Post # 62
Well I feel *slightly* better with the 485/week cap in Canada. I mean not that I don’t wish the best for you all 🙂 But I wouldn’t take a full year there anyways if it meant taking a more-than-50% paycut. It would still be nice to have the OPTION and to get SOME pay for the time I did take, but i guess knowing I wouldn’t take a year either way helps haha.
Post # 63
@MrsCarnival: I thought things were bad in the UK!
- For the first six weeks at 90 per cent of your average gross weekly earnings with no upper limit
- For the remaining 33 weeks the standard rate of £135.45, or 90 per cent of your average gross weekly earnings
I will count my blessings
Post # 64
@Ms. Martian: I agree with a lot of this post. I used the term “developing” because I can’t really think of a better word, but you’re so right when it comes to the differences in child-rearing philpsophy.
I think many of the countries that were initially discussed are still viewed as “developing” (for lack of a better word I can think of…open to suggestions) because they have some internal power struggles within their countries/from outside sources and that often times takes a toll on infrastructure. Not to say that the standard of living is low, but that the government might not be stable or functioning well (which is kind of funny considering how much our government screws pregnant women over here).
I wish I had a closer family structure that would allow me to rely on relatives and friends to help with child-rearing, and I wish I had the opportunity to offer that kind of help to others as well.
Post # 65
@MrsCarnival: If it’s going to be a new policy for your branch, I would start by focusing on how you can sell this to him. You’re a valuable employee (well, potentially, I don’t really know you from Adam, so I can’t speak to your work ethic, haha) and you’re considering leaving because of this. When you talk to him about the fact that you’re expecting, let him know what you want, why you think you deserve it (not just “I want to be with my baby” but the fact that you’re an asset to the company, incentivize you to return to work, etc. like any good job negotitation), etc.
Can’t hurt to ask, right?
Post # 66
@MrsCarnival: yeah I just picked them because they seemed like countries that most of us would be surprised to know they have far more generous policies than the U.S.
And I agree on the village comment! Isn’t it Eastern countries that believe the mom should stay out of the public or something after the baby comes so all the family stays close so they can help?
Or I’m just making that up.
Post # 67
@MrsCarnival: I don’t really think there is a better term, other than maybe saying that things are just different in these other places. You are right though, the government in some of these places is not great and that really is what contributes to them being considered developing (but again, that’s our own prejudice, some of these places just function like that!) It’s also about growth I guess, and the economy in some of these places is dismal.
Post # 68
@hisgoosiegirl: LOL you’re just making that up. I’m pretty sure if my family was all here they would be in the delivery room catching the baby. Then they would invite the whole city into the room to have shots and celebrate.
Post # 69
Post # 70
@bluewolverine: Family values my ass. Be honest, politicians. You value business much more than you value families
They certainly do!
Post # 71
In Canada, some employers including most unionized workplaces also have a top-up to the Employment Insurance benefits so that moms are in fact taking home almost all their pre maternity salary for a year.
Most collective agreements also allow mom to take maternity benefits and father to take paternitybenefits- one doesn’t rule out the other. A good way to use the benefits is for Dad to taka a week or two of vacation, Mom to take her maternity and parental leave, then Dad to take paternity leave, so no day care needed for the first 15-18 months.
It takes a collective will to bring about change in social programs, including paying more taxes.
Post # 72
@hisgoosiegirl: So I totally read Eastern European countries, not Eastern! Haha.
Post # 73
@julies1949: first 15-18 months?! I think most American women would be thrilled to get 15-18 weeks at full pre-baby pay.
Post # 74
@bklynbridetobe: Good thing, too. American companies wouldn’t hire women if hiring women meant losing them for 12+ months each time they had a baby. I’ll stick with less time off and a guaranteed job, thanks. I think people forget that what’s good for business IS good for employees. No job if they won’t hire you or they go out of business.
Post # 75
I think we all agree that we hate the U.S. maternity laws BUT I think many of us would be pissed to have to pay the taxes to make up for it. Unfortunately, we cater to companies wants instead of forcing certain things b/c we’re afraid of losing jobs or paying higher taxes/higher consumer prices.
Post # 76
I think that line of thinking is off the mark. It’s that line of thinking that, I believe, inhibits change. If other countries , whose economies are thriving, and have women very much apart of the work force can do it, why can’t the USA? Of course the american companies would still hire women, they would be foolish not to.