because pregnancy is a lifestyle choice. Maternity leave directly discriminates against men and childfree women in the workplace.
HIV/AIDS is the result of a lifestyle choice. Sick leave directly discriminates against people in the workplace who practice safe sex.
OP, you're a fucking moron. Go die in a grease fire.
At work, when a pregnant woman goes on maternity leave, I have to do her work, as well as my own, for no extra pay. If I were to go hiking in the jungle for 3 months because this choice would increase my personal happiness, I would be fired.
[quote] At work, when a pregnant woman goes on maternity leave, I have to do her work, as well as my own, for no extra pay.
Find a new job, Umpy.
OP, get back under your bridge. The Family and Medical Leave Act says that men can take leave for up to 12 weeks.
The alternative is having heavily pregnant women in the workplace, getting emotional, vomiting and talking about how wonderful being pregnant is.
I agree. And I'd like to add that I hate babies and children.
Pregnancy is not just a "lifestyle choice".
If you're so obsessed with your personal happiness, try to live in seclusion from society. Maybe you'll be "happier".
A delivery guy where I work just got back from 6 weeks maternity leave. He tells that to everybody who will listen.
After he told me I said something like, "Ohhh, okay" and he sorta scowled. Later I realized I was probably supposed to congratulate him, but I'm not around breeders that much so I didn't know.
I agree with OP.
If you touch the unborn baby you are touching her UTERUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have to agree to a point: teacher at my school dropped her kid the day AFTER school was out last June...had the entire summer off then took the first six weeks off this fall for the maternity leave granted to her!!!
Since this isn't considered "sick leave" she will get the perfect attendance bonus at the end of the year. We do not have "personal days", so when my bathroom ceiling collapsed due to plumbing issue, I was required to take a "sick day" (or no pay), thus knocking me out of the bonus.
(BTW, my school does not have a union, so that leaves those trolls out from commenting.)
My assistant is pregnant with #3 now. As with prior leaves, I am expected to cover for her (including her email and phones). No temp will be hired to cover, so I will be also w/o any support for 10 weeks again.
I am not permitted to take any vacation or personal time during her leave (Dec 20 - March 1). So that also means that I am not permitted to take time off at Christmas/New Year's.
I've complained to HR before, but nothing comes of it. I was reminded that maternal status is covered under the company's non-discrim statement; sexual orientation is not.
I'm childfree; i don't have a problem covering for women on maternity leave.
My cunt co-worker has a disabled kid and she's always out to "take care of him". Never mind the fact that the kid's father doesn't work and is always home to take care of it.
She had three kids die before this one and every time I see her in a new outfit I wonder which dead kid paid for it.
OP - the issue is with the employers who fuck things up, not the women.
I have absolutely no problem with it - and think it's actually no enough time.
Why employers can't get temps is beyond me. Most of maternity leave is not paid.
Really? You all decided to play with such an obvious troll?
Childbearing should be left to women who are either rich enough not to have to work or who are willing to live like scrounging rats in poverty.
R13, that policy is discriminatory and illegal in certain states. If you don't live in one of those states - QUIT YOUR JOB AND MOVE, dumbass...
Just be without kids and try to take that kind of time off. You'd be out on your ass. And BTW, "with kids" IS in fact a life style choice. If you've never had to continuously pick up the slack you have no idea what it's like to do the work of two jobs and get absolutely no credit for it.
Lifestyle choice? Helen Hayes was scheduled to do a show on Broadway when she became pregnant. Producers sued for breach of contract. She claimed "Act of God" and won the case.
[quote]I was reminded that maternal status is covered under the company's non-discrim statement; sexual orientation is not.
HR actually said that to your face? I would've quit on the spot.
Tell me how a non-punitive maternity leave policy does NOT discriminate against childfree workers, gay or straight.
How much does maternity leave contribute to the disparity between men's and women's wages and career advancement? I'm guessing not all of it but perhaps it's a partial correction to the unfairness some of us feel.
Your problem is with yourself and your employer.
But mostly yourself.
OP needs to climb out of his bubble and realize it's a big world and not everyone will live life as he does.
I suppose OP is fine with paternity leave. And yes, that's commonplace in civilized countries.
OP, a coworker of mine took a six week PATERNITY leave after his wife had a baby (and I had no problem with that). I have witnessed blatant discrimination against women who are in their child-bearing years...The boss nixed the potential hire of a person who would have been a great addition to the staff because, and I quote, "She hasn't had her babies yet."!
Do you think women of child-bearing age should be left out of the work force?
If it weren't for people having babies, OP, we wouldn't be able to enjoy your isolationist logic. As noted, your problem isn't with people having babies, it's with your cheap ass employer.
No, paternity leave is just as discriminatory as maternity leave. The issue isn't paternity v. maternity leave. It's people who choose to have children get extra vacation, while people who choose not to have children get no extra vacation.
If you think having a new born in the house equals extra vacation you are too stupid to cope no matter how many hands on deck at work.
I'm fine with mat/pat leave as long as childfree employees are offered the same amount of time off without retaliation.
Extra vacation? r,30 you think taking care of a baby is the same thing as going on a summer vacation? Wow, you apparently live in some sort of reality free self absorbed bubble.
R30 Do you think waking up every two hours for night feeds and dealing with all the other stuff a baby needs equates to vacation? You really do live in a little bubble of complete unreality. Not that anyone would expect you to be understanding as most extremely selfish people can't see any other point of view. Work is the easier option I promise you.
Drinking, smoking, drugging and overeating are all lifestyle choices too.
I've never taken FMLA leave, either maternity or paternity, but I've sure spent a lot of time covering for those who can't make it to work, are too impaired to do their work when they're there, or who have been hospitalized and/or are in rehab due to their lifestyle choices.
One of the States (forgot which one) has law that states an employer can legally fire a pregnant woman if the company has less than 3 employees.
Why is it idiotic, R33? Getting pregnant is not an act of God. I'd argue in most cases it's an act of will. Why should it be protected? Why should other acts of will be exempt? That's what OP is asking. Saying its idiotic isn't a response.
Being a Mother is a job!
In Canada, women go on maternity leave for a year. Giving people a few weeks off seems pretty sad to me (and clearly it's not enough time to replace them properly).
What if the baby pops out in your work place? There's such a thing called premature births and it happens.
I think the system of having to get back to work so soon after having babies is quite weird and brutal (for all involved), but then again I'm used to three years of maternity leave in my country. And since it lasts three years, the employers have to hire temporary replacements. Workoholic mothers can of course get back to work almost imediately, but almost none of the new mothers do, not even the poor ones (well, especially not the poor ones, since the small amount of money you get during maternity leave from the state is not that much less than what you'd be paid otherwise).
[quote] There's such a thing called premature births and it happens.
I can't imagine there being such a thing if it DIDN'T happen.
Women should be forced to sign a contract stating that they will not get pregnant during their employment or else be let go.
Yes, it is reverse discrimination. Gays, childless couples and older women get penalized with the *fucking fever* of straight breeders. Then, to compound the misery, everyone in the office has to contend with baby stories and coo at the baby photos as if that child is ever so special.
Mothers are not special people. Neither are dads. It takes no talent to make a baby, and world-wide most parents are horrible--witness the terrible world we live in.
People who chose to NOT have children should be given not only tax breaks but longer vacation time and special compensation. Overpopulation is at a crisis point yet the media keeps promoting breeders as the most successful.
I stopped voting Democrat and Republican when I saw how both parties pandered to breeders only. I saw the writing on the wall. The Dems and Repubs want more voters so they coddle breeders but ignore the rights of gays, lesbians, single unmarried people, the disabled, and seniors who can't fever-fuck anymore. Understand that if you are not a breeder you aren't considered a worthy American by the two major parties.
vote third party
Okay: female(hag, and proud of it) here; hate kids; child-free by choice, blah-blah.
OP, and others, I feel your pain, BUT:
Unless and until such time as science invents something else(!): people (feel the) need to propogate to keep up the species.
OP: you, me, all of us: were all babies sometime. Is biological as well as "choice". Unfortunately.
Haven't read all the posts yet, but wonder if anyone is going to weigh in with "I'm gay and I have kids"??
Oh, and least we forget: FML acts ALSO allow for time to "bond with a(adopted) child." Which is only right.
I don't work anymore (disabled) but when I did, I resented all the goddamn time women with kids took off (I'm old enough to have had a mother who worked only in the summers, and only aftre my brother and I were 13/11; this is increasingly rare and lovely these days); resented all the damn dr appts., sick 'cause their KIDS were sick; bringing the crotchfruit to work; bringin new babies to show everyone (99% of whom were THRILLED to see the babies; I stayed at my desk and muttered)
But women ARE going to breed. No getting around it. Ultimately, vis the workplace, I decided: THANK GOD it's not me, and I, culture vulture, went to this and that, spent all my money on ME (other the presents to family, of course), travelled as I saw fit:
and enjoy(ed) - 'cause is part of my personality (not admirable, though) - not having to do ANYTHing for ANYone other than me(and my employer)
But I DO understand OP, and bravo for bringing it up!!! This is one of the few places we can vent!!! Right on!!
The Child-Free Troll
OP is so clearly Umpy. Umpy, why are you hiding your light under a bushel?
A lot of companies offer leave to men whose wives have had children (comes under FMLA).
I've always thought that people on Maternity leave should be replaced with temps, but more, those with kids in need of daycare should be sent to each company's "Building Nine."
That's the area where the daycare center is located. In my plan, it would be an open court that would hold the center, with Mommy Offices around the periphery so they are free to watch their kids play in the center area.
Since this is the place where all the New Mommies are assigned, they have each other to with whom to discuss Baby's First Snot, or Baby's First Tooth, ort Baby's latest bowel movement. This frees the rest of the employees from having to listen to that, to get lectured on the trials of motherhood, or from even seeing the new Moms. Mommies would attend meetings via SILENT video hookup, and if they need to run out to the center area to fuss over their kid, the meeting will not have to stop to accommodate them.
Mommies are usually useless to the company, anyway, so why not keep them from dragging everyone else down? Naturally, their performance will reflect their disinterest, and this will protect the employee force from having Mommy Managers, who got their promotions by seeming involved, and making others do their work.
Building Nine would return the reality of Mommy performance to the corporate cost sheet, and end the age of The Mommy Cult in most large and middle sized companies.
im fine with materinty and paternity leave... but there should be an equivilent "home development" for people who chose not to have children or who chose not to be partnered but who want to do something else to reinforce or build their own home environment.
How about that tbitches? That is what would be fair. Call it all home development leave and let everyone use it the way they want.
you claim to be a somewhat selfish person however it is the breeders that are most selfish.
I am not a parent but I still put others first usually, because I believe in promoting the "community." I love society, and clean cities, and freedom.
People who have more than two children are pushing an agenda--they want us all to contort our lives to accomodate their selfish lifestyle.
I love children, actually. I also love babies. But honestly, why do people have so many children when they cannot afford them? What's the point?
vote third party only
r37, Because it's pretty great that some people choose to have children so those who don't want to, won't have to. Because without the next generation there's noone to take care of the elderly, noone to pay taxes, there's nothing. No future.
The problem here isn't maternity or paternity leave, it's the sorry state of those laws in the US.
I'm voting for R48 for President!!!
What a beautiful, creative idea, and yes, it would balance things out somewhat.
And it took someone on the DL to think this up, not a politician.
vote third party
R50, plenty of people having kids aren't raising a generation who you would WANT taking care of you. The population growth rate can't be maintained, so people having kids and thinking they're doing everyone else a favor are full of shit.
I agree with R48, there should be some equivalent of time off for other things. But that would first require the law to actually treat gay people as human beings.
[quote]Call it all home development leave and let everyone use it the way they want.
Sure it's a great idea. Nonetheless, the alleged inequity (and frankly I don't think there is one. People who have children are doing something necessary, at a bare minimum and anyone who argues otherwise has the heart of a Republican or worse.) But the absence of one doesn't preclude the necessity or rightness of the other.
I can't tell you how many women I've worked with over the years cut out of work early to "pick up their kids at school" and then stay home the rest of the day "because there's nobody to watch them." All of these women are professionals with husbands who are also professionals and can afford daycare or a babysitter for the rest of the afternoon. But no, they cut out at 2:00. It's so obvious that they're doing it just to get out of work. And of course the rest of us have to pick up the slack.
I'm not saying all women do this, but I've worked with a number of them who do and like the above poster said they are basically fucking useless to the company.
In some Western European countries such as France they have state-run childcare so working parents don't have to worry about it. Of course, we will never have that here because it's "Socialist!" And minorities would also benefit from it, of course. God bless the USA, the Greatest Country On Earth!
As a society, we must contribute to the proper rearing of future citizens. Maternity leave is one of those ways. Sure this does not ensure our society having model, law-abiding citizens, but it is a contribution
Seriously, I'm putting "R48" as my write-in candidate!
or, how about "Datalounge R48"?
OP is making a case for gay marriage:
Gay people have no heart
Not all gay people, [R58], just some. It's not a even a question of heart, just common sense. This thread is the equivalent of an eight year old having a temper tantrum. If everybody can't have anything until everybody's got the same as everybody else there'd be no progress.
Whether or not OP is a troll, he has a point. Of course, what he says applies to gay parents as well. It will be interesting to see how this plays out with more and more gay parents requesting the equivalent of maternity leave.
What's heartless R58, is the older woman who has to work a double shift or cover for the snippy, self-centered dingbat who is on her third pregnancy.
It's actually the seniors who are supporting all of these kids, not the other way around.
I agree with OP.
Generally, US employment law is pretty shitty in any event. Don't blame people who have children for that. I looked at the Wikipedia chart on leave and generally it's not a generous allotment of time or financial support even in Europe. A few countries, like Canada and Norway are a year or more.
Um, OP? These days most fathers also take "maternity leave."
[R61], married people are going to have children. If they didn't, you wouldn't be here to bitch about employment law.
Again, it's not an issue between employees, it's an issue between employees and employers. People are gonna keep having babies. It's necessary.
it isnt about the leave... it is about the social recognition and revalidation the breeders receive from breeding...
if they can force you to change your life because they have children, then their way of life is validated and yours is subjugated.
fraus must be made to feel special and deferred to because they have worth through the workings of their loins
maternity leave at my job is basic FEMLA you use your vacation and sick time then the rest is unpaid. no free ride and often financially rough
Oh, for God's sake ^
The birth rates are declining in Europe and the US. The experts are worried there won't be, long term, enough people to sustain the workforce or support the aging population.
If the fraus are getting rewarded they'd be getting five years leave with full pay. It ain't happening.
[quote] It's people who choose to have children get extra vacation, while people who choose not to have children get no extra vacation.
Most companies do not provide paid maternity/paternity leave. Nor do they provide paid long-term medical leave. Most out on medical or maternity/paternity leave have to go on temporary paid disability and/or Paid family leave via the state they live in, which they have paid into so are entitled to collect. In CA state disability pay ranges from $50-$959 a week and paid family leave, for a max of 12 weeks, ranges from $50-$1011 a week.
And caring for a crying poop machine? Not really a vacation.
I am a female and childless by choice.
I have no problem with maternity leave, but also feel that many companies need to compensate the employees who have to cover for others who are on leave (if the company doesn't hire a temp replacement).
That said, I do get very annoyed when mothers - and yes, it's mostly mothers - who need extra time off work here and there to take care of kids' issues. It's one thing if it is an hourly worker - you can dock their pay for the hour(s) missed because the employee left work early or came in late due to an issue with a child. But, if the worker is salaries, one can't really "dock" their pay. It was always my salaried employees who often took advantage of needing extra time to take car of a child's issue. I finally explained that I fully expected salaried workers to make up the time lost by taking off for these kid-related issues, and if they missed too much time - regardless of the reason - they could face disciplinary action. The problem was vurtually eliminated, it was amazing how all these little problems with their kids disappeared when the employee realized that taking time off just because they had kids was not a given.
Both my partner and I have spent many years in the workplace and are now retired. We both have memories we will take to the grave of women using and abusing maternity leave and taking day after day off for whatever child-related reason.
We don't have children and have worked many hours covering for the mommies in our companies, for free. It does breed some resentment. Especially when the last mommy who took an extra day off after having "possible" pneumonia for 3 weeks spent it with her daughter going to a movie and getting a manicure and announcing it loudly at work.
Her work was so piled up in her absence we had to file and separate her papers onto her desk and half the office floor. And then try to plow through them, along with our own work.
I take time off, early departures, late arrivals, sudden days off, to care for my mother who has dementia.
I suppose I deserve contempt too and provision should be made for everyone of you with either healthy or dead parents.
Women in Germany stop working six weeks before birth. They are not allowed to start working after birth sooner than 8 weeks. The whole time they get paid. It is possible to take (unpaid) maternity leave for up to three years and return to your guaranteed job after this time. Or you choose parenting time (possible for both parents) for up to 12 months and get paid between 300 to 1800 Euros per month depending on several conditions.
You have the right to negotiate a part-time job instead of returning full-time. But this depends very much on your company. It is also possible to get a dismissal wage.
If you work as a kindergarten teacher or in a pharmacy for example, where you could contact dangerous diseases or materials, your maternity leave starts immediately after learning you're pregnant.
The society is quite willing to give the mothers this time, as we need the kids to pay taxes and finance our social networks (like national old-age pension, health insurance etc.)
I really don't get why Americans fight 'socialist' ideas tooth and nail.
Back in the "old days" babies used to be delivered by midwives in homes.
The medical establishment, however, got involved and made pregnancy a 'medical condition'.
[quote] Pregnancy is not just a "lifestyle choice".
Actually it is. No one has to become or remain pregnant in 2012 unless they choose to.
Spare us the tired old argument that the world can't continue without women who give birth. That is not the issue.
The issue is disparate treatment of workers based on whether they can or desire to get pregnant and give birth.
And we certainly don't need to hear about German breeding policies.
All employees should be given the same option of some paid time off and/or unpaid leave. What you do with that time is your business. You can plan and save up time for your intended choice.
If the govt wants to mandate paid time off on top of an employee's regular sick leave and vacation leave then it can subsidize it.
I have seen too many mothers who take their maternity leave - every bit of it - and then come back for one month and then quit. After the company and their co-workers have done everything to cooperate and lift their burdens they are then shafted. That behavior should get them a bad reference or none at all.
Please send this to all breeders you work with immediately. QUICK! Before they become pregnant:
I agree with OP. I think everyone should get a special leave and if some (breeders) want to take it to have kids, sobeit.
if I'd like to take mine to travel, clean out a storage unit or stay home and watch movies then that's okay, too.
R75 Yeah, right, refuse to learn from other countries.
Btw Germans got six weeks paid vacation, too.
R78, I think my post sailed way over your head. Learn some history.
All you child and women haters are ridiculous. We are all part of a society, and those "awful brats" will one day be the doctors, teachers, and politicians we will have to depend on. European countries with generous family leave ans supportive programs for children know this.
Who was the shit-head who brought HIV/AIDS into the debate? Really not the same thing. Very few, if any, try for HIV.
Actually, I don't see why any employer should pay for maternity or sickness leave. Revenue from taxation should cover it. I wouldn't pay the guy who cleans my car if I turned up at the garage and he was off work with a virus.
I feel for Olive Osmond who didn't get a wink if sleep during the 50s.
Is that Shitt Romney posting at r81? If not, I am sure he (and all wealthy company owners/employers) agree with such fucked-up sentiments. We are all human, and are all vulnerable to illness. In my job/profession, I accrue sick leave, but have only used it for 2 days when I was on the verge of developing pneumonia. I have no problem with those who are truly ill using their sick time or anyone taking 'family leave' when it is needed. Those who think that sick time/family leave is unreasonable are worrisome, however. When the robotic overlords take over, THEN there will be no need for leave.
In the meatime....
I owe my career to maternity leaves! In Canada, women can take a full year so I went from contract to contract replacing various pregnant ladies until my company took me on full time. It's almost like a job share program and helps you get a foot in the door.
Thank you, R73. And I thought only republicans were as stupid as some of the posters on this thread.
Parents spending time with their kids is good public policy. Giving kids a good start in the world increases the likelihood that they will grow up to be responsible citizens. And mentally healthy employees, who aren't exhausted from sleep deprivation or battling post-partum depression, improve the work environment.
I'm single, have never had children and never intend to have them. I work with someone as mind-numbingly stupid as some of you. She and her BFF, another annoyingly ignorant coworker, begrudge every employee any little thing. It's annoying to have to breathe the same air as those idiots.