MCT FORUM, By Ellen Bravo –
Nearly two decades ago, on Aug. 5, 1993, the United States took a stride forward by implementing the Family and Medical Leave Act. But we’ve got further to go.
The Family and Medical Leave Act enabled almost a generation of hardworking mothers to take time off with their newborn babies without risking their jobs. And the law offered such leave to fathers, too, for the first time. The new law reinforced a fundamental American belief: Family values shouldn’t end at the workplace door.
The Family and Medical Leave Act has been used more than 100 million times. Two states, California and New Jersey, have implemented family leave insurance programs so workers can afford to take time off when ill or to take care of ill loved ones. New York hopes to do the same next year. The state of Washington has passed a paid parental leave program. And a Fortune 500 company just hired a pregnant CEO.
Now for the bad news.
More than one in 10 American women goes back to work within four weeks of giving birth — mainly because she can’t afford to take the time she needs with her baby.
Note: The Family and Medical Leave Act is unpaid and applies only to companies employing 50 or more. This leaves out half the workforce. So, nearly half of new moms receive no paid maternity leave. (Not surprisingly, giving birth is one ticket to poverty.)
Even as more women become the primary or co-breadwinners in their homes, we’re seeing rollbacks in paid leave policies. Only 16 percent of private companies today offer fully paid maternity leave — down from 27 percent a decade earlier, according to the Families and Work Institute.
Worldwide, a 10-week average extension in paid leave helped bring about a 20 percent drop in infant mortality. Yet our infant mortality rate has worsened compared to other countries — we’ve slipped to 34, down from 29 — behind Cyprus and Croatia. And more than twice as many mothers are dying in the United States today as in 1987.
If we want more babies and mothers to thrive, and more parents to stay employed, the solution is obvious: We need to expand access to family leave and make it affordable.
Ask Lillian Miwa Mayer in California, a food server at a retirement home. Thanks to the state paid family leave program, she and her husband were both able to take paid time with their baby without risking their jobs.
Or ask James Musson, who under New Jersey’s Family Leave Insurance program took leave in six one-week increments after his twins were born. “As a father, you are looked at as a ‘spare part,’” he said. Being able to afford “family leave with the twins made me appreciate mothers more and really spend time with the babies.”
Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer may not need to use California’s paid leave program. But other women — and men — should be able to afford to be home with their newborns.
Some day soon, bonding with a baby should be as easy as using a search engine.
6 thoughts on “19 years after Family Leave Act, many Americans are still shortchanged”
So California and New Jersey have implemented this FMLA. While i don’t disagree with a mother taking time off to be with a new born I do not think it should fall on the employer to cover the costs. The employer did not tell her to get pregnant and to give the father paid leave is just asinine unless there is a medical reason for doing so. The two states that have implemented this are bankrupt and the one thinking about doing it is next to bankrupt so what does that tell you. Both are liberal idiot states that have not figured out that nothing is free. Whatever happen to personal responsibility? Everyone today thinks they are entitled to everything without working for it.
I bet most people who can’t afford to take unpaid leave are able to pay for their cable, cell phones, internet, etc, etc. from month to month. If we ask that small business employers help cover the cost of FMLA, their company would fail. Does that mean the extra cost of allowing people to take paid leave when sick or pregnant would fall on the shoulders of the taxpayers?? Doesn’t sound right to me! I agree we should allow for added time off for pregnancy and illness, but when does the responsibility fall on the person requesting FMLA? What ever happened to planning in advance and saving your own money to help fray the cost when when you become pregnant or sick?? Am I missing something here?
DJ, you’re right. Small employers cannot afford to pay employees for all that time off plus pay someone else to be trained and fill that position while they are gone and then get dunned for unemployment taxes once they terminate that temporary person. It’s a very costly experience for small employers who use specialized employees.
I agree that the employee should plan ahead for rainy days and bear most of the financial burden. Of course there are unforeseeable circumstances, but the employer should not be liable for these. It’s called personal responsibility. Employees should not be able to financially ruin a business and it could happen if they expand this law.
FMLA is a scam! People abuse the shit out of it. Take 16 weeks off for no reason whatsoever every year. Then come back to work and still have all your vacation to use.
FMLA does not allow anyone to take 16 weeks off in a year. The law is a sham because it sounds good but not many people can use it because they cant afford to take off up to 13 weeks unpaid. If anyone is abusing the leave then you have a problem with mismanagement because the employer has alot of rights to verify the leave is legit.
We are told where I work that we must use our vacation time first, then FMLA will kick in. Not sure if that’s the way it’s supposed to work, but that is what our company says.