"Paid Leave For All?"

[Love-A-Nurse]

what are your thoughts on this article. i am still thinking, however, i am curious to know if you do or do not think using the unemployment monies to assist in a paid leave for family emergencies, pregnancies, etc., in your state? i see california has set the "stage", who will follow?

quote from article:

"the clinton administration had at one time proposed a plan to provide paid family leave using unemployment insurance funds. it never got off the ground, however, and was eventually quashed by the bush administration."

paid leave for all?

with california taking the lead, states consider paid family leave

by catherine valenti

oct. 9-- sherri landrum couldn't be there when her daughter badly needed her, but it wasn't because she couldn't get time off from work. it was because she couldn't afford to go without being paid.

landrum, a 41-year-old single mother in denver, was eligible to take the time and still have her job waiting for her when she came back from tending her daughter, who had been shot last spring.

but since her leave was to be unpaid, landrum had to keep working. "i have nine children, so there's no possible way i can take off work without pay," says landrum, who is employed at a pediatrics center.

landrum's dilemma spotlights what many say is a glaring gap between the united states and other industrialized nations. the united states is one of the few developed countries that doesn't provide paid benefits to workers who give birth to a child or need time off to get over an illness or care for a sick family member.

u.s. workers are entitled to 12 weeks of family-related leave under the family and medical leave act if they've worked for the company for at least a year and the firm has 50 or more employees within 75 miles of its work site. during the leave, their jobs are guaranteed.

but while some companies do provide workers on leave with some form of compensation using disability insurance or other programs, for many of them the time off is unpaid.

so now a number of state governments are moving to offer paid leave for their residents, much to the concern of some business and employer groups that worry about the cost and other burdens of such programs.

u.s. trails other nations in paid leave

on a national level, efforts to provide paid family leave have been unsuccessful.

the clinton administration had at one time proposed a plan to provide paid family leave using unemployment insurance funds. it never got off the ground, however, and was eventually quashed by the bush administration.

yet compared to what workers in other nations are eligible for, the united states pales (see chart below).

if a woman has a baby in france, for example, she is entitled to receive up to 26 weeks of paid maternity leave, courtesy of the country's social security system. in austria, workers are allowed to take up to 78 weeks of paid leave to care for a sick child who is under three years of age; their employer foots the bill. and in spain, workers can have a paid leave of up to 52 weeks to care for a sick parent or a spouse, with benefits from social security.

international maternity leave benefits

country length of maternity leave % of wages paid provider of coverage

russian federation 140 days 100 social security

france 16-26 weeks 100 social security

portugal 98 days 100 social security

denmark 18 weeks 100 social security

austria 16 weeks 100 social security

spain 16 weeks 100 social security

germany 14 weeks 100 social security to ceiling; employer pays difference

india 12 weeks 100 employer/social security

united kingdom 14-18 weeks 90 for 6 weeks, flat rate after social security

italy 5 months 80 social security

greece 16 weeks 75 social security

japan 14 weeks 60 health insurance

australia one year 0 n/a

united states 12 weeks 0 n/a

source: australian human rights & equal opportunity commission

the united states is "the only country other than australia that doesn't have paid leave," notes thomas kochan, professor of work and employment relations at the massachusetts institute of technology's sloan school of management and co-director of the mit workplace center in cambridge, mass. "we see [family leave] as very much of an individual choice [rather] than as a social policy."

california offers six weeks of paid leave

sensing a growing demand for paid leave, some states are filling the federal vacuum by moving to set up their own plans.

the most comprehensive effort gets under way in california next year. starting in july, workers will be eligible to take six weeks of paid family leave to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent or domestic partner, or to bond with a newborn or adopted child.

paid leave bills also have been introduced in at least 24 states and the district of columbia this year, with connecticut, hawaii and montana passing paid leave bills into law, according to the national partnership for women & families, a washington, d.c.-based nonprofit organization that promotes policies to help women and men meet the demands of work and family.

the connecticut and hawaii laws will require certain employers to allow workers to use accumulated sick leave to care for a sick family member or for the birth or adoption of a child. the montana law sets up an at-home infant care program, which will provide subsidies in lieu of child care assistance to parents who choose to care for their infant at home, permitting employees to use their paid leave to care for a child, spouse, parent, or grandparent.

the ability to use accrued sick time for other purposes such as family care will be a big benefit to many hourly workers who otherwise couldn't afford to take time off under fmla, suggests lissa bell, senior policy associate at the national partnership for women & families.

"hourly workers tend to have very little autonomy," says bell. "these laws are very significant for them."

in addition to these states, five others-california, hawaii, new jersey, new york and rhode island-require companies to pay temporary disability benefits to their workers, including if they are physically disabled due to childbirth or illness. unless their employer voluntarily pays for leave, residents in other states can find themselves without any compensation if a family member gets sick and they need time off.

business groups fear bureaucratic nightmare

while many advocates of paid leave applaud the different states' moves as a step in the right direction, business and employer groups fear such laws will lead to costly, bureaucratic headaches for them.

"leaves are unpaid for a very good reason-to prevent abuse of the system," says julianne broyles, director of employee relations and small business for the california chamber of commerce, which opposes the state's paid leave law.

california's plan has been controversial with business groups, even though the leave will be paid for exclusively through employee contributions, not with employer funds. starting january 1, the state will deduct an additional 0.08 percent from the first $68,829 a year that a worker earns (wages above that amount aren't taxed for california's state disability insurance, known as sdi). so the maximum individual contribution for the program would be $55.06 for next year.

while on leave, workers will be eligible to earn anywhere from $50 to $728 per week, or about 55 percent of their regular pay. employees need not have worked at a company for any minimum period of time, but their eligibility for the program is based on their wages earned approximately five to 17 months before the beginning of the paid leave claim, according to california's employment development department, known as the edd, which will administer the program.

still, business groups argue companies will end up with higher expenses in the long run by paying overtime or training workers who will need to cover for the employee on leave. they are also concerned about how much control they'll have over their workers taking leave, since it is a state-administered program.

"it's going to be a bureaucratic nightmare for all concerned," predicts broyles.

cost, savings debated

paid leave proponents point out the california plan could actually save both companies and the state money, a claim that its opponents dispute.

one study funded by the labor project for working families says california companies could save $89 million due to increased employee retention, while the state could save $25 million from decreased assistance on aid programs like food stamps. california's edd says paid leave will cost some $19.6 million a year to maintain.

"faced with the prospect of an unpaid leave, employees sometimes leave their primary job-relying either on public assistance or a part-time job as a source of support," says the study. "however, with a paid leave policy, these employees would now take leave and remain employed with their same employer."

indeed, paid leave supporters point out many workers are either not covered by the fmla because their employer is too small or they've been working for less than a year; or they decide not to take advantage of the program because they can't afford it. a department of labor survey in 2000 found that 74 percent of workers did not take needed leave because of lost wages.

"if we are saying that it takes two wage earners to make ends meet, then we've got to find ways to allow people to move in and out of the labor force," says mit's kochan.

will companies stay or go?

whether or not this new plan will attract or repel companies to california remains to be seen. economists say both outcomes could occur.

"if you are in silicon valley or in hollywood and you're trying to convince (venture capitalists) and creative people to come and work here, family leave has to be a huge plus," says stephen levy, director and senior economist with the center for the continuing study of the california economy.

"if you're deciding where to locate a car manufacturing plant or a paint manufacturing plant, might family leave operate differently in that context? sure," he adds.

one thing seems certain: many states will be closely eyeing california's example to see if a paid leave policy-employee funded or otherwise-is something worth considering for their workers.

mit's kochan, for one, thinks paid leave programs will begin to catch on nationwide in the long run. but he says workers shouldn't hold their breath that it will happen any time soon.

says kochan, "i think it's going to be slow in coming, given the state of the economy right now."

as for landrum-who ended up having to take some time off from work without pay to take her daughter to doctor and physical therapy appointments-she has been working to get the word out about the need for paid family leave by working with a milwaukee-based group called the 9 to5 national association of working women, a grass-roots membership organization that works on women's economic issues.

landrum says she's been to washington, d.c., twice to help the group lobby for paid family leave.

"we're going to push for this thing," she says. "even if i have to stand on the capitol steps myself, i will."

search the web and abcnews.com

more on this story

vote

* vote: who should pay for paid leave?

stocks & funds

djia

nasdaq

s&p 500

by symbol

my portfolios

relationships

love, marriage, romance, dating, sex ...

also on abcnews

* are husbands losing the chore wars?

* court weighs pot smoking & privacy

* airport screeners warned of teddy bears

search now:

copyright © 2003 abcnews internet ventures.

click here for: help advertiser info contact abc tools pr terms of use privacy policy

family of sites: abc.com abc family espn.com disney.com familyfun.com go mail movies.com

[Rustyhammer]

A single mother of NINE???

WOW! Looks like she had SOME time off.

-Russell

[colleen10]

Americans are over worked compared to most other countries so I think this is more than fair. Now, whether or not it would actually work (not be abused) and if it could be paid for without putting the state into financial turmoil is another thing that I can't really comment on because I don't know much about it.

I will say though, that based on my experience as an American woman worker in the private business industry it's about time that we started being treated with a little respect and flexibility.

I work 40+ hours a week, every week. I get 2 weeks of vacation and 3 sick days during that entire year. I don't have any kids yet but I know that when I do most of that time will go towards taking care of those children when they are sick and completing tasks which can only be done during the week day like going to the doctor, pediatrician, dentist, school, etc.

Don't forget that if we have a bad snow or ice storm and the roads are impassable I have to use a vacation day for that too. Basically, my "vacation" is not a vacation.

As a woman I make about 0.72 cents for every dollar a man doing my job would make, and as if that weren't demeaning enough I don't even get the same career opportunities for the meer fact that I am a woman. Because I am "just a woman" you would think that the people I work for/with would give me a little leeway when the kids are sick, if I want to leave early to take the kids trick or treating, etc. but no, I get complaints and snide remarks about it. So, basically, I am not treated like an equal but expected to professionally act and perform as an equal.

To top this off I work in an "at will state" so my employer can fire me at any time, for anything at their whim. If they wanted to be real jerks they could even make it difficult for me to receive or "tie up" my un-employment compensation when they do it.

So, I really feel this is a step in the right direction in finally balancing the scales in favor of the American worker. Something has got to change in our culture. Work is not the most important thing, you do not live to work, you should work to live and have time to take part in the things in life that really matter like spending time with your family, raising your children, enjoying the last years with your parents while you can.

Man, I know I sounds jaded now, wonder what will happen when I become a nurse and get to the really fun stuff like mandatory over time.

[Reesa23]

This year I got diagnosed with psuedo tumor cerebri disease and had to have brain sugery (shut placed) I was going to nursing school and working part time at the hospital I've worked at for the last 3 years. It's a struggle for us to just get by on my part-time salary so I can finish nursing school. All my work could give me was my FMLA which is 3 months off w/o any pay but I could use up my vacation and sick time. They told me if I wasn't back at the end of the 3 months, sorry I was out of a job. I was back with-in 2 months because I was scared for my job and begged my doctor to let me go back. Plus we were financialy tanking. Needless to say I had to file bankruptcy because my bills got out of control. I know I went back to work to soon and seem to get every cold that goes around. What choice did I have? I was only part-time so I wasn't elgible for anything (longterm/short term disability)

[purplemania, BSN, RN]

Before you promote this too much, consider how it will be funded. If there are more people eligible for paid leave than for worker's comp, who then pays the difference? Taxes? How much would the person earn during this leave? My son lives in Sweden and got paternity leave when his children were born, which he may use one day at a time, or all at once, or in clusters, till they are 6 (in school). HOWEVER, his tax rate is about 60% of earned income. Nothing is free. I do think it is a good idea, if properly financed without undue burden to ME. My kids are grown and I don't want to support people who are too lazy or stupid to use birth control. I have no problem with people who contribute to society, such as the case mentioned above.

[colleen10]

They would really have to look at the social economics of the situation.

As in Reesa's circumstance, she was unable to work and support her family and I'm sure also accumulatied large medical bills and other bills piled up. She had to declare bankruptcy and many of her creditors probably ended up with little or no money that they were due.

So, we would have to weigh the options - if she received partial compensation during the time she was off of work from teh states "un-employment" bank account would it be better than those creditors not being paid at all and the financial burden Reesa has been placed under.