A new policy was sent to all employees of the corporation for which I work and it spelled out the new Family Medical Leave policy. It used to be that an employee could have up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year without losing one's position & seniority in the company. Now apparently the leave is with pay. Is that really fair to a corporation? Why are they financially responsible for their employees while said employees aren't contributing to the corporation's bottom line?
Generally speaking, isn't becoming pregnant a choice? So if a woman chooses to get pregnant and have a child, why does a company have to pay her to be out of work? I understand if an employee or immediate family member of employee is ill and requires assistance. I still don't think the corporation is financially responsible but I think it's generous that they hold the employee's position for them. But starting a family? That's a personal choice foisted upon Corporate America and I really don't think that's fair.
I've outfitted myself with armor so when I ask what you all think about the above, I will be unharmed by the barrage of detractors.
Taryn
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Taryn,
ReplyDeleteI do understand your point. Yes, there's is a BUT. I know that you are probably not in a situation to become a parent. But believe it or not, people are putting off having babies especially these days, because they can't afford even though they want a child (and with some people "time" is an issues). My daughter had a baby last year; and it was difficult for her to put her baby into child care at six weeks because she could not afford to be with her child any longer because she would not be compensated and had to return to work. I had to leave my son in a child care center at 18 months and it was difficult. Just to let you know that I was teaching at that same center in another room (the only way, I could work and have child care - my son went tuition free) and it was still hard. I feel that it's a good thing that mothers and fathers get 12 weeks paid maternity/paternity leave. Do you realize that means leaving your child when he/she is just 3 months' old? I would see 3 month olds at the center and think, how can these parents leave their children at such a young age? So, Taryn -- sorry I don't agree with you. By the way, this is something that the State of NJ has promoted - not just your corporation.
Robin
Taryn
ReplyDeleteI actually agree with a lot of your logic in this situation. However for mankind to continue on people must procreate. It is a way a life no one will ever be able to get away from. In most cases it is a choice. Yet it is a choice that most people tend to want to make, men and women. When a man decides to make a family there is no repercussions for him. However he is also making the decision to have a child as well. Why should the women have to suffer for making the same decision as a man? She has to carry the baby and have the baby. I am sure that many of the men that are running corporate America have children and families, and yet they were not in jeopardy at anytime from losing a job because of their decisions to have a baby. Those laws are put in place to give women the same opportunity as men who are able to have both the job and the family.
You have to look at the big picture as well. Not all families are planned. You also have a rise in young, single mothers who only have one income…who survive on one income. If they have a child and aren’t able to get paid for three months who knows what will happen to them. We as a society will end up with a lot more problems, like more kids in foster care or people living on the streets because they can’t support their families. I know from experience that it is very unwise to have a child if you are not in a good financial situation but no one is perfect and you have to be realistic.
You said that you felt that it was “a personal choice foisted upon Corporate America and I really don't think that's fair.” I think a lot of things aren’t fair. We pay taxes on a lot of things that don’t directly affect us, but we pay them anyway because it is good for the economy. Believe it or not a good economy is the best thing for Corporate America, so making sure mom’s are able to work and keep their jobs is also good for the economy which in turn is good for corporate America.
Actually the state passed a bill requiring paid FMLA starting in July for all companies with 50 employees or more. The paid benefit is up to 2/3 your pay for 6 weeks and the cost is partially covered by payroll deductions and the company does not have to contribute to the cost. It uses existing temporary disabilty benefits, but this bill now passes those benefits onto caring for ill family members or bonding with newborns or adopted children where previously it only covered the employees illnesses or prenatal care and delivery. In addition companies with less then 50 employees do not have to hold a position for someone who is out on FMLA.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I am happy this bill has been passed. I often have to take my own sick days to take my ailing grandparents to doctors appointments. This ruling will allow me to use my sick days for when I am really sick, and permit me partially paid days to use for my grandparents doctors visits.
You specifically asked about using the benefits to start a family and I think that it's a good thing. My company has a generous program in place already, which gives 3 months paid time off for either parent after a birth. They also give two weeks paid vacation for marriages or recognized commitment ceremonies. I think a company who balances work-life issues has happier employees, who work harder then employees who don't feel appreciated as a human being outside of work.