pinklady
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,529
Nov 14, 2016 23:47:03 GMT
|
Post by pinklady on Feb 3, 2021 18:53:23 GMT
This is an interesting story of trump admin people wanting a "handout". Why would you think your parental leave would extend thru to a new administration? My guess is because you thought the trump admin would remain in power. Yeah it sucks but that's what happens when you lose your job.
What say the peas?
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Feb 3, 2021 18:56:36 GMT
I'm confused. I thought these were the 'bootstraps' people who don't LIKE people getting handouts, right??
my eyes just rolled so much I gave myself a headache.
eta: in answer to your question of what do I think, my first thought was 'well, DUH!' If you work for a particular WH administration, then your job ends when the next person gets inaugurated. The election was in November... plenty of time for you to find another job.
|
|
|
Post by peano on Feb 3, 2021 19:01:49 GMT
And at the count of 1,2,3 Republicans are going to be all over social media with memes about hypocritical Democrats. When the Republican administration was to blame for delaying the transition. Where the Democrats might have had time to investigate what the provisions were and possibly have done a workaround. Bitch, please!
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Feb 3, 2021 19:04:06 GMT
The stupidity never stops.
|
|
|
Post by shamrock on Feb 3, 2021 19:14:13 GMT
I do t know why they are surprised. They k ew when they started their jobs that they worked only for that administration and not for the federal government. It also seems like many of them waited till very late to see if the new administration would keep them on past inauguration.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 3, 2021 19:17:50 GMT
Well, they can apply for family/parental leave thru unemployment like the rest of us. Or at least that’s what I had to do in 1997.
|
|
Anita
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,646
Location: Kansas City -ish
Jun 27, 2014 2:38:58 GMT
|
Post by Anita on Feb 3, 2021 19:23:02 GMT
They had no backup plan in case the administration changed? Well, that's on them. Sucks, but everyone knows that's how a change of administration works. It's almost as if they assumed their side would still be in power come January 20th despite the outcome of the election. Huh.
And as for boo hooing about suddenly having no healthcare? Welcome to what the Democrats have been trying to fix, you sh*theads. Seriously, I am out of fucks to give for these people.
|
|
|
Post by busy on Feb 3, 2021 19:34:11 GMT
Hmmm. What about all those normal people who face this all. the. time. in this nation that has no paid parental leave, thanks to your party? For them, it's an issue of personal responsibility, according to your party. But I guess these folks think they're special. Screw them.
ETA: Of course I think EVERYONE should have paid parental leave and something like this shouldn’t happen, even to political appointees. But I’m having a hard time feeling much sympathy for people who don’t give a shit about a huge issue that affects millions of people until it personally affects them.
|
|
|
Post by rune2484 on Feb 3, 2021 19:36:03 GMT
Maybe now that they have been personally affected by our sink-or-swim system they would like to reconsider their politics and advocate for progressive policies that would solve this problem for every family? Policies like universal healthcare and extended mandatory parental leave? No? Whining about how evil the people in the "DemocRAT" party is more satisfying? Yeah, no surprise there.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 3, 2021 19:36:41 GMT
Parental leave is a handout? Seriously? It's unfortunate that the Trump administration's roadblocking a transition plan screwed more people. I don't think terminating someone's 12 week parent leave that began before the Biden administration took office on January 20th is appropriate. It couldn't have been very many people (the article says handful) and it absolutely looks like support for parental leave policies is only lip service. Sorry cheering working mothers (and fathers) who were fired a couple weeks/months after giving birth while they're out on leave is not something I'm on board with.
|
|
|
Post by Crack-a-lackin on Feb 3, 2021 19:40:22 GMT
Of course my first thought is they’re naive or ignorant if they thought the Biden administration would keep them on so they could get their leave. Especially since one clause states they must work at least 12 weeks after their return (which I would love to see implemented in my workplace, where several people have planned all along to come back for one day and quit). They are in a unique situation where they likely lose their job every 4-8 years so they should have anticipated it.
It does bring up a question about how this would fare in the corporate world. If I were on maternity leave when the company was bought out and everyone lost their job, would the new owners need to honor my leave pay, same as they would other PTO?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 8:15:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2021 19:43:33 GMT
Parental leave is a handout? Seriously? It's unfortunate that the Trump administration's roadblocking a transition plan screwed more people. I don't think terminating someone's 12 week parent leave that began before the Biden administration took office on January 20th is appropriate. It couldn't have been very many people (the article says handful) and it absolutely looks like support for parental leave policies is only lip service. Sorry cheering working mothers (and fathers) who were fired a couple weeks/months after giving birth while they're out on leave is not something I'm on board with. But their job was going to end on Jan 20 anyways so how is it firing them? They're supposed to keep them on the payroll despite the fact that after their leave was over, they would be out of a job anyways?
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 3, 2021 19:44:52 GMT
Of course my first thought is they’re naive or ignorant if they thought the Biden administration would keep them on so they could get their leave. Especially since one clause states they must work at least 12 weeks after their return (which I would love to see implemented in my workplace, where several people have planned all along to come back for one day and quit). They are in a unique situation where they likely lose their job every 4-8 years so they should have anticipated it. It does bring up a question about how this would fare in the corporate world. If I were on maternity leave when the company was bought out and everyone lost their job, would the new owners need to honor my leave pay, same as they would other PTO? Let's also keep in mind there are 4,000 political appointees - so it's not like this is a handful of Trump cronies and there is no expectation that the WOULD be kept on - at least for some period of time during a transition. I can say definitively that I have first hand experience in a very large corporation buying out a company and the entire department was fired - they did NOT fire the woman on maternity leave. Honestly I am not even sure it would be legal - at least in California - but it sure as hell was not worth the potential legal headaches or bad PR.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 3, 2021 19:48:57 GMT
Parental leave is a handout? Seriously? It's unfortunate that the Trump administration's roadblocking a transition plan screwed more people. I don't think terminating someone's 12 week parent leave that began before the Biden administration took office on January 20th is appropriate. It couldn't have been very many people (the article says handful) and it absolutely looks like support for parental leave policies is only lip service. Sorry cheering working mothers (and fathers) who were fired a couple weeks/months after giving birth while they're out on leave is not something I'm on board with. But their job was going to end on Jan 20 anyways so how is it firing them? They're supposed to keep them on the payroll despite the fact that after their leave was over, they would be out of a job anyways? Again not necessarily - it takes on average 200 days for a new administration to finish making all of the 4,000 nominations. There IS usually a transition period- particularly the farther down you get in the hierarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Really Red on Feb 3, 2021 19:50:12 GMT
They had no backup plan in case the administration changed? Well, that's on them. Sucks, but everyone knows that's how a change of administration works. It's almost as if they assumed their side would still be in power come January 20th despite the outcome of the election. Huh. And as for boo hooing about suddenly having no healthcare? Welcome to what the Democrats have been trying to fix, you sh*theads. Seriously, I am out of fucks to give for these people. You said it perfectly, Anita. The audacity of these people!!! I am SO SO SO happy that the new admin said no.
|
|
pinklady
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,529
Nov 14, 2016 23:47:03 GMT
|
Post by pinklady on Feb 3, 2021 19:51:26 GMT
Maybe now that they have been personally affected by our sink-or-swim system they would like to reconsider their politics and advocate for progressive policies that would solve this problem for every family? Policies like universal healthcare and extended mandatory parental leave? No? Whining about how evil the people in the "DemocRAT" party is more satisfying? Yeah, no surprise there. Isn't that how Megan McCain got her epiphany? She had a baby and then realized paid maternity leave was important...you know for every woman. Before she had a baby she had no empathy for regular folks.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 3, 2021 19:58:48 GMT
And just for contrast - President Obama allowed foreign ambassadors to stay on for weeks and in some cases months (one was a full year) in the transition. The ones he was planning on replacing he allowed to stay until the end of the school year if they had children in school. And no Trump did not behave similarly - to no one's surprise which meant some ambassadorships sat empty for months. I still believe that as the federal parental leave law is brand new, it would have been a show of support and good precedent to allow them to finish their leave it had already begun.
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Feb 3, 2021 20:07:02 GMT
They are political appointees not federal employees. They knew their employment and benefits ended Jan 20th.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Feb 3, 2021 20:09:11 GMT
from the article: "new administrations don’t immediately push out all political appointees from the prior one. And some experts said it would have set a good precedent for the Biden team to accommodate those individuals on parental leave as a means of reinforcing the importance of the policy.
“Paid parental leave is really really important for maternal health, for child wellbeing, for family connectivity, and I can’t imagine being in that new parents’ shoes and not having the finances,” said Adrienne Schweer, a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center who leads its Paid Family Leave Task Force. “Extending it to a couple people for a few months could be a good thing. There is precedent for unique circumstances, and I would love to see a good example set of ensuring that as many people as possible can have paid parental leave.”
As with virtually all employment, when a job ends so too do most of the benefits (though ex-Trump officials have been kept on government health insurance for the usual 31-day grace period)."----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- all I have to say is, welcome to the REAL WORLD. You were pregnant for 9 months, you knew when you were going to have the baby (more or less). Surprise, this is the kind of thing that 'normal' people have to work out on their own, without it becoming a news article. "Can we save enough money to take extra time if I need it, after the baby is born?" "Do we make enough money to afford to even have a child?" "My employer only pays me part-time so I don't get ANY benefits... what do we do if I get pregnant?" "ohmygosh, I have to put the baby in child care at 2-3 months old so I can go back to work... but I'll miss so much of their childhood." "I have to work mandatory 12-hour shifts or they'll let me go; what do I do with the kids after school? Maybe my MIL or mother can watch them..." My general manager and his wife decided she would quit her job and stay home with their kids because it's actually cheaper than paying for child care if she came back to her job. REAL PEOPLE are forced to figure this stuff out ALL.THE.TIME. These people are NOT special just because they worked for the White House. (and I'm not going to even bring up stuff about employees who have kids vs. those who have no kids, or those who have pets instead of children- we get NO time off if we have furry family members with a health situation...) ETA: wait, maybe they should start GoFundMe accounts, so they could get donations!!
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 3, 2021 20:12:06 GMT
And as for boo hooing about suddenly having no healthcare? Welcome to what the Democrats have been trying to fix, you sh*theads. Seriously, I am out of fucks to give for these people. Exactly, same place my DD will have to find healthcare in 2 years when she has to get off my plan. Write to your senators about getting a health care plan in place like the rest of us have been doing And enjoy those super expensive cobra payments.
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Feb 3, 2021 20:13:16 GMT
hey.. biden opened back up obama care.. so they can all go online and get health insurance like the rest of us...
|
|
|
Post by Crack-a-lackin on Feb 3, 2021 20:22:35 GMT
Of course my first thought is they’re naive or ignorant if they thought the Biden administration would keep them on so they could get their leave. Especially since one clause states they must work at least 12 weeks after their return (which I would love to see implemented in my workplace, where several people have planned all along to come back for one day and quit). They are in a unique situation where they likely lose their job every 4-8 years so they should have anticipated it. It does bring up a question about how this would fare in the corporate world. If I were on maternity leave when the company was bought out and everyone lost their job, would the new owners need to honor my leave pay, same as they would other PTO? Let's also keep in mind there are 4,000 political appointees - so it's not like this is a handful of Trump cronies and there is no expectation that the WOULD be kept on - at least for some period of time during a transition. I can say definitively that I have first hand experience in a very large corporation buying out a company and the entire department was fired - they did NOT fire the woman on maternity leave. Honestly I am not even sure it would be legal - at least in California - but it sure as hell was not worth the potential legal headaches or bad PR. In this scenario would the women returning from maternity leave keep their job (or equivalent) at the new company even though the rest of the employees were fired? Or would they simply pay them for the leave?
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 3, 2021 20:30:50 GMT
Let's also keep in mind there are 4,000 political appointees - so it's not like this is a handful of Trump cronies and there is no expectation that the WOULD be kept on - at least for some period of time during a transition. I can say definitively that I have first hand experience in a very large corporation buying out a company and the entire department was fired - they did NOT fire the woman on maternity leave. Honestly I am not even sure it would be legal - at least in California - but it sure as hell was not worth the potential legal headaches or bad PR. In this scenario would the women returning from maternity leave keep their job (or equivalent) at the new company even though the rest of the employees were fired? Or would they simply pay them for the leave? In this particular case the woman was kept on for another few months after maternity leave in a frankly awkward "similar job" and was let go at the end of the year - so about 4 months after she returned from maternity leave. I honestly think they wanted no part of a potential EEOC discrimination claim. I'm not suggesting every company handles it the same way, but frankly most companies don't fire everyone either which makes them more vulnerable to a discrimination claim. I can absolutely say that it is not common for an acquiring company to fire everyone on family leave when they take over even if they ARE making reductions in workforce. Now of course this thread is a different scenario as political appointees will typically leave at the end of the outgoing administration barring a request to stay on for a transition period (which as I stated above is NOT uncommon) - but as the federal family paid leave law is brand new and just went into effect in 2020, I think it was a mistake to not set a different precedent.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2021 20:31:24 GMT
And just for contrast - President Obama allowed foreign ambassadors to stay on for weeks and in some cases months (one was a full year) in the transition. The ones he was planning on replacing he allowed to stay until the end of the school year if they had children in school. And no Trump did not behave similarly - to no one's surprise which meant some ambassadorships sat empty for months. I still believe that as the federal parental leave law is brand new, it would have been a show of support and good precedent to allow them to finish their leave it had already begun. But what to do about the 12 week work commitment that federal employees have to sign up for - working for the same agency that they worked for before the leave - after they return from Parental Leave. You must know that the federal government can’t tell a few employees that they don’t have to follow through on that commitment, while insisting that the rest of federal employees must still follow it. For them to do what you are asking, they would have to change the whole Family Leave policy for all federal employees. Otherwise, they will be sued by every federal employee who takes the leave and then decides that they don’t want to go back to work. The Biden administration can’t simply be nice in this case. It would involve rewriting the whole Federal Employee Paid Leave Act. www.commerce.gov/hr/paid-parental-leave-federal-employees
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 3, 2021 20:43:12 GMT
And just for contrast - President Obama allowed foreign ambassadors to stay on for weeks and in some cases months (one was a full year) in the transition. The ones he was planning on replacing he allowed to stay until the end of the school year if they had children in school. And no Trump did not behave similarly - to no one's surprise which meant some ambassadorships sat empty for months. I still believe that as the federal parental leave law is brand new, it would have been a show of support and good precedent to allow them to finish their leave it had already begun. But what to do about the 12 week work commitment that federal employees have to sign up for - working for the same agency that they worked for before the leave - after they return from Prental Leave. You must know that the federal government can’t tell a few employees that they don’t have to follow through on that commitment, while insisting that the rest of federal employees must still follow it. For them to do what you are asking, they would have to change the whole Family Leave policy for all federal employees. Otherwise, they will be sued by every federal employee who takes the leave and then decides that they don’t want to go back to work. The Biden administration can’t simply be nice in this case. It would involve rewriting the whole Federal Employee Paid Leave Act. In the original article there was a discussion of a waiver - a quick glance looks like it's mostly for health related issues. If that doesn't suffice, I don't see that you have to rewrite the entire thing, add a provision for a waiver of the work requirement if you cannot return to work as you're a political appointee and have been replaced by a new administration. The law has been in effect for less than a year, I imagine it will need a few revisions. I personally don't know that I care for the work requirement at all, but that's a debate for another thread. In some cases, I don't know that they couldn't return to work for 12 weeks - especially if the average amount of time to finish replacing appointees is 200 days. They might be just coming back from leave a few weeks into the new administration and the new President isn't in a rush to appoint a new Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration of the Agricultural Department - I mean let's not think that these are all super high level, visible positions that are on the forefront of the transition team.
|
|
tracylynn
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,864
Jun 26, 2014 22:49:09 GMT
|
Post by tracylynn on Feb 3, 2021 20:44:05 GMT
Of course my first thought is they’re naive or ignorant if they thought the Biden administration would keep them on so they could get their leave. Especially since one clause states they must work at least 12 weeks after their return (which I would love to see implemented in my workplace, where several people have planned all along to come back for one day and quit). They are in a unique situation where they likely lose their job every 4-8 years so they should have anticipated it. It does bring up a question about how this would fare in the corporate world. If I were on maternity leave when the company was bought out and everyone lost their job, would the new owners need to honor my leave pay, same as they would other PTO? I think the difference here is EMPLOYEES versus Political APPOINTEES. Not the same thing. You serve at the pleasure of the current President. Period. Full stop.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 8:15:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2021 20:57:44 GMT
As ususal w/the GOP, it's only a problem when it affects them PERSONALLY.
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Feb 3, 2021 21:19:57 GMT
"His wife had a baby girl in early December. He took three weeks of paternity leave before having to go back to work to deal with the fallout of the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riot. He says he lost out on nine weeks of leave, which is equivalent to between $20,000 and $30,000."
Ummmm... that is more than I make in a YEAR! 9 weeks?? I'm in the wrong line of work, for real!!
Ok, seriously, they should thank their former employer for things being so messed up. You have to wonder if this issue might have been dealt with a little more amicably if tRump had allowed the transition to happen. He didn't so I'm betting a LOT of people who might have had jobs for a few weeks/months after the change of admin where screwed.
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Feb 3, 2021 21:34:12 GMT
Does that article point out that the woman in question's husband was literally the head of the Michigan GOP and trying to overturn Biden's election?
The Trump administration was uniquely hostile to a peaceful transition of power. That's why he was impeached. That's why we are where we are. Yes, his political appointees are going to get house-cleaned more quickly than they would have in prior administrations, because they were part of an administration that was refusing to concede losing the election, sought to undermine public confidence in the election results, and sparked an insurrection.
Yes, every parent should get paid parental leave. I'd bet a finger that the family here opposes legislating any such thing for the masses. I interviewed for my current job while toting a nursing baby on a nationwide interview tour. And I'd had that baby over spring break at a contingent faculty job where I didn't have parental leave, and was back teaching three days later.
It sucks. But it does not suck uniquely for these folks, and this is definitely a lay down with dogs, get up with fleas situation.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Feb 3, 2021 22:09:16 GMT
Parental leave is a handout? Seriously? It's unfortunate that the Trump administration's roadblocking a transition plan screwed more people. I don't think terminating someone's 12 week parent leave that began before the Biden administration took office on January 20th is appropriate. It couldn't have been very many people (the article says handful) and it absolutely looks like support for parental leave policies is only lip service. Sorry cheering working mothers (and fathers) who were fired a couple weeks/months after giving birth while they're out on leave is not something I'm on board with. Hold on, I’m confused. This is the system their party WANTS. They want people tied to employers to maintain healthcare and leave entitlements. They worked for the party that ran on rolling back the ACA - with absolutely nothing to replace it, I might add. They blocked fundamental stuff from being in the ACA. Now we’re supposed to feel bad when they deal with the same things that we all deal with, as a consequence of legislation they’ve been working against? 😳
|
|