" ...they supported the idea of workers paying to earn the benefit."
Good old Republicans! No way America can afford to pay it's new Mothers and Newest Citizens a couple of months pay to get ready for a Lifetime of Work, possible Military Service and 4 or 5 decades of paying taxes to fund all the weapons and costs to wage war across the planet....
No free lunches for those Newborns and their Moms...This is America! We follow Somalia and Papua New Guinea in terms of Paid Maternity Leave...every other Country in the World is just wrong again....like they all are on Climate Change!
Which we stand apart from like Syria and Nicaragua do!
And we still have our two friends who like us, hold the fort against paying Moms and giving them some time to have a baby!
What's wrong with Everybody?
Good old Republicans! No way America can afford to pay it's new Mothers and Newest Citizens a couple of months pay to get ready for a Lifetime of Work, possible Military Service and 4 or 5 decades of paying taxes to fund all the weapons and costs to wage war across the planet....
No free lunches for those Newborns and their Moms...This is America! We follow Somalia and Papua New Guinea in terms of Paid Maternity Leave...every other Country in the World is just wrong again....like they all are on Climate Change!
Which we stand apart from like Syria and Nicaragua do!
And we still have our two friends who like us, hold the fort against paying Moms and giving them some time to have a baby!
What's wrong with Everybody?
What I dont understand is this thinking that because someone leaves for a short period to give Birth all the others left working suddenly have to come to terms with doing or sharing the new Mothers job among them?
For a start, if American businesses and the people who work in them saw and understood how the rest of the Planet manages to cope with this "shocking Imposition" put on them then they would understand what it means to be part of a Nation and Society and think like everybody else who doesn't and haven't even given it a moments thought!
Something is wrong with America if this is such a concern...most other businesses hire a new Employee to cover the absent Mother and if American Businesses can't think they can afford such....then they are going to collapse or go broke the next time it rains so precarious it sounds or seems so many of them think or say they are....isn't that why American businesses also don't increase the minimum wage and provide the Employee benefits all other businesses provide their Employees in the other Western Democracies?
Heck...you only give Employees 2 weeks leave a year and for many it's not even paid leave! Everybody else gets a minimum of 4 weeks paid leave a year plus public Holidays ...also paid...many get 5 or up to 7 weeks.
What is America doing so badly that it can't see iut can afford what everybody else can despite every other country not being as rich as America is ?
Something is very wrong guys and gals...
For a start, if American businesses and the people who work in them saw and understood how the rest of the Planet manages to cope with this "shocking Imposition" put on them then they would understand what it means to be part of a Nation and Society and think like everybody else who doesn't and haven't even given it a moments thought!
Something is wrong with America if this is such a concern...most other businesses hire a new Employee to cover the absent Mother and if American Businesses can't think they can afford such....then they are going to collapse or go broke the next time it rains so precarious it sounds or seems so many of them think or say they are....isn't that why American businesses also don't increase the minimum wage and provide the Employee benefits all other businesses provide their Employees in the other Western Democracies?
Heck...you only give Employees 2 weeks leave a year and for many it's not even paid leave! Everybody else gets a minimum of 4 weeks paid leave a year plus public Holidays ...also paid...many get 5 or up to 7 weeks.
What is America doing so badly that it can't see iut can afford what everybody else can despite every other country not being as rich as America is ?
Something is very wrong guys and gals...
2
Has anyone brought up the birth control /abortion issue with respect to this topic? It seems to me they go hand-in-hand. Without awareness of and affordable access to at least one of those, having children really isn't a 'choice'. Unless...we're saying our stance is that no citizen of the United States should have heterosexual intercourse--zero, never, not even once, not even for married couples on their wedding night--until they've saved up enough money to raise a child?
1
Perhaps a temporary pay raise could be built into the system for workers covering for those out on parental leave?? That might stem the resentment of the overburdened office workers left to do all the work. Build it into the system just like the paid leave compensation part. This would also require management to make a plan for how work shall be covered during the absence- who gets the temporary bonus pay and what exactly their coverage duties will be. Just trying to think outside the box here...some really bitter comments from the single and childless here, but they do have a point. I had 5 week of unpaid parental leave X 2 and do not recommend that for anyone. But something fair should be attempted...
2
Lots of comments here about the costs...and it being unfair to people who don't have kids.
Cry me a river.
I'm healthy, never go to the doctor. Is it fair that I am subsidizing my fat, lazy co-workers and their unhealthy habits like smoking, fast food and sedentary lifestyle. No - but since our employees provide coverage and we pay premiums based simply on plan level (3 to choose from) and total dependents it doesn't matter.
There is a whole lot of stuff I pay for that I don't necessarily use but that is part of being in a society.
Cry me a river.
I'm healthy, never go to the doctor. Is it fair that I am subsidizing my fat, lazy co-workers and their unhealthy habits like smoking, fast food and sedentary lifestyle. No - but since our employees provide coverage and we pay premiums based simply on plan level (3 to choose from) and total dependents it doesn't matter.
There is a whole lot of stuff I pay for that I don't necessarily use but that is part of being in a society.
7
Completely agree, and life can't be equitable all the time. I have a child and am fortunate enough to live in a country which does offer paid parental leave, and a very generous employer. What I saw was that me being out for a year actually created opportunities for other people - the person who was my cover managed to change industries (which she may not necessarily have been able to do if she had applied for a permanent role). We also interviewed a candidate who had been made redundant, and this was a way back into work (I'm happy to say we did offer the role, but he had already accepted another one). For other colleagues, it was a time where they could step up and take over some of my responsibilities, and demonstrate that they were ready to take on more. When I came back, I had a new perspective - I'd had a clean break and time away, and was able to look at many things and ask "why do we do that?".
Now, when I'm in the office, given that I have other responsibilities, I'm there to work, so I do so more efficiently in a shorter time. Studies have shown that the most efficient workers are mothers of at least two children.
For some reason, people can't see that the human race cannot continue to survive if people don't have children. There's also this weird mindset that work must come first. It's only a small part of life
Now, when I'm in the office, given that I have other responsibilities, I'm there to work, so I do so more efficiently in a shorter time. Studies have shown that the most efficient workers are mothers of at least two children.
For some reason, people can't see that the human race cannot continue to survive if people don't have children. There's also this weird mindset that work must come first. It's only a small part of life
3
Can you please cite the "studies" that show mothers of at least two children are most efficient in the workplace?
3
http://www.today.com/parents/moms-2-or-more-kids-are-more-productive-wor...
There are other sources about the same study as well.
There are other sources about the same study as well.
How about we stop paying people to have kids? Overpopulation isn't a good thing, and isn't doing the world any favors.
5
There are a lot of people that look at something like this and think:
- i don't have kids, why would this be good to have?
- why should be co-worker with kids get this where as i'm childless and i don't get it
- why should new parents be paid anything, they should pay themselves
The list goes on. But what we should really be asking is: What would be best for the country as a whole, for the new parents that struggle, and for society? And we can also be fair and ask: what burden will this cause us?
New parents are struggling, and this benefit would help many people, and it sounds like the cost of it would be such that it won't bankrupt businesses or people. ($2/week was quoted as one idea). Sure, that's $8/mo! But I need to remember that I already pay hundreds/thousands a month to taxes and SS, so this change is not a huge deal.
We need to stop thinking about this as "how does it help me", or "why should i help them" and instead think about "how does this help society". And yes, helping society should be a good thing.
- i don't have kids, why would this be good to have?
- why should be co-worker with kids get this where as i'm childless and i don't get it
- why should new parents be paid anything, they should pay themselves
The list goes on. But what we should really be asking is: What would be best for the country as a whole, for the new parents that struggle, and for society? And we can also be fair and ask: what burden will this cause us?
New parents are struggling, and this benefit would help many people, and it sounds like the cost of it would be such that it won't bankrupt businesses or people. ($2/week was quoted as one idea). Sure, that's $8/mo! But I need to remember that I already pay hundreds/thousands a month to taxes and SS, so this change is not a huge deal.
We need to stop thinking about this as "how does it help me", or "why should i help them" and instead think about "how does this help society". And yes, helping society should be a good thing.
8
Workers without kids should get a similar paid sabbatical every few years to even things out. And also extra pay when parents leave early to see their kids' games and recitals, and the kidless folks are left to do their own work and that of the absent parents.
3
jojojo12
Sure...as long as you reimburse us when you require interaction with any humans in your older years or god forbid, when you might need to attend to friends or family who require care.
I can tell you as a mom of three when I skip out to see a recital or a game I more than make up for it later on that evening. I'm not boxing widgets...using my brain. The three people on my team with kids are more productive than the one woman without them.
Sure...as long as you reimburse us when you require interaction with any humans in your older years or god forbid, when you might need to attend to friends or family who require care.
I can tell you as a mom of three when I skip out to see a recital or a game I more than make up for it later on that evening. I'm not boxing widgets...using my brain. The three people on my team with kids are more productive than the one woman without them.
1
Workers without kids don't need or have a claim to leave because they are not performing the function that earns the leave - raising kids. People who take parental leave are using it to take care of their children. This is not a fairness thing. It is a thing for people who have kids. Everything in life doesn't have to go to everyone.
To me, what separates Republicans from Democrats is that Republicans don't want anybody to have any benefits they themselves don't get ("Why should MY money pay for feeding poor people!" "I'm healthy, why should I pay for sick people!") and Democrats realize that we are all in this together and by having all of us contribute to the betterment of society, all of us are better off.
Which is why I find it ironic to end that all of a sudden these (New York Times readers, so supposedly Liberal) commentators are complaining that THEY don't have children and so why should THEY have to pay for OTHER people who do?
Not even talking about the importance of bonding/breastfeeding or having children without attachment issues from being separated from their parents too early, having a baby is seriously hard on your body and women should be able to PHYSICALLY recover as anyone would from any injury or illness without worrying that they will lose their job (single people, you know how hard it is to put food on your table, now imagine having another mouth to feed. Now imagine it with no job.)
Like healthcare, pretty much EVERY OTHER country on Earth has found a way to make this work. Single people, healthy people, rich people: count your blessings and stop griping when other people need your support.
Which is why I find it ironic to end that all of a sudden these (New York Times readers, so supposedly Liberal) commentators are complaining that THEY don't have children and so why should THEY have to pay for OTHER people who do?
Not even talking about the importance of bonding/breastfeeding or having children without attachment issues from being separated from their parents too early, having a baby is seriously hard on your body and women should be able to PHYSICALLY recover as anyone would from any injury or illness without worrying that they will lose their job (single people, you know how hard it is to put food on your table, now imagine having another mouth to feed. Now imagine it with no job.)
Like healthcare, pretty much EVERY OTHER country on Earth has found a way to make this work. Single people, healthy people, rich people: count your blessings and stop griping when other people need your support.
6
I'm single, and the daughter of elderly parents. I wholeheartedly support paid leave for new parents; however, I would like to see this benefit extended to caregivers, as well. This is basic fairness, not a gripe.
3
Good point, but where do we stop? We all have areas of our lives that are important to us. We'll all want paid time off to attend to those areas.
Personally, I think you have a better claim to time off than new parents. They largely choose whether to have kids, and their co-workers are left holding the bag at the office when they take time off, to have kids and later to attend their various events. We all have parents who may need our help.
Non-parents should get equivalent time off to do with as they need to, for caregiving, or whatever else needs they attention.
Personally, I think you have a better claim to time off than new parents. They largely choose whether to have kids, and their co-workers are left holding the bag at the office when they take time off, to have kids and later to attend their various events. We all have parents who may need our help.
Non-parents should get equivalent time off to do with as they need to, for caregiving, or whatever else needs they attention.
4
I think a lot of people look at parental leave the wrong way. Why should parents get leave when non-parents don't? Simple. Because everyone needs the future generations. If we make it so onerous to have children that most people stop reproducing, who will there be to care for us when we are old? How can we ever retire if there are no younger persons to do the work that we do? Who will spoon feed us and wipe our bums when we are elderly and decrepit if we don't instill a love of community and compassion for others into those just now being born? I favor parental leave because I want there to be plenty of kind, well-adjusted 30-somethings around to take care of me when I'm 80, and I have no intention of birthing them myself.
11
And as always, Republicans denigrate anything that benefits ordinary working people as an "entitlement," with all the negative connotations they've built into that word.
6
Look, why don't we just have decent social benefits for all Americans. Wages, actual vacations, parental leave, single payer health insurance, decent food and good schools, the whole nine yards. Why doesn't our feckless Congress go on trips to Northern Europe to just learn how the hell to do it and then DO IT, for God's sake! I'm getting sick and tired of the USA being at the rock bottom of the developed world!!! We are not world beaters when it come to maternal and infant health for instance and that is a disgrace. Dammit, my old Dad and all those dudes who fought like lions and lost their friends in the Pacific or Europe, they're rolling in their graves. American values used to mean something.
9
I am surprised how many people are looking at this from their own selfish points of view. Maybe I should not be surprised that many people see this as a handout rather than what it really is in the long run a benefit to all society. Giving mothers more time to be with their children and easing any perceived financial burdens on that is a good thing for society. We are talking about 8 weeks or 8+20. What a wonderful sight I see everyday with all the mothers and their carriages on my vacation in Czech Republic where leave is 3 years.
5
The Social Security account of the person taking leave could be used to pay the parent for their leave, up to the maximum monthly benefit, for period up to 12 weeks. The parent would withdraw the money from his/her account, then have the choice of either paying it back now and receiving more upon retirement, or receiving less at retirement by not paying it back. Maybe sweeten the paying back method by requiring the company to provide the dollar for dollar match using the FICA withholding tax until the debt is paid off.
The plan proposed in this article is really regressive - the proposal to pay higher income parents more, but tax everyone the same $2/week is unfair to lower income parents. Using the SS account method makes the recipient responsible, but also ties the employee to the employer using the matching contribution as a carrot to keep the employee for a period of time.
We've had young moms quit their (engineering) jobs right after receiving their paid leave. Naturally, the company switched to a contract so the parent would have to work for a period of time (1 year) - otherwise they have to payback the leave, unless it was a medical need.
The plan proposed in this article is really regressive - the proposal to pay higher income parents more, but tax everyone the same $2/week is unfair to lower income parents. Using the SS account method makes the recipient responsible, but also ties the employee to the employer using the matching contribution as a carrot to keep the employee for a period of time.
We've had young moms quit their (engineering) jobs right after receiving their paid leave. Naturally, the company switched to a contract so the parent would have to work for a period of time (1 year) - otherwise they have to payback the leave, unless it was a medical need.
2
Taking out benefits from SS will only weaken that program, and penalize people other than the new parents.
2
Social Security does not act as an "account" with your name on it, so you don't have benefits to withdraw now or replenish later. Your future benefits will be paid by the (now) children of the future when they are employed.
3
One thing I missed in the report (thanks for the link by the way) was the number of times a person would be eligible for parental leave. Is this available for baby number six as well as baby number two? If so, there might be concerns from other contributors to the funding of the program.
I compare this to the mortgage interest deduction that benefits owners of million dollar homes more than people who can only afford $100,000 homes. The median home price nationwide is about $245,000.
Whatever happens, it will be an improvement over the present.
I compare this to the mortgage interest deduction that benefits owners of million dollar homes more than people who can only afford $100,000 homes. The median home price nationwide is about $245,000.
Whatever happens, it will be an improvement over the present.
3
A stay at home mother gets $0 while any worker gets something. But what about equal pay for equal work?. As a commentator above said, the lawyer and the McDonald's worker should be paid the same.
I'll add that stay at home mothers should then be paid, and the same amount too!
I'll add that stay at home mothers should then be paid, and the same amount too!
2
I'm not sure why the stay at home mom should be paid. When did motherhood, and fatherhood for that matter, become a career rather than an obvious act to take care of one's progeny? Why does a person need to be paid to give their child food, to bathe them, to teach them, etc? Why has our society become something where parents need to be paid to take care of their kids? It doesn't make sense.
4
Someone already is paying the stay at home parent. A stay at home parent with no income is incapable of meeting their own living expenses. So someone else is paying for their rent, their car payment, their health insurance, their food, their clothing, etc. Just because the person who's paying is most likely the other person in the partnership does not mean that the stay at home parent is not getting paid. They are.
4
The rule applies to both mothers and fathers. I can see a situation where they both take the six weeks paid leave and at the end of the leave one of the parents doesn't know how to change a diaper.
Having children is not a necessity - it's a lifestyle choice. If you cannot afford them, just don't have them. Simple.
15
Why are we even considering this luxury benefit while the rest of the American safety net is being gutted? I'd rather have my tax dollars go to food for hungry kids. I live in Texas, which has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world. What kind of country is this that we allow poor people to go hungry and die while supporting Ivanka Trump's vanity project?
11
Somehow I'm sure that this is going to cost employers money.
2
Not really. It will be a redistribution, but difficult to detect. Whatever the cost is, it will be taken out of the pool for employee costs, and some will get more and everyone else will get less. If the pay increase pool was supposed to be 3%, it will be 2%.
Why should parents receive higher compensation at cost to non-parents?
15
Presumably for the same reason they get higher compensation in the form of higher contributions to their family health insurance. They are entitled.
1
I hear the complaints about the singles and the child-free. I'm sympathetic to that, because I often felt invisible to society. It is frustrating and infuriating.
Here's the thing though: The issue isn't the people who choose to have children. The issue is with the managers.
If I am your manager and you are having a baby, odds are you will be out on FMLA for 12 weeks. Tacking on 6 weeks of paid leave isn't going to change the fact that I need to re-distribute the workload of the existing team. I need a plan. This rule does not impact the fact that most managers don't have a plan. Expecting that we'll "figure it out" and having the team absorb the workload is not a plan.
If you are a good employee having a child, we want you healthy, we want you to feel you can take care of your child and we want you to COME BACK. It is costly to find and train good employees.
If you are a good employee NOT having a child, we want to support you, communicate expectations. listen to concerns, manage the workload and be very clear that we recognize that you are valuable.
All employees who are contributing deserve to feel supported as we figure out a way to move forward.
Here's the thing though: The issue isn't the people who choose to have children. The issue is with the managers.
If I am your manager and you are having a baby, odds are you will be out on FMLA for 12 weeks. Tacking on 6 weeks of paid leave isn't going to change the fact that I need to re-distribute the workload of the existing team. I need a plan. This rule does not impact the fact that most managers don't have a plan. Expecting that we'll "figure it out" and having the team absorb the workload is not a plan.
If you are a good employee having a child, we want you healthy, we want you to feel you can take care of your child and we want you to COME BACK. It is costly to find and train good employees.
If you are a good employee NOT having a child, we want to support you, communicate expectations. listen to concerns, manage the workload and be very clear that we recognize that you are valuable.
All employees who are contributing deserve to feel supported as we figure out a way to move forward.
18
You are jumping to conclusions if you think the six week paid leave is going to be tacked on to the FMLA 12 weeks. It will be six weeks paid and six weeks unpaid to guarantee you get your job back.
If you take 12 weeks FMLA, you are entitled to your job back, by law. The employers I've worked for have had a policy that if you took a longer leave, they would attempt to find you an equivalent position, and in some cases would make guarantees of an equivalent pay, but it depended upon the skill set of the employee as to whether they would necessarily be satisfied with the new job. Twelve weeks is about the maximum you can leave a position filled with temporary provisions.
If you take 12 weeks FMLA, you are entitled to your job back, by law. The employers I've worked for have had a policy that if you took a longer leave, they would attempt to find you an equivalent position, and in some cases would make guarantees of an equivalent pay, but it depended upon the skill set of the employee as to whether they would necessarily be satisfied with the new job. Twelve weeks is about the maximum you can leave a position filled with temporary provisions.
1
As someone who got married at 40 and never had children, I'm irked that my company just proudly announced that new parents (birth or adopted children) get 12 weeks paid leave. What about those with no children? I would have loved 12 weeks paid leave as my Mom was dying. I was thankful that I could take 4 hours of vacation a day to stay with her in ICU until she died 13 days later.
4
Exactly, Sunshine. I lost $11,000 on pay over my mom's last weeks, on unpaid leavw as she died of cancer in her 60s; those exact same weeks a coworker was out on paid maternity leave.
We should be supporting those experiencing involuntary misfortune, not those making voluntary lifestyle choices.
We should be supporting those experiencing involuntary misfortune, not those making voluntary lifestyle choices.
3
So let me get this straight. A female employee who has just had a baby will get 8 weeks of paid parental leave while her single co-worker who has a pre-existing medical condition will have to either be placed in an unaffordable high-risk pool or go without health insurance.
Also, does this paid parental leave policy apply to every time a parent has a child or just the first time? One of my classmates from high school has ten children so far (all single births), and she has been a full-time employee throughout all of her motherhood years. Ponder that a while.
Also, does this paid parental leave policy apply to every time a parent has a child or just the first time? One of my classmates from high school has ten children so far (all single births), and she has been a full-time employee throughout all of her motherhood years. Ponder that a while.
12
If the employer does not provide health insurance, then both of them will be looking for insurance in the exchange. Under the Republican plan, employers will still be required to provide the same benefits to each employee. They are not proposing any changes to ERISA. Under ObamaCare, the employer was obligated to offer affordable insurance to the employer, and to offer insurance to her children, but was not obligated to offer insurance to a spouse and was not obligated to subsidize the children's coverage.
1
I see a number of posts from people without children claiming this is unfair and that they deserve an equivalent leave policy. The point here is that our society is better off if we have mothers in the workforce. Mothers make up a large portion of our population and we need them to be represented in all areas of our economy. Many mothers choose not to work because it is too challenging to balance work and childcare when they don't have access to maternity leave and daycare. To convince them to stay in the workforce, we need to offer help in these areas. It's not about being fair to parents vs. non-parents, it's about offering an incentive to keep certain people in the workforce that would otherwise leave.
13
I agree with you. I would add that perhaps the law should have a provision that the maternity leave tax (as I'm sure it will be known by if it passes) is not applied to every worker right off the bat. Instead, it should be something the individual sets up with their boss/supervisor before or during pregnancy (maybe at 4 months at the latest since by then most women know if they are pregnant) so that they are taxed at an appropriate time with the appropriate payroll modifications set up in a timely manner. The tax should be a bit larger than one that is proposed to apply to everyone regardless of child status. This will also stop abuse of the system by those parents who wait until a month before birth and then tell their boss to minimize the taxes they pay. A birth certificate to prove the timeline should be appropriate and sufficient to confirm the worker's story. I think this may be the fairest system, though the best system would be a smaller tax applied to the appropriate general workforce. I understand employers would be worried about how to fill in jobs by the absent mothers and fathers, but since they would know almost 5 months in advance (with my suggestion) they can arrange to hire a temp or intern to handle the work. It's not ideal since they may need training, but I think it might open up avenues for younger workers to get experience since now they can't even rely on maternity to open up jobs for them.
Our society is better off if women have the option to participate in the workforce. It is not the case that society is better off if women are required or expected to participate in the workforce when they have children. We do not need to dictate life choices to women.
There is an advantage to society to helping people who are struggling and need a hand up. It is destructive to offer government benefits to those who do not need them.
There is an advantage to society to helping people who are struggling and need a hand up. It is destructive to offer government benefits to those who do not need them.
I would also add that if everyone just quit having children, as some of these posts seem to suggest, there will be no one to do the work or pay into the Social Security and Medicare funds when you are old. Childless people actually do benefit from other people's children. When you're 80, you will be grateful for that 30 year old nurse taking care of you. It would be really, really bad if we created a rule that says people who don't have children don't get to benefit from the labor of future generations. Single people aren't supporting the parents, they are supporting the children who will grow up to support them. That's how society works.
1
I agree that it is ludicrous that the US, as a developed country, still doesn't have a mandatory parental leave policy in place that is comparable to Scandinavia (for example). I am pretty sure mandatory parental leave would have passed during her first term if Hillary had been elected.
My main purpose in posting is to echo the sentiments of those who have made comments about workplace inequality. I am 33 and single (not by choice), and have been stuck picking up the slack of many parents over the past 10 years of my career. I don't get credit or overtime pay for it - it's just expected of me and other singles in the workplace, particularly women. I almost want to get married and have kids just so I can 1) use them as an excuse to leave work early to have more time to myself, and 2) get more respect in the professional world.
I wholeheartedly agree that single people should get as much time off as parents. This is unfair and places undue burden on those left in the office while parents take off at 2pm or 3pm to supposedly pick up their kids (or go to the gym? get a mani-pedi?).
I also wish society could either do away with wedding registries, or have it be socially acceptable for singles to have a registry for anything they wish to celebrate. I, for one, would really love to have people contribute to a fund to help me come up with a down payment for a home!
My main purpose in posting is to echo the sentiments of those who have made comments about workplace inequality. I am 33 and single (not by choice), and have been stuck picking up the slack of many parents over the past 10 years of my career. I don't get credit or overtime pay for it - it's just expected of me and other singles in the workplace, particularly women. I almost want to get married and have kids just so I can 1) use them as an excuse to leave work early to have more time to myself, and 2) get more respect in the professional world.
I wholeheartedly agree that single people should get as much time off as parents. This is unfair and places undue burden on those left in the office while parents take off at 2pm or 3pm to supposedly pick up their kids (or go to the gym? get a mani-pedi?).
I also wish society could either do away with wedding registries, or have it be socially acceptable for singles to have a registry for anything they wish to celebrate. I, for one, would really love to have people contribute to a fund to help me come up with a down payment for a home!
11
"I almost want to get married and have kids just so I can use them as an excuse to leave work early to have more time to myself"
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
If you think parental leave to spend a few months in the non-stop 24-hour cycle of caring for a newborn counts as "time off," you are seriously, tragically, mistaken. Having a child basically means you don't have any time to yourself any more. Like to read? You'll be reading picture books, about pooping. Gym? Notice that new parents tend to be badly out of shape? Mani-pedi? My wife literally hasn't had one in years, since before giving birth.
If you have a nanny or something like that then sure, parental leave is a wonderful luxury. But for 99.9% of working parents, parental leave means scratching by on deeply-reduced pay (even under these new plans) and deeply-reduced sleep, and then going back to work and having to leave an infant in day care before the baby can even physically hold up his or her head. The number of "luxurious" characteristics of this process is precisely zero.
You want some "me time?" Boo freakin' hoo. On the other hand, if single people want a subsidy to go out and devote 20-hour days to those in need - which is what we're talking about here - then sure, I support that.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
If you think parental leave to spend a few months in the non-stop 24-hour cycle of caring for a newborn counts as "time off," you are seriously, tragically, mistaken. Having a child basically means you don't have any time to yourself any more. Like to read? You'll be reading picture books, about pooping. Gym? Notice that new parents tend to be badly out of shape? Mani-pedi? My wife literally hasn't had one in years, since before giving birth.
If you have a nanny or something like that then sure, parental leave is a wonderful luxury. But for 99.9% of working parents, parental leave means scratching by on deeply-reduced pay (even under these new plans) and deeply-reduced sleep, and then going back to work and having to leave an infant in day care before the baby can even physically hold up his or her head. The number of "luxurious" characteristics of this process is precisely zero.
You want some "me time?" Boo freakin' hoo. On the other hand, if single people want a subsidy to go out and devote 20-hour days to those in need - which is what we're talking about here - then sure, I support that.
4
Wow, I want you to have kids so that you get to experience what it is like. Wonderful, joyous, but exhausting and time consuming. If you think that your co-workers with kids are leaving work to go to the gym or to get a manicure, you have pretty significant contempt for them and don't really understand.
I'm conflicted over this regulation especially in view of the fact this president purports to be dead against business regulations. Is Ivanka building up her resume for a run at the White House next election? God forbid and how hypocritical of the Trump co -presidents.
I don two hats and place myself in the shoes of the employer and I see nothing wrong with the current maternity leave which is mostly volunteer or union negotiated and then the other hat for the expectant mother and I reach the state of dilemma. Maybe the compromise is the standard maternity leave offering by most companies and then maybe a non paid extra two weeks on top of that would be a good generous. However, keep in mind it's not the duty of an employer to be party to your family planning and the decision makers probably were faced with the same predicament and coped. Lastly, does any future mother when accepting employment look at this feature and or condition of this problem? As for those you say they don't plan on having children I would question their reasoning as to why before I could think of sympathizing with their plight. As to the ones who feel they get burden with extra work in the absence of those on maternity leave you probably spent a lot of time at the water fountain as they say or taking many talking breaks throughout the day so I doubt you double up on the work load.
I don two hats and place myself in the shoes of the employer and I see nothing wrong with the current maternity leave which is mostly volunteer or union negotiated and then the other hat for the expectant mother and I reach the state of dilemma. Maybe the compromise is the standard maternity leave offering by most companies and then maybe a non paid extra two weeks on top of that would be a good generous. However, keep in mind it's not the duty of an employer to be party to your family planning and the decision makers probably were faced with the same predicament and coped. Lastly, does any future mother when accepting employment look at this feature and or condition of this problem? As for those you say they don't plan on having children I would question their reasoning as to why before I could think of sympathizing with their plight. As to the ones who feel they get burden with extra work in the absence of those on maternity leave you probably spent a lot of time at the water fountain as they say or taking many talking breaks throughout the day so I doubt you double up on the work load.
What's wrong with this picture? Someone with a lower paying job on maternity leave is paid less than someone with a job that pays a higher wage or salary. But they're both being paid for the same job during the time off, which is caring for a newborn. So we're paying a lawyer more to be with their newborn than a McDonald's worker, even though they're doing the same job during their leave? Count me out.
6
My recommendation is that everyone who has worked over a year or two is entitled to three eight week periods of paid time off at $260/week (roughly the national minimum wage, indexed for inflation) over their working lives [not taken consecutively, some required gap, like a year]. If their employer is voluntarily willing to accommodate them, it could be taken in increments of, say, half time of up to 16 weeks. Fund it thru federal unemployment tax or the disability program,
The worker can take eight week to care for a newborn or adopted child, a sick friend or family member, or take a cruise or six week adventure.
If a single parent McDonald's worker can get by on $260/month, why can't the lawyer, who has higher income from which to save up for an absence. If you burn through your three week absences when you are young, tough luck in the future.
But absolutely, whatever the stipend is, it has to be the same for everyone.
The worker can take eight week to care for a newborn or adopted child, a sick friend or family member, or take a cruise or six week adventure.
If a single parent McDonald's worker can get by on $260/month, why can't the lawyer, who has higher income from which to save up for an absence. If you burn through your three week absences when you are young, tough luck in the future.
But absolutely, whatever the stipend is, it has to be the same for everyone.
2
Do you have a problem with a lawyer getting paid more when they are out on vacation than a McDonald's worker? My guess is no. The lawyer contributes vastly more to social security & disability than the McDonald's worker. Bills don't stop when you are on maternity leave. The lawyer still has student loans and a mortgage and everything else to pay on top of medical bills for the new baby and adding the new baby to her insurance, which I can almost guarantee you has no subsidies other than whatever her employer might contribute.
No - we're just talking about subsidizing both to be able to continuing to pay their rent or mortgage, so that they can get through a difficult time without undue sacrifice and then return to being productive, consuming members of society. (Far more consuming, in fact - babies are GREAT for the economy.)
5 people out in my department on maternity leave, no one to replace them so 13 people's work being done by 8. Oh yeah, and if you want time off to care for elderly parent or sibling, no such thing. Only unpaid leave. Only fair to make the one type of leave taxable.
15
Actually, in California, the state offers six weeks of Paid Family Leave, which you can receive while taking up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave in a year with California Family Rights Act, for new parents, biological or adoptive, or for people who need to care for an ailing relative. However, y one's company and the employee both have to meet certain criteria (hours worked, length of employment, size of company) to receive the benefits, regardless of whether your taking it as a parent or caretaker. Companies that don't qualify for these benefits can have their own policies--or not. But if your company qualifies, they can't deny people leave to care for ailing parents, just like they couldn't deny people leave to take care of newborn children.
5
I think it is fine to tax those who have kids to pay for this. For those of us who have chosen not to have kids, we pay enough already for your kids - between property taxes to pay for schools, meal taxes to fund the new construction of schools and for the many extra hours we have to put in when our co-worker is caring for their sick kid. When these people take their 6-8 weeks off, paid leave, we will be the ones paying the price, putting in 60 hour weeks to do their work and ours.
26
You also benefit from the fact that another generation will continue society after you retire (hard to pay for anything when there's no one to support your social security, no one to buy your retirement investments, no one to pay taxes to build roads, no one to support what health care the government does provide). We all benefit from a stable society built with families, and we need the next generation. You're getting all the benefits of the continuation of the country without having to put in the hard work of actually raising that next generation.
23
Exactly right, Anita. And it continues for years, as parents leave early to go to games, recitals, etc for their kids.
10
Remember when you were growing up many taxpayers paid for your education, etc. It is good to give back.
4
This sounds like a good start in providing some paid parental leave. One additional feature that might be helpful would be to allow parents to split the time however they want (as some European countries do).
That would mean that if each parent gets eight weeks paid leave, one can essentially "give" some of their leave time to the other parent. For example, Dad could take two weeks of his paid leave, and donate the other six weeks to Mom, so she can stay home and nurse longer. That way, families can decide what works best for them.
That would mean that if each parent gets eight weeks paid leave, one can essentially "give" some of their leave time to the other parent. For example, Dad could take two weeks of his paid leave, and donate the other six weeks to Mom, so she can stay home and nurse longer. That way, families can decide what works best for them.
3
Fine if they work for the same employer, and the employer agrees. It is a hardship for an employer to give eight weeks off and 16 weeks is worse. If you want to make a provision that the employee has a job after 16 weeks but it is not necessarily the same job, employers could use the flexibility to fill the vacant position rather than force the rest of the group to pick up the slack.
1
What about single people? We pick up a lot of the work that parents don't do because they have children's games to attend, birthday parties, etc. We're the ones who stay in the office when a child is ill even we're ill as well. We're the ones who never get time off to care for ourselves or our parents or siblings if they need us. I'm happy to support parents and families but I'd like to be supported to. I'd like to know that when I'm ill or can't work or need to care for an elderly parent or a handicapped sibling that there's something there for me.
Everything in America assumes that we have families to help us out. That may have been the case in the mid 20th century but it's not now and it hasn't been for decades. I don't have second income coming in if I lose my job, become seriously ill and unable to work, have to help care for a parent. All I've got is me and I'm living in a country where programs that help people, any people, are being gutted while new ones don't help single adults at all. In fact, one could argue that single Americans are penalized severely for being single.
Everything in America assumes that we have families to help us out. That may have been the case in the mid 20th century but it's not now and it hasn't been for decades. I don't have second income coming in if I lose my job, become seriously ill and unable to work, have to help care for a parent. All I've got is me and I'm living in a country where programs that help people, any people, are being gutted while new ones don't help single adults at all. In fact, one could argue that single Americans are penalized severely for being single.
27
Yep. The plan presented does nothing for singles, or for folks who are married or in a committed relationship, but have no kids.
12
I agree that singles as well as married couples without children should have access to paid leave to care for a loved one, an elderly parent or for their own health care. I do think it is a good start to at least propose parental leave.
Contact your Congressman and give your feedback, that is if you think they will listen to you.
Contact your Congressman and give your feedback, that is if you think they will listen to you.
5
By all means, let's only have benefits that will necessarily benefit every single one of us and not some of us. I'm a millennial and will probably never be able to afford a house, but my taxes pay for tax breaks for homeowners. I'm a woman and will never get prostate cancer, but my insurance premiums pay for those who will. I've never been to Richmond but my state property taxes pay for their roads. And you know what? That's fine. It's called a society. And you live in one, too.
18
This, of course, doubly penalizes those with no kids.
First, they don't get similar paid time off.
Second, while the new parents are away, those without kids are still at the office, doing not only their own jobs, but also picking up the slack for the new parents. This of course continues, as mom and dad leave work early for little Johnny and Susie's soccer games and recitals, requiring those without kids to--year after year--do not only their own work, but others' as well.
Until those who can't--or choose not to--have kids get a similar sweetener (a 2-month paid sabbatical every 3 to 5 years, maybe?), then this is bogus.
First, they don't get similar paid time off.
Second, while the new parents are away, those without kids are still at the office, doing not only their own jobs, but also picking up the slack for the new parents. This of course continues, as mom and dad leave work early for little Johnny and Susie's soccer games and recitals, requiring those without kids to--year after year--do not only their own work, but others' as well.
Until those who can't--or choose not to--have kids get a similar sweetener (a 2-month paid sabbatical every 3 to 5 years, maybe?), then this is bogus.
24
I used to feel like you until I had kids. I can assure you that you are getting a much better deal than working parents. The work required to raise kids so that you have an economy and society to support you in the future is above and beyond the few extra hours, even weeks you might work at your job. At-home work is much harder than any job I've ever had. It's your choice to not have kids, but parents deserve some preferential treatment for doing the hard work that you won't do.
11
"parents deserve some preferential treatment for doing the hard work that you won't do. "
No they don't. All those reasons that you decided to have kids? You get the goodies there. I'd bet that providing the economy and society the bodies to support the elderly in the future isn't one of them. If it turned out not to be worth it the effort, i'm sorry that it didn't work out for you.
No they don't. All those reasons that you decided to have kids? You get the goodies there. I'd bet that providing the economy and society the bodies to support the elderly in the future isn't one of them. If it turned out not to be worth it the effort, i'm sorry that it didn't work out for you.
11
The reality is working parents are not taking time off from work to go to soccer games or school recitals. Working class parents are running to pick up their kids in daycare or after school programs before closing time. Most daycare will charge you per minute if you are late or kick you out if tardiness is a habit. Good luck finding one that is open an hour before and after normal working hours. I had one coworker who had to pay out $245 dollars because her boss asked her to work late. Her two kids were stuck at school for hours and she got charged per minute per child. Her boss was clueless that her kids were hungry, tired and stuck at school. There is a lot of discussion about you have a choice to have kids but life is messy. The reality for parents get a lot of judgement in the work place that we are not doing our part when in fact we are juggling the needs of more people with a shorter timeframe with fewer resources and support. We are under so much pressure, we have only so much time, and we do what we can to make it count. If we mess up the rest of society pays.
3
A few simple calculations . . . $600 divided by 0.7 means that people who make above about $42,800 per year are on their own after $30,000 in payments. The IRS might consider those people "high income," but the entire country knows that that's a joke.
4
Wow, eight whole weeks! How luxurious. That puts us roughly forty weeks behind most other industrialized countries. Parents' cups should runneth over.
16
Well businesses don't want to spoil their employees. Next thing you know they might demand to be paid in line with the work they do rather than what the job description says they do. Or they might start asking why the CEO, who may be not too competent, gets paid no matter how bad his/her decisions are for the company.
3
Ha ha ha! You are right even this paltry and very late suggestion is still causing half of single America to resent and disapprove of such unfair generosity!
What is wrong with People and how can the richest country in the world treat it's workers so badly that even the ex Communist countries under the Soviet Union until 1989 are giving its people longer paid leave, and all the benefits most richy western democracies have enjoyed for decades...but America is still in the dark ages...you guys are being robbed blind and should have all the perks most other countries take for granted and which you may never see or get....WHY?
What is wrong with People and how can the richest country in the world treat it's workers so badly that even the ex Communist countries under the Soviet Union until 1989 are giving its people longer paid leave, and all the benefits most richy western democracies have enjoyed for decades...but America is still in the dark ages...you guys are being robbed blind and should have all the perks most other countries take for granted and which you may never see or get....WHY?
1
When I had my son, I was able to cobble together their one month maternity leave with personal days and vacation to take 8 weeks. It was helpful to have that time, but what would truly help parents is daycare that is affordable and of high quality. At present, there is no nation-wide system to grade daycare centers, and so it is up to parents to make these decisions with little or no information. High quality daycare has been shown to be important to the cognitive development of children, especially poor children. If we really want to invest in our youth, quality daycare and after-school programs must be a priority, and have yet to be addressed in any meaningful way.
21
There are federal standards in place for nursing homes for the elderly and disabled and virtually all are certified by the federal government because Medicaid pays 60-70% of the $80,000 per year of cost per resident.
When abuses are found, it is because the local public health agency has inspected the facility, frequently as a result of a complaint by a family member or medical professional after a resident is treated at a hospital. Even with flagrant abuse, they remain in business because the federal government may fine them but continue to make the payments. In the rare cases where they go out of business, the owners sell the facility to a related party and they re-open under "new ownership."
If day care is to be regulated, it is far preferable for it to be by local and state governments. The paper audits and announced reviews of the federal government do not ensure safety or humane conditions. The federal government can draft recommendations and research best practices for day care and communicate same to the states and municipalities. It might save some administrative effort for the localities. But how can it possibly be a good idea for a federal bureaucrat in DC to be the regulator for daycare?
When abuses are found, it is because the local public health agency has inspected the facility, frequently as a result of a complaint by a family member or medical professional after a resident is treated at a hospital. Even with flagrant abuse, they remain in business because the federal government may fine them but continue to make the payments. In the rare cases where they go out of business, the owners sell the facility to a related party and they re-open under "new ownership."
If day care is to be regulated, it is far preferable for it to be by local and state governments. The paper audits and announced reviews of the federal government do not ensure safety or humane conditions. The federal government can draft recommendations and research best practices for day care and communicate same to the states and municipalities. It might save some administrative effort for the localities. But how can it possibly be a good idea for a federal bureaucrat in DC to be the regulator for daycare?
The policies we have in NY, NJ, CA and RI largely reflect the consensus plan presented in this article. In NJ, for example, the most an employee paid in 2015 was around $28 in additional taxes, and this gave them access to a 6-week, subsidized time off for family leave (new child, but also sickness in the family, elder care, etc). NY offers up to 12 weeks.
I am heartened that the plan includes both adoptive parents and new fathers in relative parity to new moms. New mothers should get additional time for physical recovery, but otherwise all should receive the same amount of time for care and bonding- as the author states, paternity leave has many benefits for children, women and men, with some evidence that providing extended leave benefits employers.
I am a business-school professor who also works with major corporations on expanding family-related policies for men and has written a book to help working dads better balance work and family (the working dad's survival guide). I see many employers stepping up to provide extended parental leaves.
Unfortunately, many companies can't afford or worn't pay for leave on their own- leaving too many working parents without support.
A federal policy would create a needed floor so that smaller businesses would not feel disadvantaged by being more generous than their competitors, and as a benchmark for larger employers to meet while they contemplate going above and beyond. This consensus plan seems quite appropriate to me.
I am heartened that the plan includes both adoptive parents and new fathers in relative parity to new moms. New mothers should get additional time for physical recovery, but otherwise all should receive the same amount of time for care and bonding- as the author states, paternity leave has many benefits for children, women and men, with some evidence that providing extended leave benefits employers.
I am a business-school professor who also works with major corporations on expanding family-related policies for men and has written a book to help working dads better balance work and family (the working dad's survival guide). I see many employers stepping up to provide extended parental leaves.
Unfortunately, many companies can't afford or worn't pay for leave on their own- leaving too many working parents without support.
A federal policy would create a needed floor so that smaller businesses would not feel disadvantaged by being more generous than their competitors, and as a benchmark for larger employers to meet while they contemplate going above and beyond. This consensus plan seems quite appropriate to me.
14
Lord, protect us from consultants who are paid to lobby for the people paying their fees. If this federal law were passed, the employers who are paying you would save $3600 per pregnancy for costs they are willing to pay to retain valued employees. They would avoid the "up to $28"/employee in taxes that the employer, not the worker is paying.
What is wrong with allowing the states that want to burden their employers with additional costs being permitted, as they are, to do so and leaving the federal government out?
There is no "needed floor" to guarantee a wealthy family twelve weeks of $600/week.
If the programs instituted in NY, CT, CA and RI are fabulous, other states will adopt them.
But you need to honestly admit that the big beneficiaries of the programs are going to be the large employers who employ highly paid, skilled employees and will get to avoid $3600 per pregnancy per parent. The minimum wage parents are not going to be better off with their measly $182/week. We should beef up the safety net for the poor rather than creating an entitlement program for people who do not need it.
News flash: employers will do whatever it takes to retain a valued employee. Profitable companies are happy to lobby for a $3600 per pregnancy tax break even if the taxpayer has to give poor women $1092. Yeah, and if the poor woman had to take a few days off to go to the doctor, she will be deemed to have not been a full time employee and not eligible.
What is wrong with allowing the states that want to burden their employers with additional costs being permitted, as they are, to do so and leaving the federal government out?
There is no "needed floor" to guarantee a wealthy family twelve weeks of $600/week.
If the programs instituted in NY, CT, CA and RI are fabulous, other states will adopt them.
But you need to honestly admit that the big beneficiaries of the programs are going to be the large employers who employ highly paid, skilled employees and will get to avoid $3600 per pregnancy per parent. The minimum wage parents are not going to be better off with their measly $182/week. We should beef up the safety net for the poor rather than creating an entitlement program for people who do not need it.
News flash: employers will do whatever it takes to retain a valued employee. Profitable companies are happy to lobby for a $3600 per pregnancy tax break even if the taxpayer has to give poor women $1092. Yeah, and if the poor woman had to take a few days off to go to the doctor, she will be deemed to have not been a full time employee and not eligible.
It's sad that so many Americans cannot take care of themselves. I wish it didn't have to be this way, but I suppose we have no other choice.
What's really sad is that so many Americans show no interest in caring for those among us who need our help. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is how I was raised in the 50's and 60's, and is what I taught my children.
That belief is a far cry from what the current administration preaches, which is more like "What's mine is mine, and what is yours should probably be mine."
Old fashioned greed has been replaced by its modern counterpart. It's not just about money anymore, the new greed includes power and happiness among its goals. Rich vs poor. The powerful vs the powerless. The happily satisfied vs the misery of powerless poverty.
We've forgotten the old adage that "a rising tide lifts all boats." In our haste to protect what we think is ours, we become ever more willing to steal what we can from others. What a sad commentary on the state of humanity today.
That belief is a far cry from what the current administration preaches, which is more like "What's mine is mine, and what is yours should probably be mine."
Old fashioned greed has been replaced by its modern counterpart. It's not just about money anymore, the new greed includes power and happiness among its goals. Rich vs poor. The powerful vs the powerless. The happily satisfied vs the misery of powerless poverty.
We've forgotten the old adage that "a rising tide lifts all boats." In our haste to protect what we think is ours, we become ever more willing to steal what we can from others. What a sad commentary on the state of humanity today.
16
Not ALL Humanity, Greg.
But America sure takes the cake.
In more ways than one!
But America sure takes the cake.
In more ways than one!
I see no need to give $600 per week for six weeks each to Ivanka and her husband if they were to have a new baby. I would have no problem with the government paying a poor woman and her husband $600/week for six weeks each and throwing in food stamps and WIC.
Ivanka has come up with a scheme that gives $600/week to a wealthy woman and $182 to a poor woman. Which is classic progressive philosophy. Take money from the taxpayers and redistribute it to the wealthy, throwing a few pennies to the poor.
Ivanka has come up with a scheme that gives $600/week to a wealthy woman and $182 to a poor woman. Which is classic progressive philosophy. Take money from the taxpayers and redistribute it to the wealthy, throwing a few pennies to the poor.
A reasonable plan. Now if only Congress were reasonable enough to pass it... please prove me wrong.
4
The reality is that a skilled female employee who has a baby gets paid for six weeks at 100% from sick leave, and has saved up two weeks of vacation from the previous year and adds it to two weeks from the current year and gets paid full salary for an additional four weeks. That's ten weeks at full pay, not $600 for six weeks. Under Ivanka's plan, the employer saves $3600 times two from what they would have paid anyway, and the minimum wage worker gets $182/week for six weeks.
If the federal government wants to encourage reproduction, let them pay any couple who has a baby, $600 per week for six weeks per parent. Extend it to people who have ailing parents or grandparents. Put an income and wealth qualification so that people who do not need it will not be eligible and back off any weeks for which the parent will be paid for sick or vacation time.
Do not create an open ended entitlement that the taxpayers have to fund for people who do not need it. It is an extremely bad idea.
If California and NY want to take a stab at it, let them. Let every state enact their own version. Employers will do what they have to do to retain desirable employees even absent local or state government action.