Maternity Leaves Getting Shorter

by Amy Hatch (Subscribe to Amy Hatch's posts) Mar 23rd 2009 2:00PM

Categories: Newborns, Pregnancy & Birth, Mommy Wars

Celebrities, politicians and other women in high-profile jobs are heading back to work soon after having their babies. Are abbreviated maternity leaves becoming the new norm for new mothers, especially now, with the recession looming over their heads?

What do TV star Alison Sweeney, Gov. Sarah Palin and French Justice Minister Rachida Dati have in common? They all went back to work just days after giving birth -- and they aren't the only ones. More and more moms are cutting their maternity leaves short, citing economic and career pressures as the main reasons for their quick return to the office.

A recent story on MomLogic points out that the United States is one of the few developed countries that doesn't offer women a lengthy paid maternity leave. In fact, a Harvard University study showed that of 168 countries surveyed, 163 had some kind of paid leave for new moms.

So which countries don't subsidize new moms, you ask? Swaziland, Lesotho, Paupa New Guinea -- and the good old US of A.

Stateside, women are forced to cobble together a leave made up of short-term disability, vacation days, sick leave and unpaid leave. In these tough economic times, it isn't feasible for most mothers to take unpaid time off to be with their babies. And let's not forget about the fact that taking six months off work makes it a lot harder to get that promotion.

Bonnie Stewart, 37, is one of the lucky ones -- she lives on Prince Edward Island, in Canada, one of the countries that does offer extended paid maternity leave.

Nonetheless, this mom of two isn't taking any chances. She plans to go back to work a full five months earlier than normal after the birth of her daughter, Josephine, and began applying for jobs much sooner than she did after the birth of her first child, Oscar, almost three years ago. The current downturn is affecting her less than others, Stewart says, because she and her husband haven't been "living the dream," but she is still aware that good positions are few and far between right now.

"The economy is a factor in my applying to new jobs earlier this time than I did with my first," Stewart says. "I know that competition for what jobs there are will be even stiffer than it was two years ago, when I was looking for work after Oscar's birth."

Stewart also points out that while Canada does subsidize new mothers, there is still an economic impact from being out of work for 12 months.

"Canada offers employment insurance to new parents for 50 weeks after a baby's birth, but the amount caps at approximately $1,500 per month (or 55 percent of salary), so unless one's workplace offers a top-up, many families find this limited compared to usual earnings," she explains. "Top-up was not available to me, as I don't have an ongoing employer or a job to go back to."

Julie Murphy does have a job waiting for her, but she says she is "heartbroken" that she will only have a scant nine weeks at home with her new daughter, Brenna. Murphy, 30, is a first-time mom from Champaign, IL, and her decision to return to the office three weeks early was driven by her childcare situation.

"A space opened up for us earlier than expected at our preferred daycare facility, and I can't afford to pass it up.," Murphy says. "Other factors include the fact that my maternity leave chews through all of my vacation and sick days, and I'm about to run out and go on unpaid instead of paid leave, which also means I'll have to pay through the nose to keep our insurance benefits."

While she knows this is the best decision for her family, Murphy still worries that her daughter will suffer: "She's so little, and she's not going to see very much of me anymore. Just in the mornings, for about two hours in the evenings, and at night feedings. She's going to see so much more of the daycare workers than she will of her parents, it breaks my heart."

Like Stewart, I was one of the lucky ones: When my first child was born, I managed to take three months off without taking a serious pay cut. The second time around, I found myself back at work a scant four weeks after the baby came. Granted, I work as a freelancer, but that doesn't mean I didn't want time to bond with my new baby. But no work means no money in the bank, and so I had to make a tough choice. For me, the only alternative was to get back in the saddle as soon as my C-section incision healed up.

Do I feel like my baby and I suffered because I went back to work after just one month? Yes, I do, but I didn't have a choice. Knowing that my situation isn't unique is cold comfort, indeed. Isn't it time we demanded what most other women in the Western world take for granted?

Are you taking a shorter-than-expected maternity leave? Is the recession forcing you back into the office before you and your baby are ready?

Source

Comments (28)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Mihir 3-23-2009 @ 3:55PM

i still don't get the whole paid maternity/paternity thing. if a company chooses to do it, more power to them for offering this perk to their employees. if they choose not to and it's important to you, well, don't work for them.

it's not really a valid argument to say, "but look at these other countries. they get ## months of paid leave."

as with other things in life, it comes down to a choice. a couple we know decided the mom didn't want to go back to work for a couple years after having their son. they sold one of the cars, carefully budgeted and made it happen.

i don't see why a company should be obligated to pay you (aside from allowing someone to use vacation/personal time).

i'm truly open to logical arguments explaining the thought process on the other side of the fence.

SKL 3-23-2009 @ 4:42PM

As a single mom of two, I also don't see a problem with the US maternity leave policy. We have choices. We get the education we choose to work for. We then negotiate the job, pay, and benefits we want, commensurate with our education and experience. We negotiate based on our priorities: do we want lots of time off when we have kids, or do we want to rise up the corporate ladder faster? Can't have it both ways, unless your family owns a big business. In Canada, they don't have it both ways; women don't get that many juicy jobs because employers can't trust them to stay continuously committed. Same thing in most other countries. Those of you who consider maternity leave to be a high priority - interview only at companies that have a good maternity leave policy. What's so hard about that?

Are we women too stupid to understand our options and priorities and to act accordingly? Because that's what all the arguments I've heard boil down to.

Joy 3-23-2009 @ 7:26PM

I totally agree with SKL and Mihir. It is our choice when and if to have children and I don't feel it's up to any employer to hold our jobs open for a year.

I have a very good friend in Canada who just went through this. She works in a very small transit company office and they couldn't fill her co-workers "maternity" leave job for one year only. The other two women in the office did her job along with their own for a whole year and the young woman who took the year off, went back to work for 3 weeks and decided she wanted to be home with her baby. How's that for selfish? People don't think about other people very much anymore. Also, they may not get the same job back. It's up to the employer where to put you when you come back. That's not talked about very much either. Only the great things are spoken about this. People don't want to work for only a year. It's a year of wasted seniority and there is nothing to show for their work and when you have that many jobs on your resume, it doesn't look good so it's getting harder and harder to fill mat leave jobs. Especially right now.

It sounds very good but you have to look at all the other people it affects. If you know you will only get so much time off after having a baby, that's the choice you make. Nobody thinks of the employer or the other employee's when talking about this. It's all about me, me and me.

ame s 3-23-2009 @ 9:04PM

I had my daughters when I was 29 and 31 because I wanted to be a stay-home mom until my older girl is old enough to drive. My late-husband and I saved money like the dickens before even trying to conceive.
I don't understand why any woman in any country feels entitled to months of paid maternity leave. On average, women in the U.S. get 6 paid weeks, and some companies only pay if the woman has insurance through their employer.
Having children is a personal decision and paying for them is a personal responsibility. It's no wonder the entire world is in financial Hell right now.

Gena 3-24-2009 @ 7:21PM

The world's economic situation has nothing to do with this. It's irresponsible and ignorant to make such a comment. Corporate welfare is totally okay, but making it a little easier on people trying to bring up the next generation (the people who will be supplying your social security and paying on america's debts, among other things) and they get dumped on for being selfless. Yes having children is a personal "choice", but procreation is necessary. Scientists have already said that the world's leading countries are not having enough children to replace the current population, which can create huge problems in the future. Staying home with an infant for a year can save money on childcare, gas, food, clothing, medical bills, psychological trauma, the list goes on and on. It's beneficial to society as a whole, not just the individual worker and their family. Whatever happened to "I've scratched your back, now scratch mine?" I'm not saying people should expect others to take care of them, but if you invest in society, reciprocation of some form should be expected.

ame s 3-24-2009 @ 9:37PM

It is irresponsible and ignorant to feel a corporation, public, or private entaty should be expected to pitch in one red cent towards the care of the child(ren) you or anyone else choses to have. You want them, you pay for them.
I scratched my own back by not having children until I could afford to take care of their needs without public or corporate assistance and haven't received a scratch from anyone (thing) since.
The scientists of which you speak are either Scientologists or complete idiots. As a stay-home parent, I have plenty of time to read and have not come across any viable studies proving what you state.
"Staying home with an infant for a year can save money on childcare, gas, food, clothing, medical bills, psychological trauma, the list goes on and on." How is that selfless if the parent(s) doing expect and/or demand the help of others to do so?
Your ignorant, self-serving, rambling rant probably took time away from your little miracles. Mine are busy, so I had the 3 minutes it took to type mine.

Joy 3-24-2009 @ 10:45PM

Wow ame s! I'm running around my living room yelling

Joy 3-24-2009 @ 10:47PM

I got so excited I hit the wrong key!!!! GO AME GO!!!

I totally agree with you.

Emily 3-24-2009 @ 10:26AM

It's good to see the above comments on this Web site. It seems as though most of the time people expect others to be responsible for their own decisions. I remember discussing this with a friend from Brazil years ago who said that they had paid maternity leave there, but women had a very tough time succeeding there because of it. Most people never look beyond the surface when they want a handout. They don't pay attention to how such things affect other people or how it will even eventually affect their own situation.

mel 3-24-2009 @ 4:02PM

I don't think most mothers expect a handout our feel that they are entitled to pay while out on maternity leave like some of the commenters have alluded to. I have been in the workforce long enough to know that women can take advantage of FMLA and still climb the corporate ladder. FMLA promises to hold your job for 12 weeks and it's up to you and your employer to decide if you'll get any compensation for those 12 weeks. My husband works in the auto industry and has taken a serious pay cut. My company does not offer STD, just a generous paid time off plan. If I were to have a baby right now I would get 5 weeks paid time off (and that would leave me with no PTO for the rest of the year) and our savings is low due to paying off bills and cars so our monthly expenses are less to accomodate my husband's pay cut. If I could at least be eligible for state unemployment for that time I could have the full 12 weeks. But that's not allowed. If the state will pay for Joe Schmoe to sit on his couch while he tells the state he's trying to find a job, why can't they help me so I can be with my baby for a few more weeks before I return to a job I'm gauranteed to have?

sam {temptingmma} 3-24-2009 @ 4:42PM

This is not a company perk. The Canadian Government offers 50 weeks of paid maternity / parental leave to a maximum of a specific amount. Typically this amount leaves some people (mothers AND fathers are BOTH eligible to take parental leave) with an income far less than what they were making.

Some companies opt to provide their employees with a top up - which could be anywhere from 10% to 100% of their salary. They are not obligated to do so.

A mother who opts to take her entire maternity / paternity leave is eligible for an entire year of leave in Canada. Her job is protected for that time. Should there be restructuring during her leave, the company must provide a position at the same or better scale at which she was at, or if there is nothing available they can be "demoted" to a lower position while keeping the same salary. Should a spot become open they shall be offered that position.

It's law.

As a mother of two children - who is currently on maternity leave - I am kind of appauled by the reaction to paid maternity leaves. Woman bear enough of the brunt when it comes to choosing family over career and sliding pay scales based on sex as it is and to have other women call us the reason for the US economies failure is insulting.

Paid maternity leaves are NOT the cause of the turmoil the US is currently facing. Please!

Emily 3-24-2009 @ 6:06PM

No one suggested that paid maternity leaves are the cause of the current economic turmoil. I'm suggesting that each person should be responsible for funding the choices they make in life, rather than feeling as though it's an injustice if other taxpayers or their company do not pay for those decisions.

SKL 3-24-2009 @ 11:21PM

Women who demanded mandatory paid leaves are the cause of other women's inability to rise to their professional potential, causing a drain of intellectual capital and yes, harming the economy. But do they care? No! They got theirs!

sam {temptingmma} 3-24-2009 @ 7:02PM

@Emily Sorry if I had commented back at you. It was intended for someone else. :)

I was referring to this statement by ame s:

"I don't understand why any woman in any country feels entitled to months of paid maternity leave. On average, women in the U.S. get 6 paid weeks, and some companies only pay if the woman has insurance through their employer.
Having children is a personal decision and paying for them is a personal responsibility. It's no wonder the entire world is in financial Hell right now."

I work my ass off when I am at work and to be given the opportunity to stay home with my children while still having some income is a blessing. I am truly grateful for the fact that my country has made provisions for me to be home for my child's first year of life. I really don't think of that as being a drain on the economy.

Bon 3-24-2009 @ 7:34PM

i'm the Bonnie quoted above, gratefully enjoying my extended leave for its few remaining moments. it's paid for out of insurance premiums i've paid into the Canadian government for over the 20+ years i've held a job...i started working at 15. it's not part of a general tax pool, it's a specific pay-in, pay-out system managed at the gov't level. it's quite effective. perfect, no. for those making minimum wage, 55% of salary is not much at all...but it's something. it contributes at least nominally to the greater good of valuing what parents do, and has been shown to reduce stress on families during the adjustment period of having a new baby.

i'm pretty baffled by the vehemence with which mat leave is received by commenters south of the border. different strokes, clearly...and i'm a firm believer in personal responsibility...but elevating it to cult status where the democratic social contract is dismissed? why? the drain on public coffers that would go to establishing a Canadian-style parental leave program in the US would be a fractional percentage of the bailout that just supported those who've REALLY been taking from the system.

ame s 3-24-2009 @ 9:44PM

I supose it depends on the country of your residence,the amount of paid leave you are given, and the state of your country's economy whether or not it is a drain upon the society in which you recide.
Working your butt off at work results in a paycheck for you. Besides the relatively low taxes taken from your paycheck/taxes taken out of your paycheck ratio, how do you consider the fact that you work to warrent you receiving almost a year of paid maternity leave?
Entitled much?

ame s 3-24-2009 @ 9:48PM

Oops, I did not spell I a word correctly in a previous post,perhaps because I didn't have enough paid maternity leave. Oh, yeah, I didn't have any paid maternity leave because I chose not to work after my children were born.
My bad for not demanding money for nothing and my chicks for free.

SKL 3-24-2009 @ 11:26PM

If the US ever did mandate paid maternity leave, they would have to do it via a government subsidy, and you can bet that anyone who had really worked hard all her life would be ineligible for it, just like every other supposedly "family friendly" subsidy. There is no "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" in government policy. It's all "I scratched my own back, now as my punishment I hafta scratch yours and both of your next-door neighbors'."

A REAL woman!! 3-25-2009 @ 9:10AM

Obviously, those who don't wish to see women treated with an iota of respect after childbirth are those of the ilk who have had everything handed to them and don't understand why the US government should enact a law (as in Canada) providing a financially subsidized maternity leave. It is a sad commentary on how little people value family.

I have had to worked my a$$ off for everything I have achieved (college, professional career, etc.). I've paid taxes into a system that does nothing for me or my family, so why shouldn't the government provide some type of long term maternity leave?

Undoubtedly these people who think paid maternity leave is unneccessary are the same ones who had their college paid for, their weddings paid for, "knew someone" to get their job, will be hiring a nanny to raise their children with the money from the man they married just for money. I don't know ANY real, working woman who does not believe in a paid maternity leave.

SKL 3-25-2009 @ 12:00PM

HA! You and I should compare notes, because most likely you had it easier than me. Were you born into a working-class family with an illiterate father, highschool dropout mother, and six kids? Were you legally blind and unable to afford glasses until third grade? Did you have less all your life than welfare kids?

Did you double up on classes so you could graduate and go to college at 16, using wages and student loans that you would have to pay back at above-market interest? Did you remain continuously in school for 21 years, and work part-time, full-time, or overtime (up to 60 hours) from age 12 to grad school graduation? Did you have $100K to pay for your education after you graduated?

Did you work 60-100 hours per week, usually at two jobs, so you could pay off your debt despite paying enough taxes to support an increasing number of welfare families? Did you do this nonstop for 15 years after graduation before becoming a parent? Did you continue to work full-time as the single mom of two babies / toddlers, without asking or accepting a nickel of help from anyone?

I am a real woman who believes in choices, and responsibility for one's choices. You choose to study, to work hard, etc., great! You will be rewarded enough to care for your children - assuming the tax man doesn't suck you dry. You choose to have children without doing all that first? Great! You can deal with the consequences. Why should I pay even more into the system than I already have, because you don't believe mothers should shoulder their own responsibilities?

You know, industry begets industry. People who have everything handed to them are the ones who don't believe that anyone can live without handouts. Those of us who have done so have more respect for a woman's ability to think, plan, and produce.