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

321–330 of 332 posts

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

#321

Post by ArtB »

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…

>>> but my guess is that the majority of companies fall into the category where losing a person for a month is crippling.

I'm of the opinion that this is a reason to discourage the growth of small businesses. They are too small to absorb shocks like pregnancy or family emergency that contribute to the well-being of a society.

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

#322

Post by AndrewKemendo »

ArtB wrote: post #321
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…

>>> but my guess is that the majority of companies fall into the category where losing a person for a month is crippling. I'm of the opinion that this is a reason to discourage the growth of small businesses. They are too small to absorb shocks like pregnancy or family emergency that contribute to the well-being of a society.

What? I don't understand, what is the alternative?

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

#323

Post by gglitch »

coryfklein wrote: post #218
gglitch wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I was thinking of the abstract question of how someone would convincingly argue that the plight of new parents would be better off in general with no government regulation at all. I agree that the FMLA is grossly inadequate, but not one of the businesses I've worked for in my entire career, so far as I know, has voluntarily offered anything better.

I am a free market proponent. It is difficult to predict what the free market would make of this situation since we are currently so far from the free-market model. Here are a few stabs at looking in my crystal ball. * Minimum wage laws pressure companies to cut benefits such as this. * Many laws and regulations make it more difficult to start your own business. In a free market, having more small business owners wou…

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I can appreciate the difficulties of hypothesizing, and I hadn't thought about it (at least directly) from a moral standpoint. It's still difficult for me to believe that in a totally free market the majority of employees, especially those who have a harder time finding jobs to begin with, and spend their whole careers accepting unfavorable terms just to stay employed, would find themselves with better options for family planning, but maybe it'd be so.

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

#324

Post by chaostheory »

x0x0 wrote: post #195
chaostheory wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I don't want to even get in to how fucked up it is to have to save up years of vacation days to take some time off when you have a baby This is the trade off we pay for lower taxes. (Yes certain states like NY and CA have higher tax rates, but they make up for it with more state benefits.)

When you actually count the full tax load on American employees (federal, state, and local income taxes; property taxes; sales taxes; medical insurance; disability insurance; and retirement savings), we really aren't a low-tax country. In fact, we do not actually compare favorably to most of Europe when you consider the all-in price of life. What we really pay for is $1T+/year on our military for bombing brown people…

It depends on the state. States with less benefits have a lot less taxes and vice versa.

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

#325

Post by chaostheory »

SeoxyS wrote: post #169
chaostheory wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I don't want to even get in to how fucked up it is to have to save up years of vacation days to take some time off when you have a baby This is the trade off we pay for lower taxes. (Yes certain states like NY and CA have higher tax rates, but they make up for it with more state benefits.)

Maternity and paid sick leave policies have very little to do with tax rates. See the CA state budget here: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2014-15/Enacted/agencies.html The big-ticket items are the things affecting tax rates, like 11B on corrections, or almost 50B on K-12 education, and another 50B on health care services.

As Domenic pointed out, maternity leave is related to EDD since you can claim disability for it.

http://www.edd.ca.gov/disability/FAQ_DI_Pregnancy.htm

CA sick leave through FMLA, when there's a claim on disability, also draws from EDD. Your employer only starts kicking in your sick leave pay AFTER the state's coverage of your salary maxes out.

EDD spends $14 billion per year. It has a lot to do with high CA tax rates. There's even more related taxes involved if you happen to live in SF itself.

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

#326

Post by baldfat »

sosborn wrote: post #124
baldfat wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "Most" I assume you have worked 100% at places I haven't. HR and managers state in my cases, "If you don't have sick time you will not be paid and you may lose your position." Sick time starts after two or three months.

You should try to find more reasonable employers. Believe it not they do exist in the U.S.

When you work at an "At Will" state (PA) this is what you get stuck with. I never understand the Union Hate when it is clear that companies are look as anti-competitive if they don't tow the line with screwing with employees. I work for the nicest and best company I have ever worked for and it is still this way

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

#327

Post by splintercell »

NateDad wrote: post #318
the_ancient wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh the classic "Who will build the roads" Fallacy To think government was the reason for any of things you site it ignorant is best. You really need to study history more.

History? Like the New Deal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

New Deal simply exacerbated the Great Depression instead of helping to fix it.

Its like you give a patient poison and then when he gets more sick you say "You see how much you really needed my medicine".

Lets say we do wanna study the effect of Government on Great Depression, what would be the falsifiability criteria for that?

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

#328

Post by splintercell »

jen729w wrote: post #287
the_ancient wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? It was your choice to have a child why should your employer pay for it, and why should all your fellow employees that did not have children have to work harder to cover for you while you are on paid leave? I think it is selfish for new parents to demand all this time off, you were hired to do a job, do it, if you can not or unwilling to because you have made a choice to make a major change in your life then i am…

The word is "society". I, for one, like living in one. Also as a single 38 year old man with no desire to have kids, I'm glad other people do. I'm happy for my (Australian) tax dollars to support them.

Well then spend your own money on the "society", why are you so glad that you can force other people to spend money on your "Society". If I really had to do immoral things in order to do some measure I really wanted, like steal in order to feed myself, at least I wouldn't be super proud and tearing over it.

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

#330

Post by greyfade »

sosborn wrote: post #234
M2Ys4U wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It amazes me that people think this should be at the employers' discretion.

It isn't that I think it should be at the employer's discretion, it's that there are better companies to work for out there and we should all endeavor to work for them if our current employer is actively screwing us over.

Sometimes, that's simply not possible.

Those of us that don't have the option of a better employer need laws that mandate some reasonable minimum of benefits, because we won't get them any other way.

Post reply on HN