The Obama administration wants to remind Americans that the United States is the only developed country without laws providing paid maternity leave.
A new video from the U.S. Labor Department compares two pregnant women who work full time and share the same due date. One will get 14 weeks of paid leave, because she lives in Germany. The other will get none because she lives here.
"The United States is the only developed nation without paid maternity leave," text in the video states. "In fact, it's one of the only countries without any paid leave."
The video accompanied a Wednesday announcement that the Labor Department is awarding half a million dollars to help three states and the District of Columbia conduct feasibility studies on new paid leave policies.
"Too many working families today can't afford to take the time they need to care for their families or themselves because they lack any form of paid leave," Labor Secretary Thomas Perez said in a release.
The lack of paid leave is something President Barack Obama highlighted last summer. Congressional Democrats have introduced paid leave legislation to no avail, despite the popularity of the idea.
Some workers are eligible for 12 weeks of parental leave thanks to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, but the leave is unpaid and workers are only eligible if they are employed by a big company or a government agency. A 2009 report by the Congressional Research Service found that just 8 percent of private sector employees are offered parental leave.
The Obama administration wants to remind Americans that the United States is the only developed country without laws providing paid maternity leave.
A new video from the U.S. Labor Department compares two pregnant women who work full time and share the same due date. One will get 14 weeks of paid leave, because she lives in Germany. The other will get none because she lives here.
I think any movement forward on paid mat/pat leave is great. But I also strongly suspect that a large portion of Americans will see that commercial and not see the problem, and probably even think that German women are spoiled tax moochers. I hope I am proven wrong.
I am all for paid maternity leave, but I am confused as to what is going on here. Why is the DOL issuing a video like this? It seems very political and not really appropriate for an agency to be doing.
I need more information because this doesn't make sense.
I just read a post on Buzzfeed the other day about paid maternity leave throughout the world. I believe this is the link: here But Buzzfeed is blocked at work, so I could be wrong.
I get paid maternity leave through Long Term Disability at work. I'm not entirely sure how it works - never used any disability at work yet. But I wouldn't be surprised if it sucks. And after looking at the stats around the world, I'm really jealous of some of the time people get off. I think we get two months at my company. I haven't had to deal with it yet, but I get the feeling that it's just not long enough! (Better than nothing, though.)
I just read a post on Buzzfeed the other day about paid maternity leave throughout the world. I believe this is the link: here But Buzzfeed is blocked at work, so I could be wrong.
I get paid maternity leave through Long Term Disability at work. I'm not entirely sure how it works - never used any disability at work yet. But I wouldn't be surprised if it sucks. And after looking at the stats around the world, I'm really jealous of some of the time people get off. I think we get two months at my company. I haven't had to deal with it yet, but I get the feeling that it's just not long enough! (Better than nothing, though.)
Long-term disability is how a lot of employers do unpaid maternity leave... you can keep your job under FMLA (12 weeks off total unless extenuating circumstances), but then after a "waiting period" (depends on the long-term disability provider and how much your company pays into your plan), you get 40% and up of your normal pay for the remainder of the time you are off. It's not always better than nothing b/c some companies require you into using all your sick/vacation first and then you still have to pay your part of your benefits while you are gone, so if your benefit payments are high, you can actually come out with nothing - especially if your benefits cost way more (say an additional $500/month) b/c you added a child and went to family health coverage.
For example, I had unpaid leave for 2 kids - yup, nothing, but they did cover my benefits while I was gone. For the 3rd kid long term disability was there and I was excited. It was 60% of normal pay after 4 weeks off no-pay, so I could get 60% for 12 weeks off, which actually comes to 40% of your normal pay over the 12 weeks. I still had benefits and retirement to pay into, so after that, I was at like 20% of my normal pay. So I did get to keep my health care and still put some $ in retirement, but really that 20% left wasn't much to cover bills for the delivery and living expenses. So how I would "live" on that if I didn't have a DH or savings would be impossible.
I'm curious to see if the Labor department can get more coverage for maternity than the long-term disability insurance companies do now... if they try to keep it private/public partnership, it's still going to preclude a lot of people from using it b/c the private insurance companies want to make money on it. It would have to be 100% public with no private partnership and I'm afraid the insurance lobby isn't going to like that.
Is the government going to give its employees paid maternity leave? Start there.
YES. Can he do one of those Executive Orders for this? I would be thrilled. My job does do a sick bank that you can use for 6 weeks of maternity leave (8 with a c-section)... but you have to exhaust all your leave first. If I had had to go back to work after 6 weeks, I wouldn't have been productive at all. I was NOT ready to go back after 6 weeks, but I was definitely ready after 12. I had to take 6 weeks unpaid leave with M, and that sucked big time. Saving up 12 weeks of leave though... freaking impossible. I have a friend who was able to do that, after working for 8 years, taking NO sick days, and only 1 week of vacation a year. Yeah.
I just read a post on Buzzfeed the other day about paid maternity leave throughout the world. I believe this is the link: here But Buzzfeed is blocked at work, so I could be wrong.
I get paid maternity leave through Long Term Disability at work. I'm not entirely sure how it works - never used any disability at work yet. But I wouldn't be surprised if it sucks. And after looking at the stats around the world, I'm really jealous of some of the time people get off. I think we get two months at my company. I haven't had to deal with it yet, but I get the feeling that it's just not long enough! (Better than nothing, though.)
Long-term disability is how a lot of employers do unpaid maternity leave... you can keep your job under FMLA (12 weeks off total unless extenuating circumstances), but then after a "waiting period" (depends on the long-term disability provider and how much your company pays into your plan), you get 40% and up of your normal pay for the remainder of the time you are off. It's not always better than nothing b/c some companies require you into using all your sick/vacation first and then you still have to pay your part of your benefits while you are gone, so if your benefit payments are high, you can actually come out with nothing - especially if your benefits cost way more (say an additional $500/month) b/c you added a child and went to family health coverage.
For example, I had unpaid leave for 2 kids - yup, nothing, but they did cover my benefits while I was gone. For the 3rd kid long term disability was there and I was excited. It was 60% of normal pay after 4 weeks off no-pay, so I could get 60% for 12 weeks off, which actually comes to 40% of your normal pay over the 12 weeks. I still had benefits and retirement to pay into, so after that, I was at like 20% of my normal pay. So I did get to keep my health care and still put some $ in retirement, but really that 20% left wasn't much to cover bills for the delivery and living expenses. So how I would "live" on that if I didn't have a DH or savings would be impossible.
I'm curious to see if the Labor department can get more coverage for maternity than the long-term disability insurance companies do now... if they try to keep it private/public partnership, it's still going to preclude a lot of people from using it b/c the private insurance companies want to make money on it. It would have to be 100% public with no private partnership and I'm afraid the insurance lobby isn't going to like that.
Thanks for the info! I had a friend/coworker who went through it a couple years ago, but I couldn't follow all the details. I do believe she had to use up her sick time first, and things like that which you mentioned. Really sounds awful when you break it down like you did! At the time when she was going through it, I tried to pay attention, but didn't grasp it all. Kids weren't on my mind. Now we're thinking of when to start trying, and I'm wondering about how our maternity leave will work out.
I've already got appreciation for single moms - I don't know how they do it! Didn't realize even maternity leave would be difficult for single moms. I know I couldn't do it on my own. I believe my LTD is 60%. Just did a quick breakdown with some estimates in Excel, and nope - the amount of money I would have left over at 60% after benefits and 401K wouldn't even pay for our mortgage. Close, but not quite. And that's not including the rest of the utility bills, and general living expenses. How are people expected to get by on that??
I would start with a guaranteed PTO of some kind for everyone, male or female before branching into PTO for maternity leave. There are a good many positions where people are paid for only the hours they work and if you do not work one day, you do not get paid for that day- no sick days, vacation, personal days. That is unacceptable IMO and should be dealt with before paid maternity leave.
II feel that employers get better employees when they offer better benefits. However, I do not see paid maternity leave as an entitlement that should be mandated, but one that is encouraged (tax incentives?)to be offered by employers.
I think CA paid family leave is structured pretty well and could be a useful model to follow at the federal level. Everyone pays a small tax into STD/PFL. You first use your 6 or 8 weeks of STD and then everyone gets 6 weeks of PFL (can't be used concurrently with STD). That way both men and women can use it. I'm guessing something like that won't go through because it's a new tax.
Post by mcsangel2 on Sept 25, 2014 18:13:24 GMT -5
On a related note, I wish FMLA would be rewritten to be for 6 months. It's a separate issue from paid leave, but as someone who's had to use it for non-maternity reasons, and have seen other coworkers use it (fortunately my company's policy is up to 6 months on a case by case basis), I have seen the need for a longer period of protection.
YES. Can he do one of those Executive Orders for this? I would be thrilled. My job does do a sick bank that you can use for 6 weeks of maternity leave (8 with a c-section)... but you have to exhaust all your leave first. If I had had to go back to work after 6 weeks, I wouldn't have been productive at all. I was NOT ready to go back after 6 weeks, but I was definitely ready after 12. I had to take 6 weeks unpaid leave with M, and that sucked big time. Saving up 12 weeks of leave though... freaking impossible. I have a friend who was able to do that, after working for 8 years, taking NO sick days, and only 1 week of vacation a year. Yeah.
What? That math seems off. Most Feds get 4 hours of sick time and 4 hours of AL a pp but after 3 years you get 6 hours of AL. So that's 10 hours of leave a pay period. That's over 500 hours in 2 years, which is enough for the 12 weeks. I took 12 weeks fully paid with #1 and I'll take 14 weeks with this one - unless your agency does something differently leave-wise than mine. I've been here 5 years total.
Now I'm not saying it doesn't suck to hoard your leave because it absolutely does and I think the Feds need SOME type of paid mat leave for sure. It's hard to take a push for a national law seriously when the gov can't even figure out how to do it.
Maybe we should all move to CA and NJ.
Hm, good point. Maybe she did take her vacation up until a year or two ago? I do know she avoided taking basically any sick leave - even coming back the next day after she busted her ankle.
what I thought was weird was the video I saw said "let's lead on leave" --- if we are so far behind, is it really fair to think there is support to jump to the head of the pack? or are they trying to shoot for the moon and end up a bit short?
Sounds great, however, I'm pretty confident that all this will end up doing is making it even more difficult for a woman to be chosen for a job when there are other male candidates.
The potential employer, if they hire a woman "of child bearing age" would risk having to lose productivity, hire a temp replacement, pay salary + benefits, and risk the employee not even returning.
I am not saying it's right, I just think the writing is on the wall if this happens.
I'm not discounting this as a possibility, but I am curious if there is evidence that it's happened in other countries where paid leave has been in place for a while. There have to be studies on this, right - comparing wage and hiring disparities in women of child bearing age between say us and Canada?
I'll google, but if anybody already knows of any please save me from the google hole I'm about to fall into...
Sounds great, however, I'm pretty confident that all this will end up doing is making it even more difficult for a woman to be chosen for a job when there are other male candidates.
The potential employer, if they hire a woman "of child bearing age" would risk having to lose productivity, hire a temp replacement, pay salary + benefits, and risk the employee not even returning.
I am not saying it's right, I just think the writing is on the wall if this happens.
I'm not discounting this as a possibility, but I am curious if there is evidence that it's happened in other countries where paid leave has been in place for a while. There have to be studies on this, right - comparing wage and hiring disparities in women of child bearing age between say us and Canada?
I'll google, but if anybody already knows of any please save me from the google hole I'm about to fall into...
I feel as though I read that one of the Nordic countries had this problem when it increased maternity leave - Sweden, maybe?
OTOH, there are a couple factors that cut against this argument. First, companies are going to have a serious PR problem if they suddenly stop hiring women of childbearing age, and the companies risk further regulation/crackdowns if they engage in this practice on a widespread basis. Companies are allergic to regulation and crackdowns.
Second, and more important for white collar jobs, women outpace men in terms of earning college degrees. Stop hiring women and you will have a serious education gap in your workforce. Even the most bigoted of bosses probably doesn't want the underskilled doing the bulk of the work.
Post by penguingrrl on Sept 26, 2014 7:28:04 GMT -5
I could be totally wrong, but I feel like I read somewhere that Canada has an overall high success rate in retaining women in the workforce when it comes I white collar jobs. Tht bring able to remain on leave longer has translated to more women on the mid to high income range returning free having a baby even if the income isn't "critical" to the family. And I've known many women in the US leave their job because they weren't ready to go back and ha the luxury to choose that, but would have returned had tey had the option to stay out longer.
Sounds great, however, I'm pretty confident that all this will end up doing is making it even more difficult for a woman to be chosen for a job when there are other male candidates.
The potential employer, if they hire a woman "of child bearing age" would risk having to lose productivity, hire a temp replacement, pay salary + benefits, and risk the employee not even returning.
I am not saying it's right, I just think the writing is on the wall if this happens.
We do have it to an extent, however FMLA is unpaid. This new proposal would have maternity leave paid so the cost would be significantly higher for the employer.
But I don't think that's the proposal here, is it? it'd be an individual tax. Or is it a half-and-half proposal?
We do have it to an extent, however FMLA is unpaid. This new proposal would have maternity leave paid so the cost would be significantly higher for the employer.
Does this proposal require employers to pay? I know in NJ and CA it's trough the state disability fund, not privately through employers.
I am all for paid maternity leave, but I am confused as to what is going on here. Why is the DOL issuing a video like this? It seems very political and not really appropriate for an agency to be doing.
I need more information because this doesn't make sense.
I agree with this. And...also...maybe... lys? dittoing ESF and Lys in the same post just feels funny.
I'd love to see this happen. I think it's very worthwhile. But I'm not sure it should be a higher priority than ANY kind of paid leave for many workers. Not that we can't do two things at once, but really - this is probably one of those things where we should walk before we run.
And I'm confused by the DOL making this video. I mean, something like the CDC issuing a PSA about vaccines I get. The DOL having posters and other materials about minimum wage laws and child labor laws and everything else they regulate - absolutely. But an awareness campaign about our lack of paid family leave? Uhhh...huh?
Sounds great, however, I'm pretty confident that all this will end up doing is making it even more difficult for a woman to be chosen for a job when there are other male candidates.
The potential employer, if they hire a woman "of child bearing age" would risk having to lose productivity, hire a temp replacement, pay salary + benefits, and risk the employee not even returning.
I am not saying it's right, I just think the writing is on the wall if this happens.
I'm not discounting this as a possibility, but I am curious if there is evidence that it's happened in other countries where paid leave has been in place for a while. There have to be studies on this, right - comparing wage and hiring disparities in women of child bearing age between say us and Canada?
I'll google, but if anybody already knows of any please save me from the google hole I'm about to fall into...
I feel like this argument is just a scare tactic to keep people from enacting more employee friendly policies. Because if countries all over the world can manage this, America is surely able to do it as well.
Plus, I think what we'll see (if/when this ever happens) is parental leave, so the menfolk don't get their panties in a twist about "discrimination" and because it's the right thing to do So men/women will be able to take paid leave and it will help lessen the "she's just going to pop out babies and leave" issue.
FWIW, we don't have paid leave at my office and we had (he's since retired) a manager who was very vocal about not wanting to hire younger women because of that very thing. People are prejudiced against women of child-bearing age, without those women having any paid leave.
Also, ITA that we need some sort of broad requirement for sick leave for all employees. There is no reason why I should have a server compelled to come in when she's got the flu because she can't afford to take a day off unpaid and/or risk losing her job calling in sick.
We do have it to an extent, however FMLA is unpaid. This new proposal would have maternity leave paid so the cost would be significantly higher for the employer.
We really don't know this , especially compared to those who go out for their own injuries, seeing as they could really cost the company TONS in term of medical claims. If they play this right they will do this like a tax similar to SUI.
Also, ITA that we need some sort of broad requirement for sick leave for all employees. There is no reason why I should have a server compelled to come in when she's got the flu because she can't afford to take a day off unpaid and/or risk losing her job calling in sick.
Further, it's really none of the employer's business why someone takes a day off. Let them have paid PTO with no excuse notes required. It's less invasive to the employee and less administrative work for the employer.
On a related note, I wish FMLA would be rewritten to be for 6 months. It's a separate issue from paid leave, but as someone who's had to use it for non-maternity reasons, and have seen other coworkers use it (fortunately my company's policy is up to 6 months on a case by case basis), I have seen the need for a longer period of protection.
It is if you are taking care of someone in the Military. However I am sure it could be expanded a bit but 6 months for everything that qualifies now makes me want to go hide in a corner.