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.
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.


Ok well that's a little ridiculous. She can't just have whatever shift she wants, lol. She was hired as overnight...you will find a temp for overnight, and when she comes back she can have her normal job back. Just cuz she had a baby doesn't mean she's entitled to whatever shift she wants! If she realized her shift doesn't work for her because of her personal life then she has to find another job and it'll be her decision to leave. If she wants to keep the job then she'll have to pay for a nanny (which I'm sure she can afford with a pharmacist salary). I guarantee you 100% you are not required to give her whatever shift she wants (I've worked in recruiting/HR).

In fact, at least in CA, you don't even have to have the same job available for the person. This is a little tricky for pharmacists because they more or less do the same job. But in a company for example if a woman leaves and she's manager of X division, if she comes back, she has to have a "comparable" manager position available for her at same salary...but not necessarily the exact same position. Just something with similar duties.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Ok well that's a little ridiculous. She can't just have whatever shift she wants, lol. She was hired as overnight...you will find a temp for overnight, and when she comes back she can have her normal job back. Just cuz she had a baby doesn't mean she's entitled to whatever shift she wants! If she realized her shift doesn't work for her because of her personal life then she has to find another job and it'll be her decision to leave. If she wants to keep the job then she'll have to pay for a nanny (which I'm sure she can afford with a pharmacist salary). I guarantee you 100% you are not required to give her whatever shift she wants (I've worked in recruiting/HR).

In fact, at least in CA, you don't even have to have the same job available for the person. This is a little tricky for pharmacists because they more or less do the same job. But in a company for example if a woman leaves and she's manager of X division, if she comes back, she has to have a "comparable" manager position available for her at same salary...but not necessarily the exact same position. Just something with similar duties.

You don't have enough understanding of hospital pharmacy practice to throw out opinions about using staffing company to fill overnight pharmacist position. It takes 3 to 6 months to train a hospital pharmacist. And a night pharmacist is in charge of medication management of every critically ill patient. No, we would never use agency.

That's why it's extremely difficult to fill a position for 3 to 6 months. It is a major undertaking which you fail to acknowledge the burden it places on the employer and the rest of staff.
 
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.

If she was hired for overnights and this is what her contract says, I would tell her too bad and if she doesn't want those hours she can quit or wait until a day shift position opens up.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
LOL my emotion? Do you know anything about me?

No...and I don't care to know.
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.

You said we were consistently last. I don't see us being last...like you said

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?

How does it benefit the business to pay for employees to leave for so long...men and women both??

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.

You're a high school student, aren't you.

What do you know about the life in the 19th century?
 
If she was hired for overnights and this is what her contract says, I would tell her too bad and if she doesn't want those hours she can quit or wait until a day shift position opens up.

The point isn't ruthless management saying too bad you need to work the shift you signed up for.

Many women will go on FMLA...get the full benefit... then either quit.... demand to go part time... or become less efficient employees. Not all.... but many.

But they always do it after the fact.. meanwhile the employer gets screwed waiting around for the employee to come back while paying extra for overtime etc.. trying to accommodate the new mom... and in the end... 9 months later, hire a new employee and go through the cycle all over again.

Yes it's annoying.
 
The point isn't ruthless management saying too bad you need to work the shift you signed up for.

Many women will go on FMLA...get the full benefit... then either quit.... demand to go part time... or become less efficient employees. Not all.... but many.

But they always do it after the fact.. meanwhile the employer gets screwed waiting around for the employee to come back while paying extra for overtime etc.. trying to accommodate the new mom... and in the end... 9 months later, hire a new employee and go through the cycle all over again.

Yes it's annoying.

Yup, many do try to get the most out of the employeer as possible...it is annoying and not fair to the employer. What solution do you propose? Get rid of FMLA? That won't happen...so what can you do from an administrative perspective? Just curious.
 
It discriminates against the people who choose not to use it? But that is still a choice. Which part of that in unfair?

It's not a choice for people who can't have a baby or a single male. How is that a choice not to use it?

Choice to not use it means the benefit is available to all.
 
It's not a choice for people who can't have a baby or a single male. How is that a choice not to use it?

Choice to not use it means the benefit is available to all.

FMLA can still be used for other things other than pregnancy realted issues.
 
Yup, many do try to get the most out of the employeer as possible...it is annoying and not fair to the employer. What solution do you propose? Get rid of FMLA? That won't happen...so what can you do from an administrative perspective? Just curious.

Pay back the benefits received if healthy new mom decides to change employment status to less than before.
 
Pay back the benefits received if healthy new mom decides to change employment status to less than before.

I do think that is a fair solution...is legal? Kinda like taking those loans from retail pharms back in the day...if you don't work for them, you've got to pay it back.
 
How about bonding period?

What do you mean? As an employer you aren't required to give anything more than 12 weeks, unless the hospital has a different policy.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I do think that is a fair solution...is legal? Kinda like taking those loans from retail pharms back in the day...if you don't work for them, you've got to pay it back.

Heck I don't know. Employers have no recourse.

I'm telling you... more and more employers will go with less benefit positions and more PRN positions. This is due to benefit abuse by employees.
 
What do you mean? As an employer you aren't required to give anything more than 12 weeks, unless the hospital has a different policy.

Welcome to CA. The new socialist state.
 
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.

While I've just been (very successfully) trolling in this thread, this is actually true.

We are entering into a time of female privilege. Already, women in my age group are earning more than men in my age group. And its projected to get worse. Men are several times as likely to commit suicide, men are much more likely to be unemployed, men attain less education. And on and on. Nobody seems to care in feminist circles. I predict that within 15 years, there will be a strong mens' rights movement rise up as powerfully as the womens' rights movements of the 20th century. It will address things like selective service, the continued expected behavior expected of men despite a changing of the guard in female gender roles from the 20th century, the disregard for mens' lives, paternity issues, and, as you mentioned, the acceptance of the man as the idiot of the family, etc.

It should be interesting. We will start seeing more "empowered" men refusing to open doors for women, refusing to marry, refusing to pay for dates, etc, etc. At some point, men will realize that American women really just aren't worth it. (For the record, the VAAAAASSSST majority of you aren't.) Though TO BE FAIR, its because you've been conditioned to think you "get to have your cake and eat it, too" since the age of 3. You just don't see what some men are beginning to see.

Thankfully, I married a woman that was cool enough to get married in a courtroom, loves sports, loves video games, loves women, has the same job, doesn't want kids, ever (in fact, has been medically sterilized), etc.

I pity the rest of these American male saps that actually put up with the dual "Modern Woman vs Victorian Male" dichotomy. The "script" is pretty scary. Get married, plop out 2.3 kids...next thing you know, honey biscuit doesn't want you anymore, she gets the house, kids, alimony, and child support; you get an apartment and debt. Next thing you know, some other dude is raising your kids. Calling him dad...you see them every other weekend...slowly becoming a distant relative to your own children. You got a 50% chance of that happening. Like I said...being single is a much, much better proposition. American women aren't worth the financial risk. 50% chance of losing everything. Think about that. Amazing.

Men are disposable. They can just be replaced in the family. They can just be drafted and sent off to die. Remember that theater shooting in Colorado? All of the men were "expected" to stay and protect their women. The ones stupid enough to give their lives for a girlfriend of 3 months were "heroes." The ones that ran were shamed. Why? I thought women were empowered and equal to men? Well, this goes back to the empowered women vs Victorian man thing. Women get to be empowered when its convenient for them...and they get to expect men to be their protectors, door holders, and providers at the same time.

And when it happens, the typical ******* American woman response will be to say men are whining. And that they need to "man up." Rather than actually understanding men, they will just ignore them nd call them unmanly...or whatever. It's pretty predictable.

A time of female privilege.

Thankfully, because my wife isn't a typical American idiot and I'll always be successful on my own volition, it will never be an issue for me. But at some point American male intellectuals need to fight for their equality. The decrease in the value of men is disturbing. It's not a gender thing, its a human rights thing.
 
Last edited:
While I've just been (very successfully) trolling in this thread, this is actually true.

We are entering into a time of female privilege. Already, women in my age group are earning more than men in my age group. And its projected to get worse. Men are several times as likely to commit suicide, men are much more likely to be unemployed, men attain less education. And on and on. Nobody seems to care in feminist circles. I predict that within 15 years, there will be a strong mens' rights movement rise up as powerfully as the womens' rights movements of the 20th century. It will address things like selective service, the continued expected behavior expected of men despite a changing of the guard in female gender roles from the 20th century, the disregard for mens' lives, paternity issues, and, as you mentioned, the acceptance of the man as the idiot of the family, etc.

It should be interesting. We will start seeing more "empowered" men refusing to open doors for women, refusing to marry, refusing to pay for dates, etc, etc. At some point, men will realize that American women really just aren't worth it. (For the record, the VAAAAASSSST majority of you aren't.) Though TO BE FAIR, its because you've been conditioned to think you "get to have your cake and eat it, too" since the age of 3. You just don't see what some men are beginning to see.

Thankfully, I married a woman that was cool enough to get married in a courtroom, loves sports, loves video games, loves women, has the same job, doesn't want kids, ever (in fact, has been medically sterilized), etc.

I pity the rest of these American male saps that actually put up with the dual "Modern Woman vs Victorian Male" dichotomy. The "script" is pretty scary. Get married, plop out 2.3 kids...next thing you know, honey biscuit doesn't want you anymore, she gets the house, kids, alimony, and child support; you get an apartment and debt. Next thing you know, some other dude is raising your kids. Calling him dad...you see them every other weekend...slowly becoming a distant relative to your own children. You got a 50% chance of that happening. Like I said...being single is a much, much better proposition. American women aren't worth the financial risk. 50% chance of losing everything. Think about that. Amazing.

Men are disposable. They can just be replaced in the family. They can just be drafted and sent off to die. Remember that theater shooting in Colorado? All of the men were "expected" to stay and protect their women. The ones stupid enough to give their lives for a girlfriend of 3 months were "heroes." The ones that ran were shamed. Why? I thought women were empowered and equal to men? Well, this goes back to the empowered women vs Victorian man thing. Women get to be empowered when its convenient for them...and they get to expect men to be their protectors, door holders, and providers at the same time.

And when it happens, the typical ******* American woman response will be to say men are whining. And that they need to "man up." Rather than actually understanding men, they will just ignore them nd call them unmanly...or whatever. It's pretty predictable.

A time of female privilege.

Thankfully, because my wife isn't a typical American idiot and I'll always be successful on my own volition, it will never be an issue for me. But at some point American male intellectuals need to fight for their equality. The decrease in the value of men is disturbing. It's not a gender thing, its a human rights thing.

Which is why I'll be getting a pre-nup.
 
The suicide thing is because men are more successful. They will shoot themselves. Women take bottles of xanax and tylenol :smuggrin:

Women have been subjugated forever. Let us have our moment in time :p

In my whole life of getting harassed for gayness, I never thought I'd say that I'm happy about being gay. Apparently, I don't have to deal with a whiny, pusillanimous husband or the weird ass gender role women vs men bull****.:D
(I kid)
In all seriousness, society will be better when there is true equality.

As far as the FMLA, I do see it from the employer perspective because I have been ****ed over with the holidays and covering for someone with sick kids and all that in the past. Apparently, having children entitles one to certain advantages. Those of us who say no to coming in or staying late or trading holidays because of somebody's "family issues" are viewed as pariahs.

With that said, the law exists for a reason and for a good one, which was pointed out upthread. The first twelve weeks are an especially critical time. Parents should be given the minimum time allowed at the very least. If it's an especially good employee, I would entertain a short extension of that time off if they use all their PTO. But people are right, too much abuse happens. It's hard to weed that out in the beginning. Anyone can lie for an hour interview or find references to say good things about them.
 
Last edited:
American men will never "need" a revolution because the simple solution is already underway. Intelligent men will find women in other countries who will be grateful to have them, ladies that are used to men having 100% power and abusing it on a daily basis. Good, American men will empower these women to be their true equals, and both parties will be amazingly happy and live wonderful lives (myself and my father are among this group). American women will be left with the stupid, unmotivated and/or abusive men and when that is all they have to pick from, they will perhaps realize how good they had it.

Oh and time off for all employees should be equal and who cares what they use it for, sick, baby, vacation, whatever...if you decide to blow it all and then get sick/pregnant, sucks to be you.
 
There is a simpler definition for American Woman who wants all = stuck up

Why I stated previously multiple times against marriage (or at least with a pre-nup). I don't want to part 1/2 of my net worth I accumulated through sweat and blood just because she turns into a nut job 3 months marriage (a hidden financial contract that every woman has). It's unromantic to bring up a prenup but signing a contract called marriage is totally romantic = my ass... LOL
 
Holy $hit. So much to comment on, but I am too busy being a chronically, horribly sleep deprived mother of a baby while working full-time, while keeping a house, while being a wife and a daughter and a sister and a friend.

I spent the first 10 of my working years covering for mothers AND fathers who had to leave work/miss work/take vacation due to their kids. Now they cover for me when my kid can't go to daycare because she is sick because currently I have more PTO than my husband does.

Ugh, I need to leave because I'm too tired to trust myself not to blow up.
 
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

Because they're contributing nothing (other than taxes for education etc that they're forced to pay) to creating a future for this country including workers who will be able to pay into social security and medicare which they will presumably want to collect when they're older.
 
Oh wow, now the men on this thread are really whining. That's OK, it makes me ever so much more grateful for my husband. I really don't appreciate enough the treasure he is. Makes me want to have another child with him & get my 3 month's "vacation".

Of course, certain men in here aren't really trolling. Many men really are totally clueless about how women have been treated throughout history, and how woman are often still treated today. They really, really don't get it.
 
Holy $hit. So much to comment on, but I am too busy being a chronically, horribly sleep deprived mother of a baby while working full-time, while keeping a house, while being a wife and a daughter and a sister and a friend.

I spent the first 10 of my working years covering for mothers AND fathers who had to leave work/miss work/take vacation due to their kids. Now they cover for me when my kid can't go to daycare because she is sick because currently I have more PTO than my husband does.

Ugh, I need to leave because I'm oo tired to trust myself not to blow up.

I don't have a problem covering from time to time. I have a problem when it becomes the expectation that I or the single people will give up things like Christmas Day or Valentines Day or weekends. If people ask me to do something, most of the time I'm cool with it. I let people leave early all the time regardless of the reason (kids, school, whatever) when they are working with me. But I will not allow people to take advantage of that and I do hope that they will return the favor should that time come.





Oh wow, now the men on this thread are really whining. That's OK, it makes me ever so much more grateful for my husband. I really don't appreciate enough the treasure he is. Makes me want to have another child with him & get my 3 month's "vacation".

Of course, certain men in here aren't really trolling. Many men really are totally clueless about how women have been treated throughout history, and how woman are often still treated today. They really, really don't get it.

Agreed. Sadly, the backlash against women s rights is perpetuated by lots of women as well. Women still are not equals so the whiny men in this thread should take a moment and truly think about that.
 
Allsome!

I turned this thread into boys vs. girls fight!

:smuggrin:
 
Mods!

Can we make this a "argue and whine about nothing ' thread!
 
you underestimate the power Of. being able to pee standing up.

Which shows how little you know about women. There are plenty of videos on UTube if you want to see how its done.
 
Oh wow, now the men on this thread are really whining. That's OK, it makes me ever so much more grateful for my husband. I really don't appreciate enough the treasure he is. Makes me want to have another child with him & get my 3 month's "vacation".

I predicted this:

And when it happens, the typical ******* American woman response will be to say men are whining. And that they need to "man up." Rather than actually understanding men, they will just ignore them and call them unmanly...or whatever. It's pretty predictable.

Of course, certain men in here aren't really trolling. Many men really are totally clueless about how women have been treated throughout history, and how woman are often still treated today. They really, really don't get it.

What does this have to do with anything? This is 2012. Women have been able to vote since well you were born. If you are under 30, you make more than men in a similar job role. Womens' lives are still considered more important than the lives of men. Again, we are in a period of female privilege.

To simply sweep this injustice under the rug and somehow claim that the sins of societies long ago somehow excuse your apathy towards the rights of men and passive aggressive misandry is slap to the face of anyone that truly cares about human rights.

I hear there's a Klan rally on here later. Perhaps your twisted, sexist, and ultraconservative views on gender would be better served at that outlet.
 
All y'all are trolls. :smuggrin: where's Sparda? Is he going to tell a story about how he pretended his gf was knocked up so he could get FMLA? I need a drink :smuggrin:
 
Thankfully, I married a woman that..... doesn't want kids, ever (in fact, has been medically sterilized), etc.
I hope she had plenty of time off for that elective procedure :smuggrin:

If it's an especially good employee, I would entertain a short extension of that time off
This is where you run into trouble. You have to be fair and have a policy that fits all employees. If you think somebody can take the time off, but not others, that's going to run into some HR problems. Unless you can work that into the person's compensation package. Rather than a performance based raise, give them an additional week off or something.

Many men really are totally clueless about how women have been treated throughout history, and how woman are often still treated today. They really, really don't get it.
As Z said previously, tell us more about life prior to the early 20th century.

Sadly, the backlash against women s rights is perpetuated by lots of women as well. Women still are not equals so the whiny men in this thread should take a moment and truly think about that.
That's something Mikey has brought up in the past that I really agree with. Womens rights =/= gender equality. Equality would be great for everybody, womens rights is only good for 1/2 of the population.

Another thing to consider is how employers deal with the "smoke breaks" workers take, and how they treat the non-smokers. Many places allow a few 5 minute breaks for non smokers to get some fresh air and stretch their legs, just so the smokers aren't given an unfair advantage in downtime. In a similar way, I agree with granting sabbatical/leave to non-parents.
 
I guess I'll just drop out of pharmacy school and work a part-time gig answering phones and looking pretty because I hope to have kids some day and don't want to burden my employer.

Z, it seems to me that you were serious about this thread and that you weren't expecting the backlash. When another user suggested you were trolling, it seems like you used that as a scapegoat to remain popular and likeable on this forum. I say that because you're still showing negativity towards the issue.

What exactly is your suggestion to society? You don't like that women go on pregnancy leave...you have to find a sub...and even when they come back, they're not productive. You're basically saying any woman who wants to have kids should just stay at home and not work. Is this correct?
 
You don't like that women go on pregnancy leave...you have to find a sub...and even when they come back, they're not productive.

No chit, you finally get it. :thumbup:
 
I struggle with this now. Many of my coworkers are popping out babies left and right, and between ca labor laws and Aflac are getting 5+ months off at 85% pay.

As a childless by choice I'm only ok with this when I get overtime...
 
What exactly is your suggestion to society? You don't like that women go on pregnancy leave...you have to find a sub...and even when they come back, they're not productive. You're basically saying any woman who wants to have kids should just stay at home and not work. Is this correct?

Not only does this make sense to me, I would gladly work in this type of environment as I would be guaranteed to never be abandoned with everything at work.

But I'm not a breeder that thinks its my right to make the lives of my coworkers more difficult for a voluntary medical procedure.
 
everyone should get 6 months paid sabbatical for whatever reason they want because it's "most fair"....same way people w/o kids shouldn't pay taxes into public school because it's "most fair"...people without cars shouldn't pay taxes into fixing roads because "it's most fair"...bottom line is things are done for the majority and the majority have kids and need to go on child leave. heck most places don't do daycare unless min 6 mo of age (maybe 3 mo at the least). what is mom supposed to do for the first 3-6 mo if family isn't around? hire a 8-10 hr private nanny? what if they can't afford that?
 
Correct. We live in a democracy. "Most fair" is the goal of any democracy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top