Return to Article: Pushing Parental Leave
-
49026
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.
-
48438
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.
-
45082
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.
-
33225
I am confused, because when I had my daughter in august 03 I was able to recieve 240 advance annual leave that is 6 weeks of paid leave and I had some donations from my office to total 2 more weeks that was 8 weeks in total I had to pay it back which means I had no annual leave for a total of 3 years or so while out, I continued to accumulate 4 hours of sick leave.
I haven't heard any one say anything about advance annual leave, or was I just lucky.
-
33020
As a federal employee who is planning to start a family in the near future, I truly hope this legislation passes. However, I think it's only fair to expand this legislation to "family leave" so as to include employees who are taking care of elderly parents and others. I'll hit my 3 year mark this September and am now planning on how to save my leave over the next year to ensure that I have the minimum for my maternity leave. And, as a FERS employee, my leave usage over the past 3 years has been minimal - it just takes so long to accrue. That will mean no vacations and hopefully, no sick leave used for about 1 year, both of which can affect employee morale and overall efficiency and effectiveness. While the federal government provides many benefits, it still has a long way to go in the family friendly arena. Some form of paid family leave is not unreasonable and will only serve to retain and recruit younger employees who are seeking a more balanced work and lifestyle and who more willing to seek out other opportunities than generations in the past.
-
31577
What I am most shocked at is that it has taken so very long for this issue to even reach the surface. We are one of the ONLY "westernized" countries that does not offer a federally mandated maternity/paternity leave. If we our truly a country that believes in "family values", then this should be one of our top priorities. How can we continue to have children if there is no one there to raise them! Especially before the age of one! Our society starts with the young- no wonder that we have so many problems with the youth of today; there aren't any laws in place to ensure that families can provide real care for their children during the most crucial months without losing their jobs and health care!Isn't it most important to ensure that the next generation, the one that is supposed to pay for our social security benefits, are reliable and stable people? The argument that employers will lose their employees is not a valid argument at all. All one has to do is look at countries where they offer the best maternity leave, such as Sweden,-up to one year, and almost all return to work well before that year is even up and our devoted and respectful of the system they have in place. Please let us bond together on this issue and force our lawmakers to affect the necessary changes and bring us up to date with the rest of the world!
-
31453
I think short-term disability benefit instead of maternity leave would be more benefical for all. But I think we should start thinking about all the money taxpayers spends on training people and getting them ready for work and then losing them before we get a return on that investment. Taxpayers cannot afford to keep retraining new hires because we are unwilling to pay the competive market rate.
-
30316
I am hearten that there is a chance that this legislation may pass in this Congress, though I am concerned about adoptive parents only getting one week of paid leave. I think this shows a lack of knowledge regarding the adoptive process and the need to spend time with an adopted child when he/she is first brought home.
-
29379
Recently, an organization I belong to has been doing a study on retention. Today's workforce is becoming more mobile, and competition is mounting for recruiting talented people. Therefore, putting measures in place to make sure employees are happy with their jobs is crucial. To address this, there are tons of articles and studies out there on generational differences. (One recently in July 07 by Harvard Business Review) Pre-baby boomers and baby boomers have more of a "hard work will pay off in the long run" philosophy. Dedication and loyalty to an employer are key values of those employees. Today's younger employees (late Gen X and Gen Y) are dramatically more focused on family, a balance between work and other activities, perks, and "what's in it for me." Money and a stable job are not the motivators they used to be. Today's young people are asking for something different - not necessarily more - just different incentives. If they don't find what they are looking for, they will simply go elsewhere. I know several people who have taken a pay cut to take a new job that is more in tune with their desire to be with family during crisis or momentous events (birth of a baby). In response to other's comments on "why should I pay for other's time with their kids, or do their work while they are out?" - a reply could be "why should someone else pay for your disability should you injure yourself, your social security benefits, etc etc.?" We all rely on the system for benefits at some point or another. New parents need more help from that system than they are currently getting. Asking someone to sacrifice vacations with family (annual leave) for time to bond with a new baby is unreasonable. Workers need time away to recharge and return ready to tackle their work. Children should have the chance to go to Disney their parents. Sacrificing staying home when really not feeling well enough to be productive because all sick leave has been used on maternity is equally as unreasonable. Those who disagree perhaps do not have children and do not understand. I certainly did not understand that world until I entered it.
-
29351
Are we talking paid leave in addition to regular sick and annual leave that is earned? What about the older mothers and fathers who already raised their kids using up their share of sick and annual leave? If this is "extra" leave for special circumstances, it could be taken advantage of. It should be something that is fair to all age groups
-
29213
An additional benefit for the mother is to have some sick leave available after returning to work. Before my 2 kids were born I had 100s of S/L hours. I used 6-8 weeks of leave after each was born and now it is difficult to keep a balance. Kids do get sick and so do we!
-
28940
"Size matters", or words to that effect. In this case, however, I'm referring to geographical size (of nations), not the other reference. It's always funny to read posts where people try to compare a large nation like us to small, semi-socialistic countries in Europe or the Middle East. Many of these nations have much, much higher tax rates, and, of course less people than we do. I guess the bottom line is simply how we view our society, and the role of the federal government. If we believe that its' job is to provide for all human needs, then it's going to cost us. The posters on this artcle obviously don't agree, but the dialog continues.
-
28868
I thought 6 weeks of maternity leave was an automatic leave, especially for federal job. I got a job offer in Jan, got pregnant around that time, and started my job with federal in Apr. I will give birth in mid September. I have been working very hard to earn extra hour(s) each day trying to save them for giving birth. I just want to have 6 weeks of paid leave so that I could have enough time to bond with the baby and be on my feet to come back to work. I don't think I will be able to earn that many leave days by the time the baby comes out.
-
28863
Arguments that paid leave for new parents should not be provided because it would be unfair to other employees or that today's new parents shouldn't receive paid leave because someone else didn't receive it a few years ago are sad and uninformed.
If I were to buy those arguments, no one in the current workforce should get to use sick leave to care for sick family members because I had my children and my parents got sick and died before the family medical leave act (FMLA)was passed. Before FMLA, we were not allowed use accrued sick leave to care for them. Is that reasonable today?
We finally have figured out that it makes fiscal and ethical sense to allow people to be with family when they are sick. I hope that someday, the USA will catch up with other nations who understand the real costs of not having paid leave for parents. We will someday realize that well-parented children and well functioning families are good for our people, our nation and our economy.
-
28847
Paid leave is already available to any employee via the Family Medical Leave Act of 1999 and their own ability to manage their sick and annual leave balances. Here is where some planning will be required, although it is possible to use advance leave as well.
There is no need to create additional expense in Government for the Taxpayer to deal with when the vehicle is already in place and has been for 8 years.
-
28839
Why should we, the taxpayers subsidize a person's desire to reproduce? As other posters have observed, any benefit given to civil service employees must be available to all. People who leave the workforce for extended periods to raise a child, then expect to come back with all benefits still there are bilking the rest of us. Someone else is doing their job while they're off parenting, think about that.
-
28836
To all those who oppose the paid parental leave act and note that leave is something that should be "earned" consider the inequities that already exist and affect these mothers-to-be such as the fact that FERS employees can earn as much sick leave as they want over their career but won't be compensated for it in anyway upon retirement like CSRS employees. Studies show that this is why they use it so quickly. Also, consider mothers that earn and save their leave all they want but are still limited in how much paid time they can take off after childbirth. For sick leave, mothers are limited to using 6-8 weeks of sick leave (the normal recovery priod), beyond that for bonding purposes one must use annual leave. With a 240 (only 6 weeks) annual leave carryover cap, mothers-to-be again can't save too much. The bottom line is the gov. obviously need to do something to recruit the workforce that it needs. Paid maternity leave is simply another recruitment tool. We already have some in place...the student loan repayment program, relocation incentives and all other recruitment retention bonuses are all the same. These all can be considered something employees have not "earned" but something that the govt. needs to compete in the workplace.
-
28834
The government's leave program is generous, and many agencies allow employees to get advanced leave, so I think many people do get paid for the time off they need to take. It would be interesting to see how many people actually go on LWOP, and for how long. Still, I support the idea of some kind of long term care leave (maybe that's not the right phrase to use), but I don't think it should be limited to new parents. There are many other, more unexpected, instances where someone may need leave. Someone could be diagnosed with cancer and need time of for treatments. Why should that person be treated differently than a new parent? There are people who need time off because of an accident. There will always be things that happen unexpectedly and not everyone will be prepared. I think we should try to be as fair as possible when considering this as a new benefit. I would also like to see some limitations placed on how often each person can use this benefit (i.e., once every 5 years). It would be a hardship to many offices if someone were out 2 months out of the year -- in addition to their regular sick and annual leave -- and then went through the same thing the following year. That could add up to a lot of time. I agree that it would help the government in recruiting good candidates to offer additional benefits. It also helps to retain employees. But I oppose targeting one specific audience (are these people more desireable than those not having children?). Create a benefit that will benefit employees in all stages of their lives.
-
28825
I disagree with a comment in a previous posting. I don't agree with the remark, "Most employees that have children these days get to "work at home" anyway". Where I work, employees are permitted to telework no more than once each payperiod. I don't know of one person that works from home full-time, regardless of their parental status. Maybe I live a sheltered life, but I've just never heard of this.
What if employees were given a combination of paid maternity leave and the option of using leave? I agree (partially) that leave is intended for situations such as this, but it's not enough to cover the amount of time needed to recover after childbirth (especially for younger employees that haven't had enough time-in-service to accumulate a significant amount of leave). Maybe the Gov't could provide 6 weeks of paid maternity leave and give the employee the option of extending their time at home with a portion of their own leave?
-
28822
When I had my daughter - I ended up with LWOP for about 3 weeks. I had a C-section and was off for 8 weeks (Dr.'s order). I was a fairly new employee - recently graduated from college. New professionals from college who are at child-bearing age would take over 3 years to build up 320 hours of sick leave - then leaving them with a 0 balance. Couple that with all the appointments before and baby appts after - there isn't leftover sick and annual leave. Most of the professional type peopl could get jobs with companies on the outside that would provide maternity benefits. It is about time the federal governement competes with the private industry in this matter. It won't benefit me as I am past that age. I also think funeral leave is a great idea. Satisfied employees make better employess.
-
28813
Any article on paid maternity/paternity leave should include a list of other countries that already provide that kind of support to families, and a rating to show where the US stands (low). US employment rules calulate employment costs and dollar-profit as if people and families are almost the same as industrial machinery and equipment; with value based only on daily performance. "Civilization" requires a more broad intellectual review of the value of employee security and family time. Good journalism should include those issues.
-
28811
I agree with Susan's comments. Employees should "earn" their paid leave. It would not be fair to "give" any government employee 12 weeks of paid leave when they don't give to "all" government employees. There are some government employees that have already had their children and some that choose not to have children - they would not get these benefits. Most employees that have children these days get to "work at home" anyway which amounts to the same thing. The point is, you should not give anything to a portion of employees - "all" should get the benefit to use for whatever purpose they want or "none" should get it. I certainly don't want my tax dollars going for what could amount to a $15,000 bonus every few years to a federal employee just because they decide to start a family.
-
28810
As a federal employee I can see the benefit of including a specific leave policy for maternity. The private employment sector will continue to attract skillful people away from the Government as family-friendly leave policies expand in the private sector. My base is just now getting an on-site day care after what seems like decades of planning for it. And just this year we finally have the ability to purchase from a group dental health plan. We need to continue to push for the types of benefits that have been standard practice in most of the free world for a long time.
-
28801
The federal government has had paid leave for maternity purposes since before I was first hired in 1975 - it's called annual leave and sick leave. And in more recent years, family sick leave (still sick leave) has also been allowed. But it had to be earned, just like all other benefits. The private sector has many of the same rules for these types situations. Apparently OPM now believes that this additional type of leave should be provided free of charge - not earned. For those of us who had children, raised them using sick and annual leave (or LWOP if necessary), it seems a bit unfair. One area that is sadly lacking in federal leave is for the death of a close family member. Most private companies give the employee 3 days off for attendance of the funeral and making any arrangements without charge to any kink of leave (annual or sick). The federal government will give you as much as necessary, but it has to come out of your sick or annual leave. The new FERS employees use up their sick leave as quickly as they earn it, so they don't have that to fall back on. Wonder how much this will cost the tax payer?
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.