Monday, June 15, 2009

Does the word 'duh' mean anything to you?

In the state of California ALL new fathers (this is not a state employee program-it's availble to every single new dad) get six weeks off work, paid- courtesy the California taxpayers. The state of California gives new fathers up to $917 a week to 'bond' with their new child, or play golf- what ever they see fit.

My brother will be getting paid $5,400 to not work for 6 weeks. He thinks the program is a collosial waste of money, but he's not one to pass up free money from the state of California, especially since his tax return came back as an IOU.


Steve said...

This is a fantastic program! Federal employees will get 4 weeks starting next year!

Salt H2O said...

Well if you were a Federal employee, in California- you'd get 10.

Emmy said...

Wow! I live in CA and did not realize that! Thanks! Yeah CA does like to waste money, but hey since they are and until they get someone in making good decisions why miss out!

Kamilli Vanilli said...

It is such a ridiculous program, that I almost can't even talk about it without getting my panties in a bunch.

Fathers do not need paternity leave. Let's face it--how many of these guys are going to spend 6 weeks taking care of their woman and baby? 6 weeks? By week 2, they're going to be out on the golf course and doing who knows what else.

My dad didn't get any time off to take care of me and my mom. And we bonded just fine. We turned out just swell.

I'd love to hear someone try to defend this program.

Again, the gov't trying to play nanny for us. Families can figure these things out for themselves!! Stay the heck out of our lives. Ugh.

adamf said...

I think it's great--I think both parents should get 6 months. I can totally see why some don't like it.

"Fathers do not need paternity leave"
"I'd love to hear someone try to defend this program."

Those two sentences sum up why you won't find a good argument Kamilli. Too much difference in values, and you have the "I turned out just fine" experience, which all kinds of people use, including those who were physically punished growing up, despite the research that says it makes kids more aggressive. Any time at home the father can get with the new baby is great, imo, although rather than a chunk of time, REDUCED work hours would be my vote, e.g. half days for six months or something like that.

Salt H2O said...

Liberals around the country can feel all warm and fuzzy that my brother who makes six figures is getting paid $5,400 by a bankrupt state to take 6 weeks off work and move across the country begin his doctorate program at Harvard.

(He'll actually be living in Boston while receiving paternal leave payments from California.)

adamf said...

Is there an option to turn it down? I don't want to feel TOO warm and fuzzy. :)

Sherpa said...


If Steve were in Cali, he wouldn't necessarily get 10 weeks, he'd get the 4 weeks of paid federal leave first. He may get an additional 6 weeks at the state rate, but not necessarily. But then, contact me in a few months-and I'll know the details.

Federal Law Trumps State Law. Even in California.

Salt H2O said...

That's interesting, so california residents in the private sector get the 6 weeks but california residents working for the federal government wouldn't?

Steve said...

Sherpa is probably right, although don't quote me. Federal employees have to follow federal laws instead of state work laws. Sometimes that is good, sometimes bad. Depends.

Kamilli - So, what you are saying that what is good for you and good for everyone?!?! That is beyond arrogant and short sided. Why shouldn't fathers get to stay home with his new baby(s)?!?! Speaking as a new father, I found the 3 weeks of my PAID time off (annual leave) was worth every second and wish I could have taken longer, both to be with my baby and my wife. And what about a situation where the mother dies in childbirth?!?! Rare, sure, but it does happen still. Does the father not get to stay home and they put the 2 week old in child care?!?!? And for what it's worth, I hate golf!

Having fathers AND mothers involved with a child from day 1 not only has shown to be beneficial to the child's long term development, but is also good for the family. Ask Salty if she wishes her husband went back to work on Day #3 after birth?!?! I assume Kamilli you will want your husband to maybe skip the birth too and just go to work since it's so "nanny" like, him watching over you!?!?!?

Salt H2O said...

I really didn't intend to discuss the validity of this program because I thought it was so painfully obvious as a waste of money considering CA is cutting firefighters and public education however...

If a man wants to take time off work to be with his baby, he should, dare I say it- SAVE! Almost all employeers will allow for unpaid time off. There is absolutely no reason why taxpayers should cover an additional 6 weeks of paternal leave for fathers.

If parents decide this is something they want and need then by all means do it! But don't expect your fellow citizens to bear the financial burden of choices you make for your own family.

You want paternal leave, then earn it.

Steve said...

So should we take away all Maternity leave as well? I mean, why not?!?!?!

For being so family oriented, your stance on this sure flies in the face of family values......

Salt H2O said...

I don't think you understand this program. Let me put it in beter terms for you.

My brother works for an investment firm. This investment firm gives him 2 weeks of paternal leave. IN ADDITION, the state of calfornia give him an ADDITIONAL 6 weeks of pay. My brother takes 6 weeks of work off (they don't have to be consecutive) and for each week the California tax payers give him $900.

My job gives me 2 months of maternity leave. If I lived in California I'd take the 2 months of maternity leave, and IN ADDITION to it, take 6 weeks off my job with out pay- but getting a paycheck from the state of California.

If your employer provides materinity/paternity leave great. (and if they don't it's against the law) But by no means is it the responsibility of the state to give families an additional 6 weeks of leave- especially a state that can't afford firefighters.

Salt H2O said...

This program is so ridiculous I'm not surprised that many are having a hard time grasping the concept.

This is not about state employees maternity/paternity leave- it's about RESIDENTS. State RESIDENTS. The 6 weeks of leave @ $900 is in ADDITION to any maternity/paternity leave provided by your employeer and paid by California tax payers.

Yes, a state that is cutting schools and teachers gave my brother who makes six figures and does not work for the state, $5400 to take time off work to go on family vacations to Florida and move his family to Boston. This was in addition to the paternity leave he already recieved from his employer.

Sherpa said...

That's interesting, so california residents in the private sector get the 6 weeks but california residents working for the federal government wouldn't?

When California (and other states)legalized gay marriage, the Federal government didn't (and doesn't) recognize it...Only legally married (or common law couples in states that have common law couples) heterosexual employee couples get health benefits for the spouse.
There's other instances of federal benefit laws I can list so you can see there's a precedent if you want.
The Federal Government has several programs in place already, I haven't seen the exact requirements yet (Luckily I've got six months before the federal law goes into effect) for the law that Steve mentioned, but Federal employees will more than likely get the 4 weeks and not follow the state program.

davers said...

This is unbelievable.

And in same-sex unions (two mommies) what happens?

Steve said...

Davers - I imagine one will take maternity and the other paternity, since I think maternity is clearly defined as expelling a child.

Salty - It is all about priorities! Firefighters and policeman might not seem as important as family leave to residents there. That might seem silly, but aren't those considered LOCAL hires, ie the City or County hires them, not the State, with the exception of State Police?!?! For instance, in PA, most places and where I grew up we have NO fireman NOR policeman. The firefighters, my dad included, are VFD, that is volunteers. I am sure you have them in rural areas of Utah too. For police, we would call the State Police if needed and wait the 45 mins to an hour, at best, for them to show up.

I'm not saying this is a wise choice, especially given CA's serious, although annual, budget crisis. But it is ultimately up to the voters in CA to decide what they want by how they vote. Again, this shows that direct democracy in CA fails everyone. Rule by majority equals everyone, including the state, fails.

Salt H2O said...

"Again, this shows that direct democracy in CA fails everyone."

You're not giving Grey Davis nearly enough credit.

Alice said...

As nice as that kind of a program would be, I agree, it seems pretty outrageous considering budget shortfalls , cutting back on things that seem more important like firefighters and education, and IOU's as tax returns.

That's over the top.

I am bothered though, when people complain about various government programs but then take advantage of them anyway. My BIL is constantly harping on the welfare system, but has no problem using WIC to buy food and letting medicaid cover the tab for the births of his children.

If you're (that's in the general sense) going to be indignant about the program, you shouldn't take advantage of it.