See who is already coming to #socialrecruiting summit in November!

Blog Network

RE: FMLA Extension to 1 year for mothers follow this blog post

posted by on July 6, 2009

It is incomprehensible to me that mothers are given only 4 months leave after childbirth.  I am even more amazed that since many HR professionals are women that they do not advocate change.

I am a mother and grandmother and know as a fact that babies need 24 x 7 care. Childcare is not only expensive but finding the right or affordable nanny or caregiver is even more difficult.  Many families resort to inexpensive and undocumented care-givers because they are all they can afford.  More than the care itself, Sleep deprivation for both parents is a major issue and I would like to see more mothers be given work from home options until at least a year after childbirth.

These infants and young children are the future leaders of our country. Do you want them raised by uneducated caregivers?

Mothers and Dad's: What are your thoughts?

 

 

| 24 comments | flag

24 comments

Log in or register to post a reply.

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    Unfortunately this discussion has lost it's focus.

    The original topic was on the topic of of maternal leave. The stated concern was that 4 months leave was not sufficient for a mother to provide proper care for a newborn child - and that HR professionals - many of whom are female - should advocate for change to extend employment leave to 1 year.

    The issue was not socialism. Rather it was a question to the HR community if we think that employers should be required to provide 12 month leave of absence for working mothers with newborn children.

    Hopefully, any additional postings will focus on the main topic.

    --dave

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    Barry - Not an ounce of original thought has come from you...perhaps you need to stop watching the Faux News channel for a day or two...just one left leaning moderate's opinion... 

    With respect to the actual discussion, I think there could exist a happy medium but it would have to be pushed/supported by many before it is ever given any serious consideration.  

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    Moderates don't see the world as you have to have others lead or tell you the way. How can a Moderate have original ideas when they constantly have their finger in the air seeing what everyone else is going to do and then make there decision. A Moderate by it's own definition would basically provide no leadership and have to be shown the way. I don't care if you can't handle the truth or not and I could care less if you agree with me or you can't see what is happening to this country. I haven't heard one name mentioned about the Great Moderates that shaped this country. Your right-incredible!

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    We start at FMLA Extensions and somehow digress to lambasting socialists, then moderates. I promised myself to not pursue the bait, but feel the uncontainable urge for that one ~last~ post.


    Barry - I think I see the root of the issue. I would say that you're scapegoating. You're not responsible, they are! You create a group of amorphous individuals and ascribe traits that you want to call unique to them. The definition of a moderate is someone who cannot make their own decisions and cannot provide leadership? It's the socialists and moderates who are damaging America? Absurd!


    The traits that you ascribe to these groups can be equally applied to left, right, moderate and extreme. 99% of the world population looks to their environment to help them decide right from wrong, good from bad. Only small percentages of the world are leaders and let's please not pretend that they are all stem from the same camp or don't include anyone you consider distasteful.


    What's happening to the US didn't start in January. It is the result of a long string of irresponsible und unethical behavior, lots of people (liberal, conservative, moderate, democratic, republican, libertarian, etc...) looking for a quick buck, shortcuts and, in the end, scapegoats.


    The US is healing after years of massive abuses, not falling apart.  Expect conflict and turmoil for some years to come.

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    I never said The Terminator was a Socialist however he is a Republican in name only. And by the way, Rush doesn't think much of him politically either. I guess everyday is a revelation when faced with the facts. That's what I love about moderates-no core value and they usually don't know what is going on and go with the crowd once it is plainly obvious to them.

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    So, anyone who doesn't see the world as you do has no core values and plainly doesn't know what is going on? Your generalizations are incredible!

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    There are a number of Socialist statements made or in support of those ideas in these blogs starting with the original blog. I don't have time to go into all of these statements. However I cannot think of very many-maybe none great Moderates in American history. Since I exist in Socialist CA and with our newest Socialist President this type of thinking is much to prevalent in American society and CA is the perfect example of why these Socialist ideas don't work. Government regulations don't make companies flexible they break companies. Thanks for your comments Todd, pointing out the follies of such thinking but be afraid-very afraid as Socialist ideas are alive an well in America-very said indeed.

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    Wow - Schwarzenegger is a socialist.  I didn't know the Republicans had such a splinter group.  I wonder what Rush thinks.

    Every day is a revelation!

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    Barry -- I don't think many of us sound like socialists, but rather like moderates.

    Deb Franklin said: "Why should my government have to step in? It is my choice. I'm getting more and more concerned with our society's lack of personal accountability and wanting others to supplement our personal choices. "

    Dave Crowly said: "Profit is not a bad word" and said that the number of health care regulations are "incomprehensible."

    I said "I'd want to know more about the costs of adding to an already broke government more programs."

    Kathleen Schaum and J. Kalin Tyler argued that when companies are flexible, it increases employee loyalty; they didn't argue for government solutions.

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    Sounds like the "Socialist Forum" to me. If Socialism is so great why not move to narvana like Europe? Maybe Washington would give California to all the Socialists and drive the $24B or whatever deficit higher thereby creating your perfect world. Let the rest of the U.S. alone with your ideas and you will see businesses flock out of CA faster than Obama can raise a deficit. "I am an American" and there is no question it's for the BETTER. This Country is better and not because of ideas like some I have just read.

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    Not to steal any thunder here, I wrote something about this phenomenon a coupla' years ago here.  You might enjoy it.

    By the way, Dave, do you know where the expresion "beyond the pale" comes from?  I just learned it myself in a Sunday sermon!

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    Maureen, I'm always learning from you! Thanks for the link. Interesting!

    --dave

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    Sitting here in Germany, it is very interesting to read through the comments.  Breast feeding in public is protected by law.  Mutterschafturlaub (Mother Vacation) is three years and can be shared by the husband.  Minimum legal vacation is four weeks, the Government actively involves itself in setting the moral and ethical standards of the country, etc... And taxes are somewhat higher, real income is somewhat lower, government services and entitlements are ~dramatically~ higher....  Oddly enough, I don't really feel any less "free" or any more "burdened".

    The choices are really the same, however - albeit less individual.  As D Franklin states - "Might have to choose less 'material stuff'".  The German government is primarily making the choice for us.

    What are my thoughts? If you don't get off your fanny (apologies to the brits) and support the politics you want, then you get what you're given.

    P.S. Don't think I'm a snotty bragging European - I'm American, for better or for worse.

    Best Regards,


    Edward (or as the Germans would say Edvard)

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    I agree with the thoughts of the other working moms below but also believe there can be a flexible compromise with the company.  When my oldest was born (he's 13 now), I made the conscious decision to work a reduced schedule (with reduced pay) so that I could spend more time with him.  As with anything else I'd do at work, I created a comprehensive business case to show my employer why it would benefit the company in addition to myself.  I thought through every area that they could object to and had detailed support as to how I would overcome their concerns.  They committed to allow me to work Tuesday through Thursday while I committed to be "flexible" on my end, taking important calls from my team as needed on Mondays and Fridays to ensure that they had the support that they needed and switching my working days on occassion so that I could attend important meetings that may fall on a Monday or Friday.  In return for that additional work on my end, my company agreed to pay me a little more than the 60% pay my Tues-Thurs schedule would command.  In terms of daycare for the three days I worked, I used my recruiting and research skills and spent a lot of time researching my options and interviewing daycare providers until I found one that I felt would care for my child with the same type of values my family wanted to instill.  Yes- the mothers and fathers choose to have a family and should play the largest part of figuring out how to make it work.  On the other hand, companies can work together with the employee to come up with a solution that allows them to retain a good employee.  And companies may be surprised to find out that if they do, they have likely gained a loyal employee who will be less likely to leave for other opportunities.

  • 2 points 4 months ago

    While I don't really have an idea of how things go in most corporate work places, or what's possible legally or financially, I can give you an idea of what I did when I had my kids.

    I didn't want to do daycare, because it is really scary to hand off a six week old baby to a stranger, pretty much being influenced by not only those strangers but also everything the other kids have learned at home - whether dysfunctional or not. It could be abusive behavior for all I know. I opted for my partner to not work, and I got a job working as a sourcer out of my home office. We moved to the smallest house in a very expensive area where the schools are the best in the state and very little crime. We have seven people in a three bedroom house and two old cars with no car payment. We spend time together at the multiple parks in the area and have a zoo membership that pays for itself after the seven of us go once. We go to a remote beach (less people = cheaper) for vacation every year and just enjoy playing in the sand and hanging out together. We have very little ‘stuff' - but that's ok. No one minds. The kids are spoiled.

    If I felt that a job was going to take me away from my family in a way that I wasn't comfortable, I just wouldn't work there. I know some people don't feel they have that luxury...but I'd laugh if anyone said that I had luxuries that other people didn't. I might not have a cell phone, but I get to give my toddler hugs and kisses when he lays down for his nap. Pretty fair trade, if you ask me.

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    I'm a working Mother.  Although I agree in previous comments the challenges women face in balancing childcare, breastfeeding, etc are huge - I disagree the government or business have the responsibility for burdening our choice to be parents.  I'm a mom by choice.  Part of that decision, is finding the balance with work and home.  I wish more people thought like JKalin.  Make the choice - want to work less and spend more time with family? -Do it! Might have to choose less 'material stuff'.  There are competent caregivers - grandparents, or day care providers that provide love, structure and a safe environment. I think it wrong to expect my employer to provide me with so much extended time off - they have a business to run - why would I expect preferrential treatment because I've chosen to have a family? Why should my government have to step in? It is my choice. I'm getting more and more concerned with our society's lack of personal accountability and wanting others to supplement our personal choices.  It is unbelievable.

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    Your post made my day, J. Kalin. What a wonderful attitude you have. It strikes me that "Stuff" -- as you put it -- was less important to my grandparents' generation, and that there aren't many people like you now. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    Equally incomprehensible is the continuing escalation of demands upon employers to continue to add costs to an already expensive health care program! Burdensome regulations in the name of social equity have become the standard policy for liberalizing company practices and adding more and more costly practices to conducting USA business.

    At some time, liberals need to take a back seat to expansion of government control over our free enterprise system. When an employer starts a business and tries to run a business profitably, they do so under the presumption that there will be a workforce that will work. Unexpected and short absences are expected. To demand a 1 year work modification for child rearing is beyond the pale!

    If childcare is expensive, let the family plan and then pay for it. If childcare is demanding, let the family plan and make the necessary adjustments for it. If childcare requires modifications in a couple's work and social schedules, then let the family make the plans, make the adjustments and make the sacrifices. Why does the Company have to pick up the ticket? Everytime?

    I recommend that we deny "not-for-profit governmental agencies" the power to regulate "for-profit corporations" to advance their social agenda. You can propose hundreds if not thousands of ideas to make it easier and better and nicer for people to work. It just shifts more and more cost and regulatory burden onto the corporartion - which is in business to make a profit. And profit is not a bad word!

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    These ideas sound great. But I'd want to know more about the costs of adding (to an already broke government) more programs: you suggest more government health insurance (Medicare is already headed toward bankruptcy), and extending government public education to newborns (in California, about half of government education spending is spent on overhead, so I'm wary of expanding it).

    Again, I think these sound wonderful, but so does, say, a $10, or $20, or why not $50 minimum wage -- which would be a job-killing wrecking ball.

    As far as requiring a mother to breastfeed in bathrooms: that sounds horrific, but at least here in California, I don't believe what you're saying is true. Breastfeeding is allowed in most any place.

    Again, I very much agree with your sentiments. My heart is in the same place, but my head is wondering what the best solutions are.

     

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    I think it should be a combination of both. Companies should be more flexible with mothers or parents with small children and as a Government we should offer more flexible work rights to parents  of infants and small children. As parents we are responsible for the quality of children we produce but as a nation we are also responsible for the quality of children that are born in this country. We fight for change in everything including rights for animals or trees, but it is tragic that no one fights for the rights of our little ones: we require a mother to breast feed her babies in public restrooms instead of where everyone else eats, and most babies are raised by uneducated caregivers who care less about their welfare or future and yet we cry foul when latchkey children end up in prisons or the wrong side of the law.

    Companies and the Govt. should work side by side on this issue to raise a responsible next generation of children because we have already lost the one before.

    I say at least 6 months of maternal leave and another 6 months with flex work arrangements especially for single mothers. Additionally, just like we have free medical insurance for the indigent, we should have an affordable or subsidized child care and health system for single parents that cannot afford it.

     

  • 1 point 4 months ago
    I'm floored that women think they should breastfeed where others are eating! I'm a woman & a mom.- It has nothing to do with our 'rights' It is a common courtesy to not breastfeed in public. Call it a social more - it is just wrong. Let me compare - we don't want to see a man adjust his privates in public, do we? It is under cover, it is descreet - but it gives us the creeps. SO why is it ok for us to pull out a breast and feed? Maybe I'm missing something, but I think we've gone overboard!
  • 1 point 4 months ago

    I certainly understand the problem and agree with the sentiment, but am curious what you are proposing as a solution. Are you suggesting that companies simply be more considerate, and more flexible, and more open to alternative work arrangements? Or, some sort of government-mandated solution? You suggested advocating change, but what change specifically?

  • 0 points 4 months ago

    Good Grief! When has it become the responsiblity of the employer to resolve all these issues for you when you become pregnant? I guess you don't have to think ahead for yourself or even be responsible. You just go ahead and become pregnant and you don't have to give any thought about YOUR responsibilities that come with it. It's scary that children would be raised with this mind set as this is not what the type of future leaders of this country needs. "Do you want them raised by uneducated care givers?" That's your choice-not the employers responsibilities and why did you have children to be raised by someone else? Sounds to me like the uneducated got pregnant and they want everyone else to be responsible for their irresponsible decision. You make the perfect Obama and Michael Jackson fan-not to smart!

  • 1 point 4 months ago

    Wow, that's a harsh response. Does the company you work for have that same attitude towards social responsibility? I mean, sure I decided to live the lesser life because I was able to be closer to my family, but it's really not ok for companies to completely disregard the basic human need for family and procreation. We aren't working machines.

    I'm a valuable, marketable, skilled and highly desired individual in my field. If an employer took the stance that you outline, I assure you that company would lose out. Disregarding employees is not a good way to attract or retain the best candidates.

    Yes, it's my responsibility. My responsibility to make sure I work for a company that gives a s....