Ottawa couple fighting for twin EI parental leaves

[Jammer]

DH,
Take a step back and ratchet it back a little.
Everyone here has a right to voice their opinions.

 

[Occam]

Hooooboy....am I gonna have fun with this one.  <rubs hands together with maniacal laughter>  >

Okay, all you dual income families out there.  You're both paying into EI, but if you have one child, only one parent can take the full year off (or a mix'n'match combination between two parents that adds up to a year).  I don't hear anyone grumbling about the fact that one parent is allowed to take the full year off, so we'll assume for the sake of argument that everyone feels that the benefit is justified.  You know, for the bonding and whatnot with the child.

All of a sudden, everyone is up in arms about the social injustice of both parents being able to "take advantage of" a benefit which they're both paying for?  If the couple had two children a year apart, each parent would be able to take a year off when all is said and done, so what's the difference in financial cost to the taxpayer between that, and a couple who has twins being able to have both parents take the year off at the same time?

While we're at it - all you service couples out there, raise your hands.  You know, the service couples that are drawing 150% PLD (75% rate for each).  I want you to give back that 50% extra you're getting.  If I, as a single income family with no kids, get moved to a PLD area, I get 100% PLD.  So why does a service couple get 150% when they are faced with exactly the same cost of living that I am?

Again, as a single income family, I'm getting reimbursed 80% of my health costs under PSHCP, and I'm paying the 20% co-pay out of my pocket.  Wait a minute, a family that has two working spouses with health plans can claim 80% against one plan, and the 20% against the other, with nothing out of their pocket.  Why?  They're both paying premiums.

I can go on.   

 

[Jammer]

Please don't...it's Saturday night for goodness sake.

 

[Occam]

Please don't...it's Saturday night for goodness sake.

So pull up a beer and explain to me what the fuss is about.  ;D

 

[vonGarvin]

So pull up a beer and explain to me what the fuss is about.  ;D

Money, and the sense of entitlement.  The cases you bring up are one-ofs.  Maybe one too many one-ofs, but no sense comparing apples to monkey wrenches.  The case fails the common sense test.  In the end, it comes down to "Why the &%$! should I pay for their kids?"  EI is for certain cases, not to maintain the status quo of the "new" society of dual income families with state-sponsored childcare. 

 

[PMedMoe]

While we're at it - all you service couples out there, raise your hands.  You know, the service couples that are drawing 150% PLD (75% rate for each).  I want you to give back that 50% extra you're getting.  If I, as a single income family with no kids, get moved to a PLD area, I get 100% PLD.  So why does a service couple get 150% when they are faced with exactly the same cost of living that I am?

Because as military members we are both entitled to it.  IMHO, we should both get 100%.  Trust me, I'm so excited to get that extra $12.00 per month.  :

If you notice, I posted a link that basically said they were both entitled to the parental leave.

 

[Occam]

Money, and the sense of entitlement.  The cases you bring up are one-ofs.  Maybe one too many one-ofs, but no sense comparing apples to monkey wrenches.  The case fails the common sense test.  In the end, it comes down to "Why the &%$! should I pay for their kids?"  EI is for certain cases, not to maintain the status quo of the "new" society of dual income families with state-sponsored childcare.

We're not talking about EI Regular benefits.

We're talking about EI Maternity and Parental benefits.

Hypothetical situation 1:  A two-income couple has a child.  The mother decides to take eight months off, and the husband will take four months after mom returns to work.  Three months after the birth of the child, while on maternity/parental benefits, she gets pregnant again.  She has the baby one year after the birth of the first child, and because she got her 600 hours of work before the birth of the second child, she gets another 15 weeks maternity leave.  Then she goes back to work and the father takes 35 weeks parental benefits for the second child.  So, we have two people on EI parental benefits for a year each.

Hypothetical situation 2:  A two-income couple has a set of twins.  They both take a year off.  So, we have two people on EI parental benefits for a year each.

I don't see a difference.  Do you see a difference?
 

Because as military members we are both entitled to it.  IMHO, we should both get 100%.  Trust me, I'm so excited to get that extra $12.00 per month.  :

Well, the amount is a completely different issue.  Yes, you're both entitled to it - but what is it for?  It's to compensate service members for being posted to a place of duty that is more expensive to live in that a set standard.  Is it more expensive for a service couple to live in a PLD area than it is for a service member with an unemployed wife?

If you notice, I posted a link that basically said they were both entitled to the parental leave.

I think you misunderstand the benefits - mothers are entitled to 15 weeks maternity benefits, and only the mother may utilize that benefit.  After that, there are 35 weeks of parental benefits which may be shared between the parents to a combined total of 35 weeks, or solely used by one or the other.

 

[PMedMoe]

Well, the amount is a completely different issue.  Yes, you're both entitled to it - but what is it for?  It's to compensate service members for being posted to a place of duty that is more expensive to live in that a set standard.  Is it more expensive for a service couple to live in a PLD area than it is for a service member with an unemployed wife?

No, however, as military members, we're both entitled receive the same benefits as any other member, regardless of family status.

I think you misunderstand the benefits - mothers are entitled to 15 weeks maternity benefits, and only the mother may utilize that benefit.  After that, there are 35 weeks of parental benefits which may be shared between the parents to a combined total of 35 weeks, or solely used by one or the other.

I may have very well misunderstood it.  I really don't give a rat's a$$ what the benefits are as I am never going to be able to claim them anyway.

According to the link I posted, it doesn't say anything about having to split the parental leave.

Pregnant employees have the right to take Pregnancy Leave of up to 17 weeks of unpaid time off work. In some cases the leave may be longer. Employers do not have to pay wages to someone who is on pregnancy leave.

New parents have the right to take Parental Leave--unpaid time off work when a baby or child is born or first comes into their care. Birth mothers who took pregnancy leave are entitled to up to 35 weeks' leave. Birth mothers who do not take pregnancy leave and all other new parents are entitled to up to 37 weeks' parental leave.

Parental leave is not part of pregnancy leave and so a birth mother may take both pregnancy and parental leave. In addition, the right to a parental leave is independent of the right to pregnancy leave. For example, a birth father could be on parental leave at the same time the birth mother is on either her pregnancy leave or parental leave.

and

Both new parents have the right to take parental leave of up to 35 or 37 weeks of unpaid time off work.

So, if they are both paying into EI, I don't see an issue with them each taking the 35 weeks. Twins or not. 

What I do find questionable is the Multiple Birth group's stance.

 

[Occam]

No, however, as military members, we're both entitled receive the same benefits as any other member, regardless of family status.

Ah, got you to say it. 

As my example in the previous post shows, awarding a 35 week benefit to each parent of twins is giving the exact same benefits as if they were born a year or more apart.

I may have very well misunderstood it.  I really don't give a rat's a$$ what the benefits are as I am never going to be able to claim them anyway.

According to the link I posted, it doesn't say anything about having to split the parental leave.

It's important to understand what the benefits are, if one is going to critique them.  I didn't say they had to split the parental leave...here, take a look at the EI website.

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/special.shtml#much

Maternity benefits are payable to the birth mother or surrogate mother for a maximum of 15 weeks.  To receive maternity benefits you are required to have worked for 600 hours in the last 52 weeks or since your last claim.

Parental benefits are payable either to the biological or adoptive parents while they are caring for a new-born or an adopted child, up to a maximum of 35 weeks. To receive parental benefits you are required to have worked for 600 hours in the last 52 weeks or since your last claim. You must sign a statement declaring the newborn's date of birth, or, when there is an adoption, the child's date of placement for the purpose of the adoption, and the name and address of the adoption authority.

Parental benefits can be claimed by one parent or shared between the two partners but will not exceed a combined maximum of 35 weeks. Claimants making application for parental benefits must provide the name and Social Insurance Number (SIN) of the other parent for cross-reference purposes.

What I do find questionable is the Multiple Birth group's stance.

Why?  Because of the phrase "MBC requests the federal government officially change its benefits policy from a per pregnancy basis to a per child basis"? 

All they're saying is that the current rules are "per pregnancy".  You can have sextuplets, and there are still only 35 weeks of parental benefits, because there was only one pregnancy.  They want it to be a "per child" basis, where if there is more than one child, then there will be 35 weeks of parental benefits for each parent.

That's all.  Nothing sinister about that.

 

[Burrows]

I pay EI at my job, yet as a student, even in post-secondary I do not qualify for EI if I lose my job.  Even better, because of my earnings last year, coupled with my assets, I don't qualify for government loans on school either.

Personally, I have no issue with people taking care of two kids getting the extra time off.  It makes sense to me.

I look at it this way, when I pay my EI, that small bit coming off is going to help people who need it by our sense of the word.  I don't know where my money is going, but I can hope it's to the person who was injured in the workplace who physically cannot work.

 

[Infanteer]

50 years ago, or so, our society was such that a single-income family was the norm, and that was all that was required.  Flash forward to now, and our society is such that a multi-income family is the requirement to have any half-decent standard of living.  Given that in most cases, both parents will have to work to maintain a certain standard of living, the thought of having more mouths to feed is perceived as a detriment.  So step in, Mr. State, and grant all sorts of benefits and child care agencies to raise our kids.  After all who needs kids?  This is just the latest.  I mean, think about it.  Check out the price of a single-family home in any Canadian city.  The prices are ridiculous.  How can a single-income family even think to afford a quarter-million dollar property?  Even if the single income is on the order of 50,000 dollars a year (which is no small amount)?  And of that money, how much is deducted for taxes and the like, to pay for such programs as state child care?  It's a vicious circle, and I don't see any way out of it.

Interesting statement - now is that a fact, or a perception?

I remember in a magazine that the average family house has grown by over 1000 sq ft since the 1950s.  What is the difference between 1950 and 2010 in what would be considered a "decent standard of living"?  I look at all the fancy stuff in a modern families home (including my own) and assume that things have got more expensive because we simply want to spend more.

 

[X-mo-1979]

I've given up on being angry at the system.The way I look at it if I am forced to live in a "I'll sue you" world that  I am forced to live in....well WTF I'll take all the perks it can throw my way.I think this new law they are trying to get on EI is great as well!What is it a couple weeks work they want to impliment?Sweeeeeeettttt.I'll work 9 weeks and kayak the rest.Fine by me.

I'm glad they have it changed.

Anyone got any homemade recipies for twins?I'll be done my I.E 20 before I know it!

 

[PMedMoe]

Occam, you're preaching to the choir.  Instead of automatic rebuttal, try reading my post made before yours:

So, if they are both paying into EI, I don't see an issue with them each taking the 35 weeks. Twins or not.

As stated, I don't care if there's one baby, two, five, or eight.  As long as both parents have paid into EI for the qualifying period, I have no issue with them each taking 35 weeks.

 

[vonGarvin]

Interesting statement - now is that a fact, or a perception?

I remember in a magazine that the average family house has grown by over 1000 sq ft since the 1950s.  What is the difference between 1950 and 2010 in what would be considered a "decent standard of living"?  I look at all the fancy stuff in a modern families home (including my own) and assume that things have got more expensive because we simply want to spend more.

Perception more than anything.  And I also acknowledge that we think we need more fancy things.  Wii, Playstation, Laptops, 50 inch plasma TVs, etc. 
I also acknowledge that our society was thrown out of whack in two successive world wars in the 20th Century.  We were in a Total War, and women joined the work force en masse to replace the workers who were fighting and dying in the trenches, on the beaches and in the bocage. 

So, it's a perception, and very subjective.  For example, the stories of friends who buy in Ottawa paying in excess of 400K for a house (fully detached, and most likely, larger than in previous years).  Now, I don't know why they would buy such a large house, but something tells me that such large houses are the norm now.

Anyway, your points are very well taken.


Now, to keep this On Topic: EI sucks.  >

 

[Kat Stevens]

Not if you've been laid off for six months, it doesn't.

 

[TCBF]

- If the 'I' in 'EI' stands for insurance, then why don't the people who use it more (and the companies who lay them off) pay higher rates?

>

 

[krustyrl]

- If the 'I' in 'EI' stands for insurance, then why don't the people who use it more (and the companies who lay them off) pay higher rates?

Interesting point that one really doesn't look at it as such, myself included.  I might have to agree on that one.!

 

[CountDC]

So what?

Do you guys honestly believe that people are going to try for multiple births so they can take a year or more off?  That logic makes no sense, you don't see people throwing themselves down stairs so they can get that parking spot close to the mall entrance (wheelchair).

The title of this thread should read "Re: Ottawa couple fighting for twin EI parental leaves and a few ARMY.ca members run for the Kleenex  :'("

Maybe not throwing themselves down the stairs but faking it - yes.  I see welfare mothers having more children so they can get more money(wife friends), people faking injuries so they can get the handicap parking pass along with money out of the government/insurance companies(been in numerous reports), and having multis for attention (octo mom??) so why not to get the time off with compensation.