Paid Maternity Leave Push Underway At U.S. Labor Department

[lys]

Definitely a political timing and plays into the War on Women theme prior to the fall election.

[gretchenindisguise]

Sept 26, 2014 7:45:54 GMT -5 tillie said:

Sept 26, 2014 7:41:17 GMT -5 iammalcolmx said:

You have this now with anyone because of FMLA.

  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.

It's not paid for by the employer. It's paid by the state or in this case federal government. It shouldn't cost employers anything. CA businesses have loved it.

[IIOY]

Sept 26, 2014 8:22:19 GMT -5 iammalcolmx said:

Sept 25, 2014 18:13:24 GMT -5 mcsangel2 said:

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.

Can you imagine having to deal with some of the intermittent leave bullshit for six months out of every year?

[iammalcolmx]

Sept 26, 2014 8:39:49 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Sept 26, 2014 8:22:19 GMT -5 iammalcolmx said:

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.

Can you imagine having to deal with some of the intermittent leave bullshit for six months out of every year?

See now I wanted to say that but I thought all the Non- HR people would think I was cold as shit.

[ghostmonkey]

Sept 26, 2014 7:55:00 GMT -5 wawa said:

Sept 25, 2014 15:31:33 GMT -5 ESF said:

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.

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?

FMLA is through the Department of Labor. It was intended to be a jumping off point, not the end all, be all for leave. Why would it not make sense for them to be involved with a potential change in labor laws?

[carowen]

Sept 26, 2014 8:30:43 GMT -5 lys said:

Definitely a political timing and plays into the War on Women theme prior to the fall election.

Everything done by every politician ever is done with political motives.  If we get paid leave as a way to pander for votes, I'm ok with that.

[tacosforlife]

Sept 26, 2014 8:48:02 GMT -5 ghostmonkey said:

Sept 26, 2014 7:55:00 GMT -5 wawa said:

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?

FMLA is through the Department of Labor. It was intended to be a jumping off point, not the end all, be all for leave. Why would it not make sense for them to be involved with a potential change in labor laws?

Because regulatory agencies are charged with creating rules under authority designated by Congress and enforcing statutes and regulations. So the DOL is charged with enforcing FMLA via regulations and then making sure companies following those regulations. But in the absence of Congressional authorization, it's not charged with advocating new policies.

[EllieT]

Sept 26, 2014 7:00:10 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Sept 26, 2014 6:51:53 GMT -5 wawa said:

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.

I'm in Sweden and I will have to say a big no on the above. Everyone does return to work after mat/pat leave. Like everybody. I don't know of a single SAHM. You pretty much have to go back since all families need two incomes (daycare is cheap and subsidized).
And economically for the employers it's not unlikely that they will actually save money while the employee is out since the temp is probably new and possibly less experienced and thus get paid less. Not always of course but not unusual. And since the mat/pat leave is paid by the government through a tax funded insurance that is not a cost for the employer. And two months of the leave is set aside for the dad as paternity leave (though most new dads I know have been home longer than that, like 6 months)

It's not a perfect system and it has its problems but what was mentioned above is not one of them

[sillygoosegirl]

Sept 26, 2014 8:00:03 GMT -5 carowen said:

Sept 26, 2014 6:51:53 GMT -5 wawa said:

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.

I believe the recent article posted on the motherhood penalty cited a statistic on countries with paid maternity leave having a much higher "motherhood" penalty than countries that offer paid parental leave for both parents.  

[Waffles]

Sept 25, 2014 17:07:15 GMT -5 lys said:

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.

True, it would be nice to have PTO available for everyone, no matter where you work.
My first office job was like this.  No sick days, and vacation was given to us when you hit a year mark - you can take the pay, or the equivalent number of days off - which equaled two.  Two days for the whole year.  And it was more worthwhile to just take the cash, they way they had it worked out.
We did get holidays though, but just the basic 6 (though 5 sounds more like it - it's been several years).

Hated it there.

[Waffles]

Sept 26, 2014 8:00:03 GMT -5 carowen said:

Sept 26, 2014 6:51:53 GMT -5 wawa said:

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.

This would be awesome!  I know I would be freaking out, going home with a newborn, being alone...  And my husband knows more about babies than I do.  I don't care if he gets the same amount of time off as me, but it only makes sense that the father can have time off, too.  And it would help with the issues of women not being hired due to this.

Sept 26, 2014 8:02:36 GMT -5 carowen said:

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.

This, too!  I came in sick to work at my last job all the time because we didn't have sick leave.  People complain about contagious people coming to work.  But dang, if I'm capable of doing my job, I'm coming in (I typically don't really leave my cubicle much anyway).  With my current job we get 3 sick days.  Better than nothing, but I took all three thanks to insomnia/fatigue this year.  So if something contagious comes around, I'm out of luck (fortunately I have vacation time available though, but not everyone here saves their PTO like I do).

[ringstrue]

I think the point would be missed if we had general leave. The whole issue is paid leave specifically for maternity/paternity. I mean I think we should start at mandatory paid leave for that first 6-8 weeks since that's the actual healing time. Other countries give 6 months or 1 year so I don't think we should be satisfied with 12 weeks paid.

But I agree that it'd be really hard to implement now.

[racegrrl714]

Sept 25, 2014 18:13:24 GMT -5 mcsangel2 said:

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!!! I couldn't go back to my job after 12 weeks when I had my accident. I hadn't been cleared by my surgeons and I was still on heavy pain killers at that point, therefore I couldn't drive at all, let alone a 50 mile one-way commute twice a day. So they gave me the boot at 12 weeks, 1 day.

[iammalcolmx]

Honestly they need to just have people pay in to a maternity leave system, like those who have to pay into a STD policy. Isn't that what the Canadians do?

[laurenpetro]

Sept 26, 2014 7:45:54 GMT -5 tillie said:

Sept 26, 2014 7:41:17 GMT -5 iammalcolmx said:

You have this now with anyone because of FMLA.

  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.

No. I work in NJ and it's funded by the workers. And from what I know it has not been an issue with hiring.

[iammalcolmx]

Sept 26, 2014 12:54:10 GMT -5 laurenpetro said:

Sept 26, 2014 7:45:54 GMT -5 tillie said:

  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.

No. I work in NJ and it's funded by the workers. And from what I know it has not been an issue with hiring.

What is funded by the workers in NJ?

[laurenpetro]

Sept 26, 2014 12:55:23 GMT -5 iammalcolmx said:

Sept 26, 2014 12:54:10 GMT -5 laurenpetro said:

No. I work in NJ and it's funded by the workers. And from what I know it has not been an issue with hiring.

What is funded by the workers in NJ?

Sorry.

NJFLI is a 6 week paid leave at 60% with a cap at (4 years ago) $550ish a week. I pay a couple of dollars a week. My employer pays nothing.

The only cost they incur is coverage when I'm out which they would regardless.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Sept 26, 2014 7:00:10 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Sept 26, 2014 6:51:53 GMT -5 wawa said:

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.

My company has paid leave and they seem to hire more women than men.

[IIOY]

Sept 26, 2014 13:24:53 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Sept 26, 2014 7:00:10 GMT -5 IIOY said:

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.

My company has paid leave and they seem to hire more women than men.

IMProfessionalE, maternity leave, which is fairly predictable once you know an employee is pregnant, caused a lot less heartburn for employers than illness, which is random, intermittent, and often recurrent.

[LoveTrains]

Sept 26, 2014 13:02:00 GMT -5 laurenpetro said:

Sept 26, 2014 12:55:23 GMT -5 iammalcolmx said:

What is funded by the workers in NJ?

Sorry.

NJFLI is a 6 week paid leave at 60% with a cap at (4 years ago) $550ish a week. I pay a couple of dollars a week. My employer pays nothing.

The only cost they incur is coverage when I'm out which they would regardless.

Right, exactly, this is what we have in RI. It is thorugh our state temporary disability insurance, of which I (and all workers) pay into during the year. However because the benefits are capped at something per week, at some point during the year I hit the cap and no longer have to pay into it (like social security, but the cap is a lot lower, maybe $60 or $70K). There is NO COST to businesses for this insurance (other than holding a job for someone, but they don't have to pay them while they are out). 

The benefits include up to 6 weeks of paid leave for the birth of a child (which frankly was actually already included under TDI) and also up to four weeks of paid leave if you adopt a child or for paternity leave. It also provides for 4 weeks of paid leave to care for a family member with a serious medical condition. The benefits range from $72 - $752/week (depending on your salary). 

Now what I am wondering is if I can use the 6 week medical leave part of TDI and then tack on 4 weeks under TCI (temporary caregiver) onto it to give me a total of 10 weeks partial pay if I were to get PG. Hrmm. 

[laurenpetro]

Sept 26, 2014 14:19:38 GMT -5 LoveTrains said:

Sept 26, 2014 13:02:00 GMT -5 laurenpetro said:

Sorry.

NJFLI is a 6 week paid leave at 60% with a cap at (4 years ago) $550ish a week. I pay a couple of dollars a week. My employer pays nothing.

The only cost they incur is coverage when I'm out which they would regardless.

Right, exactly, this is what we have in RI. It is thorugh our state temporary disability insurance, of which I (and all workers) pay into during the year. However because the benefits are capped at something per week, at some point during the year I hit the cap and no longer have to pay into it (like social security, but the cap is a lot lower, maybe $60 or $70K). There is NO COST to businesses for this insurance (other than holding a job for someone, but they don't have to pay them while they are out). 

The benefits include up to 6 weeks of paid leave for the birth of a child (which frankly was actually already included under TDI) and also up to four weeks of paid leave if you adopt a child or for paternity leave. It also provides for 4 weeks of paid leave to care for a family member with a serious medical condition. The benefits range from $72 - $752/week (depending on your salary). 

Now what I am wondering is if I can use the 6 week medical leave part of TDI and then tack on 4 weeks under TCI (temporary caregiver) onto it to give me a total of 10 weeks partial pay if I were to get PG. Hrmm. 

I did this. I had 8 weeks STD through the state and then 6 or 8 weeks (I think 6) NJFLI leave,

[meshaliuknits]

Sept 26, 2014 7:31:10 GMT -5 wawa said:

How does the PFL in Cali work with hourly workers? Like...does a waitress get paid leave and her job waiting for her when she gets back?

The hourly workers at my company (biotech manufacturing) are out for the same 4-5 months as the salaried workers and their job is waiting for them when they come back. We all get paid some percentage (60 I think?) of our salary by the state minus what the company pays us while we're out. There's also a limit on how much vacation time the employer can say you used while you are on leave.

I couldn't tell you how this works in other industries or for part time workers.