Policy reform for work-family balance and parental support

Maternity/Paternity Leave

Easing the Parenthood Pinch:

A Plan for Modernizing the American Attitude towards Parental Leave

Americans pride themselves on their high standing in the developed world. We have a strong government, a premier military, a vibrant and diverse culture, and a significant presence in the world economy. Despite these advantages, many Americans find themselves woefully behind the other nations of the world regarding an issue that should lie at the heart of our society -- how we value our children and how we treat those responsible for raising them. During the rapid growth of the American economy in the 20th century, the impact of a competitive and demanding job market on working parents was rarely acknowledged, let alone legislated. As a result, America now finds itself among only three other nations (Swaziland, Papua New Guinea, and Lesotho) who refuse to provide government-mandated paid leave to parents with newborns (Moms Rising). This has put significant stress not only on the mental, emotional, and financial well-being of working parents, but also on the physical and behavioral development of our nation's children. Unless we reform the policies that govern our treatment of these parents and their children, we run the risk of stymieing our future potential and destroying the legendary work ethic that has so long fueled our national growth.

The history of job-protected family leave in the United States is relatively short. Before 1993, whether a new mother was able to take time off of work to care for her newborn without the risk of losing her job was entirely subject to the discretion of her employer or the laws of the state in which she worked (Berger et al. 31). Though federal law had been protecting the right of workers for decades, no federal law existed that protected the right of a woman to take leave when giving birth, recovering, and caring for her newborn. This changed with the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. The FMLA mandated job-protected family and medical leave for "qualifying" employees.

Though this was an important step in protecting parental rights in the workplace, the act had, and continues to have, several weaknesses that make it inadequate. In order to "qualify" for FMLA, an employee must have worked at least 1250 hours during the prior year for an employer with 50 or more employees. These two conditions exclude roughly 50% of working parents (Berger et al. 30). Another significant weakness of FMLA is that it offers only job protection to those on family or medical leave -- it does not mandate that any employer offer paid leave, leaving many parents scrambling to patch together paid time off from unused sick days, vacation, and -- if they're lucky -- disability insurance. 51% of working mothers do not have the option of any sort of paid leave, and find themselves either returning to work shortly after giving birth, taking the financial hit of unpaid leave, or leaving the workforce altogether (Moms Rising).

As a result of the shortcomings of the Family and Medical Leave Act, this legislation has been largely ineffective in providing the security to working parents that it initially was designed to offer. Although FMLA mandates 12 weeks of job-protected leave after the normal birth of a child, a 2000 study by the U.S. Department of Labor found that the actual median length of maternity leave in America was only 10 days. The survey found that 3.5 million workers in 2000 were not able to take leave, even though they needed it and were qualified for it. Three quarters of these workers did not take the leave because they could not afford it. (Vahratian 177)

The implications of the policy as it stands now are profound. A 2005 British study found a conclusive causal link between short or non-existent maternity leave and a reduction in immunizations, breastfeeding, and proper well-baby care during the first year of life -- factors that are crucial to the long-term health of children (Berger et al. 30). Especially troubling is the fact that short or non-existent maternity leave occurs most often in those level below the poverty level and those of Hispanic ethnicity (Vahratian 178). Thus it could be argued that the current policy in fact enables an economic and racial prejudice in the American workforce, in direct contradiction to the statutes set forth by the Equal Opportunity Act.

In order to rectify the injustices and dangers perpetrated by the parental leave policies currently in place in the U.S., legislators must make a thorough reappraisal of the FMLA and its consequences, and must institute a series of profound changes to protect the well-being of parents and children of every race, class, gender, and professional situation. The first step would be to study successful parental leave policies in other developed countries. Norway, for instance, offers 53 weeks of job-protected maternity leave at 80% of previous pay, as well as five weeks of paid maternity leave (Clark). While this benefit costs the Norwegian government a significant amount of money, it has also placed Norway among the top nations in child wellness. On the same scale, the United States places second to last (Ibid).