Proposed changes to Maternity Leave

[jwslam]

http://globalnews.ca/news/3316968/ma...fits-canada-2/

Seriously. Wtf.

"I don't qualify for EI because I don't work. But you should give me mat leave money"

This completely falls into the category of "I can't afford children but I'll pop them out and Justin will get the rest of the country to pay for them"

[Kloubek]

So, by the same notion is it of your opinion that no maternity leave should be offered at all?

[timdog]

I laughed through this whole thing. we have bred a a society of entitled idiots.
dont get me wrong, maybe there is a valid argument out there for extending maternity leave. But if the arguments are just "stuff is expensive, and i need more time", it's pretty laughable. she talks about having a million dollar mortgage and how that's not reasonable to afford that while on maternity leave. wow. a) dont have a million dollar mortgage if you can't afford it, b) dont have kids if you can't afford it without government assistance, C) I bet $20 she drives a car worth at least $50k

[nickyh]

I thought the whole point of the extended leave was to further reduce the EI eligible for the time off?
12 months is roughly $20,000 for the 12 months, so you would get the same $20,000 but spread over 18 months instead.

As an FYI, unless you are careful, $500 every two week just barely covers the basic's for a household budget.
Some parents give up earning $2,000 - $3,000 per month at an average FT job and quite frankly we pay into EI each month so damn right i"m going to collect what I've paid into over the years.

What makes a parent less qualified to get EI vs the person who got laid off and expects to get something from the system????

[jwslam]

Originally posted by Kloubek
So, by the same notion is it of your opinion that no maternity leave should be offered at all?

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?

[ExtraSlow]

It is kind of weird that maternity leave is part of EI, when their goals and aims are totally different.

[spikerS]

I am pretty happy with how maternity leave works in general, however, I would like to see it stretched a little bit so that both parents can be around for the first 3-4 weeks without it reducing the overall length of maternity leave.

For me, I took vacation time so I could be around for the first couple weeks after my daughter was born. I know I could have taken some of the mat leave time, but then it would have shortened the amount of mat leave available to my ex-wife. Ideally, I would have liked to have a 13th month added (for the other parent, forfeited if chosen not to be used), so both parents can sort out things during the first month without reducing the overall mat leave period, but not extending it either.

[Disoblige]

Where does it say you can get paid out if you contributed $0 to EI? There looks to be some qualifications you need to have to be eligible.

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/be...igibility.html

[SOAB]

Originally posted by Disoblige
Where does it say you can get paid out if you contributed $0 to EI? There looks to be some qualifications you need to have to be eligible.

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/be...igibility.html

I think that is what the people in the article are trying to change. people going to school while pregnant don't work enough hours to get maternity leave.

maybe they should wait till they are done school before they have kids?

[SOAB]

Originally posted by spikerS
I am pretty happy with how maternity leave works in general, however, I would like to see it stretched a little bit so that both parents can be around for the first 3-4 weeks without it reducing the overall length of maternity leave.

For me, I took vacation time so I could be around for the first couple weeks after my daughter was born. I know I could have taken some of the mat leave time, but then it would have shortened the amount of mat leave available to my ex-wife. Ideally, I would have liked to have a 13th month added (for the other parent, forfeited if chosen not to be used), so both parents can sort out things during the first month without reducing the overall mat leave period, but not extending it either.

that would've been awesome if i could have stayed home with my family for the 1st month.

i actually didn't even know that maternity/paternity leave could be taken at the same time?

[Kloubek]

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?

Fair enough in that regard. I agree with it being tied into EI so it is a program which is effective as compensation only if you earned it by working.

However, the whole whether you should or whether you shouldn't be entitled to it is only part of the article. The other part is suggesting higher payouts, or longer leave. I don't really support either, but do acknowledge that the program serves a very real and necessary purpose.

Unlike the suggestion in the article, I don't think the system needs to be "overhauled", but I do believe it would be tweaked to help reduce misuse of it. Tying it in with EI would likely be largely effective in doing exactly that.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by SOAB


that would've been awesome if i could have stayed home with my family for the 1st month.

i actually didn't even know that maternity/paternity leave could be taken at the same time?

Both parents can use mat/parental leave at the same time, it just reduces the amount of time available. Basically, you get 365 days of leave for the birth, if you and your wife stay home 1 day, that counts as 2 days, and you have 363 days left.

In reality, you could both stay home the first 6 months, but then after those 6 months, mat leave is done.

[timdog]

Originally posted by nickyh
I thought the whole point of the extended leave was to further reduce the EI eligible for the time off?
12 months is roughly $20,000 for the 12 months, so you would get the same $20,000 but spread over 18 months instead.

As an FYI, unless you are careful, $500 every two week just barely covers the basic's for a household budget.
Some parents give up earning $2,000 - $3,000 per month at an average FT job and quite frankly we pay into EI each month so damn right i"m going to collect what I've paid into over the years.

What makes a parent less qualified to get EI vs the person who got laid off and expects to get something from the system????

totally agreed, my wife paid into it for 10 years and damn right she collected (twice). but, we didnt rely on the assistance and I feel that if we NEEDED it, then maybe we should have thought twice about having kids? my issue is that people say it needs to be extended (which will cost tax payers more) so that people like her can better afford to have children, when they likely have terrible spending habits and just want government assistance to help rather than look at themselves to see how they can make it work better within their means.

this is the classic downward spiral of government assistance programs. people use them, then become reliant on them, then demand more.

[SOAB]

Originally posted by timdog


totally agreed, my wife paid into it for 10 years and damn right she collected (twice). but, we didnt rely on the assistance and I feel that if we NEEDED it, then maybe we should have thought twice about having kids? my issue is that people say it needs to be extended (which will cost tax payers more) so that people like her can better afford to have children, when they likely have terrible spending habits and just want government assistance to help rather than look at themselves to see how they can make it work better within their means.

this is the classic downward spiral of government assistance programs. people use them, then become reliant on them, then demand more.

i don't really have an argument against extending it because they would be getting the same pay over a longer time period.

[mr2mike]

I know people that only buy name brand clothes and shoes for their kids 3 yrs and under. They believe it's worth it. You know, for the Instagram likes.

Also know a family who have 4 kids under 6 and a $800k mortgage. Husband got mad at his boss and quit.

It pays to be ignorant and poor.

[nickyh]

Originally posted by SOAB


i don't really have an argument against extending it because they would be getting the same pay over a longer time period.

Exactly. it's this.

If you can live off less each month for longer, great.

[Supa Dexta]

She's not missing any meals... The 3 women in that article prove there's someone out there that'll breed anything.

[rage2]

Originally posted by mr2mike
I know people that only buy name brand clothes and shoes for their kids 3 yrs and under. They believe it's worth it.

My mom gets pissed off that 1/2 our kids clothes are hand me downs from cousins and goes out and buys them new clothes because she thinks that's neglect. Suffice to say, every time they visit my parents, they get dressed in hand me downs hoping to earn some upgrades.

Car budget > name brand kids clothes. Got my priorities straight hahaha.

[timdog]

Originally posted by nickyh


Exactly. it's this.

If you can live off less each month for longer, great.

what people might not consider is that this hurts businesses.
It's very difficult to put a position 'on hold' for 1 year while you wait for an employee to come back from maternity leave. Depending on the size of the business or the role the person was in, it can be very expensive and can effect productivity.
If corporations were 100% in charge, then maternity leave wouldnt exist at all (except for maybe at the Amazon's and high caliber companies like that). So i'm not saying we need to have only corporation's well being in mind, but it needs to be considered. an extra 6 months is a huge burden.

also the woman in this video was advocating for more money too, not just more time.

[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.