This topic is one I've been considering for a while, and the current "benefits for parents" comments in another thread have brought it back into my mind.

If a woman becomes pregnant and takes maternity leave, is she obligated -- morally or ethically, if not legally -- to come back when the leave is used up?

I have worked with a number of women who went ahead and took the leave, then just didn't come back. This means that the company basically "eats" the cost of her medical care, plus any salary she has been paid according to the maternity leave arrangement. (Some leaves are paid; unpaid leave may be granted according to the provisions of the Family Medical Leave Act.)

It's my understanding that a maternity leave is basically an agreement between a pregnant woman and her employer. The employer promises to hold a job open for her; she promises to come back to it. While the employer doesn't have to give her the exact same job back, he DOES have to use temporary help or ask his other employees to make up the slack while the pregnant employee is gone.

Now. I also realize that, not being a mother, I am mostly ignorant of the emotions surrounding childbirth, and that lots of women who fully intended to go back to work change their mind after the baby comes. But, having been the old reliable childless employee who's picked up that slack more than once (I logged over 70 hours of comp time last spring when my coworker was on maternity leave), and also realizing that if I wanted to take 6-12 weeks off to "give birth to" a novel, a painting, or another nonhuman "conception," I'd be told to put down the crack pipe -- something about the situation bothers me.

I've also noticed that a lot of mothers who don't come back wait until the very last moment -- like the Friday before they're due back -- to call HR and say "I quit." I'd feel a lot less grumpy about this if such an employee let the company know BEFORE the leave was all used up.

My questions for debate:

Should employers provide maternity leave for female employees?

If so, what are the moral or ethical standards by which it should be administered and used?

If an employee takes maternity leave and then decides not to come back, should she be required to reimburse the employer for the benefits provided?

For employee morale reasons, employers should allow both men and women to take off time when parturition occurs and immediately afterwards. This time should not be compensated in any manner. The entire concept of paid vacations and paid maternity leave is unneeded. Why pay people for not being productive?

Raising a family is an important responsibility. If a employer does not recognize this nor provide flexibility to accommodate their parent employees, they will be less attractive to people who have families. On average, parents will be more stable employees and more responsible and more productive. A smart employer will recognize this and have personnel policy, including personal time for newborns, which will support these employees.

Should employers provide maternity leave for female employees?

Yes. This is the law in the UK (recent changes have now introduced compulsory paternity leave as well, which is no bad thing).

From memory, mothers now get up to six months paid leave, and up to six months unpaid leave. This usefully gives employers the option for fixed one-year contracts, which cost them less money than using a temp agency, or than employing a permanent worker. It still costs them up to six months' maternity leave, of course.

I am only guessing, but I'd imagine that for every woman who abuses the company's trust (as in your example), there is another who can't wait to get back to work as soon as she is physically able.

If so, what are the moral or ethical standards by which it should be administered and used?

I think the golden rule of employee benefits should be that they should be as generous as the employer can afford, but that employees should not abuse the trust placed in them.

As Gray Seal point out, enlightened employers will offer generous benefits to attract and retain staff. (Where we differ is that I think government has a role in legislating to 'encourage' employer enlightenment by setting mandatory minimum standards.)

Sooner or later, staff who abuse employee benefits like this will need to get another job. Past employers are entirely within their rights to comment on the circumstances of their leaving.

If an employee takes maternity leave and then decides not to come back, should she be required to reimburse the employer for the benefits provided?

In this case, for example, maybe the mother should have been required to give the employer advanced notice (say, three months in the British system) during the unpaid leave period on pain of clawback. The mechanics of the clawback would be contentious in themselves - by definition, she is no longer being paid until she returns to work, so there are no wages to retain. The legal costs of recovering the money will weight most heavily on the small businesses who can least afford abuse of maternity leave. And the threat of prison for such mothers will benefit nobody - employers don't get their money back, and the child (who has to be the only party that will be entirely innocent in all circumstances) will lose their mother, albeit temporarily.

So it's a thorny problem whichever way you look at it. I'm not sure what the solution is.

But your point that people without kids are usualy expected to pick up the slack is part of a wider problem, I think. Parents often get to have time off to look after sick children. This is reasonable and necessary - SOMEONE has to look after them, and usually it SHOULD be the parents. But should their colleagues be expected to 'pick up the slack' for no extra reward?

Some to that, smokers take more breaks during the day than non-smokers. The non smokers have to cover their telephones, if not actually do their work for them. Do non-smokers get extra break time? Nope.

The truth is, businesses rely on conscientious workers to fill in temproary gaps in their resources, however they come about (unnecessary or badly-run meetings take more people away from productive work than any amount of sprog-dropping, smoke breaks, etc, and they are seen as necessary by the people that organise them), and they rely on not having to pay these conscientious workers (I believe the proper term is 'mugs') any extra to do it. I can say this with some confidence, since I've always been such a mug myself.

How can we solve this? We probably can't. Maybe us mugs should just never expect any praise or reward.

This is probably one of the scariest parts of American "labor law culture" that a small business owner/manager has to deal with (of course excepting race-related law).

Mothers are the life-blood of any culture, and should be revered with nothing but the utmost respect. I believe that in a company that has the labor-capacity and financial ability to allow mothers to take maternity leave should do so.

However, in small business, or businesses where the mother's skills or competencies are needed, often maternity leave can cause sincere fissures in productivity and profitability.

I believe that, as in nearly every facet of commerce, that the Government should stay out of it. Basically, the good employees will be attracted by the companies that allow maternity leave (if applicable to their life-situation), and those whom chose not to offer it will attract those either less-desirable or less likely to have children. That's the lovely part about capitalism and a free market.

As a part of a management staff of an international organization, I personally believe that mothers are often some of our best assets, and we have the financial means by which to allow them to take time off or work from home (in some cases). I applaud their dedication to their children, and believe that our flexibility becomes a stitch in their thread of loyalty to the company.

But to play devil's advocate, what if you were a small accounting firm, for the sake of argument. If you had a stellar CPA that got pregnant and was going to be gone during Tax Season, for instance, or during a large auditing project that generated thousands of dollars in revenue.... how can you justify a woman taking months off and paying salary during her absence? What do you do about the missing production? This analogy can be placed into a million scenarios... but if you only have 1/2 dozen employees, and you rely on the competency of those you employ as do the rest of those in the business, how do you handle it?

Not paid. Individual solutions can be provided.



It should´nt. In todays society the employeer is not allowed to ask if the woman is going to have a child, planing and so forth, so when they employ someone, and she turns out lying or not told, the company gets problems (obvously), as they will have to find a substitute.

The whole thing is ridiculous and insulting to all the company owners of the world. If a company has an employee, she gets pregnant, then the employer DECIDES if he would like to pay for her (because she might be a good employee and wants her back later on?), or not. Should not be forced, thats discrimination against company owners, oh, i mean, does heartless animals, right?



They should. Also a lawsuit should be engaged taking anything she has. As a lier and breach of contract, And insult to all honest working people in the world.

I find myself caught somewhere in the middle again.


Using your analogy should employers have insurance carriers and fill out a worker’s comp form when an employee is hurt on the job so s/he can receive medical benefits and a portion of their pay while they’re out of work? Should employers be free to fire employees after they’re hurt on the job? As a non-mother I suspect working women would plan their pregnancy so as not to intrude into a company’s work schedule too much, but damn it, sometimes that menstrual cycle refuses to cooperate.

Should employees expect the employer to provide temp assistance whenever someone takes a long holiday?

Should employers provide maternity leave for female employees?
It would be a good idea to offer it to both female and male employees, though probably not both at the same time if they work at the same company. Offering maternity/paternity leave should be looked at as part of a company’s employee retention plan.

If so, what are the moral or ethical standards by which it should be administered and used?
The only ethical standard I’m concerned with is offering it to men and women. Offering M/P leave itself should be administered as a cost-benefit analysis.

If an employee takes maternity leave and then decides not to come back, should she be required to reimburse the employer for the benefits provided?
I don’t have a problem if he or she is required to do so. I would hope parents know they want to be stay-at-home parents prior to the last day of their maternity leave and inform the employer and save themselves a full reimbursement.

The antics of a female fighter pilot in the 90’s sticks in my craw. The military (Air Force?) paid for her school and training. I believe her husband was in the military, too. She had a baby and wanted the military to let her go. Just like that. After investing several thousand dollars in man hours and equipment bringing her up to her potential. It was a slap in the face to military families with a husband and wife in the service and single parents doing their best to raise kids while fulfilling their contractual commitment to the services. The military wanted her reimburse them for the investment they made. I don’t know how it panned out but the military was in the right, imo.

Actually (*this has been a large portion of my career*) when a worker's compensation claim is filed, it generally either involves a short-term claim or a matter of negligence on either the employers side or the employees side. Often employers/employees are a part of the cause of the injury or distress, in which case one or the other is liable. If the employer was negligent, they should pay (and rightfully do). If the employee is liable, they often bear the financial burden themselves. If an employee is hurt on the job due to their negligence, and they exhaust FMLA, often the company is eligible to let the person go. It happens all the time. The thing is that often labor lawyers want the company to give all 12 weeks of FMLA prior to termination... especially if there is gray area.

Of course unionized jobs or contract-based positions are far different...

There is no such thing as "maternity leave insurance" for companies (at least in TX or LA.). I don't know how one would deem a woman eligible or an acceptable candidate, but I suppose there might be external sources for women to purchase something of this nature (?). The employer shouldn't be required to carry such a policy either via insurance or self-financed.

In either case, this is what the Family Medical Leave Act is for. An employer can't fire a woman for being gone under a doctor's orders unless her absence exceeds 12 weeks (I think that's the duration... but if not, whatever it is). (of course this act actually extends to any prolonged medical absence)

In the case of maternity leave, the dilemma exists that you cannot hire someone else to come in, and often companies have to decide whether to pay in their absence.

In the case of any Military woman missing for pregnancy, I believe that the United States government should (and does) uphold the contractural agreement for service. This could happen in any career, and often does even in unionized industries.

FMLA applies to companies with 50+ employees.

FMLA also covers employees who need to recover from surgery. I’m still curious to know if you think an employer should be able to fire someone who has to undergo chemo. What rationale do you use to justify either position in a case where clearly neither party is negligent?



Is an employer required by law to fire an employee on worker’s comp until a specified time, regardless of who is at fault?

Praise to mothers aside, your playing devil’s advocate leads me to believe that you think the government shouldn’t butt in on businesses in the case of maternity leave. I assume you feel the same way about medical emergencies and worker’s comp for the productivity and possibility of abuse issues you cited in maternity leave. Am I right?

You're right about FMLA and 50 employees... I forgot.

I believe that in the vast majority of cases when the government becomes involved in commerce, very little good is done for the economy.

The problem with maternity leave is that any woman of child-bearing age would be a potential risk, and the insurance costs for a private organization could be unbearable. You'd have no way to ascertain whether any woman under, let's say, 50 could bear children and under our current labor climate we surely couldn't ask.

Let's tie this one together... in a worker's compensation environment, each position has an assertable risk dependant upon their daily tasks. A fork lift driver, for instance, may be more at risk than an accountant or sales person.

When it comes to women, would you assert a higher maternity leave premium to younger women or ones in good health? Would there be such thing as no maternity insurance? ? ? Would the employer be expected to front the cost?

I personally believe that employees seeking a career somewhere that has maternity leave or provisions there of, generally do so. That is the basis of capitalism. Government mandated worker's comp insurance (and unemployment benefits for that matter) are flush with wastefulness and ineptitude, and generally are a bane on commerce (as necessary as they may be). It's not the fact that they're not needed, but more over that they're run by the government who's primary concern is not customer service, profitability, or efficiency.

Check.



By “potential risk” do you mean female employees of child-bearing age present an extra/special healthcare cost to the company as a group by virtue of their ability to conceive and give birth to children?



Check.



I really don’t follow you here.

By law employers and employees must fill out a worker’s comp form to officially report an on-the-job accident, but states don’t compel employers to sign up with an insurance carrier for worker’s comp (at least not in Florida). Why would offering maternity leave be different? Assuming I’m wrong on this, I’m not sure you could even apply a higher maternity leave premium on younger women when most state laws don’t allow employers to leave smokers, overweight people, people with disabilities, people with diabetes, older people, cancer patients etc., out of the healtchare plan, conditions that have nothing to do with their job title.

The employer doesn’t have to offer a healthcare plan, but once he or she elects to do so they can’t arbitrarily choose which employees will not benefit from the plan or decide the unhealthiest looking employees have a bigger deduction on pay day to cover their risk. This, by law, is discrimination.

This is not how it is in Illinois. If an employee is hurt on the job, the employer is responsible for labor time lost and medical expenses. Medical treatment can be excessive and it does not matter. The employer is responsible. Negligence on the part of the employer is not needed. In fact, if the employee was negligent it does not matter. The employer is responsible. Just a difference between states, I expect.

Having a child should not be grounds for terminating a military employment contract. There should be no discrimination between parents based upon sex.

The 12 week rule for delivery and neonate care seems OK for some but not all situations. I would think there should be more time allowed. If someone was gone for a year or more, I would hire them back but at reduced compensation. Laws are so inflexible and do not relflect the variable equation of actual life.