GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Federal paid parental leave bill heads to full House committee

• 80966
  

  Go WAXMAN! I'm NOT a federal employee and support this completely. Maybe other companies will fall in line.

  Kristin Posted June 22, 2009 4:12 PM
• 63589
  

  I am totally for the bill. I dont think people (the public) understand that us Federal employees do not earn very much sick leave - 13 days per year. That means it takes over 3 years of saving each and every day just to have 6 weeks off with your baby. Thats just not right. The other option is leave without pay but i dont know very many people who can miss one paycheck let alone two or three.

  Elisabeth Posted November 24, 2008 2:44 PM
• 52784
  

  Wow, I have been reading all of the hateful articles written by so many of you and I am just APPALLED!!! It disgusts me how so many American's share in the "me, me, me" mentality that most of world criticizes the U.S. for....Congress is trying to enact legislation that is long overdue to help families out during the first "4" (not eight by the way, read the amended bill) weeks of having a newborn baby. This is not even close to any kind of "vacation" if you know ANYTHING about having a baby at all. For one to say "what do I get" miss the point of the bill....Thinking about yourselves of course and not the needs of new parents. This country is continuing to head in the wrong direction and has it's priorities completely backwards. "Family Values" seem to be diminishing with each decade...Instead of complaining about 4 weeks of paid maternity leave for people who really need it, why don't you refocus your energy on criticizing the hundred of BILLIONS wasted on the war in Iraq or the Corporate Welfare System that allows a CEO's pay to continue to rise even when their own company's profits have fallen for the period they are receiving record increases in pay for. When an Executive is making $14million annually when his/her co had a big net loss, now that is something to complain about. What about those hug tax breaks for the corporations that received hundreds of millions and whom benefit from the tax breaks much more that your average middle class working American ever would.... For those of you republican's who call yourselves fiscally responsible, OPEN YOUR EYES!!! The last 8 years of this Republican Administration is anything but "FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE" I agree that there is a lot of wasteful spending in this country, you see it in the welfare system as well as the Corporate Welfare system, but to invest money on 4 weeks of paid maternity leave on families in need is not asking too much, I believe all families not just the federal government deserve that much.....I'm hoping in the next election we will have some new leadership in office that will bring this country together so for once, we can start thinking of us first and foremost as "Americans" and we can learn what "family values" actually mean. And just maybe we can even learn how to stop thinking about "me" and start thinking about "we", wouldn't that be a nice change!

  Melissa Posted June 20, 2008 10:56 AM
• 52430
  

  I do not feel sorry for Federal Employees not have paid maternity leave. The rest of the USA does't have it either. Why does anybody think taxpayers should fund benefits that they have never had? This is wrong.

  cathy eaton Posted June 16, 2008 3:01 PM
• 52232
  

  I too can't beleive people can be so hard about us young government workers just having babies to have them. That is just ridiculous. I too for the last 3 years have been negative in sick leave because I had to use it for 2 pregnancies. I had to borrow leave. My children have to go to my Mother in Laws when they are sick and I can't even stay home with them because I have negative sick leave and I try not to use my annual leave because I need that for their doctors appointments. I laso don't see how people can take leave without pay that's impossible my mortgage company still wants their money and so does everyone else. I really want another child but I don't have enough time off and my child rearing days are slowly dwindling I am 33 so I really hope this passes and goes into effect in 2009

  Dawn Posted June 12, 2008 2:18 PM
• 51689
  

  How long does is take for these things to got through? I think it is something that does not even need to be debated on. If the government is "family friendly" then why the debate?

  su Posted June 3, 2008 11:06 AM
• 51286
  

  I just finished reading the hateful nasty comments made here. Ok FYI to all you csrs old folks with 1000 hours of sick leave-- us new employees do not have the luxury of 25-100 years to accumulate leave like you have, nor are we paid for our sick leave so we have no incentive to save it--and if you already had one child and used it up last time then you have even less. I already suffered through 2.5 years of no sick leave and 5 years of no vacations because I had to use all of my leave and borrow leave last time I had a child and now this time I have very little so unless this bill passes I am going to have to repeat the cycle again and probably tap my retirement fund to help pay for the lwop. As for my 'choice' to have a child , um this was a 'surprise' [and yes we took precautions], so don't lecture me about choices. I can't believe how hostile our country still is towards women. I am ashamed of all of you who are being nasty and mean on this thread. I am sick and tired of 'paying my tax dollars' for you old folks to wander around and talk about how you are retiring in 2 years and do no work and socialized instead of working, tired of seeing you sleeping at your desk, tired of seeing you take 1 hour lunchs and not take leave for 30 minutes, tired of you hanging our at the coffee mess for 20 minutes bs with other soon to be retired persons-- so don't you point fingers at us younger workers, we have a real need for this, I am actually thinking about private secor so i can get short term disabilty insurance.

  kim Posted May 27, 2008 8:10 AM
• 51284
  

  I have only been with the gov for 9 years, and I wanted to get aflac or some other disability insurance that EVERYONE else but federal employees can get but I am not allowed. I do not have enough sick leave and annual leave to cover maternity leave for the minimum 6 weeks so , like I did with my son, I will be forced to borrow sick leave. Last time it took me 2.5 years to pay it back and I have not been able to go on a vacation or take any time off as a result. I go to work sick becuase of this. I do not understand why people think it is ok to just take time off without pay -- are you insane? I can't afford that and neither can most americans. Who had enough extra laying around to cover you for 8 weeks w/o pay? I don't want to touch my retirement. Almost every other country takes care of thier pregnant employees and provides 6 months of paid maternity leave, some even offer a year. All we ask for for at least 6 weeks so we can stay home with our babies and heal from the birth of our baby w/o wiping out the megar leave we have accrued. I have to use leave for my doctor appointments and my sons appointments too. I am hoping this bill passes before I have my baby in January 09.

  kim p Posted May 27, 2008 7:55 AM
• 50924
  

  "As a taxpayer I don't want to pay you additional monies because you make a choice to have a child. BE RESPONSIBLE"

  ALL Federal employees are taxpayers, including Federal parents. I don't want to pay you additional monies because you smoked and got lung disease or stayed out in the sun too much and got skin cancer. Enough already! There is no place for this type of judgemental closed-mindedness in employee benefits. This is one area that if the Feds followed the private-sector model, ther wouldn't even be a problem. But that's a one-way street-the GOV follows private sector business practices when it benefits the GOV's bottom line ONLY.

  Be glad somebody wants kids, since you don't.

  Why Such Enmity Toward Parents? Posted May 19, 2008 4:04 PM
• 50564
  

  Bottom line - if the Federal Govt had short-term disability, we (yes I am a Federal employee who has been with the Govt for 3 years) wouldn't need paid maternity leave. When I found out that I was pregnant, I tried about 20 different insurance agents and NO ONE allows Federal employees to purchase their own policy because Human Resources will not track our sick days for them... not even AFLAC. They would send me materials and when they found out that I was a Federal employee, they said I wasn't eligible.

  I have used very little sick or annual leave and as it stands, I will not have enough to cover the leave that is needed as I am having multiples and will be placed on bed rest for at least 3 months prior to giving birth. Now who on earth could ever plan for that?!

  DJ Posted May 13, 2008 1:32 PM
• 50414
  

  I'm not mean-spirited nor do I consider my ideas to be absurd. I have offered alternative options, which include everyone. Increase the Sick Leave from 4 hours to 5 or 6 hours per payperiod and allow Sick Leave donations to be made freely to new parents. This way, if your coworkers feel your need is greater than theirs, they can donate their leave to you. If I feel my need to care for my sick Parents is as important, I can keep my leave and use it to care for them. Your way benefits only Parents (married or not) and discriminates against those who do not want more(or any) children. Some people only think about themselves and don't see the ripple effect.

  Joe Posted May 10, 2008 4:05 PM
• 49786
  

  Generally, some of the reasons that a person chooses to work in civil service, be it State, Federal, City or County, are not because of the competitive salaries but because of a secure or assumed to be secure retirement plan, benefits which include pay for sick leave, vacation leave and/or annual leave. Sick leave is generally one day a month and their is no cap on how much can be saved. Vacation/Annual leave is a leave that as we work longer, we earn more leave per month and are allowed to carry several hundred hours on the books to be available for out use. Assuming that most employees earn at least two weeks vacation per year, starting out, and twelve sick days a year plus approximately twelve holidays, there appears to be several days in which the employer/taxpayers are already footing the bill for employees to be off. I am very open to persons who desire to have children, but I am not open to it being at my cost. If a person desires to have children, then they need to plan for that themselves, meaning that if they want to be off with pay during the already overly protective guarantees of time off (FMLA, PDL, CFRA, PL), employees need to start saving their time that is allowed to accrue and sit on the books. The creation of an additional leave is also discriminatory. You want to create a law that guarantees an individual who wants to have children to be entitled to between 4 and 8 weeks of additional paid leave, but a person who does not want to have children is discriminated against by not allowing them 4 to 8 weeks of leave. Maybe the latter person wants to be off to watch the other person bond with their child. If you want to be a parent, then be a parent and be responsible and not rely on and feel that your employer owes you time off or you are entitled to it because of your desire to have a child. It is your choice, with that it means you are responsible for your choices, be it planned or accident, not your employer. If you want to take time off to bond or have a child, then save your time and do it. As a taxpayer I don't want to pay you additional monies because you make a choice to have a child. BE RESPONSIBLE

  Terry Slover Posted May 1, 2008 11:05 AM
• 49653
  

  paid parental leave for federal employees is long overdue. most people confuse FMLA for paid leave...and it is, but it's with your own sick and annual leave. being a federal employees often means we are held to higher standard and that's understandable.

  Bottom line: It would not be fraud, waste or abuse of government funds to allow a new mother or father to care for a new born or adopted child.

  amy liu Posted April 29, 2008 6:54 PM
• 49391
  

  I am appalled by some of the absurd and mean-spirited comments on this issue. Paid parental leave should be the most uncontroversial thing on earth. Most industrialized countries offer some form of paid parental leave; then again, most industrialized countries also have better health care, better educational outcomes, better literacy rates, lower crime rates, lower rates of teen pregnancy, and the list goes on and on. For a country that prides itself on "family values", we sure lag behind the rest of the world. I find it embarrassing that we are in the same category as Swaziland when it comes to parental leave. I also find it shameful that we spend billions of dollars on the war in Iraq while ignoring important issues that affect families right here at home. It can take years for a new federal employee to accrue enough sick leave and annual leave to fully cover the necessary time off after a baby is born. That's assuming that the pregnancy is uneventful and the employee never takes a day off for illness, emergency or (God forbid) a family vacation. If an employee is 34 when she is hired, should she have to wait several years if she wants to have a child? Children born to older mothers can be more susceptible to health problems, and those health problems can result in more doctor's visits, more time off, more medical expenses, and more stress on the family. The economy has changed, the job market has changed and family dynamics have changed - the federal government needs to get with the program if it intends to attract and retain quality employees to replace its aging workforce. Yes, many mothers work, both because they have to (especially in these economic times) and (gasp) because they want to! Having children is indeed a choice - but imagine if no one chose to have children?

  Reason Posted April 24, 2008 3:28 PM
• 49272
  

  I have had one child who was born premature by nine weeks, she required a month in the hospital and was unable to go to daycare until she was 6 months old. I used all of my leave to care for her and family also had to help. My second child was still born, I took off ony 4 weeks after she was born. I used all the leave I had up. So when my third child was born I borrowed 6 weeks of sick leave which I am still paying back. Since I lost one child my husband and I want another. Since I do not have sick leave, management has made it hard for me to take off for being sick or staying home with a sick child. Management does have the right to deny leave if you do not have sick leave on the books. I do not want to be in this position again but do want to have another child. We however cannot afford leave without pay, and my child bearing years are dwindeling. This bill would help us greatly. It would also help alot of other employees and would keep up with the private sector.

  michelle Posted April 23, 2008 11:35 AM
• 49043
  

  I am a Federal Employee and while I think the bill is important I am concerned about this bill because it only covers parental leave. Becoming a parent is a choice people make. This Bill would only cover those needing leave for child birth or adoption but leaves out those who have a need for leave - but not by choice. I think that if the Federal government is going to give paid leave beyond available sick and annual leave it should be for those who have not made a choice to need this leave. This bill would allow a person who made a choice to have a child to get paid but does nothing for someone who has cancer or has been in a car accident to get paid leave. It is selfserving to pay for a choice someone made but not pay for those who had no choice to need time off. I find it disturbing that if a fellow worker decided to have a child they would get paid to take leave but another employee who has cancer and needs treatment does not get paid leave.

  Any paid leave by the Federal Government should be for those with an unforseen illness and not a choice to have a child.

  Liz Posted April 21, 2008 2:16 PM
• 49040
  

  KP, don't take it so personally. We federal employees(you are one, correct)who don't work.....what is that attack about! I get paid for 40 hours a week and work 65+, so don't go there. Pregnancy is not a disability, it is a choice and for most, a good one; however, you need to plan for you choices. If I have an illness and need to have surgery or other recuperative time, or care for my parent,I don't get extra time, I use what I have saved. If you need to bond with your child, you can take Leave Without Pay and have your husband go to work while you bond. There are options and more freebies for ONLY SELECTED EMPLOYEES isn't fair, productive or cost effective. As for an insurance policy, they are all over the place and you don't need the gov to tell you where to obtain one, just call your insurance agent.

  Joe Posted April 21, 2008 1:30 PM
• 49036
  

  I think that if someone can plan to have a child they should plan on actually raising it themselves. Do you really expect 8 weeks of so called "bonding" to last a lifetime? The child would be better off if it was just handed over to the state. At least then it wouldn't have to suffer through separation anxiety on a daily basis, and PTSD later in life; but don't be discouraged, I'm sure someone will come up with a pill to solve the problem.

  MFS Posted April 21, 2008 1:19 PM
• 49034
  

  Most of you folks need to read up on your Federal Employee benefits. You must take your sick or vacation for the birth or adoption of a child. And if your administration follows the rules correctly you can not take advanced sick leave to care for a healthy child! You also need to read up on what the private sector actually gets for maternity leave. (Yes, paid leave!) I have worked for the government for four years and had two children in that timeframe. The first one I took a total of 9 days off, the second I took 4 days off. Thankfully I had easy deliveries with both and my husband is home. I would have loved to take more time off but could not afford to as I am the "bread" winner.

  If you don't like the idea of "giving" new parents paid time off then at least offer them a short term disability insurance program that the employee pays for. That way we aren't taking any benefits away from all of you Government employee who don't do any work!

  KP Posted April 21, 2008 1:11 PM
• 49030
  

  Leadership is about making the right decision when it may be unpopular. Everyone knows that father's need better leave policies. The economy may be sliding into a recession but extending paternity leave for federal employees will have a negligable effect on the recession. It may at first appear unpopular amongst private sector employees who likely will not receive the same benefit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the right policy for a civilized nation. The private sector will adopt the policy as our culture adopts the view that fathers matter in parenting.

  rogoman Posted April 21, 2008 12:55 PM
• 49019
  

  Having a child is a choice. I have elderly parents and animals that I care for, that are as important to me as someone's child is to them. I save my leave, adjust me schedule and do what I need to do to make it happen. I have no problem with someone taking extra time off, but plan wisely and save your time. A better choice would be to increase all leave allocations by 2 hours per pay period (52 total hours) and we can all use it to care for our priorities. The federal govt has many married couples, so we will be having 2 members of the family gone for the same child at a financial and productivity cost. This will also increase pregnancies at work, which takes people out of fullduty status for many months prior to even giving birth. BAD PLAN!

  Joe Posted April 21, 2008 12:13 PM
• 49011
  

  Times have changed, most families can not afford a stay at home Mom. As a country we need to enable Americans to have children and give them a proper education. Otherwise we'll continue outsourcing our country till we no longer have one. Seems the only people who can afford kids nowadays are those on welfare.

  Annette Posted April 21, 2008 11:30 AM
• 49009
  

  As I read OPM's regs (opm.gov/oca/leave/HTML/childbirthfs.asp), we're already allowed about 6 weeks of sick leave during the mother's "recovery period" so this only adds two weeks. We can't compete with the private sector for employees on salary--good benefits are all we've got. So even if just a few private employers offer this, the Government should follow suit just to help maintain our workforce. Better to let someone go for a couple extra weeks, than lose them altogether.

  Jeff Posted April 21, 2008 11:25 AM
• 48989
  

  Let's see... according to some of the comments here.... I am to be 'responsible' with my AL/SL. Being I haven't played "hookie" in several years, but I still have very few hours on the books - I guess I'm not permitted to have any kind of vacation with my family, must work through the flu, must petition my doctor's office to be open after hours for appointments, must pay/beg a friend to come get my 2 year old from daycare when she gets sick at noon, must stay at work evenings and weekends to make up time and not see my daughter until she's grown... I could go on.... Before having my first child, I had enough leave to take off 7 weeks when she was born. While the "bonding" concept is "nice", there's a physical factor and logistics to consider. Depending on the birth, it takes a woman several weeks to heal. The gov daycare won't even accept an infant until they are 6 weeks old. So considering that we would like to have another child, I am severely restricted by not having a benefit that many other employers provide. Those saying that they will receive no benefit from this bill, and that it's not fair have told propective parents to quit whining. We could say the same back to you. I've seen folks put on paid leave to "sober up" - the gov seems to have no problem helping them out. I've seen folks sleep in their office all day every day - gov supervisors don't seem to want to do anything about wasting the money they are paying those people..... And as for a "free vacation" - I'm not sure I call being up 3 times a night, a baby who won't stop crying for no reason, the worry of carrying properly for a newborn, or 8 feedings a day a vacation. To the opposition - what if your parents didn't have the leave, and couldn't take unpaid time off, so they decided to not have you??? Anyone out there feel slighted as a child because you had "absent" parents because they were always working???

  HK Posted April 21, 2008 9:45 AM
• 48985
  

  As a Fed, I have had two children, borrowed sick leave and didn't complain about not having special leave just because I chose to have two children. When will people quit expecting the Govt to take care of them, and start taking responsibility for themselves. We have enough entitlement programs without Govt workers joining the ranks. Go work for private industry if you feel so "abused".

  Red 58 Posted April 21, 2008 9:07 AM
• 48984
  

  if a person decides to start a family, they should plan to assume the responsibilities associated. this includes saving enough leave, or money, to adequately care for the newborn/adoptee. we should not invent a new welfare program for employees that have sworn to serve the government.

  joseph odum Posted April 21, 2008 8:48 AM
• 48983
  

  This is a "family value" issue, and as such should be supported by anyone who purports to be interested in such things. Opposition to such a benefit will only come from people who are looking at it from a selfish viewpoint. Such thoughtful legislation sets a standard for us as a society. Whether it is first practiced in government or private industry is beside the point. It strikes me as odd that the Republicans, who always talk up family values, are against this bill. They are saying their problem with it lies in current economy, but I didn't see them trying to pass such legislation when they were in control and economy was doing so well that they were breaking their necks to give tax breaks to the rich.

  rick Posted April 21, 2008 8:34 AM
• 48978
  

  This is too much. Private sector USUALLY only allows you to utilize earned benefit hours and will only allow using 6 weeks of earned/available sick time for a normal delivery (8 weeks with complications) and the remainder time off for bonding is whatever vacation time you have earned/available or if you have not time than without pay. If employees would use their leave more sparingly and schedule their medical appointments for the earliest or latest appointment available then they would not have to miss an entire day of work thus not use all of their leave before their due date. Govt benefits are the best, MOST all private sector companies do not offer advanced leave nor are they near what we are offered with FEHB let alone taking into retirement at the employee rate. Better planning and utilization of leave time by employees would make a HUGE difference.

  DM Posted April 21, 2008 7:47 AM
• 48976
  

  I have been working for the government for almost 26 years and when I had children many years ago, I ended up either taking leave without pay or advanced sick leave because that was my only choices back then. I have worked in Germany where the mothers and fathers get paid leave (and it's not just for six weeks). The mothers can take up to three YEARS to "bond" with their child and one year of that time is paid!! Then the father can turn around and take three years if he chooses. Americans needs to get with the program and allow this for ALL employees (not just the government) to allow folks at least six weeks of paid leave.

  Patty Posted April 21, 2008 7:34 AM
• 48973
  

  Oh my, oh my, our taxdollars at work: anything worth doing is worth overdoing...

  HR Professional Posted April 21, 2008 7:15 AM
• 48929
  

  Let's see -- some people think it's unfair because they didn't get leave when they had kids. Nice argument coming from folks who are probably getting paid for their unused sick leave at retirement, unlike the people who are of child-bearing age -- who ever anything about fair? Stuff changes, it would be nice to see something go in favor of FERS folks for a change.

  The reality is that it takes 3 years to get eight weeks of sick leave. The people who are sitting on massive banks of sick leave are clearly not the ones that need leave for maternity.

  What it really boils down to is, does the Government have a benefits package that is appealing to the best and brightest, or are we going to concede anyone interested in having a family to private industry? We need to address this in the same breath as pay-for-performance. A better solution would be a short-term disability program that would cover maternity as well -- with perhaps the opportunity to buy additional coverage for family care(paternity/adoption leave, elder care issues, etc.)

  SDoe Posted April 19, 2008 10:21 AM
• 48839
  

  I am really hoping that they pass this law as I am due in two months, and with a two year old and the crud that went around all year....needless to say my sick leave is depleted. I have worked for the agency under a year. I earn 4 hours every PP (104 hours)That is 13 days. You go to the doctor atleast 13 times during pregnancy. For me to take off the 6 wk to recover would be 204 hours. If I went in the hole it would take 2 years to get out of the hole and alot of praying that no one was sick or had an appointment. I am planning LWOP as that is all I can do. It seems that the leave is backwards. Little given when you need it, and alot when you are older and do not need as much as your family is all grown. I am hoping with fingers crossed that is passes.

  CM Posted April 17, 2008 11:48 PM
• 48801
  

  This is nonsense! We are already short of people. Parents already take all of their sick leave and annual leave when they have a new child, natural or not. Then, we are asked to donate our Annual Leave, to help them out with a normal pregnancy so they can bond with their children.

  I am not getting paid overtime to cover their jobs! I won't get paid anything extra when they receive even more leave. Where are we supposed to get this money???

  Will Posted April 17, 2008 1:56 PM
• 48796
  

  Quit your whining, govies get the best perks at taxpayers expense. Most taxpayers don't receive half the benefits govies receive. For people who produce little to no profit and are guaranteed pensions, sure do whine alot. When will all Americans received the same benefit as govies?

  mike Posted April 17, 2008 1:36 PM
• 48788
  

  If we can afford military expenses, we can afford to employ responsible parents. Or...if we can't afford these things, let's reduce military expenses and support families.

  As for those who say it's not fair to provide benefits to employees with children, that's the same arguement some employers make against health benefits and sick leave: "That's not fair to those of us who stay healthy."

  Jeanne Posted April 17, 2008 1:01 PM
• 48787
  

  I have not read the entire bill, so I do not know the full details. But based on the information contained within the articles in Government Executive, it leads one to understand that this benefit is being extended only to those who are of child bearing age and/or are willing to adopt. If this is truly the case, then this benefit is discriminatory in nature as it is for only a select group. Being older, having raised my children and no longer being able to have children or wanting to adopt, I am excluded from being eligible for this benefit. I do, however, have older children with special needs that I would love to be able to have paid time off to take care of. Instead, I have to use my sick leave, my annual leave, or unpaid family leave to provide them the help they need. Undoubtedly, there are others in the federal workforce that fall into this same situation. There is another view on this as well; that as the role of a Grandparent. In this day and age we see more people without spouses or significant others having children. If there is a difficulty and the parent and/or child are in need of care, there may be no one to provide that care other than a Parent/Grandparent. Perhaps this benefit should be extended to those workers who children are having or adopting children as well. Ultimately, I am not in favor of this bill. It is discriminatory in nature, and it will be an added burden to the taxpayer. I am sorry that the good Senator Waxman from the State of California does not understand that no matter what name you put on the funds used to pay for this, appropriated or discretionary, the taxpayer ultimately pays the bill. Or perhaps Henry and Nancy have finally figured out how to get the proverbial FREE LUNCH. If passed, this sounds like a good one for an age and/or preference discrimination suit. And for those of you who choose to compare the US to other countries, the last time I checked we were not under a Socialistic Rule as most European Countries.

  JDB Posted April 17, 2008 12:58 PM
• 48778
  

  For those of you who think that Feds can take up to 12 weeks of sick leave to care for a new infant - you're out of touch with your own benefits package! OPM rules clearly state that sick leave cannot be used to bond with a healthy child. So, annual leave is really the only option, and with carryover being 240 hours, it doesn't matter how much you plan, you can only take what you've got!!! For those "worried" about the poor employees who don't have children or who won't benefit under this bill, what about those of us who don't get sick often? I have thousands of hours of sick leave which I'll lose when I retire under FERS. Wake up and realize that being treated fairly doesn't always mean that we're treated exactly the same.

  Jennifer Posted April 17, 2008 12:02 PM
• 48775
  

  This is nothing more than trying to buy votes for the next election. The U.S. private sector does not have benefits remotely similar to this. Probably why Danny Davis, D-Ill., argues 168 COUNTRIES (not US COMPANIES) offer some sort of paid parental leave. I don't want to emulate Western Europe's detrimental 'holiday' requirements (France & Germany come to mind). Get ready, this is what we can expect w/the next election cycle - run away spending, debilitating tax increases, more quota systems (reference the SES diversity story), silly spending and debilitating regulations based on the [probable] myth of global warming (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; Section 526). And in the end nothing of substance will be done about real problems facing this nation (social security, medicare, illegal immigration, national security/defense, our failing education system, near & long term EFFECTIVE energy policies).

  Really FedUP Posted April 17, 2008 11:52 AM
• 48762
  

  I'll take Liberal "spending", those salaries would be paid regardless, over so called "conservative spending" any day. Where is the Republican outrage over the billions of dollars lost to Iraq contractor fraud? Its the opposite of outrage. All we see is support of more loopholes and corporate welfare at an obscene taxpayer expense. Penny wise pound foolish is taken to the absurd, extreme here. Republican's have zero credibility when it comes to any fiscal issues. This isn't my father's Republican party thats for sure.

  LN Posted April 17, 2008 10:36 AM
• 48761
  

  I agree with Dean O. The bleeding heart liberals have put "America" in a category of extinction. You want time off, earn it. A couple of weeks ago, it was give SES and S&E the advantage of carrying over more annual leave than the remainder of federal employees. Now, lets discriminate further and "give" paid leave for having/adopting children. Its called "BE RESPONSIBLE AND PLAN". A country based on "WELFARE" will not survive. I've had to earn and use my leave responsibly. I've also had to be responsible for my financial decisions. The U.S. can not continue to bail out people/businesses for their incompetient decisions.

  CATZ Posted April 17, 2008 10:31 AM
• 48756
  

  Quick. Amend the bill to *include* a retroactive provision so us ol' timer Feds who had kids many decades ago get the benefit too!!! I'd love to have 8 weeks off on paid status. Well, maybe not. The wife would have me working harder at home than I do at work!

  ol' timer Posted April 17, 2008 10:22 AM
• 48753
  

  Yeah, bring back the Republican "liberal spending hacks!"

  Chas Posted April 17, 2008 10:20 AM
• 48752
  

  What ever happened to paying folks to perform the work they were hired for? Time to stop all the taxpayer or emploryer funded touchy-feely entitlements. All of this is ultimately passed on the the taxpayer.

  Mike K. Posted April 17, 2008 10:10 AM
• 48750
  

  It's about time the Feds caught up with the rest of the US and the rest of the world. Paid parental leave is a given in every industrialized coutnry but this one. This is a real factor in being an employer of choice in the DC area - thanks Congress!

  Mtracy Posted April 17, 2008 10:02 AM
• 48748
  

  If you want better government, then you need better employees. It makes sense to offer competitive benefits to attract and retain good employees. Big corporations figured this out two decades ago. Treating employees well is not wasteful, it's good business.

  Nate Posted April 17, 2008 9:55 AM
• 48747
  

  What happens to us who have no kids and don't plan to adopt? Why can't we get paid time to care for elderly parents and attend funerals? I think this Bill is unfair.

  Nancy N Posted April 17, 2008 9:51 AM
• 48744
  

  Finally federal employees will have the same benefits as private companies when it comes to having children. Unfortunately, it is too late for me to benefit from it.

  Barbara Posted April 17, 2008 9:33 AM
• 48743
  

  While I agree that this particular bill is not essential, I have to wonder when (in the Republican mind) there IS a right time to increase federal employee benefits. I have been working for the Government for well over 40 years, and I have yet to see much increase in benefits (saw a LOT of reductions in benefits, though).

  I particularly like Rep. Marchant's comment about the limited resources of the government. It just seems to happen that when you cut taxes, the government don't have as much money. No matter how you try to spin it, regular appropriation or supplemental appropriation, the government STILL has to pay for the war, and apparently the President and Congress think the money for that will appear out of thin air (oh, I forgot, the government controls the printing presses for the money, doesn't it? Maybe that's why the dollar is hitting new lows for the exchange rates with other currencies around the world?).

  Larry R. Doane Posted April 17, 2008 9:31 AM
• 48742
  

  This is ridicules, OPM rules already allows federal employees to use up to 12 weeks of accrued sick leave for maternity/parental leave; and in most cases if you don't have enough leave they will advance you leave. Federal employee earn 4 hour of sick leave every two weeks, why would anyone (who has been with the government for any significant amount of time) need an addition 8 weeks of paid leave. I suspect the majority of this bill was lobbied by employees who play chronic hooky (granted their will be some legitimate situations), and maintain no sick leave balance. It reminiscent of the president giving the federal government a Monday off when Christmas or New Years is on Tuesday; we all earn annual and sick leave, plan for the future and be a good steward of government resources.

  Joshua Posted April 17, 2008 9:25 AM
• 48737
  

  So, if an individual is planning on having a child or adopting they should burn all their leave before hand depending on how the law will read and then they will get an addition eight weeks of paid leave over and beyond individuals whose circumstances do not allow them to become pregnant and/or afford a child.

  I feel that this new law will discriminate against those of us who can not have children and because we are single and/or in low paying jobs have to work and can not afford to pay for daycare. So, will I be given eight paid weeks to grieve the facts of my circumstances; while other celebrate theirs?

  dee Posted April 17, 2008 9:18 AM
• 48736
  

  Is it surprising that this is a Democratic sponsored and supported bill? They're notorious for giving money away. Hey, I'd like to bond with my new puppy; think the Democrats would give me 2 months paid leave?

  marie Posted April 17, 2008 9:16 AM
• 48734
  

  This is long overdue. I fully support this effort to bring the federal government up to standards as a leader in employee benefits. I was shocked when I started civil service (many years ago) to find out that there was no maternity leave! "Take sick leave or annual leave" was the HR solution!! Even the active duty military get 6 weeks off with no charge to their leave!! This is way to late to help me personally (my "baby" is 15) but it will help many other families-this is exactly the sort of "family friendly" policies that are needed in the federal government. It should be a model employer and set a good example.

  CAM Posted April 17, 2008 9:13 AM
• 48729
  

  Fed employees already have a generous leave program; they just need to learn to manage it better. I've known some who used leave every pay period, then when something happened, expected the rest of us to bail them out with leave donations. I'm in favor of giving National Guard and reservists pay differential when they are deployed - now there's an injustice!!!

  A Mason Posted April 17, 2008 8:48 AM
• 48728
  

  Compared to other industrialized nations, the US is far behind in parental leave. For example, Canada provides 6 months paid leave for the birth of a child. A commitment to PAID parental leave would make a bold statement about our nation's commitmment to the value of family.

  Deborah Posted April 17, 2008 8:47 AM
• 48725
  

  And what benefit will be given to people who do not have children? Is this another leave category, or does it require them to use annual or sick leave to cover the absence? This is equal to giving tax breaks to parents who enroll children in private schools. It's your decision to have children and you should be prepared for ALL the consequences.

  Terry Posted April 17, 2008 8:38 AM
• 48724
  

  Employees should have the ability to take accrued leave. This isn't going to really "cost" the govt anything. I am looking to adopt and have no idea how I will afford to take time off to care for an infant and bond with that child the way the leave rules are currently. If this passes, this will benefit me greatly. We can't afford for me to take leave without pay under the family and medical leave act. I am the major bread winner in our family, and it just isn't feasible.

  Lisa Posted April 17, 2008 8:35 AM
• 48722
  

  I'm sorry, but I thought Federal employees already got paid leave for the birth of a child in the form of sick leave and/or annual leave! I don't understand why a federal employee should get an additional 8 weeks of "free vacation" just because they choose to "knock out" a child. Maybe I need to think about having another one...

  Missy Posted April 17, 2008 8:32 AM
• 48717
  

  About time this is available to federal employees.

  I am republican and the republicans have caused the economic slow down with there spending programs. Such as reducing taxes during a war. Also for starting a war they don't know how to win.

  I am neither a fan of the democracts but for this bill I support it.

  Federal employees get the short end of the stick each and every day from their supervisors upward to administrators.

  These people never touch a patient in the VA, or have to endure the ire of the public that sees each employee as a drag on society.

  Medical personel, military personel, law enforcement personel and even clerical personel deserve respect and support for the continued smooth running of this country.

  So yes I support the family leave act with 8 weeks pay.

  Nick Posted April 17, 2008 8:05 AM
• 48702
  

  Hey DeanO', meanwhile, the good ole' U.S. of A. falls further and further behind the rest of the world....one morning you'll wake up in the morning, and we'll be the new definition of a third world country. I guess it's OK for my manager to make 3 times my salary, do 1/4 the work, and for all of the CEOs and execs in the private sector to keep rakin' it in, while all of us peasants try to keep our heads above water. Why don't you just crack the whip a little harder, maybe we'll get back to work.

  Jonathan Koontz Posted April 16, 2008 8:33 PM
• 48701
  

  It is about time the government caught up with the rest of the world. Europe has had paid parental leave for years.

  PMarsden Posted April 16, 2008 6:27 PM
• 48695
  

  Since the government seems to have alot of extra money now, how about coughing up what I was supposed to get when we converted to NSPS. On second thought, never mind, I am just going to go adopt a kid every year.....Now this should be viewed as age discriminatory. You got it right Dean O.....Hacks of the highest rank.

  ORF Posted April 16, 2008 4:39 PM
• 48683
  

  More unfunded gov't programs costing the taxpayer. Congress led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been dismal for this Country. Get rid of these Liberal Spending Hacks.

  Dean O Posted April 16, 2008 2:12 PM