Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.2079 | +0.0011 | +0.67% |
| F | $13.6308 | +0.0274 | +2.22% |
| C | $13.8058 | +0.1068 | +4.45% |
| S | $18.0739 | +0.1686 | +9.80% |
| I | $18.6668 | +0.3097 | +0.70% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $16.2492 | +0.1426 | +3.93% |
| L 2030 | $16.0026 | +0.1229 | +3.51% |
| L 2020 | $15.7699 | +0.1011 | +2.94% |
| L 2010 | $15.4687 | +0.0398 | +1.63% |
| L Income | $14.0922 | +0.0316 | +1.53% |
Paid Parental Leave Bill for Federal Employees Passes in House of Representatives
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
| Mobile
© 2010 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Giving Parents Even More
USAF
Fri Jun 5, 2009 9:40 AM
Post Reply
As a 27-year government employee, three times I've been burdened with having to do someone else's job on top of my own for three months while they stayed home and played house. I received no additional compensation for doing their job for them on top of my own already full workload. If this bill passes it will just exacerbate this problem. At least when I was dumped on these new mothers had used up most of their leave by the time they finally returned to work. I wasn't forced to cover for them while they took an extended vacation a few months after they returned. Now that they won't have to use all their sick leave (and the government sick leave is extremely generous) and annual leave, they'll be able to take extended vacations after their maternity leave. This is definitely not fair to the rest of the work force that has to cover for these people. I agree with the one comment that having a kid is a personal choice, and you shouldn't expect other people to pay for it.
Re: Giving Parents Even More
DoD
Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:43 PM
Retroactively applied?
DOJ
Fri Jun 5, 2009 9:41 AM
Post Reply
And I assume those of us who have worked for the fed. govt. for the past 20 years and had to use all of our annual and sick leave and LWOP to give birth to & take care of our children will be totally forgotten in this proposed bill? Sure would be nice for Uncle Sam to give me back even 1/2 of the annual leave I had to use when having my children 5 & 9 years ago! . Although it would be highly unfair to those parents such as myself who came back to work after having babies with no leave at all on the books, I am glad that finally someone, somewhere has at least thought about the U.S. Government (the largest employer in the U.S.) providing its employees with a benefit that all federal employees should have been provided eons ago!
Congress has no clue on FMLA
USDA
Fri Jun 5, 2009 9:41 AM
Post Reply
What am I missing? Under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), most Federal employees are entitled to a total of up to 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for the following purposes:
the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and the care of such son or daughter;
the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care;
the care of spouse, son, daughter, or parent of the employee who has a serious health condition; or
a serious health condition of the employee that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her positions.
Under certain conditions, an employee may use the 12 weeks of FMLA leave intermittently. An employee may elect to substitute annual leave and/or sick leave, consistent with current laws and OPM's regulations for using annual and sick leave, for any unpaid leave under the FMLA. So do we really need Congress to make things more difficult and where is OPM in this mess?
Re: Congress has no clue on FMLA
Army
Fri Jun 5, 2009 5:20 PM
14 weeks maternity leave in Germany
NASA
Fri Jun 5, 2009 9:54 AM
Post Reply
I worked with the Army in Germany for several years. The German women who were pregnant received six weeks paid leave prior to the birth, and then EIGHT more weeks after the birth. If the baby arrived "late" the days were added to the "prior" days off, and they still got the full eight weeks after the birth. The contrast was ugly compared to Americans they worked with. The American spouses of U.S. servicemen were typically young and new to government service, so they usually had little sick and/or anual leave accumulated, and they took a huge LWOP hit in the paycheck, right at the time when they faced all the additional expenses a new baby brings.
This bill is overdue, and will help working mothers at a time when some have become the primary bread winners for their families. It will also help the above spouses of our soldiers, big time.
All you grouchy Republicans, what happened to your "family FRIENDLY values" ???
Re: 14 weeks maternity leave in Germany
VA
Fri Jun 5, 2009 10:20 AM
Re: 14 weeks maternity leave in Germany
DOI
Fri Jun 5, 2009 3:39 PM
You're attempt at making this a partisan issue is a red herring. The truth is that "family FRIENDLY values" should apply to all families, not just those with new babies.
YEA!!!
DoD
Fri Jun 5, 2009 9:57 AM
Post Reply
Yea! I'm glad this is moving forward. Newer federal employees (who are generally in their child-bearing years or married to women who are) cannot save up enough leave for doctor appointments and caring for the newborn. The BLS statistics are being misconstrued, as they include the service industry--federal employee salaries do indeed lag behind the private sector, even in these times. So our benefits, job security, and work satisfaction must be maintained, even elevated.
Re: YEA!!!
Any Agency
Fri Jun 5, 2009 10:22 AM
Why can they not save up enough leave? I did when I was early in my government career. I have not used even one hour of LWOP in 33 years with the government and I've had 2 children, 13 weeks of paid leave with each of them (3.5 years apart) and all the doc appointments and caring for the newborn that any "newer federal employee" of today has. I was, at that time, a "newer federal employee".
Why do all the younger feds seem to think potential parents-to-be of today are any different than the parents-to-be of yesterday? That they need and DESERVE additional PAID time off to handle new children? What's so different today than when I was having babies? I was a GS-9, money was tight, I could barely afford daycare but I was able to plan ahead and SAVE UP MY LEAVE so I had decent maternity leave.
Re: YEA!!!
USDA
Sat Jun 6, 2009 9:08 AM
I had cancer several years ago, I was glad I did not abuse my leave, I used all my sick and annual leave just so I could get full pay while I recieved my treatments and I had my 2 month old daughter to also take care of.
There is also a program called the LEAVE DONATION PROGRAM where your co-workers and peers could donate hours to you once you've exhausted all your leave.
But if you think that things are better in France and Germany then by all means......
Who's gonna bail out the government - GM?
VA
Fri Jun 5, 2009 9:59 AM
Post Reply
This is an absolute waste of government money and manpower. The FMLA fully covers employees that need time-off for medical/family care reasons. This will just justify leave abuse and add to the workload of the employees that are (actually) working. Government employees receive more time-off than 90% of their counterparts already. This whole concept sparks the ideology that government employees are a burden on the working class.
NICE TO SEE OUR TAX DOLLARS BEING WASTED!!
Re: Who's gonna bail out the government - GM?
DHHS
Fri Jun 5, 2009 10:31 AM
As for the nonsensical argument of abuse of leave, if someone would have a baby JUST so they can have 4 weeks of paid leave then there's something more psychologically wrong with that person then this issue. Just think about it, is it really of sound mind to endure 9 MONTHS of pregnancy, months of sleepless nights after birth and 17+ YEARS of caring for a kid just for 4 weeks of paid leave?!?!?!? Does that even make sense to an average person? Is this really something that one would willingly accept for 4 weeks of paid leave?
more parental leave
USDA
Fri Jun 5, 2009 10:16 AM
Post Reply
Personally I think this is pure crazyness, and yes, I agree that it is discriminatory. $850 million over five years for something the employee, and only the employee should be responsible for. If you can't afford a baby, don't have one...it's your choice.