How about pregnancy and maternity leave in the USA?

[tigereye]

Do you have right for pregnancy and maternity leave?
Are you payed during this period?

Here in Belgium
Your leave lasts fifteen weeks (seventeen weeks for twins).
This leave is divided into two parts:
-the pregnancy leave is maximum six weeks (8 weeks for a twins)
-the maternity leave minimum nine weeks from the delivery (can be extended with 2 weeks
by birth of a twins)
You must take up at least one week namely the last week before the estimated delivery date.
Maximum six of the fifteen weeks may be taken before the delivery.

During this period, you get no wage of your employer, but a payment of the National Health Care Administration.
If you are employed then at the first thirty days of the leave, you get 82 per cent of your real wage.
As an unemployed person 79.5 per cent of the limited wage that 2529.39 Euro gross per month.
From the 31ste day of the leave as employed, as unemployed persons will get 75 per cent of the
gross monthly wage.

[Dana Sheets]

In the US there is a law called the Family Medical Leave Act. In general it gives employees and their spouses up to 6 weeks of unpaid leave while ensuring their job for them when they return. (I think - some of the HR or legal people on the forum may be able to provide details.

It does not apply to companies with fewer than 50 employees. I work at a very small company (less than 15 people) so the act doesn't apply to me. I've taken two weeks vacation plus a couple days of personal leave time. Starting Dec 10th I'm back at work.

Heather is self-employed as a acupuncturist so she's simply taking a break. Our government does not provide for self-employed mothers to receive any benefits during a maternity leave.

Belgium's benefits sound fantastic!

[Chris McKaskell]

Seems to me Canada allows six months at 80% and six months at nil (it might be more), but your job is guarenteed for the full year and either partner can take any portion of the time - together even.

Although it does not apply unless you are a 'regular' employee (of any size company). So contract workers don't necessarily count EG. university sessionals.

[tigereye]

Thanks Dana and Chris,

Canada seems to be more child friendly. There are East -European countries where women stays home with their
child for 3 years and they receive 75% of their salary during this period.

How do you combine your work and the care of your child later?

Here some parents regulate this with family, friends or neighbors. Others seek a day care or "guest parent".
In that last case is it sensible tho regulate as early possible in connection with long waiting list.
Your child can be registered before he or she was born .
Do you get any compensation from the authorities regarding the expenses of day care?

Here you can apply for. I don't know all the regulation but the main concept is to create equality between parents
so it has been decided to pay the compensation according to personal
income . The sum also depends on the number of hours per week that your child is in the day care .
Employers pay now no directly at their employee the compensation, it is payed by the authorities /through tax payments/. This amount can be cut of from your yearly tax payments.

We need to learn all the regulation before deliver a baby.

[Chris McKaskell]

"How do you combine your work and the care of your child later?"

Here, you simply do the best you can - daycares tend to have waiting lists and, of course there are good ones and bad, but they all cost about the same - $35 to $55/day depending on age and use(full time/part time).

"Do you get any compensation from the authorities regarding the expenses of day care?"

Oh, mais oui! The Harper government very gratiously sends anyone with a kid in full-time day care $100/month. In Canada we value universality. (oh, wait...then they tax it as income so depending on your income you'll be sending it back again).Waste of paper, if you ask me.

That's not entirely fair - we do claim daycare expenses against income - to an extent. Thankfully, there are accountants specialized in this knowledge.

[tigereye]

="Chris McKaskell
Oh, mais oui! The Harper government very gratiously sends anyone with a kid in full-time day care $100/month. In Canada we value universality. (oh, wait...then they tax it as income so depending on your income you'll be sending it back again).Waste of paper, if you ask me.

In my country all of our legal income taxed.
Government is not forcing anybody to deliver a baby,
it is a personal decision. So we are just happy with a bit of deductions.

Honestly if it would be up to me, as long as a couple do not have the minimum income riqired to live a dicent life I would not allow them to get a baby.
You may find this very rude but actually it could save lot of kids from suffering a poor,careless,unhappy life.

[Chris McKaskell]

Hey Eva,

I'm with you in terms of discouraging bad parents from having kids, but I'm not certain income necessarily determines whether someone should have kids or not, and it certainly does not determine whether one is of sound quality to be a parent or not. Having come come from a relatively poor family myself I can attest to a quality of character that may have come in place of a quality of childhood.

Controling over-polulation is certainly an issue given the stress it places on the planet.

Anyway, there were two early critisicms of our government's proposal to pay out the $1,200: 1) it was a cheap way to buy votes; and 2) the irresponsible would only spend it on beer and cigarettes instead of spending on their childrens' wellbeing.

I don't know what other people use the money for, but I do know it's but a small drop in the bucket compared with the cost of raising a child. Still, every bit helps and your kids are worth every effort.

Another interesting thing which is newly available here is a deduction for physical activity. If your child takes karate or plays hockey, for instance, you can claim up to $500. I support this idea and I wonder if it is done anywhere else.

[tigereye]

Hey Eva,
I'm with you in terms of discouraging bad parents from having kids, but I'm not certain income necessarily determines whether someone should have kids or not, and it certainly does not determine whether one is of sound quality to be a parent or not. Having come come from a relatively poor family myself I can attest to a quality of character that may have come in place of a quality of childhood.

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your response.

I believe to enjoy a decent life is based on your income,
and when the income of a person or a family remains under a particular level that is required as minimum to a reasonable standard of living that person or family considered as poor.
Poverty is never a simple affair.
In our society poverty is a connection of many elements, many problems which strengthening each others.
There are several factors contribute to poverty like: low income, bad employments chances,difficulties in the education, unhealthy lifestyle, unstable family life.

The most poor have only lower education.
Some cannot even read or write .
Mostly to a poor child at home is not possible to learn , the parents cannot not help them with the homework, they don't understand the school world.There is often no money for school material.
The poor usually leaves the school earlier to go to work . Through their low education, they can find only heavy and low
paid work or be unemployed.

Because they have little money, they live in a cheaper,small, unsafe house with insufficient grade of sanitary.
An unhealthy living condition, dangerous work circumstances and an unbalanced feeding will lead to healths problems.
From fear and because of their financial situation, they will not go to the doctor. The health of the most poor is then also very bad.
This is passed also to the children.
The living conditions makes that they live under stress, there is often high tensions in the house .
Under these miserable circumstances you cannot think about having a baby even if this is injustice.
What kind of future can they build to their children?
The children will come also in the cycle. Therefor they will get less
chances .
The cycle makes also clear that some communities from the first till the last day of their live, from cradle till the tomb, course in this circuit because they have been isolated from the society ..
Sometimes it goes from father to son, from one generation to the other.
It is a community that also through the history couldn't make connection with the
society and never fully participated in the society neither.
To come out of this cycle on own power is very difficult. The classic aid has been specialized in one or other sector to solve the complex problem of the poor families. But even with much good will and respect the different welfare sectors could bring only remarkable changes if the involved people willingly work together.


Ps.: we get 15 euro support when one is doing karate

[Chris McKaskell]

Yikes, that does sound bleak.

However, unless you begin sterilizing people you're not likely to prevent them from procreating.

Maybe the victorians had it figured out:"Are there no prisons? Are there no work-houses...?", (Ebenezer Scrooge, A Christmas Carol) - make life so miserable, so unbearably painful that people who are marginalized simply die off too exhausted to reproduce.

I dunno, we certainly have poverty here as well, but not as bad as I've seen in some other countries - including the USA. I've always thought that a decent public school system - available to all - makes part of the difference. And paying taxes toward a decent health care system - also available to all - helps. But having these sorts of priveleges requires a population willing to contribute to such things. And it's tough enough convincing those who benefit from such priveledges to take care of themselves and contribute.

All I can say is I agree with you that poverty is a complex issue and not one we'll solve without everyone being on board - including its victoms.

[benzocaine]

Wow. Those are fantastic benefits. You people take care of your own.

My wife is Due in 12 days. She will probably only get about 5 weeks off due to the fact that she has no vacation time.

I will be taking 2 weeks off.... could take 6 but do not have sufficient(what we call) paid time off.

It's funny. I seem to work more and more as my company shaves off my benefits each year.

[benzocaine]

Ps.: we get 15 euro support when one is doing karate

Really? or are you joking? That's like 70 USD! Then there is NO excuse for a sedentary lifestyle.

If you tell the truth, I can only assume it is meant for health promotion, and preventive measures against sickness.

In America many would scream that they don't want our hard earned money going towards someone else's gym membership. That wouldn't work here. For it to work, it would have to be a benefit offered by employers. Considering the bottom line is crucial to survival of companys... it just ain't happening. Too bad sick time away from work, high insurance costs, and productivity are not calculated.

USA is headed for some changes I think.

[Chris McKaskell]

USA is headed for some changes I think.

Sadly, I suspect Canada is too.