BritGuyTN

I'm a realist - you are obviously not and without knowing more about your background I question your business knowledge and experience.

If I went to my employer tomorrow and told him in 2 months time i'm taking a 5 month sabbatical then he would be very upset because his business would cease to exist in 3-4 months time

if someone leaves a company then that should have a negative impact on the firm (if it doesn't then that person has no business being employed in the first place).

if that person can be easily replaced by a temp then its probably fair to say that IT IS the employer doing them a favour, rather than vice versa, people with average education of average ability are ten a penny - by definition and can be easily replaced. This sounds harsh, but is true

If someone is a talented tradesmen/professional etc then it could well be the other way round

when I lived in the UK i worked for smaller companies where someone taking that much time off could seriously mess things up

I don't like the american system of employment in much the same way that I donlt like the health system here, but it is what it is and you have to deal with it.

As far as the OP is concerned, she needs to take the max time off she can get as per her contract and the law, but slagging off her boss is shortsighted

BritGuyTN

illegal - sex discrimination. Employers can't ask during an interview 'are you pregnent/do you want kids etc

BigDavyG

2 things - most obviously - shouldn't we all be able to work throughout our lives to pay for ourselves in old age, or at least cover a lot of the cost personally.
Second - the pension system would have worked fine if multiple shitty governments across the world hadn't dipped into pension pots to pay for their hare-brained schemes. Now pretty much everyone is behind the 8-ball and their only solution is to say f**k the planet - let's just keep the population young to cover up our massive mess.

So, neither of my points really answer your question (isn't it novel for someone on be to admit that), but that hardly invalidates my original point, does it ??
Sooner or later someone will be made to pay, somehow. If its not upcoming generations suffering through a lack of provision for the elderly or distant generations suffering because of our selfishness in "breeding" the planet dry.

BigDavyG

Hard to argue with any of this. Shame you'll prob get flamed for telling the truth.

Elvira

Is it really too much to ask governments to support families for a few months to care for a newborn child?

As you sow you shall reap...

anotherlimey

Well yes, we manage to pay for ours OK.

All I'm saying is that if you don't budget for it, then you're an arse; it's not good business sense.

Plus the fact that to retain good employees you need to offer good benefits.

But you are right, most businesses don't do that.... which is probably one reason why I see so much disloyalty in the US workforce.

BigDavyG

And what shall you reap Elvira - a nation of self-sufficient families - what a nightmare.

Not many asked for, or needed government support when only one parent worked and one stayed at home (man or woman - I don't give a toss which one) so what has changed - is it because people perhaps want the nice house, car, holidays, jobs to pay for all the nice stuff AND kids ??
Well how about this - like I said earlier for the majority of people it just doesn't work out like this, and that's unfortunate but I don't see why the government should be expected to step in and help out and you can bet your bottom dollar they wouldn't if they hadn't made such a mess of your pension find.

The nuclear family has been sacrificed on the altar of consumerism and I think its obvious to all what we are now left to reap.

BigDavyG

The UK workforce ain't much different in my experience - just that we aren't quite as greedy or over-ambitious as our US colleagues. Offer a Brit a 15% raise and see how loyal he/she is to their current employer then.

anotherlimey

It depends who you work for... try that at Google and see how far you get.

But for blue collar workers it sucks.

BigDavyG

Point taken about google, but the exception rather than the rule.
Though I can tell you that the staff in google offices worldwide mightn't be quite as grateful as the folks in CA (have a few mates who work for them elsewhere).

BritGuyTN

you are right

picking up the tab for salary as another poster mentioned, is only part of the equation.

The total cost of training, disruption to business etc has a much bigger cost overall...

my company used to have a couple of offices in france. as you have to pay 18 months severence pay in some cases, we could not afford to make redundancies, instead the offices and the french entity were just allowed to go into liquidation...

france/sweden are one extreme, and america may be another

Bob

but it happens....the at will states and all that...

Bob

true, it's cheap in the long run because when people get let go, there's that down time in advertising a position, training etc...and then if someone becomes eligible for benefits it only worsens the situation...but there's hardly any benefits here, so the government couldn't care really.

AmerLisa

But, Elvira, most people cannot live on what the government can give them, including in the UK! The UK grants women a whole year off, but unless you've done careful planning (and you have a job that's willing to let you off for that long) most people couldn't afford it.

If you're going to make the commitment to having a child, then you're probably best taking all the time you can possibly have with it. Even 12 weeks isn't enough.

AmerLisa

Totally agree with you.....