GovernmentExecutive.com

Federal employees, like other American workers, are entitled to up to 12 weeks of leave after the birth of a child. It's just not paid leave.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is working to change that, though. And at least one of the group's members believes that legislation to establish a paid parental leave policy for federal employees has a serious shot at passing this Congress.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, has rolled out two bills that would provide at least eight weeks of paid maternity leave for civil servants, and paternity benefits as well.

One bill (S. 80) would provide at least eight weeks of paid leave for a mother after childbirth, while requiring a minimum of one week of paid leave for fathers and adoptive parents.

A broader bill (S. 1681), which would apply to both public and private sector employees, would permit the eight weeks of paid leave to women and men for the birth or adoption of a child, care for a critically ill child, spouse or parent, or for personal recovery from a serious illness.

"Roughly half of federal employees are female, and to recruit and retain the most talented women, the federal government must find a way to offer this assistance," said Liz Connell, a legislative assistant and senior health adviser for Stevens, at a legislative breakfast Wednesday sponsored by the nonprofit volunteer advocacy group Federally Employed Women.

While it may seem that paid leave legislation is nothing new, Connell said the issue has gradually drawn bipartisan backing. "Its chance of becoming a reality is greater than ever," she said. "If we continue to build support on both sides of the aisle, we'll have the chance to pass paid leave legislation this Congress."

According to the Work, Family and Equity Index, released by researchers from Harvard and McGill universities, the United States lags behind 163 other countries that guarantee paid maternal leave and 45 countries that provide paid paternal leave. Additionally, 37 countries already ensure paid leave for the care of an ill child.

On top of Stevens' legislation, the Office of Personnel Management appears to be jumping on board with an idea to provide employees with short-term disability benefits, which would include paid maternity leave.

OPM's new position is a far cry from where it stood in 2001, when it issued to agencies a study that found the federal government's leave policies and programs compared favorably with benefits offered in the private sector. But after discovering that the government's lack of paid leave was hindering its ability to recruit women of childbearing age, OPM has started to seek a remedy. OPM Director Linda Springer said in May that the proposed benefit could be offered through insurance, making it easier to swallow for budget-minded legislators.

Meanwhile, Connell said that Stevens has high hopes for the legislative branch as well. Currently, there are variations in policies on Capitol Hill, since each congressional member is responsible for instituting his or her own policy, Connell said.

She added, however, that since Stevens took office in 1968, every woman on his staff has been entitled to 12 weeks of paid maternity leave with the option of temporarily working part-time schedules beyond that.

"Stevens believes that federal employees deserve better," Connell said. "They deserve consistency and a guarantee that time off will be available when it is needed most -- when they start a new family."

COMMENTS

• I am a federal employee and have first-hand knowledge of how bad the parental leave policy is. I came to this office -- after being heavily recruited -- while pregnant, and went on maternity leave within several months. At the time, I had almost no leave accrued. Since there's no short-term disability (which most businesses have -- if not paid leave), I had to borrow sick leave. It took me 2 years to get my sick leave balance back to zero. Fast forward 3 years later, and I am pregnant with the second. My situation isn't quite as bad this time, but I am still going to be at least 1 year in the negative on sick leave after this baby. I am lucky that my husband has so much leave, or we wouldn't have care when our child gets sick (as they do, especially if in day care). Blame me for poor planning, if you will. But I had been saving leave at my previous employer for just this situation. They had short-term disability, so I needed to save less. The federal government is about to lose many highly paid senior people as the baby boomers retire. It will need to recruit the best and brightest to replace them, and will need some good policies to do so. The federal retirement system is now worse than any I encountered in the private or not-for-profit sector, and the health benefits are not that much better. In addition, my agency is now hiring people at much lower GS levels in order to keep labor costs down. In order to get these folks to come, they will need better benefits. Having worked at 3 other places, this is by far the worst for parental leave. If I didn't love the job so much -- and wasn't in a position to handle the potential economic loss of taking leave without pay --it would have been hard to recruit me for a federal position. And I am not alone. BB Posted April 21, 2008 12:36 PM
• Some of these responses are bewildering. Lots of jealousy and whining about things not being 'fair'. There is plenty in this country that is unfair. Here’s one; as a younger worker I get to pay for others' Social Security benefits and will probably never see any of them myself. I already have a comprehensive retirement plan in place so I won't need them, but the fact that my money is being confiscated each pay period to pay for someone else's lack of preparedness is a bit unnerving. We are talking a lifetime of being able to prepare for retirement; you don't get that long to plan for children. And yet, many of these very same people who benefit from my SS contributions in a few years are complaining about 6 weeks of maternity leave??? I was also shocked when I found out before having my first child that I didn’t even get short term disability. Before working with the govt I had worked in the private sector for several years and always had at least that benefit, if not maternity leave. In order to have all this leave many people are posting about, I would need to be 40 and have worked for the government since I was 18 before I started having children, unless I take LWOP or totally deplete my balances and maybe put them in the negative. So no, I haven’t 'earned' the same amount of leave as people who are seasoned employees. But neither have those who go out on disability retirement 'earned' their retirement. Why should our tax dollars go to them because they decided to get sick? Yes many did 'decide' to get sick through their own unhealthy lifestyles. Can we remove all the smokers, overeaters, consumers of fried foods, drinkers, etc. from the eligibility pool for disability retirement please...it's only 'fair' to the rest of us. Or make this something we can ALL benefit from, because it's not 'fair' that only some people will get this benefit. It's not like this is asking for the world. It’s asking for recovery time from something that is indeed very hard on the body and some time to be able to spend with a new baby, who needs its mother. 6 weeks is not that long and those 6 weeks are far from a vacation, so the abusing the benefit theory is a bit ridiculous. TK Posted April 11, 2008 4:47 PM
• I was under the impression that you can only get donated leave if it is considered to be an emergency. Like for example a Cesarean section. Toni Medeiros Posted March 5, 2008 1:06 PM