so what is the solution?

cameragirl21 wrote: Jen's (Moped) post about returning to work got me thinking about how great it is that there are such long maternity leaves in Canada. The same was true in the USSR--when I was born my mom got a year, I believe, and she says that she is just stunned that in the US people are rushed back to work within 6-12 weeks and says that they miss out on a lot of bonding time with the new baby.
So I'm curious what the solution is here in the US. Idk if any employer could afford to pay someone for a year's worth of maternity leave so I'm wondering about other options...how about onsite daycare?
I ask this because someday in the not too distant future I hope to have a staff working for me and some of them may be moms and I'm curious what the best way is to accomodate them. I realize I'm not there yet but I'm wondering what people here think--would onsite, high quality daycare where you can take reasonable breaks throughout the day to be with your child(ren) be a perk to you in considering a job? Or do you think it would just be more distracting to you and upsetting for the child when you only have a few minutes here and there to be with him/her? Theoretically, you could take your child out to lunch with you and spend time with him/her during the day that way.
Imagine a relatively small company was hiring and had a fulltime nanny whose sole responsibility was the children and the company had a playground and kids' area...would you consider that a perk?
Would those of you who are SAHMs be more inclined to work if you had such an arrangement?
Just curious...oh, and feel free to suggest any other solutions, I'm seriously curious because I do believe something needs to be done. And I think if some companies starting offering good options then the idea would catch on and eventually it would become the norm.
Also, remember if you BF then you could take breaks throughout the day to nurse instead of pumping, which I would imagine to be a huge perk.
Another question--how far do you believe an employer should go to accomodate moms? For example, allowing them to take breaks to nurse would certainly eat time into the workday but I think if it makes for happier employees then it's worth it.
What do you think?

lisar replied: I work for a small company and that just wouldn't be possible here. The company couldn't afford it even if the parents were to help with the cost. Would it make for a happier mom of course it would. But I think its just not feasible for some company's to do it. And for taking breaks to go and nurse, as long as it was a scheduled break that would be fine. With what I do for a living I see it from both sides. When someone takes an extra 10 minutes for lunch or break I have to reprimand them for it. And possibly dock their pay for it. Do I like it No but its part of my job. If I let one person get away with it then I am obligated to let everyone do it. And that drives up the overhead cost of running this business. And this is just my opinion on this. I am lucky enough to have my Granny a mile away from where I work. She watches Raygen for me during the day and Lexi goes to school and stays in after school care till I get off work. However when Lexi is out of school Granny keeps her for me. I pay my Granny to watch them for me also. And most company's who offer on site daycare are so expensive. And there is always a waiting list to get your child in there. My sister has onsite day care where she works. Austin went there till he started school, but she had to wait like a year to get him there. Thats how long the waiting list was. And then there is no guarantee he would even get it.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: I think it's definitely dependant on the type of work the moms would do. If they're doing office work, most women are quite capable of typing one handed, as proof on the boards..lol If they are in reception, they have to be there longer, have to deal with the public, answer phones.. not very condusive to have a baby on the boob, kwim? Ideally you have arrangements with the moms you hire and see their needs before they start.. if they nurse for 30 minutes evry 2 hours, you pay them accordingly... like every other employee, they need to be able to balance their personal life with their professional life.. having children on site might make the moms morw willing to work rather than stay at home.. but might also be more of an inconvenience to the employer. Obviously you have to take into consideration a safe area for the kids to be during work hours, an area for the moms to be with their children. you have to take into consideration the licensing and insurance issues.

Done well, on site daycare for working (and nursing) parents could be a positive thing.

All canadians pay into Employment Insurance.. which is what pays for maternity leave here. Lots but not all emplyers top up the maternity benefits with a % of salary... obviously the top up is subject to conditions, such as returning to the job once maternity leave is over for a specific amount of time. If the mom or dad does not return to work after their top up period is finished, they have to pay it back, but do not have to pay back maternity benefits from the E.I., as that's partly why it's there - to provide financial assistance while taking leave from work.

6 weeks is not nearly enough time for new parents to spend with their newborn children, and it should be increased at the very least to 12 weeks. I'm sure having an on site nanny for working parents would be a positive thing. Done well.

Boo&BugsMom replied: This is why Troy and I work opposite shifts. A lot of people do this so there is still someone always home and WE are still with our children, we don't have to depend on a nanny/caregiver, and we are still getting our two incomes. Not to mention, we save a ton of money not having to pay someone. A year maternity leave would be wonderful, however, even after that year we would still have to contend with this issue of having to both work. An onsite nanny would be heaven-sent and a dream, but like Lisa said...not really realistic...IF you are saying the care would be free for the employees. The cost of managing such a thing is VERY expensive no matter how small and there is a lot of red tape involved that people do not realize. Now, if you're talking about a daycare that is onesite, where the employees would pay...that is realistic, but still also a lot of red tape (licensing requirements, etc.).

lisar replied:
workers comp alone would go up. Could you just imagine the cost. We are a small company however with what we do here there is no way the state would allow a daycare facility on site. Thats why where I work it just wouldnt be allowed.

cameragirl21 replied: Thanks for the interesting insight, ladies, as usual, some things were brought up that I hadn't considered.
Of course it would be expensive but parents would have to pay a certain amount as a benefit, just like they pay a certain amount for health insurance, the perk is the kid is there in the same building with you and plus it would likely still be cheaper than traditional daycare.
Of course I'm still a ways off but when my time comes I intend to bill myself as "a different kind of company" where people can bring their pets to work, provided they're not vicious and they're clean and they're kept in their offices or work area and they're happy. And I mean dogs and cats, not snakes, iguanas, horses, etc. And where there is a really good onsite daycare where everyday is bring your kid to work day.
It may all be a big fantasy but so is everything before it becomes a reality. Mostly I'm curious if people would like this arrangement or if it would make them more distracted from work or make their kids more unhappy because they know mom is there but they can't be with her, kwim?

lisar replied:
Well put Rocky.

lisar replied:
I think it would be better for moms. I think most moms would love the idea. I would love the idea. Although I dont think my 3 year old would be great in my office while I am on a conference call. LOL Oh and I bring my dogs to work all the time with me. My bosses just dont care. Heck my boss brings his sometimes. It helps to keep them socialized. And there are 2 days a week that Granny has to drop Raygen off to me early and my bosses dont care. Its only 15 minutes before I get off work.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Yep...red tape.

We have some companies around here that do have daycares onsite. Some very successful ones, but it is ran like any other center, the parents pay but at a discount rate (not a big one either). These onsite daycares are a completely seperate entity than the company itself. Where it helps the employees is that it offers a discount, it's right near their job (convenience), and they might get little perks (holding spots open before the public, for example). When I managed the YW's childcare facility, it was in the same building as the rest of the Y, but the rooms and portion of the building that were the daycare were it's own entity and "business". In most states, any other way would be illegal. Not sure about Florida.

luvbug00 replied: when aol headquarters were here they had a privite daycare for employees and such. very hoydee toydee. Arround here it's just not even feasable for most companies with insurance and all that jazz. I do think maternity leave should be a little longer though...sigh

ZandersMama replied: I couldnt imagine going back to work after 6 weeks. At 9 months lol Zander was still nursing every 2 hours day and nite. One reason I love living in Canada. I would not have had a problem going back to work if I could have baby with me though and nurse him on demand. Dont know how it would be feasible though.

PrairieMom replied: my Dh's business can barely afford to provide health care benefits for the families of his employees, I think that providing child care would be next to impossible. You would have to pay the staff, which would be bad enough, plus you would have to insure them and all that. It would be nice, but I don't think its very practical

cameragirl21 replied:
It's just a thought at this point, I'm still a ways off from all of this but I do think it's doable if it's done properly. I know benefits are expensive but that's why they are called benefits--they are perks to get the best people working for you. I'm curious first and foremost if it would even be a good solution and then I'd have to figure out how I can do it. Theoretically, it's no different from running a daycare, you just give a discount and add in the perk of having the children in the same building with their moms. If daycares can do it, why wouldn't a company be able to do it?

luvmykids replied:
I can't speak for everyone, but when we began offering insurance to our employees they complained about the cost and wanted raises to compensate for it I can say with some degree of certainty they definitely wouldn't have been willing to have even more taken out of their check for daycare. But, we're in construction so dealing with dads, mostly. I do know though that it would have been a pretty tough expense on our part, even with the employees paying a portion of it.

I agree that six weeks isn't long enough, but just extending the time doesn't help a lot of people...many moms I know actually want to go back before their six weeks is up because they have to, financially speaking.

I tried working with the kids at the office. It only worked when they were young enough to nurse and go back to sleep.

I don't know what the solution is.

My2Beauties replied: Well I have to say even now with Aubrey being 18 months old and Hanna being almost 5 - I don't even think I could work from home with them there LOL They require so much attention. Now if I had a nanny there with me, then yes. I'm all for an onsite daycare, but I wonder if I'd be inclined to take more breaks to see the kids or feeling bad if one day I couldn't take them to lunch with me because I had tons of errands if they'd be upset. It's a catch-22. On the other hand, as far as maternity leave goes...it sucks Most companies - not all but most - will pay at least a portion of your pay for the 6 weeks but it's normally just a portion of, very few are fortunate enough to get 100% paid.lThen on top of that, FMLA does cover you for an extra 6 weeks, but .... it's usually unpaid and I could never afford to take 12 weeks It's extremely hard going back to work after 6 weeks. You still don't feel well, you are still sore, you are still having post-partum issues, and it's a lot of the reason why I didn't nurse longer I think it's sad!!!!

Maddie&EthansMom replied:
It would have to be a separate entity. The daycare would have to be a business and your business would be separate from that. Which means you would "own" and run two businesses. Legally you cannot just set a room aside to put kids in while you work. It would be considered a daycare and the state would then need to be involved for licensing. It's very expensive and takes a lot of time to set up a daycare from the ground up. And once the state is involved, you wouldn't be able to have animals in the same building as the kids.

But, yes it's possible to have a daycare in a business. That is if you want to put that much money into it. Most people don't except for large corporations with hundreds of employees. Otherwise you aren't getting your money out of it and the taxes would put you under.

I think our FMLA should be extended and there should be better benefits. Or, if people prefer, they should put money aside in a EI, like Rocky mentioned Canadians doing. I can't foresee a lot of people doing this, though.

My3LilMonkeys replied: I think it would be nice if there was a mandatory provision for at least some maternity pay - even if it was just allowing the mom to collect something similar to unemployment where it is a % of what you normally make. With Brooke & Madison I was working for a small company that didn't offer maternity or short term disability so I had to take my leave completely unpaid except for what vacation/sick time I had - which wasn't much - so I went back to work after just 4 weeks. Would I have liked to be off longer - absolutely, but financially I couldn't justify it.

lisar replied: Just to add I went back to work 7 weeks after I had Lexi and I didnt get paid anything for the entire time off and I worked for the city.
With Raygen I had to go back to work 4 weeks after I had her and she was in the NICU still she was 2 weeks old. So I got 2 weeks technically to bond with her. Didnt get paid for any of it
After my hysterectomy (they cut me open) I went back to work 2 weeks later. didnt get paid for any of it
And I had c-sections with both kids.

cameragirl21 replied: Idk, maybe I'm a dreamer but reading some of these stories about people going back to work after 4 weeks and all is really making both mad and sad. And like LeaAnn said, if someone is still not healed after 6 weeks, should she really be forced back to work for financial reasons? And if that makes it harder to bf which leads moms to switch to formula, isn't that also wrong?
Ok, so really, maybe I am a dreamer but I'm thinking that maybe with someone like Obama in office who wants change and is all about social policies maybe as a group we should start a movement to get FMLA extended and/or ask for something similar to what Canada has? That is why I'm hoping some Canadian will clue me in on the details of what they have there.
Like I said, it may seem far off but if you present it to a female congresswoman, like Barbara Boxer for instance, or Nancy Pelosi or for that matter, Hillary Clinton I bet we could at least make some noise.
Maybe it's worth a shot...just curious what some of the moms here think.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:

When we move, since I will be on my own, my net salary yearly is about 33K.. and so I will receive (in theory) this full amount of 762.92$ monthly as a financial aid, just for the fact that I have kids. It's great. I can't complain.

As well as that monthly benefit, I will also qualify for a child care subsidy, to help with daycare costs. The last time I had the subsidy, i was receiving about 600$ a month to help pay for daycare.

canada rocks.

Mommy2Isabella replied: Rocky,

I am starting to want to move to Canda all those Benefits.

I mean we have food stamps and wic but no one hands out money (as far as I know ) just because you have kids ...

and when I say we I mean Americans! DH and I talk about it all the time, how nice it would be, for a family of 4 in SC you have to make less than 28,000 I believe ...

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
We also have a food stamp program and something similar to WIC. It falls under the umbrella of Employment Insurance.. but it's basically Welfare, with a new less degrading name.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
This explains it very well. If by chance you were to do this, then in order to remain 'above water' you'd have to extend the service to the public as well, but possibly without the discount. To open a center, pay employees, just to have 6-10 kids from the employees...you would go under within the first few months. So, more or less, you are running a childcare business, no different than any other childcare. THEN, you have to hire a director, assistant director, etc. These people also need yearly educational hours that you would pay for, etc. etc. etc.

If you really wanted to know the procedures and licensing requirements in your state, you can call or go online to your local health and human services department and request info on it. Usually they will send you a licensing handbook of all the requirements. Ours is about 60 pages long, possibly more.

cameragirl21 replied: Ok, that is a bit too complicated for me but thanks for the info. I'm thinking a better solution might be to befriend a local daycare that's nearby and really good and try to barter with them by giving them, say, free photography for their place in exchange for a discount for my employees.

moped replied: Yeah, I'm with Rocky.....it is a pretty great place to live.

With us, I make a fairly high salary so I only get the $100 per month per kid, so $200 for the child care benefit, I don't get a tax credit because of my/our salary, which kind of sucks but I understand how it works!