Well, here’s the other side: to my mind, Travaglini’s proposed paid family leave bill sounds like a well-thought-out and reasonable way to address the difficulty of having kids and retaining a job.
Here’s what the article says:
The other main component of the Senate bill would guarantee all workers in Massachusetts up to 12 weeks’ paid time off to care for a newborn, adopted children, or sick relatives.
That plan, similar to one in California, would be financed by an employee payroll premium of at least $1.50 a week. It would pay employees their full salary, up to $750 a week. Travaglini said, however, that the figures could change.
“If we do this right, we can improve the quality of life for every Massachusetts resident,” Travaglini said. “And at the same time, we can promote a strong, vital business climate.”
As I said (not very graciously — sorry for that) in the comments to David’s post,
You think it’s inconvenient for businesses to have child leave for all of three months, unpaid? … Can you imagine how inconvenient it is for new parents to have to find child care for a newborn? Newborns are very difficult — they don’t sleep well, for health reasons they should be breastfeeding, and the mother is still utterly discombobulated from giving birth. It’s a dizzying time.
If you’re serious about supporting women in the workforce, and serious about supporting families and kids and public health, this bill is good.
Whether or not you have kids, you’d have to admit that raising children is an essential function of a family and a society. But we have still not come to grips with having women in the workforce, and the lack of consideration that we have for new mothers shows how we’re still tied to pre-feminist ideas of the work/family balance. It’s time to strike a new deal, and make Massachusetts one of the easiest places in the country to bring up kids. It even strikes me that this may be something that brings folks back to Massachusetts, perhaps making it more attractive to employers who value highly-qualified female employees.
Yeah, family leave is tough on businesses and co-workers; I admit that. But this is an attempt to distribute the load around more broadly, and more humanely. You can’t expect people to stop having kids, and you can’t expect women to just up and leave the workforce. So, we make reasonable allowances in the real world. And $2.50 a week sounds cheap to me, for the purpose of really tipping the scales back towards women and kiddos.
UPDATE (by David): To clarify the nature of the paid leave program: it is not limited to new kids. It also covers caring for a sick family member, as well as recuperation from one’s own serious medical condition (a form of disability insurance).
This is great news! If the country’s gonna stay economically backwards, at least Massachusetts is starting to move forward!
This idea in theory: YAY!
<
p>
This idea in practice: Unless the numbers change – and I really hope they do – this idea falls into that category that looks really good, but actually ends up being harmful to women in the workforce (and women who WANT to be in the workforce). Let’s start with some simple math: this is offering full salary up to $750/week. 750×52 = 39,000 which is less than half the Massachusetts median income (4 person family = $82,561 according to the last census data I could find in a quick search – http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html). What does this mean in practice? Since our systems and standards of payment are still skewed, this makes childcare responsibilities skewed. With still relatively few exceptions, men make more money than women. This means that when families know they are only going to get $39000 of one partner’s salary reimbursed when that person takes parental leave, they have to make a decision about who stays home. In order to keep the total family income as high as possible – which they have to do, since both MA and babies are really expensive – the person with the higher salary must continue to work. This kind of policy leaves families with no choice but to have the women, whose salaries are usually closer to $39,000 than men’s, stay home and care for the children, reinforcing the male-breadwinner stereotype that starts off the problem in the first place.
<
p>
This kind of program has a clear benefit over non-paid leave, which leaves families in much the same state but with no reimbursement. However, if MA is going to address it – and, oh boy, do I think it’s high time we did – we should do so realistically. We should be looking for policies that promote gender equity at home and at work, and we should be talking about amounts of money such that families actually have a CHOICE about their work/family/caring options.
(For anyone interested, a good basic piece on how our family policies work in the US and other options out there is Families That Work by Janet Gornick and Marcia Meyers.)
Seriously. For the first [i]x[/i] weeks, a program that happens to encourage the mother to stay home (as you pointed out economically, and correctly I think) might not be so bad.
<
p>
I can’t wait to have kids, and I’ll be a super dad. But, maybe there is someething to be said for the mother to spend more time with her children, particularly in their first few weeks, specifically due to breasfeeding, which has been medically shown to be far healthier for a a baby than formula.
<
p>
Yeah yeah, breastpumps… but is that as strong an answer as “from the tap” for the first 12 weeks particularly?
Ewww… plus they make you feel like a cow. (TMI?) g
<
p>
Seriously though in terms of breastfeeding, there is more going on there than just nutrition. It’s a chance for the baby and mom to really connect and that makes for a happy baby, which makes for a happy mommy.
<
p>
And as they say, if Mommy’s happy, then everyone’s happy.
<
p>
You will be a super dad, stomv. Just the ability to say “lactate” is a real plus. You get a Golden Ovary too. đŸ™‚
That is an important issue, but i’m not sure if it’s completely accurate, as my interpretation of what I’ve read is that paid family leave would be available to both parents. If I misintepreted that then maybe this could be an issue, but less than a quarter year is not that long a time to take a paycut (as opposed to not being paid especially). Also, $39k is a little bit more than my fiance makes as a middle school teacher, which is nearly twice what I make as a graduate student, so if we end up having kids in the next 4 years, we’re likely to be in very similar financial state, and this would allow my then wife to get nealy full pay during those three months, and would be very beneficial to allow her to spend some time at home, as she’s the primary breadwinner for at least the next 4 or 5 years and would need to be working to support kids.
<
p>
My primary concern is that the system will be properly funded and not a huge mess like Clean Elections ended up being…
<
p>
(PS: median family income of $82k is $41k a person, so not much more than the $39k)
I agree with the sentiment of your PS, but that’s part of what my earlier post was addressing. Rare is the family where the income is split 50/50. In situations like yours, great – either of you can stay home and this plan seems like it would work for you guys. However, in most families, the income split is slanted toward the man – $82k is more likely to equal 30k (hers) plus $52k (his) than $41k and $41k, and this makes a difference for the economics of childcare arrangements.
Still felt curmudgeonly. So here goes.
<
p>
First of all, I trust that neither you nor anyone else really believes that the weekly tax will stay capped at $2.50. These things never stay at the level initially assumed to be adequate. This bill, in the unlikely event that it becomes law, creates an incredibly generous benefit that people will understandably flock to take advantage of. The demand will quickly outstrip the supply of dollars, and next thing you know the tax will be $5 a week if we’re lucky. For the people you say you’re trying to help – families with kids – that’s not insignificant.
<
p>
Second, in a perfect world, of course everyone would be in favor of something like this. But for a lot of working families out there, times are tough, money is short, and at the end of the day, should they be allowed to spend their $5 a week on their own family, or be forced to spend it on someone else’s? Should they be made to subsidize some lawyer at Ropes & Gray who wants to extend her already-generous paid maternity leave by another 12 weeks on the state’s nickel?
<
p>
Finally, the broader issue of people (women or men) who want both to spend time raising their kids and participate in the workforce is very complicated, very difficult, and has relatively little to do with the first 3 months of the child’s life. Even if this bill passed, it wouldn’t do much about the real issue, which IMHO is the first 10-15 years of life, not the first 3 months.
You’re probably right about most of this, but I still love this idea.
<
p>
You’re right though about the first 10-15 years. Those are crucial and I’m very grateful that I am now able stay home with my son. I think he needs me around more now than when he was an infant.
<
p>
And not just because I drive him and his friends around everywhere. đŸ™‚
and has relatively little to do with the first 3 months of the child’s life
<
p>
Well, 6 months is more like it, but yes, it does. It’s the first months that are the hardest on new mothers, because it’s practically impossible to keep any sort of regular schedule if they want to be the primary caregiver. Especially for attachment parenting (which from what I’ve seen is extremely successful) – you absolutely cannot do that without staying home for the first several months.
<
p>
When it comes to education, nutrition, health care, mental and emotional development, the first few years of years in a child’s life are the most critical and set the stage for everything to come (I’m talking about the first 3 years or so, not 10-15, here).
<
p>
When it comes to the mother’s sanity, the first few months are critical.
<
p>
I’ve never had children myself, but I’m speaking from personal experience: I’ve seen three newborn babies grow up while living in their households in the past four years.
I’m well aware of how important the first 6 months are, and how difficult it can be for families to manage them. My point, though, is that the relatively short-term issues (3 months, 6 months, even 1 year) are very different from the long term (10-15 years) issues. In the short term, it’s possible to find stopgap solutions that make it possible for stay-at-home parents to keep their jobs available (though they may be difficult). In the longer term, it becomes very, very hard. That’s my point.
I’m not missing that, I’m responding to the way you put it, as “missing the real issue”. If all you’re saying is “there’s another very important problem out there, and this bill isn’t about that problem”, I don’t disagree. Though, I would differ somewhat: I think our biggest lack is a state program for the first few years, not the first fifteen. I’d like to see a Vermont-style Success By Six here.
<
p>
But that’s not what you seem to be saying in the first comment. You seem to be saying that this bill misses the point, because it doesn’t address the real issue. To that, I answer that there’s an extremely important, very real issue, that this bill is solidly focused on.
I was saying that Charley was mixing the issues. (Sorry Charley!)
should they be allowed to spend their $5 a week on their own family, or be forced to spend it on someone else’s?
<
p>
I answered this portion with a post.
rips open envelope The Golden Ovary Award goes to Charley on the MTA thunderous applause
<
p>
Thank you Charley for pointing out what our European friends already know. Supporting families is an investment in our ecomomy, our state and our society.
<
p>
And god love ya for this: (bears repeating)
<
p>
You think it’s inconvenient for businesses to have child leave for all of three months, unpaid? … Can you imagine how inconvenient it is for new parents to have to find child care for a newborn? Newborns are very difficult — they don’t sleep well, for health reasons they should be breastfeeding, and the mother is still utterly discombobulated from giving birth. It’s a dizzying time.
<
p>
I worked full time for the State of California when I had my son (now nearly 14 – holy smokes!) and I lemme tell you, when you’ve incubated a human for nearly a year, it takes a toll.
<
p>
I had what I thought at the time were good benefits. I got six weeks paid leave through my union. Six weeks! It was no where near enough time to recover — AND adjust to life with a newborn. I ended up taking an extra six weeks unpaid leave just so I could get my feet back under me.
<
p>
This bill is great for families and great for Massachusetts.
Paid leave: Pro-family, pro-woman, pro-kiddo … I guess one can legitmately argue for (or against) the social implications of Paid Leave.
<
p>
But this policy is certainly anti-growth and anti-job. For sure. I don’t mind a debate if liberals accept and acknowledge that there are real costs to this policy.
<
p>
Paid Leave is essentially another tax on employment. It may start small ($2.50) but it’ll grow, and it will be a burden on small employers everywhere. When you tax something, you get less of it … and Paid Leave will cause jobs to be lost. How many? Beats me, but there will indeed be job loss.
<
p>
I think Paid Leave will also hurt women. With this benefit mandated, small employers may be less likely to hire a young female job applicant over an equivalent male one as young females of child-bearing age are likely to take advantage of Paid Leave more than men. I know, I know … this is discrimination. But it is also a rational economic response by employers.
<
p>
For Ropes & Gray, Paid Leave is meaningless in the big scheme of things. But what 15-employee auto repair joint, or local coffee shop, or 20-person accounting firm wants to carry 12-weeks paid leave? It’s tremendously hurtful to their business, and a serious financial burden. What a boost to the NH economy it’ll be.
<
p>
Advocate Paid Leave if you want, but be honest enough to acknowledge and debate its economic downside.
and be honest. I said in my post, “Yeah, family leave is tough on businesses and co-workers; I admit that.”
<
p>
But you have to balance that against the difficulties that many women — and consequently their families — have under the current circumstances, in which having a child means a double-hit on their income: the kiddo and not working.
<
p>
So I understand it’s an adjustment, but I think it’s one that’s overdue. Women are in the workforce; women have children; and generally, women ought to breastfeed if they can. (The US has a relatively low rate of breastfeeding, compared to other countries.)
I haven’t seen anywhere what the total anticipated cost of this program is expected to be. $10 million? $100 million? Whatever numbers might be floating around, they’re likely to be less than actual costs due to increased participation in the program (when you subsidize something, you get more of it.) And the $750 weekly figure will increase, no doubt.
<
p>
The real honest questions:
<
p>
— how many jobs might this program force out of MA?
— what might the estimate of new jobs foregone because of the added burden of the employee taxes levied to fund Paid Leave?
— what effect will the lost/foregone jobs have on our tax-paying population based?
— what is the estimated gross cost of the program annually? What is that per capital? Per household?
— Rather than simply extole the benefits of the program, what would you be willing to remit annually in increased taxes to pay for these benefits?
— I married later in life, and we will not have children. May I claim a tax credit instead? If not, why is this program discriminating against childless couples? Most gay couples should be asking this, too.
<
p>
Anyone see the irony? MA is such a hard place to raise children because of our extraordinarily high cost of living we need a PAid Leave benefit … why is that?
<
p>
Because of the high level of social welfare programs similar to Paid Leave. Certainly our health insurance is the most expensive in the nation (I have experience here as I ran multiple employer ERISA health insurance groups) because of the benefit mandates, mandate which are politically imposed, not customer-driven.
<
p>
Another program, more taxes, fewer jobs, higher cost of living, fewer citizens in MA.
I think there needs to be some middle ground here. We are asking business to provide reasonable health care (or pay a tax, all be it a very reasonable one at present), help with retirement (401k), pay into Medicare etc…, and now cover (with a contractor or other employees) 12 weeks of leave.
<
p>
This may be asking too much. I would favor this proposal if it were limited to a one time use as well as a requirement that you have to use all your vacation time first. In order to help with vacation time, I would propose that if you work in a company that doesn’t allow vacation carryover, you are then required to use only one week.
<
p>
I know itĂ¢Â€Â™s tough to have children, I have two young ones, but the sacrifice must be at least mutual between employers and employees
I’m not so sure it’s a great one, but it is interesting. After all, if you use your vacation time first, then your “state childrearing time” and then you go back to work and then your kid gets sick, what to do? Having a few vacation days “in the bank” is essential for all parents, since kids don’t plan their infirmaries to occur only on weekends and holidays.
also would use this kind of paid leave. I know 2 divorced fathers with custody who would have rejoiced to have had financial help when they had to take time off because they were reponsible for their babies. The companies survived quite well – the issues that developed were because there was no advance notice.
I am not taking a position on this, although I am well aware, as a working mother, of the issues, just adding information.
is the collective audible groan of small business owners across Massachusetts fresh off of getting slapped with a monthly fee for not offering health insurance to thier employees. That’ll be a drop in the bucket compared to Jane Doe’s quarterly salary, and having to pay for the temp they hired to fill in.
<
p>
But don’t be fooled, I like this plan. Massachusetts is a prohibitively expensive place to have and raise children. My fiance and I were talking about it, and neither of us could figure how we would afford to have someone stay home those first few weeks/months after our first child is born. This proposal would help immensely.
<
p>
It may also help help quality employees already residing in Massachusetts stay here, and possibly encourage others to come here, thus improving our economic prospects in the bay state. If you’re a small business owner, you’re at least as worried about keeping good workers long term as you are losing one for 12 weeks.
for tthis debate. For me and my family it went like this: when my last child was born in 02 my wife took her 6 weeks paid leave and then I took my six weeks paid leave, then she took one week vacation, then my child went to childcare. To me this was reasonable the 6 weeks were paid through ST disability, vacation,employer paid family leave. It was accomlished with no tax at all. Maybe an incentive to employers would encourage more to provide this type. If I ever decide to have another child, that benefit would be critical for my staying with or leaving an employer. Oh yeah, dads need to bond too.
perhaps they might rejoice at the more competitive and skilled workforce now available to them. Highly skilled personnel that worked elsewhere “just for the benefits” may now give smaller business they once over looked a second glance.
<
p>
“Most liveable” cities and states are key to attracting small and medium sized companies into areas… this can only be “A Good Thing”