Maternity leave in America

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Let's try this again, as I feel it is an important matter to discuss.

America stands almost alone without legislation for paid maternity leave. American mothers, under the Family and Medical Leave Act are allowed only 12 weeks of unpaid leave before returning to work. To make it worse, those who work for companies with fewer than 50 employees or have worked less than 1,250 hours in the past year are not covered under the Act and are entitled to no time off. While some companies have provided their own paid maternity leave policies these jobs are scarce. A 2008 report found that only 16% of companies with more than 100 workers provide 100% paid maternity leave for the legislated period. Women can not rely on the goodwill of their employers, legislation is sorely needed to ensure the rights of working mothers.

Almost every other country in the world, including Afghanistan, Somalia, Cuba and Iraq have paid maternity leave legislation of some sort. Most nations have laws providing for time off ranging from 14 to 96 weeks in a mixture of paid and unpaid time and varying levels of pay. In the Czech Republic mothers can take up to 4 years off, paid for by the state. Sweden provides 16 months, with the cost shared between the government and the employer at 80% of the the mothers salary. The UK laws provide for 39 weeks paid, by the employer with an additional 13 weeks unpaid. Canada provides 52 weeks, paid for by the government at 55% of your salary with an additional 35 weeks of parental leave to be shared with your partner, covered under our Employment Insurance program.

The benefits of maternity leave are vast for both the mother and child. Mothers without maternity leave or shorter periods are, not surprisingly, more likely to become depressed. Returning to work after childbirth makes breastfeeding, with all it's health benefits, all but impossible. Studies have shown that fewer than 12 weeks maternity leave have behavioral effects on the child in the long term. They have lower cognitive test scores, reach milestones later and exhibit behavioral problems as they age. As they reach school age lower tests scores are noted. There are even results being shown in new studies in the field of epigenetics that may prove that early social interaction influences the marks that effect serotonin levels which may lead to adult depression. Longer maternity leaves have been shown to decrease early childhood mortality rates due to better monitoring of the child's health or accident prevention. These benefits clearly demonstrate the the short and long term beneficial effects of longer maternity leaves for the betterment of society.

Many of you probably believe the government should not be forced to pay maternity leave salaries. However if you look at the programs in place all around the world you can see that this is not mandatory. There are programs ranging from full state paid, payment divided between the state and the employer or full employer paid. Any of these are acceptable. What is not acceptable is to continue to force American mothers to choose between bonding with their child and making money to cover the needs of their families.

Comments

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

And yet the countries who have maternity leave laws don't seem to have this problem.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

don't you use those euro-socialistic facts on us!

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

I keep forgetting America is a special snowflake where things that work all over the world just can't work there.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

well because when America does something, we don't do it half=assed and namby-pamby like those limp-wristed Europeans. So you have to consider any suggestion in extremity. If the extreme version of the suggestion won't work, then we can't do it. Nuance isn't part of the American mindset yanno.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

I am so tired of extreme arguments. Cats and dogs living together, people marrying lamps, armed forces running the streets, collapse of the very fabric of society. I wish people would just argue the issue at hand.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Don't get mad just because I picked on America. It's not my fault I live in a country that cares for it's citizens.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Bullshit.

I mean you won`t find stats on how many people were not hired because of being a girl, or whatever other reason. Just as you won`t find stats on people who got away with commiting a crime. But the fact that some people do do get away with commiting crime is common sense. And it`s common sense that many of us won`t hire certain people.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Do you see a plethora of women unemployed in Canada? I mean, just for being women and therefore under the possibility of becoming pregnant. And if you're not hiring women just based on that I'm pretty sure you're breaking the law.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

US unemployment for men in 2009 was 10.3%. For women it was 8.1%

Canadian unemployment for men was 8.8%. For women it was 7.3%

Making the cumulative difference 1.5% for Canada and 2.3% for America in America's favor.

Women have an easier time than men finding work in America than women over men in Canada. Both have an edge over men, however women have a bigger edge here.

Looking further. Women in the prime family years of 15-24 have a 12.4% unemployment figure while it drops drastically to 6.8 from 25-44 and 5.6% at ages 45-64. Comparing to men at those same ages, you have 17%, 7.2%, and 7% respectively. Men have higher unemployment across the board but their unemployment is fairly consistent after they hit the mid 20s while women see their unemployment fall much slower till their past menopause.

Keeping in mind the greater unemployment by young people across the board is probably better explained by the "great recession" the world is currently in. Companies don't want to hire newer employees.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/labor20a-eng.htm
http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlftable2-2010.htm

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Here's the thing you haven't taken into consideration though. Maternity leave is run through the Employment Insurance program in Canada. So those 7.3% of women unemployed include women who are off on their year's maternity leave.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I don't see any inkling or reason why they would be considered unemployed as they're technically employed but on paid leave.

The stats don't say whether they're included or excluded but I don't see why they'd be included as unemployed. You got a link supporting your assertion?

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

For several decades Canada typically had reported its unemployment rate as somewhat higher than the US rate. For example, in June 2008 the reported unemployment in the US was 5.5 percent and 6.1% in Canada. However, a closer examination reveals that the two countries measure the unemployment rate differently. Craig Riddell, a University of British Columbia economist, found that a 0.9% difference was caused by the differing measurement systems.[20] Statistics Canada has also acknowledged this, and it now publishes a second unemployment rate using the same methodology as the Americans. Using the American methodology, the June 2008 Canadian unemployment rate was 5.3%, which was 0.2% lower than the American rate.[21]

Prior to the identification of the difference in methodologies, some politicians claimed that higher income taxes, restrictive labour laws, unions, universal healthcare, and greater unemployment benefits in Canada were causing a higher actual unemployment rate. However, when unemployment insurance and welfare were sharply cut in many parts of Canada during the 1990s there was little gain in employment relative to the Americans. Others attempted to explain the reported difference in terms of the large number of seasonal workers in trades such as fishing and logging who are unemployed for a portion of the year.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_economies)

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

They are paid from the Employment Insurance program so they are included in the stats, which are for all people drawing EI.

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/special.shtml

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I don't see anything there saying they're considered unemployed.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

The stats are based on who is collecting employment insurance. Women who are on maternity leave are collecting employment insurance as that is how our system is run, even though they have a legal right to return to their job when their maternity leave is finished. Clear enough?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I understand that's your argument. I'm askig you to cite me where it says that's how the stats are determined.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Um, because all umemployment stats are based off of the rolls of employment insurance. How else do you think they get the numbers, do they call every person and ask if they have a job?

Huh, it actually looks like they do something similar in the US. In Canada it's done from the Service Canada program, which draws from the ROEs issued to employees. Those on maternity leave still get ROEs (Record of Employment)

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I tried looking for details on how Canada calculates its unemployment rate. Closest I came to seeing anything mentioning maternity leave was this (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2011002/tables-tableaux/11452/tbl04-eng.htm). Which apparently counts it as absence and not as unemployment.

According to the LFS (Labor Force Survey) it seems that maternal leave is classified as an absence.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-543-g/2011001/parts-parties-eng.htm

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Furthermore it says-

Employed persons are those who, during the reference week:

b- had a job but were not at work due to factors such as own illness or disability, personal or family responsibilities, vacation, labour dispute or other reasons (excluding persons on layoff, between casual jobs, and those with a job to start at a future date).

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

I've always understood that American unemployment stats are kept artificially low by eliminating those unemployed for X amount of months, those on mat leave, those who became students, those of certain age (considered retired), etc. therefore no longer considered looking for work, and therefore not considered unemployed.

Canadian stats are inclusive of everyone not currently hired, thereby kept artificially high. So American and Canadian unemployment statistics are not fairly compairable.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I know, that's why I didn't do a comparison between them directly but used them as a comparison on themselves.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Oh no, it's the law! Oh please. Gimme a break.

When we have a pile of resumes on our desk, like every other employer, we go through and discard them for a variety of reasons. Sometimes I don't like their work experience. Sometimes I don't like the colour of ink they used (like who uses green ink for a resume?). If I see a girl, 25 years old, newly wed, and no kids (and they'll write this on resume) immediately it gets discarded into a blue bin. That's a red flag right there, for sure.