4 ms·
> Sure, but you are comparing federally mandated minimums. Which is exactly what you were talking about, so I don't see a problem. And like I said, some states
by Domenic_S 12y ago
> Sure, but you are comparing federally mandated minimums.
Which is exactly what you were talking about, so I don't see a problem. And like I said, some states go above and beyond.
> It's not just about pay either, but about what security (if any) someone has after maternity or paternity leave [...] in the U.S. this is much harder to do
Not at all, that's precisely what the federal FMLA is for. 12 weeks of job-protected leave. No payment unless covered by something else (PTO, company policy, state law, etc), but it is 3 months of job-protected leave.
- ska 12y agoActually, when I said "there are reasonable options" I wasn't referring to federal minimums at all, but I should have made that more clear. I know what FMLA is for, I'm saying that compared to many places, that is not much protection. You picked a couple of places out of that wikipedia page, but on the short end. What about Sweden's 13 months at 75% or so, or Englands year? Anyway, I'm not saying one approach is wrong, as it is all trade-offs. I'm just saying that this is made much more difficult in the US than in a lot of comparable countries, and I think that is pretty uncontroversial.
- Domenic_S 12y agoI agree that it's trade-offs. UK's maternity leave - considered the gold standard by many - does indeed allow 52 weeks, but only the first 6 weeks are paid at 90%, then from week 7-39, you get a paltry £136.78/week. Weeks 40-52 are unpaid (some employers offer "enhanced benefits" that override these numbers, but now we're back to relying on employers' generosity). Indeed a tough problem.
- Dylan16807 12y agoEdit: I can't read
- shawabawa3 12y agoIt's 6 weeks paid, 10.5 months mostly unpaid