But "legal" is what was asked about.Being legal doesn't change that the optics on this are very poor.
Anybody who can't see that without resorting to some bootstrap pep talk is delusional.
I think "bad optics" = looks bad.Some of you folks have never worked for law firms, universities, hospitals or any such facility, have you?
Where I work, the union support staff have better health insurance, and the faculty have better leave policies. Nothing remotely illegal about it. Nor is it unethical, disrespectful, or "bad optics" whatever that's supposed to mean. It's a reality.
Are you employed? Does every single person at the company you work receive exactly the same benefit package? I am not aware of a single company where that is the case.Being legal doesn't change that the optics on this are very poor.
Anybody who can't see that without resorting to some bootstrap pep talk is delusional.
There are ways to be respectful without everything being equal.Some of you folks have never worked for law firms, universities, hospitals or any such facility, have you?
Where I work, the union support staff have better health insurance, and the faculty have better leave policies. Nothing remotely illegal about it. Nor is it unethical, disrespectful, or "bad optics" whatever that's supposed to mean. It's a reality.
I don’t see the issue as stated by the op as the employer being disrespectful. The op’s bitch is about not recieving the same benefits as the lawyers in the office. In itself that is not being disrespectful.There are ways to be respectful without everything being equal.
It is typical for an employer to have different benefit packages for varying levels of their positions. Do you think everybody at Amazon gets the same benefits as Jeff Bezos?Maternity leave is kind of a hot button issue.
"Bbbbbbbbut some workers get more wages and better benefits."
That's not going to change. You aren't rejecting the free enterprise system to say 'boy that's not a good look for an employer to have glaringly different benefits policies for the white collar more likely to be male employees and the pink collar more likely to be female employees.'
It's like you people were asleep for the ramifications of metoo.
In itself, no. But apparently something about this picture is off for OP. Maybe OP was sold an image of "we're one big supportive family".I don’t see the issue as stated by the op as the employer being disrespectful. The op’s bitch is about not recieving the same benefits as the lawyers in the office. In itself that is not being disrespectful.
All leave costs money but realistically, those that are more valuable to the firm will be given different (more, better) perqs than the other workers. That’s life. Op really needs an attitude adjustment if this issue is causing her this much distress.In itself, no. But apparently something about this picture is off for OP. Maybe OP was sold an image of "we're one big supportive family".
Law firms are usually small businesses. They sometimes have to make choices that, although allowing the firm to stay financially afloat, inconvenience people.
The lawyer who handled my divorce commented about the $20K in out of pocket expenses one prescription during his wife's pregnancy with their first child that were due to a change the partners had made in insurance coverage to "keep expenses down". I'm sure that change didn't delight him, but he didn't have the deciding vote on it.
One thing I noticed is that OP never mentioned how long she'd worked there, or how long the lawyers had, before having children. Paid maternity leave costs money.
Read that out loud.there aren't any male attorneys going to be taking maternity leave