Okay, so my wife and I are having our first at the end of August. (And, you know, yay!) I've told my manager I'd like two weeks off to help her and take care of the baby. Seems fair to me, I've heard of others doing this. My manager seemed totally okay with this a while back when I first mentioned it, but now has suddenly started telling me that if I take more than three sick-days off I automatically go on short-term disability and that I should be prepared to take vacation time instead. I can't find anything in the employee manual about this and deciced that instead of going to an official source I'd consult The Obner. (Oh, okay, I did email my HR people to ask about it, too, but that doesn't mean your thoughts don't count!) Does this sound fishy to anyone else? My manager's always been pretty straight with me all along, good and bad, so I have no reason to doubt her . . . yet I do. Anyone run across a similar situation? Help me Obner, you're my only hope! (Well, again, not really, there's that email to HR . . . but you know what I mean.)

my company allows up to 12 weeks of job protected bonding leave but it is unpaid (can use STD). we would not force someone to take vacation time for this.

First of all, congrats!! Don't forget to post photies when the little one comes around.

As Rodney stated, FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act), which is a Federal law, allows you to take up to 12 weeks of protected unpaid leave. You must have been employed more than a year and your employer must have more than 50 employees in order for this to apply. If your Employee Handbook does not state that you're allowed to take paid time off due to the birth of a child, sorry...you can't. Arizona, unfortunately, is one of those crappy states that don't provide a lot of benefits to its citizens. I'd suggest request using your sick leave first, then your vacation time to add up the two weeks. That's, of course, if your employer is willing to allow you to do so.

(Does HR for a living.)

so do I - mainly compensation though - although I just switched over to our generalist group so I will have to learn all this leave stuff. Aural is right about AZ - weak sauce.

As far as where we have employees, CA provides the most protections, followed by MA. OR/WA are pretty good as well.

Hmmmm. CA, MA, OR and WA provide the best employee protections---I think I may see a connection.

Fuckin' Utah.

And that the west coast rules! 8)

Oh, I know full well---born and raised in Seattle. Had to move to Utah 12 years ago for work, and just can't seem to get outta here.

What kind of new parent would I be without a slew of photos?!


That's exactly what I'm trying to do. Our fiscal year, because it's an educational institution, ends at the end of August, and I have to use my vacation by then or it rolls into sick leave. As of Sept. 1, I get a whole new two weeks of sick leave plus whatever vacation I haven't used, and three weeks of vacation (which is advanced, like most companies seem to do now.)

They seem to - and I'm only guessing here, I have no proof - have a problem with me taking sick leave for the birth of a child and not vacation. I can't see what difference it is to them. I've also been working with my manager for years and have never had cause to distrust her . . . yet something rings false about her claims. I'm hoping I'm merely paranoid. My HR rep did reply, but said she forwarded it on to my benefits rep because that was an issue out of her realm (due to my short-term disability question.)


I will keep that in mind in case I have any other HR questions . . .