Well back when I was a kidlet most of the people in my subdivision were part of the moved to another city type of situation and weren't living on the next farm over from aunts and uncles.

My Grandparents didn't have a lot of extended family seeing as they immigrated to Canada from Europe. Now I know some of my Grandfather's family were also in the area, but even a few miles away really limited babysitting visits back when you let the horse do the driving.

From the Bah Humbug Shop of Agman

I guess I'd feel a little more supportive of their claim that both parents "must" stay home to take care of the children if there were special needs or more than two babies. Twins just aren't that uncommon and while they do require more work than a single newborn I don't think it's enough to justify two full time caregivers.

I have to admit that I look at this a bit cynically from my United States perspective, since to me it looks like they're trying to take extra advantage of what is already a really good thing. 35 weeks of paid leave is incredible compared to the 12 weeks of unpaid leave that we get. I'm tempted to tell them to just suck it up.

Arkie Autumn Art!

LAST EDITED ON 12-02-08 AT 04:06 PM (EST)

Question... no pay at all for parental leave? Meaning if you're really tight on money, it means you literally would have to go back to work a mere week or two after giving birth?

Edited to add here: Pene was telling me about the few months she lived in Minnesota when her first child was born. Got zero, zip, nada help from the government while she was living in the U.S., then when she moved back to Canada after her then hubby was done with school, poof, government money was there. Now, back to the normal post...

Here, the 35 weeks off for parental leave (plus you could get an extra 15 weeks mat leave) is at normal EI rates, which is about 55 percent of your pay or up to $435 a week. So from the story, it sounds like they both potentially have high end jobs so I'd think they would lose a lot. They would have more money if one of them stayed home and the other went to work - I'd bet that hiring part time help to take care of the kids would still be cheaper than the total loss of income from both of them being on EI. So... I'm not sure why they both want to stay home and live off EI.

Honestly, I think it could depend on where you work.

When I was pregnant, I planned to take the standard six weeks off. However, I had short-term disability insurance through AFLAC. It covered me being out for six weeks - and being paid for it. Without that insurance, I would have been paid for any vacation and sick leave I had and then taken the rest off unpaid.

There is also the Family Medical Leave Act, which I'm certain guarantees that you cannot lose your job, but it does not provide that you are paid for being out.

I have a co-worker who apparently had maternity leave through her old health insurance policy, which paid for her to be out of work for six weeks post-delivery. She "assumed" that was included in our helath insurance plan here, and she declined the short-term disability. She ended up being out six weeks - all unpaid. Granted she didn't "have" to take six weeks.

Perhaps my opinion is because I'm not used to it. Or perhaps it's the "cold compassionless Republican" side of me talking. But I think 35 weeks of paid leave is somewhat excessive. I don't mean to sound like an aras about it, I just don't think I agree with it - especially at a cost to everyday taxpayers.

Tis the season.

Yeah I totally see your point and understand why you feel that way. You're not gonna like this next bit then ... rumour has it that there's the possibility of legislation to expand this 15 + 35 week plan to two years.

Under this plan, you could pop out 6 or 8 babies and be on mat leave virtually non-stop for the next decade and half! (Of course, I'm reminded that you would have to work for 600+ hours in between babies in order to qualify again for another two years of mat leave, as is the current system for qualifying for another 15 + 35 weeks). Shhh, don't let the Duggar family hear about this...

Two years! Wowza.

Tis the season.

No pay at all.

I am not an expert in FMLA, because it didn't apply to me. (My company has less than 50 employees and I'm considered a high-level, "key" employee so even if we had more than 50 employees I still wouldn't qualify.)

However, in general, you can take up to 12 weeks unpaid leave to care for a newborn. If you have to take time off before delivering said newborn (say, for pregnancy complications) that time counts against the 12 weeks. What FMLA guarantees is that your employer has to give you the time off (if you qualify) and that your employer has to take you back when the 12 weeks are up, with no cut in position or pay.

Boo is correct that it depends on where you work - maternity benefits are a negotiable benefit that your employer can offer you (or not.) You might get paid at a percentage of your salary for a period of time, or you might qualify for health insurance based benefit of short term disability or other source of income during the time off you take to have a child. AFLAC (supplemental insurance) does have a maternity benefit where you get some money from them for having a kid, but your employer needs to offer that to you as a benefit in the first place. Other ways that people bridge the gap is by putting savings away into flexible spending accounts through health insurance or bank accounts.

Basically, you need to know up front what you qualify for before deciding to take your 12 weeks (or 6 weeks, or whatever.) Then, you need to have a plan for what you're going to do for that time off without income. It's not easy, especially when the bills for whatever insurance didn't cover start rolling in.

I do not personally know any families whereupon the birth or adoption placement of a child, both parents took 12 weeks off. One parent might take the full allotment of government-protected time off (12 weeks) without pay while the other takes a week or two of paid vacation time and then goes back to work. I'm sure some people have done it, but I don't know anyone who can go three months without income.

Also, your employer can require that you use any accumulated paid time off (vacation, comp days, sick, etc) first. So you might come back after your leave and have nothing in the time-off bank for the rest of the year.

I was fortunate to have full paid leave, on the condition that I was available anytime for consultation, conference calls, small projects, etc. during my leave. My employer and coworkers were extremely considerate and only called me when it was absolutely necessary but they would have been able to do so at any time. It was fine with me and I was extremely happy with the arrangement. Mr. Fro took three weeks of his paid time off and then went back to work full time, and has barely taken a day off since.

Arkie Autumn Art!

available anytime for consultation, conference calls, small projects,

I am assuming there were a few hours in there that you were not taking calls

Nope. Any time they were working they were welcome to call. I couldn't always guarantee my geniality but I was available. .

They could have called at 2am. I was up anyway.

Arkie Autumn Art!

And during labour?