Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 39
Page 2 of 5
Page 2 of 5
Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009
Total Comments: 39
Page 2 of 5
Page 2 of 5
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.2114 | +0.0012 | +0.70% |
| F | $13.6201 | -0.0062 | +2.14% |
| C | $13.8116 | -0.0706 | +4.49% |
| S | $17.9282 | -0.1903 | +8.91% |
| I | $18.5079 | -0.0782 | -0.16% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $16.1968 | -0.0789 | +3.59% |
| L 2030 | $15.9593 | -0.0673 | +3.23% |
| L 2020 | $15.7365 | -0.0532 | +2.72% |
| L 2010 | $15.4595 | -0.0197 | +1.57% |
| L Income | $14.0856 | -0.0155 | +1.48% |
Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009
OH, BOTHER
MEDCOM
Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:50 AM
Post Reply
I have two employees, young, one pregnant - both I have had to put on "leave restriction." Now why would they be entitled to more leave? My other three employees I can rely on and they are doing their work. Bonding - 18 years is a long time and an additional four weeks is pittance.
Rep. Maloney from NY
OI&T Dept of Veterans Affairs
Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:43 AM
Post Reply
She stated that Federal Employees do not get Family Leave. I was under the impression that CB was for family leave. Yes I understand it comes out of your Sick leave totals, but if supervisors & managers would monitor sick leave for their employees and discipline when necessary, people would have plenty of sick leave to use. Again our politicians not knowing what is going on in government. And it is only going to get worse with the new regime. Using only for parental reasons is not the right thing to do. There are other reasons to have to take extended family leave, not just for children (having or adopting).
Paid leave for FMLA
USPS
Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:40 AM
Post Reply
This is nothing more than a tax increase on the American public. With the exception of the USPS (which receives no tax money) every other federal employee is paid out of tax revenue.
This is nothing more than another attempt to buy votes for one political party.
Paid Parental Leave
GSA
Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:15 AM
Post Reply
I am against paid parental leave unless people who need to take care of their elderly parents, sick spouses, or other close family members, also get paid leave. It could be called "Caretaker Leave" and that would cover all categories.
New Bill for the Paid Parental Leave Act
USDA
Mon Feb 2, 2009 9:44 AM
Post Reply
I am concerned that by allowing 4 extra paid weeks above what the employee has earned, for childbirth circumstance, that this is unfair to Fed Employees who have needs for (4 extra paid weeks) for care of an elderly parent, or care of a spouse or child that is very sick or terminal. Shouldn't these factors be considered if we are considering this Bill at all. I am against paid parental leave unless people who need to take care of their elderly parents, sick spouses, or other close family members, also get paid leave.
modification needed to bill
uncle sam
Mon Feb 2, 2009 9:50 AM
Post Reply
I think this bill needs to be modified to include anyone adopting a DOG. But 5 weeks of paid time is probably more appropriate for these cases instead of the 4 for a baby. After all, puppies are much more demanding than a baby. I should be given time with my new puppy and should not be forced to use my vacation or sick leave for this purpose. After all, I will be the primary caretaker and need time to bond. Of course, I would also like extra paid leave for my upcomiong visits to the vet and dog groomer.
Re: modification needed to bill
DoD
Tue Feb 3, 2009 3:24 PM
Re: modification needed to bill
DoD
Tue Feb 3, 2009 3:35 PM
Paid parental leave - needed to entice employees
Private sector
Mon Feb 2, 2009 11:35 AM
Post Reply
I am a constituent of one of those who introduced this bill--Congressman Wolf. In a letter to his constituents he advised us that:
"Private employers also offer several weeks of paid
parental leave. Private employers have long
recognized that this a benefit that makes them more
competitive in recruitment and retention . . . we must
ensure that the federal workforce is competitive in
attracting young Americans starting families for
federal service."
This is not a valid argument. The federal government has more perks than (almost?) any employer, so does not need this added enticement. Not only that, but if young females are lured by this primarily because they want to have this benefit while enlarging their family, what happens after they have their (usually) one or two babies? At that time, they have gained experience which looks good on their resumes when they start searching in the private sector.