Obama to expand sick leave for maternity?

[Sbmack]

Maternity leave and better working conditions (allowing flex time etc) for mothers have been on the President's agenda for a while, but only recently has a bigger push been made to enact change. I really hope they succeed because its really a disgrace how little leave (and little pay) we get here. I'm really lucky that my company is so generous. I got full pay for 12 weeks. I still wasn't ready to come back then though.

yet its only for federal employees. All woman who work full time or even have worked a significant amount should get a premium package (lol) for an entire year!

Yes, it's for federal employees but it's a start. This is on his agenda and that's a good thing. Like someone said above, laws can't just be made overnight (well unless it's an executive order...maybe he will have to do one if congress doesn't cooperate on this). Honestly, I don't see this issue being important or supported by the majority now so I hope he does do an executive order.

 

[beckysprayer]

This sounds nice, but I need more information before I can sign off and say it's a great idea. Who is paying for this? Our government is already over budget on everything, so what budget restructuring is being done to cover this increased cost? Are taxes going to have to go up? Are they hiring temp employees to cover those on maternity leave or are they expecting other employees to cover the difference? Are the employees covering the difference being compensated for their additional work or are they being forced to work beyond what their job entails? Do they have the option of opting out of doing additional work for additional compensation?

I really do understand how nice it sounds to have a year off with pay to take care of your baby, but that seems completely ridiculous to me. Who pays for this? I would never expect someone to pay my expenses for an entire year, that's insane. Where does that money come from? I know some countries may be able to swing it, but we don't have more money to throw around

I don't know what the answer is. I'm lucky to be able to be a stay at home mom, but DH and I worked hard for this and saved every penny I made for years in preparation, and both of us grew up poor. It's best for the baby to have mom at home, that is without question. But where does the money come from if you don't pay yourself?

We are already bankrupt, extremely bankrupt. The government is always in overdraft. The post office (a federal employer) doesn't even have a balanced budget. We simply can't add more services on the tax payer dime until we completely restructure our entire budget. We have no money to pay for more. The middle class can't be taxed more. The rich class will just leave if they are taxed too much more (as world history has proven, when taxes get too high the rich leave for cheaper countries). If you force businesses to pay for extended maternity leave, they will find ways to cut costs, either by taking their business offshore or (like with the ACA) making full-time employees part-time to avoid payment.

I don't know what the answer is, because eventually we run out of other people's money.

 

[GoHawks]

This sounds nice, but I need more information before I can sign off and say it's a great idea. Who is paying for this? Our government is already over budget on everything, so what budget restructuring is being done to cover this increased cost? Are taxes going to have to go up? Are they hiring temp employees to cover those on maternity leave or are they expecting other employees to cover the difference? Are the employees covering the difference being compensated for their additional work or are they being forced to work beyond what their job entails? Do they have the option of opting out of doing additional work for additional compensation?

I really do understand how nice it sounds to have a year off with pay to take care of your baby, but that seems completely ridiculous to me. Who pays for this? I would never expect someone to pay my expenses for an entire year, that's insane. Where does that money come from? I know some countries may be able to swing it, but we don't have more money to throw around

I don't know what the answer is. I'm lucky to be able to be a stay at home mom, but DH and I worked hard for this and saved every penny I made for years in preparation, and both of us grew up poor. It's best for the baby to have mom at home, that is without question. But where does the money come from if you don't pay yourself?

We are already bankrupt, extremely bankrupt. The government is always in overdraft. The post office (a federal employer) doesn't even have a balanced budget. We simply can't add more services on the tax payer dime until we completely restructure our entire budget. We have no money to pay for more. The middle class can't be taxed more. The rich class will just leave if they are taxed too much more (as world history has proven, when taxes get too high the rich leave for cheaper countries). If you force businesses to pay for extended maternity leave, they will find ways to cut costs, either by taking their business offshore or (like with the ACA) making full-time employees part-time to avoid payment.

I don't know what the answer is, because eventually we run out of other people's money.

I agree 110% with what you said. Of course having a year off for maternity leave sounds great, especially if its paid! But we have to realize that for every person that gets something for free, someone else had to pay for it. Our country simply does not have the money for this kind of program right now. This might work in other countries that aren't trillions of dollars in debt right now, but for America this doesn't seem practical unless we see an updated budget that shows its possible while still declining the debt. They would never be able to pass this as a federal program in our country's current state, possibly in some states though.

 

[TTC First]

When you think about it, someone is paying either way.

If you go back to work I can only assume that your child would go to a paid caregiver. This pay is coming from you. You are going back to work so you can pay someone to take care of your child (and several others as the same time I would imagine). If you have two preschool children, you are paying for childcare twice. Sometimes, it defeats the purpose of working because your entire pay could go to childcare.

When you stay home for a year (and getting partial pay) the government is paying (rather than you) and your child is getting a great start being raised by a loving parent. If you have more than one child you are able to teach and raise both of them to give them a good start in life.

Either way, someone is paying. You can pay out of your pocket and work, or you can pay in your taxes and stay home. But when you are able to stay home for a year your children will receive better care.

 

[misspriss]

This sounds nice, but I need more information before I can sign off and say it's a great idea. Who is paying for this? Our government is already over budget on everything, so what budget restructuring is being done to cover this increased cost? Are taxes going to have to go up? Are they hiring temp employees to cover those on maternity leave or are they expecting other employees to cover the difference? Are the employees covering the difference being compensated for their additional work or are they being forced to work beyond what their job entails? Do they have the option of opting out of doing additional work for additional compensation?

I really do understand how nice it sounds to have a year off with pay to take care of your baby, but that seems completely ridiculous to me. Who pays for this? I would never expect someone to pay my expenses for an entire year, that's insane. Where does that money come from? I know some countries may be able to swing it, but we don't have more money to throw around

I don't know what the answer is. I'm lucky to be able to be a stay at home mom, but DH and I worked hard for this and saved every penny I made for years in preparation, and both of us grew up poor. It's best for the baby to have mom at home, that is without question. But where does the money come from if you don't pay yourself?

We are already bankrupt, extremely bankrupt. The government is always in overdraft. The post office (a federal employer) doesn't even have a balanced budget. We simply can't add more services on the tax payer dime until we completely restructure our entire budget. We have no money to pay for more. The middle class can't be taxed more. The rich class will just leave if they are taxed too much more (as world history has proven, when taxes get too high the rich leave for cheaper countries). If you force businesses to pay for extended maternity leave, they will find ways to cut costs, either by taking their business offshore or (like with the ACA) making full-time employees part-time to avoid payment.

I don't know what the answer is, because eventually we run out of other people's money.

When you think about it, someone is paying either way.

If you go back to work I can only assume that your child would go to a paid caregiver. This pay is coming from you. You are going back to work so you can pay someone to take care of your child (and several others as the same time I would imagine). If you have two preschool children, you are paying for childcare twice. Sometimes, it defeats the purpose of working because your entire pay could go to childcare.

When you stay home for a year (and getting partial pay) the government is paying (rather than you) and your child is getting a great start being raised by a loving parent. If you have more than one child you are able to teach and raise both of them to give them a good start in life.

Either way, someone is paying. You can pay out of your pocket and work, or you can pay in your taxes and stay home. But when you are able to stay home for a year your children will receive better care.

It is an investment in the health and happiness of parents and children now, and in the long term well-being of children, who are the future generation.

 

[beckysprayer]

Yes, we understand it is an investment and no one will argue that it is not best for the children to be home with their mother, but that doesn't change the fact that it costs money to keep moms at home. Money we as a country do not currently have. If you do not pay for your own family while at home, someone else is. Simple as that. And that is fine if the country has enough funding to cover it, but we currently do not. If we as a country decide it is important to financially support mothers to stay home with their children, then we FIRST need to adjust the budget. That needs to come FIRST, well before the laws change. If we don't fix the budget of this country soon, every government funded item will eventually disappear. We are trillions in debt. Trillions! We can't just add new programs and increase the yearly debt even more because we think it's a good idea. So what, we are going to get further in debt as an investment in health and our children at the price of our children raising their children in complete poverty and chaos because our government collapses under the financial pressure of supporting everyone? We get further in debt to stay home with our children, but make our children pay this debt off when they become adults themselves?

I think people like to live under a rock and pretend all is well and money can and does grow on trees. What happens when the holders of our debt demand immediate payment? What happens when the world switches away from the dollar standard and onto something more secure like gold? Right now we can keep printing new money "secretly" to artificially inflate the economy, but that will end as soon as the dollar standard collapses and if you read world news, other countries are discussing this as a genuine option as we speak. After that, the value of the dollar will immediately decrease and with that comes hyperinflation.

Think of it like your own home budget. If you decide a bigger home is a necessity for your family, you don't just go out and get the biggest and best you can find despite the cost. First, you look over your budget. Then, you calculate what you can currently afford. If the house you want isn't in your current budget, you adjust your expenses and, if necessary, wait a few years while saving and paying off debt before buying this bigger home. If you are already living paycheck to paycheck, you don't run out and buy an RV just because you feel like it. Our government should be the same way. We need to adjust our budget and fix the deficit before adding more tax payer funded programs. If you are in debt, you don't ignore it and add more debt.

Our taxes do not currently pay for everything, hence why we are in debt, so staying home on the government dime is not being paid for with taxes: it's being paid for with additional debt.

 

[misspriss]

Oh wow. I just got an email from the Department of Labor Public Affairs office asking if I'd be willing to speak on my experience with maternity leave and how paid leave would benefit mothers.

Apparently, I signed a petition a while back. They want permission to release my email and phone to the press in case they want an interview on the subject!

 

[babifever]

To say its not necessary or important to stay home a year is insane! The government spends money paying for daycare assistance for those who can't afford it have to go back to work. The ideal option would a be give a percentage of income monthly and give the mom a chance to return back to her job after a year if she chooses.

 

[GoHawks]

Agreed beckysprayer! Can I also add that taxes are already way too much, so making the tax payers pay even more for this is a terrible idea. It's simply not realistic for this to go into place currently. I know it would be great for our children to have this time with us and I would love the extra time to raise them!! I will however not do so knowing what the condition of our country is currently. If we continue at this rate, our children won't grow up in the same America we all grew up in. Simple as that.

 

[misspriss]

Agreed beckysprayer! Can I also add that taxes are already way too much, so making the tax payers pay even more for this is a terrible idea. It's simply not realistic for this to go into place currently. I know it would be great for our children to have this time with us and I would love the extra time to raise them!! I will however not do so knowing what the condition of our country is currently. If we continue at this rate, our children won't grow up in the same America we all grew up in. Simple as that.

Taxes are not really that high. Around half of Americans effectively do not pay any federal taxes (Ranging between 40-53%, depending on economic conditions).

 

[GoHawks]

Taxes are high.. And they are so to pay for all the stuff we already bought but can't afford. No one is disagreeing that it would be amazing to be able to have a full year home with our children after birth to raise them. Cause it would be the best. What we are explaining is that it's simply not pausible in the USA's current state. We do not live in a fantasy world where money grows on trees and we get everything for free just because we want it.

 

[MamaLoCo]

Wow, I still have a page worth off responses to read but I have to stop and address the question of, "Who is going to pay for this?"

Well, I come from a pretty low income area, on the border of Mexico. I can tell you who is paying for so many low income mothers to stay home and make more babies. Don't get me wrong, some people really need that help, but I've seen firsthand how easy it is for people to just NOT work, not even TRY to work, and just live off of the government. Sometimes the fathers worked, sometimes they didn't. Most of the time they got paid under the table and were therefore committing fraud.
A lot of people don't bother getting jobs because quite frankly, they just don't have to.
Not too long ago, there was a national news story, investigating people in my hometown area who had ridiculously high balances on their Lonestar (foodstamp) cards. I mean, like more than I even make in a month.
There is money out there...it's just not being monitored well enough to budget properly.

I don't want to be one of those people, but I know a lot of hardworking couples who will struggle to afford their babies more than they would if they just quit their jobs, lost their insurance, and got on welfare.
Maybe if we stopped paying so much into welfare programs and pushed people into the workforce, there would be money to pay for working moms to get a break they deserve.


As far as the "AFFORDABLE" Healthcare nonsense, my husband got on that for himself because the company he works for is small enough to get away with not offering insurance. It was NOT affordable, just for him, and that's BEFORE all the premiums went UP. My insurance through work is cheaper and I have both of us covered with medical, vision and dental. It's kind of ridiculous that we can get all that for cheaper than he could get simple medical coverage for just himself.

 

[MamaLoCo]

Also, my mom and her husband are both federal agents. Their departments (Department of Homeland Security) wind up with so much money at the end of the year, that they go on spending sprees to get rid of it, just so that they don't wind up with a lower budget next year. I mean they overschedule overtime hours, buy ridiculous amounts of new uniforms and gear that they don't even need - all to make it APPEAR that they need a higher budget...even though, in actuality, they could get by just fine on far less.

There is money.

 

[TTC First]

MamaLoCo - I agree that there should be more coverage for healthcare. I also don't think that our healthcare is working. We waste so much money when people go to the doctor for any small scratch and cough. Americans on the other hand should not need to result to self care when they have major illnesses, just because they can not afford to go to a doctor.

 

[Sass827]

If you think the countries with long maternity leave aren't in the same debt we are, you're wrong. This has been a world wide recession that hit many countries much harder than our own. And we're recovering better than and the dollar is currently outpacing most other currencies.
If you think that the U.S. is the best, you really have to ask yourself how all of these other countries have been doing this successfully for so long, and we can't even find a way to make half a year off doable.
No, there's not money in the budget for everything, but some things should be prioritized.

 

[Septie]

I am very appreciative of all the opportunities the US has to offer, and we have made a good life for ourselves. WE could easily afford the 12 weeks unpaid FMLA if we wanted to (and my employer even offers a "work reduction" instead of leave at full salary)...but the reality is that in this respect, the US is one of the world's very worst countries in the world (FMLA does NOT apply to all workers!). Google maternity leave country comparison and you will be shocked. Simply shocked at the company we are keeping. Quite frankly, it is an embarrassment.

 

[TTC First]

I am very appreciative of all the opportunities the US has to offer, and we have made a good life for ourselves. WE could easily afford the 12 weeks unpaid FMLA if we wanted to (and my employer even offers a "work reduction" instead of leave at full salary)...but the reality is that in this respect, the US is one of the world's very worst countries in the world (FMLA does NOT apply to all workers!). Google maternity leave country comparison and you will be shocked. Simply shocked at the company we are keeping. Quite frankly, it is an embarrassment.

I just checked it out. Anyone know how hard it is to move to Sweden? lol

 

[Sass827]

The U.S. is also one of the only countries where maternal death rates are on the rise:
CREDIT: SHUTTERSTOCK
Deaths related to pregnancy and childbearing have increased in the United States over the past decade, putting maternal mortality at nearly its highest rate in a quarter century, according to a new study published in the Lancet. The U.S. is one of just eight countries where maternal deaths increased between 2003 and 2013; the other nations in this dubious category include Afghanistan, El Salvador, Belize, and South Sudan.
According to the researchers, for every 100,000 births in the U.S. last year, about 18.5 women died. That doesn’t stack up very well with the mortality rates in other nations. A woman giving birth in America is more than twice as likely to die as a woman in Saudi Arabia or China, and three times as likely to die as a woman in the United Kingdom.
It’s also evidence that this issue is getting worse. Back in 1990, the United States’ maternal mortality rate was 12.4 women per 100,000 births. In 2003, it was 17.6.
The Lancet study is just the latest data point in a mounting pile of research about this country’s maternal mortality problem. Despite the fact that giving birth in the U.S. costs more than anywhere else in the world, that’s not guaranteeing a better quality of care for women in this country — particularly for women of color. African American mothers are more than three times as likely to die as a result of pregnancy and childbirth than their white counterparts.
Last year, the pharmaceutical company Merck brought its maternal health program, which was initially developed to help save women’s lives in impoverished nations, here to the United States. At the time, the company’s chief executive explained that Merck was turning its attention to the U.S. because this country’s rising maternal mortality rate is “appalling” and “something we ought to be ashamed of.”
It’s not entirely clear why the United States is lagging so far behind, but researchers agree it probably reflects a lack of access to health care and a high rate of unplanned pregnancies. Many women are dying from chronic health issues that are exacerbated by their pregnancies because they didn’t receive adequate care to manage their conditions beforehand. Other women lack the resources to prevent pregnancy if they’re not financially stable enough to have a child. And many expectant mothers struggle to get the prenatal care they need during their pregnancies.
This has an effect on children as well as mothers. The U.S. has the highest rate of first-day infant mortality of any country in the developed world. And the rate of death for children under the age of five is 7.1 per 1,000 live births — roughly on par with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Qatar, and Uruguay.
According to Save The Children, which releases rankings on the best countries for mothers every year, the United States continues to slip in this area. Although the U.S. used to be among the top 10 countries on the organization’s list, it slipped down to 31st place this year. “Evidence shows that the health of American mothers and children is falling behind. The United States is among the countries that has made the least progress since 2000 on maternal and child survival,” the report authors explain.

 

[TTC First]

wow, I am shocked Sass827. That's scary that such a modern country can struggle so much.

 

[Sbmack]

There's too much to respond to, but here are a few arguments I'd like to make:

There is always a way to fund new programs. How about cutting some ridiculous subsidies for oil companies or closing corporate tax loopholes.

We don't pay high taxes at all when compared to the rest of the Western World. I for one, wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if it ensured better medical coverage and maternity leave among other things. If you look at studies that rate the 'happiest people in the world' the top ranking countries are often Scandinavian countries with some of the highest tax rates in the world. I'm not saying the US should just model exactly what they are doing because that would never happen, but we could take steps towards that direction.

Someone mentioned it was silly that her DH's insurance was more than hers through work...well of course it would be. Your work pays for part of your insurance.