Recently hired nurse and newly pregnant

[rudder]

The first year of a babies life is critical, mothers should be allowed 12 months in every state even if it's unpaid. There are too many people not even raising their own kids it's saddening.

Just because it is leave... does not mean the employer pays for it. You are just assured your job... nothing more. Most people do not take the 6 months because they cannot afford to be without a paycheck that long.

 

[moshquerade]

Women get pregnant every day. Some of you make her out to be some kind of monster for it happening. Just be glad as a man you don't have to deal with the discrimination that pregnancy brings.

 

[MJinZ]

We had a similar circumstance at my work place, but with far more liberal labour laws. A girl was hired under very similar circumstances and she took the job anyway. She then took 12 months maternity leave (thankfully she hadn't been working 6+ months so it was unpaid) and my employer had to hold her job open while she was gone. Then at the very end of it she decided she wouldn't come back. It was costly and extremely disruptive to my small employer (< 35 staff).

If your friend takes the job then immediately take maternity leave, she's a dick frankly.

Why didn't the employer just hire a temp?

 

[SP33Demon]

They don't hold it empty. They fill it temporarily as a maternity hire. I don't know how anyone would think they would just leave it vacant. And how a job pertains to third world country is beyond me, in a third world country there'd be no laws for this requirement to happen, example - USA. It's maternity not being paid that is causing massive debt for new families in the US.

In Canada you can get your short term disability off before pregnancy if the doctor says so (usually about 60%-70% of income for 6 months) and 12 months of maternity after at 60% of income or ~$900 every 2 weeks (whichever is lower). So can potentially get 18 months off if there is no modified work available for an expecting mother. you have to have worked a certain amount before hand though since you pay it is actually employment insurance that pays your maternity, and EI is something every Canadian pays.

Obviously they replace you during that time. Usually the expecting mother trains her maternity replacement.

Amazing that pregnant women in other countries are getting federally mandated 2X more time off than our injured soldiers:

Twenty-six workweeks of leave during a single 12-month period to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness who is the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin to the employee (military caregiver leave).

26 weeks? Sad.

 

[preslove]

Many advanced countries also give paid/subsidized paternity leave. I think thats a pretty good idea.

 

[Drekce]

FMLA also depends on the size of the company. If it is a small medical office with only a few employees they are probably exempt from the act.

 

[Vette73]

The FMLA would not apply as she needs her 1250hours/1 year of work for them.

BUT the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 78 may. I have never had to look that up in my HR work so it may apply it may not.

 

[SP33Demon]

Many advanced countries also give paid/subsidized paternity leave. I think thats a pretty good idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave#Americas

Why is the United States the only country on this list without paid maternity/paternity? We are so far behind the world in this category it's not even funny.

 

[amdhunter]

This is exactly why no one should hire women.

 

[ShawnD1]

Just because it is leave... does not mean the employer pays for it. You are just assured your job... nothing more. Most people do not take the 6 months because they cannot afford to be without a paycheck that long.

Are people still covered for benefits during that time?

This is exactly why no one should hire women.

This. It's great to be supported by very liberal labor policies, but it definitely puts a strong bias against hiring women.

 

[Pliablemoose]

It's Florida, they treat nurses like crap and will likely terminate her.

 

[erikistired]

Women get pregnant every day. Some of you make her out to be some kind of monster for it happening. Just be glad as a man you don't have to deal with the discrimination that pregnancy brings.

i don't think it's a bad thing at all. however, when you have a professional job being out of the office for 12 months can be huge. heck my wife can't take vacation without checking her email and voice mail every day. a temp can't really handle the same things over a long period of time, and you can't really expect them to. i suppose you could contract someone, but it just seems silly. if you're going to have kids one of the things you have to decide is if you want to have one parent home or let daycare raise them. i'm pretty sure you aren't guaranteed a job anywhere, nor should you be imho.

 

[KeithP]

This is exactly why no one should hire women.

But since you can pay them 30% less for the same job as a man, doesn't that make it more profitable to hire them over the long run?

Not to mention the fact during and after their pregnancy their boobs will get larger which makes them nicer to look at.

-KeithP

 

[ShawnD1]

But since you can pay them 30% less for the same job as a man, doesn't that make it more profitable to hire them over the long run?

Um no?

Imagine you're doing a construction project and your lead engineer is a woman. She's very smart, has 10 years+ of experience in this field, and she's one of the few people who can do this. Suddenly she gets pregnant and takes the last 3 months of pregnancy off plus another 6 months after the child is born; she's gone for a total of 9 months. How much does that cost? This person is extremely hard to replace. You can't just call a temp agency and get some random idiot to monitor the project.

This is why women don't get promoted as often. They're just as strong and intelligent as men, but elevating them to a position where the project needs them can end up costing the company millions when pregnancy happens, and you know it will eventually happen because most women eventually do have at least one kid.

 

[CRXican]

this is why women still get paid less

dirty tricksters

 

[D1gger]

We've just been through this in my office. One of our administrative workers decided to start a family and took the maximum materinity leave of 50 weeks. We simply hired a replacement worker for that time period (it did cause some extra training costs and lost productivity) but it was no-where near as disruptive and some might think.

I'm not sure what unemploymen insurance costs are like elsewhere, but in Canada the Employment Insurance costs per employee are:

Worker pays: 1.73&#37; of earnings to a maximum payment of $747.36 per year
Employer pays: 2.42% of earnings to a maximum of $1,046.30 per year.

This is the program that funds the Family Leave.

 

[BTA]

This is why women still generally get paid less than men.

 

[Phoenix86]

You do get 12 weeks with the FLMA but, I was emphasizing that not all States enforce it so, if you are unaware of your rights, companies won't tell you.

All states must comply with FMLA since it is federal law, of course the company may not volunteer this information.

However in the OP's case it will not apply, she has not been working there long enough. IIRC it's 6 months but I'd look it up to verify, I know 1 month is too short.

 

[StinkyPinky]

i'm glad i don't live in a third world country then. having to hold a job for 12 months is ridiculous.

The job isn't frozen. I'm sure they can hire temp staff.

Quite frankly, it's a great idea. Too many people neglect their kids and they grow up and become shit bags.

 

[TheVrolok]

The job isn't frozen. I'm sure they can hire temp staff.

Quite frankly, it's a great idea. Too many people neglect their kids and they grow up and become shit bags.

Both my parents worked full time jobs, and in fact, second and third jobs; my sister and I turned out just fine. It's not about spending large amounts of time with your children (I know plenty of kids who had stay at home moms or dads that turned out to be shit bags), but about making the time you do spend with your kids quality time.

 

[Imp]

I heard of someone like that in my office. I never knew her, but she took a one year absence, held the job for her, never came back. I'm all for maternity leave and all, just wish more people would feel obligated to come back for a few months at least since their job is being held for them. Then again, when you're off for 12 months, you can't help but look for a new/better job.

 

[bhanson]

The job isn't frozen. I'm sure they can hire temp staff.

Quite frankly, it's a great idea. Too many people neglect their kids and they grow up and become shit bags.

This has so little to do with people growing up to become shit bags than practically anything else.

Deciding to have a baby from a one night stand with no college degree while working as a waitress? BRILLIANT (by brilliant I mean ridiculously stupid).

 

[alkemyst]

she's sort of in a jam...there is a big stigma of taking on a job to get benefits esp once pregnant. It's not going to be hard to go back and see about 9 months after hire she's ready to pop.

She will not qualify for FMLA due to not being there long enough at that time.

She may want to run this by a local labor attorney, I couldn't see them charging much if anything for just an answer on does she have to disclose this and what would be the outcome if she didn't.

Piss poor planning if you ask me especially for a nurse.

 

[bhanson]

Um no?

Imagine you're doing a construction project and your lead engineer is a woman. She's very smart, has 10 years+ of experience in this field, and she's one of the few people who can do this. Suddenly she gets pregnant and takes the last 3 months of pregnancy off plus another 6 months after the child is born; she's gone for a total of 9 months. How much does that cost? This person is extremely hard to replace. You can't just call a temp agency and get some random idiot to monitor the project.

This is why women don't get promoted as often. They're just as strong and intelligent as men, but elevating them to a position where the project needs them can end up costing the company millions when pregnancy happens, and you know it will eventually happen because most women eventually do have at least one kid.

I don't know what I think about this.

What if you're a manager or director of some division? Many of these administrative-style jobs require that person to be able to be contacted 24/7. They know how everything works, whenever something goes wrong under them it is their problem, and working as many hours every week as needed is requisite.

I get equality. I get that procreation is necessary and discriminating against women because they happen to carry those reproductive parts is douchy. But I cannot think of any fair solution that adequately addresses this responsibility problem. Once you have so much power you cannot take off a month without your responsibilities going down the drain or having to spend an unreasonable amount of resources finding a replacement--a month, must less a year.

Mandating liberal labor laws like allowing a full year of leave would only serve to perpetuate the discrimination and even further provide incentive to not promote women. Sorry, but that law is a big pile of crap. If a family thinks they need to be able to take a YEAR off from work then that needs to go into their familial planning.

How do you create a law that is fair and equal when Biology is not equal? I'm completely stumped on this one.

 

[erikistired]

The job isn't frozen. I'm sure they can hire temp staff.

Quite frankly, it's a great idea. Too many people neglect their kids and they grow up and become shit bags.

you can't always just hire temp staff. a few examples (good ones) have been made in the thread already, women are being pushed into high priority and important jobs. you can't just replace someone who is highly educated and knows the job inside and out with a temp. especially for a year. are you really going to spend the cost of hiring someone for a year to train them, then just cut them loose? honestly why not just keep the person on and fire the person who was gone for a year? wouldn't that make more sense?

i'm not talking about waitresses or even the nurse in the OP for the most part. i'm talking about executives and professionals. you just shouldn't be able to expect a job like that (or really any job imho) to sit around for a year while you raise a kid. giving the spouse a year off as well is even more ridiculous, and just another example of the hand holding bullshit this planet seems to be heading towards. this is one trend i'm happy to be behind the rest of the "advanced" societies in.

How do you create a law that is fair and equal when Biology is not equal? I'm completely stumped on this one.

you don't need a law for this. if you want one parent to stay home, one parent will have to stay home and the family will have to make ends meet in other ways. my wife makes a lot more money than i was when we started having kids, so i ended up staying home with them. would life be easier with two incomes? hell yes it would. but we wanted to have a parent at home, so we make it work. i work on the weekend, she picks up odd jobs during tax season (she's a cpa) and we still manage to put our kids into private school.