http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills info@washingtonwatch.com http://www.pjdoland.com/chai/?v=0.1 http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#132865 You seem to be saying that your problem is that you were born the wrong gender. And because of that you think you are getting a raw deal. Awww, too bad. As to your elitist ideas about intelligence and welfare folks - you really are a sad individual. You certainly did not learn any civility in your so-called education. Simply another over-educated pig who now wants everyone else to bow down and kiss her feet. Screw you.... 132865@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:20:55 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#132662 By the way, this year my father with early onset Alzheimer's got sick and died. I had to choose whether or not I could afford to take time off and go see him before he died. As a fairly new employee I didn't have much accrued time off and I was already pregnant. Now tell me if you could choose between seeing your dying father or taking care of your newborn and still being able to pay all of your bills. This money is put to much better use going to people who have a job then have children that to the many people caught in the welfare cycle that continue to live off of the system and breed like rabbits with no hope of ever getting off of the system. Wouldn't you rather encourage people who have degrees and work for a living to procreate? Have you ever seen Idiocracy?... 132662@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:18:18 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#132645 I graduated with a PhD, got a govt contractor job first, then a federal job. I had to get myself well established as a researcher in order to be taken seriously, I believe in part because I'm a woman and also because 75% of the researchers I work with are men in their late 50's that aren't used to having either fresh graduates or women with degrees around. So now I'm 32 and finally ready to start a family. Of course the men I work with don't give a darn if I get paid time off because they all have housewives that do as they're supposed to, stay home and raise the family. When I was a contractor, the company I worked for would have given 6 wks paid, that didn't come out of my sick or vacation leave, and been fully reimbursed by the govt for every cent. Why shouldn't the govt do this for their employees. Right now the govt is in dire need of well-educated young US citizens in order not just to compete with other countries in research but to not get left in the dust.... 132645@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:07:15 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#131462 WHat do you value most in life? Your Job, Your Child, your car? How about having to chose between the items because you can't have more than one at the same time??? I know plenty of govt. employees that are married, but cannot afford to have a child. Oh. they CAN have a child, but they cannot afford expending their small amount of leave, not to mention use FMLA and take 12 weeks of UNPAID time off......... Of course if you took the 12 weeks UNPAID that is an option, the who will pay your mortgage?....the tooth fairy? ... how will the car and gas be paid for???...... I don't understand how some Taxpayers want to complain about paying for something like this,,,, did we forget that GOVT. employees ALSO PAY TAXES! If you want to complain about your taxes being wasted, start complaining about the Welfare system first!... 131462@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:37:04 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#107680 Some businesses in the private sector do offer parental leave. Canadian's get 1 year of paid leave. Europe has a sweet deal too. The US government tends to pay employees less than public sector therefore they need to add some add perks if they want to be competitive. Maybe you should ask the question if we pay Federal employees less, and give them less benefits, what kind of employees are we going to end up with? I think we all know the answer - employees that couldn't get hired in the private sector. You can't even get a free cup of coffee working for the government.... 107680@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:23:39 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#107517 i work more days per year than most of you on this thread (must work 12 weekends a year for the military, which is a requirement for most federal jobs) for 30 - 40% less money, in a desirable field (i'm a computer programmer and database administrator) and you're all complaining about 4 weeks of paid time off when a child is born? i know federal employees who have only been working here for a year or two. they are working in a professional field, they're college graduates, they're married, they're homeowners, many of them have been on military deployments, and they are told that if they have a child, their leave will be mostly unpaid. that's what you're supporting? my wife and most of my friends work in the private sector and they get at least six weeks of paid leave when they have a child. if you really think the federal employee has it made, feel free to apply for a federal job, there are plenty out there. likely, you'll miss your old paycheck and time off though.... 107517@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:56:33 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#100629 It's an established fact that most Fortune 500 companies provide significantly more parental leave than this bill gives - I think the burden is on you to prove that this isn't a common benefit in corporate America, because it obviously is. The people who will take this leave are in their 20's and 30's - not big wage earners on a gravy train. The kicker here is whether the Senate will pass the companion bill in the current economic environment. They certainly want to, it just might take them some time. And hey, if your for family values, what demonstrates that more than 4 weeks parental leave? It still requires the employee to put in significant leave time themselves, so it isn't a free ride - just a helping hand. The "cost" associated with this is pretty limited - unlike, say the prescription drug benefit, 2001 Bush Tax Cut, and Iraq War that have so badly impacted our national balance sheet and all of which I'm sure you supported.... 100629@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:21:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#74884 That's one. Gpoing to need a lot more before we have "most major private corporations" listed.... 74884@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sun, 04 Oct 2009 01:45:42 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#72237 Example: Bank of America offers 12 weeks off paid for both mothers and fathers.... 72237@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:00:03 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#66450 You better go back to school and take some math courses. You said "most major private corporations" provide this benefit. Take a look at the references you yourself provided and tell me what percentage you come up with.... 66450@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:34:35 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#66442 http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/parentalleaveA131.pdf... 66442@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:46:36 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#66441 http://www.opm.gov/oca/leave/HTML/ParentalReport.htm http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_par_lea_pai_mat_lea-labor-parental-leave-paid-maternity... 66441@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:45:10 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#65906 Perhaps you can name the "most major private corporations" you mentioned. I doubt you can name any significant number who allow paid leave over and above accrued sick/annual leave. Want to try?... 65906@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:30:01 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#65362 Federal employees work in the service of the taxpayer and the serviceman/woman, and we are obligated to always conduct business in the most inexpensive way possible (which means buying the cheapest equipment, taking the cheapest flights even if it means 2 layovers, etc). We have none of those little perks that those of you in the private sector are so used to. Such as fancy paid lunches or tickets to sporting events to "network". So to imply that allowing workers to have a benefit that exists in most major private corporations is somehow just another wasteful government practice is ridiculous. Many of you need to stop assuming that everything the government does is a waste and start realizing that federal employees actually work for the country (unlike those who just work for a profit).... 65362@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:39:40 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#64654 I see this bill passed the House on June 8th and sent to the Senate. Any idea how long until they vote on it? Also, I assume this counts for the fathers as well as monthers, correct?... 64654@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:44:25 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#64572 Absolutely ridiculous. Just another Bill to give some class of citizen another handout. This Bill skould not pass. I'm a Federal Emplotee with 30 years of service.... 64572@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:10:01 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#64559 All this bill does is allow Feds to use 4 weeks of their own accrued sick leave for time with their newborn(s). There is no short term disability in the federal government, like there is in most private sector jobs. Therefore, if you are a realtively new federal employee having a child, you have no time to take off. At 4 hours sick/4 hours vacation per 2 week pay-period, unledd you have been working in the government for awhile before you have your baby and take no time off for vacations/being sick, you have very little, if any, time off. This is not much to ask for.... 64559@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:03:57 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#64071 Why shame on us? Just because you feel it is okay to pay taxes doesn't mean I should feel the same way. Shame on you for asking the taxpayers to carry another burden that is neither necessary nor fair.... 64071@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:43:15 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#63736 First, I want to state that I am very proud to be a Dept of Interior employee. I love my job and find it very rewarding to be a public servant. My three sisters all have jobs in the private sector in the midwest. They all make more money than me, pay substantially less for health insurance AND have paid maternity leave, disablity insurance or a combination of both. Federal Employees are not eligible for disability insurance. Just because you won't be able to use it does not mean it isn't the right thing to do. MANY private sector jobs have paid parental leave - I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that most of you complaining about this don't have a college degree. If that is the case then yes - you probably won't get a job with great benefits. My husband and I don't have any children yet but everytime our county votes for an increase in taxes for schools I vote YES! I would gladly pay more for the education of our children. Shame on you people for not supporting this bill.... 63736@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:43:29 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#61554 Apparently this isn't very important to the members of the house or they would have included it in HR 2990. Although this is a veterans benefits bill it also included the following for federal civilian employees: CREDIT FOR UNUSED SICK LEAVE COMPUTATION OF CERTAIN ANNUITIES BASED ON PART-TIME SERVICE AUTHORITY TO DEPOSIT REFUNDS UNDER FERS RETIREMENT CREDIT FOR SERVICE OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES TRANSFERRED FROM DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SERVICE TO FEDERAL SERVICE By the way this bill zoomed through the house with very little resistance. Makes you wonder what really matters.... 61554@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:12:07 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#61488 Wow. I can't believe that people think that federal employees are rolling in dough. I have basic health insurance, for which I pay MORE monthly than ANY of the people I know. Dental insurance is not covered, so if I want a plan, I find my own. I get a few weeks of leave a year, but nowhere near enough to cover time after my baby is born, and I have friends working as receptionists for offices and others in RETAIL establishments that take home more money than I do. Nobody in my office makes anywhere near the "average" that someone quoted earlier of over $100k. On top of that, most everyone working in the state of CA can receive 6 weeks of state paid disability plus additional paid family leave through another state program -- both of which I cannot even TOUCH. So yes, I plan on putting money away for next year when my baby comes, but it's not easy. I wholeheartedly hope this bill passes, even though it might not be in place in time to help me out with this child.... 61488@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:32:20 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#60275 It seems that we are all bickering over who has to pay for a benefit that everyone agrees we all should have. The government just sets a standard for what the private sector should adopt and will adopt in order to keep competetive with government jobs. So in deciding whether to support this bill, ask yourself whether you feel parental leave is a right EVERYONE should have because ultimately that is the road we are all heading down.... 60275@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:37:39 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#60260 Why should the private sector "BAIL OUT" federal employees who have OR ADOPT babies? You people already get more benefits than anyone else and at a smaller or no price, specifically health insurance. CRT has hit the nail on the head!!!... 60260@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:42:05 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#60250 VeronicaB, You asked "Who in their right mind would oppose having a parent have the option of caring for their newborn child paid for a meager 4 weeks?" I'll tell you who - the people who have to foot the bill while they do not have the same benefit. If you think it is smart to throw your money away on BS like this I'm sure there is a rat hole somewhere you can pitch your money into. I'm trying to hold onto what I can so I will have enough to live. I hope the senate throws this crap out soon!... 60250@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:30:32 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_626.html#60200 It appears all the banter regarding this bill is between employees in the private sector who are given paid medical leave and federal employees. No one is asking why retirees living on a fixed income have to share in the cost of this bill. And you can bet neither of the combatants are complaining about receiving tax free health insurance when it's not made available to those paying for it on their own. Now that group really has a grievance but ask a congressman to help with it.... 60200@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:54:17 EDT