Where's the debate?

catefrances

cincybearcat wrote:

I just wanted to know before I answered.

The US certainly lags behind. But it is actually 12 weeks on FMLA in the US. Which is a lot of time, but not always enough. There are many evil corporations that allow much longer times as well...up to 1 year. Damn evil bastards!!

a lot of time by whose definition though? a 12+ week old baby still needs its mother. is that 12 weeks on full pay? and can it be taken as maybe 24 weeks half pay?

Jeanwah

catefrances wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I just wanted to know before I answered.

The US certainly lags behind. But it is actually 12 weeks on FMLA in the US. Which is a lot of time, but not always enough. There are many evil corporations that allow much longer times as well...up to 1 year. Damn evil bastards!!

a lot of time by whose definition though? a 12+ week old baby still needs its mother. is that 12 weeks on full pay? and can it be taken as maybe 24 weeks half pay?

6 weeks paid mandated, 6 weeks unpaid with "Family Leave" (FMLA). So 12 weeks total at home. That's the standard, and many women can't afford to not get paid for 6 weeks so they go back to work after only 6 weeks at home. But every situation is different, it depends on the work place and how much vacation time has been accrued. What I described is typical for the US though.

catefrances

Jeanwah wrote:

catefrances wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I just wanted to know before I answered.

The US certainly lags behind. But it is actually 12 weeks on FMLA in the US. Which is a lot of time, but not always enough. There are many evil corporations that allow much longer times as well...up to 1 year. Damn evil bastards!!

a lot of time by whose definition though? a 12+ week old baby still needs its mother. is that 12 weeks on full pay? and can it be taken as maybe 24 weeks half pay?

6 weeks paid mandated, 6 weeks unpaid with "Family Leave" (FMLA). So 12 weeks total at home. That's the standard, and many women can't afford to not get paid for 6 weeks so they go back to work after only 6 weeks at home. But every situation is different, it depends on the work place and how much vacation time has been accrued. What I described is typical for the US though.

i cant even fathom having to leave my 6 week old baby to go back to work. somehting is wrong with our society when this is the way it needs to be for many mothers.

Jeanwah

catefrances wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

catefrances wrote:

a lot of time by whose definition though? a 12+ week old baby still needs its mother. is that 12 weeks on full pay? and can it be taken as maybe 24 weeks half pay?

6 weeks paid mandated, 6 weeks unpaid with "Family Leave" (FMLA). So 12 weeks total at home. That's the standard, and many women can't afford to not get paid for 6 weeks so they go back to work after only 6 weeks at home. But every situation is different, it depends on the work place and how much vacation time has been accrued. What I described is typical for the US though.

i cant even fathom having to leave my 6 week old baby to go back to work. somehting is wrong with our society when this is the way it needs to be for many mothers.

Well, since the U.S. prioritizes capitalism and corporatism over basic human needs... people do what they have to. I quit my job when I had my daughter and found another job 9 months later and lived on my 401k earnings. Not the smartest thing to do financially, but that's the amount of time we needed.

gimmesometruth27

Jeanwah wrote:

Well, since the U.S. prioritizes capitalism and corporatism over basic human needs... people do what they have to. I quit my job when I had my daughter and found another job 9 months later and lived on my 401k earnings. Not the smartest thing to do financially, but that's the amount of time we needed.

and everyone is different and every pregnancy/childbirth is different. you did what you had to do Jean. sometimes you have to pay those damn 401k early withdrawl fees to insure that you get enough time with your newborn child....it is sad, our system...

catefrances

Jeanwah wrote:

Well, since the U.S. prioritizes capitalism and corporatism over basic human needs... people do what they have to. I quit my job when I had my daughter and found another job 9 months later and lived on my 401k earnings. Not the smartest thing to do financially, but that's the amount of time we needed.

australias first national paid parental Leave scheme started on january 1st this year. it provides eligible working parents with 18 weeks of parental leave pay at the national minimum wage, currently $589.40 a week before tax. it is fully funded by the australian government

oh and we have this in the works too:

Dad and Partner Pay will be a dedicated payment for fathers and other partners under the Australian Government’s national Paid Parental Leave scheme. Subject to the passage of legislation, the payment will be available to eligible fathers and other partners sharing care of a child born or adopted from 1 January 2013.

Under the new policy, eligible working dads and other partners will have access to two weeks pay at the national minimum wage, currently about $590 a week before tax. Dad and Partner Pay will help fathers and partners to take time off work to support the other parent and be involved in the care of their new child right from the start.

Commy

catefrances wrote:

i cant even fathom having to leave my 6 week old baby to go back to work. somehting is wrong with our society when this is the way it needs to be for many mothers.

its not your society tho. australia gives you plenty of time off. the US is fucked, sure, but last i checked you were australian.

catefrances

Commy wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i cant even fathom having to leave my 6 week old baby to go back to work. somehting is wrong with our society when this is the way it needs to be for many mothers.

its not your society tho. australia gives you plenty of time off. the US is fucked, sure, but last i checked you were australian.

our capitalist society commy. it transcends borders... surely you understand that.

bigdvs

here is something I don't get and I have seen change over time. At points these forums were a great on topic source of stuff that was actually taking place, now big issues go untouched here for weeks. Not sure why that is just an observation from a long time troll (occassional poster).

cincybearcat

catefrances wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Well, since the U.S. prioritizes capitalism and corporatism over basic human needs... people do what they have to. I quit my job when I had my daughter and found another job 9 months later and lived on my 401k earnings. Not the smartest thing to do financially, but that's the amount of time we needed.

australias first national paid parental Leave scheme started on january 1st this year. it provides eligible working parents with 18 weeks of parental leave pay at the national minimum wage, currently $589.40 a week before tax. it is fully funded by the australian government

oh and we have this in the works too:

Dad and Partner Pay will be a dedicated payment for fathers and other partners under the Australian Government’s national Paid Parental Leave scheme. Subject to the passage of legislation, the payment will be available to eligible fathers and other partners sharing care of a child born or adopted from 1 January 2013.

Under the new policy, eligible working dads and other partners will have access to two weeks pay at the national minimum wage, currently about $590 a week before tax. Dad and Partner Pay will help fathers and partners to take time off work to support the other parent and be involved in the care of their new child right from the start.

So, who pays for this?

Go Beavers

Jeanwah wrote:

catefrances wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I just wanted to know before I answered.

The US certainly lags behind. But it is actually 12 weeks on FMLA in the US. Which is a lot of time, but not always enough. There are many evil corporations that allow much longer times as well...up to 1 year. Damn evil bastards!!

a lot of time by whose definition though? a 12+ week old baby still needs its mother. is that 12 weeks on full pay? and can it be taken as maybe 24 weeks half pay?

6 weeks paid mandated, 6 weeks unpaid with "Family Leave" (FMLA). So 12 weeks total at home. That's the standard, and many women can't afford to not get paid for 6 weeks so they go back to work after only 6 weeks at home. But every situation is different, it depends on the work place and how much vacation time has been accrued. What I described is typical for the US though.

I think the federal is 12 weeks unpaid. A couple states have some paid leave. The beloved Newt voted against it.

catefrances

cincybearcat wrote:

catefrances wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Well, since the U.S. prioritizes capitalism and corporatism over basic human needs... people do what they have to. I quit my job when I had my daughter and found another job 9 months later and lived on my 401k earnings. Not the smartest thing to do financially, but that's the amount of time we needed.

australias first national paid parental Leave scheme started on january 1st this year. it provides eligible working parents with 18 weeks of parental leave pay at the national minimum wage, currently $589.40 a week before tax. it is fully funded by the australian government

oh and we have this in the works too:

Dad and Partner Pay will be a dedicated payment for fathers and other partners under the Australian Government’s national Paid Parental Leave scheme. Subject to the passage of legislation, the payment will be available to eligible fathers and other partners sharing care of a child born or adopted from 1 January 2013.

Under the new policy, eligible working dads and other partners will have access to two weeks pay at the national minimum wage, currently about $590 a week before tax. Dad and Partner Pay will help fathers and partners to take time off work to support the other parent and be involved in the care of their new child right from the start.

So, who pays for this?

as was stated, it is fully funded by the australian government.

ONCE DEVIDED

Jeanwah wrote:

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Back when commy was a regular, this place was a lot different. A different level, because the regulars then could debate some issue and I'd read through it and would hardly understand any of it. It felt like a different level of intelligence, back then. No offense to the regulars of now, but it's just changed since a lot of members then didn't have to be paying 10c members, so they didn't jump the boat with the new boards.

well i think that being snotty because your an intelectual is mostly slack. Im certainly not. but I have seen a lot in my 43 years and have an opinion. and i want to broaden my understannding of the world and the peolpe in it.

I didn't say anything about being snotty, and was not meant to imply at all. :?

would never say your snooty at all
more those you refer to. those that dont post because they think the quality of others debating standards are below them