[kahoxworth]

I asked our H/R department several weeks ago what sort of parental leave the company offered, and was told that the only leave offered was twelve weeks unpaid through FMLA. Today I was looking over some benefits information and realized that the twelve weeks upaid apply only to ME...and that mothers giving birth receive 70% pay.

I'm sure this has been the situation for many of you and old news, but having just found this out myself, I'm mad as a hornet!! What an insult!

Have any of you challenged this with your employers? How did you go about advocating for a change? Were you successful?

Thanks for any experiences you might be able to relay!

[beckyww]

In the Fortune 50 company for which I work, there is no maternity time other than unpaid FMLA. There is, however, medical time to recover from giving birth. When I gave birth, I had the medical time, plus some accumulated vacation to use. When we adopted, I took vacation followed by unpaid time. I hadn't given birth and didn't need to recover medically (just financially!)

Among my friends and family, I've never seen paid non-vacation time off given for anything other than medical - or - very, very rarely - paid sabbatical. I've seen plenty of people take unpaid FMLA for adoption, sick parents, injured children, etc.

Becky
The Woodworth Family in Beautiful San Antonio TX

[kizibits]

I was able to take the 12 weeks FMLA, but was only able to be paid for it by using my accumulated sick time and vacation time. At my organization that policy applies for child birth as well as for adoption. They lump it all together under a "parental leave" policy.

[Katie63011]

I am not saying it is fair, but the reason that they give paid maternity leave is that the mother is unable to come back to work for medical reasons from giving birth, not that she has to care for the child.

I would see if you can use accumulated sick time. Keep in mind that most companies will make you use vacation time before the sick time.

Katie

[MissDaisyofTexas]

I know how you feel!

Last summer when I was researching adoption, I was shocked to learn that my company did not have any benefits. There are many companies that now DO have adoption benefits...I work for a major retailer, and my company was one of the few retailers that DOES NOT have benefits.

I suggest writing a letter to your company president to request benefits. Dave Thomas' foundation website has some great resources. Some companies give paid time off, other offer reimbursement for adoption benefits (there is a tax advantage for both you and the employer for this type of benefit).

I have been persistant about this...wrote a letter to the VP of HR, talked to my VP about it...my VP said that he believes the company will add some sort of benefit for 2008. It may not help me, but it should help someone in the future.

Good luck!

[KimOH]

Like most others, my company offers "maternity leave" through the short-term disability program. If you don't have a medical need, you don't get it.

However, my company does offer 1 week of paid "family leave." (This can be used for the birth/adoption of a child, or to care for your sick child. You're not supposed to use your own personal sick days if you have to stay home with your sick child.)

They also offer a lump-sum "adoption assistance bonus" where they will reimburse you for $5000 amount to eligible adoption expenses. I once asked a friend in HR why they didn't just give you paid time off and she told me that would be some sort of HR nightmare. I noticed that on a big list of companies that provide adoption benefits (can't remember where I saw it now), most of them offer the adoption expense reimbursement rather than paid time off, so there must be a reason for it. (I suppose, in a way, you could "count" that reimbursement as your "pay" for however-many-weeks.)

Anyway, the only reason I mentioned that is, if you choose to lobby your company, you might have better luck getting adoption expense reimbursement rather than paid time off. (I don't know the ins-and-outs of HR for the "whys"... It's just something I've noticed.)

[cathvash]

I disagree with any policy that differentiates between parental leave for adoption and for normal (uncomplicated) birth. "Medical recuperation" time following a routine birth does NOT take six weeks (and certainly not 12!) , so why should someone be granted weeks worth of paid medical leave for one and not the other?

Remember the ol' granny stories about "I squatted in the fields to have a baby and went back to work..."? I know, it's a silly story and no one would expect a woman to do that. However, the point is that I believe most organizations grant weeks of paid medical leave after birth not because it's a medical necessity, but because time is needed for the new family to adjust, rest, and bond... Those needs are the same for an adoptove parent. In fact, many newly adopted children require more intervention medically, emotionally, and attachment-wise, so this paid leave time is just as important for that family as for one built through biological birth...

I am fortunate in that my company pays six weeks of accumulated medical for ALL parental leave, and I can use accumulated vacation time beyond that. If you are willing to fight the battle, I think an unequal policy for uncomplicated birth versus adoption could be readily tested as "discriminatory" to adoptive families...

[beckyww]

Even an "uncomplicated" birth still plays havoc with your system. Basically, you're a wreck below the waist, and the hormones mess up everything above the neck. And that does take a few weeks to even out. Done it three times. Also had a hysterectomy a few years later. The hysterectomy was a walk in the park compared to my 8-week-early c-section with DD #2, or our 11.5 lb. DD #3.

Whatever companies choose to do or don't do - it doesn't change that giving birth is a tremendous jolt to your body that does take weeks to straighten out.

Becky
The Woodworth Family in Beautiful San Antonio TX

[momraine]

I gave birth twice, and both were supposedly uncomplicated and not cesarian, neither time was up to doing much a week later. I found it messed my body up and I was very tired and needed the time to recover. I did wish I had some time off for my adoptions as well, but it is true that giving birth does count as medical trauma to the body. The old stories about women giving birth in the fields and still working are mostly myth. In most older societies women were given time to recover. In some they were kept in bed for weeks, or kept segregated (and not working) usually the other women stepped in to take care of her and her work.

[kahoxworth]

I just wanted to clarify...

The difference in leave I'm describing here is not unpaid FMLA vs. short term medical disability. My company simply offers the same leave, just paid in the instance of biological birth as opposed to adoption.

I didn't mean to start a row as far as whether giving birth is more or less stressful than adoption or vice versa...just that in this case it almost seems to be clear discrimination.

[Ebadge90]

The title of this thread is "maternity/adoption" leave. With all the talk about attachment issues , paternity leave should be an issue also.
I am lucky enough to work in public safety and the municipality that I work for has maternity/paternity leave for both bilogicla births and adoptions. It requires the use of sick leave, but as long as the sick leave is available, up to 12 weeks can be used.

[pequele]

You can use short term disability for mental illness too. After all the stress associated with adoption, the demand for attachment process (mentally and physically challenging), and just mentally adjusting to parenthood (like sleep deprivation or adoption's version of post-partum depression) couldn't you get your doc to write a letter on your behalf to use your short term disability benefit for mental disability? Doesn't have to be physical disibility, and they cannot discriminate against that. Just a thought

[amyfk]

HI Kahoxworth,

My situation was probably different from yours. I worked only part time before I adopted and had planned to return to work. I worked five years with the entity. Since I worked less than 1,000 hrs/year in the state of NJ I sadly found out that I didnt even get 12 weeks of unpaid leave. I got two weeks after my paid time ran out! Needless to say I ditched the job! I would have been thrilled to get the 12 weeks unnpaid but my former boss was a real pill! I am now home and giving my child the foundation she needs to grow and attach(luckily my husband can afford for me to take off until I find another suitable job).
Amy K, NJ

[momraine]

Some people have managed to get thier companies to change thier policies and give leave for parents adopting as well. Some have not. One friend tried and the companies response was to simply end the maternity leave as well. So no one got any time off excpept sick time and unpaid leave. (she ended up quitting because people blamed her for the company ending all maternity leave). My husbands company has no paternity leave at all. So he had to use vacation time to be home at all with the children we gave birth to and the ones we adopted. They treated it all the same. His company gives a short leave to women who give birth but only because of medical reasons, and I think even then it's only two weeks. If they want longer then they have to use sick time or vacation. Most save up thier vacation. At least the family leave act keeps people from being fired for taking time off to adopt, give birth or care for an ill loved one. I am showing my age, but I knew people who adopted before and were fired for taking too much time off to travel to adopt. So unpaid leave is better than nothing, but yes it's still not fair. Only you can decide if it's worth fighting your company for.

[SingleMama2B]

It has been awhile, and I was wondering how you where coming along with your decisions about International Adoption and possible Russia?