Chipping Away at Family Leave
hippiemom
Posts: 3,326
by Judith Warner
An interesting new chapter in the family wars has been playing out lately under the radar. In response to pressure from business groups, the Department of Labor has put out an official request for information on the Family and Medical Leave Act to find out if, as critics contend, the law is too generous and places an undue burden on employers who are required to comply with it.
Many of you may already be rolling your eyes. The United States, after all, ranks as one of the world’s most backward nations when it comes to family and medical leave benefits. A recent study from the McGill University Institute for Health and Social Policy in Montreal found that of 173 countries surveyed, 168 guaranteed women paid maternity leave. The United States – along with Lesotho, Liberia, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland – was not one of them. Eighty-six million working Americans have no paid sick days to use to care for ill children, and nearly one in two workers – 59 million in all – has no paid sick leave at all. (For more sad statistics, see the McGill study.)
The Family and Medical Leave Act, which President Clinton signed into law back in 1993, offers only the most basic and restricted protections: 12 weeks of unpaid leave for new parents or those who need time off to tend to their own or a relative’s “serious illness.” Yet, these restrictions, a coalition of business groups is now coming forward to insist, simply aren’t restrictive enough. They say employees are abusing their right to medical leave, taking off work for mental health days, for cosmetic surgery and for things like “pink eye, ingrown toenails and colds,” as the Orwellian-sounding National Coalition to Protect Family Leave, an industry group, has put it.
In the coming weeks, the business groups will be submitting a host of comments of this nature to the Department of Labor. (If you’d like to weigh in, perhaps with a reality check, you can do so, before Feb. 16, at this Web site.)
The point of all this, the coalition’s Web site says, is to “preserve the integrity of the system and better serve those Congress intended to protect.”
Call me paranoid, but I’m not buying it.
Remember what a protracted drama it was to get our anemic little version of family leave passed into law in the first place? When it was first proposed in Congress, in 1985, it was meant to provide 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave for workers in companies with one employee or more. By the early 1990s, when President George H.W. Bush vetoed it twice, the act had been scaled down to its current paltry offerings, but it nonetheless sparked the particular ire of social conservatives, who viewed it as an implicit endorsement of working motherhood. (In 1991, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, now House Minority Leader, called it “another example of yuppie entitlement.”)
The business groups that sought to defeat the family leave act way back when (including the Coalition to Protect Family Leave’s twice-removed parent, The Society for Human Resource Management) have been agitating since the mid-1990s to scale it back into virtual nonexistence. What they want now is to tinker with the bill so that only workers with the most “serious” medical conditions requiring extended leave will be covered. They want to make sure workers don’t take “intermittent” leave – i.e. a couple of hours off here and there to go to the doctor – but instead only avail themselves of the substantial chunks of time off that will put a serious dent in their income.
The idea, it seems, is to make taking sick leave so financially painful that only those without the slightest chance of dragging themselves to the office will do it. It’s the same sort of logic that underlay President Bush’s recent foray into health care reform: to cut health costs, change behavior. Get people to consume less health care (by essentially punishing those who overuse health care thanks to their “gold-plated, deluxe” health benefits) and … we won’t have to spend so much on health care.
What’s interesting to me here is that it clearly isn’t politically acceptable anymore to attack family and medical leave by bashing working mothers. Our current villain du jour is the health care glutton, who consumes doctor’s visits like so many donuts, sloughing off the burdens of his waste onto the hard-working and the health-care abstemious.
The health care glutton is the new millennium’s version of Ronald Reagan’s welfare queen, whose appetite for spawning children and sucking down public funds knew no limit, and whose specter ultimately led our country to accept a situation in which low-income mothers were forced back to work without child care or medical benefits for their families.
If the past is any guide, the appearance of the health care glutton may portend similarly bad news for those lucky American workers who are entitled to sick days and family leave, or who enjoy adequate health insurance benefits. If we let it happen.
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/
An interesting new chapter in the family wars has been playing out lately under the radar. In response to pressure from business groups, the Department of Labor has put out an official request for information on the Family and Medical Leave Act to find out if, as critics contend, the law is too generous and places an undue burden on employers who are required to comply with it.
Many of you may already be rolling your eyes. The United States, after all, ranks as one of the world’s most backward nations when it comes to family and medical leave benefits. A recent study from the McGill University Institute for Health and Social Policy in Montreal found that of 173 countries surveyed, 168 guaranteed women paid maternity leave. The United States – along with Lesotho, Liberia, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland – was not one of them. Eighty-six million working Americans have no paid sick days to use to care for ill children, and nearly one in two workers – 59 million in all – has no paid sick leave at all. (For more sad statistics, see the McGill study.)
The Family and Medical Leave Act, which President Clinton signed into law back in 1993, offers only the most basic and restricted protections: 12 weeks of unpaid leave for new parents or those who need time off to tend to their own or a relative’s “serious illness.” Yet, these restrictions, a coalition of business groups is now coming forward to insist, simply aren’t restrictive enough. They say employees are abusing their right to medical leave, taking off work for mental health days, for cosmetic surgery and for things like “pink eye, ingrown toenails and colds,” as the Orwellian-sounding National Coalition to Protect Family Leave, an industry group, has put it.
In the coming weeks, the business groups will be submitting a host of comments of this nature to the Department of Labor. (If you’d like to weigh in, perhaps with a reality check, you can do so, before Feb. 16, at this Web site.)
The point of all this, the coalition’s Web site says, is to “preserve the integrity of the system and better serve those Congress intended to protect.”
Call me paranoid, but I’m not buying it.
Remember what a protracted drama it was to get our anemic little version of family leave passed into law in the first place? When it was first proposed in Congress, in 1985, it was meant to provide 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave for workers in companies with one employee or more. By the early 1990s, when President George H.W. Bush vetoed it twice, the act had been scaled down to its current paltry offerings, but it nonetheless sparked the particular ire of social conservatives, who viewed it as an implicit endorsement of working motherhood. (In 1991, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, now House Minority Leader, called it “another example of yuppie entitlement.”)
The business groups that sought to defeat the family leave act way back when (including the Coalition to Protect Family Leave’s twice-removed parent, The Society for Human Resource Management) have been agitating since the mid-1990s to scale it back into virtual nonexistence. What they want now is to tinker with the bill so that only workers with the most “serious” medical conditions requiring extended leave will be covered. They want to make sure workers don’t take “intermittent” leave – i.e. a couple of hours off here and there to go to the doctor – but instead only avail themselves of the substantial chunks of time off that will put a serious dent in their income.
The idea, it seems, is to make taking sick leave so financially painful that only those without the slightest chance of dragging themselves to the office will do it. It’s the same sort of logic that underlay President Bush’s recent foray into health care reform: to cut health costs, change behavior. Get people to consume less health care (by essentially punishing those who overuse health care thanks to their “gold-plated, deluxe” health benefits) and … we won’t have to spend so much on health care.
What’s interesting to me here is that it clearly isn’t politically acceptable anymore to attack family and medical leave by bashing working mothers. Our current villain du jour is the health care glutton, who consumes doctor’s visits like so many donuts, sloughing off the burdens of his waste onto the hard-working and the health-care abstemious.
The health care glutton is the new millennium’s version of Ronald Reagan’s welfare queen, whose appetite for spawning children and sucking down public funds knew no limit, and whose specter ultimately led our country to accept a situation in which low-income mothers were forced back to work without child care or medical benefits for their families.
If the past is any guide, the appearance of the health care glutton may portend similarly bad news for those lucky American workers who are entitled to sick days and family leave, or who enjoy adequate health insurance benefits. If we let it happen.
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Russian Csars used to implement social change plans with a 400 year time line. Our politicians won't do a thing unless they think it will help them in the next election.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I woudl say that it is a nice benefit for a company to offer to differentiate itself. I question why it is someone's right to have paid time off for pregnancy.
Though in reality sonce it is such a common proctice a plan should be in place to accommodate it for a period of time. Look at that...I argued against myself and changed my mind in the same post.
Here's the thing, it is abused by many and they could ruin it for the rest. not pregnancy, but FMLA for other things.
Mit Romney, is that you?
paid time off for a birth is a must. i think its a disgrace that the mother has to take unpaid leave.
If the employees do not like it, they can work elsewhere. Employers who want to offer it are just that much more attractive to potential employees.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Why shouldn't they use up the vacation and sick time first? It seems only logical to me.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Family and medical leave is UNPAID time off when used for that purpose.
Right, so you use up the paid time off first and then move to unpaid. I would think that's what the employee would prefer. I know I would.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
In my case, the employer thought they had the right to deny me the leave, which they did not have under the law. The point was that employers, even government employers, abuse family and medical leave. I agree with it.
how christian of you... put women out on the street for having a child.
this sickens me.
i think this is hitting pretty close to the truth... keep those women at home and out of the workplace. dont they know their place?
well, that and the fact that humanity means nothing to most business owners who see human beings as nothing more than a dollar sign.
it's truly sad. :(
and i have to say, firsthand knowledge...the fed government is the FIRST to try and deny their workers such rights if they can. i could go on and on...but i won't.
however, in regards to the thread topic...it really IS scary that many consider us 'the' baramometer of presonal freedoms and such, and yet we ARE so far behind other industiralized countires to such issues as this. obviously, they manage to remain productive and adjust...why can't we ever learn from other models?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
why? the business didn't ask their employee to have a child. why should the business have to pay that person if she chooses to do something that is going to take her away from the workplace, when they already have to pay someone else to come in and pick up the slack?
so any woman who gets pregnant should summarily be fired? women should be forced to choose between pregnancy and their job/career?
this isn't just about maternity leave, even though that situation is quite sad in this country. men should have ample time for paternity leave here too. and people should be able to take care of their sick relatives (or else what--pay thousands of dollars they don't have for someone else to do so?) it's pathetic and i would not consider our current policies in line with family values. if people really were about "family values" perhaps they'd actually value families. it's ironic that our government supports traditional family structure through other means but yet punishes those families in this way.
and the statistic about paid sick leave is idiotic. the 59 million americans who don't have paid sick leave may be even more motivated to go into work and then everyone else gets sick and productivity goes down. not to mention more people getting sick and having to navigate our shitty excuse of a health care system.
i can't believe they're complaining about people with pink eye staying at home. that is so contagious. this whole thing is just ridiculous.
cross the river to the eastside
haven't you figured out yet that family values has nothing to do with respecting or supporting families, it just means making sure a man gets to pick a wife, she counts herself lucky to be chosen, and then stays home like she's supposed to.
Hey, that's what the Mission is for.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
NO, i didn't say or imply that. i personally think that the current family leave is fine the way it is. she SHOULD be guaranteed her job when the leave is over. i just don't think that paying someone who isn't at work is the right thing to do.
what should be done then?
not directed at you, just thoughts in general...it amazes me how some seem to think it is unnecessary, or shouldn't be expected, etc. if we are truly to be supportive of families...to want to progress, etc....it IS simply the right thing to do. we live in a dual income society...for most, it is a necessity. if one wants families to exist, we need to be supportive of such. hell, i don't have children, don't plan to...but i absolutely think it's a good idea. we need children, our future leaders, taxpayers, etc...it all comes around. supporting families, which as VG pointed out isn't simply just about maternity/paternity leave, but also caring for sick family members...is what a civilized society should be about at the VERY least.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
so if this is a single mother, how is refusing to pay her any different from putting her out on the street? 3 months is a lot of time to not pay rent. even if she's married, most people need 2 incomes to survive.
It seems almost equivalent to caring more about machinery than living creatures. I know companies aren't machinary, but they are given protections and they aren't living beings like the employees. It seems backwards to me.
To protect non-living entities and harm the living workers...and not just a FEW workers, it's the majority of people who aren't being valued.
I know what you mean. It's truly sad.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
:(
why is it the business' responsibility to pay her rent if she's not working? why is she having a child if she's that close to not being able to survive? doesn't the potential mother bear any responsibility to ensure her financial security before she makes a baby?
i mean, i know i'm coming off callous(sp?) here, and i don't really mean to, but having a baby is a decision. getting cancer or some other sort of debilitative illness is generally unforeseen, and not chosen, and thus, the family and medical leave act SHOULD offer compensation in those cases. but i don't see why money should be given to someone who chooses to have a child.
Let's just hope no set of bad circumstances ever befall upon you. Karma can be a bitch.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I actually was forced to choose between my government job and caring for my dying father. I was utterly shocked at how the government abused the law as it did. Now I gladly spend my time fighting the government for a living.
i edited my post to reflect my feelings regarding unforeseen illness like cancer; i apologize for not fleshing out that part of the argument beforehand.
also, i don't oppose business' offering PAID maternity leave as an benefit, but i don't think the government should mandate it. it should be something that a business can choose to offer, at its own expense.