Maternity leave 12 weeks U.S. 1 yr. in Canada

[Stallion]

My wife took close to 6 (or more) months off. Was off in mid July. Baby was here in early Aug and she went back in Feb.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: classy
I think it should be six months. A woman should have the right to bond with her child uninterrupted for about 6-7 months. When Autumn was born my wife stayed home with her for just over 6 months. She wasnt getting any money after 13 weeks though. I think it should about 6 months or a bit more especially if they are going to breast feed. 1 year is a bit long, but 12 weeks is way to short.

There is something to be said for one of the parents not working while the children are being raised. One cannot not expect to not work for 6 months and still get paid.

 

[Colt45]

You think Canada is socialist now?

just wait until I take over. 😉

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: classy
I think it should be six months. A woman should have the right to bond with her child uninterrupted for about 6-7 months. When Autumn was born my wife stayed home with her for just over 6 months. She wasnt getting any money after 13 weeks though. I think it should about 6 months or a bit more especially if they are going to breast feed. 1 year is a bit long, but 12 weeks is way to short.

There is something to be said for one of the parents not working while the children are being raised. One cannot not expect to not work for 6 months and still get paid.

I wasn't saying that I thought she should have been paid. The reason I said that was to show that what I believe in is also what we practiced. And we did it even though she was receiving no more money after 12 weeks. So you take your lil comment about not working and still getting paid and file it you know you where. 😛

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Sealy

Originally posted by: Lucky

Then if you were planning on staying home when your 6 weeks is up what are you suppose to do financially?

Just wondering?🙂

Um...have your spouse work?

Yes, but a lot of families rely on two incomes and have a hard time making ends meet on one income. That's a whole other issue of course, the whole cost of living thing, especially here in the Vancouver area.

WTF is someone doing have kids then if they can barely support themselves?

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: Lucky




WTF is someone doing have kids then if they can barely support themselves?

You honestly think poor people shouldn't be able to have children?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Colt45

Originally posted by: Lucky




WTF is someone doing have kids then if they can barely support themselves?

You honestly think poor people shouldn't be able to have children?

I personally believe if you cant afford them, you should not have them.

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: Colt45

Originally posted by: Lucky




WTF is someone doing have kids then if they can barely support themselves?

You honestly think poor people shouldn't be able to have children?

This isn't China, people can have their children on their own schedule, regardless of income. Just don't expect a handout though to make it easier. With todays cotraceptives, the chances of an accidental birth should be very low, so if you aren't prepared to have that extra mouth to feed, don't expect my tax dollars to pay for it.

 

[huey1124]

in U.S., it all depends on what company you work for. there's a lady in HR department, who was planning on taking 4 months off to have her baby, while being paid 100% of her pay. i'm not sure exactly how that worked, but i know that if i'm ill, for the first 6 months i get paid 100% of my usual pay if i can provide a doctor's note. and then long term disability kicks in at 70%, indefinitely provided by the employer. and we receive unlimited sick days, so hypothetically i can take 6 months off, go in for one day, and take another 6 months off, all with 100% pay. oh yeah, fathers get paid leaves (up to a week?), when the wives have babies.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Colt45

Originally posted by: Lucky




WTF is someone doing have kids then if they can barely support themselves?

You honestly think poor people shouldn't be able to have children?

You honestly think people should be entitled to government handouts even if they know beforehand they cannot afford to raise a child on their own?

 

"You honestly think people should be entitled to government handouts even if they know beforehand they cannot afford to raise a child on their own?"

Lucky, would it matter to you if the population of poor people waited to get to a middle-class before having kids, but that meant they would die having no kids? I mean, would it bother you that we depended upon people who could afford to have kids? Where would our human race be in population? It seems to me that we have disproportionate poor when compared with people who can afford. I'm just wondering.

 

[sandorski]

Mericans are funny.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Sealy

Originally posted by: Mister T
so in canada, you can live for free if you decide to have a baby once every year?

No not for free, you get allotted 60% of your income and you can decide who gets to use it mom or dad. Or you can each have 6 months. As far as I'm concerned it's a very important time to spend with your child and I'm glad our government realizes that.

That's why taxes in Canada are so frigging high. You want a child? Pay for it yourself! Why should I foot the bill for mothers to stay home?

 

[lowtech1]

Yes it is true & the hubby could also take off from work too, but it is only for government workers. Those damned lazy ass just keep giving them self paid holidays out of the tax payer expense. The above benefit comes into affect as of Jan 1, 2001 & prior to that they "only" get 6 months, while the average worker might get a lucky 3 months if the job is still there waiting for them.

After the extended maternity leave there is a bloom of "civil servants" jump on the band wagon to have children. And, they are misusing the word servant, because they are parasites not peasants or servants.

I don't know about other province, but the above apply to BC.

:disgust:

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: luvly
"You honestly think people should be entitled to government handouts even if they know beforehand they cannot afford to raise a child on their own?"

Lucky, would it matter to you if the population of poor people waited to get to a middle-class before having kids, but that meant they would die having no kids? I mean, would it bother you that we depended upon people who could afford to have kids? Where would our human race be in population? It seems to me that we have disproportionate poor when compared with people who can afford. I'm just wondering.

Hey, there's one way to eliminate poverty 😉

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Sealy

Originally posted by: Mister T
so in canada, you can live for free if you decide to have a baby once every year?

No not for free, you get allotted 60% of your income and you can decide who gets to use it mom or dad. Or you can each have 6 months. As far as I'm concerned it's a very important time to spend with your child and I'm glad our government realizes that.

That's why taxes in Canada are so frigging high. You want a child? Pay for it yourself! Why should I foot the bill for mothers to stay home?

Right on! And we could also lower that tax bill by preventing nonsense like the Gun Registry from getting through (went from an estimated $2M to $1B and raising). May of us warned about that one, who was listening?

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: lowtech
Yes it is true & the hubby could also take off from work too, but it is only for government workers. Those damned lazy ass just keep giving them self paid holidays out of the tax payer expense. The above benefit comes into affect as of Jan 1, 2001 & prior to that they "only" get 6 months, while the average worker might get a lucky 3 months if the job is still there waiting for them.

After the extended maternity leave there is a bloom of "civil servants" jump on the band wagon to have children. And, they are misusing the word servant, because they are parasites not peasants or servants.

I don't know about other province, but the above apply to BC.

:disgust:

I tried to get one of those cosy jobs, but you know what? I don't wear a dress. The BC civil service is mostly female, and while they continue to promote woman entering traditional male jobs, they don't do the same for traditonal female jobs. I have a university degree, applied for a job that supposedly required one and experience, and lost the job to a female secretary with no degree and no experience. I then tried secretarial jobs (I've worked as a Kelly person in most of those government offices and was "in demand" for callbacks) yet I could get a job as one.

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: lowtech
Yes it is true & the hubby could also take off from work too, but it is only for government workers. Those damned lazy ass just keep giving them self paid holidays out of the tax payer expense. The above benefit comes into affect as of Jan 1, 2001 & prior to that they "only" get 6 months, while the average worker might get a lucky 3 months if the job is still there waiting for them.

After the extended maternity leave there is a bloom of "civil servants" jump on the band wagon to have children. And, they are misusing the word servant, because they are parasites not peasants or servants.

I don't know about other province, but the above apply to BC.

:disgust:

I tried to get one of those cosy jobs, but you know what? I don't wear a dress. The BC civil service is mostly female, and while they continue to promote woman entering traditional male jobs, they don't do the same for traditonal female jobs. I have a university degree, applied for a job that supposedly required one and experience, and lost the job to a female secretary with no degree and no experience. I then tried secretarial jobs (I've worked as a Kelly person in most of those government offices and was "in demand" for callbacks) yet I could get a job as one.

I too had a hard time getting a government job after grad from university. I applied for the ?museum curator assistant position? (glorified janitor) and was turned down after I took the test, because they already had someone (union worker) that have high school education in mind. I wanted to take that job, because it let me join the union therefore I could apply for administrative or computer tech position.

I'm now glad that I'm working in the private sector so I can gripe with out worrying about the union or government politics.

 

[lowtech1]

Oops!
They told me that I should have put down that I?m a minority one my application so I would be fast forward to the top of the stack. I didn?t mark down that I?m a minority (about 800 Vietnamese in Victoria), because I believe that the best man/woman should be pick for the job to better our standard & society. My friends & family feel that I was stupid to have such pride, because pride doesn?t make me money. Knowing that I will have a hard time getting a cushy job doing it the right way, but it is the only way that I could live with myself.

Damn pride, sometime I wish that I had a little less of it 😱

 

"Yes it is true & the hubby could also take off from work too, but it is only for government workers. Those damned lazy ass just keep giving them self paid holidays out of the tax payer expense. The above benefit comes into affect as of Jan 1, 2001 & prior to that they "only" get 6 months, while the average worker might get a lucky 3 months if the job is still there waiting for them."

I'll be moving to Canada shortly before having any babies to make it easier on my man and myself. I'll sit back, hang out with my friends, watch TV, and enjoy socialism at its best with benefits.

Oh Lord! You guys make Canada sound like a third world and communist nation. Now I'm so scared of ever visiting Canada, lest I get captured whilst walking on the street and get subjected to interrogation. LOL! That's just how bad some of you have made Canada sound, coupled with some thought police reports I have read about (where people lose their jobs or are prosecuted for their expressed opinions categorised as "hate crimes"). That's a whole different subject. But you should give your country some break and not drive away potential tourists.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: luvly
"Yes it is true & the hubby could also take off from work too, but it is only for government workers. Those damned lazy ass just keep giving them self paid holidays out of the tax payer expense. The above benefit comes into affect as of Jan 1, 2001 & prior to that they "only" get 6 months, while the average worker might get a lucky 3 months if the job is still there waiting for them."

I'll be moving to Canada shortly before having any babies to make it easier on my man and myself. I'll sit back, hang out with my friends, watch TV, and enjoy socialism at its best with benefits.

Oh Lord! You guys make Canada sound like a third world and communist nation. Now I'm so scared of ever visiting Canada, lest I get captured whilst walking on the street and get subjected to interrogation. LOL! That's just how bad some of you have made Canada sound, coupled with some thought police reports I have read about (where people lose their jobs or are prosecuted for their expressed opinions categorised as "hate crimes"). That's a whole different subject. But you should give your country some break and not drive away potential tourists.

Hehe, yup, I've been looking over my shoulder a lot since hearing about my countries "Commie" Socialist" ways! 😀 😀

Some people seem to be stuck in the Cold War rhetoric it seems, unfortunetly.

 

[Sealy]

That's why taxes in Canada are so frigging high. You want a child? Pay for it yourself! Why should I foot the bill for mothers to stay home?

You must have missed my earlier post...but it's not taxes that pay for mother's OR father's to stay home with their infants. I'll reiterate it for you. We pay into something called Employment Insurance on every paycheque we pay approx. 3%ish. This ensures that if you get sick, or get laid off or your work place closes or you get pregnant, you are entitled to recieve up to 60% of your income.

Pay for it yourself!

Okay, if you want your road paved, pay for it yourself! Why should my tax money go to pave your road? Unfortunately if everyone got to pick and choose what they wanted their taxes to go to there would be a lot of things underfunded! I'm not saying that the government is doing the greatest job now, but it's the way it is for the time being, until a 'better' way of doing things comes along. We all get a vote!😉

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: Sealy
That's why taxes in Canada are so frigging high. You want a child? Pay for it yourself! Why should I foot the bill for mothers to stay home?

You must have missed my earlier post...but it's not taxes that pay for mother's OR father's to stay home with their infants. I'll reiterate it for you. We pay into something called Employment Insurance on every paycheque we pay approx. 3%ish. This ensures that if you get sick, or get laid off or your work place closes or you get pregnant, you are entitled to recieve up to 60% of your income.

Pay for it yourself!

Okay, if you want your road paved, pay for it yourself! Why should my tax money go to pave your road? Unfortunately if everyone got to pick and choose what they wanted their taxes to go to there would be a lot of things underfunded! I'm not saying that the government is doing the greatest job now, but it's the way it is for the time being, until a 'better' way of doing things comes along. We all get a vote!😉

It is call "Unemployment Insurance" therefore is should be use as such not vacation for baby makers & their spouse. Let say it is a legitimate insurance call, then why doesn?t the benefit extends to the private sector when we all paid the same taxes?

Why is it much easyer for the govenment worker to get UI benefit when they lost their job, sick, or pregnant, and it is difficult for the average private sector unemployed, pregnant, or sick person?
And, Why does the government worker can stay on these benefits longer than the private sector person?

What about government worker that have specialist to interview, create resume, find job & retraining benefits that doesn?t extend to the average person who isn?t a civil servant?

Why is there companies such as Transformation Systems (got purchase by another government related company this summer & I can?t recall the name) that dedicated their time to interview & find work for displace civil employees, that charge as much as $3000.00-5000.00 to interview per session?

I don?t see these kind of treatment extend to the rest of the taxpayer?

What about special buy out packages that weren?t except by the old useless redundancy government IT workers & managers?
And, we are paying to buy out competent ones so they can become contract workers, and the use less tools are still milking the system on top of everything.

Why weren?t these benefits extending to the rest of the private sector?

Where does money come from?
I don?t think the kind of money that they are playing with come from maple trees, and I don?t believe for a second that the 3% EI tax is enough for them to milk.

And, don't get me started on the "CPP" tax.

:|

 

[Sealy]

It is call "Unemployment Insurance" therefore is should be use as such not vacation for baby makers. Let say it is a legitimate insurance call then why doesn?t the benefit extends to the private sector when we all paid the same taxes?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay Listening ears!!!! It's called Employment Insurance for one, and for two it's NOT a tax! Why should'nt I, recent baby maker, take a leave of absence that I've paid into for 20 yrs?

-------------------------------------------------------


What about government worker that have specialist to interview create resume find job & retraining benefits that doesn?t extend to the average person who isn?t a civil servant?

Why is there companies such as Transformation Systems (got purchase by another government related company this summer & I can?t recall the name) that dedicated their time to interview & find work for displace civil employees, that charge as much as $3000.00-5000.00 to interview & per session?

I don?t see these kind of treatment extend to the rest of the taxpayer?

What about special buy out packages that weren?t except by the old useless redundancy government IT workers & managers?
And, we are paying to buy out competent ones so they can become contract workers, and the use less tools are still milking the system on top of everythings.

Why weren?t these benefits extending to the rest of the private sector?

Where does money come from?
I don?t think the kind of money that they are playing with come from maple trees, and I don?t believe for a second that the 3% EI tax is enough for them to milk.

And, don't get me started on the "CPP" tax.
----------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about with all the other stuff? What does that have to do with maternity leave?

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: Sealy
It is call "Unemployment Insurance" therefore is should be use as such not vacation for baby makers. Let say it is a legitimate insurance call then why doesn?t the benefit extends to the private sector when we all paid the same taxes?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay Listening ears!!!! It's called Employment Insurance for one, and for two it's NOT a tax! Why should'nt I, recent baby maker, take a leave of absence that I've paid into for 20 yrs?

-------------------------------------------------------


What about government worker that have specialist to interview create resume find job & retraining benefits that doesn?t extend to the average person who isn?t a civil servant?

Why is there companies such as Transformation Systems (got purchase by another government related company this summer & I can?t recall the name) that dedicated their time to interview & find work for displace civil employees, that charge as much as $3000.00-5000.00 to interview & per session?

I don?t see these kind of treatment extend to the rest of the taxpayer?

What about special buy out packages that weren?t except by the old useless redundancy government IT workers & managers?
And, we are paying to buy out competent ones so they can become contract workers, and the use less tools are still milking the system on top of everythings.

Why weren?t these benefits extending to the rest of the private sector?

Where does money come from?
I don?t think the kind of money that they are playing with come from maple trees, and I don?t believe for a second that the 3% EI tax is enough for them to milk.

And, don't get me started on the "CPP" tax.
----------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about with all the other stuff? What does that have to do with maternity leave?

I'll reiterate it again that it is insurance not benefit, and it is a choice that you choose not to work. And, why aren?t these so call benefits apply to the private sector when we paid into it just as much as you did?

Let take a scenario such as house insurance using your logic & the government logic. Just because you paid for house insurance for 20 years & your house didn?t burn down during that period you should be able to reclaim the money that you had paid into it when selling your house?
The bank would laughs you out of their insurance office & marks you down as a lunatic if you try that.

And, another thing is that should every student that has worked prior to go to university should be allow to claim EI since they paid into it?
If a person dare to try that would be charge as fraud, because not working & going to school is a choice. Just as having a child & staying home is a choice.