Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Think Paid Family Leave Possible ye

[teflepi]

Chris Lock and Tom Lennon in What to Expect When You're Expecting (Melissa Moseley/Associated Press)

Hillary Clinton isn’t against federally mandated family leave—she just doesn’t think it’s politically feasible.

“I think, eventually, it should be [implemented],” Clinton said at CNN’s town-hall meeting Tuesday to promote her new book, Hard Choices. But she immediately qualified her position: “I don’t think, politically, we could get it now.”

The U.S. lags woefully behind in paid family leave. According to a report released last month from the UN International Labour Organization, 185 countries provided paid maternity leave. Only three countries don't: Oman, Papua New Guinea, and the United States. Seventy-eight of those countries also provide paternity leave.

While the 1993 Federal Medical Leave Act provides as much as to 12 months of leave for a worker to care for a new addition (whether it be a newborn, adoptive child, or foster child) or an ill family member, there is nothing that guarantees that time off is paid. In fact, only California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island offer paid family leave; just nine more states even have defined family-leave laws. Most estimates find that only half of the working population is eligible for medical leave under the FMLA. People who are left out include couples whose marriages aren't recognized, part-time workers, and people who are simply unable to afford taking time off without pay.

But there seems to be broad support for paid leave in the United States. A bipartisan poll conducted on behalf of the National Partnership for Women and Families, a pro-leave group, just after the 2012 election, found that 86 percent of Americans supported leave—including 96 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of Republicans. The poll inspired new hope that President Obama might take up leave in his second term.

Instead—vindicating Clinton’s opinion that leave is politically impossible right now—the issue has all but disappeared, overtaken by gridlock, government shutdown, and controversies over Obamacare and foreign policy.

Late last year, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Representative Rose DeLauro of Connecticut, both Democrats, introduced the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act, which proposed offering new parents and caretakers the ability to take 12 paid weeks off each year. Workers would contribute 0.2 percent of their wages to the Social Security Administration, which would handle paying bills. Employees could only get up to 66 percent of their monthly income, but that's a great deal more than the 0 percent workers in 47 states currently receive if they stay home with a loved one.

But the bill is stalled in the House. The last action it saw was on December 12, 2013, when it was referred to committee, where it disappeared and has yet to be brought up again. It received broad support from Democrats—87 of them, to be exact—but not a single Republican; GOP politicians argue the bill would hurt small businesses. The president's 2015 budget includes a plan for a $5 million "State Paid Leave Fund," but he hasn't made it a priority.

Why is paid family leave so controversial?

First, it's pricey. The three states that have paid family leave fund their individual programs through employee-paid payroll taxes, then manage the disbursement of funds through disability programs. In plain English that means increasing taxes and hiring more government administrative staff. Meanwhile, small businesses complain that the paperwork and time needed to provide paid time off is a major burden, which is why the 1993 law only requires companies with 50 or more employees to offer leave.

A 2009 piece in Newsweek even suggested employers might be less willing to hire women if paid-family-leave laws were in place:

Mandated paid family leave makes it more expensive to hire workers, particularly women. That makes employers less willing to hire women, especially those with limited education or skills who typically do the kind of work it's easy to find someone else to do. If the objective is to help poor women remain employed, mandated paid family leave will do exactly the opposite.

That’s an especially important question since single mothers, who arguably need paid leave most, tend to be poorer.

Related Story

Daddy Track: The Case for Paternity Leave
But it’s not just economics. Social expectations play an important role in shaping American views on paid leave too. Fathers face pressure to return to work immediately after a birth. The thinking goes that their partner gave birth, not them, so why is staying at home to care for the family newbie necessary?

In April, New York Mets second baseman Daniel Murphy was at his wife’s bedside, expecting his first child, rather than in the dugout on Opening Day. Though Murphy was back on the field three days later, that wasn't soon enough for some commentators. "Quite frankly I would’ve said, 'C-section before the season starts. I need to be at Opening Day. I’m sorry, this is what makes our money, this is how we’re going to live our life, this is going to give our child every opportunity to be a success in life,'" said former NFL quarterback Boomer Esiason. New York sports-radio host Mike Francesca wondered why Murphy, who he noted only missed a single game the year before, wanted to take a few days off. “You see the birth and you get back,” Francesca said. “What do you do in the first couple days? Maybe you take care of the other kids. Well, you gotta have someone to do that if you’re a Major League Baseball player. Your wife doesn’t need your help the first couple days, you know that.”

Even in countries with more liberal family-leave laws, the practice remains controversial. Study after study has questioned whether paid leave discourages workers from returning to the workplace. Sweden, which is regularly held up as an international exemplar for family leave has seen moms struggle with finding jobs post-birth and in fact lack the incentive to return at all. Germany tackled this problem by cutting its paid time off for new parents in half in 2007. The rate of new moms returning to the workplace spiked 14 percent within a year.

Clinton, while supportive of paid maternity leave, didn't throw her support behind fully paid family leave in the United States. But she acknowledged "gaps" in the 1993 act her husband signed into law.

"I support trying to figure out how we're going to do more to give families that peace of mind and the guarantee they're not going to either lose their job or their income while they try to fulfill the most human of responsibilities," she said. "So, we need to look to see how we make that work, what the conditions would be, but it's unfinished business, in my view."

And in the current American political environment, it's unfinished business that may remain unfinished.

www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clinton-doesnt-think-paid-family-leave-is-possible-yet/372993/

[StrawberryBlondie]

Um, I needed my husband more in the first few days than pretty much any other time. I think I'd have lost it if he left me alone in the hospital the day after H was born.

I mean, he went home one night to get a few hours of interrupted sleep in a bed and I almost called him begging him to come back.

ETA: He went back to work at 3 weeks. I wasn't comfortable on my own all day until about 8 weeks. Even then, I would've strongly preferred him home.

[ttt]

I find it very disappointing that she doesn't think this is an issue worth making a priority.

I don't even want to get started on this, because I'll just get angry. I think it is appalling the way we as a nation and culture treat new mothers (and fathers, to a lesser extent).

[josieposy]

Well maybe after the mid-terms Obama should come out in favor against it. Congress goes crazy and implements it. Everyone wins!

[ringstrue]

Well she said she doesn't think we could get it right now. And she's right. There is a truckload of reasonable shit we can't get right now.

[msmerymac]

This is why I almost lose it when people call either Obama or HRC a socialist. If only, guys. If only.

[stephm0188]

"Paid leave? NONE FOR YOU, whores!"

That's pretty much how I imagine politicians.

[Deleted]

She is right.

[curbsideprophet]

The quotes from the pro athletes are horrible. I think it is important to have dad around the early days. It was essential with my first. The two of us together could barely get our daughter to latch. I never would have been able to do it on my own. I am also not a fan of scheduling a c-section for convenience.

I don't think we will ever have a year long maternity leave like other countries. However even 6-8 weeks at partial pay would be helpful.

The article is also misleading on FMLA. You may have a year to us it, but you only get 12 weeks.

[maddysmum]

I don't know what to say about this.

Women DO struggle with this dilemma - on a Canadian board I'm on, there's a thread right now about whether or not one should wear a weeding ring to their interview because as a late twenties woman, will the hiring manager deem her a riskier hire under the assumption she'll take mat leave for a year?

On the flip side, though, the thought of leaving one's newborn in childcare is a hard concept to grasp.

Practically speaking, a spouse here doesn't use parental leave for that first week or two - they'd use holiday time (min two weeks federally, often-usually more), personal time, family days or the like to stay home for a few days. Parental leave, which is becoming more commonly used all the time, is typically for a more permanent split of that year - new mum takes the first six months, spouse takes the second - that sort of thing.

Ultimately, I think leave is a must. It was something I thought a lot about living in the US, having taken it for granted when I was in Canada. Childcare is incredibly expensive, having the option is beneficial to everyone (I don't operate under the assumption that every mother should stay home for any period of time - I believe every PARENT should have the option) and that US policies need to be updated.

[andrealynn]

It would be kind of epic if repubs decided to pass it just to prove her wrong.

[ttt]

Even I think a year is probably too long. I would be thrilled with just 12 weeks of *paid* leave.

[forreals]

Jun 18, 2014 21:23:18 GMT -5 curbsideprophet said:

The quotes from the pro athletes are horrible. I think it is important to have dad around the early days. It was essential with my first. The two of us together could barely get our daughter to latch. I never would have been able to do it on my own. I am also not a fan of scheduling a c-section for convenience.

I don't think we will ever have a year long maternity leave like other countries. However even 6-8 weeks at partial pay would be helpful.

The article is also misleading on FMLA. You may have a year to us it, but you only get 12 weeks.

I totally agree that those quotes are awful and show just how far we need to go still.

I am guessing it was a mistake in the article and they meant to write 12 weeks. It is a pretty big error given the topic.
Anecdote: I am a federal employee and I didn't get to use my weeks over the course of the 12 months. I had to use everything right away and could not spread it out.

[EllieT]

Jun 18, 2014 20:35:27 GMT -5 teflepi said:

Even in countries with more liberal family-leave laws, the practice remains controversial. Study after study has questioned whether paid leave discourages workers from returning to the workplace. Sweden, which is regularly held up as an international exemplar for family leave has seen moms struggle with finding jobs post-birth and in fact lack the incentive to return at all. Germany tackled this problem by cutting its paid time off for new parents in half in 2007. The rate of new moms returning to the workplace spiked 14 percent within a year.

This part just makes me go huh. I grew up in Sweden and we are currently living there as well. While it is certainly NO PERFECT UTOPIA and even with mat/pat leave there are problems I just don't recognize the bolded to be true. I guess the finding job part/being discrimintaed against as a women could be true (though I really don't think that's a widespread thing) and I just haven't noticed it since I work in healthcare which is a field notorious for being dominated by women. But I really haven't heard that be mentioned as a problem. Yes, hiring a woman might mean she will be off for mat leave for 1 -1.5 year but she will for sure return and since she will be off for so long it's no problem hiring a temp. And yes she might have to be home with a sick kid every now and then after she has returned to work but guess what, so will dads too. 

Oh and finding a job post-birth? Why would she need to find a job post-birth? Mat leave protects your job so you really don't need to go find a job post-birth. I guess if you were unemployed before birth or if you for some reason decided to quit your old job during mat leave you would need to find a new one and that's when you would have a hard time getting a new? I honestly don't even understand that part

But the no incentive to return at all? Not true at all. I don't know any or have heard through friends or family or friends of friends or anything like that about anyone not returning to work/being a SAHM. Growing up I knew of one family, yes one, where the mom stayed at home, they were considered weird. In fact that might just be one of the problems, even if you wanted to stay at home you really can't unless you are independently whealthy. And even then I guess you would be fairly lonely. Society here is set up for both parents working. Childcare is available and very affordable (I'm not sure of the exact figures but it's somewhere along $200 per month and if you have two kids the 2nd is cheaper and the 3rd is even cheaper and with more kids than that the rest are free, if you make less than the threshold it could be even chpeaper than that) and people really need that 2nd paycheck. So no incentive to return? Not true.  

As for the US yeah it seems to me like it might unfortunately be a long time before you get any paid leave and I honestly don't get it. 

[Deleted]

I agree with her, I don't think it's possible yet. I just wish some politicians would REALLY push the issue.

[anonymous]

I also don't think it's possible. IF Hillary is elected I think Congress will double down even more, although I'm not sure how that will be possible. With the currnet political climate, I don't see paid family leave as a real possibility in my lifetime. Well, maybe 25/30 years

[earlgreyhot]

Jun 18, 2014 20:57:21 GMT -5 ttt said:

I find it very disappointing that she doesn't think this is an issue worth making a priority.

I don't even want to get started on this, because I'll just get angry. I think it is appalling the way we as a nation and culture treat new mothers (and fathers, to a lesser extent).

I think she's probably being prudent. But it is still disappointing.

[laurenpetro]

FTR, i just pulled my paystub. since i work in NJ i pay into NJFLI. it's $.84 a paycheck. $21.84 a year.

[secretlyevil]

I think she's being realistic, even if it's frustrating and sad. In this current political climate, nothing of substance gets done. As pps have said, albeit jokingly, if Obama came out against paid family leave, Republicans would bend over backwards to get it done.

[ajj]

Jun 19, 2014 8:21:49 GMT -5 earlgreyhot said:

Jun 18, 2014 20:57:21 GMT -5 ttt said:

I find it very disappointing that she doesn't think this is an issue worth making a priority.

I don't even want to get started on this, because I'll just get angry. I think it is appalling the way we as a nation and culture treat new mothers (and fathers, to a lesser extent).

I think she's probably being prudent. But it is still disappointing.

I agree, unfortunately.

Also, those comments by the ball players and commentators are just pissing me off. My H's work had that attitude and it was a scary time for me. I have a small family and didn't grow up around kids. I only babysat for older children. My son had colic and I just had no idea what I was doing, not that anyone is ever really prepared. But, yes, those first few weeks are tough and you need your spouse.

[pescalita]

Jun 19, 2014 9:08:03 GMT -5 laurenpetro said:

FTR, i just pulled my paystub. since i work in NJ i pay into NJFLI. it's $.84 a paycheck. $21.84 a year.

Much as I've turned into a cold fiscal conservative, I've benefited too much from CA's SDI/PFL to be anti. Ours is wrapped up with all SDI and UI, but it's 1%. Not the end of the world.

But yeah, she's speaking the truth 100%.

[secretlyevil]

Jun 19, 2014 12:53:24 GMT -5 deej said:

Jun 19, 2014 11:43:35 GMT -5 tillie said:

I can definitely see how this would work so much against women. Any woman "of child bearing age" would defintiely be judged more against any man when it came to hiring due to this. It's not right, but I think it would be a reality.

To be honest, it already happens. I think paid leave would make it a bigger issue, but I've heard people say they'd rather hire someone older who "already has their kids" or a guy who "will keep working" rather than train someone who will then "quit once she gets pregnant."

I had a job interview earlier this year where I was flat out asked "What if you get pregnant? By law, can we fire you since we are a small company? Do you know? Or would you be able to sue us?"

How did you respond?

[ringstrue]

Jun 19, 2014 12:53:24 GMT -5 deej said:

Jun 19, 2014 11:43:35 GMT -5 tillie said:

I can definitely see how this would work so much against women. Any woman "of child bearing age" would defintiely be judged more against any man when it came to hiring due to this. It's not right, but I think it would be a reality.

To be honest, it already happens. I think paid leave would make it a bigger issue, but I've heard people say they'd rather hire someone older who "already has their kids" or a guy who "will keep working" rather than train someone who will then "quit once she gets pregnant."

I had a job interview earlier this year where I was flat out asked "What if you get pregnant? By law, can we fire you since we are a small company? Do you know? Or would you be able to sue us?"

That's why I never wore my wedding ring to job interviews. 

[Deleted]

Jun 19, 2014 12:53:24 GMT -5 deej said:

Jun 19, 2014 11:43:35 GMT -5 tillie said:

I can definitely see how this would work so much against women. Any woman "of child bearing age" would defintiely be judged more against any man when it came to hiring due to this. It's not right, but I think it would be a reality.

To be honest, it already happens. I think paid leave would make it a bigger issue, but I've heard people say they'd rather hire someone older who "already has their kids" or a guy who "will keep working" rather than train someone who will then "quit once she gets pregnant."

I had a job interview earlier this year where I was flat out asked "What if you get pregnant? By law, can we fire you since we are a small company? Do you know? Or would you be able to sue us?"

This is an illegal question. They should not have asked you this at all. Technically if you didn't get the job based on this, you could sue (or at least file a complaint). 

[secretlyevil]

I think it's been awhile since there's been a good mommy war in the community.

[msmerymac]

Jun 19, 2014 13:09:43 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

Jun 19, 2014 12:53:24 GMT -5 deej said:

To be honest, it already happens. I think paid leave would make it a bigger issue, but I've heard people say they'd rather hire someone older who "already has their kids" or a guy who "will keep working" rather than train someone who will then "quit once she gets pregnant."

I had a job interview earlier this year where I was flat out asked "What if you get pregnant? By law, can we fire you since we are a small company? Do you know? Or would you be able to sue us?"

That's why I never wore my wedding ring to job interviews. 

I had this dilemma last month. I had an interview. I WFH and all of my work experience is in CA. I just moved to PA last year. I was hemming and hawing about how to address the inevitable question of "why did you move?" My husband was all, "Um, just tell them the truth." Well, the truth is that I'm a 31 year old childless women who moved here because my husband took a new job. Admitting that I'm married makes it sound likely that I'll be pregnant soon (or, if they don't know better, that I have young children, which could be another issue).

My husband said, "Wow. I never thought of that." Of course you didn't, you're not a woman.

[msmerymac]

Jun 19, 2014 11:43:35 GMT -5 tillie said:

I can definitely see how this would work so much against women. Any woman "of child bearing age" would defintiely be judged more against any man when it came to hiring due to this. It's not right, but I think it would be a reality.

But that already happens in the US. It shouldn't, because it's not really legal, but it's definitely a factor in the minds of some hiring managers. 

I feel like, as a woman in my early 20s, I was probably judged for being frivolous and not responsible enough. As a woman in my late 20s/early 30s, I'm probably judged because I'm in my prime child-bearing years. And hey, look, when I'm approaching 40? I'll be starting to get old, more expensive to hire than a 25 year old, or not as talented with new technology and methods. Women can't win in the work force. 

Oh, and with Canada's system, for example, where you get up to 12 months off? They actually hire TEMPS, surprise, surprise, to take on the work, because the company isn't paying mat leave to their employee, it comes from the government (UEI/mat leave pre-tax deductions). So an added benefit is that existing workers don't get screwed over by having to pick up the brunt of their co-worker's work load. I know, I've done it. So it seems like everyone wins - parents, other workers, people looking for a 6-12 month assignment (and who can actually make a sort of career out of taking these temp jobs in certain industries). 

[Velar Fricative]

New Jersey has paid leave?!?! Learn something new every day.

[Deleted]

Jun 19, 2014 14:29:33 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Jun 19, 2014 11:43:35 GMT -5 tillie said:

I can definitely see how this would work so much against women. Any woman "of child bearing age" would defintiely be judged more against any man when it came to hiring due to this. It's not right, but I think it would be a reality.

Oh, and with Canada's system, for example, where you get up to 12 months off? They actually hire TEMPS, surprise, surprise, to take on the work, because the company isn't paying mat leave to their employee, it comes from the government (UEI/mat leave pre-tax deductions). So an added benefit is that existing workers don't get screwed over by having to pick up the brunt of their co-worker's work load. I know, I've done it. So it seems like everyone wins - parents, other workers, people looking for a 6-12 month assignment (and who can actually make a sort of career out of taking these temp jobs in certain industries). 

Right. It's anecdotal, but every workplace I've been in has hired temps when someone goes on mat leave. I've never seen anyone have to take on more workload. Some companies offer mat leave pay on top of government EI, but that's their choice.

For the record, my company tops up EI to 80% of an employee's wages for up to 15 weeks. If the employee quits within 2 years of coming back to work, they have to repay a portion of the mat leave top up. This gets rid of the issue of women collecting mat leave pay and then quitting right after coming back to work.

[secretlyevil]

What do companies in in country with really strong family leave do while mothers and fathers are out?