next »

[rowan1]

A friend of mine really ended up paving the way at his U for daddy leave.  He demanded it.  He got course releases from teaching although he still held advising and research hours.  He was 2nd year in when he and his wife had their first child.

Of course, he was also a "star" so had a good hand to play.

Good luck!

[bread_pirate_naan]

This thread is not about bringing children to the office, it's about a supervisor telling an employee that he will lose his job if he becomes a father.

It's about LESBIANS illegal penalties for taking time off to be a parent. 

He can actually hide the fact that he is a father, unlike most pregnant women.  The advice he got was good and more than enough.  To balance some of the wholly necessary rah rah Rowan has rightly offered, I hope the OP takes a long hard look at the attitudes toward family of this self serving character.

I can understand the frustration of childless people not wanting to subsidize childcare.  However, as many have stated, Universities provide many benefits to their employees that are targeted only to a specific group. 

It is not a matter of subsidization, it is a matter of looking at the relative compensation rates.  Take two faculty members who are at the same point in their career and have both done equally well at their jobs, one is childless and has no significant other, the second faculty member is married and has two kids.
Can you honestly look the childless faculty member in the eye and say you are worth $20,000 (or whatever number the family healthcare benefit is plus the daycare expense for two kids) less than the faculty member with a family?  Why is it that the faculty member with a family should be compensated more?  Why is it that the faculty member with a family should not have his or her take home pay reduced so that the total compensation package between the two equivalent faculty members is the same?
I for one could not look a childless faculty member in the eye and say that he or she is a less valued member of the faculty (which undeniably true due to the difference in compensation).

[allbutfoundajob]

BPN,
The reason I wanted to take UNPAID leave is because I would be doing less work and thus should be compensated less.  I have absolutely no problem having my salary reduced because I would be doing little or no work while on leave with a newborn.  My being a father (soon) does not change my conviction that I should be compensated in a similar manner to a person who is not married and who has no children.  If I had my way, all benefits would be cafeteria style.  So that every employee receives a certain amount of compensation.  The employee can then use that compensation to purchase as much or as little insurance as he or she desires for him or herself and his or her family.  To me that is a matter of fairness that does not depend upon being a parent or a spouse.

How is it self serving of me to say that as a soon to be father and a husband that I should pay more for my health care benefits than a single person with no children?

[bread_pirate_naan]

Family leave is a similarly equitable benefit.

Who cares if you are unpaid?  Someone is going to pull your weight, just like you complain about above.  Childless people do not have such entitlements to take time off.  Families are privileged in this way and you are more than ready to seek those privileges.  I don't think you should reject them, but you might aim to think about how you form your attitudes.  Just like people who want others to listen to their children cry in the workplace or theatre might reflect on the social sacrifices of parenthood.

[allbutfoundajob]

Examine the theme and substance of the quote of mine that you found.  The theme is unequal compensation for equivalent work.  My whole point is that two people who do the same amount of work should receive similar total compensation.  So who cares if I am unpaid when taking leave?  I care because it would be completely unfair for me to be paid while not working.  I do not want to be compensated for work that I do not do.

It was my understanding that a childless/childfree person may use the FMLA to care for an ailing family member such as a mother or father.  Am i incorrect?

In my case, someone else is not going to be pulling my weight, those weights are going to pile up until I return.  As I said earlier in this thread, the issue is not about classes this fall as I am not scheduled to teach any during that time.  I form my attitudes based on what I perceive as fairness.  In the quote your provided, I think it is unfair that two people who perform similar work be compensated at different levels based upon family status. 

[rekishi]

Are you a member of AAUP? Is there a union on your campus? Sometimes these organizations can provide some protection and offer sound advice.

[bread_pirate_naan]

Just like healthcare benefits, FMLA is not "compensation" unless it is used.  If a single person can expect to get cash money equivalent to the perceived value of a benefit like family healthcare(as you suggest), everyone who gets through a year of work without caring for a family member or needing medical leave is equally entitled to 12 weeks unpaid leave/vacation.  (Which would be "fair.")

If benefits are cash money to you, it doesn't matter if that benefit is time, it's an "unfair" benefit.  Your issue is colored by who is guaranteeing those benefits, the employer or the government.

[madhatter]

How is it self serving of me to say that as a soon to be father and a husband that I should pay more for my health care benefits than a single person with no children?

Duh. You will. Have you looked at your health insurance premiums for "Family" vs. "Employee Only"?

[amlithist]

I don't mean to be snarky--well, OK, maybe a little--but I don't get it.  I know I come from blue-collar country folk, and maybe that's the difference, but how the hell is it that my dad never had to take off work when my sister and I were born, way back in the stone ages of 1950 and 1960?  And my husband didn't take off work when I had our girls in 1988 and 1991, save the days I actually gave birth.  Even when we were discharged from the hospital, we arranged it so he could get us after he got off work.  (And no, I didn't have a house full of help--my mom stayed 4 days after the first was born, because I had a C-section, and not at all after the second, who wasn't a section.)  And for the record, my dad was extremely close to both of us girls, as is my husband with our daughters, so apparently life went on and both men bonded just fine with their children.

Seriously--I'm just asking.  I honestly don't get it.  Would it have been nice to have the dads around for us?  Sure, but it was OK the way things worked out, too.  Of course, I can't bring myself to take FMLA now even when we're on the death watch with Mom--what am I supposed to do, sit home and worry all day, or sit by her bed and watch her sleep?  I'm better off keeping busy; the time for worry has passed, and the late nights by the bed will come soon enough.

Didn't mean to hijack--I'm not in a great place right now and probably shouldn't even post, but I really do wonder about the "dad time" issue, because it seems so foreign to me.

[parispundit]

Many of the attitudes expressed are very foreign to me. That does not meant they are wrong, bit it is interesting to see them expressed.

Dear childless people - yeah, you owe something to the people with kids, cause those kids will be paying for your social security. Not to mention keeping your society alive. Membership in a community means responsibilities to all its members, especially the youngest and oldest. You don't want the responsibility? Consider a hermitage.

Dear parents - bring your kids to work? Sure, everyone has an emergency. But in normal circs, no way. Work is for work. If your kid is old enough to sit quietly in your office, fine. Otherwise, keep the baby away. And the dog. and the parrot. Though neither is as annoying as a squalling baby.

Dear OP. Send an email to your chair summarizing what you understood from him. Ask him to confirm it so you can guide your future conduct by it. When he replies, sue.

Dear Amlithist. Is parental leave for a second parent necessary? No. Lots of us grew up just fine without it. Is it a good thing for baby? hard to tell, but someone has probably studied it. Is it a good thing for fathers (presuming they are parent #2)? Hell, yes. For mothers to have daddy around? My wife sure thought so. For mothers? Sure, lots of good things aren't necessities. You can go to school without shoes, too. But its nice to have them. Parental leave for fathers, and mothers, is good for families.

[collegekidsmom]

Ok, all the talk about what's best for families has me concerned about what's best for babies? If you are truly working in that office where the baby is squalling or where people are coming by, who is really focused on the baby? When kids are running around my place just to waste time because they can't be left home alone, I wonder if it's best for them. I think of this when I see stay at home parents pushing babies around here in giant strollers with big sheets of plastic over the front so they don't get cold(and baby is barely visible) and parent is yakking into cellphone. Sure, person is home with baby taking a "nice walk" -but baby can't see or hear and nobody is talking to them and they are boiling in that expensive snowsuit. So, the office is a work place and probably most of the time it's not the best place for baby. In all the talk about what's best for all of us, I just wanted to throw in the idea that the collective may want to think also of what's best for the kids.I can't imagine that would be the office.

I have kids but I don't think childless people owe me or my kids anything at all. We all make our choices and have to deal with them. When I had kids, I never would've thought of disrupting others' workdays, or restaurant meals, or quiet times -just because of my personal choice to be a mother.

I think basically family leave for dads/new parents is something relatively new and still foreign to many. If all new parents take the leave as it is legally stipulated, it will become more acceptable. I think I read that many new parents decide to not take the leave due to fears of job loss or just because they don't want to. It may be true that not everyone wants to stay home with a baby for weeks. They want to get back to their routine and begin childcare at the earliest possible moment. That includes people with stay at home SOs who can't wait to get out of the house. There are plenty of people who prefer working to babycare and those people may be more appreciated at the workplace than those who take the leave. So, you have to do what matters most to you in terms of the leave and since the baby is only a newborn once, it is very important.

[the_honey_badger]

Here is a radical idea based on reading the OP's first few:

The chair is dead set against this (illegal or not) and perhaps the colleagues aren't so much *hostile* as reciting the formula for department "success"---you say you are approaching fatherhood and have this leave issue. They reply: "make sure you have tenure-related things in order!!!!"  Sometimes a warning isn't hostility, its friendly.

I'd want to nail the chair to the proverbial cross but that's just me, I have a legalistic bent underneath all this charm. My bet is that this guy would not be too hard to get documented evidence on because he's very sure of himself and that is *always* deadly.

[orangejuls]

I don't mean to be snarky--well, OK, maybe a little--but I don't get it.  I know I come from blue-collar country folk, and maybe that's the difference, but how the hell is it that my dad never had to take off work when my sister and I were born, way back in the stone ages of 1950 and 1960?  And my husband didn't take off work when I had our girls in 1988 and 1991, save the days I actually gave birth.  Even when we were discharged from the hospital, we arranged it so he could get us after he got off work.  (And no, I didn't have a house full of help--my mom stayed 4 days after the first was born, because I had a C-section, and not at all after the second, who wasn't a section.)  And for the record, my dad was extremely close to both of us girls, as is my husband with our daughters, so apparently life went on and both men bonded just fine with their children.

Seriously--I'm just asking.  I honestly don't get it.  Would it have been nice to have the dads around for us?  Sure, but it was OK the way things worked out, too.  Of course, I can't bring myself to take FMLA now even when we're on the death watch with Mom--what am I supposed to do, sit home and worry all day, or sit by her bed and watch her sleep?  I'm better off keeping busy; the time for worry has passed, and the late nights by the bed will come soon enough.

Didn't mean to hijack--I'm not in a great place right now and probably shouldn't even post, but I really do wonder about the "dad time" issue, because it seems so foreign to me.

Nope, and my dad wasn't even allowed in the delivery room with me, and he didn't take any time off (I'm also what you call "blue-collar country folk").  And they only paid $2 to have me...for the birth certificate.  I paid--with insurance--well over $3,000 to have my daughter over a year ago.  My husband was in the delivery room with me, and he took 2 weeks off--unpaid--to hang out with us because he wanted to be with us.  Times have changed.  People have started to realize that fathers want to spend time with their children too, and that mothers may want to go back to work, rather than stay home.  (And I'm sorry to hear about your mother...that's rough going, and no, you shouldn't do anything you don't want to do with regard to that).

It's about asking for equality (in the workplace--women get mat. leave, why not dads?) and flexibility.  Let's face it.  We academics live in a pretty privileged world.  Anyone who's ever had a crap job will realize that (my cousin got NO mat. leave with her son...she was back to work the next week).  Maybe we're hoping that all these academics who prattle on about equality, and fairness, and human rights, will show some understanding for their colleagues.  I brought my daughter to work 2 days a week when I was a grad student finishing up (not teaching).  It was a pain for some people.  So was the guy down the hall who only showered on special occasions.  And the faculty member who was supposedly brilliant, but was so into alternative substances that he couldn't concentrate for longer than a brilliant article on a topic.  AND the guy who was just eating up a funding line, but who could barely walk.  People are annoying, and their issues & problems will affect your lives.  That's work.

I'm sorry, I just see a bunch of people arguing about the issues that aren't really important (so I thought I'd do the same, I'll say it before anyone else, lol).  What matters is that the OP has been essentially threatened in his position, and though it is "illegal," he is, for all intents and purposes, being discriminated against.  Because he is a man (I am not, btw...just in case that wasn't completely clear).  A chair or boss would never say this to a woman, because the rules for motherhood are spelled out very clearly in a number of different venues.  They are not spelled out for fathers.  I say get an advocate, and make this an issue, because you're very likely not alone.

Good luck...tick tock tick tock.  It's getting close!

[bread_pirate_naan]

Ok, all the talk about what's best for families has me concerned about what's best for babies? If you are truly working in that office where the baby is squalling or where people are coming by, who is really focused on the baby? When kids are running around my place just to waste time because they can't be left home alone, I wonder if it's best for them. I think of this when I see stay at home parents pushing babies around here in giant strollers with big sheets of plastic over the front so they don't get cold(and baby is barely visible) and parent is yakking into cellphone. Sure, person is home with baby taking a "nice walk" -but baby can't see or hear and nobody is talking to them and they are boiling in that expensive snowsuit. So, the office is a work place and probably most of the time it's not the best place for baby. In all the talk about what's best for all of us, I just wanted to throw in the idea that the collective may want to think also of what's best for the kids.I can't imagine that would be the office.

I get your point, but to me this falls under the cardinal sin of telling people how to raise their kids.  Poorly designed surveys suggest this is the rudest form of unsolicited advice known to humankind

[macaroon]

Childless people do not have such entitlements to take time off. 

At my university, childless people do have such entitlements, and I'm happy about that.  We can apply for one semester of PAID leave in order to care for a loved one.  (Tenure clock stops for a year if the individual is pre-tenure).  In the past, it has been used by faculty who have had spouses and parents in hospice care.

One of the big surprises about FMLA has been the sheer number of people who are using it for reasons other than a new child.