[HappyMomAnna]

I have to chime in again as an Insurance Agent--I have had a great deal of expereince in working with companies of all sizes to put together a benefit pachage for employees.... The companies ALL make their own chioices as to which portions of the package they would like to offer and how much they are willing to contribute to the empolyees package....

For example in my husbands company there are NO Maternity beneifts because their are about 10 females in the company and most of them are over 45.... When my husband became eleigible for insurance he was MADE AWARE of the fact that should his wife give birth it would be on his dime....

That huge envelope you get when you recieve beneifits--or when your comp[any changes carriers is filled with small print and Conditions and Exclusions... Reading that package usually clears up any issues you might have--reading it is the insureds responisiblity....

The Federal Government has ZERO to do with which Benies a company offers their employees--in fact other then Work Comp most emplyers don't have to offer you anything.... People who are a part of a UNION can work with the UNION leaders and negotiate for better benefits.... YOUR UNION is responsible for their collective barganing and if they didn't fight to get the sick leave usable for adopted children then the UNION is where people need to make their complaints...

If you do not like the package of bennies offered to you by the employer then the place to fight for a change is with your employer.... Insurance companies OFFER everything that you might want to include in your package--it is the Human Relations office which decides which things and parts of coverage they will give to you....

Many companies do NOT offer sick days.... Some companies require those sick days to be used before the end of the year....

If we continue to demand that employers offer every little thing under the sun then we are going to really face a crisis in this country.... Federally mandating these kinds of issues makes government BIGGER and costs us more in Taxes....

Someone said Canada was sounding great--Well, by all means lets all go pay 45% in our Taxes and wait in long lines for health care---Austria is great too but the taxes there are nearly 50% Personally I would rather have my pay check then pay for everyone elses maternity leave.....

When YOU take a job and get your benie package you have decided to accept the terms the company offers.... If you don't like these terms maybe it is a better idea to look for a different job--or purchase supplemintal insurance or have a savings account then to demand yet another entitlement from Uncle Sam....

[Mommy2amiracle]

Congratulations on your pregnancy, Spitzlvr!

Hopefully, this one will go more smoothly for you!! No need to apologize, I just wanted you to know that we were painting all bio births with a broad brush, just the one's that we know personally!!

[Mommy2amiracle]

Anna:

I agree about this not being a federal issue, but rather a company level issue. That being said, no company would give any benefits unless mandated by the state which is what I believe the short term disability is mandated by?!?! Also, when I took this job, I didn't know what the road was going to be to building a family and didn't look into any alternative benefits.

[HappyMomAnna]

Not every employer has to offer short term disability except for situations of work related injury.... The waitress down the street does not get this with her employer she may ask for disability throu SS but in most cases pregnancy is not going to be covered by disability under the state or federal programs.... I did actually attempt to get these benies when I had my kids some 20 years ago.... I had a FULL time job and there were no benies--If I didn't show up to work I didn't get paid....

I can buy an insurance policy on my house and be offered the chance to insure for Earth Quake--and not take it....and then suffer the loss and not be covered.... It happens and it is NOT the insurance compaines fault that I didn't decide this RISK was one I wanted to insure for....

It really is not your companies job to antisiapte a change in your own personal needs. Just because I didn't know something MIGHT happen later is not anyone elses obligation to warn me of or chage to meet my needs.... There are many well paying Full time jobs which offer NO benifits to the employee.... That is why insurance for your own personal risks are offered by several companies in every state. If you rent your house and do not choose to purcahse a renters policy and the house burns down the Landlord does not have to replace the contents of your home.... Unless he was negligent. If you have car insurance and select to not cover Collision or Comprehinsive and have an at fult accident or hit a deer you get to fix your own car.... You picked this coverage...You decided what RISKS you would assume on your own.... If your circumstances change this is the RISK you choose it is not anyone elses job to consider your Risk and cover it... Decideing to take a job that does nt offer you the kind of coverage you want is not the employers responsibility...or governments....

EVEN the Family Leave Act does not apply for companies with fewer then 50 employees.... If a person likes the luxury of a personal business the LAW will not demand that person has disablity benies.... If you are self emplyed you decide if you want to seek out an insurance plan that will cover you---The government does not require you to provide these things.... If you hire a nanny for your children are you going to be sure she has diability and sick days paid? It would be the nannies responsibility to ASK for these things in advance or find the coverage to meet her own needs.... I am not sure where the IDEA that employers MUST provide anything short of Workers Comp to the employee comes from....? Most employers Do NOT have to provide anything else--The family leave act requires that the employer must allow a person 12 weeks off UNPAID.... if they have more then 50 workers... Short term disability has NEVER been mandated to be provided...... It can be offered....

When I was a full time waitress--and worked my rear off I hurt my foot one day at home....and could not walk on it.... I was disabled for a short time.... I missed several shifts and didn't earn mypay or tips.... I suffered an uncovered loss... This stuff happens everyday...... Why should my boss or my government be responsible for the fact that I chose this job because I could make more money with the tips then working in an office?

[paigeturner]

Originally Posted by Mommy2amiracle

Anna:

I agree about this not being a federal issue, but rather a company level issue. That being said, no company would give any benefits unless mandated by the state which is what I believe the short term disability is mandated by?!?! Also, when I took this job, I didn't know what the road was going to be to building a family and didn't look into any alternative benefits.

I disagree that no company would give any benefits unless mandated by the state. As companies look to locate their business state mandates (business environments) play into the decision on whether or not to locate in a community. In other words, if state A requires business to offer several different entitlement programs, the company may decide to locate in state B instead.

What type of benefits offered become a competition issue. When I accepted my current job, I didn't only compare the salary that was offered, but I also looked at insurance coverage, bonus packages and vacation time, among other things.

I agree with what Anna has said and I just want to state that any leave program, whether it is sick leave, family leave, vacation time, etc. comes with a cost. Personally, I think it would be wonderful if those adopting had the same time off as those giving birth, however, the cost must come from somewhere...lower wages, fewer employed? I don't know the answer.

Paige

[HappyMomAnna]

Interesting side note:

Did you know that in Austria the governemnt will pay for Invetro Fertilization?

Do you know why?

Because there are NOT enough TAX payers to provide all the FREE medical services and by helping families have children they hope to aviod the system failing in the future--Austria has an aging population and they NEED new children to work and pay for the benifits or face colapse... I personally would rather pay my own way and not look at procreation as a means to provide entitlements to an entire population....

[melon161]

As a mom from Canada I have to encourage you guys to lobby your government for paid maternity/paternity leave from the government.

In canada if you are working and then have/adopt a child you are entitled to 3 months maternity leave and 9 months paternity leave. At 55% of your work wages. If you are adopting you don't get the maternity leave as that's for the birthmom so I got 9 months at home with my son. Also, if you adopt an older child you still get 9 months leave, no matter how old the child is!

Stacy

[HappyMomAnna]

Melon I am interested in knowing what percentage of your pay is taken to cover Taxes? My husband is Canadian and I know his obligations...I would rather have his pay check all the time then social services once in awhile....? Or in the case of having children Once a child.

[melon161]

Ya Anna, you're right, we pay more taxes in Canada then you do in the US and it sucks, I won't deny that but being able to stay home with my child for 9 months was worth it to me.

Originally Posted by HappyMomAnna

Or in the case of having children Once a child.

I'm not sure what you meant by the above statement?

Stacy

[79nic]

Well... by the time I add up what I pay in taxes, plus our portion of health insurance (since dh's company only pays part), and copays for doctor visits, and the pills my dh needs on a daily basis (which are too new to be in generic form)... I'd bet it comes out close to what Canadians pay, anyway. And if it's a little more? Yes, I'd be willing to pay it to help out the homeless teen in the bad part of town who got pregnant and wants to parent her baby, but can't afford prenatal care.

[HappyMomAnna]

Originally Posted by melon161

I'm not sure what you meant by the above statement?

I just meant that it is alot to pay these high taxes for a once event---when you are finished with your nine months you will have used the benifit and you will still be paying the high taxes for the rest of your life....

I personally would rather not have the pay for 9 months and keep my pay check when I do work....

Actually.......I am living without a pay check now and have been for two years....but that is a different thread topic.

[numbr1dbcksfan]

I think I agree with both. There could be a compromise where the taxes taper down over the years...or even the year... like a cap or something...onces you reach the next tier you pay less taxes...

I dont know....

Im in the middle...

[melon161]

Anna,

I wasn't trying to dispute the pros/cons between canada and the US, I was just trying to empower some women to get what they want. I said I agree, we do pay more taxes but that 9 months with my son was worth all the money in the world to me. I used to hate taxes and now I don't mind as much because I see the benefits I am getting from paying them. Don't get me wrong, we'd all like lower taxes but in the mean time I will take my Paternity leave.

Stacy

[HappyMomAnna]

Stacy I know you are not trying to debate this really neither am I.... This is more then an issue about leave time--this debate is a political thing and it is doubtful this issue initeslf would change the overall debate of bigger government vs. smaller government--If it would then I could solve the USA's debate and we would all be democrates!

[melon161]

No, my issue is really about leave time, I think it's great. I am not talking about political issues, I really am just talking about spending time with our newborns.

Stacy