4 ms·

> The women in our offices up North seemingly crank out a new kid almost as soon as they are back from the first one Also known as "the women in our offices ha

> The women in our offices up North seemingly crank out a new kid almost as soon as they are back from the first one Also known as "the women in our offices have kids". Only so many years to get that done.

overcast 10y ago
Three years paid off consecutively seems a bit abusive of the system though don't you think?
- msbarnett 10y ago
  I'd hardly consider having three children in the space of three years a 'vacation'. And that's a vanishingly small edgecase, anyways. It's a good system.
  - overcast 10y ago
    No where did I say it was a 'vacation'. However getting paid to stay home, and raise your children sounds like a better alternative to sitting in a cubicle all day. If it doesn't, then you probably shouldn't have kids.
    - MichaelGG 10y ago
      Sounds like a good thing for Canadians. Otherwise you end up with no citizens and have to do bulk-level importing which is difficult. A party in Germany recently proposed a E10K load, per child, up to 3. More kids meant you didn't have to pay off the loan. Sounds like a good way to help the birthrate. I think it was considered too racist to limit it to citizens.
    - edanm 10y ago
      I think you're being a bit black-and-white in your thinking. Plenty of people have kids and love them, but also don't want to spend literally every minute with them. Or conversely, want to also do other things in their life.
    - eitally 10y ago
      You obviously don't have kids.
  - gaius 10y ago
    In what way is it not a vacation? It's time off work to pursue a personal lifestyle choice, seems pretty much like the definition of a vacation to me.
    - panic 10y ago
      These kids are literally the future of human society. Giving parents time and support is a direct investment in our future.
- visakanv 10y ago
  I don't know the backstory here but having 3 children in 3 years sounds quite normal to me. If you want 3 kids, and you want them while you're young, it makes sense to crank 'em out ASAP. I get that it must be pretty frustrating for the employers, but it also seems to be within natural human behavior (to me, at least).
- hunterjrj 10y ago
  To collect EI benefits, the individual must have worked 600 hours in the qualifying period (ie the 12 months before the leave starts). And I believe the max duration is 50 weeks, further payment requires another 600 hours of work. Three consecutive years would involve a significant amount of unpaid time which (I'm going to presume you are American) you Americans are certainly able to take. Source: Parent of two in Ontario and http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/ei/maternity_parental/eligibility.page http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/ei/maternity_parental/eligibility.p... Edit: Grammar, clarity
  - overcast 10y ago
    600 hours is nothing, that's only a few months before they are eligible again.
- serge2k 10y ago
  Abusive? no. Do I wish I could take 3 years off, yeah. But we live in a society that can afford to give parents time off. I don't have a problem doing that.

overcast 10y ago

Three years paid off consecutively seems a bit abusive of the system though don't you think?

msbarnett 10y ago
I'd hardly consider having three children in the space of three years a 'vacation'. And that's a vanishingly small edgecase, anyways. It's a good system.
- overcast 10y ago
  No where did I say it was a 'vacation'. However getting paid to stay home, and raise your children sounds like a better alternative to sitting in a cubicle all day. If it doesn't, then you probably shouldn't have kids.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    Sounds like a good thing for Canadians. Otherwise you end up with no citizens and have to do bulk-level importing which is difficult. A party in Germany recently proposed a E10K load, per child, up to 3. More kids meant you didn't have to pay off the loan. Sounds like a good way to help the birthrate. I think it was considered too racist to limit it to citizens.
  - edanm 10y ago
    I think you're being a bit black-and-white in your thinking. Plenty of people have kids and love them, but also don't want to spend literally every minute with them. Or conversely, want to also do other things in their life.
  - eitally 10y ago
    You obviously don't have kids.
- gaius 10y ago
  In what way is it not a vacation? It's time off work to pursue a personal lifestyle choice, seems pretty much like the definition of a vacation to me.
  - panic 10y ago
    These kids are literally the future of human society. Giving parents time and support is a direct investment in our future.
visakanv 10y ago
I don't know the backstory here but having 3 children in 3 years sounds quite normal to me. If you want 3 kids, and you want them while you're young, it makes sense to crank 'em out ASAP. I get that it must be pretty frustrating for the employers, but it also seems to be within natural human behavior (to me, at least).
hunterjrj 10y ago
To collect EI benefits, the individual must have worked 600 hours in the qualifying period (ie the 12 months before the leave starts). And I believe the max duration is 50 weeks, further payment requires another 600 hours of work. Three consecutive years would involve a significant amount of unpaid time which (I'm going to presume you are American) you Americans are certainly able to take. Source: Parent of two in Ontario and http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/ei/maternity_parental/eligibility.page http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/ei/maternity_parental/eligibility.p... Edit: Grammar, clarity
- overcast 10y ago
  600 hours is nothing, that's only a few months before they are eligible again.
serge2k 10y ago
Abusive? no. Do I wish I could take 3 years off, yeah. But we live in a society that can afford to give parents time off. I don't have a problem doing that.