We have a trivia question for you: What do the U.S., Suriname, and Papua New Guinea all have in common?
If you answered that those are the only three member countries in the United Nations that don’t offer paid leave, you’d be correct! Somehow, the U.S., in all its grandeur, world leadership, and political posturing, doesn’t require companies to offer new parents paid time away from work. We aren’t exactly in shining company here, which is something that several high-profile politicians have made clear recently.
Many tried to roll such provisions into the Build Back Better bill, which is still held up in the Senate. What began as a 12-week proposal was swiftly cut down to four weeks in order to appease the more moderate elements of the Democratic party. In that scenario, the U.S. still wouldn’t join the ranks of countries that have demonstrated real compassion for new parents. Most countries mandate between 12 and 24 weeks of paid leave, with some requiring even more. In fact, most Western democracies require over 24 weeks. So, the bare minimum, as proposed by Congress, wouldn’t scratch the surface of what other nations provide.
Why have our leaders resisted this idea at seemingly every turn you ask?
It’s certainly not the result of reading the electorate – paid leave is among the most popular provisions of Build Back Better. An October You Gov poll found that over 70% of adults support federal investment in paid family and medical leave. That’s more than those who support universal pre-K and free community college. In our increasingly polarized political climate, this is a massive figure.
It’s also not because paid leave is a waste of resources. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that paid leave for new parents improves child development, family health, economic security, and even supports fathers’ involvement in childcare. Much of the group’s research is based on California’s paid leave program, which has been in place for 20 years. The same investigation even found that 12 weeks of paid leave would prevent 600 infant deaths every year.
If passing this policy has both real-life and political upside, why isn’t it a federal law?
Our country has a single-minded obsession with the individual over the group. Rather than write laws that help the most disadvantaged among us, our legislators usually write those that “encourage” the individual to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, or whatever nonsense they tell themselves. The reality is such that some people, often entire demographics, need more help than others from the government. This immutable, undeniable truth is the result of institutionally discriminatory policies such as redlining, anti-labor laws, and punitive education funding formulas.
A federally mandated paid leave system, as proposed in the Build Back Better Act, would offset racial disparities in access to such benefits. In 2017, just 15% of all workers enjoyed paid leave. This group is made up of mostly corporate, white workers. In fact, almost 50% of white workers had access to paid leave while the same was true for only 23.2% of Hispanic workers. Similar trends persist when you compare higher- and lower-income jobs. The latter, mostly occupied by minorities, boasted far less access to paid leave than those in the former. The same study also revealed that minority workers, to whom paid leave is available, use it at equal rates to white workers.
None of this is particularly surprising. It’s another symptom of a fundamental disease that is systemic racism. But until our leaders recognize the value in supporting a group that has been disproportionately hurt by the last two centuries of public policy, nothing will change. That’s the bedrock disagreement here, and one we need to hammer to elected officials, candidates, and our communities alike.
