Curious about (lack of) mat leave in USA. How do women cope?

[Ed1n]

Reading another thread about WFH with a newborn which got me thinking. I’m on mat leave and cannot imagine returning to work at twelve weeks, which is I understand, fairly typical (even best case) in US. Any stateside mumsnetters able to give insight into how long most women really take, what is childcare provision like etc?

It seems such a different set up! How do you breast feed, cope with sleep deprivation and decision making.

Googling suggests Estonia is the generous country for paid mat leave. USA the worst.

I can’t work out if you’re just trolling or not, but I’ll bite. What makes you think it’s easy to hire? I do have a reasonably niche skill set thanks, but more broadly it’s been a significant challenge globally hiring women at mid to senior levels in the industry, there’s a lot of competition for them with firms attempting to increase gender balance. This mat leave policy is bog standard everywhere I’ve seen, it’s easy for women to say no thanks to a company that doesn’t bother to offer it.
You have no idea if I get subsidised for childcare anyway? That’s income dependant too. So if my company want to pay me, and if I fully pay my own childcare, I think that all amounts to its absolutely none of your business, except if you were Australian you should appreciate another tax payer who also funds jobs by putting my children in childcare. You’re welcome.
Also, why aren’t you having a go at my dh? He’s getting almost as much paid leave as I am without having to care for a newborn or recover from birth. Is he just not female enough to qualify as a target?

Fortunately, much of the corporate world is more enlightened than you are, and has a far sounder grasp of how important the employee value proposition is to attracting and retaining high value staff.

@timeisnotaline

I’m completely serious.
I really don’t care about gender balance if it means my family has to subsidise working mothers on endless leave and then for years of childcare. Not. One. Bit.
Because that isn’t a gender balance on the job done - it’s just people wanting society to provide them with whatever position they want, how they want it (or to be payed when they don’t) and nothing more while providing nothing of equal value in return.

If this is standard everywhere then the standard is wrong and unsustainable. Some changes are good progress, some are just mistakes. This is the latter and I doubt it will last.
And no I’m not thankful people are paying others to raise their kids so they can do whatever they feel like.
If your DH isn’t doing anything then why should he get leave (since you brought it up)? It’s pointless.

If dh works and I work in the home and am responsible for my own kids - and all of this is subsidised by our work and time (the horror!), then why should I think it’s right for others to expect us to subsidise their self centred lifestyle choices?

I don’t care what judgement I get from working Mothers, this is wrong.

I had my DC in the U.K in the ‘90s when maternity leave was just six months. I was on 90% of my pay for six weeks and statutory maternity pay of about £50 a week for the rest of the time. I went back to work when my DC were six months.

[quote timeisnotaline]@laurenGame the income test is on the person taking leaves salary only for govt paid leave, if that’s your question. My younger sister was shocked by this, too sheltered to realise how many men don’t provide for their partner and baby so the mum can’t rely on that income and is stuck if they don’t get parental leave pay.[/quote]
Yes the income test - will they only look at my earnings? Because with just my salary I qualify but if they look at my partners wage we will miss out.

@Megalameg what the actual F did I just read.

I'm a SAHP and couldn't disagree with you more. I've also been a full time working parent who put their son into childcare. I took 2 lots of maternity leave as well.

I have no issue with my husband's tax £ going to fund sick leave, pensions or maternity leave. Don't forget that it's non of your earned money going here. You also get the benefit of other people's tax £ as you're not working to fund your own are you?

I really don’t care about gender balance if it means my family has to subsidise working mothers on endless leave and then for years of childcare. Not. One. Bit.

Your family or your husband? Seems like you're the one being subsidised, lazybones.

It's not just the USA. I lived in SE Asia and went back to work as a teacher at 11 weeks then 2.5 years later and I had my second child and went back after 9 weeks. It was hard. I once went to work not having been to sleep! Just showered and got on with it.

Some of these stories are horrific - mothers and babies need time to bond and rest post-partum. How can any country think that sending a weeks-old baby to childcare for most of its waking hours is anything other than abhorrent?

@Megalameg you missed the part where your family isn’t subsidising me a penny. Ergo my ‘self centred lifestyle choices’ have nothing to do with you. My husband will be looking after our children, not doing nothing.

Yes @laurenGame your partners income doesn’t count (it will for childcare subsidy when you return to work though)

I had a year off- 6 months full pay, 3 months SMP and then 3 months no pay which was great. No judgement for those who went back sooner, but to not have the choice and have to because of financial constraints/wanting to keep your job does seem sad.

[quote Megalameg]@timeisnotaline

I’m completely serious.
I really don’t care about gender balance if it means my family has to subsidise working mothers on endless leave and then for years of childcare. Not. One. Bit.
Because that isn’t a gender balance on the job done - it’s just people wanting society to provide them with whatever position they want, how they want it (or to be payed when they don’t) and nothing more while providing nothing of equal value in return.

If this is standard everywhere then the standard is wrong and unsustainable. Some changes are good progress, some are just mistakes. This is the latter and I doubt it will last.
And no I’m not thankful people are paying others to raise their kids so they can do whatever they feel like.
If your DH isn’t doing anything then why should he get leave (since you brought it up)? It’s pointless.

If dh works and I work in the home and am responsible for my own kids - and all of this is subsidised by our work and time (the horror!), then why should I think it’s right for others to expect us to subsidise their self centred lifestyle choices?

I don’t care what judgement I get from working Mothers, this is wrong.[/quote]
I suspect most working mothers don't give a fuck about what you think and therefore won't be bothered to judge your views.

@Classica

Actually no, I’m not being subsidised because you know that thing that people have to pay for called childcare? I do that - and I’m not ashamed of it either.

If you working mothers pay for their own childcare then fine, that’s their choice of lifestyle - but don’t expect my family to pay for your childcare you won’t do yourselves or your long long maternity leave.

Dress it up however you want it’s nothing more than glorified pan handling.

but don’t expect my family to pay for your childcare you won’t do yourselves or your long long maternity leave.

But you don't earn any money. You don't contribute. So it's beyond me why you have so many opinions about where taxpayers' money goes.

I mean I'm just breaking this down for you in the bare libertarian terms which you seem to favour. You don't contribute so why should you have an opinion?

[quote Megalameg]@timeisnotaline

Unless you have a rare set of qualifications or skills (and you may) there is no way replacing most workers costs more than paying them for nothing all that time (possibly more than once). It’s a good thing the gov isn’t subsidising it, they shouldn’t.
I don’t consent to my family’s money paying for women playing SAHM for a short time and then very likely paying when those mothers want subsidised childcare as well.

First people expect others to pay for them not to do their job when it suits them, then they expect others to pay for someone else to raise their kids when that suits them. The US has it right, why should people who either both work and care for kids or one work and the other works inside the home pay to subsidise what is essentially a totally self interested lifestyle with little thought for the children? It’s just all about what they’re “owed”.

If mothers don’t want to work they don’t have to - but that doesn’t mean other working people and SAHM should pay them for it - and if Mothers do want to work they should, but that doesn’t mean those same people should pay for their childcare.

Pay your own way.[/quote]
This may be a shock but men are parents too...

And if you can show me a scrap of evidence that keeping parents out of the workplace through lack of family friendly policies outcomes one iota, including net fiscal costs, I will consider what you say.

Funnily enough, all the evidence points to the opposite. Hence Scandi countries with their extended parental leave and subsidised and high quality childcare. Because having both parents work and pay taxes generates FAR more for the government coffers than a SAHP (yes, again, not just mothers...) could ever do.

Otherwise it's just a pathetic rant by someone who clearly has a very heavy chip on their shoulder.

@Classica

I mean I'm just breaking this down for you in the bare libertarian terms which you seem to favour. You don't contribute so why should you have an opinion?

@Classica Because her husband does and since we seem to have 1950s tradwife, what the husband thinsk and does is what the wife does.

@choli ahh jealous of the snacks! We had a nice little library though with books and magazines. The head of my department breastfed 3 children for a year each so was very passionate about supporting nursing mothers.

I don’t consent to my family’s money paying for women playing SAHM for a short time and then very likely paying when those mothers want subsidised childcare as well.
You mean your husband's money for as long as he chooses to stay around. He might very well walk out tomorrow and you will be up the creek.

My daughter was born in the USA and I had a lot of friends there with babies. Women who can't afford to stay at home send their kids to daycare straight away. For low income people, there are programmes which fund the daycare. İt's the norm, for everyone, so there's less of the angst we have over here about what's the right thing to do vis a vis work or stay at home.
Unfortunately though, the ratios of baby to key worker are a lot bigger, so the babies get a lot less attention. You're looking at one caregiver to at least eight babies, in some places. They don't have official childminders (at least they didn't in the state I was in), but you can do short courses to open a daycare in your own home.
It's not ideal, but on the bright side, the child has consistency from the beginning, and the mums are a lot less burnt out than we are over here.

Oh and also it's law that employers must give employees as many breaks as they need to pump.

my friends on us (in academic/office jobs) took 3 weeks paid maternity, 3 weeks saved up sick days, 3-6 weeks unpaid. then back to work with a live in nanny/aupair who facilitates breastfeeding.

apart from the very short maternity the employers seem a lot more flexible wrt time off for toddler groups or medical and beauty appointments.

@Peppapigforlife

Oh and also it's law that employers must give employees as many breaks as they need to pump.

That's very kind of them

@HanukahMatata

“If you can show me a scrap of evidence”? Evidence of what?

I’m not impressed by countries that all send their kids off to be raised by someone else simply because it creates more jobs. Not impressed at all. Broken families are the norm in those countries anyway. If that’s what you want then you do you.

Peace out.

I definitely see many disadvantages to the US system, but there are disadvantages to the UK system, too. First, what happewns to the person who built up his/her skill set managing the mother's job while she was on leave? Now you have two people competent to do the work, but one has to give up the job just because he/she got there second. That's disruptive and unfair, and will always favor older people or people who got there first.
Second, it seems to me that in some ways, it makes life more sexist and women's positions more tenuous in society because men don't seem to take responsibility for their families. It seems as if it is a very common arrangement for men and women to live together and men get to keep all of their own money while women have to pay for themselves and their child out of their tiny maternity pay. I see this over and over on Mumsnet. It seems as if there is some kind of societal disconnect and that instead of having FAMILIES see this money as an added bonus to help them raise their children, it just becomes a bond between the mother and the government in a way that disempowers the good men and frees the useless ones to unleash their basest interests. And this contributes to what makes the UK NOT a paradise, unfortunately, in spite of all you fabulous ladies and cream teas: Your utterly useless cocklodging males.

@Megalameg
Evidence of poor outcomes. Evidence that policies to support parents in the work place cost money in the long run. Evidence that it leads to broken families (the Scandi countries have the happiest kids and the longest parental leave and the most subsidised daycare).
You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts as the saying goes.