Would a longer maternity leave affect...

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2007
Would a longer maternity leave affect...
Fri, 06-18-2010 - 11:08am

your decision to be a SAHP or WOHP?


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-22-2009
Fri, 06-18-2010 - 11:19am

Possibly. It would depend on other circumstances.

When I left the work force I was in the Air Force and that would never be a possibility for the military. My pregnancy just happened to coincide with a test the Air Force was doing on 4 week maternity leaves for V deliveries. If the results went well then it would have been extended to the other services. Apparently it did not because it was dropped after the test and went back to 6 weeks.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2007
Fri, 06-18-2010 - 12:40pm
It would not affect my current decision, as my children are 11 and 13. However, if it was the norm when I had my children, it would have been more pressure on me to sah at a time when I would have been absolutely miserable at home. I had enough angst/guilt/societal frowning when I was deciding to go back to work when there was no monetary incentive to sah. Going back to work after my children were born, was the right decision for me and for my children. Staying at home now, is the best decision for my children, and is ok for me with our available options. If circumstances were different, I would be a wohp in a flash.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2003
Fri, 06-18-2010 - 2:30pm
If my employer had offered me 85% pay for 1 year, I would have taken it. As it was, I took off 3 months with my son, all but two weeks of which were paid by using sick and annual leave. With my daughter, I was in graduate school and working about 20 hours per week. I went back at 6 weeks.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 06-18-2010 - 2:39pm
85% is generous. In Germany it is only 60%, I took it and will again for the next/last child we are planning.

Lilypie Zweiter Ticker

Lilypie Zweiter Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Fri, 06-18-2010 - 6:44pm

When I had my oldest I went back to work at 3 months and that was absolutely driven by maternity leave and vacation time accrued. I would have jumped at the chance to SAH a year with 85% pay.

When I had my twins we decided I would SAH 3 years (now it's more like 4 years though I am a SAHM-B (SAH with lots of things going on) and also in the Fall will be a WOHFFPT (work outside the home for free part time). I would have still quit my job to SAH as long as we wanted, we decided for health reasons they wouldn't go to daycare until they were older than 3 years old.

Say not, 'I have found the truth,' but rather, 'I have found a truth.' -Kahlil Gibran


Ten Rules for Being Human


"The key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding."
Malcolm Gladwell Blink

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-08-2009
Fri, 06-18-2010 - 7:19pm
I took eight months off with my first and five months off with my second, unpaid. While I am in favor of a generous parental leave, I think that 85% of one's pay for one year is punitive to employers. I think about twelve weeks of paid leave is plenty in most cases.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-05-2000
Fri, 06-18-2010 - 7:45pm

No. The only thing that made me reconsider woh was Erica's intolerance for dc. A big reason (main work related reason) I'm switching totally to wah is because at home I don't have fittings. When Joy was born (1978), I only had 6 weeks before I went back to work which was not enough time. When Dylan was born (1998), I was able to take 9 weeks which was just enough time. By that time, I was ready to go back.


The truth may be out there but lies are in your head. Terry Pratchett

Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 06-18-2010 - 8:09pm
It probably would have for me, especially if it applied to multiple kids. I had been at my firm for 11 years when my first was born and would have gotten 3 months off (6 weeks paid). But I don't think this is a scenario we're likely to see in the US.
Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Sat, 06-19-2010 - 1:49am

I am not completely sure, maybe someone who lives up that way knows, but I think the way it is paid for is similar to unemployment insurance or disability. So, employees (and there is probably an employer contribution as well) pay into a fund every week, that then pays out leave pay when necessary.

It seems to work in the countries that have this system, and without killing off business.


If you don't risk anything, you risk even more.
Erica Jong

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Sat, 06-19-2010 - 2:58am

In Sweden, it's paid for by the government through the health insurance (which is ultimately paid for from taxes, both employer and employee). Business do not pay the employee anything while they are on parental leave. Leave for care of sick children is also paid through the health insurance, not the employer.

Many employers use the money saved to hire a temp. Though it can be disrupted at times, it is often also a good opportunity for a company to test out new people with no strings attached (once the contract is up, but person can be out the door).