[numbr1dbcksfan]

I think she meant over all, melon161. A decision on this matter could change the scope of our government.

[melon161]

alright, thanks.

Stacy

[macrod]

Our dd was a foster baby. We received her on a Friday afternoon and I went to work on Monday. I would have loved to having bonding time, but reality is I work for a small company and they do not provide any maternity leave. We can not afford to pay someone to be off and then pay a temp or split their work among other coworkers. I am the hr administrator. Every year I research insurance companies and trends in order to modify our plan to benefit both employee and employer. I certaintly do not want to pay more in taxes. I think that the FMLA is wonderful comprise. If bonding is truly that important to a family then it should be up to them to budget accordingly for the unpaid leave. Also, if we start forcing companies to pay for maternity leave for both mom and dad and adoptive parents, don't you think that the small companies would go broke and larger ones would just not hire the "child bearing age couples"? The owner of the company that I work for is a woman w/2 children and she always jokes about balancing child bearing age employees w/non child bearing age employees- sometimes I wonder if she joking or not.

[Brat]

I said that my co-worker who was pregnant retained PTO benefits that were taken from me. For no apparent reason other than the fact that I adopted. They did not face any financial loss--no need to hire a temp--if I retained my two unaccrued personal days.

The fact is, they took them from me, and allowed my co-worker to retain them because they somehow determined she needed them more than I. Subjectively.

The original poster asked if anyone was denied paid sick time when adopting a newborn. Yes, I was. If you will visit the Dave Thomas Foundation website, they approach it as a social justice issue, that employers do not *have* to take benefits away from employees when they are on leave. My company did not save a dime by taking two days away from me. It has nothing to do with insurance, taxes, the federal government. It's not about suddenly having special needs that aren't the responsibility of my employer. It's about fairness.

What I find mystifying is that anyone gets upset if an adoptive mom wants the same benefits as a bio mom. It seems like a no-brainer to me. I'm sorry if this at all denigrated into a slam against bio moms, an intimation that you all recover quickly. I have a friend who could have used three months off after her difficult birthing experience. I should have been more sensitive, but my intent was to compare my experience to a fellow co-workers, and to point out that the government doesn't necessarily think it will take six weeks to recover. In my opinion. Of course, I'm probably wrong.

I'll pay extra taxes for social justice, even if the subject matter has nothing to do with my circumstance. But that's just me, and my husband and I were talking about the need for universal healthcare just this evening. We're hippies, don't ya know.

[JulesInColorado]

Interesting thread - well, I have not adopted yet but I am fully aware of my company's benefits. Yes, it is my company that decides what I can and can not have. Under Federal law I am allowed the FMLA unpaid, however my companies rules state that I have to exhaust my disability leave (doctor has to sign off that I need to be with baby) and all of my personal leave. I am happy that we are entitled to use our sick leave for care of our children, but it is very much up to the company. I know more bio mothers who recooped quickly than I do ones that needed the full 6 to 8 weeks. That being said I have a co-worker that gave birth in August, she was allowed to take 3 months...she took her 6 weeks at 60% short term disability (paid by the company) so not a penny out of pocket, supplimented with her disability and vacation time that she had left, so not a penny out of pocket. Early on in the year she took a two week vacation, miscellaneous days here and there and then when she gave birth still had enough time to supplement days. Ok, so here I am we got hired at the same time, I am saving every single day and stressed out because I can't take vacation time because otherwise I wont be able to afford to stay home, then I have to fund 1.5 months out of my pocket. I look at is this way, I am not birthing a child that will cost the insurance company $25k or higher (or cost a dime to my company), so in essence I am cheaper than a mother who does give birth. I work for a larger company and on my floor alone there are at least 5 women that have infertility issues who aren't looking at the adoption route yet because of cost out of pocket for adoption, no paid time off of work, stress with boss over taking FMLA (even if entitled) etc. In my opinion my female co-worker counterparts who are giving birth have less worries as far as work goes (not as far as birth). A previous poster said it, if a mother that gives birth truly needs the time the doc can extend that time. If a person who adopts is going through hards times with the adoption, where is our extension for emotionally and sometimes physically drain? I asked our benefits administrator if there where any plans to offer parental (paid) leave for adoptive parents since it is not a medical condition, her reply was "well, no not anytime soon although several people have asked." I am fortunate in that our company does have a great benefits package, but there are things on there that I am positive that no one uses...in other words if they evaluted what people are truly using they could probably cut the fat and afford to offer parental leave. But then the flip side is what another poster said, we can't expect everything to be covered, but I think this would be a worthy thing.

Ok, done now, just wanted to add my two cents

[numbr1dbcksfan]

OK...sneaky... but I know a person who took short term disability because of migraines.... so I would say that exhaustion could also be diagnosed by a doctor... if you could talk your doc into saying you need the time off... maybe the std WOULD cover part of it.

[Brat]

Exhaustion and migraines are two different things. I've known people with migraines, who've gone through strenuous testing to determine the cause, and it's not exhaustion. Usually, it's unexplained.

At any rate, I don't know that I would have been able to leave my newborn child to go in for an examination with a new doctor in an unfamiliar state to prove to the government that I was exhausted enough to miss work. Every woman who has just given birth should not have to go in and prove she needs six paid weeks to recover. I don't think that would be fair, and neither do I think it's fair to expect every amom to prove that going to work a day after adopting a child would be exhausting.

But then again, maybe if more amoms did go in w/complaints of exhaustion, studies would be developed and paid FMLA legislation enacted on a national level. I wonder, honestly, how they determined the six-week, post-birth recovery period. Were studies developed, or were there just enough people in power who understood, from their own personal experiences, what was needed?

The last thing I'd want to do is minimize the experience of a woman who gives birth. But for the life of me, I don't understand the lack of support for amoms getting the same amount of time off from an employer who offers PTO benefits. It's OK...I just don't understand. What my employer did makes me feel marginalized. I sent her the Dave Thomas packet (OT: how cool is it to have your legacy be the difference you make in the life of adopted children? Maybe it's just me...I've wanted to adopt since I was 7) and had a packet sent to me regarding how to talk to her. I'm going to address this, and I don't care if it gets me pushed out the door. May I humbly suggest that others do the same? It's not just about our exhaustion, but about being able to provide our children with the best care available for a reasonable amount of PAID time. Will the person who believes that an adopted child needs less time to bond with his/her brand-new amom please stand up?

[numbr1dbcksfan]

I wonder, honestly, how they determined the six-week, post-birth recovery period.

That is how long you bleed for, more or less.

Anyway...I certainly wasnt saying that all adoptive parents should have to prove exhaustion. I was merely trying to throw out suggestions that may allow them to take their sick time or STD.

I would never be talking about national legislature.... but that point was already talked about earlier in the thread...so Ill let it be.

Sorry if I confused you.

[Jensboys]

Havent read the whole thread so feel free to ignore me - but Canadian law is as follows. Biological mother gets 15 weeks automatically - an additional 35 weeks are available to either parent (can be shared between father and mother or taken all by mother) for a total of 50 weeks. In the case of adoption, biological mother still gets 15 weeks, but adoptive parents get the other 35. There is lobbying taking place to allow aparents to also get the addition 15 weeks (bio mothers as well).

The logic on this wasnt anything to do with new mother's being exhausted but the legistlation was changed nationally because of the benefit to the CHILD. Also, it was determined that more women returned to work when the maternity benefits were extended from the previous length of 6 months. Thus, in the end, saving employers money.

The USA has the worst provision for new babies and mothers in the developed world. I CANNOT imagine having to leave my 6 week old baby in daycare. Its almost like what's the point of having a child if you have to leave them that young!!!

[Jensboys]

Originally Posted by HappyMomAnna

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.....

Anna at least I know that if my child needs open heart surgery or cancer treatments or if I have a complicated delivery or a scary pregnancy my child will receive equal and excellent treatment as the poorer child next door or the rich kid across the street - and I wont ever go bankrupt finding a doctor. I know that no matter WHO you are in Canada you are treated as a valued member of our society - worthy of health care. And for that I happily pay my taxes to support a health care system, that although faulted, is fair for ALL its citizens.

You know what sort of protest there was for extending maternity leave from 6 months to a year - NONE. Do you know how many women are employed in Canada? A whole lot. It didnt change hiring practices at all - we, as a society, generally value our infants and understand that encouraging parental care in the first 50 weeks is a good thing.

Going back to work after ONE WEEK is incomprehensible. Why have a baby?

[HappyMomAnna]

I have never had any time where I was not able to recieve medical treatment--when I wanted and needed it..... Even when I was poor. Sean was an $18,000 delievery which was covered under health care and we paid about $300.00. When Tori came the next year we had changed jobs and the new insurance wouldn't cover the pregnancy or birth because my first was a C-section. No Problem we applied for assistance and Tori was planned C-section bill was about $9,000 We paid $33.00 Oh and during that pregnancy I needed several hundreds of dollars in dental care--which was also covered.

In 1990 Husband changed jobs and all we had to do is make it the Month of January without medical insurance--DANG if I didn't get Chicken Pox from my kids at the age of 28....sometime in January--and I don't recall much because for 11 days I was in the hospital....Nearly died from complications....but made it--A good share of the bill was adjusted and we made payments for a long time....but I didn't die.

My Aunt lives in Seattle---I spend a lot of time up their--Why is it that so many people from Canada decide to pay the whole bill and use our hospitals and doctors??? Because they can access the care they decide to--when they decide to and not wait.

I would personally rather have ourpay check and decide which services I want an need. I would rather not wait 6-weeks to check and see if the spot on my cheek is skin cancer or not...I want to call, make an appointment with the doctor I want to see and see him without a bunch of red-tape.

My children have the "health plan" and sorry--that is not what I want to see for my future... I want to be in charge of how my dollars are used. I don't want to feel like a trip to my doctor is a cattle call and I want the power to decide for my own health.

..... I am of the belief that if we really do want to parent our children well--then this whole issue is not relevant--Personally I think it is best to stay home with the kids if you are going to have them... I guess I just don't want my husband to have to support time off for other families.... We need to keep his pay so that I can stay home with our kids. I don't want any more of OUR PIE taken for situations that won't affect us. Call me selfish but It was DANG hard work to get here and we sort of feel like we earned it why do we need to keep paying more and more for other people to have benefits that we won't be using... Maybe if Taxes were lower more moms could stay home with their children for more then 50 weeks--maybe 18 years if we could survive on one pay.

The last year I worked--I earned what my husband paid in Taxes....

[Jensboys]

Anna - my husband, his family, parents, siblings, neices and nephews etc are American. My boys are also american and adopted from the states. I talk frequently with our family there (including my boys former foster parents). I hear about hours and hours spent on the phone trying to find a doctor that is willing to see foster children because of their med plan coverage, or lack there of. I remember the desperation in my sister in laws voice when she arbitrarily received notice from her husband's employer that their med plan payments were doubling retroactively to EIGHT HUNDRED dollars a month or the same sil a few years eariler when her children were younger crying and asking my inlaws for $50 so she could afford to take her son with an ear infection to the doctor for the co-pay. My Parents in law moved to Canada because fil had a history of heart attack and stroke and could no longer find quality medical care that wouldnt bankrupt them. Lose your house, lose your livlihood or lose your husband? A fairly easy decision for them.

I am NOT saying the Canadian system is perfect - yes we do have some waits at times, and yes, some very wealthy people do choose to go to the states for quick surgeries or MRIs - that they could of gotten in Canada, but they would of had to wait in turn behind possibly a poor citizen or an disabled citizen until it was their turn. One of those sticky "equal citizen despite job title or pay cheque" human rights things that silly Canadians hold dear.

But I also know THOUSANDS of americans EVERY DAY cross the border to buy perscriptions here because our govt ensures that pharamaceuticals cant gouge our citizens (their arent subsidizes, their prices are simply controlled). Have you heard of the busloads of American seniors that came here for their readily available flu shot? Or that come for their perscriptions? The same americans that fought your wars, worked in your factories and now not able to find affordable (and at the same time QUALITY) health care in their own country. I find it TRAGIC - on a national level, not somewhat disdainful at their lack of personal planning to save money for high priced, but life saving, perscriptions in their retirement years.

I love the comfort of knowing that I can take my child in EVERY time he coughs funny, if I so choose. I love knowing that if my child or husband were to get deathly sick I wouldnt have to run to my little "admin booklet" to see what was covered, what wasnt covered, how long could they be sick before we would have to sell our house, how much copay is, which doc would accept our plan, which hospital is affordable and how much the medicines in the hospital were going to be.

Anna - its wonderful for you that your children were adopted into a comfortable middle class family that can afford to stay home. Mine were to. Its a HUGE sacrifice but one I gladly take to be with my kids. But I am proud to live in a country which also values the poor, immigrant child down the road EQUALLY with my child and knows that THAT child needs months with his mom too. Or the struggling single mom gets to take a few months to bond before sending her child off to daycare.

"Employment Insurance" like "Medical Insurance" are national values. EI (or its former name, unemployment insurance) is a federally mandated program that every worker employed by every company (self employed are exempt) pays into. And I am glad that it isnt a privilege reserved for our predominately white, middle class citizenry.

Jen

[Jensboys]

Oh and incase anyone thinks I am a granola crunchin, left wing, hemp wearing, pot smoking Canadian - I am not. I am a right wing, conservative voter who personally believes in family values (the Canadian version, not the American interpretation), small govt., strong justice and gun control (I know, a weird combo).

But I also believe in equality for all - and that covers health care and maternity leave . And being married to an American, part of an an American extended family, parenting two American kids - I am NOT anti-american

Jen

[parent2b]

Originally Posted by Jensboys

The USA has the worst provision for new babies and mothers in the developed world. I CANNOT imagine having to leave my 6 week old baby in daycare. Its almost like what's the point of having a child if you have to leave them that young!!!

Jensboys -let me preface this by saying I am not being disrespectful of your opinion in any way. Let me also state that I truly mean no offense to anyone in the following commentary, so feel free to debate back, but please know that I am not intending to hurt anyone's feelings. That being said, I had to jump back into the fray...
Jensboys - I think you're right. The USA probably DOES have the worst provision for new babies...in the developed world. That's because we as a society never really DECIDED to provide parental leave. We just lumped leave under Short-term disability. Remember that here, maternity leave (you can just FORGET about PATernity leave) falls under the classification of short-term disability. While recovery from giving birth IS IMHO truly a short-term disability (regardless of recovery time), the decision to cover the same amount of time for everyone is IMO arbitrary. Compare to other short-term medical leaves: let's say I broke my leg. The doctor determines how much recovery time away from work I'll need. This isn't the case with giving birth -- everyone is treated the same REGARDLESS of how difficult it was to give birth. All I've posted in the past is that we in the U.S. have misclassified maternity leave under short term disability. Not only is it an unfair classification, but it is completely discriminatory to fathers. I believe that until maternity leave is truly treated as a short-term disability (like other illnesses) and employers evaluate the benefits (from a competitive standpoint--let the employment market determine which benefits to offer) of parental leave, there won't be much change in this country. Some employers, on their own, have decided to offer paternal leave - which obviously can include fathers or partners.

Once again, I'm not stating my actual position on parental leave -- I simply think that classifying the issue under short-term disability maternity leave is just wrong.

As to your second point: why have children at all? That's the beauty of freedom -- the ability to choose, then care for on your own. Is it really better that some feel a sense of entitlement simply because they desire to build their families? Some people choose to be childless -- is it right that they, then, are paying for benefits that they know only others will receive? I don't think someone would decide whether or not to build a family simply on the basis of whether or not there is six weeks of leave, twelve weeks of leave, or none, for that matter.

[Jensboys]

Thanks Parent2b - I agree with you maternity/paternity/parental leave is not about sickness at all.

The why have children at all comment is more about how "I" emotionally would have been having to leave my child at 6 weeks. They are INFANTS - tiny, tiny, tiny little babies. I couldnt imagine having to leave mine with another care provider. It was months before I could leave them with a grandma!!! I guess here, though, its a luxury many give no thought to.

Jen