Ok, I missed this the first time around. Yes, in most cases, it certainly is about the mom and not the child. I certainly don't remember my firsts and neither do our girls or Dylan. Do you? Out of our 4 children, I did sah for Erica's sake and not mine. Joy and Angela got the "benefit" of my staying home with Erica but they had a sahm who was more focused on their sister than on them. How was that of benefit to them? Dylan gets the benefit of a woh/wahm which is to his benefit since he has thrived at dc and now at after school care. Being a very social only child, being able to be around the same kids for 7 hours a day was just what he needed.
No not at all. First, if a company has a maternity leave policy, its almost *never* contingent on return to work. How can it be when most all states in the US are employment at will?
Most maternity leave policies in the US are developed by the employer and cover employees for a certain period of time, often contingent on how long they've already served, but almost never contingent on return to work.
Ours for example covers partners who have been with the firm more than 13 months for up to 6 months fully paid. The company pays full compensation and benefits during that time; and more can be negotiated on a case by case basis. Never, however, would they try to recoup this from a woman who didnt return from leave.
Actually several people gave you specific arguments to use. One was to work for 6 months and not spend a dime of the money you make, to show him you can make it. Another was to go over the budget carefully.
You have not responded to any of these people with so much as acknowledgment. You keep saying it is immoral to work, yet you refuse to explain how that is so.
Many companies do, however. When a company offers maternity benefits, there is often a rider attached to the effect that if the woman does not return to her job, she will have to pay back the maternity benefits. Since companies in the US are not required to offer such benefits, they obviously only do it in the hope of retaining valuable employees, so the rider makes sense. I have heard about this at law firms, for example.
It does not appear that this is an issue for OP though, since it sounds as if she only got the minimal disability benefits.
Pages
Ok, I missed this the first time around. Yes, in most cases, it certainly is about the mom and not the child. I certainly don't remember my firsts and neither do our girls or Dylan. Do you? Out of our 4 children, I did sah for Erica's sake and not mine. Joy and Angela got the "benefit" of my staying home with Erica but they had a sahm who was more focused on their sister than on them. How was that of benefit to them? Dylan gets the benefit of a woh/wahm which is to his benefit since he has thrived at dc and now at after school care. Being a very social only child, being able to be around the same kids for 7 hours a day was just what he needed.
Chris
The truth may be out there but lies are in your head. Terry Pratchett
And that begs the question of would they let you? And for how long?
Chris
The truth may be out there but lies are in your head. Terry Pratchett
No not at all. First, if a company has a maternity leave policy, its almost *never* contingent on return to work. How can it be when most all states in the US are employment at will?
Most maternity leave policies in the US are developed by the employer and cover employees for a certain period of time, often contingent on how long they've already served, but almost never contingent on return to work.
Ours for example covers partners who have been with the firm more than 13 months for up to 6 months fully paid. The company pays full compensation and benefits during that time; and more can be negotiated on a case by case basis. Never, however, would they try to recoup this from a woman who didnt return from leave.
Actually several people gave you specific arguments to use. One was to work for 6 months and not spend a dime of the money you make, to show him you can make it. Another was to go over the budget carefully.
You have not responded to any of these people with so much as acknowledgment. You keep saying it is immoral to work, yet you refuse to explain how that is so.
Many companies do, however. When a company offers maternity benefits, there is often a rider attached to the effect that if the woman does not return to her job, she will have to pay back the maternity benefits. Since companies in the US are not required to offer such benefits, they obviously only do it in the hope of retaining valuable employees, so the rider makes sense. I have heard about this at law firms, for example.
It does not appear that this is an issue for OP though, since it sounds as if she only got the minimal disability benefits.
<
Pages