The numbers are staggering: out of nearly 170 countries across the globe, only the United States and Papua New Guinea refuse to provide cash benefits to women during maternity leave. Since the 1960s, only three states — California, New Jersey and Rhode Island — have seen fit to adopt paid family leave programs. In a 2012 study by the National Partnership for Women and Families that examined the effectiveness of states in improving upon federal law on the subject of parental leave, Virginia received a disheartening D grade. The lack of expansion upon federal rights or protections for new or expecting parents who are employed in the private sector certainly did not help that grade. Although, to be fair, Virginia did relatively well — considering that nearly half of the United States scored a D- or F.
Despite such statistics, most contemporary politicians seem rather unconcerned with the issue, in part because current political gridlock promises to make any substantive policy action on the matter unrealistic. Now, it is not my intent to argue the international popularity of a particular policy always lends merit to that idea. Though pointing out the anomaly may have shock value, if the United States is to adopt paid family leave, it should do so out of an earnest desire for reform, not from the pressure to simply match the rest of the world. The current plan on the table, however, seeks nothing more than to conform with global developments — the proposal before Congress seeks to create a program which, if established, would be one of the least extensive paid leave programs that currently exist at the federal level.
Not surprisingly, a gridlocked political system has impeded many efforts at change. More than five years into his term as president, Barack Obama himself has yet to come out with a comprehensive vision for family leave. At a recent White House summit, he quipped that if, of all countries “France can figure this out, we can figure this out.” The President’s attempt at rallying support for public action on the matter, though admirable, may have been better served if he had, instead of choosing France, pointed out that Russia currently administers one of the most extensive paid leave programs. Its policy pays mothers full salary for 28 weeks and minimum wage for 18 months following the birth of a child, whereas the United States is currently struggling to consider a law that would provide 12 weeks of paid leave to new mothers. The President may well be aware of this reality, but why the hesitance to tell the full story?
It should not be surprising that this issue, like so many others, comes down to political obstructionism. To be fair, it might be difficult for Republicans to support any type of paid family leave, as business interests have often argued paid leave would be a job-killer (though many studies suggest the opposite). While all politicians intermittently wave the flag of family values, however, research has steadily shown that women who take maternity leave experience positive health benefits. Paternal leave, studies suggest, allows increased involvement of fathers with their children, which leads to significant positive developmental and cognitive effects. Being able to afford staying home with a new child is only practical if maternity and paternity leaves are paid. As much as conservatives may profess their commitment to family values, their continued opposition to paid family leave legislation on vague economic grounds compromises their commitment to such values. Though conservatives often articulate a belief that finances and parenthood are to be handled on an individual level, what could be more important to the health and growth of American families than a higher amount of financially independent parents who can devote valuable time and care to their newborns?
The economic case against paid family leave also rests on shaky grounds. The value of paid family leave is its substantive recognition that child-rearing and the financial independence of new parents are essential to drive the economic development of a modern nation. It seems highly unlikely, especially when one considers the economic experiences of the many states that have adopted paid family leave programs, that paid family leave would actually have a negative economic impact on families. While mandated paid family leave would inevitably make it more expensive on average to hire workers, the idea that women would become more expensive to hire rests on the assumption that women would consistently be given more paid maternal leave than fathers would be given paid paternal leave. Admittedly, women may require more leave due to the unique physical and emotional challenges mothers face in birthing and raising a child. But if both parents receive a similar amount of leave, as they should, the effect will be to break down biased (and outdated) perceptions of the father as the primary breadwinner and the mother as the principal caregiver. Paid family leave policies are not simply an opportunity to assist struggling families; they are also a chance to expand the idea of gender equality, particularly in the workplace.
Conor Kelly is an Opinion Columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at c.kelly@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | 15 hours agoIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 3 days agoWe need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
EDITORIAL: Reckon consistently with our history
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoUntil these bureaucracies have proven willing to commit to change outright, it is up to us, students and Charlottesville residents, to continue pushing for that change.
