By Margaret Hodson ’16, Editor-in-Chief
In America, new mothers are guaranteed not even a single day of paid maternity leave. This policy often forces women to choose between their careers and taking care of their children. It not only keeps women out of the workforce and the C-Suite, but hurts families and affects all Americans regardless of gender. There are solutions that can help our children and the future of our nation without hurting the economy or businesses. Out of 185 countries and territories, the UN Institute of Labor found that only three do not have federal paid maternity leave laws. Besides the United States, the other two countries without such laws or federal policies are Papua New Guinea and Oman. Sweden guarantees 68 weeks of paid maternity leave to new mothers regardless of income level or employer. British mothers are assured 40 full weeks before returning to the workforce. In Vietnam it’s 26 weeks. Bangladesh guarantees 16 weeks, China 14, and Iran 12. Let me just re-iterate the policy of America in context: 0 weeks. This is a problem, and not just for women. It’s a problem for all Americans: a problem facing our families and the future of our nation.
To be clear, I don’t believe America should jump on the family paid leave bandwagon just because most other nations have done so. If 28 European countries theoretically formed one cohesive union of high-tax-loving socialists, does that make it a good idea for the United States to follow along? Don’t answer that question. (The results of Bernie Sanders bid for President will speak loudly enough either way come November 2016.) Back to the main point: America should not institute a paid family leave policy to prevent being the odd-country out, or because other nations have done so. We need change because it’s the right choice for American children, families, and businesses.
Maternity leave positively affects the health of both mothers and children. Women need time to recover after giving birth and before returning to work. In order for babies to develop in a healthy manner, it is essential that they spend time with caring and attentive parents, especially during the crucial first weeks and years of life. Women on maternity leave are more likely to breastfeed for longer periods of time and to take their children regularly to doctor’s appointments. The results of maternity leave, overwhelmingly, are healthier and more well-taken-care-of children.
Even the opponents of guaranteed maternity leave do not dispute that paid maternity leave itself benefits women and children. In a CNN interview with Jake Tapper, presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina stated: “I’m not saying I oppose paid maternity leave. What I’m saying is I oppose the federal government mandating paid maternity leave to every company out there.” For opponents, federal involvement in the private sector is the sticking point. No matter how great maternity leave may be, the government has no place mandating its adoption nationally. The idea behind guaranteed, federally-mandated paid maternity leave is yet another costly expense imposed by the government that hurts the economy and the bottom line of businesses. Fiorina further stated in the same CNN interview, “I don’t think it’s the role of government to dictate to the private sector how to manage their businesses, especially when it’s pretty clear that the private sector, like Netflix…is doing the right thing because they know it helps them attract the right talent.”
Fiorina is partially right—some companies do have in place very generous paid maternity leave policies. For its salaried workers, Netflix guarantees new mothers a full year of paid maternity leave. New parents at Facebook get 17 weeks of paid parental leave. At Google it is 18 weeks for birth mothers and 12 weeks for primary caregivers. It is true that some very successful companies do have paid maternity leave policies even though there is no federal mandate. However, the overwhelming majority of women do not work for forward-thinking employers like Facebook or Google. The fact stands that if you are a pregnant woman in America, there is an 88% chance you will not have access to paid maternity leave.
The 12% of women that do have access to paid maternity leave are overwhelmingly white, college-educated, and upper class. They work at companies that offer paid maternity leave as a “perk” to attract the most talented workers. Emily Peck at Huffington Post noted, “When paid leave is thought of as an ‘extra’ used by the country’s biggest companies to attract in-demand workers, many less skilled, less well-paid workers—hourly retail employees, for example—get left out…Many end up simply quitting their jobs. Some of those women wind up on food stamps and other government benefits. And guess what? Those benefits would cost more than federally mandated paid leave.” Paid maternity leave should not just be a privilege or a perk for the ultra-rich, like nap pods or massage rooms. All babies have the right to be taken care of, regardless of the income level of their parents. Most women (and men) do not have a valuable enough skill set to be recruited by companies like Google and Facebook. This means that for the majority of new mothers, any time they take off is unpaid.
America’s current system of maternity and paternity leave is based on the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). This bill was hotly contested by many Republicans at the time of passage and was actually vetoed twice before being eventually signed into law by President Clinton. When the law was being debated, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) decried it as an example of “yuppie empowerment.” At a time when most advanced nations had guaranteed 14 weeks of paid maternity leave, the United States barely passed a measure for 12 weeks of unpaid leave that covers only 60% of American workers. That means for the 40% of workers not covered by the FMLA, they may not have access to even a single day of unpaid leave.
The reason so many workers are not covered by the FMLA is due to its many eligibility requirements. The FMLA does not cover workers if they have been employed for a company for less than a year, or if they work for a company that employs less than 50 people within a 75 mile radius. Predictably, the women not covered by the FMLA are often women that don’t have the financial means to take unpaid leave. In short, America’s inadequate laws mean that 25% of new mothers in American return to work within ten days of giving birth. Another 25% quit or are “let go” upon having a child. This leads to a rate of employee turnover that is much higher than it needs to be. It is in the best interest of companies economically to retain their female employees instead of continually having to hire and train new people every time a woman gives birth and drops out of the workforce due to necessity, not a personal desire to stop working. Opponents of paid maternity leave counter by stating that should the federal government require all companies to provide such paid maternity leave, it will lead to rampant discrimination against women.
In a Huffington Post blog, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina noted, “In other countries these mandates have discouraged employers from hiring and promoting women. After such mandates were in place in Spain, companies were 6 percent less likely to hire women, 37 percent less likely to promote them, and 45 percent more likely to fire them.” The mandates Fiorina speaks of are federal mandates requiring paid maternity leave. The argument is that should paid maternity leave become a right for all female employees, companies will be less likely to hire women—just because they are women and are more “costly.” I’m no lawyer, but not hiring women because of their femaleness seems like blatant sex discrimination and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Then again, I’m not naïve enough to pretend like companies don’t avoid hiring women just because they are afraid the women will not be a good “investment”—that they are too costly, and are likely to drop out of the workforce anyways. Federally-mandated paid maternity leave could certainly lead to increased discrimination against women. This is just one of many reasons America needs paid paternity leave, not just maternity leave.
If paid family leave were mandated federally, employers would be offering just about the same benefits for men and women. This would mean whether hiring a male or female, the “cost” would be essentially the same. That is assuming that men took the paternity leave offered to them. This would require a culture that values both genders as caregivers and does not stigmatize men or classify them as “un-dedicated” for taking time off to spend with newborn children. If paid family leave became a reality, we wouldn’t have the current system; a system where men are a better “investment” because they don’t require leave while women are more “expensive” employees because they do. This is one way we can stop companies from not hiring women because they are women and might have children. Both men and women want families and want to raise the next generation of proud American citizens, yet in our current system mothers are punished simply because they are of the gender that nurses children in the womb and physically gives birth. With that being said, our current system also robs loving fathers of the opportunity to be active parents. The focus on paid maternity leave over paid family leave is sexist, and presumes that men will never want to be the primary caretaker. Fathers want to take care of their children; we should let them. The ability to take time off the raise a newborn should not just be a right for women. It is the right of all parents.
Paid paternity leave can also help keep women in the workforce by encouraging fathers to be primary caretakers, or at least to play a more significant role in raising children. When men and women split child-rearing duties more equally, women are more likely to stay in the workforce as opposed to at home. There is nothing wrong with a woman that wants to stay home and take care of her children, but for mothers that legitimately desire to work, paid family leave is a necessity—not just something nice. Paid family leave also increases the amount and success of women in the workforce, as evidenced by mandatory partially-paid family leave laws instituted in California and New Jersey.
Realizing the importance and benefits of paid family leave, California and New Jersey have instituted such laws, and with much success. Rhode Island has also instituted such laws, but the effects have not yet been widely studied. The state recently received federal money to conduct a study on their policy of offering four weeks of partial pay. California and New Jersey offer six weeks of guaranteed, partially paid leave. The New Jersey law went into effect in 2009. A 2012 study by the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers found that women were much more likely to be working 6 months to a year after giving birth. They were also 54% more likely to see a wage increase, and 39% less likely to be on public assistance. Paid family leave helps women to advance in the workforce, break the glass ceiling, and rise up the corporate ladder. It can help increase not only the number of women working, but the number of women in leadership positions. Additionally, paid family leave policies do not hurt businesses. ThinkProgress reported that “About 90 percent of California businesses say that it either had a positive impact or none on profitability, employee performance, and productivity, while it helped reduce turnover, saving them an estimated $89 million each year. The majority of New Jersey businesses surveyed also said that it hasn’t hurt their finances and some saw a benefit.” These findings are highly important. Paid family leave policies will not drive businesses into the ground or hurt the economy.
Even Republican politicians who have traditionally been opposed to paid family leave are beginning to realize this. The rhetoric in opposition to federally-mandated paid family leave has changed since the 1990’s. No politician today would be caught dead uttering the phrase “yuppie empowerment” as it pertains to the issue. In September, presidential candidate Marco Rubio made the news for issuing a plan to increase access to paid family leave across the nation. His plan is “a 25% non-refundable tax credit for businesses that voluntarily offer at least four weeks of paid family leave, limited to twelve weeks of leave and $4,000 per employee each year.” He further stated, “another one-size-fits-all burden from Washington is wrong…the big government approach to paid family leave will cause employers to end or reduce more generous plans and make it harder for women to enter the workforce, while creating an expensive new entitlement.” For a Republican presidential candidate, Rubio’s plan is an unprecedented but savvy move. The majority of Americans support paid family leave, and championing such policies could help him win over a crucial swath of voters. In fact, a poll by Lake Research Partners and the Make it Work campaign found in January that 82% of all voters and 74% of Republicans “say that employees should be able to earn paid time off to take care of themselves and their families.” Paid family leave also makes sense as a Republican policy. Republicans are firm believers that America is strong when our families are strong; they have “family values,” seeking to uphold the importance of family in American life. What could better help achieve these goals then paid family leave? When parents and children spend time together, families are strengthened. It is highly encouraging that Marco Rubio realizes the importance of increasing access to paid family leave. He is taking certainly a Republican stance in attempting to use tax credits over a federal mandate. My question is this: will a tax credit really work?
I’m not sure that a tax break is a big enough incentive for businesses to implement paid family leave policies. Businesses that already have such policies would certainly welcome a tax break, but would it really tip the scale in favor of paid family leave for others? A tax break incentive would still likely leave behind the low-wage workers that need access to paid family leave the most, yet are the least likely to get it. The alternative is the model used by California and New Jersey, which funded their programs through a small payroll tax on employees. This meant that employers weren’t even paying for the family leave, the employees themselves were. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton as part of their presidential campaigns have proposed that similar models be implemented on a national level. The model is similar to Social Security, with employees being forced to pay in. I know you may be thinking “MORE SOCIAL SECURITY?!? ANYTHING LIKE SOCIAL SECURITY?!? BAD IDEA! RUN AWAY, FAST!” Perhaps you were not thinking that, but the thought certainly popped into my head upon discovering the economic model underlying the policies of California and New Jersey.
I’m not sure that a federally run, Social Security-esque paid family leave program is a good idea. I agree that we don’t need another “one-size-fits all burden from Washington” or cumbersome, over-elaborate government regulations. However, it absolutely should be the law of the land that all businesses provide paid family leave. There should be great freedom however, for states and businesses to come up with their own models. Ideally, each state would have paid family leave, but with varying amounts and financing methods. This way, the states could serve as “incubators for democracy,” testing out different policies to see which ones work best. In addition, we don’t have to adopt the policies of other nations—America has always been an innovative place. In fact, studies suggest that too much time off actually hurts women, decreasing their career prospects and the likelihood of getting a raise. There is an important balance to strike; we don’t need to become the next Sweden, but we do need mandatory paid family leave.
Paid family leave is too important to be viewed as just a perk—it’s a necessity. It is of the utmost importance if we want to achieve gender equality in America and strengthen families. The idea that paid family leave is too expensive for businesses frankly outrages me. First off, evidence from California and New Jersey suggests that it has no effect or a positive effect upon businesses. Even if it did hurt the bottom line of businesses a small bit, is it really okay that the current American model rejects strong families, healthy children, and successful women as “just the cost of doing business?” All children deserve to be taken care of. All Americans need paid family leave.
Sources:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/07/30/3465922/paid-family-leave/
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/paid-family-leave-obama-work
http://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/447236626/washington-d-c-council-proposal-sets-new-standard-on-paid-family-leave
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/15/422957640/lots-of-other-countries-mandate-paid-leave-why-not-the-us
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121822/paid-leave-goes-progressive-pipe-dream-political-reality
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carly-fiorina-maternity-leave_55c91538e4b0923c12bde846
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/10/3689780/fiorina-paid-family-leave/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/09/politics/carly-fiorina-paid-maternity-leave/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carly-fiorina-opposes-paid-maternity-leave-requirement_55c75afee4b0f1cbf1e549ae
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carly-fiorina-paid-leave_55ccec50e4b0898c4886de6e
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122511/carly-fiorina-dead-wrong-about-netflix-and-paid-parental-leave
http://fortune.com/2015/08/11/gillibrand-fiorina-paid-leave/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carly-fiorina/the-status-quo-isnt-working-for-women-in-america_b_7983718.html
http://static.politico.com/28/8a/9fd713d342aab969d87b6e2b11d3/mr-family-leave.pdf
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/219766-the-family-act-is-smart-politics-but-bad-for-the-economy
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122955/marco-rubios-paid-family-leave-plan-could-make-matters-worse
http://www.nber.org/digest/jun13/w18702.html
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/09/25/3705535/rubio-paid-family-leave/
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/06/20/3451378/new-jersey-paid-family-leave-business/
http://www.dol.gov/wb/PaidLeave/PaidLeave.htm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/20/text-president-obamas-2015-state-union-address/?page=5
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-01-21/state-union-kicked-obamas-paid-maternity-leave-push
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/leave_report_final.pdfhttp://www.businessinsider.com/generous-parental-leave-policies-in-america-2015-8
http://makeitworkcampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/MIW-SOTU-Poll-Memo.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/01/21/voters-want-paid-leave-paid-sick-days-poll-shows-obama-too-will-congress-oblige/
http://makeitworkcampaign.org/
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/253303-clinton-sheds-light-on-paid-leave-plan
https://berniesanders.com/issues/fighting-for-womens-rights/
http://www.newsweek.com/argument-against-paid-family-leave-78741
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—dgreports/—dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_242617.pdf
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/d-c-residents-may-guaranteed-16-weeks-paid-family-leave/
Image Source: http://www.jerseysnflnba.com/index.php?utm_source=www.cunningbailey.com&utm_medium=brand.jerseys.00.1&utm_campaign=11-20
