Though the United States of America is regarded as being an affluent country which promises each individual the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, numerous examples of the lack of policies that do not safeguard these tenets exist—one being that employed parents are not guaranteed paid parental leave when a new child is born, adopted, or fostered. In a study done by the International Labor Office, of 152 countries analyzed, 42% gave a minimum of two-thirds of income for at least 14 weeks to parents, with a staggering 34% giving 100% of wages for 14 weeks or more (Maternity at Work: A Review of National Legislation, 2010.) The United States is the only country among OECD nations that has no policy in ensuring parents can provide for their child while on leave from their job. The United States’ lack of insurance for people welcoming new children could consequently negatively affect a family’s well-being, and thus put lives and happiness at risk. According to the National Partnership for Women & Families, New York, California, Rhode Island, District of Colombia, Washington and New Jersey have started their own partially paid parental leave programs with positive results, but the nation as a whole is behind substantially. Thus, a proposal to Congress of a national paid parental leave act is fundamental for the future of this country, for the United States to become on par with other industrialized nations and for ultimately better health and economic outcomes on an individual and national basis.
To begin, nearly half of American homes are made up of two parents who work full-time, with the women being the breadwinners in 40% of households (Livingston, 2016.) To make a person choose to either have their income taken away while bonding with a new child or to forfeit that precious time in order to make money to provide for their family, is such a difficult and stressful choice in what is supposed to be a joyous time for a family. The United States’ current status quo on parental paid leave poses a threat to the well-being of families in terms of health, finances, and happiness. The current legislation for parental leave is The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 which was created for eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of time off their job due to a serious health condition; the birth of a child, newly adopted or foster child entering the family; or to help an immediate family member who is suffering from a major health problem. Employees are eligible for this unpaid leave if the individual works for a company that employs at minimum 50 people within 75 miles and if they have worked for the company for 1,250 hours within a year. Only 59% of employees in America work for companies that meet FMLA eligibility requirements (Gault et. al 2014.) Also, only 12% of people work for companies that provide some sort of paid family leave (Kurtzleben 2015.) FMLA guarantees one their job, but 3 months of no pay is shocking, and over 40% of Americans do not even receive this guarantee. If a person is expecting a child, only has the 12 weeks guaranteed by the Family and Medical Leave Act and cannot rely on outside sources to care for the child, such as a relative, the adult has no other choice but to pay for daycare and go back to work, instead of being able to bond with their new child. This is unfortunate enough, but for those who have no guarantee to keep a job while welcoming a new child in their life can be extremely detrimental. Studies show that people who are given paid parental leave are more likely to vaccinate their child within the first year of their life. Also, 87.3% of women who receive paid leave breastfeed compare to 66.7% who receive no paid leave; breastfeeding strengthens a bond between mother and child and benefits the child’s health (Mirkovic et. al 2016.) Additionally, women who take a maternity leave of more than 12 weeks are less likely to be depressed or suffer from mental health issues; the likelihood of being mentally fragile is substantially lower when one is paid; also, 39% of parents who receive paid paternity leave are less likely to rely on public assistance such as food stamps than those who are not paid; one-tenth of eligible and covered workers on leave receiving either partial or no compensation had to resort to public assistance (Gault et. al 2014.) In order for there to be effective change, there must be legislation in place, which will then bring about a cultural change on how family is viewed, especially single parents and mothers.
To ensure families have the ability to care for their child without the fear of not making enough money to support themselves, a bill must be proposed to Congress for a nationwide program to be implemented that allows. The United States is lacking in its support of families, therefore, change must be enacted to promote health and economic security. The proposed plan consists of one parent being allowed 16 weeks of paid leave to care for a new child, whether it be a newborn, foster, or adopted child. The parents have the option to share the leave amongst one another and would be able to choose when to stop working and if they wanted to use the entire 16 weeks or to return to work earlier, upon a prearrangement with their employer. The parent who takes the leave can receive 70% of their earnings. Eligibility requirements are that the parent must notify their employer six months before the arrival of the new child and have been employed at their company for at least six months; unlike FMLA, the act would cover all employees no matter the size of the company or if they are a full or part-time worker. To advocate for this program, a comprehensive report on data from countries around the world who give paid leave and the costs and benefits in terms of health outcomes and economic benefits, as well as research as to how many people request parental leave a year and the estimated costs to the country when that leave is not paid for in relation to if the leave was paid for. Additionally, a nationwide survey would be created composed of parents who expected a child within the past five years to see how paid leave, lack of paid leave, or no guaranteed leave at all, affected themselves, their child, or their family as a whole. All of this data would be compiled and then be shared specifically to lobbyist groups that focus on women and children’s rights, father’s rights and worker’s rights. Ultimately the public and legislators would have to be educated on the importance and benefits of paid paternal leave.
The program would be funded by a nationwide income tax with the tax varying on the income of the person filing. Compared to the Medicare payroll tax which is 1.45% for employees, which is used to cover almost 56 million Americans, this tax would cover a substantially smaller group of people and for a shorter period of time (Medicare taxes and you, 2014.) This tax is more beneficial than the current status quo because it ensures parents can support themselves and their child no matter how long they have worked or the size of the company. Also, since the tax is based on income, people give what they can afford to put into the program, and since companies do not have to be large or employ their worker full time, employers who work at small businesses are not hurt by additional taxes. The country cannot just educate people to save their money in case they have a child, there needs to be a stable program for when someone is expecting a child that it is least stressful and worrisome as possible.
The security for families has been half-heartedly cared for through FMLA and there must obviously be opponents to parents receiving some sort of financial security while welcoming a new child. Those in favor see that the U.S. is clearly behind in this assurance of health and financial well-being compared to over 150 countries around the world that provide financial assistance to new parents, whereas those not in favor see it as another tax that takes money away from hard-working individuals. Though taxes can be seen unfavorably, and understandably so, the assurance that a parent can provide for and bond with their child with as little stress as possible should be respected and seen as crucial. How could this nation as a collective think it is possible for two parents to survive off of the income of one parent while the other cares for their child for three months, if they are even awarded that ability, with 40% of the population not be guaranteed that due to FMLA requirements; also, children do not arrive with no expenses and are costly to care for. Opponents may say that such a policy would hurt employers, but a study found that when an individual takes leave for family care, 3.2% of employers hired temporary employers, and 64.5% of employers simply reassigned duties to current employees; when looking at the state of California’s paid family leave program, a small amount of companies were faced with costs due to the employee being on leave (Mirkovic et. al 2016.) Other opponents are groups such as the National Federation of Independent Businesses and at the state and national levels, numerous chambers of commerce; both have spoken out against paid parental leave (Kurtzleben, 2015.) If the creation of a nationwide program was researched, legislators would understand how beneficial this would be to the population’s health and economic stability. Overall, a new program must be created to support parents and their children’s livlihoods, to be on par with the rest of the world and to live up to our American values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.