6 ms·

FYI you can probably take 12 weeks unpaid leave, as guaranteed by FMLA. I'm guessing your employer would exercise the option to pay out vacation time concurrent

by logn 11y ago

FYI you can probably take 12 weeks unpaid leave, as guaranteed by FMLA. I'm guessing your employer would exercise the option to pay out vacation time concurrently. To take FMLA requires nothing more than telling your boss you need time off to take care of a newborn (or any other valid reason), so it's not too late. They can make you fill out paperwork but denying the leave if it's valid is illegal. You're guaranteed to have your job when you come back. (Edit: note to others reading this who work at startups--employers with < 50 employees don't need to follow FMLA)

serge2k 11y ago
Oh great, I can stop getting paid just as I have a kid. That sounds wonderful.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Exactly why I am not taking any unpaid leave.
- SamReidHughes 11y ago
  It's called savings. Instead of asking for paid leave, you can ask for a higher salary, and then save that extra money, which pays for your leave.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    Nice, if you have enough savings to do it. Please don't forget that not everyone is fortunate enough to have enough savings to be able to miss three months worth of paychecks. I did, until I bought a house, sold it, and bought another in the course of a year due to escaping from a horrible job. I'm getting savings built back up again, and I can afford to miss a few paychecks now, but not at the 6 month level I had a couple of years back. I'll get there again.
    - SamReidHughes 11y ago
      Guess what. If you want paid family leave as a benefit, you can choose between that and alternative benefits, like having a higher salary, not to mention (for young people that are likely to have a family) being hirable in the first place. It doesn't come for free.
      - engi_nerd 11y ago
        Isn't this a false dichotomy? And I'm not sure how to parse the whole "not to mention being hirable in the first place" phrase. What exactly are you trying to say?
        SamReidHughes 11y ago
        No. It's not a false dichotomy. The compensation you can negotiate depends on how much work people expect to get out of you. Your price also depends on other people's willingness to take advantage of benefits that you're not interested in. Young people in general are riskier hires than older people -- they have less of a history, they're more likely to change jobs or move -- having a paid leave policy increases that risk even more and makes it harder for some people to find jobs, especially the kind that involve up-front costs of learning on the job or training, and that have slim margins. Edit: The flip side is that regulatory enaction of such policies can help protect you from the effects of stupid behavior by other people. For example, the prices of houses, and the wages people negotiate, are in part an artifact of the fact that most people are willing to spend too much of their own money, buying houses they can barely afford and generally living paycheck to paycheck. These people negotiate wages down while pushing prices of goods up, to the detriment of savers. Policies like mandatory retirement savings and parental leave can help insulate people that want to save for retirement and want to take time off when their child is born from these market effects.
        engi_nerd 11y ago
        All valid points.
    - 11y ago
- facepalm 11y ago
  Kids cost money either way. You probably decided having kids would be worth it for you. What is 3 unpaid months - let's say 30000$? That is nothing compared to what you'll pay for your kid over time.
  - scott_karana 11y ago
    Kids cost a lot spread gradually over time, for the most part. If your monthly expenses increase by ~$100-$400 a month at first, that's reasonably survivable for the majority of couples, and other increases can be planned for. If your month income suddenly declines by $10000 a month as in your example, you're probably fucked.
engi_nerd 11y ago
Yes, I am aware of this. I made sure to educate myself on FMLA during my wife's first pregnancy. I will use some banked compensatory time to make my leave last about six weeks.

by logn 11y ago

serge2k 11y ago

Oh great, I can stop getting paid just as I have a kid. That sounds wonderful.

engi_nerd 11y ago
Exactly why I am not taking any unpaid leave.
SamReidHughes 11y ago
It's called savings. Instead of asking for paid leave, you can ask for a higher salary, and then save that extra money, which pays for your leave.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Nice, if you have enough savings to do it. Please don't forget that not everyone is fortunate enough to have enough savings to be able to miss three months worth of paychecks. I did, until I bought a house, sold it, and bought another in the course of a year due to escaping from a horrible job. I'm getting savings built back up again, and I can afford to miss a few paychecks now, but not at the 6 month level I had a couple of years back. I'll get there again.
  - SamReidHughes 11y ago
    Guess what. If you want paid family leave as a benefit, you can choose between that and alternative benefits, like having a higher salary, not to mention (for young people that are likely to have a family) being hirable in the first place. It doesn't come for free.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      Isn't this a false dichotomy? And I'm not sure how to parse the whole "not to mention being hirable in the first place" phrase. What exactly are you trying to say?
      - SamReidHughes 11y ago
        No. It's not a false dichotomy. The compensation you can negotiate depends on how much work people expect to get out of you. Your price also depends on other people's willingness to take advantage of benefits that you're not interested in. Young people in general are riskier hires than older people -- they have less of a history, they're more likely to change jobs or move -- having a paid leave policy increases that risk even more and makes it harder for some people to find jobs, especially the kind that involve up-front costs of learning on the job or training, and that have slim margins. Edit: The flip side is that regulatory enaction of such policies can help protect you from the effects of stupid behavior by other people. For example, the prices of houses, and the wages people negotiate, are in part an artifact of the fact that most people are willing to spend too much of their own money, buying houses they can barely afford and generally living paycheck to paycheck. These people negotiate wages down while pushing prices of goods up, to the detriment of savers. Policies like mandatory retirement savings and parental leave can help insulate people that want to save for retirement and want to take time off when their child is born from these market effects.
        engi_nerd 11y ago
        All valid points.
  - 11y ago
facepalm 11y ago
Kids cost money either way. You probably decided having kids would be worth it for you. What is 3 unpaid months - let's say 30000$? That is nothing compared to what you'll pay for your kid over time.
- scott_karana 11y ago
  Kids cost a lot spread gradually over time, for the most part. If your monthly expenses increase by ~$100-$400 a month at first, that's reasonably survivable for the majority of couples, and other increases can be planned for. If your month income suddenly declines by $10000 a month as in your example, you're probably fucked.

engi_nerd 11y ago

Yes, I am aware of this. I made sure to educate myself on FMLA during my wife's first pregnancy. I will use some banked compensatory time to make my leave last about six weeks.