sense. If you do not guarantee employment to women who choose to become pregnant you are limiting your applicant pool to only men and women who are not of childbearing age. How is that good from a business perspective?

This all stems from the 1950's, women earning more rights, etc. If women are told they will lose their job if they choose to become pregnant and take maternity leave they will either A) choose not to work and stay home as housewives (yes this is great for our workforce and brain power) B) work stupid jobs and never really move up because their career path has been haulted a few times. Giving women the ability to take maternity leave was a push to get women out into the workforce and be accommodated in the workforce. You're basically suggesting we go back to the 1800's.
 
Its Z said:
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
Click to expand...

Because that mom who just gave birth is totally going to the spa everyday, walking on nice sandy beaches in Hawaii....not that she's hardly sleeping b/c her new baby keeps crying, waking her up at night, running around like crazy trying to figure out how to be new mom, etc...taking baby to doctors visits..etc..

I see why this issue is bothering you so much. In your mind pregnancy leave = vacation, party hats and all.

Also, do you REALLY want a new mom coming back after 2 weeks anyway? Like she isn't going to have baby on her mind the whole time, be unproductive, constantly be calling people to check up...taking off early here and there or coming in late for whatever reason...just give them 6 months...a **** load of time....so they get their life straightened out and in order before they come back so they dont bring that stuff (or most of it) to work
 
Last edited:
My husband took 3 weeks off with each of our kids. That's the plan with the one that's coming in a few weeks. He used his vacation time and some FMLA time too. I can't imagine not having him around for those first few weeks. Especially now that we're going to have an 18 month old and a newborn in the house!
 
What does FMLA mean?

Pregnant employee answers, "Family and Medical Leave Act"
Employer/Manager of pregnant employee, "F*** My Life, Ahhhh!"
 
The most I've seen given here is 12 weeks (6-8wks plus up to another 4-6 weeks of your vacation).

FMLA applies to more than just pregnancy, it covers other procedures...so yes it is fair, as not just pregnant women qualify for FMLA.

In the time it takes for a position to get approved, interviewed, and hired, it usually takes about the same amount of time the person would be on leave. You have to protect workers rights to keep their job if they get sick, have a baby, or need surgery. Plus these things are usually known somewhat in advance (at least in the case of pregnancy or elective surgery)...so the employer has time to plan for coverage.

Just as it is a choice to have kids, it is also a choice to not have kids..
 
...so should all females hoping to have children just drop out of the work force now and save you the hassle of firing them for bonding too long with their children?

Seriously...
 
Rx MPLS said:
...so should all females hoping to have children just drop out of the work force now and save you the hassle of firing them for bonding too long with their children?
Click to expand...

If I had 20 dudes gang banged me when I were 6 mo old, I certainly did not remember it. There is no bonding when you are at that age... just feeding/poop and non stop annoyances...

Waiting someone to pull BS articles about this...
 
Momus said:
If I had 20 dudes gang banged me when I were 6 mo old, I certainly did not remember it. There is no bonding when you are at that age... just feeding/poop and non stop annoyances...

Waiting someone to pull BS articles about this...
Click to expand...


Wtf?? no bonding at that age?? I don't even know what to say.
 
Momus said:
If I had 20 dudes gang banged me when I were 6 mo old, I certainly did not remember it. There is no bonding when you are at that age... just feeding/poop and non stop annoyances...

Waiting someone to pull BS articles about this...
Click to expand...

Are you on drugs?
 
Momus said:
If I had 20 dudes gang banged me when I were 6 mo old, I certainly did not remember it. There is no bonding when you are at that age... just feeding/poop and non stop annoyances...

Waiting someone to pull BS articles about this...
Click to expand...

How many kids do you have?
 
Fair: Any employment term agreed upon by an employer and a mentally competent adult employee

Legal: Anything a majority of legislators or justices decide is "better" than fair
 
Lol...look what you did, troublemaker.

This thread is harrowing.
 
The employer is in no position to whine about what is fair for them when the deck is stacked in their favor on so many issues regarding labor laws. Even if we decide that it's unfair to have to give 6 months maternntity I couldn't care less about it and am a little glad it is an issue for the employer
 
BidingMyTime said:
It's not unfair to businesses, because all businesses must abide by the same federal & state laws. If he wants to argue that businesses can't afford this benefit, or that government has not right to legally mandate FMLA leave, or that allowing FMLA leave hurts businesses....then he should argue that. But the law IS very fair, as it applies to everyone equally.
Click to expand...

Umm...no. Just because something is a pain in the ass and availble to each employee doesn't mean it isn't unfair to the business.


Well, you are completely wrong. #1 sex change operations are technically considered medically necessary and not elective and #2 even if they were considere elective, "major" elective surgury IS covered under FMLA. So now you know, if you don't want to have a child, you can still avail yourself of FMLA leave by having a sex change. (you might not get the extra 6 week under California law, which I know nothing about, so that might not be "fair", but under federal law, you can get the same 12 weeks as the woman having a child.)
Click to expand...

Any procedure should be covered, then. Tummy tuck, botox, you name it. Excellent. I'm calling my plastic surgeon to get my sabbatical time.

It should also be pointed out that many times pregnancies are not elective. People take a crazy change, or their birth control fails, or they are raped, or they just don't think....I think I read before that statistically only 50% of pregnancies are planned.
Click to expand...

So? Abortion exists for a reason. Religious? Don't care. Religion is the crutch of the weak. Unless you had an miraculous spontaneous conception, the **** is a voluntary medical procedure, period.

I think you should write up a proposition for this, and send it to your legislator. After all, this would be fair, since even breeders would qualify for the tax credit, since they probably have to deal with absentee coworkers in between their own births.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with this. Yay. Tax cuts.
 
Rx MPLS said:
...so should all females hoping to have children just drop out of the work force now and save you the hassle of firing them for bonding too long with their children?

Seriously...
Click to expand...

Exactly. We didn't have this problem back in the 50s when the women were in the kitchen. I'm glad we are finally coming to realize the mistakes of the past that are causing the problems of today. Now if they all just went back in the kitchen, this entire issue would be solved immediately. The child free women may remain in the workforce, as they do not pose the risk of becoming an annoyance.
 
Its Z said:
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
Click to expand...

Z

I've never ever come across a more arrogant and chauvanistic person in all my life.

How about you take time out to watch your kids while your wife goes to work, just because you were born with testes instead of ovaries doesn't give you gods's given rite to a full working life.

You are more suited to life in 1930's Germany than in a modern democratic society.

Grow up you zygote.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
Exactly. We didn't have this problem back in the 50s when the women were in the kitchen. I'm glad we are finally coming to realize the mistakes of the past that are causing the problems of today. Now if they all just went back in the kitchen, this entire issue would be solved immediately. The child free women may remain in the workforce, as they do not pose the risk of becoming an annoyance.
Click to expand...

It would bring us back to our pharmacy shortage days, that's for sure.
 
Just an outsider observing your debate. I thought you'd like to know I wandered into this thread with no opinion on the subject, but left with the opinion that maternity leave is in fact fair and should be protected.

Pro maternity leave debaters had a more structured and consistent argument than the opponents and did not resort to name calling, personal attacks or changing their beliefs as it suited their argument.

Opponents, I believe you had some great arguments to build off of, but then you guys started getting facetious and involving religion where it did not belong.

For the record, I know many secular pro lifers.

That's just my constructive criticism, though. Take it as you will.
 
Last edited:
Chit people, before you get your panties all up in a wad y'all ever stop to think maybe he is jackin with people?

Lol.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
Umm...no. Just because something is a pain in the ass and availble to each employee doesn't mean it isn't unfair to the business.
Click to expand...

You *might* be able to make a case that its detrimental business, but you can't make a case that it's unfair to business, because all businesses are subject to the same laws. Unfair to business, would be if congress just required certain businesses to give 3 months FMLA leave-based on criteria only known to Congress, but other businesses didn't. That would be unfair. Detrimental is not the same as unfair--which might be what you and Z are attempting to argue, but its hard to tell when you keep whining "mommy, its just not fair."

<<Any procedure should be covered, then. Tummy tuck, botox, you name it. Excellent. I'm calling my plastic surgeon to get my sabbatical time.>>

Go for it! From what I understand any elective procedure requiring an overnight stay in the hospital is considered major and would be covered. As others have pointed out, maternity leave isn't really a vacation, but if you considered it sabbatical to recover from plastic surgery, go for it, the law ensures you will have the time you need to recover as well.

<<So? Abortion exists for a reason. Religious? Don't care. Religion is the crutch of the weak. Unless you had an miraculous spontaneous conception, the **** is a voluntary medical procedure, period.>>

So, are you one of the medically illterate who think women don't get pregnant by "real rape?" Because, besides the miraculous spontaneous conception, women are occasionally forcibly impregnanted. And as has been repeatedly pointed out, much more elective procedures than childbirth are covered by FMLA, so if elective childbirth isn't your cup of tea, pick the elective surgery you would like and go for enjoying your sabbatical. Your sex change is definitely covered, so is your gastric bypass, your Lasik wouldn't be, but hey, all the childbearing breeders you work with, don't get off for Lasik either, so it is fair. :) And, as you may not be aware of--women are required ot use up all their vacation & sick days during FMLA, the rest of the leave is unpaid, so its not really this gravy train for women that you think it is.

I bet you really WOULD whine about your co-worker getting cancer and collecting on her cancer benefits
 
Hello2000 said:
Z

I've never ever come across a more arrogant and chauvanistic person in all my life.

How about you take time out to watch your kids while your wife goes to work, just because you were born with testes instead of ovaries doesn't give you gods's given rite to a full working life.

You are more suited to life in 1930's Germany than in a modern democratic society.

Grow up you zygote.
Click to expand...

Grow a brain ...:smuggrin:
 
FMLA doesn't affect me. It affects staff who now have to pick up the slack. Thought I would start this thread in response to a load of my female employees who's been begging to not hire young female staff.

Funny seeing grown people get their panties in a wad.

But carry on. SDN pharmacy needed a stimulating thread.
 
Its Z said:
FMLA doesn't affect me. It affects staff who now have to pick up the slack. Thought I would start this thread in response to a load of my female employees who's been begging to not hire young female staff.

Funny seeing grown people get their panties in a wad.

But carry on. SDN pharmacy needed a stimulating thread.
Click to expand...

The only panties being wadded here were your own, kind sir and/or madam.

Good day.
 
Poetic Silence said:
The only panties being wadded here were your own, kind sir and/or madam.

Good day.
Click to expand...

Lol not really...when you consider he was screwing around the entire time. There were several posters who got all sorts of offended, and that my friend, is what is called getting your panties in a wad.
 
Did somebody call me madman?

Oh...madam. we say ma'am.

Have to give it to Mikey tho... he raises valuable points.
 
Its Z said:
FMLA doesn't affect me. It affects staff who now have to pick up the slack. Thought I would start this thread in response to a load of my female employees who's been begging to not hire young female staff.

Funny seeing grown people get their panties in a wad.

But carry on. SDN pharmacy needed a stimulating thread.
Click to expand...

It's also super entertaining because most SDN posters have never had to deal with it from a true managerial stand point. I'm not talking pharmacy manager of Walgreens here, I mean a real manager like Director of Pharmacy at a hospital or something along those lines. Sometimes DOP's have to tough gut wrenching decisions that new pharmacists, and perhaps some seasoned ones will never understand.

Perfect example: What am I to do now that my full time overnight pharmacist is pregnant? She is living single cause her husband had a job 250 miles away. Grandparents are not an option. She says she is coming back to work after her recovery time. However, she can no longer work overnights for me, which is what I hired her to do. Am I suppose to just say, "okay!" and accomodate her simply because she now has a kid? What about future dr visits for the baby and when the baby gets sick when day care won't take the baby? Now I have too many pharmacists locked into a morning day shift and not enough people doing mid shift and 1 person to do overnights.

And before any of you chime in and say "Well thats easy, just move the people already in the morning shift" It's not cut and dry like that in government service and I can't simply mix and match when people are hired for specific jobs and shifts.

Decisions decisions- I will say this though: Usually the cold, ruthless decisions are the best decisions because you are using a logical thought process for whats best of the company/business you run however they are the hardest to make because most managers do care about their people. If you make decisions because you get rainbows and unicorns for helping people out, chances are, you don't have much business sense and people run all over you and you would have no problem having up to 3/4 of your staff wiped out to pregnancy.
 
Caverject said:
It's also super entertaining because most SDN posters have never had to deal with it from a true managerial stand point. I'm not talking pharmacy manager of Walgreens here, I mean a real manager like Director of Pharmacy at a hospital or something along those lines. Sometimes DOP's have to tough gut wrenching decisions that new pharmacists, and perhaps some seasoned ones will never understand.

Perfect example: What am I to do now that my full time overnight pharmacist is pregnant? She is living single cause her husband had a job 250 miles away. Grandparents are not an option. She says she is coming back to work after her recovery time. However, she can no longer work overnights for me, which is what I hired her to do. Am I suppose to just say, "okay!" and accomodate her simply because she now has a kid? What about future dr visits for the baby and when the baby gets sick when day care won't take the baby? Now I have too many pharmacists locked into a morning day shift and not enough people doing mid shift and 1 person to do overnights.

And before any of you chime in and say "Well thats easy, just move the people already in the morning shift" It's not cut and dry like that in government service and I can't simply mix and match when people are hired for specific jobs and shifts.

Decisions decisions- I will say this though: Usually the cold, ruthless decisions are the best decisions because you are using a logical thought process for whats best of the company/business you run however they are the hardest to make because most managers do care about their people. If you make decisions because you get rainbows and unicorns for helping people out, chances are, you don't have much business sense and people run all over you and you would have no problem having up to 3/4 of your staff wiped out to pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Most people and employees aren't capable of viewing an issue from both ends. They can only see it as an entitled employee. They couldn't careless what happens to the employer and the business as long as they can receive their entitled benefit. Being an employee and an employer, I see the ugliness of both ends. In the end, it breeds an environment where employee employer loyalty can never be fostered.

It's an expensive venture to employ people.

And most employees are replaceable.

We will end up with more and more employers hiring PRN employees with no benefits and few FT employees with full benefits. Very little benefitted part time employment will exist in near future. Walmart model if you will.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
I'm saddened that nobody has written a 10 paragraph rant about making the women go back to the kitchen.
Click to expand...

Watch any TV program and you will notice fathers are always the buffoon run over by witty and jagged tongued wife/mother. And that's supposed to be funny.. and widely accepted reality of the modern day USA.

Men have been pussified. And more power to women who like pussiefied men.

Then watch a serious drama with overpowering father... he's a psychopathic killer.

We live in a society where men/father play 2nd fiddle to mom/wife.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

B
walgreens leave of absence and working during the leave
Replies
3
Views
2K
sozetone
sozetone
Rukn
Leaving Chain After A Month
Replies
9
Views
2K
Alexis_pharmD
A
P
Articles I read tend to leave the profession of pharmacy in question
Replies
11
Views
1K
PrincessSnow
P
A
Amazon begins offering six-month prescriptions for as low as $6
Replies
21
Views
3K
VA77
VA77
M
Biden to forgive 10k to everyone and leave us RPH out, we must unite
2 3 4
Replies
161
Views
7K
DH1987
D
Top