More

Paid Parental Leave Lacking In U.S.

Paid Parental Leave

DAVID CRARY   02/22/11 08:57 PM ET   AP

NEW YORK — Americans often take pride in ways their nation differs from others. But one distinction – lack of a nationwide policy of paid maternity leave – is cited in a new report as an embarrassment that could be redressed at low cost and without harm to employers

"Despite its enthusiasm about `family values,' the U.S. is decades behind other countries in ensuring the well-being of working families," said Janet Walsh, deputy director of the women's rights division of Human Rights Watch. "Being an outlier is nothing to be proud of in a case like this."

Human Rights Watch, based in New York, focuses most of its investigations on abuses abroad. But on Wednesday, with release of a report by Walsh on work/family policies in the U.S., it takes the relatively unusual step of critiquing a phenomenon affecting tens of millions of Americans.

The report, "Failing its Families," says at least 178 countries have national laws guaranteeing paid leave for new mothers, while the handful of exceptions include the U.S., Swaziland and Papua New Guinea. More than 50 nations, including most Western countries, also guarantee paid leave for new fathers.

Past efforts in Congress to enact a paid family leave law have floundered, drawing opposition from business lobbyists who say it would be a burden on employers.

Instead, there is the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act, which enables workers with new children or seriously ill family members to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. By excluding companies with fewer than 50 employees, it covers only about half the work force, and many who are covered cannot afford to take unpaid leave.

"Leaving paid leave to the whim of employers means millions of workers are left out, especially low-income workers who may need it most," said Walsh, citing federal estimates that only 10 percent of private-sector workers have paid family leave benefits.

With prospects for federal legislation considered dim for now, advocates of family-friendly workplace policies hope for progress at the state level and are looking closely at California and New Jersey, the only states that have paid-leave programs.

Both states have severe budget problems overall, but the leave programs – financed entirely through small payroll tax contributions by workers – are flourishing. Both offer six weeks of paid leave for workers taking time off to bond with a new child or to care for a seriously ill child, spouse or parent.

Human Rights Watch, which interviewed dozens of parents for its report, said lack of paid leave has numerous harmful consequences – fueling postpartum depression, causing mothers to give up breast-feeding early, forcing some families into debt or onto welfare.

Cathy Frazier of Mendota Heights, Minn., and her husband, Joe, believe that her severe bout of postpartum depression could have been avoided or at least eased if he had been able to take paid leave after the birth of their son six years ago.

The boy was born two months early, spent five weeks in the hospital, and remained in frail health after he went home. The couple said Cathy had to provide most of his care single-handedly while Joe was working long hours at a local public-access TV station.

"If Joe had been around, it would have been better," Cathy Frazier said in a telephone interview. "I might have gotten sick, but not like I was."

The depression was so severe that she was hospitalized for a week, and went into debt paying for therapy with a credit card because her insurance didn't cover it. Six years later, she said she still struggles with depression, taking medication and unsure about her prospects for accepting any job that would involve working outside her home.

Conversely, Jennifer Shankman of Malibu, Calif., was grateful to benefit from her state's paid leave program, which helped her take off a total of five months – three paid, two unpaid – after her son was born in September.

"It helped me to not feel as stressed," said Shankman, who's now back at work as a youth camp director. "It made a big difference mentally."

The Human Rights Watch report urges other states to emulate New Jersey and California by adopting paid leave programs. Any takers might get federal help – the Obama administration, in its recent budget proposal, proposed allocating $23 million to help states with startup costs for such initiatives.

One possible beneficiary could be Washington state. A paid leave measure was passed by lawmakers there in 2007, but never implemented due to lack of funding.

New Jersey's program started in July 2009 and its balance as of Dec. 31 was $39 million – robust enough so the state recently reduced workers' contribution by half. The maximum annual payment is now less than $18 instead of more than $35.

Through December, New Jersey had approved 44,972 claims – 91 percent of those filed – and paid out $105 million in benefits at an average of $471 a week.

California's program began in 2004 and is run by the State Disability Insurance plan, which collects 1.1 percent of pay from 13 million eligible workers. In 2009-10, the state paid out $469 million for 180,675 claims, with an average weekly benefit of $488.

In New Jersey, men make up about 12 percent of the parents seeking paid leave to bond with a new child. In California, men's share of the leave has risen from 17 percent to 26 percent since 2004.

In each state, some business leaders remain unenthusiastic, though there is no clamor to repeal the programs.

Michael Egenton, senior vice president of New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, said the impact had been relatively modest thus far. He attributed this to the recession and the desire of most workers to take paid leave only after conferring with their bosses to ensure the absence wouldn't be disruptive.

"With the tough economy, people are feeling, `I'm glad I have a job,'" he said. "We'll be interested in seeing where the program goes when the economy improves."

In California, Chamber of Commerce policy advocate Jennifer Barrera said the leave program – combined with other policies – "creates a significant administrative burden on employers, increases costs, and minimizes the ability of companies to expand hiring and create new jobs."

However, Eileen Appelbaum of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal Washington think tank, said she and a colleague reached a different conclusion in a recent survey of 235 California businesses. She said the vast majority of employers found the leave program had a positive or neutral effect on productivity, profitability, turnover and worker morale.

Appelbaum contended that business associations, rather than individual employers, were the main obstacle to paid-leave proposals in Congress and state legislatures.

"Employer associations in other countries help their companies be successful," she said. "In this country, employer associations largely exist to resist anything that might be good for workers."

In the European Union, paid parental leave varies from 14 weeks in Malta to 16 months in Sweden, which reserves at least two months of its leave exclusively for fathers. Most EU countries have maintained the provisions of their programs despite the recession.

Ellen Bravo of the Family Values at Work Consortium, a 15-state network working for family-friendly policies, said the bid to expand paid leave in the U.S. was hampered by the clout of corporate lobbyists and the relatively weak status of the labor movement.

"Family values often end at the workplace door," she said. "What we're fighting for isn't just modest – it's meager compared to what other countries have."

___

Online:

Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/

(This version CORRECTS spelling of last name for Eileen Appelbaum, not Applebaum.)

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTHY LIVING

NEW YORK — Americans often take pride in ways their nation differs from others. But one distinction – lack of a nationwide policy of paid maternity leave – is cited in a new report a...
NEW YORK — Americans often take pride in ways their nation differs from others. But one distinction – lack of a nationwide policy of paid maternity leave – is cited in a new report a...
Filed by Clay Chiles  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 42
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
10:59 AM on 02/24/2011
I am shocked at all the "anti-child" posts. I don't have children, but I still think that children should be a number 1 priority in society. People aren't going to stop having children, and who would want them to? (Should we all just grow so old we can't work, and then die of starvation or curable diseases because the farmers and doctors are too old to work as well?) As long as people are having children, those children need to be given the best care and education possible. I would rather pay more in taxes for healthy, safe, secure, well educated children than for corn subsidies, defense contractors, tax cuts for the rich and corporate welfare. Parental leave isn't vacation. It's an investment in the future of the our society. This selfish, me-first attitude that I'm reading in some of these comments is what is wrong with this country. People don't mind paying $100 a month for their HD cable, paying to nurture and raise an entire generation of human beings is out of the question.
12:13 PM on 02/24/2011
Well said! I also do not have children, but I would like to someday. I think that having a family is important both to develop my relationship with my husband and to develop society. I used to hear this all the time, "What if your child is the person who cures cancer?" It's crucial to the development of society for at least some people to have children.

I also would not mind paying more in taxes for our future generations are safe, happy, healthy, and well educated. It's more important to me than spending on "defense." When my husband and I decide to have kids (whether I'm actually giving birth or we adopt or whatever) I do not want to be hurt financially because I'm trying to do what's best for my family.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nicole Dixson
10:28 AM on 02/24/2011
It will never happen. There will just be more accusations of America becoming a "socialist" country.
11:00 AM on 02/24/2011
Whenever I hear those accusations I think "if only!"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sunnybunny
11:11 AM on 02/25/2011
I think people don't understand what socialist means. It has to do with money - thats it. In a socialist system no one gets rich. Most of us would be no worse off than we are now. The rich would not be rich and the destitute would not do without, but the majority of us would be about the same. Everyone would work, everyone would have a place to live, etc. Personally I couldn't care less if we were socialist, as I don't think it would change my situation much at all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SrAN
1st time proud pagan mom since May 16
03:37 PM on 02/23/2011
I am facing this issue right now, along with the outlook of being unemployed in April. I have a baby girl who is due May 24th. I want to be able to take at least 2 weeks in order to bond with her, I want to be able to breastfeed because I know that is what is best for her, but I also realize that what I want and what I need (money to pay the bills) are two totally different things. My husband and I just cannot afford to have me out of work for too long. I find this very disheartening because I think that mothers should be allowed this time with their children but we have so few choices that many times we have to put our children in the background in order to give them the things necessary to keep them alive and well.
01:28 PM on 02/23/2011
Another program to take money from me and give it to someone else.
02:42 PM on 02/23/2011
Typical (dare I say, American?) ignorance.

My maternity leave payments are made up of my OWN money. I pay into EI with every pay check for the last many, many years I've been working.
If you don't have 600 hours of work with your current job, you are not entitled to mat leave benefits.

Also, employers are required to accept returning mothers without loss of seniority or job level.
11:31 PM on 02/23/2011
Don't waste your time trying to explain to this i.d.iot.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marcus1
Trickledownscam
12:18 PM on 02/23/2011
Good luck. If Conservatives continue to dominate the politics of the land, it will be no time until women are barefoot in the kitchen. The reason Americans are behind every other industrialised nation on earth in all areas of social wealth like universal health care, maternity leave, drug plans, senior care , environment etc, etc.is because of backwards conservative ideology.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
drumz
Those little red panties they pass the test
01:29 PM on 02/23/2011
F&F Marcus! My thoughts exactly. They are destroying this once great country with their petty greed and backwards ideology.
08:08 PM on 02/23/2011
Could not agree more with you.
F&F
10:49 AM on 02/23/2011
It saddens me that U.S working class mothers are unable to stay home longer than 12 weeks.

I live in Canada...new mothers receive 12 weeks of maternity leave, combined with 37 weeks of parental leave - which the father can share.
That's a total of a full year, of paid leave. Granted, it is only a percentage of your income, but most families can manage. If you're lucky enough to work for a company that has a maternity "top up", it's even betterr.
We also receive a Child Care Tax Credit from the government - a monthly payment, usually around $100 to help pay for childcare when you return to work, or other necessities your baby needs.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:58 AM on 02/23/2011
We get tax credits here but many people don't save them to apply towards childcare. Frankly, I don't think there should be any tax credits for having children.
05:44 PM on 02/23/2011
I agree with you that there shouldn't be tax credits for having children. I also don't think that people should get more leave than they already get: not only is it impractical, but it's also a huge burden on companies. Having children is a choice. If you choose to have a child, you also choose the consequences.
05:18 PM on 02/23/2011
You can get around $3,600/year in tax credits for each kid you have. A single mom of three that I know through work told me she gets over $10k back each year. I know she makes less than I do, and I don't even pay that much in taxes, so she's essentially getting paid by the government for having children. The fact that I don't have children is a mix of choice and personal responsibility, and while I'm not anti-family, it gets under my skin that people who have kids automatically get money from the gov. (even if it's from being irresponsible!) and people like me who are responsible about birth control (or simply choose not to have children, or both!) get stuck paying more in taxes because of it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MsCanuck
Wife, Mother, New Democrat, Pro-Choice, Atheist
05:59 PM on 02/23/2011
Those children will be the taxpayers who will pay for your safety net when you're old and no longer working.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:06 AM on 02/23/2011
It would be ideal if companies provided a paid flex time for all employees. This could be used in whatever manner the employee chooses or needs, whether it's for a new child, to care for an injured or ailing family member or they want a sabbatical. By just doing a paid parental leave is too limiting and it also too pro-natalist, in my view.
10:27 AM on 02/23/2011
Agreed. Paid time off is pathetic across the board in this country, parental leave included ... but new parents aren't the only ones whose mental health and well-being should be a priority.
05:44 PM on 02/23/2011
Very strongly agree with you.
10:41 AM on 02/23/2011
There is something like that here in Canada. It's called Employment Insurance - Sick Leave.
It's a maximum of 15 weeks. If your employer offers STD, you can combine it with that as well.
10:04 AM on 02/23/2011
At a loss as to why any regular, middle-class citizens would have a child these days.
05:49 PM on 02/25/2011
I have wanted to be a mother my whole life, and will likely never live out that dream. It's really hard for me to type that, but it's true. I am 25 with a husband and a degree, but it's not enough; we're barely making it just the two of us, let alone adding a baby to care for.

With the student loans we took out (all the while being told it was a solid "investment" in our futures) coming back to haunt us with huge payments that will be around until we're 61 and 63, having a baby has become a pipe dream for us. It just doesn't make sense, no matter how badly we want it. And that's a really sad thing in a country that is supposed to give us the opportunity for the American Dream.

Maybe wall street's American dream, but mine of a baby and maybe a dog and a small yard someday are just too expensive or outrageous for our system.
07:58 AM on 02/26/2011
I'm slowly realizing the same thing, and have seriously began to consider moving to a different country. I can't live my life here.
05:55 PM on 02/25/2011
In any case, what i really came here to say was that neither do I. It's sad but true.