UO
Jan 29, 2015 13:03:55 GMT -5
Post by jodielyn10 on Jan 29, 2015 13:03:55 GMT -5
Wow, I missed a lot...
I think this has all already been said, but... I think it's insane to ask a company (regardless of size) to cover paid maternity leave because people have children. Your job and responsibilities don't go away. Someone has to do them, and whoever has to do them has to get paid, so they're paying someone to be at home, and someone to work.
I think it's awesome if some companies give a good maternity leave, but I don't think it's crazy to tell people they can have their PTO and that's it for money. I DO think parents should be allowed 3-6 months off without pay if that's what they choose, without risking losing their job.
In addition, it also doesn't matter to me who would be paying it.. the company, or the government, because in the long run, the government money is coming from taxes. And if I was someone who didn't want children, or couldn't have children, I would be pretty P.O.ed at the thought that my taxes are paying someone to stay home for a year (or however long)to be a parent.
In some states, it's covered by UI, which I also think is unfair, because those rates are reflected on an employer, when in reality they are meant to have control over their rates (to an extent), and can't if the state forces them to pay UI benefits to someone for having a child.
bliz1712, usually in the case of taking time off without pay, your company will continue to pay their portion of your health insurance, but normally your portion is deducted from your check, and if you aren't getting a check they end up paying your portion as well, so you end up paying that back to them. So if you usually pay $300 a check to health insurance, and they pay $300 a check, when you come back from taking 2 pay periods off without pay, you owe them $600 for your portion of the health insurance. Does that make sense?