HOW do US women physically manage to back to work so quickly after birth?!

[boboismylove]

I was watching The Good Fight the other day and one of the characters said she was planning on returning to work THREE DAYS after birth. I know this is fictional but I looked it up and apparently 1 in 4 American women return to work within 10 DAYS.

This is obviously awful. But I don't actually understand how it's physically possible?! I couldn't sit up properly for a month after birth, and was limping for around the same time. I didn't have a C section, and technically had a relatively smooth birth - so I can't imagine going back earlier! How do women in the US manage it physically?! What about prolapse risk? Looking after stitches? Extremely heavy bleeding? - and again, this is only with a "normal" birth.

I know even in quite a few developing countries they have 6 weeks leave - maybe connected to the idea women should rest and be housebound for 40 days.

Appalling that there is no statutory maternity leave. All very well saying it allows women to restart their careers etc but if something goes wrong or the woman is tired, or simply wants to spend time with her newborn child, that's her problem to solve. It shouldn't be like that.

Im a GP and I went back to work 8 weeks after youngest was born. Not ideal but it wasn't as disastrous as you'd think. Admittedly I was working only 2 days a week and could express whilst doing paperwork (or on occasion baby came into mefor feeds).
There was no way the practice could manage with me taking any more time off (and to be honest it really felt good to get out and about). Plus im main wage earner so dh is very capable at home.

That said he wasn't my first, and I was lucky to have a very straight forward birth and breastfeeding went well.

4 yrs later the bond I have with him is the same as his 14 yr old brother who I had a year off with.

I think lack of choice is a problem and a familiy should have the option to do whatever works best, but can see how the us system works

I had a straightforward pregnancy and recovered quickly from the c-section when the DT’s were born. I always wanted to go back to work and continue with my career and took the six months off which was the maximum then. I wish I’d had the opportunity to take the full year which is available now. At six months I thought my babies were so small to be going to nursery. There is no way I could have faced going back to full time work any earlier. One year out of your working life is nothing.

Is there a higher rate of PND with women who have to go back to work so early?
I was probably over anxious compared to the norm when mine were born, but I can't imagine having to leave your baby even in the first few months never mind a week or so, I'd have been too upset/worried about them to even work efficiently.

It doesn't seem beneficial to society for the workplace, or the mums and babies (depending on how you view the importance of bonding with primary caregiver).

I've had this discussion with several American people I've met mainly to try and understand the issue more.

My conclusion so far It seems to work well for those in high paid jobs as they seem to be able to negotiate a bit more time off. Have good access to childcare provision can afford a nanny ECT. But it doesn't work for the average worker who only gets the minimum. Struggles to afford childcare (less regulation on child care and lower ratios for such young babies is not a good thing) actually see a lot of women either working for nothing or just not going back to work at all.

We need to change our attitude to work life anyway as many of us will be working much longer. The average working life is going to be more like 50 year's so taking 6months or a year maternity in that time shouldn't be a problem. Or more flexible working life either as we will all be working a lot longer.

Some of these things only work if you are local. My job is office/desk based so theoretically I could have done some work, but my office is an hour commute away. So my baby couldn't have been brought in for breastfeeding. No childcare onsite, and central London childminder or nursery prob more expensive than outside, plus travelling in rush hour with my baby. Not for me!

I think the short amount of time in the US is not what we should be aiming for. Changing the general attitude about women taking leave so that their careers are not affected is what is needed. In the company I work for the COO is female, has at least 5 children and whilst I don't know how much maternity she took each time between them it will be a fair few months! They are quite good about maternity and flexible working etc.

Childcare here is a lot cheaper compared to the U.K. Nanny here is $750 a week for 50-60 hours of work (childcare and housework). Daycare for us is $1650 a month until 2.5 and it drops to $1100. Once school starts we use the private aftercare program which is $6k a year. Summer camp has become ridiculously expensive with bussed camps costing $1000 a week. We have a part time sitter/nanny because our DC do best leaving daycare at about 3pm.

What you find here is that many women go into self employment once they have DC. Real estate agents, insurance brokers, mortgage closing agents etc are great side income roles. Amazon remote customer service is very popular with those looking for additional income.

Childcare here is a lot cheaper compared to the U.K. Nanny here is $750 a week for 50-60 hours of work (childcare and housework). Daycare for us is $1650 a month until 2.5 and it drops to $1100. Once school starts we use the private aftercare program which is $6k a year. Summer camp has become ridiculously expensive with bussed camps costing $1000 a week. We have a part time sitter/nanny because our DC do best leaving daycare at about 3pm

It's cheaper because its lower quality and less regulated. Your nanny you are paying 750 for a 60 hour week, what maternity provision does she have? What would she do if she has a baby? You pay her a fraction of what you make yet she has less support and less options.

Thats 8.80 an hour folks, btw, for Supermums nanny/housekeeper. Great for you that no maternity leave is brilliant for your career, but its not so great for the women making peanuts that allow you to have your career, is it?
Don't you care about them>

Depends on the person. Sitting at my desk 2 weeks after birth was a walk in the park compared with weekends with a brand new baby, a 1 year old and a 3 year old to look after without help. Toddlers rest for no man but in an office sometimes you are treated like a god. I know which is the easiest - feet up typing rather than changing the umpteenth nappy whilst the toddler kicks your leg and you try to bring some kind of semblance of order to the living room floor. Lots of us not rich enough to have help at home go back to work for a rest.

down ratio in daycare is 1:4. I found for my DC a smaller room better so picked a daycare with no more than 12 in a room. The quality of care is excellent.

The pay is what it is. I have not met one nanny willing to work on the books. This is so they qualify for maximum welfare. Drives me nuts but actually works out. The women in these low paid roles are not badly paid if you consider its cash in hand and it's basically their disposable income. The ladies who work at daycare are paid $9/hr and get full benefits including 6 months leave plus a free place for their DC when they decide to return to work. Most return after 12 weeks.

I think it says worrying things about a society which values work so very much more highly than family.

I agree. I think it's fundamental for women to work and be independent financially, but we need a happy medium where children aren't left with childcare for 50-60 hours a week. This attitude that we need to devote most of our waking hours to work, meaning the people we love the most get a small sliver of our time at the beginning and the end of each day is totally twisted.

60 hours a week is 36% of a week. It's about 55% of a week with 8 hours of sleep a night. Sadly if you want to be financially independent you need to work 40 hours a week. Add in a commute and you are looking at 50-60 hours of childcare a week.

So? With a newborn, its 50-60 hours too much.

I don't know about you but it takes me an hour to get to work most days. I now work 40-45 hours a week. When I'm on my own I need 50-60 hours of childcare.

To coin a phrase........wont somebody think of the children?!

Its all very well saying that a quick return is better for the mothers career, but what about the baby? Taking a newborn and placing it in childcare for 60 hours a week cannot be good for its development on an emoitonal level, and studies have suggested it may affect neurological development too. The tradition of lying in with the baby for several weeks was in all cultures until relatively recently, and for a good reason.

My DSil, Canadian but living in the US had her eldest DS a couple of months before I had my DT’s. We compared the different ways the US and UK dealt with childbirth, postnatal care, maternity and childcare. I was glad, and DSil wished, that I benefited from the UK system particularly with the postnatal visits from the midwife/health visitor and maternity leave to say nothing of the cost. There is a lot wrong with the NHS but we are very lucky to have it.

I went back to work two months after my first baby, this was over thirty years ago. However, looking after babies was quite different hen - we were expected to get our babies into a 4 hour feeding routine as soon as possible and get them to sleep through the night. Different times. I can't imagine how anyone who is feeding on demand could go to work as quickly.

It's strange that such a rich country does this.

The idea of being separated from my baby at only a few weeks old, scares me. You're barely separate beings at that point.

Going back at 13 months reduced me to tears several times. If I'd been living in the US I would never have had him. The US is downright cruel in this respect.

60 hours a week is 36% of a week. It's about 55% of a week with 8 hours of sleep a night. Sadly if you want to be financially independent you need to work 40 hours a week. Add in a commute and you are looking at 50-60 hours of childcare a week.
I know the maths. I still think that ideally, parents should be able to both work part time and share both the financial burden and childcare equally. That means that we need to change the attitude of looking down on part time work and making it hard to go back to full time if you've been working part time for any length of time. We need to change our outlook about working parents, not reducing maternity leave and leaving children in childcare for most of their waking time!

Ouf I didn't think this would turn into a debate on maternity leave!

Maternity leave isn't just about the woman recovering but I think is mainly because the baby needs looking after! I can't understand how a tiny baby can go to nursery or looked after by a stranger - what about breastfeeding? Apparently the optimum time is 40 weeks. Extended mat leave to 15 months (like Sweden) doesn't show to have any obvious benefit on the baby or the mother.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/maternity-leave_n_1171675

I think there should be mat leave up to one year and then state universal nursery care. But obviously you don't have to take all of your mat leave. I had to take it early during pregnancy and I was itching to do work stuff by the time my baby was one month, despite my physical discomfort. I went back to work from home at 6 months. If you can work from home, or are planning on having lots of children and have a high power career, I can understand wanting to go back from 3-6 months. But 3 WEEKS?? That's different.

And to people saying the UK is spoilt - most developing and middle income countries have paid leave of around 12 weeks (the US is actually one of like 6 places which doesn't). Across lots of Asia and middle east, they also have the idea of a 40 day confinement period, where not only women shouldn't work, but they shouldn't cook or do house work. There are even traditional dishes that MILs should cook for a new mother in this time :p. The mother is supposed to rest and focus on breastfeeding. I don't think women in the UK are spoilt because we get time off work!

There are serious physical consequences from doing too much too soon. Your pelvic muscles are very weakened, and if you put too much pressure on too soon this is a big factor towards causing prolapse. Every time I went for a short walk in the first few weeks, I'd start bleeding massively and felt pressure - I took that as a sign to stay rested, which i was able to do as I had help from my MIL + SIL and my partner had taken a few weeks off work. Also your stiches need to heal. There's a massive thread on AIBU about all the complications women have experienced after birth - why are we so dismissive about these things? This is a sensitive important part of our bodies we need for the rest of our lives.

Even if the US doesn't accept the principle of Mat leave to look after a baby, I find it shocking that they don't even give 6 weeks bare minimum paid time off for safety concerns.

I think its long been mandatory to take 2 weeks off in the UK.

@bubbles

Yes - www.madeformums.com/news-and-gossip/short-maternity-leave-raises-pnd-risk/28457.html

Also, I think it takes some time for most people to bond and get to know their babies. If I'd have returned to work when my baby was a newborn, and didn't have the chance to watch him grow everyday, I don't think my bond would be the same.

If I hadn't been breastfeeding I could have gone back within a few days of ds2's birth because I genuinely didn't feel like I'd just had a baby! But after ds1 and ds3? God, no. It would have ended me. I'm glad I didn't have to.

2 weeks is often on top of the 2-3 weeks that an insurer mandates for insurance purposes. Most US based employees at my company actually take 4 weeks off. This is the part of the American system that people don’t understand; only women in jobs without insurance have to think about returning at 2 weeks and most don’t. It’s why proportionally the US has a bigger rate of stay at home mothers than Europe and Asia.

India mandates 6 months unpaid but most European companies pay this. There is the tradition of confinement here. Paternity leave is often shit though - 2 weeks max but most men aren’t allowed to take it. Childcare in India is also shit unless you’re in a super city.

China has the tradition of confinement (30 days) and most insurers enshrine this; but there is NO government mandated maternity leave. It is all employer managed and flexible. Many employers, in a bid to compete with UK and European firms, offer 18 months full pay and other benefits like free childcare etc, but it’s not standardized.