The U.S. is one of three nations of 181 studied by Harvard and McGill universities that don’t guarantee working mothers leave with compensation, and researchers say it pays the price in lost productivity and health risks for children. The two other countries are Papua New Guinea and Swaziland.
-- "America Last Among Peers With No Paid Maternity Leave," Bloomberg News, Feb 21, 11
A 2007 article had the U.S. keeping company with Papua New Guinea, Swaziland and Lesotho. Good to know that Lesotho -- home of the $1600 annual gross domestic product -- has changed since then.
A whopping two U.S. states offer paid family leave benefits:
New Jersey and California, have leave programs that offer parents cash benefits, while Rhode Island, Hawaii, and New York provide some disability payments to new mothers. Meanwhile, Washington state, which passed a paid parental leave law but has so far been unable to pay for it, is in limbo. Without any income to keep them afloat during their time off, a substantial minority of those covered by the federal leave law don't wind up taking the leave to which they're entitled. Some 2.73 million workers surveyed over an 18-month period said they didn't take FMLA leave because they couldn't afford to.
-- "The Confusing State of Family Leave Policies," Slate, Aug 17, 10
I got to take sixteen weeks paid leave, thanks to a combination of circumstances: I live in California; I had a c-section, thereby making me eligible for two weeks more of paid disability than I would have gotten had I delivered vaginally; I have an employer who also offers paid disability for giving birth; the employer also offered a week of paid leave for "bonding," and that same employer also has a vacation policy that links seniority and vacation time off, so I was able to dip into the 20 days a year I get annually to stretch my leave out to the full sixteen weeks.
My employer is not stupid: BLS data has shown that employers with generous family leave policies do a better job of retaining workers than their stingier counterparts, and any workplace expert will tell you that retention is typically cheaper than churn. But my situation -- which is a perfect collision between geography and corporate policy -- should not be special, or an exception. Should it?
This makes me so sad for American families and thankful that Canada's policies are much more generous. I don't have kids, but if I were to, I'd be eligible for 12 months leave, 6 of which would be fully paid/topped up by my employer and the other 6 months on federal benefits through unemployment insurance (Admittedly, those maximum payouts are not great). Plus my vacation/seniority/pension etc. would be intact when I returned to work.
Most women in my workplace do take the full year, which, depending on your perspective, also has the beneficial side effect creating additional jobs in the form of one year "mat leave" contracts for employers looking to fill the one year gap.
Posted by: maha | 02/24/2011 at 02:58 PM
I too am Canadian.
I don't know how American parents do it - physically or emotionally. Certainly, unless your employer "tops up" your leave (and many don't), the money is tight, but it is secure and it is manageable, especially when you factor in not paying those hidden costs of working outside the home.
Apparently, US policy makers are not too familiar with attachment theory and how a healthy attachment for an infant helps ensure success in all aspects of life.
Posted by: Jane | 02/24/2011 at 05:22 PM
Sure, the US policy makers want someone home with the baby. The stay-at-home mother that doesn't work in the first place so there's no time off required.
Posted by: Brianne | 02/26/2011 at 10:16 AM
Everyone is very informative and interesting blog. I love it. This link is dofollow too everyone, myself included, would be helpful. ...
Posted by: freelance writing | 01/07/2012 at 09:57 AM