Barb and Maxine work for a large corporation whose earnings last quarter were $400 million. Both women are new moms, currently at home caring for their children. Barb will be home for 52 weeks and will receive 85% of her regular salary. Maxine, on the other hand, can stay home for only 35 weeks during which she receives 55% of her regular salary. What is the difference? Barb is a biological mother; Maxine is an adoptive mother.
Both the Federal Government and the employer are treating these women differently, based on the way they have chosen to build their families. Your employer, like many organizations, “tops up” payments received from Employment Insurance so that employees receive full (or nearly full) wages while they’re away from work. However, in Maxine’s case, her employer does not extend the benefit to adoptive parents.
The Federal Government pays Employment Insurance (EI) benefits to provide financial assistance to new parents (currently 55% of average insurable earnings up to a maximum of $413 per week). Maternity benefits are paid to birth mothers for up to 15 weeks. Parental benefits are paid to parents (biological or adoptive) for a maximum of 35 weeks. Thus, birth parents are eligible for 50 weeks of employment insurance, while adoptive parents max out at just 35 weeks. A foster parent is organizing a Bill of Rights challenge on this very issue in the EI Legislation.
Birth parents receive EI benefits for a one-year period that includes:
a) 2 week disqualification period (i.e. no EI payments) and
(b) 15 weeks of maternity benefits; Y
c) 35 weeks of parental benefits
Total: 52 weeks
Many employers also pay supplemental wage compensation to their employees during the two-week EI disqualification period by increasing their wages to between 85% and 100% of their normal wages (i.e., the employer pays all of this benefit for the first two weeks). weeks). ). For the next 15 weeks, the supplement is reduced by the amount of maternity EI benefits (described above). Some employers also supplement employees’ wages for the full 35 weeks of parental benefits.
As a result of complaints we received about how foster parents were treated in the workplace, Sunrise conducted a limited and informal survey of its customers to see how widespread differential treatment of foster and birth parents by foster parents is. employers, and we were surprised by the responses. . Many of our clients have reported situations where a biological parent receives supplemental payments, while an adoptive parent is rejected. Here are some examples of what we heard:
British Columbia Government: The BC Provincial Government is one of the least discriminatory employers we have heard of. Provides a supplement to birth and adoptive parents (to their union and non-union employees). It also offers adoptive parents a “pre-placement adoptive license.” This leave allows adoptive parents to attend pre-placement visits for their home study or complete legal requirements for adoption while being paid 85% of their regular salary.
Government of Canada: A federal civil servant, who is an adoptive mother, received 93% of her salary as a supplement for 37 weeks. The real irony is that the federal government treats its employed foster parents better than most employers, but discriminates against all foster parents with its EI policy!
Police: The RCMP (a federal government employer) offers both adoptive and birth parents the supplement for 37 weeks. Other British Columbia police forces (municipal forces) generally do not pay the supplement to adoptive parents. (The municipal police force in Saanich, BC, however, pays the supplement for 37 weeks).
Municipalities: An adoptive father reported that the Municipality he worked for finally gave him the supplement immediately after he filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.
Hospitals: Regional Health Districts are the employer of nurses in British Columbia. A foster parent reported that at his hospital, birth parents receive a supplemental EI Maternity Benefit only. Nobody receives a recharge in the Parental Benefit. Since adoptive parents do not qualify for maternity benefits, they receive no supplement at all.
Universities: Universities do not seem to take a consistent approach in the way they treat the parents of their employees. Foster parents employed by universities told us about a wide variety of benefits payable to foster parents. These were often inconsistent, unusual, and sometimes discriminatory.
At the University of British Columbia, adoptive parents receive top-ups for 12 weeks, while birth mothers receive 20 weeks. At the University of Toronto, adoptive parents receive 27 weeks of supplementation and birth mothers receive an additional 3 weeks. At Capilano College, fathers on paternity leave receive a supplement of 80% of salary, and fathers on maternity leave at 90% of salary.
Professors at Simon Fraser University are the only employees we found who received absolutely identical treatment, whether they were biological or adoptive parents. To this end, maternity benefits not paid to adoptive parents by EI are covered by the university. Congratulations to SFU!
Schools: We heard from many teachers throughout the province. British Columbia school districts negotiate separately with the teachers’ union (BCTF). As a result, foster parents (who are also teachers) receive different benefits depending on where they work. For example, teachers in Surrey receive the top-up of 95% of salary for the first 2 weeks, 70% for the next 15 weeks, and zero for the balance of parental leave. North Vancouver district teachers receive 95% for the first 2 weeks, but then 70% only for the next 10 weeks (while birth mothers receive it for the next 15 weeks). Most other school districts do not pay refills to teachers. There is no rational basis for treating teachers differently who choose to create their families by adoption. One parent was told that supplements are not paid to adoptive parents because the school district follows “Government of Canada standards.” This does not agree with our findings; every department of the federal government we hear about burdens adoptive parents.
A foster parent employed by the Coquitlam School Board was recently denied recharging. When he told his employer that he was going to file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, he immediately received a recharge.
Falling through the cracks
Some adoptive parents find themselves in a catch-22 situation and the problem may not be resolved until one of the parents takes action. We heard from several British Columbia parents who reported that employers shirk responsibility by saying it’s up to the union to apply for benefits through the collective bargaining process.
One city police department we heard about only offers the top-up to birth parents. A Port Moody police officer said: “I am a member of a union and I was not entitled to anything under the collective agreement. However, we were in the middle of negotiating a new one and I asked for a provision to be added. I was unsuccessful.” “. .
Under Industrial Relations legislation, unions must represent minority interests (such as those of adoptive parents). Failure to do so may result in a complaint to the Labor Relations Board. However, exercising that legal right against your union can be a terrifying prospect.
Another foster parent reported:
“I wasn’t sure if there are many others in the same boat as me, and considering the extremely daunting task of applying for a change in our organization (my employer is Vancouver Coastal Health), I haven’t bothered to try. I had to file a motion to the union (members = 40,000) and the union would then vote on whether or not to continue this issue with the Health Authority and ultimately the Government now.”
Many adoptive parents had similar experiences as they approached their union. They were told that nothing could be done. Studies in the US show that less than 1% of eligible employees receive adoption employment benefits. No wonder adoptive parents feel lost in big unions!
What can be done?
In a landmark 2002 study, 94% of respondents said adoptive parents should receive the same workplace benefits as birth parents4. It is clear that our society overwhelmingly feels that birth and adoptive parents should be treated equally.
This doesn’t seem right. Large government employers (such as hospitals, health districts, municipalities, and school boards) should not justify continued discrimination by claiming that unions must apply. They must take responsibility and end discriminatory treatment.
Employers must treat parents equally, whether they give birth or adopt. If an employer pays an EI supplement to a biological parent, then the same compensation must be paid to an adoptive parent. Failure to do so is discrimination.
The need for change is evident and many parents expressed an interest in making that change happen. Unless the adoptive parents object, this discrimination will not end. One possibility is to file a complaint with the BC Human Rights Tribunal. The most effective solution may be for adoptive parents to lobby their MLAs and MPs for legislative change. How about a law that simply says that adoptive parents and birth parents should be treated the same in any workplace? (After all, 94% of society already thinks this is what should happen)
Talk to your employer and/or your union officials. If your organization complements birth parents, insist that they treat adoptive parents equally.
