I found this: http://www.thelocal.se/14022/20080829/

Which does explain that the state pays the parental benefits which are up to 480 days with a minimum of 60 for any one parent, but an expectation that the parents will split the time equally.

So the company has the money to hire someone because they're not covering that leave time, but I couldn't find an indication if hiring is common practice or required by law or neither.

Not only that but it seems it would be a lot easier to bring in a temp for a year than for 6-12 weeks. They could really get to know the job and function well in it. It could create jobs too! But, as I said, it's a redistribution of wealth that's not likely to fly here.

I had a friend who was in a foreign country while her husband was in school there and got a job covering someone's year-long maternity leave. It was perfect for her because they were only in the country for a short amount of time, but I don't know if there's a large pool of workers who would want to hang their shingles to be long-term temps. I also don't know if that's the usual practice or if that company was unique.

my friend had a temp cover her job. she trained the temp herself before going on leave. when she went back to work after a year off, the temp graciously left... and was rehired 2 weeks later in a permanent position. it was a win-win situation for everyone.

My company has a pretty good policy- we're under 50 so I guess the FMLA requirements aren't there, but they compensate for it. Our benefits provider pays something like 100% of the first month or two, then a percentage of the rest up to 3 months? So my company pays the difference to get to three fully compensated months. I like that they go above and beyond to compensate for the benefit provider's shortcomings- they don't have to, but they do. Is it still too short? Yes... but that's the way of the US.

Regarding SydneyK's comment, keeping people happy definitely matters. One cool bonus that my company does is give the new parents a month of meals through one of those delivery service places. Apparently the food is pretty good, and I know it is not cheap. The sentiment is great and I've heard that cooking is low on the priority list so it fills a major gap.

Of course, no women have actually been pregnant or had young children at my company- the industry we're in is not really conducive to it (stressful, intense, unpredictable, always moving from one thing to the next). So although the policies are pretty good, only the men have taken advantage of it. Thus other than the month of meals thing, it kind of doesn't matter.

I can tell you that if someone were to take a year leave at the clinic I work at it would cause a lot of stress on the other employees. Luckily most of the vets that have had children only have taken at the most 12 weeks off. They saved their vacation time otherwise it would have been unpaid leave.

My company offers the 12 week leave/FMLA. If I didn't use any vacation days or float time, that would come to 4 weeks paid time for me, with shrot term disability kicking in one week after I ran out of paid time.

Absolutely!


I don't have kids right now, so I'm speaking as someone "left behind". I'll be honest - if I was paid extra (temp. pay increease, bonus, etc.) for taking on additional work for an extended period of time as well as allowed some flexible work options, I think it would go over well with those left to pick up the slack.

Instead of paying a temp - put some of that money to the employees that are working extra. Also, if we've been putting in 10 hour days since Monday and its Thursday...let me take Friday off or at least half the day. Allow me to work from home once in a while. Be as creative as possible (depending upon your business of course). This way everyone wins - the new mommie can concentrate on bonding with her new baby/family while those still at work are compensated fairly for the additional hours.

Companies need to be creative and understand that its ok to step outside of the box while maintaining productivity as well as team morale. In order to acheive changes that we know our country needs (such as a longer, more reasonable maternity leave) we can't rely on the old way of thinking.

I think the fathers should be able to take 1-2 months off work, and new moms should get at least 6 months with pay. If they wish to take more, I think the option to do so without pay, but still keeping their benefits and their position at work should still remain intact.

My baby is 14 months old. My work told me I could only take off 6-8 weeks that would be covered under FMLA, depending on if it was a vaginal or c-section delivery (time was based on recovery time, not the fact that I had 12 weeks FMLA leave. Couldn've fough it, but needed to go back anyways). It was unpaid, but luckily, I had (and still do have) lots of vacation time. I took off about a week before due date, so about 9 total, and all of it was paid because I took vacation. It was still covered by FMLA, so they couldn't fire me or anything because of being out.

I would love to have paid time off and a minimum of 4 months of it, although 6-12 would be so much better. Heck, even if it was just 1/2 pay for 4 months, it would have been nice! Heck, I wouldn't even mind doing some work from home.

Babies need their moms (and dads too) and studies have shown that if moms (specifically) had more time off to spend with baby in that first year. there would be fewer infant deaths. I don't have time to search for those studies, but several have some out in recent years.

I think men can take FMLA time off as well for the birth of a child. I believe the wording says "for the birth of a child" and not "giving birth" so that they could take it off.

My husband's company filed for bankruptcy when I was 6 months preggo and his choice was to work or do daddy care when I had to go back. He chose the latter and it's been really great having him take care of our baby (although I'm super jealous). I would have been miserable without his help during my 8 weeks of leave.

The differences between the benefits packages of say, European countries (or even Australia) and the US are staggering. I was a Global Business Analyst for a dotcom company, and we had 14 international offices (Europe, PacRim, Canada). I often had to schedule calls for early morning or evening in order to accomodate the other person's business hours.

Not only did they average only 4-6 hours of work a day (plus long lunches), many only worked 4 days a week. They had 3-4 months of vacation, unlimited sick time, and maternity leave for a year (some had paternity leave as well). As an American-owned company, they sure knew to keep competitive overseas.

It was sometimes tough having to put in 14-hour days (some longer) so that we didn't inconvenience our international colleagues. Whenever they came to the US for meetings, they'd get stressed out at 9am or 4pm meetings. I remember during 9/11, we had people from several different offices stranded here, and not happy to work the entire week in "US hours". Several just dialed in from their hotel, so that they would actually only end up working the amount of time they wanted to work.

So I wonder what contingency plans they had for the months of regular time off. Maternity leave usually has a end-date (if all goes well), but what about the many vacations over the course of the year? They were allowed to take up to 3 or 4 weeks at a time. One thing I do remember is that on many projects, no one person was responsible for any one thing. So when the primary project leader was out, the other one could manage the progress.

Please do not quote my words in your venomous, racist post.

MODS - can something be done about this user's post??

A slight tangent, but what is the typical protocol for notifying one's employer about the intent to take maternity leave? I ask because a co-worker notified us the day before Thanksgiving that she would be taking maternity leave effective January 2nd, I believe (well, she just wouldn't be returning after the New Years break, so whatever date that was). None of us had any idea she was even pregnant but that's a different story. She had 3 1/2 months off, so giving people a 5-week heads up seems ridiculously inconsiderate and unprofessional to me. I am still bitter toward her because she put us all in a bad spot by not telling anyone until so late. Add in that it was the holidays when everyone is crazy busy, anyway, and well...it was a huge headache.

I don't know, that is a month's notice, which means she's 7.5-8 months pregnant.. and you didn't know?

I kind of feel like a month is pretty good notice, even if the holidays make things more difficult. And it's not like there's some obligation to announce pregnancy, it's just common socially. YMMV.

I believe the protocol is based on HR and the specific policies and procedures for the organization.

I know women who were hired and signed a highly paid contract without telling the company that they were pregnant (or told certain people without making a company-wide statement). They got hired and months after their start date, they contractually became eligible for maternity leave. They took the maternity leave which pissed some people off because they were "newbies" but they hadn't violated company policies or anything. Everything worked out because they were extremely productive and really carried their weight when their maternity leave ended.

I know it sounds completely ridiculous that we didn't know but that was the most shocked I've ever been in my life. She's a heavier woman to begin with and...yeah I still really don't know how it's possible we didn't figure it out. :o

You're right that she had no obligation to announce she was pregnant, and if a month is a pretty standard amount of heads-up, that's good to know. It was the first time I've worked with someone who took maternity leave and it seemed like short notice to me, but maybe that's the norm.

I think you might have hit the nail on the head with why I still feel like this hasn't been handled considerately. Since she's returned, she still takes off once or twice per week with very short notice (as in, a mass email like 5 minutes after she's supposed to be at work announcing she won't be in, or an email over the lunch hour saying she won't return for the afternoon) to take care of her newborn. I really want to be understanding about the fact that newborns are a ton of work and things can come up unexpectedly, but I just have a bad taste in my mouth about the way things have been handled.