Comments on: Universal paid maternity leave in the US: What would it cost?

By: Liz

Liz — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:32:00 +0000

In reply to kellymom. Not only would it improve breastfeeding rates. It might also lower illness rates amoung children therefore lower medicaid rates. The program could end up paying for itself in the end.

By: CandiceSmith

CandiceSmith — Sun, 22 Dec 2013 21:52:00 +0000

In reply to Carol_is_milkmonkeezmom. I'm going to have to disagree. I know someone (she is white) and she is not employed, having babies out of wedlock (so it looks like she has no income but lives with her boyfriend who works- but he also bought a house for section-9 rent and said she was living there, but she's not- someone else who is paying rent on top of the money he receives from section-9 housing is there) and getting all her babies (she has four) paid for during and after their birth. Is it a coincidence that she accidentally gets pregnant right when her food stamps are about to run out?

By: elizabeth santiago

elizabeth santiago — Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:25:00 +0000

scrap welfare program or reduce it that will help also. some welfare beneficiaries are sooo lazy and overweight

By: paskita

paskita — Wed, 29 May 2013 01:13:00 +0000

In reply to Ky. That is an important point to mention, that the rest of the weeks can be used partly by mom or dad. So dad is also encouraged to play an active role in the upbringing of the child but also bonding with him or her.

By: habi

habi — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:52:00 +0000

All I can say is that it works well for the UK. Up to 12 months maternity leave (6 months full pay, 6 months half pay.) The mother can choose to transfer some of her leave to the father, who in addition to what he shares with the mother, gets 2 weeks off anyway if he wants. So it is much more like “family” leave rather than paternity/maternity; the fact that men can take the time off as well really helps with the discrimination aspect.

Women on maternity leave cannot be fired while on maternity leave; if they are made redundant they must be offered another similar position; if no position is available (i.e., company shutting down) they must be fully compensated for the loss of their job. There are rules about it (you have to work for the company full time for at least six months, you must give X amount of notice, you get paid either your salary or Statuatory Maternity Pay – whichever is LOWER), it’s not a free-for-all and it doesn’t encourage people to spew out children willy-nilly. It is limited afterall. But it shouldn’t be that women must choose between career and family; I really feel it is the responsibility of society to nurture solid family life. Everyone benefits in the long run.

By: SJC22

SJC22 — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:11:00 +0000

I currently am living in Germany where women get a choice of 3 years off of work with the first year they get a percentage of their pay the second year a lesser percentage of their pay and the 3rd year just their health care is paid for. They can opt for just the first year off where they would get both their 1st and 2nd year percentages together equaling more pay. It makes sense. I worked in the states at a company that would only give me a month off because I got pregnant as soon as I got the job. I would have been fired if I did not return to my job after that month. I would rather give birth in a country that didn’t penalize me for having children. I strongly believe the US needs to change maternity options. As well as Paternity leave. Fathers should be allowed to stay home with their babies without eating up all their vacation time!

By: Trish

Trish — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:54:00 +0000

In reply to Tracy Hilliard. Tracy, I've heard it said that paying low-income/poor/unemployed women maternity leave (or any benefit) results in people having children just for the money and is a drag on the welfare system in general. Does that happen in Canada? Is it a problem?

By: Trish

Trish — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:21:00 +0000

Interesting thought on having it come out of your own paycheck. I would consider that as long as my employer never found out. In many male-dominated fields letting your company know that you are planning for a family puts you at the very end of the list for promotions.

Maybe using a deduction on your w-9? Probably smarter to save and invest your money though. Would be an interesting thing to add to financial planning. How to Save for Staying Home with Your New Baby 101. Wish I’d had that class!

By: golfermom

golfermom — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 04:38:00 +0000

Thank you so much for giving actual costs to paid maternity leave. I would be willing to spend a little more money each month for the health benefits for women and children.

By: KB

KB — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:34:00 +0000

Why not make it a program that working women pay into? I agree that something needs to be done – I have had a friend go back to work after 6 weeks – so hard to do!! I have read some of the other comments about SAHM moms having partners that pay into the system, and I understand that it is “not fair” to pay in and not get the benefits because you are making a different choice than a 2-income family. We are also a homeschooling family – paying 2x for a school system we do not use. We pay our property taxes to fund public education, plus the cost of our own homeschool. Here is my idea that allows the woman to fund her leave; along with this, some legislation would need to be passed that the job is held for her for “x” amount of time: If a woman knows that working is important to her and/or a financial necessity, then she should have the option to pay into a maternity savings fund when she starts her employment, like a 401K that can move with you, wherever you work. If and when she starts having children, then she can pay herself out of her fund, thereby erasing the “equity” argument – she gets paid what she saved. If you work minimum wage, you get your minimum wage pay…if you are about the median, then you get your above the median pay…and if she never has children, then she can cash it out when she knows that childbearing is not in her cards. It is so easy to say “stick it to the employer” – well, what if the employer is a Mom/Pop shop with barely there profit margins? Can they afford a full maternity pay plus the cost of paying another employee (salary, payroll taxes, benefits) while the mom is out on her leave? They could go out of business and the mom would have no where to go back to work. In the land of freedom, I am all about the freedom to choose to stay at home or go back to work, and along with that, a program that makes either choice your responsibility.