Return to Article: Parental leave act moves closer to law
-
88647
I pay taxes that support broken social programs that reward poor decisions. Why shouldn't our government finally implement a program that rewards contributing members of society for being responsible accountable parents?
Why shouldn't super-moms be allowed 30 fast moving paid days to regain control of their hormones and physical dignity? Or, super-dads to support their new and existing little ones, through the transition of adding a member to the family while mom is hidden away dealing with excruciating cramping, hair loss, and uncontrollable shirt flooding? Parental time off is NOT a vacation especially when it directly follows the birth of a child. Having children is a decision not a choice! When we can choose which parent carries the child and gives birth in order to make the financial decision about who will stay home for a few weeks to care for the newborn with the least impact to the family bottom line, then it will be a choice. Many people in their family planning window are willing and able to do our jobs from anywhere anytime to get the job done but we aren't allowed that freedom. We waste billions and billions on real estate for unneeded office space. We waste hours per day of valuable time on commutes and billions more on transportation. The entire federal government needs a make over why not start here. Put some of our money to a program that really does benefit someone worthy. Federal employees pay taxes too.
-
86601
Currently the civil service employees would have to take leave without pay if they didn't have enough annual leave. There are the doctor visits for mom before birth and doctor visits for mom and baby after birth. MOST companies offer insurance and/or paid leave for paternity. This bill is a good thing, especially for the middle class.
-
80344
I'm not sure who some of the goobers are who support such a measure but I'm certain they failed to comprehend the ramifications of such entitlements. I guess since it starts off as only Federal employees, thus utilizing the endless deep pockets of the taxpayer, they feel no pain in paying for such a handout, since many won't be due to AEIC and EIC along with the myriad of other government handouts. Being a parent who had to juggle my own finances while my wife took time off I understand the need but then again I didn't steal from my neighbors in order to pay for it either. This type of overreaching socialism is EXACTLY what is crippling the other countries credited with such "compassion". WAKE UP people!
-
80006
Why has it taken us so long to figure out what 167 other countries (of 189-195 total?!) already understand? Does anyone think the other 85% are foolish, and we are the currently illumined, low-tax lucky ones who might lose out big if we were to START showing similar family support? What is it that we Americans truly value more, if supporting a healthy start to a baby's life is so hard to defend? Is it only private-industry employees that should be entitled to such policies, simply because of the way their job is funded? Should such a benefit only be allowed if it's financed through insurance? Is this what really entitles a newborn to a mere 4 weeks of guaranteed family care?
When difficult circumstances exhaust other leave options before the baby's arrival, how can we expect a woman to postpone her healing from labor until leave re-accumulates? How can we ask a baby to postpone breastfeeding, or expect that it drink formula, because of an obsession with "equal, fairly-financed" leave policies? How can adoptive families be treated any differently, when adoption makes huge demands on parents' time, and the contribution to society is the same?
Children are not personal commodities that benefits parents alone. Children grow up and participate in society as individuals who defend us, heal us, teach us, contribute taxes, and work in supporting the quality of life we all enjoy. I sincerely hope we are on the verge of finally joining the rest of the world in recognizing how important it is to support all new families... not just those with the "right" job funding or insurance policy.
-
79866
I don't know exactly how much more in taxes the typical taxpayer would have to fork out for this program, but it seems to me that even if it was $10 a year, per person, it would still be a valuable expense. A lot of what gets said here (and on other blogs) references how well Gov't employees get paid and their benefits pkg, etc. and does so with a snide tone. As a Fed Emp, let me tell you, for the work I do here, I'd get at least 25% more salary working in the private sector AND get these same kind of benefits.
-
79654
Please remember that the "other countries" that offer paid maternity leave for extended times offer it to ALL of their citizens, not just their federal workers. ALL of the citizens also pay dearly for this benefit through very high tax rates--tax rates which cover this leave and their "socialized" medicine.
In the US, we don't do that. We have a lower tax rate, and exchange for that we get a choice of what we want to pay for.
This plan is asking ALL taxpayers to pay for SOME of the citizens to get free paid time off for caring for a child.
While I agree that having time off is important for parents and children, I totally disagree that this should be a taxpayer expense. Make this an optional plan that an employee can "buy" into, like short-term disability. When I worked for a private company, my plan through my employer only cost me $28.00 per month and that was making over $100,000 per year. It gave me 6 weeks paid time off when I had a child and, nicely enough, it also covered me when I got a cancer diagnosis.
I am sure other companies out there offer maternity leave, but that's just it. They are private companies and they have things called "profits". They can use their profits to treat their employees to whatever they wish. The government doesn't have that.
-
79625
To the people who have made a conscious decision to not have children, what if everyone shared your view and decided to no longer have kids? Just something to think about.
Seems sensible to me why the Government incentivises having children through tax breaks, dependant care etc. More children = More Citizens. More Citizens = More Taxpayers.
Check with Europe about their population issues.
-
79607
We should encourage people to have babies, okay, so maybe that's not politically correct, however, if no babies then who will pay for your retirement benefits. This is a topic that affects everyone, now in higher taxes and later when the kids join the workforce and pay taxes.
-
79599
I find it funny when people say, "You shouldn't have that benefit because I didn't and I was miserable". Shouldn't we be making the world better for the next generation instead of being bitter about the hardships of our past? Every other industrialized democracy has paid maternity/paternity leave. And there's no denying that the economic burden of childbirth falls hardest on women.
Some say it's a "personal choice" to have children. That may true unless you are opposed to birth control and/or abortion. Even if you choose utilize birth control (or abortion for accidental pregnancies), it is draconian to say that a person must choose between having a family or facing economic hardship and possible gender discrimination. If we truly believe in the value of family we should look at the world NOW and NOT say "I had it bad, so I want everyone else to have it bad forever".
-
79580
Sometimes I am just speechless. I guess opinions are really worth what they cost. Nothing! Most of you know that the bill will help people. When times change, people and ideas need to change. So why is it that if you know something will help someone, all the negativity must surround it? No one who has posted has any crystal ball for the future or into someone's life. No one law or bill will always benefit everyone, and some may not use it. Just because we think things may happen one way, some things are out of people's control. What about the pregnant mother who has used her leave to help her handicapp daughter, or and her ailing parents? What about the pregnant mother who used up all her leave to take care of her dying husband who is the baby's father? What about the pregnant mother who stayed sick half of her pregancy? How dare some of you? If something is not benefitting you, it must not be good. How dare some of you little whinie babies "it's not fair." How dare some of you talk about taxpayer money? How many hours do you really work doing the day? And yes, people do get sick, and the government should look into helping them as well - but that should not have to take away from the paid leave bill. That is why this world is in the mess that it's in because so many people who "run" it, make decisions that are messy! Don't look around saying "Who Me?" YES, YOU! Let the first person who never received any benefit from anything (you or your family) or the first person who has lived a life of 8 hours working every day all day, no breaks, no extra lunch time, etc. You go ahead and throw your stone! Some of these comments are just utterly unbelievable.. One word for you, one word for you....Duh!
-
79544
I wish I had paid parental leave when I had my son. I had to use LWOP half time to stretch my leave so I could stay home two months. As the sole support for my family it was very stressful trying to make ends meet. Many young employees don't have enough leave accrued to take four weeks off. If you get advanced leave, you have sold your life to the agency and can't take leave until you pay it back. This is a good bill and supports family values. Let's get into the 21st century and leave the medieval times to the third world.
-
79542
I am 100% in agreement of a government subsidized, employee optional disability policy that we can opt into. that covers pregnancies, illness, etc. as a father, i can use 2 weeks of sick leave when i have children and any females can take the disability claim if they elect to join it. i have a private policy to make up for the lack of a government one and i pay through the nose for it
-
79541
Misplaced concerns by the Congress. Before the government shows that it values families, perhaps it should show that it values the EEO laws. In particular, age discrimination. I stayed home and raised my children until they reached high school before becoming a government employee. Now, just 25 years later, and under the FERS retirement system, there is a concerted effort in my agency to get rid of older, experienced employees. And, the executives are quite brazen about discriminating against the older employees. Heck, if the government would give me 80% of my salary, I'd leave in a heartbeat - solely because of the hostile work environment caused by ageism. But, that is not the case. I still need a high three and five more years. And, I still will not get 80%. It's particularly interesting to me that we have Supreme Court Justices and U. S. Senators - jobs much more important than the job I have - in their 80's and no one harrasses them daily to give it up. And, one of them even has a brain tumor!! Another concern with more leave benefits for these (what I consider irresponsible people - because they live beyond their means and want the government to take care of them) is the impact these extended leaves of absence have on Customer Satisfaction and the other employees who need to pick up their work while they're off 6 weeks here, 6 weeks there. Congress should be worried about showing that the government values discrimination laws...and not go spending more money and time on people who want it all and do not want to make any personal sacrifices as I did.
-
79536
I think it is a good idea in part, I do believe that if it is approved the employee needs to exhaust all of their sick leave prior to being able to use this 4 weeks of leave and there should be a time limit to where it only covers the FMLA hours which I believe is 12 weeks.
With that said I have known several people who planned to have a baby and had leave saved up, but encountered complications along the way to where they had to miss a lot more work than they thought or ended up on bedrest prior to delivery and therefore by the time they delivered were already out of leave.
I have also known women who were not planning on getting pregnant taking precautions and it happened and therefore might not have the leave saved.
When I had my daughter 4 years ago I had enough leave save for 2 months, I wanted to take 3 so I borrowed sick leave. When I came back to work, that left me with no leave, and when my daughter got sick since my husband is active duty military I had to take off and by the time she was 1 I was 240 hours in the whole on sick leave. It took me 3 years to pay it back.
I think a lot of men forget that when kids are sick it is usually the mother that has to take off from work if they are in a dual income family. Most of my friends that both spouses work, it is always the mother who is taking off and therefore never has any leave.
And to the commentor about paternity leave for the military, they passed that law in Oct 2008 granting all fathers 10 days of unpaid leave at the discretion of the unit commander based on the OPTEMPO.
For those that feel we are getting something for nothing, think about all the other federal programs you pay into and will never use because you make too much money to qualify.
In lots of other countries all citizens get paid time off after childbirth and it isn't just a few weeks, it is usually 6 months to a year.
And I also think they should look at the short term disability for those who have chronic medical issues that don't qualify for medical retirement but can't work for a certain period of time.
-
79533
Short Term disability would be great.even AFLAC offers private plans for federal employees now if they want to pay. But if the government offered short term disability and include family member care as part of that (similar to family leave) it to all civilians and military, the coverage pool would be so big it would not cost prohibitive. I've had the childbirth experience during my federal career, the family leave (for car accident of adult child, to watch grandchildren), also for caring for an elderly aunt who had a stroke. I used massive amounts of leave in each of these instances. I was glad I had the leave to cover it, but could have done a better job of taking care of the situations if I'd not had to worry about using all the leave. We are very lucky to be federal employees in the current economic situation, because we have employment regardless of whether or not everything is included in the benefits package.
-
79522
OnTheFence said, "Today we have the ability to get advanced sick leave and that covers medical issues."
That's not always true in all agencies. IRS, for example, allows advance sick leave, contingent on the approval of your manager and, possibly, one or two levels above that...and even then, IRS still had calls for donations to the "leave bank" every year. However, some to most (if not all) branches of USDA sees employees relying on leave donations from other employees throughout the agency if their leave is bankrupted by medical issues, voluntary or not.
-
79519
The reality is most of these Moms will take work home, I did yet I was still counted against for leave purposes. Quit being so selfish and see that the times have changed. The middle-class people are squeezed so tight that only the welfare moms can afford to have kids. Why punish those who work?
-
79517
Agreeing with Unlucky Employee! Why would you grant parental leave and not help someone who is undergoing chemo for cancer. Sheesh. It's just odd. As I said below, the government needs to package this as a short-term disability plan, paid for by the employee, that would cover maternity benefits and catastrophic illnesses that last over 5 days. Fathers and adoptive parents usually have time to make plans and save leave.
-
79510
Agree that it is a good idea, but the timing is not-so-good.
Our Federal Government needs to recruit more smart young women, to replace those counting the days until they can finally quit.
-
79506
This is going too far.
I agree with Erich "Having a child is a conscious decision. The person(s), who make that decision, should pay for it; not the American tapayer. The employee should use his/her own leave. The government should provide advance leave as necessary for those employees that don't have enough leave to cover the 4 weeks."
I also agree with the poster who implied that it is more critical that we support employees who incur major illnesses, as these are unplanned. I knew someone who was let go from his agency when he was sick and ran out of leave. An excellent accountant at the GS 13 level was lost, as he could be working again.
-
79496
I really don't want to hear criticism from administrators and politicians who put the economy in the toilet about the timing on this issue. Allthat is wrong includes massive spending on a war we didn't need to enter and our governement bailing out failed corporations, whose executives are only worried about where their next multimillion dollar bonuses will come from. A new parent getting a little extra leave is the least of our worries.
-
79479
Think about this people...what about those who are ill? They had NO CHOICE when the Doctor told them they had CANCER or diabetes or some other major disease. An illness that requires time off for treatment, Doctors appt's, etc. Those folks have to use their own accured annual and sick leave. Again....these folks did not CHOOSE to have an illness! They need rethink this benefit and include others who are in need as well!!!
-
79478
Having come from the private sector where I worked for 20 years, I will tell you that *most* private companies do NOT offered paid parental leave. What they do offer is short-term disability plans which either the employee or the employer pays for. They are cheap and an excellent way to fund 6 weeks of paid "maternity" leave. Granted, this does not take care of fathers nor does it take care of adoptions. I would love to see the government institute short-term disability. Even the best "leave savers" get totally obliterated by a cancer diagnosis or a complicated pregnancy/childbirth. It would cost the government very little (just administration of the plan) and would cover most of what they are trying to do with this parental leave act. And you have the option to take it or not. For the record, I am a parent with two children.
-
79477
The timing of this is all wrong - more money coming to us from taxpayers when people are already being taxed to the poorhouse. You choose to have kids, you make the decision to use your leave for that. Do people with no kids get the 4 weeks paid leave to use as vacation? Fair is fair.
-
79459
Good or Bad? I had my child as a federal employee. Ran my leave balances down to zero and had to go back to work (only took off 6 weeks, but there were pre- and post-birth medical appointments to consider). Four more weeks would have been nice, since I ran out of leave and it turned out that I became a single parent at week 4. BUT, should we pay for this? Probably not. Today we have the ability to get advanced sick leave and that covers medical issues. If you don't come back after 6 weeks, you have to use annual leave. That is a choice. I went back to work and so can everyone else, OR they can use their accumulated leave. I find it hard to believe that this will draw young employees to the federal government - the economy has already done that. Time to decide - do I want to work, or do I want to stay home with the children. If you want a career, then go to work. If you want to stay home, do it.
-
79443
There are many programs that all taxpayers can't take advantage of. Civilian employees in the guard or reserve get 120 hours of military leave a year. I can't take three weeks off to go work a second job all summer (and get paid at both). I won't qualify for WIC when I have a kid. If it's a choice to have a kid then ALL should plan like people on here keep saying. If you can't afford to feed your kid then starve!! I shouldn't have to burn all my leave to have a family. Like the article says, military already get paid time off. GET OVER IT!!!
-
79438
I am a fed employee who had a daughter last year. i used 2 weeks of my sick leave to help my wife and daughter. paid leave would have helped me in that case but i would rather that the feds gave us options for disability insurance that we could pay into at group rates. that would cover pregnant mothers and anyone else who might not have kids butmight have prolonged hospital stays/recoveries.
-
79437
This is wrong on so many fronts:
1. Wrong to the taxpayers who have to "pay" for more federal employees getting time off. 2. Wrong to co-workers who are not and never will be entitled to a similar benefit and may also have additional duties and responsibilities during the absence of the employee receiving the benefit....there is no reciprosity for those who will never qualify (hiring extra temporary help is not something our office would do...and if they did, see NO. 1. above.) 3. Wrong to those who wish they could also (but won't) get paid leave for such things as foster parenting, providing volunteer services to family orientated actvities/organizations, care of elderly, relatives, or friends, pet adoption, and many other beneficial and loving actions.
Funny how some of you folks think the naysayers are all singles or folks past child rearing age. That's not what I'm reading. But, yeah...those single folks are just against it because they won't benefit....those selfish bums!...but wanna-be parents are not selfish??? As if getting a new benefit for themselves has no self interest involved whatsoever. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
-
79435
First off - Married, children, spouse works, too.
I disagree with adding even more leave time, especially paid leave time, when there are already sufficient leave plans on the books.
Next, we do not need this for recruiting purposes.
Finally, I will always disagree with giving one segment of the workforce something over another group - I believe in equal pay for equal work, and I mean it.
-
79434
First off, let me state that I am a married male with two children. Both my spouse and I are employed by the same agency. I am 100% in support of this legislation. In my opinion, anything that would benefit the next generation, and new parents, is a good thing. While I will not be able to utilize the time, I understand the stresses of new parenthood and the need for relief. Also, since the time and pay is offered by many corporations, the arguement that it is not needed for recruitment is short sighted. The only reason more people are currently interested in Federal Government employment is the bad economic climate. That will pass and people will once again not seek Federal Government work as their first employment option.
-
79433
What Rep. Issa doesn't mention is that with even more benefits the average civil service member is still way behind the average civilian in pay and benefits. But then again what does Rep. Issa have to worry about he works a couple of years then gets a pension for life with medical. Now that's an area that could stand a little Nip and Tuck, Mr. President.
-
79428
Well...the only thing I would object to is extending this to adoptions. I agree with giving this leave to help the mother heal and to otherwise allow the father time to bond and give the mother said rest to heal, as the physical trauma of childbirth doesn't heal overnight. Adoption, however...well, that's a part I'd take exception to in extending this benefit, and I think that's where regular leave should be used.
Otherwise, I've said it before, I'll say it again: If there's really that much resistance, then while you're on the phone with your senators, DEMAND that this same benefit be stripped from military members as well. Because why should you be paying their salaries while they procreate?
The Congressman made the reference that military members get a similar benefit. When I was in, convelescent leave for the mother only was authorized. As the father, I was granted "baby leave", but that was really regular leave as I obviously didn't give birth to my daughter. Yet if you're against, at minimum, the similar benefit given through childbirth and recovery, then you're against the military having this same benefit, especially when they earn 30 days of leave a year right out of the gate at 2.5 days per month...those mothers should be forced to use that leave and screw 'em if they don't have enough, right?
And I'm sorry, but come on, people, use a touch of common sense from time to time. From the way a lot of these comments are sounding, it's like each taxpayer pays $1 million to anyone on the government payroll having a kid out of your own pocketbook. People don't get a sudden boost to their paycheck during this time, so since when does it cost more money to pay someone the SAME amount of money? That's like saying 1+1=2, except at 11:04pm when it equals 12,538.
-
79423
I also think they should also consider including 4 weeks of additional leave to assist your spouse or parents if they become terminally ill. Another option to consider is changing the rules so that you can carryover more than 240 hours of leave per year so you can save up additional leave for a big event such as a new child.
-
79418
Well, being a Mother of 4, I can see the benefits of this, but I am not sure the benefits outweigh the costs. I took annual and sick leave during my deliveries. My oldest two are 14 months apart; then 4 years, then 6 years. I have never had to "borrow" leave. So, of course I see this as a great perk, but not a necessity.
-
79414
I would to have more information on Parental leave act.
-
79412
Baloney: Perhaps you should research the definition of Socialism.
If you never had children, you never had to use all your AL and SL taking care of sick kids- you got to use it for what it was for... a vacation. Quit whining!
-
79410
Sorry - where is the "free leave..gonna cost the taxpayers BILLIONS!!" coming from?? The USG is still paying the employee if they use their sick leave or annual leave now.
Are you people so pathetic as to worry about a few weeks of leave over a 20+ year career, because it isn't fair?? Give me a break. Go complain about something worthwile...giving new parents a break is the right thing to do.
-
79405
I love the vocal minority posting comments here - who are nearly always single, beyond their child-bearing years, or simply don't have children - who rant on about how this is so unfair. If THEY can't benefit from it, NOBODY can have it. Well, think about how this would have helped your parents raise YOU when you were a little rugrat. It might have helped them...just a bit...in the early years when they were struggling and maybe, just maybe, you might not have turned out so short-sighted and bitter when the Government actually tried to do something positive to support "family values".
Let's join the rest of the industrialized world and finally take some small steps to help American families for once.
-
79400
I will certainly call my congresswomen about this! And, tell them to support this bill. As a professional agency, most of our staff don't join the government until they are in their late 20's or early 30's because they've finished Ph.D. programs and one or more post-docs. Most can't save enough annual and sick leave (because they're in their first three years) to take the necessary leave after having kids. We have a lot of bright, successful woman leaving government because they can get better benefits at state or local governments, or with universities. As for those whiners who don't think this is fair - I'll listen when I get CSRS retirement benefits rather than FERS!
-
79395
This is wrong legislation and unfair to those who wish not to overpopulate and reward people for causing more life/financial hardship on themselves. Thanks for making me pay for it. (that in addition to bailing out my neighbors who overbought their mortgages). All of the suggestions stated are on target and resonate strongly. I typically vote Democrat, but this makes me angry.
-
79393
Most private companies give their employees 6 weeks paid maternity leave. In some cases they even give the father of the baby a week or two off, but Government employees are forced to use their sick leave or vacation leave to cover them. I think 4 weeks of paid maternity leave is very fair, it's not even the full 6 weeks that everyone else gets. Everyone's so quick to judge Federal employees these days because we have secure jobs in this economy, which is understandable, but critisizing every benefit we might get is not right. We work hard for our money just like everyone else, our jobs were not handed to us, we applied just like anyone else can. usajobs.gov tell everyone to apply if they don't like their current job.
-
79392
This is the best thing that could of happened to anyone who is currently working for the government. I am young and would love to start a family. I understand that work with a lot of people who have are seniors in the positions and honestly all they do is complain about how much work they have on there desk, they complain about everything while they are earning GS 11 rates. While people like me who are GS 5 or GS 7 are doing double, triple the work at a well lower pay rate. Lets keep this family value benefit that people state is taking away from taxpayer money. What is really taking away from taxpayer money are unproductive old government employees that can not adapt to change.
-
79391
Amazing. All but one of the negative comments come from - wait for it - men. What a surprize. But if I read the original story correctly, they'll be able to use this benefit as well if they need it. Or maybe these guys are out of those early child-bearing years.
In all the years I worked for the feds I never had to use Military or Disability leave even though they were available for those who needed them. I should sue.
-
79388
This is a good move by congress. Hard-working couples should have the opportunity to have a family, they are always caught in the middle. Especially now, two-incomes are needed to support a family and time-off for at least the first six weeks (childcare won't accept babies younger than 6 weeks) after a baby is born is hardly where the needed time-off starts. Babies require routine appointments every few weeks after birth for immunizations and tracking growth/problems. I wish this was available when I was having my kids. The 4 weeks is a help, it doesn't cover all needed time off by a long shot. Parents still have to plan and use leave wisely. We should be helping out more than just the welfare moms, having kids in families who work will help the nation in the long run. For all the negative nay-sayers, who will take care of you when you are old?
-
79387
This would be a wonderful thing if this goes through. It especially benefits us younger workers who only accrue 4 hours of leave per pay period. Maternity leave is paid for at many corporations, So this helps make federal employment an easier option for people just graduating from college who want to serve their country and still want a traditional family. I am a republican and didn't vote for Obama, but would totally vote for him in 2012 if this law passes. It shows democrats might actually have some respect for the american family after all.
-
79381
This is ridiculous! I agree with the other comments. This is a decision to be made. Why should government workers expect more handouts because they DECIDED to have a child. C'mon politicians!!
-
79379
I agree with the every comment (8) posted before me. Bad idea. It is a choice and they have the opportunity to accumulate leave for just such things.
In the meantime, you have people screaming to count sick leave as credit for retirement. Guess no reason to take this aways from them. Oh, let's just give them more tax breaks and increased benefits for having more and more children. This brings up the disgust I felt when I read an article on a Navy enlistee who was screaming for welfare and foodstamp to feed his five children, children he fathered while in the Navy and on a set income.
-
79378
I have a little experience at this. I traveled to Siberia two times over a period of 6 months for an adoption taking 3 weeks of leave. I was very gratful that I could use sick leave (2nd trip) and annual leave (1st trip) to accomplish this. Having 4 weeks to get acquantied with the two children I adopted would have been great, but I do not see how the taxpayer should be expected to pay the bill. About half of my expenses are already covered by the tax code. The children are mine and spending time with them at the expense of the taxpayer would be offensive to those that I work with and to me. My kids entered school within a week of their arrival. What would I do--watch television for seven hours a day?
-
79376
It's time all of these right-wing "family values" people start recognizing that unless we start investing in the value of families, we will continue to waste our treasury on all the social ills that come from raising generations of Americans with no sense of who they are, no sense of family, community or patria. An investment in the bonds between parents and children at the very beginning of life will pay off for the entire lifetime.
-
79375
Before everyone throws a fit- look around at the people next to you. Most are of retirement age. Those that are incoming are largely retired military (at least where I work-DOD) Give us Moms a break, there aren't as many of us as you all may think. Yes, I chose to procreate. Yes- I came on board 5 months pregnant. I had complications and ended up have to take nearly three months off. I am STILL 120 hours in the hole, and when my kids got sick with my spouse out of town, I had to go LWOP. We SHOULD have to exhaust all other leave possibilities before using this benefit- but please try to remember how tight things were when you all had little ones. I wouldn't want an incoming mother such as myself to have to stress the way that I did. Oh and BTW, I don't really appreciate having to pay into SS to support all the Baby Boomers who have retired and come back to work anyway- THAT'S a benefit I will have paid for but will NEVER get to use.
-
79371
Socialism at its finest!! This is completely unfair to those who never have children or those past child bearing years!!
CALL YOUR SENATOR AND COMPLAIN!! CALL!!!
-
79370
Having a child is a conscious decision. The person(s), who make that decision, should pay for it; not the American tapayer. The employee should use his/her own leave. The government should provide advance leave as necessary for those employees that don't have enough leave to cover the 4 weeks. How far are we going toward socialism?
-
79358
Here are the current benefits that a federal employee of childbearing age currently receives:
-13-20 days of annual leave per year of which 240 hours can be carried over annually. -13 sick days per year, with unlimited accumulation. -Compensatory time which can be accumulated and used within one year. -Leave donation program where other employees can contribute their leave if the employee runs out of leave. -Alternate work schedules which means at least one day off every two weeks, sometimes one day off every week. -In certain cases, teleworking, if they are in a non-essential white-collar job. -Generous health benefits which will cover most expenses related to childbirth. What more can they ask for? I understand generosity, but this goes TOO far. Remember, that a job is ultimately about work and productivity, not income support.
As far as the old argument that it helps recruiting and retention, you have got to be kidding me. Everybody I talk to wants a government job right now.
-
79355
Is there no limit to how much time off that CS receive?? The public is getting sick of this largeness at their expense. Time to grab the pitch forks and visit congress
-
79351
How much debt can this country take on? Everthing is nice, but creating that much debt will be a huge black hole
-
79342
Sorry, I haven't been keeping up on this, but am I to understand that the employee does not use his/her annual leave or sick leave. It's an additional grant of 160 hours, possibly 320 hours if OPM gets involved? Why wouldn't the person have to use their annual/sick balance?
-
79341
HR626 and S354 SHOULD NOT BE PASSED!!! The "government" doesn't have any money -- it gets all of it's money from us, the taxpayer. Why should one taxpayer (specifically single) again be compelled by law to pay for another to procreate? We already pay for this annually through the deductions provided for marriage and dependents to this "select" group that's incorporated in the Federal and State tax codes.
-
79338
First, please do not use my name in making my comment public. I agree with Rep. Darrell Issa - the employee should use their accumulated leave first (both annual and sick) before being granted leave off with pay. This is not fair to the individuals who do not have children and have to take leave for other reasons beyond their control. Also, if the individuals do not have to pay this "free" leave back before retiring, that isn't fair either. If individuals want children, they should ensure they have the leave for the birth or adoption; as I said, it is not fair to the individuals that have to ask for advance leave, for whatever reason, and have to pay it pack through their accruing sick and annual once they begin accumulating leave again. And you can bet that individuals will not be honest and take advantage of the system, unless the personnel office serving these indiviudals get doctor's notes or adoption papers - and this should be a must, if the legislation is passed, for the individuals to take advantage of the "free" leave.
-
79328
Wrong, Wrong, and again Wrong! People who CHOOSE
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.