4 Weeks Paid Parental Leave for Feds? More, Please.

Sometimes something is better than nothing.  And sometimes it's not.  If the federal government agrees to offer 4 weeks of paid parental leave (down from a more admirable 8), I'm saying we're in the latter category, mamas, because in my mind the federal government ought to set an example.  A good example, not a bad one.  And 4 weeks is, well, bad is a nice way to put it. 

Because the Washington Post writer on work-family balance, Leslie Morgan Steiner, said what I think far more eloquently than I ever could, I'm gonna take the easy way out and quote her (and cook dinner, as a result!).  Plus, I'm a federal employee who had no paid leave for 2 children, so I'm just a wee bit biased and still a WHOLE LOT PISSED - still.  Here are some faves from Ms. Steiner:

On how we mamas feel after 4 weeks: Four weeks? What planet do our elected officials live on? Four weeks after giving birth, breastfeeding and getting by on two to four hours of uninterrupted sleep, I could barely leave my house. Contemplating leaving my four-week-old infant so I could waddle back to full-time work was a barbaric concept that made both tears and breastmilk leak from my body.

On the missed opportunity: Our government has an opportunity -- and, I would argue, a responsibility -- to set an example of balance in family leave policies.

To answer the "it'll put us under cry from businesses": Yes, you can balance the needs of businesses (including our government and non-profit companies) to be fiscally prudent and simultaneously supportive of children's and parents' needs.

Offering up some creative ideas: What about offering full-time flextime to parents for the first three to six months after they return to work? Or letting them bring infants under six months to work? Or pair new parents to job-share on a temporary basis?

Feeling good about the prospects for paid leave in this country, mamas?  Ha! I'm thinkin' we should wait till we have a new President willing to fight for this so we can pass something exemplary.  The FMLA sets the standard for the states, just as this will.  No thanks.  Plenty of private-sector companies that offer more than this.  Perhaps all those Republicans on the Hill should check in with their supporters to learn a thing or two. 

Lemme at 'em (yes, I was  Scooby Doo addict as a child - remember Scrappy?): Not surprisingly, I'll be contacting our Senators and my Representative to tell  'em what I think.  You?  It. is. so. easy.  You could say: "I am your constituent.  I feel strongly that the federal government set an example for other employers in this country and offer new and adopting parents more than four weeks of paid parental leave.  It is simply not enough, and once passed, would become a sub-par standard that would be difficult to improve, as the FMLA has been."  E-mail it to: Sen. Ron Wyden, Sen. Gordon Smith, and your Representative in Congress (if you don't know who yours is, your zip code is the magic number).  You'll feel better if you do, I sure do. 

Oregon paid leave:  If you're interested in this topic please check out our many conversations about state-level paid leave, especially our current grassroots efforts to pass some exemplary legislation in the 2009 session in Salem. 

Comments

[kw]

I'm not opposed to increasing leave but I do want to point out that increasing paid leave (or even unpaid leave) increases costs, which, in the case of the federal government (or any government), means higher taxes or larger deficits (which will be passed on to our children to manage).

The reason I point this out, isn't to discourage increasing leave but to make sure everyone acknowledge the consequences of pushing for increased leave or any other benefit.

We seem to be living in a society that increasingly eshews taxes, even when they cover necessary services. Citizens want better education, better roads, better benefits & pay (all good things and hard to argue with) but no one wants to pay for them. These things aren't free and if we advocate for them, we must be willing to pay the taxes to provide them.

I am, are you?

[LTF]

KW: It is an interesting point you make since the paid leave for federal employees is not proposed as an employee-paid payroll tax like the state laws have been - unless I'm missing something, so it would cost taxpayers more, while the state-level leave (as proposed in OR in 2007) would cost employees more (same people, more of less, but a more direct link between employees paying in and benefitting).

I wonder if fed employees could simply be rolled into the larger bill for national paid leave that has recently been introduced, or does the fed workforce have to be treated separately? Or, better to do something for fed employees separately since who knows what'll happen to the broader bill? Seems the fed system should set a positive example. I, too, am willing to pay, but would prefer an employee cost (yes, might feel like a tax) to a fed income tax-funded gov budget line item. Still learning how the proposed fed plan is structured. Good info on Rep Carolyn Maloney's web site (she introduced the bill): http://maloney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_issues&task=view_issue&issue=263&Itemid=35

[kw]

"I wonder if fed employees could simply be rolled into the larger bill for national paid leave that has recently been introduced, or does the fed workforce have to be treated separately?"

I'm guessing they would need to be treated differently, although not necessarily. Sometimes it's hard to know with government but I go by the understanding that most governments do not work together because very few (I only know of one) leaders are willing to give up any of their power even if it's to the benefit of the taxpayers and the electorate at large.

Another thing to consider, is that even if a payroll tax was instituted (and I don't understand how that works exactly, to be honest), the government would still be liable for certain costs. The payroll tax might cover a portion (likely not all, similar to healthcare) of wages during that time for the person on leave but I doubt they would cover the temporary replacement costs for that employee. That temporary replacement would likely need to be trained and have a learning curve, all of which costs money in the long run -- in addition to actually paying the temp's wages.

Additionally, take into account the strong collective bargaining that public employees benefit from, what starts out as a payroll tax may not end up that way and once the benefit is established, it is virtually impossible to take away.

However it is done, ultimately, IMO, we'll see additional costs to the taxpayer.