Greatest Nation in the World? How the U.S. Stacks Up for Those In Labor

By Ellen Bravo

Recently I gave a talk in Calgary, Canada for representatives of credit unions from around the world. The woman who introduced me, a director of marketing, was Canadian. “I just got back from maternity leave,” she told me, raving about her first child.

I know that Canadian law allows for nearly a year of leave at 55 percent pay. “How long did you take?” I asked.

“Oh, the whole year,” she replied. I mentioned that the Family and Medical Leave Act in the U.S. provides for considerably less time, 12 weeks, and that the time is unpaid. (I didn’t mention that it covers only half the workforce.) The vast majority of new mothers in the U.S. are back at work before 12 weeks. More than half of them get no pay at all.

Could she imagine having returned that soon, I asked. She worked her jaw for a few minutes without speaking. “I just couldn’t have done it,” she said finally. I felt as if I’d asked her to imagine feeding her child weeds.

Our interaction reminded me of that scene in Michael Moore’s film “Sicko” when he asks the Americans living in France how many sick days they received. “If you’re sick, you stay home,” one of them told him. “Yeah, but how many days do you get?” The answer: as long as you’re sick.

Hard to imagine for those living in the U.S., where no state or federal law requires any paid sick days at all – and where half the workforce has none. Seven out of ten workers in the U.S. have no paid sick time to care for a sick family member.

The next time you hear some lobbyist argue that our lack of standards is about economic competitiveness, remember this fact: Of the 20 most competitive nations in the world, the U.S. is the ONLY ONE which does not guarantee any paid sick days. Eighteen of those 20 countries guarantee at least 31 days of paid sick time.

Three decades years ago, when I was pregnant with my first child, a friend in France wrote me to say how sorry she felt that I had to have my baby in the United States. She went on to list the standards available to everyone in France – not just paid maternity leave, but high-quality child care available on a sliding scale basis for babies, and pre-school free to every child at age two and a half. Nearly all French parents sent their kids to those pre-schools, even in homes where a parent was available during the day, because the experience was so positive.

At the time I was taken aback by my friend’s letter, a little embarrassed and a little envious. Today, I’m just angry – and determined to see this change before my children have children.

For those who labor and go through labor, or simply need time to care for loved ones of any age, it’s about time we created some new rules in this country – like a minimum number of paid sick days, and insurance programs that provide at least partial wage replacement during family and medical leave. It’s about time we made sure that family values don’t end at the workplace door.

I’d sure like to say to friends in other countries that the U.S. no longer stands alone.

Ellen Bravo is former director of 9to5, National Association of Working Women and author of the recently released Taking on the Big Boys, or Why Feminism is Good for Families, Business and the Nation (Feminist Press at CUNY).

Comments

[lordvoldemort]

Hmmm... Interesting tidbits. Although, I'd say that one thing against a free-for-all in maternity leaves or sick days is a basic notion of fairness. Let's say we in America get to have 31 sick days, or better yet, get to take off for the duration of sickness. Is it really fair for a sick person to be paid the same as a person who is less frequently sick, or sick to less duration. I'm sure the healthier person would say no, especially if the healthier person actually gets saddled with extra work to "cover" for his/her colleague.

My solution (actually, not mine, because I know of Japanese companies that do this), is a guaranteed month of "PTO" or paid time off. It's just a conglomeration of sick days, personal days, vacation days, whatever. Everyone gets the same amount of time off, whether it's to goof off and go skiing, or getting to watch your kid play in his very first soccer tournament. Whatever.

It was many years ago, but when Bill Maher was host on Politically Incorrect, he made the point that a lot of non-parents get annoyed when parents get to take off days to see their kids play baseball or whatever. If a worker can punch out early to see his kid play baseball, then I should be able to punch out early to sneak in some "afternoon delight" with my girlfriend. Granted, children are our future and we care about children, but still, make it at least resemble equality and give some days off to non-parents as well.

Lastly, I'm not sure how a full year of maternity leave might affect employment trends. I mean, bosses already worry about losing employees to maternity leave now as the rules stand. Expand the rules to make the leave longer, and possibly a lot more costly, and employers are probably going to be even more worried about that kind of thing. The way I see it, it's probably a lot more possible to make a law about extending the length of the leave, but very hard to make laws for paid maternity leave.

[paperpusher666]

There is a fairness issue at work with maternity leave. If I don't want children, I ought to get a sabbatical or something equivalent to the pregnancy leave, as should other non-childbearing people. Having children IS a choice. I'm already taxed heavily to pay for other people's children's education. The single or childless are expected to pick up the slack in the office when those with children are having problems.

About a decade ago, sick leave policy was changed for federal employees to allow them to take sick leave to care for family members rather than just for themselves. Women were always able to use up their sick leave and annual leave to go out on pregnancy leave. (Plus they could seek leave donations from other people!)

A lot of it has to do with expectations. If you're willing to trade better benefits for lower pay, that can be a reasonable tradeoff. "Cafeteria" benefits offer a chance to do that. I get what probably seems like a huge amount of vacation time (26 days) and sick leave (13 days), but I had to work 15 years to get it. I started at 13 days of each per year, with a maximum carryover of 30 days of annual leave and as much sick leave as I could carry over. After 3 years, I went to 20 days of annual leave and sick leave stayed the same. I didn't start to build up annual leave until I had three years on the job.

[davidwwalters]

this has always struck me as odd, this american notion of staying on the job, sick, injured...i have a litany of personal testimonies on the subject. is the key to "increased productivity"?

[The Eternal Squire]

Anyone bored to insanity from unemployment or unemployment? Anyone particpating in the writer's strike? Please consider joining the Teddy Bear Screen Actor's Guild, where even your teddy bear can be a star!

[The Eternal Squire]

PS. The Teddy Bear Screen Actor's Guild is a Yahoo Group.

[sarah]

I think it's absurd how little understanding and respect parents receive in the US.

Is it "fair" for childless couples or individuals to saddle parents with the responsibility of raising socially adjusted, productive members of society, who will be responsible for everyone directly or indirectly when they become adults? Parenting is in most cases a choice - there have always been and will probably always be unexpected or less-desired pregnancies - and of course parents shouldn't use their children to shirk work or take advantage of others. At the same time, it is an enormous responsibility and an essential role in society to raise those children. Because parents have chosen to take that responsibility, not to mention the expense and endless hard work, of raising children upon themselves, they do deserve certain "priviledges", such as the ability to take time off if their child is sick or a longer paid maternity leave to develop stronger bonds with the child and to promote the development of the child in its early stages. Childless people pay taxes, part of which is used to fund education, etc., but they don't have the task of raising children. Parents do both, and it's a difficult, often thankless job.

It verges on tragic, it's simply incomprehensible how little the work and contributions of parents are recognized and respected. No one has to be a parent, no one has to even be a good parent, but what would happen if good parents weren't there? Social chaos. Put yourself in their position: you have to work your ass off to make ends meet, or simply work long hours because your job demands it, have little or no paid sick leave, and your child is sick. What do you do? Many parents can't afford to pay for private child care to come to the rescue, and daycares and schools don't allow sick children (who would want to make a child suffer like that anyway, not even being able to recover at home when it's sick). Taxes? Either you pay taxes for state-run centers for children whose parents can't get off work to care for them, or you work a little harder so a parent can take care of the child itself. Either way, that parent is working and contributing to society. Do you think parents enjoy taking care of whining, possibly vomiting children? Would you rather pay higher taxes to allow a mother or father to stay home with her/his infant during the first year, or taxes to fund child care centers for infants? (Do you even realize how outrageously expensive child care is for children that young?)

It would be wise to consider what those parents are doing for your future before you complain about working harder to make up for their "laziness" or "unearned" special priviledges. You at least can go home and have the evening free after work. Their work never ends, and on top of it all they get to hear nonsense like certain comments on this page from people who probably have no idea what they're talking about.

[Cleveden]

There are a lot of things wrong with paperpusher's view. For one thing, having children is often something that happens to us, not something we choose. For another thing, as Sara points out, parenting, whether chosen or not, is a lot of hard work; it is not the equivalent of a sabbatical. But the biggest flaw in the objection that that supporting parents is unfair to those who are not parents is the assumption that having a child is like buying some high-maintenance luxury and then expecting the rest of us to pay for its upkeep. Sure, if you choose to buy a 35 foot motor home, you have no right to expect me to pay for its gas, repairs, and parking. But your child is very quickly going to become part of my life, someone with whom I’ll be sharing social space. It matters very much whether your kid is sick or healthy, creative or destructive, cooperative or self-centered, careful or careless. There really is no such thing as “other people’s children.” Of course we expect parents to be the front-line managers of their children’s upbringing, but we all participate, for better or worse, in the formation of the next generation. From the moment it is born, every child is one of us.

[Kristi]

American laborers have been fighting for "quality of life" benefits (health care, paid time off) for well over a century. I guess we, as a nation, really are more committed to "the pursuit of happiness" than we are to the experience of it.

[JP Merzetti]

As usual - these kinds of commentaries raise a curious theme...those pro-child versus the decidedly child-oblivious.

I could state the obvious here: that propagating the species ensures a continuing human adventure on this planet / conforming with all the naturalized instincts etc...

But I think the larger philisophical question should embrace how we see ourselves as a society, and just what importance we place upon children and their welfare.
Of course, this includes the welfare of those attendent to the direct needs of children, and upon whom they are dependent for the quality of life they will lead until they are themselves independent.

I can't say that we have a marvellous track record in creating a world in which the common welfare of children has been vastly improved...for all our technological "progress".
Anyone who really talks to kids - engages them in honest discussion about their concerns...will know the circumstance of our failings.

As stated above, it is not at all a question of monetary resources, but of a shift in the collective public will...and we should indeed be shamed by those failings.
It is a sad fact, that our pride does indeed go before the fall - that too many of our children are condemned to useless failure in their lives simply because they were not born with enough silver plate..........
Those dice have always been loaded - and never so much as now.

[ESP0704]

The info about sick time reminded me about my days in a small steel mill, where I was a union rep. During a contract negotiation, I asked one of the owners about putting some sick days in the contract. He said no, because he was afraid people "would use them."

[Petronella]

Well written article.

[alibeamish]

Who will we be sharing space with in 10-20 years? Who will support us with medicare and social security?
Children who grow up shuttling between homeless shelters and relatives might not want to help us when we are old.

[F]

To us Europeans, who have statutory entitlements to paid sick leave, holidays, redundancy, maternity leave, the American (USian) attitude is very strange. Do you think that we are less productive? Do you think we take time off at will? I have 25 days paid annual leave a year, which I take either for holidays - 2 weeks away - or as needed for parent-teacher meetings, dentist check-ups etc. When I am at work, I do work and have more energy for it because of having time off.