Going on maternity leave and then quitting

[rigs32]

Yes, I think it hurts women. When 1 of 11 people in my already understaffed group goes out on maternity leave, we all have a suddenly 10% higher workload. Actually, more than that, because the two bosses aren't taking any of those cases. I already work way too much. And as a public agency, there is no hiring someone temporarily. I don't think it's a coincidence that my group has 2 women and 9 men yet the office as a whole is almost 50/50 male to female. The females get slotted - by choice or supervisor decision - for the less critical groups. You can't leave to pick up a sick child when you're in the middle of a jury trial.

As for giving notice just as leave expires..... I really wish you could just tell your employer at the start of your leave if you know you're not coming back. Because the recruitment and hiring process can take MONTHS. So we are understaffed for the 4-6 months of your leave, then for another 2-6 months because we have to get approval from the county before we can even interview candidates, make an offer, they have to put in a 4 week notice at their current job, and suddenly its been a year that everyone else is shouldering the burden.

If the benefit is there, of course you can take it, but I do resent always having to shoulder the extra burden when I'm never going to be the one to get a break.

 

[NotUrsula]

I don't understand the notion presented here of punishing a woman for holding off and making a life-event decision after the birth of the child. Do we punish men for starting a job and after a year or so, he suddenly quits and leaves the company scrambling to find a replacement??

But in most of the cases that people have a problem with, she isn't announcing the decision after the birth of the child; she is announcing it 6-12 weeks later, coincidentally on the first day that she should have returned to work after a long leave. If she told her employer of her intentions when the child was born, then the employer would be able to use the leave period to conduct a search.

As to punishing men who suddenly quit; yes, that is done here as well. As I said before, in my field, 30 working days notice is expected; if you don't give that before leaving, then you don't get "separated in good standing" on your record closure, and yes, that can follow you in a negative way. There are also certain other costs as well; though some of them are more tangible than others.

IMO, keeping an intended resignation a secret when you won't lose anything tangible by giving proper notice isn't professional behavior. It isn't so much that it is hard on your employer as it is that it is hard on your co-workers -- and if you live in a small world, professionally speaking, those co-workers will remember that you did it. When you apply at the same company that they are working for 10 years later, the recollection probably won't be favorable.

Oh, and BTW, I agree that if you take a job, you should not set odd conditions about your schedule that make you an exception on your team (except on a temporary basis due to circumstances beyond your control, such as a school snow day or such.) As a PP pointed out, if you are a team player, you do the work after hours if necessary when situations like that arise.

My current employer offers mandatory 6 week paid mat leave as short-term disability, and they do not allow FMLA to be used to extend it except in exceptional medical circumstances. If you and the child are healthy, then you come back at 6 weeks or you lose your health insurance coverage. It's a bit draconian, but it is legal and it is never a surprise to anyone, as it is on the list of policies that you sign as part of the job acceptance.

I'm a department of one. As there was no one else available at the company who was qualified to handle the core responsibilities of my job, and my child's birth fell shortly before annual contract renewals that I am responsible for, I *did* work remotely after the second week of my leave for as many hours as it took to take care of time-sensitive issues that could not wait another month. It wasn't exactly great fun, but failure to handle those contracts would have crippled the place for quite some time. They pay me to prevent situations like that, so I stepped up to the plate and did it.

My name would not have been worth mud in the industry had I been able to do it and chosen not to. While it would be true to say that if I had died they would have had to find some way to handle it, in that case I wouldn't ever have been in the position of looking for another job. As that wasn't the case, it wasn't a bridge that I felt it was wise to burn.

 

[Carina]

So your employer pays you during Mat leave in the US and you only get a short time? That sounds lousy

Here in Canada, as long as we have worked long enough hours in the last 12 months, we get a year of paid leave at 55% of our gross income

This parental leave can be split between the 2 parents, and adoptive parents get the same option.

It is paid by the Government

Of course we also don't pay for pre-natal care or to give birth with our Universal Health Care no matter how simple or complicated the birth. My Province even pays for a Midwife if you'ld rather.

Of course all doctors appointments and hospital visits are covered here for just the basic Medical Premium which ranges from about $0 for low income to $66.50 for one person, $120.50 for a family of two and $133.00 for a family of three or more, for anyone that isn't low income.

I <3 Canada

Don't know how anyone in the US can afford to have kids

 

[crashbb]

So your employer pays you during Mat leave in the US and you only get a short time? That sounds lousy

Here in Canada, as long as we have worked long enough hours in the last 12 months, we get a year of paid leave at 55% of our gross income

This parental leave can be split between the 2 parents, and adoptive parents get the same option.

It is paid by the Government

Of course we also don't pay for pre-natal care or to give birth with our Universal Health Care no matter how simple or complicated the birth. My Province even pays for a Midwife if you'ld rather.

Of course all doctors appointments and hospital visits are covered here for just the basic Medical Premium which ranges from about $0 for low income to $66.50 for one person, $120.50 for a family of two and $133.00 for a family of three or more, for anyone that isn't low income.

I <3 Canada

Don't know how anyone in the US can afford to have kids

First, this isn't really true for many of us since there is a cap ($47,600 this year). So, if you make more than the cap, you are getting less (sometimes far less) than 55% of your salary. Just be clear to everyone else - this is paid through Employment Insurance (as it would be if you were laid off, for example, so it is based on money that you've paid into the system). Not everyone can afford that for a full year (of course, some jobs, like mine, do top up - but not all do). Further, for some women, though they are guaranteed a job upon return (note, that they are not guaranteed the specific job that they left), taking a year off can really damage their career.

Also, you speak as if health care is the same across Canada, when it very much is not. Health care is a provincial concern. Here (Ontario), we don't have a "Medical Premium", for example. Nor is all of pre-natal care always covered - all the "main" visits and procedures are covered, but, for example, a woman may want specific pre-natal vitamins/supplements that are not covered.

I like our health care system, but sticking to facts is helpful. Our system is not some Utopia.

I am, however, in the middle of some work with the OECD about health care and, in reading some of their other reports, I find it shocking how expensive birth is in the US. Ignoring who actually pays, a "normal" newborn delivery is massively more expensive in the US than in any other OECD country, according to their reports.

 

[Christine]

Don't know how anyone in the US can afford to have kids

Well, if what I'm told is correct, the government in the U.S. takes out much less payroll taxes so our take home income is higher than in countries where the government pays for all of this stuff. In theory, we can put aside that money for these types of absences because we aren't paying it in taxes. Do people do that? Most of them, NO.

Also, a good majority of companies do offer the short term disability plan which does at least pay 60% of your income (to a cap level) with the 6 weeks off. Not all companies do. Heck, I work for the federal government and we do not have the ability to purchase into a company short term disability plan. It's archaic. The federal government is fairly generous with leave, though, and I think that they figure you can save up enough leave to take off. That's definitely true for employees that have worked their awhile. But let's face it, most women of childbearing age are in their 20s and 30s and often don't have the time in to be earning leave at the higher rates. Couple that with having more than one child and you've probably used all your leave on baby #1!

 

[ronandannette]

Well, if what I'm told is correct, the government in the U.S. takes out much less payroll taxes so our take home income is higher than in countries where the government pays for all of this stuff. In theory, we can put aside that money for these types of absences because we aren't paying it in taxes. Do people do that? Most of them, NO.

Also, a good majority of companies do offer the short term disability plan which does at least pay 60% of your income (to a cap level) with the 6 weeks off. Not all companies do. Heck, I work for the federal government and we do not have the ability to purchase into a company short term disability plan. It's archaic. The federal government is fairly generous with leave, though, and I think that they figure you can save up enough leave to take off. That's definitely true for employees that have worked their awhile. But let's face it, most women of childbearing age are in their 20s and 30s and often don't have the time in to be earning leave at the higher rates. Couple that with having more than one child and you've probably used all your leave on baby #1!

I am solidly middle-income (let's say very high 5 figures) and I pay about a third of my income annually to taxes before deductions, not including other various payroll deductions. I don't know what you pay but I'm not sure the savings would be enough to cover the hundreds and hundreds of dollars a month it would cost to privately insure my family to the level of coverage our provincial plan provides.

Our parental leave is funded through federal Employment Insurance (mandatory premiums paid through payroll deductions) and the time required to qualify is quite low; about six to eight months of full time work depending on the region. It is extremely common for parents to plan additions to their families around having enough time banked to qualify for another 50 weeks off. There is also no limit to the number of times you can do this.

Back to the original topic of whether or not this hurts women, I can frankly say that as a hiring manager I would think long and hard before hiring a woman in her prime family-building years. Continuity is extremely important in my department and the training period is long. A temporary maternity leave replacement would be very disruptive (although as I have said in a pp few mothers return to work when they are scheduled to and most of the temps become permanent).

Is this a discriminatory hiring practise? Not overtly, and what may hurt one woman helps another as it means that older, more mature candidates are given preference which is not always the norm in all roles. As it so happens these particular jobs call for a great depth of experience anyway so it would be uncommon for a younger person to be truly better qualified than an older one; that definitely makes the hiring decisions easier. I'm truly glad I'm not responsible for a department with lots of entry-level staff where this is a much bigger issue.

 

[Tink415]

Does this hurt future moms/current moms in the workplace as an abuse or do companies expect these things to happen and just deal with it by law?

Individual moms have to do what's best for themselves and their child, whatever that might be, exactly the same as business and governments do. Does that hurt future & current moms, well yes it can, same as business and government policies can hurt future & current moms. There isn't a perfect solution that fits all needs. If anybody finds one let us know!

 

[castleview]

I actually got my first job that way. Came into temp a few weeks before she went on maternity leave so she could show me everything, she left and didn't come back. Funny thing was even though she said she was coming back, everyone who worked in our department KNEW she wouldn't come back.

Year later (different job), I just couldn't bring myself to lead the boss on that I was coming back when I knew I wasn't.

I think where it hurt women in my case, was that the bosses would use it as an excuse to perpetuate discrimination against women. This was the mid-late 90s when we still had male bosses stuck in a different era and a lot of female bosses who thought the way to lead was to act like men rather than themselves.

 

[NotUrsula]

So your employer pays you during Mat leave in the US and you only get a short time? That sounds lousy

You misunderstood; those of us whose employers offer paid maternity leave (via employer-paid short term disability insurance policies) are a very fortunate minority.

Most Americans are not paid at all when we take maternity leave ((although in most cases if the employer normally pays all or part of the employee's health insurance premium, they will continue to do so while the employee is out on maternity leave. (At my job, that amounts to about $2000 for 2 months' coverage.))

Paid maternity leave is strictly voluntary in the US, and most employers feel that they cannot afford to offer that benefit. Actually, if they are too small to be covered by the FMLA unpaid leave law, they don't have to let you have any kind of maternity leave at all, and many do not. For folks who work for them, if you don't come back as soon as you get out of the hospital, then you may be out of a job. I know quite a lot of people who had to be back at work a week after delivering.

 

[ronandannette]

You misunderstood; those of us whose employers offer paid maternity leave (via employer-paid short term disability insurance policies) are a very fortunate minority.

Most Americans are not paid at all when we take maternity leave ((although in most cases if the employer normally pays all or part of the employee's health insurance premium, they will continue to do so while the employee is out on maternity leave. (At my job, that amounts to about $2000 for 2 months' coverage.))

Paid maternity leave is strictly voluntary in the US, and most employers feel that they cannot afford to offer that benefit. Actually, if they are too small to be covered by the FMLA unpaid leave law, they don't have to let you have any kind of maternity leave at all, and many do not. For folks who work for them, if you don't come back as soon as you get out of the hospital, then you may be out of a job. I know quite a lot of people who had to be back at work a week after delivering.

Wow, just wow. That would be unfathomably difficult both mentally and physically. I went back myself 4 weeks post-partum (for reasons NOT related to the ample parental leave I would have been entitled to). Even with DH at home I barely survived it and FWIW, I couldn't have possibly been at my peak productivity work-wise.

 

[Carina]

First, this isn't really true for many of us since there is a cap ($47,600 this year). So, if you make more than the cap, you are getting less (sometimes far less) than 55% of your salary. Just be clear to everyone else - this is paid through Employment Insurance (as it would be if you were laid off, for example, so it is based on money that you've paid into the system). Not everyone can afford that for a full year (of course, some jobs, like mine, do top up - but not all do). Further, for some women, though they are guaranteed a job upon return (note, that they are not guaranteed the specific job that they left), taking a year off can really damage their career.

Also, you speak as if health care is the same across Canada, when it very much is not. Health care is a provincial concern. Here (Ontario), we don't have a "Medical Premium", for example. Nor is all of pre-natal care always covered - all the "main" visits and procedures are covered, but, for example, a woman may want specific pre-natal vitamins/supplements that are not covered.

I like our health care system, but sticking to facts is helpful. Our system is not some Utopia.

I am, however, in the middle of some work with the OECD about health care and, in reading some of their other reports, I find it shocking how expensive birth is in the US. Ignoring who actually pays, a "normal" newborn delivery is massively more expensive in the US than in any other OECD country, according to their reports.

I don't think needing to pay for optional vitamins makes it less of a utopia, and from what I have read here I think we are pretty damn lucky.... NO country has a perfect system, but I'll take ours any day of the week!

 

[jodifla]

Generally speaking, I'm about as far from a crazy socialist as one can get. But, I agree with you. Some woman works there 10 years and quits after leave. Another works there a year, takes leave, comes back for the leave amount of time, then quits. Why should woman #1 be penalized harder than woman #2?

Because the benefits were built around the sick leave benefits. There's no maternity leave, only short term disability. After x amount of years, we get a certain amount of weeks fully paid. But built in to that policy was that when the doctor cleared you, you had to return to work and work for at least amount of the time you had been gone. And if you didn't you had to return your sick pay and pay all the benefits the company had paid while you were gone.

 

[ronandannette]

Because the benefits were built around the sick leave benefits. There's no maternity leave, only short term disability. After x amount of years, we get a certain amount of weeks fully paid. But built in to that policy was that when the doctor cleared you, you had to return to work and work for at least amount of the time you had been gone. And if you didn't you had to return your sick pay and pay all the benefits the company had paid while you were gone.

How would they make you do this? Sue you? What if you didn't have the money (and I imagine many people wouldn't)? Is this a legally-binding contract of some kind or just company policies?

 

[frndshpcptn]

This is how a good friend of mine got her job. She temped for someone on maternity leave and when that person never came back, she was hired full time.

 

[Mommy Of 3]

from what i understand, legally childbirth has to be treated the same way as any other illness when it comes to sick leave or disability. So if your company allows 6 weeks paid time off for a surgery, they have to allow the time for childbirth, with medical documentation. If you come back and quit a week later for either reason, i don't see how they could take the money back, as long as you have medical documentation.

exactly!