I’m surprised you didn’t highlight American Express in this article. They offer all parents (moms and dads) 20 weeks of full pay parental leave. It’s quite extraordinary.
1
Every time an article like this comes out, the "childfree" arrive in force whining "but it's not fair to us nonprocreators!"
Newsflash: the birth rate among educated people in developed countries is quite low. Raising children effectively is incredibly expensive and time-consuming, and someone has to do it. If you choose to enjoy yourself rather than contributing to society in this regard, the least you can do is offer a little support to those of us who do.
"Choose to enjoy yourself"?!? We "childfree" end up working 60-80 hour weeks to cover you parents, who all return from your leave barely putting in 30-40 hours a week - coming in late and leaving early, 'working from home' because Cody has the sniffles, etc. etc.
As a childfree worker, I have ZERO problem with new parents receiving paid time off. I simply believe those of us who choose to not contribute to global overpopulation and all its environmental impacts deserve the SAME paid time off as you who choose to have offspring.
1
I support this trend and think it is great. I have seen the difficulty of new mothers trying to work or leave the work force and it is bad for them and their children. But, there is another aspect to this childcare. Large companies could either subsidize or contract for child care centers for their employees. This has a huge effect on working families and would cement them even more firmly to their corporate overlords (that was snide, but true). A childcare center near or in-house would be a huge advantage for these companies.
1
Did I read this correctly? Does Lowes really not give ANY family leave? Hear that Canada? Shop at Home Depot (despite their pathetic leave policies) not Lowes!
2
So - help me to understand - as a single person - why are we celebrating benefits that are not available to everyone - and often distinctly burden the folks who have chosen not to procreate?
5
Because if EVERY Mother was provided paid Maternity leave to better care for herself and her new born...then, in a generation, EVERY American alive working would have benefited from that Universal offering to Mothers (that every Country except America , Somalia and Papua New Guinea do not provide)
SteveRR...you were born and cared by your Mother...EVERYBODY benefits from this provision to all Mothers and their Newborn once it becomes a universal provision as it does elsewhere.
Do you understand now?
Loomy: respectfully, I believe you're the one who did not understand SteveRR's question.
Why don't single people get to have similar paid time off (PTO) benefits?
What if I wanted/needed to take 4 weeks off to care for a sick relative? or 6 weeks off to volunteer tutoring children? Or 8 weeks off to work on a non-job-related social problem, or creative effort?
Does volunteering with multiple kids have less social utility than birthing and raising your own newborn baby?
And why is family (e.g. caretaker for elderly parent) leave for a single childless worker any less important than parental leave for a worker who voluntarily chose to have kids?
I'm not saying that my breeder co-workers do not deserve their parental PTO. All I'm saying is I deserve the same benefit.
Bottom-line: you do not deserve extra, special benefits over your co-workers just because you happened to have sex that lead to pregnancy.
Do you understand now?
1
You completely overlooked Microsoft. They not only have a generous parental leave for both mothers and fathers, they now have caregiver leave for employees who are looking after family members who are sick or dying.
5
We also need to remember that after years of unchecked corporate wealth, it is in the best interest of these companies to start offering benefits. Otherwise movements such as the "Fight for 15" and unions will only grow, those threaten the bottom line more than family leave benefits. It's in a forward looking companies best interest to at least offer their employee's something.
1
Paid parental leave should be offered to not only mothers but fathers as well. It is important for the father to be a part of their child's first couple weeks of life and be able to help take care of them. Mothers shouldn't be the ones who have to constantly take care of the baby because the father cannot get time off, it is not fair to the mothers. It is obvious the mother needs time off because of breast feeding etc, but what is forgotten sometimes is that the father should get time off too.
2
Huzzah! This is capitalism at work. Good ideas do not require force (unlike Obamacare, Trump's tariffs, Dodd-Frank).
1
Disagree, Prof. This is the result of a possible future limitation on unbridled immigration wherein workers are no longer forced to struggle against each other by ruthless capitalists who have played and preyed on too many workers flooding the market. Soon wages will rise and even more workers benefits and rights will blossom. Scarcity and demand will raise everyone's pay and worth. When you control the supply, you control the market.
1
First off, this has got to apply to the father as well. Parenting is a function of society.
It's remarkable that employers are attempting to be fair to reproductive class workers they are woefully remiss and acting with discriminaiton to those past this age group.
There is a world of ability out there easily tapped at probably a lower overall cost. But for the time being its not news worthy.
3
Great to see Walmart focused on its talent brand in myriad ways in recent years with enhanced education opportunities for associates; additional benefits; and lifts to wages. What I most appreciate are the comments made by the senior director, Gayatri Agnew, featured in this article from the Walmart Foundation. She says the fact that she had benefits that associates in the stores did not kept her up at night, and empowered her to push for the policy. We need more stories about key leaders prompted by the advantages they have to do more for others who don't! Kudos.
2
This is a tremendous step forward for American Labor and it, I am loathe to say it, stems from a supply side economic stimulus. Maybe there is some value to supply side economics. Even a broken clock tells the time right twice a day...
1
No, it does not have to do with supply side economics. It has to do with supply and demand for labor. Many of these companies employ large numbers of young people who are having children, and they are hard to replace. How to keep them? Give them more benefits. Supply side has to do with fantasy, not reality.
Paid parental leave should be a right not a privilege. Offering paid leave prevents both maternal and infant mortality, and the return on investment of offering paid leave is abundantly clear, both in terms of employee/child health and retention.
This shouldn't be a debate anymore, yet unfortunately in a America we tend not to invest in programs that benefit our health and economy in the long-term, and instead prioritize saving a dollar in the short-term.
Glad to see companies are opening their eyes and starting to invest in the health of their employees. It will benefit us all.
This shouldn't be a debate anymore, yet unfortunately in a America we tend not to invest in programs that benefit our health and economy in the long-term, and instead prioritize saving a dollar in the short-term.
Glad to see companies are opening their eyes and starting to invest in the health of their employees. It will benefit us all.
6
Looks great another victory will be declared for Trump's Tax Cut. But note the benefits are for Full Time workers only. Will the corporation reduce the hours of employees to avoid paying these benefits?
The dirty little secret about family leave: when a woman goes on maternity leave, it's usually single women in the office who perform her job for 6 months while mom is on paid maternity leave. Then when mom comes back, she's working 8-4 and it's single women picking up the work that needs to get done because mom has left for the day. I've seen it. It never happens that men pick up the slack. And when he leaves early to go to coach his son's team everyone says, "awww, what a good Dad he is". Let's be clear that we are making it easier to create more families on an overcrowded planet. I love kids and am not anti-family but please don't expect me to work twice as hard to support your family.
19
Agreed. As someone who chose not to procreate, I have seen this phenomenon for decades. I'm fine supporting coworkers as long as they support me if I need to attend to aging, frail parents or an ill companion animal. It's vital that employers ensure that the work is distributed evenly among coworkers, males included, and that nontraditional families are supported in receiveing adequate "family leave" time as well as the procreators otherwise resentment will kill the good these policies bring.
9
The other dirty little secret is that those same married women form cliques and make fun of single women.
1
20/12 for full time and part time employees needs to be a guaranteed minimum for corporations. We also need Fed backed leaves for small businesses. And we need benefits packages that cover: paid sick leave, vacation time, and providing care to elderly parents, disabled, etc. Time’s Up
3
small businesses can't afford this sort of luxury (and, yes, it is a luxury)...also, a few writers mention the unfairness of paid time off only for those having a child...how about a month or two sabbatical for all (save yours if you're planning on having kids)...or, paying everyone a descent wage, then one can save to take a few unpaid weeks off to have a child, or do with what ever you want if you do not have a child...
6
The last paragraph, regarding union discrepancies, is just shameful. What happened to “all workers right” ? A more thorough analysis of the unions non-existent efforts in NYC, other than the Teachers’, is absolutely needed and may inspire a younger generation to rekindle the unions.
In civilized countries this kind of thing isn't left up to the generosity of profit-seeking enterprises; it's provided by the state.
6
I'm glad to see progress on parental leave (my own employer offers fully paid 12 weeks, but only 1 paid week for the other parent), but we also need to remember elder care. A lot of people are dropping out of the labor force to provide care for parents. I don't think paid leave is the answer there, as the need for care can be prolonged, but things like better access to home care, better regulations of the home health industry, and nursing homes that meet higher standards. All of this requires money of course but we are cutting taxes.
11
Excellent suggestions. And yes, these top 20 employers surely have the money, even before their tax windfall, to provide these benefits.
3
It is about time. Now add in sick leave. It is better to have a mandated policy since a voluntary policy may be recinded at any time. It is interesting that the common arguments that companies cannot afford it (i.e. minumum wage) do not appear here. The reality is companies can afford it, but they make up excuses and choose not to pay their workers more.
8
In other words employers care only when forced to. Another reason why workers need some way to speak with one voice without having their jobs threatened. Unions can do this if they are properly run. While many view unions as interested solely in taking money from employees or stirring up trouble the truth is that unions and management want the same things: a prosperous company, well trained and hard working employees, a happy and productive workforce, and more. Workers who are well paid are less likely to leave. Workers who feel respected and well treated are less likely to leave as well. It's too bad that many American companies refuse to treat their workers well unless those workers are upper management.
Parental leave, sick leave, and a decent amount of vacation time (more than 10 days) ought to be part of every benefits package whether the employee is a line worker or management. We all need to be able to have lives outside of work. For some that includes starting a family or helping to care for elderly parents.
5
I think any maternal leave less than a year is nothing to be honest. It's nothing compared to European standards right? But then again if the other parent earns enough to cover for both for a while you may not need leave at all. For large companies it makes sense to offer leaves in the benefits package since many are already underpaid anyways. But for small companies with middle or high income earners this might hurt productivity. How are they going to pay for the worker that's not there but still keep the same productivity and revenue? It gives burden on employees not on leave unless they hire temps to cover for those on leave. So there may be more markets for temporary workers without any benefits and low wages to do the work of high or middle workers. But who wants to be a temp worker? Oh right, immigrants! They can work for less on a limited contract! So we need to give more visas to foreign workers so Americans can have more relaxing time giving birth and increasing the American population? And that's how we bring more immigrants the legal way and they will have kids so we will have more global representation in America. If we are not xenophobic we can do this. But since we are, hahahaha good luck hiring anyone while offering minimum wage without any benefits to replace workers while they're on leave.
1
It's really easy to look at the Walmarts, Facebooks or McDonald's of the world for their policies, but what about the millions of people that do not work for one of these companies.
What about the companies with 50-100 employees, that aren't necessarily owner-operated small businesses, but are not massive corporate entities either. These are the companies where losing a few employees is a bigger burden. They also may not fall under the same laws requiring leave. Are their employees out of luck?
New York just passed a state wide paid parental leave act that covers a good percentage of pay for a certain number of weeks that most employees pay a very small amount into from their paychecks. It tops out at a certain pay amount, well below what many professionals might make, but probably also helps cover the people that work for these small businesses.
11
Way to go, Lowes! Shows how much you value your employees --and suggests you'd just as soon not have any women in your workforce. I'll remember next time I go shopping for home stuff.
1
You do realize that every cent of employing them comes out of YOUR pocket, don't you?
4
For low-wage workers especially, this is a good example of when unionization could help.
6
Preferencing parents over other workers is unfair. Younger workers need maternity leave, but older workers may need leave to care for sick children or elderly parents! It should not be tied to any one medical condition, but be like the FMLA program -- only paid for as disability insurance. Most workers would happily pay a small amount -- maybe 1/2% of income -- to get this benefit.
BTW: there also needs to be OVERSIGHT. I've seen people horribly abuse sick leave, maternity leave, etc.
21
How do you "horribly" abuse maternity leave? Faking a pregnancy?
1
Are we supposed to consider any of these benefits as good enough? Think it's a perfect illustration that corporate America isn't going to care until they're forced.
3
The federal government does not provide maternity leave to its employees. Employees can use their accrued vacation time and sick leave, but you're lucky to accumulate paid leave for a couple of weeks.
6
The military provides maternity leave to its employees.
3
I really wish the benefits everyone is extending to women who chose to have children by employers would also extend to workers who have cancer or other serious illnesses, or whom are the caregivers for relatives. My employer wins prizes for giving unlmited time off with pay during pregnancy and up to 1 year off with pay after birth. They have lactation stations on each floor. However, if you have cancer, you have to burn all vacation and sick time, and have your pay cut after 32 days. Same thing if a parent,sibling,or other relative needs care after an accident,heart attack, etc. We have lost great male employees who were forced to choose between keeping a parent alive and their jobs.
27
Large companies DO NOT EMPLOY most Americans... So, these benefits are worthless to most of us... Sadly, it's women again who get the shaft; taking time out of the workforce to raise children, be caregivers for elderly parents/relatives w/o no compensation towards SS and SS is what most elderly women rely on as they age... Again, women are 2nd class citizens in this country, when will they wake up and realize? We need another 70-80's women's movement that THIS TIME will bring results!!!
12
Except for pregnancy, it's not fair to say "it's all women". I've seen men who were sole caregivers for elderly parents, and men who were widowed and had to care for small children. It's time to stop making it about gender & sex, and just say ALL HUMAN BEINGS need some kind of disability leave, for all kinds of serious reasons.
7
no compensation towards SS?....the likely scenario: when I die my wife will likely live another 20 years collecting my SS benefit...
2
Companies can do whatever they want, but these leave periods should not be government mandated. Do we really need to encouragement to have more people on the planet? Who does the work while the parent takes leave (hint: those choosing to not to have children pick up the slack). What about discrimination? Shouldn't everyone get the same amount of leave?
11
Once paid Maternity Leave is finally made Universal in the U.S.A (as it is in every other country on the planet except for 3 others), it won't be long before your concerns become redundant as every person employed (and everyone else, for that matter) would have benefitted as did their Mother from the help that paid Maternity Leave provided both.
No complaints then when every person alive received the same benefit at a crucially important time for themselves and their Mother through this benefit!
That is why, it is provided and offered by every country in the world regardless of religion, customs or wealth...except of course the only real exception...exceptionalist America.
4
You are part of the if I don't get my share, I hope everyone is hurt too. How sad. Caring for children is the right thing to do. They are your retirement plan and this country's future. A well-cared for child will grow up to be a productive adult. So, even if you do not have a baby, you benefit from such policies. We should mandate these polices otherwise it will be only vailable in the few large corporations. The same needs arise wherever you work. A uniform policy is fair and prevents a race to the bottom which we have been seeing for many years.
9
I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that the University of Georgia still does not provide a benefit that even fast food/big box businesses now deem necessary and desirable.
8
Retired workers, veterans, and all people living on fixed incomes from "the government" have steadily lost ground for decades due to decisions of Congress and the Federal Reserve Board.
1. Social Security retirees have had virtually NO cost of living increase for many years.
2. Congress has given themselves and federal employees generous cost of living raises almost every year.
3. The "cheap money," almost zero-interest policy of the Federal Reserve Board has cheapened the value of our US dollar, so each dollar has less purchasing power.
4. The "cheap money" policy of The Fed has contributed to large increases in housing prices, rents, drugs, doctors' fees, hospital bills, medical equipment and supplies, health insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.
5. The record-breaking stock market indices reflect the cheap dollar policy, not an increase in actual intrinsic value of the corporations themselves.
6. The "cheap money" policy is good for many businesses growth and expansion. Corporations pay current workers higher wages, further driving up housing, food and medical costs. Minimum-wage workers make 6 to 9 times more per hour than the $1.60/hour I earned at my first job after college. But Social Security retirees have NOT received similar increases in their monthly checks.
8
Thank you for mentioning "ZIRP" (zero interest rate policy) as it profoundly affects everything you mention -- it has spiked real estate prices and the stock market into another bubble just like in 2006-2007 -- probably with the same disastrous result eventually! -- by making it so people cannot save in the bank but must take risks in the market. This will not end well.
I have some modest savings as I am close to retirement, and I am earning 0.1% interest on this money in a money market fund -- low risk, given my age -- that is not a typo! ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT, while the bank can loan that money out at 9% for college loans or 30% on a credit card! how is this fair????
5
online savings accounts pay 1.5% now and rising.
1
many older people aren't familiar enough with the online world do do that (and may not trust it anyway)...
The American system of employment and its associated policies revolve around the idea of profitability and not "quality of life."
Even when these parent-friendly policies are in place, businesses simply see it as a means of keeping well-educated and hard-to-replace workers from leaving so, in most cases, they provide the bare minimum that other competitors are offering.
Hourly workers are easier cogs to replace so their benefits are abridged or don't even exist.
This country has been sick for a long time and only in the current economic environment has it become so obvious.
11
It has been obvious for a long time before now...it's hard not to notice the supposed richest country in the world that pays its workers so little and provides them with so few if any of the benefits other countries have provided their citizens and workers for decades.
Not too mention the cost and coverage for Health care and the many not covered as well as the many more at risk of Bankruptcy due to high medical costs despite even being insured!
This is the 2nd/3rd largest cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S and yet around the world especially in the developed world, is a cost and fear that none will ever face and so alien to most other societies...it is not even thought by many as a problem to even be thought about or to have as it has never been a consideration.
American Employees are decades behind other countries and the simple reason is mostly due to Business having been considered more important than People and profits before and above anybody/anything else and Politicians comply whilst betraying the majority who voted them into power and who represent more people by far and above than any corporation or interest group that gets their attention and action even at the cost of hurting the people they serve and who voted them in.
3
No one is discussing the consequences of family\parental leave time. Co-workers have to pick up the burden and the stress of extra work. The public will also experience delays: longer wait times, delayed shipments and everything from insurance forms, phone call returns, and appointments will slow down. In short service will deteriorate.
14
People are not robots. Maximum productivity should not be the only goal in how we structure policies affecting workers.
11
Jake, I guarantee that at some point in your work life, you will need
To
Take
Time
Off...either for your own health care need or to care for
A
Family member. I think you should take the higher road and pitch while this person is on leave because, sure enough, the time will
Come when you will need to be
Out.
12
If employers actually hired enough people, this would not be an issue.
But many US companies used the recession as an excuse to raise profits by paring their workforce -- and have kept wages and hiring low even as the economy recovered.
As a result, everyone is overloaded, and if one person is out, it becomes a crisis. Yes, having co-workers take leave can be inconvenient. But in a good organization there should be some slack and some redundancy, so that employees can be human beings who have lives.
14
I see comments about companies using temp workers or having employees work less than 32 hours a week to avoid full time status. The problem is that many of these millennials are mediocre workers and yes could be replaced by another equally unmotivated mediocre employee who spends their day looking at their cell phone.Not a great incentive to give this "stellar" employee 6 weeks off when s/he has a baby.
1) Way to unfairly paint millenials as "lazy", and "mediocre" 2) maybe the workers are unmotivated because they know the company doesn't give a hoot about them either? Invest in your employees, and they will invest in you.
8
If someone is mediocre or inferior at their job, they should be fired and replaced.
I am continually amazed that employers tolerate employees who are on their phones nearly all day. I see this all the time! I do not have a smart phone (just an old flip phone, for emergencies) but I see co-workers who are texting, yakking, checking social media -- everything BUT working -- gossiping, etc. and they do it in a sneaky way. I suspect some of the guys of looking at porn during work hours! the company just seems to shrug & tolerate it -- but the reality is that it is us workers who do not have smartphones doing 90% of the work and covering for the slackers
2
Clearly you are more knowledgeable and informed than all the brainpower running these companies. Perhaps send them a note about your wisdom so they can give up all this foolhardiness and just not hire anyone anymore, ever again...
1
For all the hand-wringing over "right to life" in this country, we do a particularly lousy job of making sure parents can actually take care of babies once they're born (especially when compared to other developed countries. Example: Norway). I hope this piece spurs encouragement of better family leave options for working parents-to-be.
29
Oh please already with NORWAY. Norway is like Saudi Arabia -- awash in unearned oil money that fell into their laps. Without that oil money, Norway is a poor country that exports sardines and not much else.
All those luxe Norwegian benefits come from OIL! when it runs out, they are screwed.
Here is a novel idea: how about parents take care of THEIR OWN BABIES -- married parents -- the child's real mother and real father, in a committed marriage BEFORE having kids! -- and then they can share working, or one can work while the other does child care!!!! (I have no problem with Dad's staying home, either.)
People mature enough to have kids, must be mature enough to plan in advance how they will handle the demands and costs of infant care.
I know people who would happily dump their kids in "free" government day care -- even if they had no jobs, and spent the day getting high or partying.
4
Please remember that paid family leave and parental leave are NOT the same thing. Where I work, parents get all kinds of extra paid goodies. But I have to use vacation time to take my 97 year old mother, who can't walk and has Alzheimer's, to a doctor's appointment, which never takes less than half a day.
54
Would you be able to use the FMLA in this situation without having to use your vacation time?
1
FMLA is without pay. That's the issue.
It's great for companies to tout parental leave, knowing full well that the average woman will give birth only 1-2 times. but almost everyone will face aging parents.
6
This is a start but without federally mandated leave policies, the rules are subject to individual companies' whims. Also, what about employees who need to take a leave for other reasons that are just as valid as childbirth? Caring for an ailing parent, illness, etc? When workers take leave, co-workers should not be stuck with picking up the slack. This only creates resentment in the workplace and is inherently unfair.
24
As a woman who is the breadwinner for my family -- I can tell you that the fact that paid leave is so limited -- even for salaried workers -- played into the decision my husband and I made not to have children. That child care is so expensive and limited is another.
Having said that -- while I understand that there is a need to bond with new children and that women need time to recover physically from giving birth -- I wish we would focus more on "family" leave and less on parental leave. Not everyone can become a parent, not everyone chooses to be a parent. But whether you have no children by circumstance or by choice -- most of us have other family members we must care for, in a literal way. They may be aging parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles; siblings with special needs, or spouses who become ill.
There are many reasons people may need to be away from work to care for family members, even if they do not have children. I get that any step forward is good, but until businesses accept that they need to have some "slack" in their work forces to accommodate parental leave, the policy is open to target by non-parents who are left doing extra work while parents are out. Having a policy that is more inclusive will help in getting it accepted.
50
Agreed! There needs to be some consideration to individuals in the workforce who are covering for others who choose to have children.
4
JM: if you are the primary breadwinner....why not have your husband stay home with the baby? There is no particular reason it has to be "mom". It could be either parent, or even a grandparent. Certainly wealthy people have always used nannies!
Sometimes people just do not want to have kids, and that is a valid life choice especially on a hot, crowded planet with 7.5 BILLION people. Not having a baby does more good for the environment than anything else you could do -- electric car, solar heat, recycling!
3
Excellent point. I don't have kids, but like many people, my burden was aging/dying parents.
2
Just like many other industries, the use of contract, temporary and not quite full time (32 hours a week) workers is rising to keep costs and benefits low for companies. However, as the data shows, the more likely you will be able to retain valuable and productive employees by providing benefits. Sadly for most workers, you are still an easily replaceable serf to be beaten until the morale improves.
21
I once applied for a job, and the interviewer told me "they got 300 applications for the job!' -- which paid less than $20,000! -- required college plus 5-10 years work experience -- and had no health insurance or other benefits (maternity leave?hahahahaha!)
The reality is that for most jobs, there are many applicants and every employer knows this. They know you are a replaceable widget, so why give you anything but the lowest pay and no benefits?
Please remember this, next time you get all weepy over illegal aliens or Dreamers. They are directly and provably stealing your jobs, and making it so employers do not have to raise wages or provide good benefits!
1
The reality is the most of the dreamers (median age 6 when they got here) are the products of the same educational system as us. You have no data showing they are stealing jobs and there is none nor any data showing they depress wages. For some jobs there are many applicants, but for the over 6 million unfilled jobs advertised, there are not enough and for those type of jobs, there will be incentive for employers to expand benefits. As to myself, I retired and still get calls 6 years later to see if I want to work and get offered even better pay and benefits. Perhaps your skill set is wanting.
It is essential that we keep pushing forward. Every little bit helps. It may be too slow for many but the added public awareness will drive it.
5
When is the US going to get with the program and require a full year of parental leave as is the norm in most industrialized countries? It's nice that more employers are voluntarily providing leave to their employees, but it's still not enough.
This country desperately needs more protections for its workers.
38
full year?...anything more than a few weeks is nonsense..
ALL workers,not just mothers...
3
It is not all countries -- it is not always for a year -- it varies quite a bit from place to place.
The really generous countries are tiny, all-white and have very very taxes compared to the US.
Many countries that do offer maternity leave, it is far less than one's salary and many women cannot AFFORD to take it all.
In other countries, the policies are so costly that employers will not hire women under 45 because of the potential of being "stuck" paying a salary for a non-existent worker who has take 36 months of maternity leave -- 3 babies -- 9 years off with pay! would you pay for that?
2
More and more companies are using temps for months and years at a time. They string the "temp" workers along by dangling the promise of a REAL jobs in front of them. When do these workers get some protections? When do these workers get family leave. Companies get away with it by calling these hourly temps "contractors." They're NOT contractors. They deserve the same protections and benefits as every other worker.
41
It is surprising to learn that the US is the only industrialized country that doesn't mandate parental leave. The people affected the most financially are the hourly employees due to the loss of or partial wages during the parental leave and the high cost of health care. How does a minimum wage employee cover the loss of or partial pay, health care expenses to meet their insurance deductible and the funds to cover the needs for the new child. Some of the larger organizations are moving in the right direction to make changes to their benefits while small organizations may not be able to do so.
2
Jill P: unlike Europe, the US does not have a low birth rate. We have a young population, where millennials now OUT NUMBER the vast baby boom generation of the post WWII era! that is amazing! we have all the babies we could ever need, with NO maternity leave.
Do you want maternity leave? single payer health care? a $15 minimum wage? well those things are INCOMPATIBLE with illegal immigration, DACA, the Dream Act, open borders and failure to deport illegals! You cannot have generous social policies AND 25 million illegal aliens -- it will simply never happen. If liberals want a European type of social democracy and safety net -- they must give up their idea of massive illegal immigration to affect demographics and voting. The two things are incompatible!