Pro-Family

According to Dana Goldstein, "a study from Harvard University last year found that of 168 nations worldwide, the United States is one of only four whose government doesn't require employers to provide paid maternity leave." That's shocking stuff, especially considering the way the country spent 2003-2006 under the unrestrained rule of the country's pro-family political party. It's almost as if all that talk about religion and children is just a mask for an agenda of ruthless corporate exploitation leavened by the occasional dose of anti-gay hysteria and they don't really care about American families at all!

One hopes Democrats could get on this case. One disappointment of Barack Obama's presidential campaign thus far has been that I would have expected someone with Karen Kornbluh on his team to have something exciting to say about work-family balance issues, but he hasn't really distinguished himself on that front at all.

Comments

One might think that Obama's just waiting for the General, since one might think that such a platform would be wildly popular if people were actually paying attention.

Posted by Jim D | March 27, 2008 4:36 PM

Can this really be true, that only "Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland" join the U.S. in not mandating paid maternity leave? Am I the only one who finds it hard to believe?

Posted by Fred | March 27, 2008 4:38 PM

If society thinks that paid maternity leave is important, society should provide -- in other words, when you're on maternity leave, you get a check from the government that's equal to 50% or 75% or even 100% of what you make when you work full-time. That way, the cost is spread across society, rather than being borne solely by the businesses that employ pregnant women. You could even fund this solely through payroll taxes, or taxes on businesses -- then, the cost would be borne by all employers, rather than those who happen to have a pregnant worker. The idea of forcing the employer to pay someone while they're not working makes it a *punishment* for employing pregnant women. That's bizzare. It would be a horrible burden for a business with, say, 10 employees. It would also probably result in companies finding excuses not to hire women who might have kids.

Posted by too many steves | March 27, 2008 4:45 PM

but paying for maternity leave would only encourage women to be in the workplace which would erode traditional family values... we cant have that...

Posted by yep | March 27, 2008 4:47 PM

but paying for maternity leave would only encourage women to be in the workplace which would erode traditional family values... we cant have that...

Posted by yep | March 27, 2008 4:47 PM

but paying for maternity leave would only encourage women to be in the workplace which would erode traditional family values... we cant have that...

Posted by yep | March 27, 2008 4:47 PM

How about paid paternity leave while we're at it?

Posted by Sandy | March 27, 2008 4:47 PM

sorry for multiple posts above

too many steves : that is exactly what California does - State Disability Insurance take the first few months.

Posted by yep | March 27, 2008 4:51 PM

The problem is, if you put the burden of maternity leave solely on the business owner, they will just be less apt to higher women of a certain age. Too Many Steves has the right idea.

Posted by Ted2 | March 27, 2008 4:54 PM

Am I the only one who finds it hard to believe?

Why? You're sure there must be somewhere out there that's as stingy as the US in expecting women to go back to work after they've given birth?

(Here's a list of 120 countries from 1998, courtesy of the ILO.)

Whether the mandates are enforced is another issue. Iraq, for instance, has six months' paid maternity leave under the new government, and women can opt for another six months of unpaid leave, but I suspect that employer enforcement's a low priority.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 27, 2008 5:02 PM

Yep has the right idea as to why the family-friendly party is not keen on this kind of policy. I think of them more as the patriarchy party -- families are great if there's a working man at the head of it. I think Too Many Steves makes a good point, too.

Posted by BarryG | March 27, 2008 5:13 PM

Every time I've seen Michelle Obama asked what kind of First Lady she'd like to be, and what issues she'd like to champion, she talks about work/life balance issues. I expect if it doesn't come up in the general, it'll still come up in his administration.

It's not an easy issue in a country where the argument against a living minimum wage and its impact on small business has so much traction. I think pushing for (more) universal health care and family benefits at the same time in the campaign season would a tall order to sell.

Posted by RLS | March 27, 2008 5:14 PM

As a Canadian, I don't know what I find more shocking about American maternity leave - that there's *no* paid maternity leave, or that even the unpaid maternity leave is only 12 weeks.

(In Canada I think you get 52 weeks of leave, with unemployment insurance benefits, which are ~60%.)

Posted by McKingford | March 27, 2008 5:23 PM

Work/life balance issues become important when you have work to begin with. Far too many people are underemployed, in jobs with stagnant wages, no healthcare coverage to be worrying about maternity/paternity leave (which probably affects only 5% of a worker's lifetime of work)

Posted by CParis | March 27, 2008 5:35 PM

As a Canadian, I don't know what I find more shocking about American maternity leave - that there's *no* paid maternity leave, or that even the unpaid maternity leave is only 12 weeks.

As an American, I find it shocking that there are Canadians stupid enough to write such drivel.

The fact that the government doesn't mandate paid maternity leave, McKingford, obviously doesn't mean that "there's *no* paid maternity leave" in existence in the United States. Lots of employers offer this benefit, and sometimes it is quite generous.

Posted by Pussycatdoll | March 27, 2008 5:38 PM

Pussycatdoll, you are a prick. Everyone knew what he meant, even you.

Posted by Gary Sugar | March 27, 2008 5:41 PM

Am I the only one who finds it hard to believe?

No Fred, you are not alone this time.

East Timor, Suriname, DR Congo all have paid maternity leave?

How many of these countries make it a crime for women to work?

I'm all for paid maturity leave but very skeptical of the suggestion that only 4 nations don't have it.

Posted by Don | March 27, 2008 5:49 PM

I've always felt that "family values" was a campaign slogan and not an actual policy. Actions speak louder than words.

Posted by freddiemac | March 27, 2008 6:00 PM

Having children is a choice. A choice the person making the choice should pay for.

Might as well give me paid "Football season leave".

Posted by Adam Herman | March 27, 2008 6:17 PM

re: Can this really be true, that only "Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland" join the U.S. in not mandating paid maternity leave? Am I the only one who finds it hard to believe?

Since there are about 25 nations left out of the list (there are 193 soveriegn nations, I think, not 168) it's quite possible there are some others as well.

Re: families are great if there's a working man at the head of it.

I don't think the GOP is too friendly to father-headed families either. They're pretty much opposed to all and any pro-family legislation that involves spending money or inconveniencing the oligarch wannas-be of the Small Business Federation, rather than bashing gays or censing the shrines of St James the Dobson.

Re: Far too many people are underemployed, in jobs with stagnant wages, no healthcare coverage to be worrying about maternity/paternity leave

True, but this one is low-hanging fruit, relatively easy to solve. And reform here would benefit women in low wage jobs too.

Re: How many of these countries make it a crime for women to work?

I smell a red herring. Does any country make it a crime for women to work? Even Afghanistan under the Taliban allowed some women to work, in very limited, traditional jobs.

Posted by JonF | March 27, 2008 6:20 PM

re: Can this really be true, that only "Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland" join the U.S. in not mandating paid maternity leave? Am I the only one who finds it hard to believe?

Since there are about 25 nations left out of the list (there are 193 soveriegn nations, I think, not 168) it's quite possible there are some others as well.

Re: families are great if there's a working man at the head of it.

I don't think the GOP is too friendly to father-headed families either. They're pretty much opposed to all and any pro-family legislation that involves spending money or inconveniencing the oligarch wannas-be of the Small Business Federation, rather than bashing gays or censing the shrines of St James the Dobson.

Re: Far too many people are underemployed, in jobs with stagnant wages, no healthcare coverage to be worrying about maternity/paternity leave

True, but this one is low-hanging fruit, relatively easy to solve. And reform here would benefit women in low wage jobs too.

Re: How many of these countries make it a crime for women to work?

I smell a red herring. Does any country make it a crime for women to work? Even Afghanistan under the Taliban allowed some women to work, in very limited, traditional jobs.

Posted by JonF | March 27, 2008 6:20 PM

Why should paid leave be restricted to when you have a baby?

I require 12 weeks of paid leave for no apparent reason!

Posted by Al | March 27, 2008 6:31 PM

One problem with paid maternity leave is that a lot of people would treat it like an extended severance package. Meaning a woman who was not planning on returning to work after childbirth would say that she was planning on coming back, but then suddenly change her mind when the paid leave was about to expire.

How do other countries handle this? Is there some penalty if the woman doesn't return to work for a certain period of time?

Posted by Joe | March 27, 2008 6:42 PM

People seem to be forgetting that one reason for maternity leave is that giving birth is a major medical procedure. Adam Herman might really need his paid football leave if, for example, another living thing the size of a bowling ball dropped out of his ass while he was dipping his nachos.

Posted by Eric | March 27, 2008 7:23 PM

Love the snark aimed at the Rethuha, but what has Obama done in the Senate what would lead you to think he would get out front on an issue like this? That would take leadership.

Posted by phg | March 27, 2008 7:38 PM

its not an extended severance package if the person pays into the system and then reaps the benefit.

If it were mandated, it would end up being very similar to shortterm disability insurance. people pay into the system and when they use it, they are getting their own money back.

Posted by yep | March 27, 2008 8:24 PM

Wow! An honest dialog of an issue! What Obama has done to make us think he would get out front on this issue? This very conversation is what he believes in. If enough people (ordinary people like all here) feel strongly on this and come to an understanding then it is possible to come up with a solution! Every time an idea of this sort begins, big business starts their spiel of how it will bankrupt the little guy and hurt the big business; however, though this to an extent is true, history has shown time and time again it has not done the extent of damage foretold. Obama doesn't have to get out front on this issue, we do! This concept is his message!

Posted by Butterfly3344 | March 27, 2008 8:27 PM

Wow, I would not have guessed that maternity leave would make people so angry. Although perhaps that's my fault, as I thought it was obvious that government *might* have a greater interest in assisting babies than encouraging football fandom.

Joe: That's probably why it makes more sense for the paid aspect of the leave to be a government benefit. In my experience, though, private benefits deal with the problem you identify quite easily by requiring that benefits be returned if you don't complete some amount of time (eg. 6 months) back at work.

Also, I think people are conflating the different aspects of parental leave. The Canadian example is, I think, helpful:

1) Law requiring employers to give some amount of (unpaid) leave.

2) Government benefit providing some proportion of income during leave.

3) Private Sector: Nothing stops competing employers from offering benefits to "top-up" the government benefit.

Within each of these categories, there is a wide latitude to provide more or less generous benefits.

Posted by Gentle Reader | March 27, 2008 8:41 PM

Oh, I should also point out one of the ironies of this conversation. The conservatives are either incredulous "this can't be true, surely Red China is on this list!" or condescending "giving birth? I could do it and work a full day's shift at the mill no sweat. These women are crybabies!" However, if the conversation were about, say low birth rates among Western nations, I suspect that the tone would be something along lines of it is a "crying shame that the government makes it so hard for working stiffs to raise a family. Instead women have to rush back to work and leave their babies in socialist day care centers." Aka they are intellectually dishonest.

Posted by freddiemac | March 27, 2008 10:02 PM

Freddiemac,

The SOP in most companies where I've worked is that the woman goes on disability for three months after giving birth; i.e., she is paid to stay home, recover, and take care of her child for 12 weeks already (albeit not at her full salary). Part of the reason for this is that day care centers generally won't take an infant under three months old.

I am not adamantly against new mothers getting their higher regular salaries for these three months instead of the lower disability payments, but if I were a presidential candidate, my focus would be on generating more high-paying jobs in America rather than adding cushier (i.e., more expensive) benefits to current jobs. If you go too far in this direction, you discourage job creation (by making it more expensive to hire workers) and you end up with the perennially higher unemployment of some European countries.

One problem I have with Obama and Hillary (and, to a slightly lesser extent, McCain) is their hostility to American industries that do provide a lot of high-paying jobs; namely, the energy and pharmaceutical industries. By allowing more energy exploration and production domestically and offshore, hundreds of thousands of high-paying blue collar jobs could be created directly, with many more ancillary jobs created. Instead of letting more high school grads earn $80k per year while reducing our dependence on foreign oil, Democrats prattle on about spending more federal money on "making college more affordable". Never mind that the infusion of federal loans and grants had made college educations more expensive, and that college remains a waste of time and money for those who don't have the interest or aptitude for it.

Posted by Fred | March 27, 2008 11:14 PM

What's truly stupefying is that Fred, a wholly-owned puppet of the GOP, actually thinks that his masters are interested in "reducing our dependence on foreign oil." This is like believing that Ted Bundy had a healthy sex life, but Fred really believes it.

Incredible.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | March 28, 2008 2:08 AM

If society thinks that paid maternity leave is important, society should provide.

That's actually how all European countries do it.

Posted by novakant | March 28, 2008 4:49 AM

reducing our dependence on foreign oil

If you believe the Republicans are trying to do something about that, I know a crack dealer who runs a drug rehab program you might be interested in . . .

Posted by rea | March 28, 2008 8:12 AM

"If you believe the Republicans are trying to do something about that, I know a crack dealer who runs a drug rehab program you might be interested in . . ."

Ask yourself: which party reflexively opposes domestic energy exploration and extraction (e.g., in ANWR), and which one supports it?

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 8:56 AM

Ask yourself also: which party regularly opposes the expanded use of coal and nuclear power domestically?

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 9:00 AM

Not only is there no requirement for paid parental leave, but the US gov't is probably one of the only large employers in the world that provides absolutely no paid maternity/paternity leave.

Posted by Doh | March 28, 2008 9:01 AM

As a married woman who will have kids someday, I don't see how this is a good idea. If we require maternity leave, then marginal jobs disappear, which hardly strikes me as a good solution.

What I would like to see is a requirement that companies publish their maternity leave policies on their Web sites. Having just gone through job interviews, it's not a question I feel comfortable asking, but it is something I would like to know about. Perhaps even some competition for talent would emerge, as has happened with other benefits.

Posted by Amber | March 28, 2008 9:28 AM

"People seem to be forgetting that one reason for maternity leave is that giving birth is a major medical procedure. Adam Herman might really need his paid football leave if, for example, another living thing the size of a bowling ball dropped out of his ass while he was dipping his nachos."
Posted by Eric

You're obviously ignoring the effects that prolonged sitting and excessive cheese can have on the size of a bowel movement.

Posted by Njorl | March 28, 2008 9:36 AM

I can fix this: for jobs that provide paid vacation, require that employers permit employees to use that leave, at full pay for at least part of the parental leave. Employers wouldn't be out any money that way, since the vacation is already budgeted. For smaller businesses that don't provide paid leave -- which, by the way, is insance unless the business employees fewer than ten people -- allow employees to use unemployment benefits or short-term government disability. Thos programs ALREADY EXIST. It would take the insertion of about ten words in the organic law governing each program to fix this problem.

And finally, for the childless among you, if you expect to have someone to change your bedpan in your nursing home, you'd bloody better support generous family policies. I'm no natalist, but I am a parent, and it's a miserably tough job, made worse by the fact that Americans think one of two things about mothers: 1. the only good mother has a nose full of diaper shit and brain full of nothing; or 2. babies are luxury goods, like Prada purses, and anyone who's foolish enough to acquire one should have to take care of it entirely on her own. If you expect to have a decent society, you need to make it easy for parents to do a good job.

Posted by Karen | March 28, 2008 9:45 AM

Shorter Amber: Maternity leave is not a "good idea" for poor people.

Look, I will take as a given that all regulations have a cost. And that cost might affect "marginal" jobs. But I think the point is that if it is ever legitimate for society to regulate employment conditions for the public good, one would think that "helping babies" would be pretty high up on that list. It really is a valuable good, as Amber admits in her desire to find such benefits.

Posted by Gentle Reader | March 28, 2008 10:03 AM

Karen,

Have you spent any time in the working world? If you have, you should know that

1) No company prevents employees from using vacation time, if they want to, for part of their maternity leave. Of course, most employees only have about 2 weeks of annual vacation.

2) Most employees collect disability while on maternity leave.

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 11:07 AM

Is there some reason the government ought to be encouraging people having more kids? Is there some people shortage that popped up overnight I missed?

Posted by swells | March 28, 2008 11:13 AM

"Is there some reason the government ought to be encouraging people having more kids?"

If it were politically correct to do so, a good reason to encourage affluent, educated people to have more kids would be that their kids would tend to grow up to be affluent and educated as well, and consequently contribute more to the government in taxes than they consume in government services.

"Is there some people shortage that popped up overnight I missed?"

In the sense that there will be fewer workers per retiree to support our entitlement programs, yes. The problem is that the folks having the most kids tend to be the ones who are net drains on the government.

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 11:19 AM

In the sense that there will be fewer workers per retiree to support our entitlement programs, yes.

This argument, often bandied about, is ridiculous. If we didn't run old-age programs like a pyramid scheme, then we wouldn't "need" ever-increasing numbers of people to be born in order to pay for services used by the elderly. If the Baby Boomers - the single wealthiest generation of people in the history of the world, one must note - would save for their own retirement, we wouldn't have any such problem.

Understand that population growth, given fixed supplies of some goods (land, some natural resources, etc.), means decreasing per capita income vis-a-vis zero population growth.

Government's actions in supporting a childbirth-based pyramid scheme are clear, though - the burden is borne by the very young and the not-yet-born, while the benefit accrues to the generation most likely to vote. So I see why self-interested voters would support such a policy, but I don't see why *you* or *I* should favor it.

Posted by cure | March 28, 2008 1:51 PM

Re: If the Baby Boomers - the single wealthiest generation of people in the history of the world, one must note - would save for their own retirement, we wouldn't have any such problem.

The problem is that you can't really solvet hsi problem by saving, because tomorrow's goods and services must be produced by tomorrow's workers, not by dollars saved today. What matters is not how much money is saved, either individually or collectively; what matters is how many people are working and how many people (not just retirees) are not: the workers have to support the non-workers and money in the bank doesn't change that fact.

Posted by JonF | March 28, 2008 6:13 PM

"People seem to be forgetting that one reason for maternity leave is that giving birth is a major medical procedure. Adam Herman might really need his paid football leave if, for example, another living thing the size of a bowling ball dropped out of his ass while he was dipping his nachos."

The decision to become a mother is a choice. I don't see how the business world or the taxpayers are obligated to subsidize that choice.

I support the Family Medical Leave Act. I do think that people should be able to take time off to do some very important things. But paying them as if they were at work is something else entirely.

Posted by Adam Herman | March 28, 2008 11:42 PM

"The problem is that you can't really solvet hsi problem by saving, because tomorrow's goods and services must be produced by tomorrow's workers, not by dollars saved today."

This is false. If you have money saved, you can get the necessary products or services, even if there are fewer workers in the future. Some of the money invested now will go toward new technologies that will enable fewer workers to produce more products and services; some of the money invested now will go toward fully automating some services; and you could always use money saved to hire temporary foreign workers, if necessary. A couple of real world examples of this:

In Japan, they have invented machines that can bathe a handicapped elderly person in a wheel chair. This is one of numerous examples of automation being used to replace labor in Japan's aging society.

In Israel, the government health service hires temporary workers from the Philippines to care for elderly individuals who need home care. The workers get sent home when the elderly Israeli passes away.

Posted by Fred | March 29, 2008 12:08 AM

Re: If you have money saved, you can get the necessary products or services, even if there are fewer workers in the future.

But the goods and services still must be produced by the workers in the future and, again, if there are fewer workers there will may (in principle) be fewer goods and the money you save today may not be worth that much tomorrow.
This goes to the heart of a very common misconception. In and of itself money is worthless. You can't do anything particularly useful with a $100 bill. Money's worth is in what you can exchange it for.
No matter how we fund retirement the fundamental ratio of producers to consummers is the real bottom line. "Consumers" by the way includes not just retirees, but also children, non-working parents, the disabled, the idle rich, the idle poor, the incarcerated. A baby boom puts us in the same bind that a retiree boom does: non-productive mouths to feed.

Posted by JonF | March 29, 2008 7:13 AM

Fred quotes and writes: ""If you believe the Republicans are trying to do something about that, I know a crack dealer who runs a drug rehab program you might be interested in . . ."

Ask yourself: which party reflexively opposes domestic energy exploration and extraction (e.g., in ANWR), and which one supports it?"

Ask yourself which party had complete control of the government for 6 years and did abso-fucking-lutely nothing in terms of energy policy except lay the groundwork for $4 per gallon gasoline.

Dumbya Bush and Dick Cheney have given their oil company masters 7+ years of constant wet dreams.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | March 29, 2008 3:49 PM