Is it fair for women in the workplace to use maternity leave every 1-2 years?

[Anonymous]

I'm for maternity and paternity leave, assuming it's not abused and it doesn't place an organization in a bad way or worse. I do however think that rules should be tightened up to prevent mothers and fathers using it every 1-2 years because that's just ridiculous to me, and extremely unfair to your coworkers who are inevitably forced to fill the big holes left.



There should be limits placed on frequency of use and combined duration of absence. Perhaps allotting a number of weeks per man and woman in each of their workplaces and forcing them to alternate if the time needed is not adequate. There should also be more flexibility to negotiate in employment contracts so that those who will not be having children, or more, can let it be known right away and achieve better responsibilities, perks, or salaries.



Every 3-5 years is probably fair. Every 1-2 is bullshit.

Another good one from Dinky Diana. I won't say anything because you said it all.  

[Anonymous]

With maternity, you usually have months to prepare, yet it's still a huge issue?



Sorry but I'm going to call bullshit.

It's far from bullshit. If you understood how the business worked you would know this is the wrong industry to be an absentee employee. In my line of work, you cannot call Kelly services and find a replacement next week or even next month. Few people have the skills we need, so temporaries are not on. Anybody who has the skill set is already working.



People are asked whether they are willing and able to travel, be away from home and work one hell of a lot of overtime. It's part of the job and that does not change just because someone decides they need to stay home to raise the family.



Now, few women work in our industry. But it has came up for one of our contractors. In one instance, she was permanently replaced as she should be.

[Anonymous]

I'm for maternity and paternity leave, assuming it's not abused and it doesn't place an organization in a bad way or worse. I do however think that rules should be tightened up to prevent mothers and fathers using it every 1-2 years because that's just ridiculous to me, and extremely unfair to your coworkers who are inevitably forced to fill the big holes left.



There should be limits placed on frequency of use and combined duration of absence. Perhaps allotting a number of weeks per man and woman in each of their workplaces and forcing them to alternate if the time needed is not adequate. There should also be more flexibility to negotiate in employment contracts so that those who will not be having children, or more, can let it be known right away and achieve better responsibilities, perks, or salaries.



Every 3-5 years is probably fair. Every 1-2 is bullshit.

 Don't you think you are being slightly dramatic here? So some woman spaced her kids out for one to two years. Do you think she's gonna pop out kids every one to two years until she retires?  Come on now.

[Bricktop]

Nonetheless, some do.



Dinky speaks wisely. The system discriminates against those who choose or cannot be parents. Why should they subsidise those that do.

[Anonymous]

I'm for maternity and paternity leave, assuming it's not abused and it doesn't place an organization in a bad way or worse. I do however think that rules should be tightened up to prevent mothers and fathers using it every 1-2 years because that's just ridiculous to me, and extremely unfair to your coworkers who are inevitably forced to fill the big holes left.



There should be limits placed on frequency of use and combined duration of absence. Perhaps allotting a number of weeks per man and woman in each of their workplaces and forcing them to alternate if the time needed is not adequate. There should also be more flexibility to negotiate in employment contracts so that those who will not be having children, or more, can let it be known right away and achieve better responsibilities, perks, or salaries.



Every 3-5 years is probably fair. Every 1-2 is bullshit.

 Don't you think you are being slightly dramatic here? So some woman spaced her kids out for one to two years. Do you think she's gonna pop out kids every one to two years until she retires?  Come on now.

We know that Dove. What I am saying is that absenteeism is a big problem for employers. Not everyone is easily replaced.

[cc]

Training to specific job skills, and  TRUST,  earned only over time, are vital for companies to put every effort into retaining

[Anonymous]

Training to specific job skills, and  TRUST,  earned only over time, are vital for companies to put every effort into retaining

The three t's--trust, training and time. I could not have said it better cc la femme.

[RW]

Nonetheless, some do.



Dinky speaks wisely. The system discriminates against those who choose or cannot be parents. Why should they subsidise those that do.

Why should we subsidize sick people?

[RW]

Training to specific job skills, and  TRUST,  earned only over time, are vital for companies to put every effort into retaining

Smart companies train and retrain.

[@realAzhyaAryola]

I've never seen so much whining about this matter. When I was having my children in the 90s, it was not even an issue. Everyone else was having a family as well. We had the older folks who have had their children who were then grown and then there I was among the others having children and then there were the younger crowd who were planning to have families. No one resented those who were taking maternity leave or paternity leave.



Planning was important. If we knew we would be away for a while, someone will be brought in to be trained who will pick up the slack. Life goes on. There were no sour pussies.



I remember the work-life balance seminars we all had to take and then there was the introduction of the CWS--compressed work schedule--for those who wanted to be off on Fridays so they can spend more time with their families.