TOPICS
TOPICS
Parental leave act moves closer to law
Supporters of legislation to give federal employees the right to take paid leave after the birth or adoption of a child had cause to celebrate on Thursday evening.
The House passed the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act (H.R. 626) by a vote of 258-154, fending off criticism of its price tag. A companion bill, S. 354, sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., is before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said he was sure President Obama would sign the measure if it reaches his desk. On Wednesday, the White House issued a statement saying it "agrees with the goals" of H.R. 626 and looks forward to working with Congress on the issue.
The bill would give federal employees four weeks of paid leave following the birth or adoption of a child, and would let the Office of Personnel Management grant an additional four weeks of paid leave through regulations. Those weeks would be within the 12 weeks of unpaid leave mandated by the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act.
The bill's sponsors said they had been advocating this benefit for the past 15 years. Similar legislation that guaranteed eight weeks of paid leave passed the House 278-146 in 2008, but languished in the Senate.
"This shows that the government doesn't just talk about family values -- it values families," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., the 2009 bill's sponsor, during a news conference on Thursday.
According to Maloney's office, 53 percent of private sector companies offer some type of paid parental leave. She also noted that 167 countries guarantee parental leave for all their citizens.
Webb, a military veteran who also spoke at the news conference, said uniformed service members already are eligible for paid parental leave. "This is an issue of fairness," he said.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost would be $938 million over the period of fiscal 2010 to fiscal 2014. The estimate takes into account a 50 percent probability that OPM would increase the amount of paid leave through regulations.
The bill's cost made it a magnet for Republican criticism.
"These are tough times, regardless of what industry you're in," said Rep. Christopher Lee, R-N.Y. "Think about the retail workers who are being forced to do more with less. Think about that, when Washington turns around and offers more generous fringe benefits to public sector employees."
The House rejected an amendment by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, that would have kept the four weeks of paid parental leave, but required workers to use that as an advance, borrowed from future accrued vacation leave. The amendment also would have forced workers to use all available paid leave before taking paid parental leave.
In a statement Issa said the language would alleviate taxpayers' burden while ensuring the benefit for federal workers.
Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., opposed the amendment. "It's wrong," Lynch said during Thursday's press conference. "And from an employer's standpoint, it doesn't make sense."
Lynch's office said it would have gutted the bill, and that employees already can get advances of sick or vacation time to use after the birth of a child.
The amendment was defeated, 157-258.
The bill has support from the National Treasury Employees Union, American Federation of Government Employees and Federally Employed Women.
COMMENTS
- This bill would help federal employees with with families so much! I wouldn't even mind the amendment that says you have to take all available accrued sick and annual leave. The advanced leave we're allowed to take is not equal to the six weeks doctor's require women to be off work. Even if one could return to work earlier than six weeks, childcare facilities won't take children younger than six weeks of age. At the very least, if we are not going to be given paid parental leave, at least provide us short-term disability insurance which we can pay for out of our own individual pockets which would help subsidize the cost of taking leave without pay. I love my job and love serving my country and I'm very grateful for the benefits we already have access to, but I can say, as a former private sector employee I experienced better benefits packages with private employers. Federal Employees also tend to make less money than their private sector equivalents as well. There is nothing wrong with this, as we should be good stewards of taxpayer monies, but there is nothing wrong with offering a benefits package that is competitive with private sector companies. This will help recruit and retain the very best employees America has to offer, and good employees with better skills require less training and work more efficiently which saves tax dollars in the long run. I know their are some duds out there, and people who just keep a seat warm, but there are those people in the private sector as well. Just know that there really are federal employees out there that take their job seriously, and want to make a difference in the way the government is run. Jennifer Posted January 21, 2010 11:32 PM
- I pay taxes that support broken social programs that reward poor decisions. Why shouldn’t our government finally implement a program that rewards contributing members of society for being responsible accountable parents? Why shouldn’t super-moms be allowed 30 fast moving paid days to regain control of their hormones and physical dignity? Or, super-dads to support their new and existing little ones, through the transition of adding a member to the family while mom is hidden away dealing with excruciating cramping, hair loss, and uncontrollable shirt flooding? Parental time off is NOT a vacation especially when it directly follows the birth of a child. Having children is a decision not a choice! When we can choose which parent carries the child and gives birth in order to make the financial decision about who will stay home for a few weeks to care for the newborn with the least impact to the family bottom line, then it will be a choice. Many people in their family planning window are willing and able to do our jobs from anywhere anytime to get the job done but we aren’t allowed that freedom. We waste billions and billions on real estate for unneeded office space. We waste hours per day of valuable time on commutes and billions more on transportation. The entire federal government needs a make over why not start here. Put some of our money to a program that really does benefit someone worthy. Federal employees pay taxes too. B Posted October 7, 2009 11:48 AM
- Currently the civil service employees would have to take leave without pay if they didn't have enough annual leave. There are the doctor visits for mom before birth and doctor visits for mom and baby after birth. MOST companies offer insurance and/or paid leave for paternity. This bill is a good thing, especially for the middle class. AMS Posted September 10, 2009 11:27 AM
