Reality Show for Stay-at-Home Moms

[DSTCHAOS]

I was talking about FMLA, in general, which is why I included the link to the FMLA.

Anyway, here is one condition in which paternity leave can depend for some companies:

http://hr.cch.com/hhrlib/issues-answ...ebruary-2-2004

[skylark]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I was talking about FMLA, in general, which is why I included the link to the FMLA.

And my point was that if you're only analyzing the issue of paternity leave under the FMLA, then you're wrong.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by skylark

And my point was that if you're only analyzing the issue of paternity leave under the FMLA, then you're wrong.

I don't know what you're talking about. I wasn't just talking about paternity leave.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I was talking about FMLA, in general, which is why I included the link to the FMLA.

Anyway, here is one condition in which paternity leave can depend for some companies:

http://hr.cch.com/hhrlib/issues-answ...ebruary-2-2004

When it comes to those kinds of uncited, legal answers on websites (including GC)... take them with a grain of salt. They are doing the best they can (as I try to do most of the time on GC) without making the answer undecipherable to a non-legal reader. That website is one answer to a very complicated question... the answer of which is not known because the issue hasn't been before SCOTUS. Different results for different circuits... there just isn't a good answer.

HOWEVER... if you are giving an employment benefit to one gender and not another you better have a really good explanation for it. And the medical problems that come with pregnancy is only an explanation for a short leave in most pregnancy situations. If you give a 6 month leave to women (ALL women, regardless of pregnancy complications) and nothing to men... you're going to have a hell of a time explaining it in court and I sure as hell wouldn't advise a client to have that sort of policy.

Honestly... I think I'm going to cry if this thread doesn't get back on track. I thought it was really worthwhile and I certainly didn't want to spend my lunch hour writing about crap I do during the rest of my workday.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by skylark

When it comes to those kinds of uncited, legal answers on websites (including GC)... take them with a grain of salt.

No. I provided it only as a visual. An HR illustration, regardless of where the illustration came from.

Look, you and I are basically saying the same thing as far as I'm concerned. So what's your point?

[skylark]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

So what's your point?

I was wondering what yours was...

This is what you said initially... which has nothing to do with being small or large:

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I have heard of paternity leave at socially progressive places of employment

It was only after I corrected you that being "progressive" has nothing to do with it... (it is about following the law) that you changed your story into one about small versus large employers. I'm sorry that when I corrected your perception that it was a matter of being progressive, I didn't mention the exceptions to the general rule. I didn't realize you were going to pretend that by "progressive" you meant "employers larger than 15 people."

Okay... to try to bring the thread back home:

I see working and having a productive career as being a necessary element of my future children's lives because it is really important for me that they see that women can have serious careers. I think too often girls hear that they can reach for the stars, but don't see concrete examples in their own lives.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by skylark

I was wondering what yours was...

My point is that not every employer has to comply with FMLA and that not every employer has to grant paternity leave. And that's true.