Well this is exactly why woman all got the glass ceiling.Originally posted by nickyh
Having been through a mat leave myself and having a person on my team currently on mat leave, it doesn't really hurt business IMO.
Businesses make do. There is no added cost to the business.
My position was backfilled by people doing more / taking on more responsibility. We did hire someone but the position was also long overdue & badly needed, even during the downturn.
That person is currently on leave, her position was backfilled by a summer student and we have a contract person who we will make a FT employee. Again, my group is lean so we needed an extra hire.
In this case, the company is saving money. the backfilling and cheaper hires have been beneficial for our G&A. We also don't cover the person's medical / dental while they are on leave. The truth is, companies don't have to keep a position "on hold". If a position no longer exists there is nothing to come back to. I've seen it time and time again. It's not right, but there are ways around it. Just an FYI, if you get laid off after a mat leave, there is no more EI. You've taken your share from the system, move along.
Coming back after a year off (10months) it was a shock to the brain. I never had brain issues while pregnant, in fact i was a lot sharper, the re-learning curve was pretty steep when i came back but that's why i came back early so it was not a huge shock. I would have loved to take the 18months, and while my family could swing it financially, from a mental perspective it was time. Everyone is different there. Some places won't take babies under 12months, it took me a while to find somewhere who would that I could trust. I've been on the wait list at my company building daycare since I was pregnant, my daughter is nearly 2.
If it means more money is paid out, so....? People pay into EI for income replacement, it's unfortunate that is lumped in with EI but since they administrator the program it's just that. It's not a lot of income either.
Maybe it would mean for the next wave, instead of having 600hours being required people need to work more, or they have a sliding scale. If you worked 600 you qualify for 12months, 800hours, 14 months etc. I've seen the forums where the mom is short her hours after getting pregnant with the next one too soon, it drastically impacts the payment / length of time you qualify for.
Obviously if you are freelance, too bad so sad. if you can't put some of your income away that's on you. Don't make me now pay for you to sit at home.
If you advance in your career in any managerial capacity, aka the pyramid climb, you cannot have a baby and expect that you can continue that climb from where you were after mat leave.
Having a baby usually mean it's a reset. Businesses are not going to forgo managers and executives for a year, if they can, then that position can be eliminated. Peons, sure, you can backfill those or hire temps.
Now I have seen some businesses (usually smaller ones) do the best to spread the workload but usually having that year off is not kind to your career if you aspire to move upward.
It depends on where our society put values on having a follow up generations to pay for the previous one in retirement.Originally posted by jwslam
That's not what I meant. I'm saying that you need to earn things, not just expect free money. If you've contributed zero dollars to EI because you freelance, why are you being paid out?
The population pyramid is getting very top heavy. We will soon have less people working (20-65) to support retired people (65-100).
It may be wise to promote birth rate if you want to have that support base in the future. All developed world if fighting the same fight, even China.
http://www.businessinsider.com/china...-policy-2017-1