U.S. stands apart from other nations on maternity leave

[lovuian]

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=5d58ccd1eb8d1e99&cat=c08dd24cec417021

.S. stands apart from other nations on maternity leave
The Associated Press
In Santa Fe, Linda Strauss McIlroy, a first-time mother, is trying to get used to the thought of soon putting her two-month-old boy in day care so she can get back to work.

Linda Strauss McIlroy plays with her two-month-old baby, Gabriel, whom she'll soon have to put in day care so she can get back to work.
By Jeff Geissler, AP

"It's hard for me to imagine leaving him," she says. "Just not being with him all day, leaving him with a virtual stranger. And then that's it till, you know, I retire. It's kind of crazy to think about it."

Across the border in Vancouver, Canada, Suzanne Dobson is back at work after 14 months of paid maternity leave.

"It was great," she says. "I was still making pretty good money for being at home."

Across the ocean, in Sweden, Magnus Larsson is looking forward to splitting 16 months of parental leave at 80% pay with his girlfriend. They are expecting their first baby in a week.

With little public debate, the United States has chosen a radically different approach to maternity leave than the rest of the developed world. The United States and Australia are the only industrialized countries that don't provide paid leave for new mothers nationally, though there are exceptions in some U.S. states.

Australian mothers have it better, however, with one year of job-protected leave. The U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act provides for 12 weeks of job-protected leave, but it only covers those who work for larger companies.

To put it another way, out of 168 nations in a Harvard University study last year, 163 had some form of paid maternity leave, leaving the United States in the company of Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland.

more...

Republicans talk alot about families but when it comes to supporting them with money for maternity leave ... Its a whole different ballgame. This right here could be a reason why our children is falling behind the rest of the world!!!

[Pithlet]

1. This is why I get so pissed off

When I hear about how much parents and kids are catered to here in the US. It just doesn't happen, unless you're independently wealthy.

[lovuian]

3. I agree Repubs put out so much BS but when it comes to REAL

financial support they are full of hot air!!!

Children at early ages are developing at their highest potential in those months!!!

[longship]

2. and on healthcare, and on not waging preemptive war,

and on civil rights, and on law and punishment, and on and on and on.

Thank you George W Bush. You are a world criminal. You deserve to rot in prison for what you have done to this country.

[Gemini Cat]

8. Yes, and he needs to take all his fundie-ass supporters with him! nt

[sasquatch]

4. "But that's socialism!!"

:eyes:

[pseudostar]

31. and we couldnt have that...

Work the peons to death and we'll just replace them or send their jobs overseas. Republican family values.

[fooj]

5. Yep. Pro-life until they draw breath.

Geez...

[Zorra]

6. The business of America is business! Your kids can go fuck themselves!

Profit uberalles!

[Julius Civitatus]

30. Once I had huge argument with a wingnut over this matter

The bastard claimed that "the French" (meaning Europeans) are "lazy" because they get a month of yearly vacation, compared to our meager 1 or 2 weeks if lucky. He kept saying that Americans have a higher "work ethic" because they don;t waste their productive time on vacations like the "lazy Europeans."

When I tried to explain how their quality of life is much higher, as well as their enjoyment of life, and life expectancy, he quickly dismissed. He didn't want to hear anything contrary to his poorly conceived notions about work or European lifestyle.

My European friends (French, Spaniards, Dutch) make about as much money as I do... yet they seem to make a whole lot more with it than I can. They don't' have to struggle for health insurance. At the end of the summer they always tell me about the new exotic place they visited for a whole month... I am so jealous! Last winter I had an exchange with a friend of mine from Spain. We were talking about our vacation time. He told me last summer they did a tour of the Greek Islands and Turkey. I told them I barely had a few weekends to drop by Conney Island. He was stunned I only get 1 week vacation a year, and said to me "seems like you are missing out a lot of what life offers." That comment stuck in mind since.

Europeans work in order to live, to enjoy life.

Americans have been convinced they only live to work. Nothing outside of work is worth it.

They say that all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Indeed. Here in America we have lost the concept of measure, of a balance lifestyle. They still have that in Europe. And they live happier, longer, more fullfilled lives than us, who work ourselves into retirement.

[Gemini Cat]

7. Once you're born, you're on your own. nt

[Athame]

9. Isn't that the truth!

But your mother gets shafted both ways. :grr:

Just have to kick this to the top for the morning crowd.

[DBoon]

16. Kids are never too young to start selling chiclets

let them earn their money and learn entrepeneurship

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

10. One reason why I'm postponing kids

I make a lot more than hubby and to have a child would spell financial doom for us. We want a child more than anything else, but we cannot afford to have one and have me out of work.

I don't know how people do it, especially with multiple kids.

[Puzzler]

11. Republican Family Values...

... yeah, right! :(


-P

[SoCalDem]

12. The US is in love with the fetus, but does not love the child

The whole myth of "family values" is pure BUNK.. We put so much stress on young families, it's a wonder that our divorce/separation rate is not higher.

Basically what the republicans are saying is this:

Only "certain" people should procreate (people with $ who can "afford" kids

The rest of us, should just accept the hand we were dealt and be content to "serve" our betters and to fore-go the family life ourselves. Should we be so bold as to want a family, then we better now expect any help from them:(

[DBoon]

17. They NEVER cared about the fetus

It's all about controlling the mother.

The fetus is just a convenient device to further an agenda of keeping women enslaved.

If a woman can't control her own reproductive system, then she can't plan for an education or a career. THAT is the goal of "pro life".

[NashVegas]

62. And It's HIGH Time Dems and Others Started Saying That Out Loud, Often

Whenever I hear a defense of reproductive rights, proponents stop at "right to choose," "right to control our bodies," etc., but no one ever fucking says *what for.* The economic equality arguments - which is really what it's all about - are never even mentioned. Pisses me off.

[UpInArms]

13. U.S. Energy Industry's Lobbying Pays Off With $11.6 Bln in Aid

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=agbeVimf04Ec&refer=us

July 27 (Bloomberg) -- Oil and utility companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Southern Co. spent $367 million over the last two years pushing the U.S. Congress to pass energy legislation. For many, the money was a good investment: lawmakers are poised to pass a measure providing about $11.6 billion in taxpayer subsidies.

House and Senate negotiators approved compromise legislation yesterday and President George W. Bush, who has been seeking an energy bill since the start of his first term, will have it on his desk by July 29, Senator Charles Grassley said. Supporters said the measure, the Energy Policy Act, would help secure energy supplies and ultimately lead to lower fuel prices.

The legislation includes subsidies for oil and gas exploration that benefit companies such as Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil, which contributed $935,266 to federal candidates for the 2004 elections, more than any other oil company. Southern, which contributed $1.1 million to candidates in 2004, more than any other utility, won repeal of a 1935 law prohibiting utility holding companies from using revenue from customers to subsidize non-regulated businesses.

<snip>

Chevron, the second-largest U.S. oil company, contributed $498,992 for the 2004 elections. Exxon Mobil, the world's biggest publicly traded oil company; San Ramon, California-based Chevron and Atlanta-based Southern each contributed the maximum $250,000 to Bush's 2005 inaugural committee.

In negotiating the final measure, lawmakers rejected an increase in fuel-economy standards for automobiles and a requirement that utilities generate 10 percent of their electricity through renewable sources of energy such as solar or wind. Bush said in April that the legislation wouldn't have an immediate effect on gasoline prices, which yesterday averaged $2.28 for a gallon of unleaded, close to the record of $2.32 a gallon set July 14, according to the AAA, the former American Automobile Association.

...more...

Those expecting to give birth are just not lobbying correctly :crazy:

They just need to organize and donate more money so that their interests can be looked after by our public servants :sarcasm:

Just because they pay the taxes that pay the salaries of their "representatives" doesn't give them the right to actually be represented. :sarcasm:

[sweetheart]

14. and the correlation with drugs abuse and crime a self fulfilling prophesy

Kids that are loved and have the full time attendence of their loving
parents in their early life, are much less likely to wind up costing
the society in prison time, or other such issues. It is all part of
the institutional stupidity, to waste more public money and bankrupt
government as part of the DLC neocon strategy of destroying
the government of their single party state.

[Mari333]

15. So much for the Mayberry RFD crowd

they live in a fantasy world..the Santorum rhetoric that screams about stay at home moms, but doesnt allow for it...the Dems need to jump on this and expose the liars on the right and their LACK of family values..

[MountainLaurel]

18. As a DUer put it

A few months ago . . . this country is about as family-friendly as a room full of swinging knives.

[Tyler Durden]

28. oooh, I LIKE that.

Nothing like a nice juicy analogy.

[Toots]

19. I thought Clinton passed a family home leave act

or something of a similar name. It was for a family member to take a year off and stay home with the child and not lose their job. Did Bush* rescind that act?

[MountainLaurel]

21. Family Medical Leave Act

Still in place, but has some huge loopholes: Only applies to companies with (I believe) 50 employees, which leaves out many, many workers. You have to be working full time, and have been at the employer for more than a year. Some places require that you use at least a month at a time: You can't use FMLA to stay home two days while your child has the checken pox.

The other central issue that the leave is UNPAID, as opposed to family leave in just about every other First World nation. So, unless you can afford to go without a salary, you can't actually use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMLA

[MountainLaurel]

22. Dupe

Me and my itchy clicking finger.

[iamjoy]

25. FMLA Is Only Three Months

It never allowed for one year leave. It is 3 months in a 12 month period.

[sandnsea]

52. and no pay

And apparently, has one of those over so-many employee clauses so it won't hurt the small business owner. We keep forgetting more people are employed by small business than the corporation, so the law appears to be meaningless. Corporations already provide decent maternity benefits.

[LibertyLover]

20. Adoption leave sucks as well

I considered myself lucky to work for a corporation that gave 12 weeks' paid maternity leave. But as it turned out my husband and I adopted - so what did I get - 8 weeks and was told to be glad for it, that they didn't have to give that to me. I was also told that the reason for the disparity was that since I was adopting, I wasn't "recovering" from childbirth. My European colleagues were shocked when I told them. In Europe, it's the same whether you give birth or adopt.

Too late for me, but recently they did change it so both maternity and adoption leave here is 12 weeks paid. Our staff association last year did a survey on family leave and I wrote a letter regarding the issue which highlighted the fact that adoptive parents may not be recovering physically from birth but they have their own sets of issues, including dealing with attachment disorders and traveling overseas to bring home their children. I was told later by my group's representative to the staff association that my letter was very helpful in getting the policy changed.

I've decided that *'s America loves kids when they are in the womb or 18 able to go and fight. Forget about the in-between years however.

[theHandpuppet]

23. The dedication to "Pro-Life" in some quarters...

... only lasts until the baby is born. Don't these fanatics realize that one of the best ways to lower abortion rates is to provide women with the assurance of maternity leave, child care and health care? I'm sick to death of supposed "pro-life" hypocrites who do nothing to fight for a decent life for the post-born. As long as mothers and children make up the majority of those in poverty in this country, they ought to keep their damn traps SHUT!

[iamjoy]

24. Anti-Leave Policies ARE Pro-Family

Come on, people, don't you get it?

The Republicans would love to eliminate FMLA completely. This will make for better families. See, now, women take time off then go back to work as soon as possible. But, imagine if there was no leave at all. Women would have to quit their jobs when they had babies. Then, they could stay home and raise the child, like they are supposed to do. What, other countries are better because they give them a year? That's no good, they should stay home until the children are fully grown.

Now I suppose you are going to tell me that some people can't afford that. Well, first, if companies don't have to worry about all these regulation and if we cut their taxes they will give pay raises to their workers. One income families used to do just fine before all these liberal regulations. Besides, these families just need to prioritize. Oh, what if the woman is the chief wage earner, well, that's just not natural.

Anyway, if they can afford three months off of work, why not 18 years?

:sarcasm:

[Julius Civitatus]

26. Republicanism turning USA into virtual third world country

We have a sweat-shop mentality and we don't value our quality time as much as other developed nations do.

[Tyler Durden]

27. There is little profit in mud-wrestling pigs.

You only get dirty, tired and bruised, while the pig on the other hand is having the time of his life.

There is a lot of parallelism in this analogy and in trying to make at neo-con majority government see the humane side of things.

[DFWdem]

29. Well, how do you make it fair?

Across the border in Vancouver, Canada, Suzanne Dobson is back at work after 14 months of paid maternity leave. "It was great," she says. "I was still making pretty good money for being at home."

Across the ocean, in Sweden, Magnus Larsson is looking forward to splitting 16 months of parental leave at 80% pay with his girlfriend. They are expecting their first baby in a week.

What about people who choose not to have children? I for one would want to know when I could expect to receive my 16 months of leave at 80% pay or 14 months of paid leave. Why should this only apply to people who decide to have children?

[SCDem]

32. I honestly don't know

But it is not like it is 16 months of vacation for pete sakes .... sometimes if I have even a day (like Monday of this week and Wednesday of last week because of a sick child)where I have to stay with my son instead of going to work where I hadn't planned to, it is great to go back to work the next day. A child is sick and so kind of clingy and moody but also wants to go outside well because he's a kid but it is 105 degrees out. What do you do? And how do you do it ensuring that he is going to grow up to be an honest, productive, giving citizen?

It's not all vacation

[DFWdem]

33. I understand that aspect of it

Certainly staying at home with a child is not all vacation. However, it's not exactly fair to deny employees without children the same benefits received by those who choose to have them. I wouldn't mind receiving 80% of my salary for 16 months without having to go to work.

[SCDem]

35. But then you should have to volunteer in a nursing home

or a home for children with special needs or somehow contribute to the betterment of society and help the future generations. It is not just vacation with 80% pay.

[redqueen]

49. Thank you... that's a brilliant idea.

Frankly, I can't even believe I'm seeing the "what about me" shit about this issue.

:puke:

[SCDem]

55. Thank you

I forgot to add that they would have to do this (the volunteering) for 24/7 as that is what the parents have to do. :) Only to be "fair" and all!

[redqueen]

57. Yes, 24/7 on-call volunteer work... it's only fair!

:hi:

[missingthebigdog]

36. Fair and equal are not the same thing.

Giving non-parents the same amount of leave would be equal treatment. So would giving all of the people who are fortunate enough to not get cancer the same benefit as those who do. Would that be reasonable? Would it be fair?

Nations that have these types of policies do so because they value their country's children and families. If you are not contributing to the welfare of your country by producing a healthy, well adjusted future citizen (and taxpayer), why should you be compensated?

Besides, a childless person will likely be more of a cost to society toward the end of his/her life than one who has children to help care for him/her.

Lots of things are not "fair" when examined from a narrow viewpoint. Broadening the scope often reveals that things balance out in the end.

[DFWdem]

38. Okay, fair enough

But if the issue is about producing a healthy, well-adjusted future citizen/taxpayer then it should be the government, not the employer, that pays for the leave. One could also make the argument that providing the same leave to non-parents helps make them more well-adjusted by allowing them to de-stress. As for the cancer comparison, I don't see how that has any bearing on this discussion. People with serious illnesses only get paid if they have disability insurance, which is paid for via payroll deductions each pay period.

[kermujin]

39. in canada...

it *is* the government that pays. Maternity leave is overseen by the federal Employment Insurance plan. The BC woman who received 80% was receiving a top-up (voluntary) by her employee. Normally, it's 12 months leave (job guaranteed) at 57% of your income. It can be split between parents, and I'm not sure but I think for adoption it's only six months.

It's generally (but not always) unionized environments that provide this topup. And let me tell you. Six months living in Vancouver with a newborn on 57% of your income is anything BUT a vacation. (It's now a year in Canada, but was six months up until about five years ago.)

Kermujin

[DFWdem]

40. That makes a little more sense

But when I read "Employment Insurance Plan" it sounds like something you pay into for future use. I don't know if this is an accurate description of the aforementioned plan or not. Also, I'm not sure how we went from discussing "paid leave" to discussing "vacation". Obviously parenting is not a full time vacation, but if I had to choose between getting paid to raise my own child in my home or getting paid to participate in the rat race in a cubicle with all the attendant office politics, corporate policies and procedures, water cooler gossip, etc. it wouldn't be much of a decision at all. It's great that parents have this available to them, but in my opinon there should be something comparable for non-parents.

[kermujin]

42. well, there sort of *is* something for both...

Here, we all pay into the Employment Insurance plan, against a time when you lose your work income temporarily; i.e. you are laid off or you require parental leave to care for a new child.

Really, it's essentially a survival income; 57 or 58% -- before tax -- of $30K, say, is not really vacation level.

People who don't have children are covered by the same plan, for instance for stress leave or times of employment scarcity.

Interestingly, along the lines of what someone else here said about volunteering on leave, there *are* plans where companies are working with NGOs and under the auspices of the EI program. This allows in some cases for employees to be temporarily seconded to charities. You work for a given charity for a couple of months as a volunteer (taking protected leave from your job), and you're covered by EI (again, 57%). It's not widespread yet, but I know of two people who have done it. The company is given a tax break equal to a donation of the employee's wages for that period, and the EI program gets a much-needed chance to justify some of the horrendous surplus they're floating right now...

Just a thought. Childrearing is a kind of charity work (without the tax deductions!); maybe this is a way for non-parents to take advantage of a similar 'break' from work...?

[Book Lover]

46. Because it's not a vacation

Or were you under the impression that changing diapers, feeding someone who can't feed themselves, and teaching a blank slate how to socialize is the time to yuck it up?

[redqueen]

48. Oh GMAB.

This leave is for the children's benefit, not so much the parents.

Or do you really not get that?

[sandnsea]

53. Collectively agree to let the human race die out

No more pregnancies, no more leave for anybody. That'd make it fair for you. Good idea?

[Dora]

59. I'm willing to bet money (or vacation time)

I bet that the company that Magnus Larsson works for has a very generous vacation policy for its non-childbearing employees. Those wussy European countries are just like that, y'know?

Why are you expressing such resentment just because we're hearing about an awesome family leave plan in Sweden, for cripes sake?

And not only that, FMLA is the FAMILY Medical Leave Act. It applies not only for childbirth/adoption, but if your husband gets sick, or a parent - if a close relative needs your at-home care, FMLA can apply. This is also a situation where gay marriage/civil unions would be of great benefit for those people with same-sex partners.

Just because you choose not to have a child doesn't mean that you have to get pissy at us people who do choose so.

[Deja Q]

34. Double-standard. Pity the family values voters don't bother to LOOK.

Look at their actions and set them in context from the words. But those are the policies those voters seem to want.

[Jamison]

37. If the Republicans truly had their way

Nothing would interrupt a person's 100+ hour, 7-day a week workweek.

Going into labor?

Well, you better get it over with quick and be ready to come back to work bright and early the next day!:sarcasm:

[grace0418]

41. That's because Republicans think women should all be stay-at-home moms

Their family values are from Victorian times. The dad goes off to work and doesn't do a thing at home except mow the lawn. The mom stays home and raises the kids and cooks and cleans. If that doesn't work for you, whether it's because Mom enjoys her job, or Dad wants to be a part of his children's life, or because you need both incomes to survive, or because one parent is no longer in the picture, or you're part of a (GASP) gay or lesbian headed family, or any number of reasons, then there is something wrong with you and you don't deserve a handout from the government. :sarcasm:

How is it that the most supposedly advanced country can't get this simple concept right? It's apalling.

[taught_me_patience]

43. Sounds ok to me...

We have the most powerful economy in the world. There is very little evidence that childcare has any lasting effect on kids. Why wouldn't both parents want to work? If only one works, the other person becomes a wage slave to his/her corporation. We have the highest wages in the world, so if you don't want to work, save money before you have a kid.

[theplutsnw]

44. I am a Stay At Home Mom

and I have pretty harsh views on working parents. I know for many it can not be avoided, but there are WAY to many parents out there who send their kids to daycare and have what I call Working Moms Syndrome. They try to make up for leaving them by being over indulgent and lax when they have the kids at home instead of continuing the care they receive at their daycare. This type of behavior confuses the child and creates what I would call little monsters. I think everyone will agree that kids need consistancy above all else (except love that is!). If all working parents would work hard to be consistant with what the care provider does I think a lot of problems associated with working parents would go away. I know it is hard to stay on top of your kids after a hard day at work, but a few years of this will pay off hugely in the end. That and more acceptable national parental leave would do wonders for our children. My husband and I made a commitment to do this, knowing that one day the kids will be able to take care of themselves. Until then we live on one salary.

[kermujin]

45. personally, as a working mom

i prefer to find a daycare that fits with MY childrearing ideas, rather than 'working hard to be consistent with what the care provider does.'

but all in all, i agree. i don't believe that daycare is harmful at all, but i *have* seen the working mom syndrome in action, and it ain't pretty!

[shanti]

50. not everyone is so luck

to have a husband to help them raise their children :eyes:

[kermujin]

61. or lucky enough to have a husband, for that matter...

I should have clarified that; as a working *single* mom. :)

Edited 'cause I can't spell.

[sandnsea]

54. I've seen stay at home moms

Who overcompensate for not being able to provide all the material goodies by being over indulgent and lax on discipline because they can always get back on schedule tomorrow. This confuses the child and creates what I would call little monsters. I call it the stick up the stay at home ass syndrome, who has to judge working moms to justify sitting on the couch and watching Oprah all day.

I don't mean half of that, but your post makes me so mad. All moms do the best they can and there's no magic wand either way. I worked sometimes, and stayed at home sometimes, didn't change the kind of mom I was. Doesn't with other people either.

[redqueen]

58. Great post...

thanks.

[Megahurtz]

60. I certainly was never the mom I wanted to be.

This country makes money to be the problem for most of us.

[MissB]

63. It may be best to keep your harsh views to yourself

and that's about as nice as I can put it.

Starting some Mommy wars in Late Breaking News is just not appropriate.

[redqueen]

47. Family values my ass.

Their morals are all a LIE... and the idiots in this country eat. it. up.

[KDLarsen]

51. The wonders of living in a social haven...

My sister is currently on 14 weeks of paid maternity leave and after that, she & her boyfriend have 32 weeks of paid maternity leave which they can split between them. Also, they're coming up on paid leave so they can spend some time with their first child, but I'm not familiar with the rules on that area.

As for republicans, they only time they care about a child, is when it's a fetal.

[fujiyama]

56. The disparity in the amount of vacation time given

is staggering and it's probably another reason why Europeans are less ignorant about the world. They tend to travel more.

But regarding the maternity leave, I also guess that the governments there are giving more time because they are encouraging more births just to sustain their population. They have extremely low birth rates, so that could be one reason (aside from the way they view work in general).