Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How My Employer Put the “FML” in FMLA

the-toast.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 332 posts

Re: How My Employer Put the “FML” in FMLA

#271

Post by Domenic_S »

ceejayoz wrote: post #33
PeterisP wrote: post #8

Pretty much every country in the world, both 'first-world' and poor countries, has it better than USA in this regard. Let this serve as a warning for young (age-with-a-potential-to-have-a-family) people who might be tempted to relocate to California - you have to ask for a significant premium in salary, since even in good companies (the OP lists multiple items where her job is considered 'above average') you're simpl…

Yup. http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BnDi8KlIIAA750F.png US provides zero weeks paid maternity leave. Pakistan provides 12. Venezuela manages 18. Canada does 50. Per Wikipedia, the US joins Papua New Guinea, Suriname, and Liberia as the only countries to not provide paid parental leave of any kind.

Canada's 50 weeks come after a 2-week waiting period, and pay 55% of weekly salary up to $500. Not exactly the land of milk and honey.

Also a little unfair to compare the whole of the US as one nation -- family leave is handled at the state level. CA, HI, and a few others have somewhat sane family leave laws.

Re: How My Employer Put the “FML” in FMLA

#272

Post by ebrenes »

Domenic_S wrote: post #268
ska wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One common view is that 4-6 weeks is, in fact, terrible. Of course it's all trade-offs, but the US is a long ways from most similar countries in this respect, and I can see people getting frustrated with it. In many places there are reasonable options to manage a combined year of parental leave, for example.

I dunno about a long way off... what I'm seeing are medium-long amounts of time and a paltry % of your pay, and often only for mothers. Canada for example offers 50 weeks (wow!) of 55% pay (uh oh) with a 2 week waiting period (ooo..) up to a max of $501/week (eek). Costa Rica gives women 4 months at 100% (yay!) but only 3 days for fathers (boo). Japan is 14 weeks 60%, nothing for fathers. Examples are many at http://…

Yeah, the Costa Rica case was a real bummer for me.

Just had my first child and I only managed to get 5 days from the company, they were nice enough to throw in 2 additional days to my 3 days. To at least make it a week.

There's a bit of a caveat to the women's 4 months, those 4 months start by law 1 month before the child is scheduled to be born and continue for 3 months. We would have preferred more time after the birth and less time before.

Re: How My Employer Put the “FML” in FMLA

#273

Post by drostie »

rosser wrote: post #245
drostie wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to mention that, but he did explicitly say "eugenics" and it wasn't 100% clear that it was metaphorical.

No, he said economic inequality, healthcare and education policy, social immobility, and parent-unfriendly corporate structures have a net "anti-eugenic" effect, which you chose to interpret as an argument for eugenics.

Is it unreasonable for me to interpret someone who is against "anti-eugenic" effects to be for eugenic effects when they start their comments with "we need people like her to reproduce"...?

I should clarify: when I say "for eugenic effects" I mean "in support of the general ideas underlying eugenics, even if opposed to eugenic policies." I'm saying above that both eugenics and his "anti-eugenic effects" are based on a flawed idea, one which michaelochurch (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to still endorse regardless of whether he is for or against eugenic policies.

Re: How My Employer Put the “FML” in FMLA

#274

Post by Domenic_S »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #267

I took a full month off of work after my last two children were born (couldn't do it for my first born, but that is a different story). Luckily my wife is a stay at home mom and we could pull it off with one income. I think most people underestimate the value to the family of having this time off. As an employer though, I am conflicted about mandatory policies. Actually, let me rephrase that, I am conflicted about si…

> Luckily my wife is a stay at home mom and we could pull it off with one income.

The hidden gem right here. Build your life so that you can function well on one income (even if both partners work) and you won't be restricted by a government's policy.

Re: How My Employer Put the “FML” in FMLA

#275

Post by Domenic_S »

ebrenes wrote: post #272
Domenic_S wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno about a long way off... what I'm seeing are medium-long amounts of time and a paltry % of your pay, and often only for mothers. Canada for example offers 50 weeks (wow!) of 55% pay (uh oh) with a 2 week waiting period (ooo..) up to a max of $501/week (eek). Costa Rica gives women 4 months at 100% (yay!) but only 3 days for fathers (boo). Japan is 14 weeks 60%, nothing for fathers. Examples are many at http://…

Yeah, the Costa Rica case was a real bummer for me. Just had my first child and I only managed to get 5 days from the company, they were nice enough to throw in 2 additional days to my 3 days. To at least make it a week. There's a bit of a caveat to the women's 4 months, those 4 months start by law 1 month before the child is scheduled to be born and continue for 3 months. We would have preferred more time after the…

Wow, that's really interesting! I am always amazed at the geographic diversity in tech.

Re: How My Employer Put the “FML” in FMLA

#276

Post by Domenic_S »

ska wrote: post #270
Domenic_S wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno about a long way off... what I'm seeing are medium-long amounts of time and a paltry % of your pay, and often only for mothers. Canada for example offers 50 weeks (wow!) of 55% pay (uh oh) with a 2 week waiting period (ooo..) up to a max of $501/week (eek). Costa Rica gives women 4 months at 100% (yay!) but only 3 days for fathers (boo). Japan is 14 weeks 60%, nothing for fathers. Examples are many at http://…

Sure, but you are comparing federally mandated minimums. Elsewhere in this thread there is a lot of hay being made about how your company may offer more.... The same is true here. For example, I know people whose 50 weeks in Canada has been topped up to 80%. It's not just about pay either, but about what security (if any) someone has after maternity or paternity leave. In practice, I think you'll fund the in the U.S.…

> Sure, but you are comparing federally mandated minimums.

Which is exactly what you were talking about, so I don't see a problem. And like I said, some states go above and beyond.

> It's not just about pay either, but about what security (if any) someone has after maternity or paternity leave [...] in the U.S. this is much harder to do

Not at all, that's precisely what the federal FMLA is for. 12 weeks of job-protected leave. No payment unless covered by something else (PTO, company policy, state law, etc), but it is 3 months of job-protected leave.

Re: How My Employer Put the “FML” in FMLA

#277

Post by lutorm »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #267

I took a full month off of work after my last two children were born (couldn't do it for my first born, but that is a different story). Luckily my wife is a stay at home mom and we could pull it off with one income. I think most people underestimate the value to the family of having this time off. As an employer though, I am conflicted about mandatory policies. Actually, let me rephrase that, I am conflicted about si…

I know for a fact that if our CTO took a month off of work we would probably go out of business

Well, reality is that your CTO could get hit by a car, get sick, or not be able to work for a month for all kinds of reasons unrelated to childbirth, so that seems like a problem in general. At least when it comes to children, you have many months of warning.

Or, have you considered what would happen if your CTO said "actually, my family is more important to me than the company"? If the company fails without them, they are in a pretty strong negotiating position.

Re: How My Employer Put the “FML” in FMLA

#278

Post by paulddraper »

There's no reason for an employer to offer special paid maternity leave for not working. It doesn't make sense, and it's not fair to others who do work during that time.

On the other hand, not offering sick leave for recovery from childbirth is just plain stupid. Recovery from surgery, recovery from C-section, recovery from vaginal delivery...that sounds like sick leave to me.

Re: How My Employer Put the “FML” in FMLA

#279

Post by lutorm »

patrickmay wrote: post #208
dmm wrote: post #27

I think we should have paid maternity leave and I think the federal govt should pay for it. If you force employers to pay for it you discourage the hiring of young women.

"I think the federal govt should pay for it." Please have the decency to be explicit about what you are saying. No government, federal or otherwise, has any means to pay for anything. All money comes from taxes. All taxes come from individuals. What you are really saying is "I think all of the taxpaying individuals in the United States should pay for women's maternity leave." Once you recognize that, I can do no bett…

A more serious response:

As a member of a "society", be it a country or a family or anything between, you have to abide by the customary procedure by which decisions affecting everyone are made. (Maybe they are majority vote, maybe they are by autocratic rule, maybe they are endless discussions in an effort to reach consensus, or whatever.) In some cases, you may disagree with the outcome of such decisions, and it is then up to you to decide whether the advantages of remaining associated with the group outweigh the disadvantages. If the answer is that they do not, you are (in most cases in the civilized world) free to leave. Such is the case here, because you are in fact free to not pay taxes to the American government: There is a procedure by which you can resign your American citizenship, and no gun will be held to your head. (You will however be forced to pay $2500 or something for the privilege.)

If you remain, you do so because you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, even after having lost the argument about whether maternity leave should be paid for by taxes. No one is holding a gun to your head, even in the most extreme situation imaginable.

So please stop that absurd line of reasoning.

Re: How My Employer Put the “FML” in FMLA

#280

Post by ska »

Domenic_S wrote: post #276
ska wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but you are comparing federally mandated minimums. Elsewhere in this thread there is a lot of hay being made about how your company may offer more.... The same is true here. For example, I know people whose 50 weeks in Canada has been topped up to 80%. It's not just about pay either, but about what security (if any) someone has after maternity or paternity leave. In practice, I think you'll fund the in the U.S.…

> Sure, but you are comparing federally mandated minimums. Which is exactly what you were talking about, so I don't see a problem. And like I said, some states go above and beyond. > It's not just about pay either, but about what security (if any) someone has after maternity or paternity leave [...] in the U.S. this is much harder to do Not at all, that's precisely what the federal FMLA is for. 12 weeks of job-protec…

Actually, when I said "there are reasonable options" I wasn't referring to federal minimums at all, but I should have made that more clear.

I know what FMLA is for, I'm saying that compared to many places, that is not much protection. You picked a couple of places out of that wikipedia page, but on the short end. What about Sweden's 13 months at 75% or so, or Englands year?

Anyway, I'm not saying one approach is wrong, as it is all trade-offs. I'm just saying that this is made much more difficult in the US than in a lot of comparable countries, and I think that is pretty uncontroversial.

Post reply on HN