offered.

I agree w/ Wheelan's premise #4 - but it doesn't worry me.  As you said, the cost of replacing a good employee is high.  Before these companies' leave policies were put in place, some HR person did the math and figured out how many employees would actually have to return to work in order to make the policy cost-effective (including figuring in the benefit of attracting high-caliber women employees  by having such a benefit in the first place).

But I have to disagree w/ his premise #3 - the use of the word "hurts" implies that the company has personal feelings - it's simply how business works.  Now if he's personally feeling slighted because he can't take advantage of his company's maternity leave policy himself, well, grow the hell up, dude.

We're not indentured servants.  Making one work longer to "pay back" already agreed upon benefits is just that.  

I am a medically disabled person.  Unfortunately, I don't get any disability benefits through social security because I have been out of the paid work force too long raising children.  However, I can't tell you how many people I hear say things like "so-and-so who's now disabled and receiving benefits is really lucky not to have to work any longer"....this fellow and his wife sound a lot like these people.  They begrudge anyone else collecting anything.  You can bet, however, that they would be first in line to get their fair share if something should happen to them.

And yes...ofcourse, we need subsidized benefits for new mothers.  It just makes so much sense.  We always talk about how this would benefit the workplace or the individual family, but think of the impact on the greater economy...you gotta wonder how many people really spiral down into debt in that first year following the birth of a child.  Think about what it would mean to the economy if we could limit this?

I pay into my plan, just like every other employee. We get 6wks pay from their diasbility insurance, the % varies between 60% and 100% based on length of service,so the company isn't paying me directly. In essence, I'm paying myself back for what I had to contribute. And where I am, I have to pay for my elective life insurance and other contributions while I'm out if I wish to keep them. I take my DH's medical, but I believe you have to contribute to them post 6mon leave or you are billed for (the companies contributions).

Seems fair to me-it's my choice to stay out, and I'm not abusing the system my paying a hundred dollars over 6 months for insurance, etc to continue my benefits, and I think it's w/n the companies rights to ask me to continue my own additional elective benefits they provide. It's also my choice to pay in or not-so I'm betting on my "choice" to return to work. Maybe give women who were previously employeed for say X years the ability to collect unemployment wages for X months instead-work for 5 years, 5 months. 10 years, 10months, etc. Imagine the improvements in breastfeeding since many women stop because jobs don't support it. And, not just women-men should be eligable as well although my guess is very few would take it.

I also think many people think maternity leave/stay-at-home mom-ism is easy-so that goes to show you how ignorant a lot of people are.

these type of articles piss me off to no end because they're so elitist.  This type of discussion basically ignores the experiences of the MAJORITY of working women in the US who have NO coverage or job protection beyond the FMLA, and/or the 40% who aren't even covered by the FMLA.

Second of all, this is the same old crap we hear about every type of 'benefit' policy, whether its offered by corpora tions of the government.  It's the 'freeloader' argument.  Well, I'm not going to get into the motivations behind this argument here per se, I am going to point out that when you look at maternity policies in the aggregate, women who receive maternity leave and job protection are substantially more likely to remain employed with their employer than women who receive none.  Period.  So point out every individual case you want, and get all angry about that one employee, but don't give it more weight than its worth because it 'ticks you off'.

On a similar note, I think it's interesting that he uses 'his wife' as a mouthpiece, does anyone think this would come across differently if it was from him?  Isn't it just a little bit convenient this came from his wife?

Finally, the story about Bob might actually approach something like an analogy if, for instance, Bob's short term disability became a long term disability.  Why doesn't he consider the scenario that Bob's injury never fully completely heals, and he is unable to work?  Should we offer one set of benefits to people who get injured when they plan on returning and another set of benefits to people who get injured and never return?  Sounds pretty silly doesn't it?  WHY?  Because, as the author points out, most don't know if they will return or not when the injury/birth occurs.  

Anyway, give women the benefit of the doubt, this sort of concern trolling, especially when it is projected through his wife, is just plain disingenuous.

a lot of women don't know they're not coming back to work. Things happen. Being a mom is tougher than advertised. A premature baby can't go into day care as planned.

This is probably true for a lot of people who take disability leaves. They plan to come back. But Loki loves to fool with plans, and unfortunately there are quite a few people who are sick or injured and cannot return to work in 6 weeks or whatever threshhold applies.

I'm sure that working moms who do come back to work after a pregnancy are especially valued because of those who do not.

And finally, as to "accepting benefits" - well, what choice do they have? How exactly would it be in the interest of society for pregnant women to drop their health coverage a few weeks before the baby is born? It's not like you can buy it on the open market at that time.

One of the reasons I didn't take a different job I had interviewed for was because I didn't want to be one of "those women" meaning, quite frankly, the one who didn't come back.

BUT... but. I do not think taking the 6 week disability leave policy and not coming back hurts the "image" of working moms. I do think there should be an "opt out" policy, where, if you know that you're not coming back earlier, or if you decide midstream that you're not returning, there can be some sort of notification to the company that allows you to collect the benefits and then bow out.

I think the main reason people complain about women who don't return to work is because, for three months (with the no-pay FMLA) the job is open, temps or other office workers are "covering" (often taking on additional responsibilities  so they are staying late) and the position can't be filled in a timely manner. So after three months of operating without an essential team member, maybe taking on longer hours and the like, it DOES feel personal if that person doesn't come back. I've always thought there should be a better solution to that whole thing.

The 60% the BENEFITS COMPANY paid me for the 8 weeks and the nothing the company paid me for the 12 weeks total certainly doesn't make me indentured to them- it's what I pay my insurance FOR. It also doesn't effect the COMPANY, since it is an insurance benefit.

So long story short, this guys "wife" can suck it with her complaints. But if there was a better way to affect maternity leave (um, by making it tailored to MATERNITY and not any disability) then I'd be all for it.

have a national, subsidized maternity leave policy paid for by the government. Totally shifts the debate such that now it isn't mothers "taking advantage" of their poor, feelingful companies (BS! BS! BS!). Better for mothers, better for children, better for families. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand!?

Incidentally, in countries where there is good, government-subsidized maternity and paternity leave, you get very interesting outcomes in terms of gender balance in the upper eschelons of business management/leadership. And in elected office. Gee, I wonder why...

must work at one of those companies that don't hand out the crystal balls when women leave to have babies.  It's no wonder she is so frustrated (about something that doesn't actually affect her) when women who are thrust into completely new and unknowable circumstances can't decide in advance how they will respond.

/snark

but then I realized whatever you receive as "maternity leave" is not a "loan" the company is giving you for FUTURE service, it's a priviledge you're earned from the time you have ALREADY spent working there.  You didn't "take" anything from the company, you simply collected what was already due to you.  That's why you get paid for vacation days not taken when you leave a company; the company cashes out the vacation you have already EARNED because it's yours already.

I admit I am sorely ignorant on this topic, but how can a woman quit her job before giving birth/going on leave, if her insurance is tied to her work?  How are her hospital bills going to be covered?  Doesn't our sucky insurance system force women to "decieve" their employers in this way?  Even if a woman knew she wanted to stay home with her child after the birth, how can tell her employer she's not coming back, without losing her insurance?

(PS - did "his wife" bother to explain to this dude that no benefits are "required by law" in the US regarding maternity leave?)

In my industry, a strong maternity leave policy is one of the ways that we attract talented women who might otherwise choose other employers, or other fields.  

And our very liberal (by US standards!) maternity leave policy was the reason I went back to work at all.  My employer offers 14 weeks fully paid leave (2 weeks before your due date, 12 weeks after).  We get a month of vacation a year so you can usually swing another 6 weeks vacation time, and then up to a year unpaid leave.  Most women take about 6 months total -- that's almost expected.  

When DD was 2 weeks old, I had a hard time leaving her with my mother for 30 minutes to go for a short walk.  I would have quit any job rather than leave her at that point.  At 6 weeks, I could imagine a scenario where I'd be ready to go back to work, but I wasn't at all ready yet.  By 4 months she was comfortable with daycare, and I was enjoying my "vacation" -- at that point, it was starting to feel like a restful sabbatical.  When I returned to work after 7 months leave, I dropped her off and ran into the office, and was really, really happy to be back at work.  

Yes, some people quit after maternity leave.  But the fact that they took advantage of the program was one of the reasons that they took a position with us in the first place and that, IMHO, is worth it.  

--R