U.S. workplace not family-oriented

[Jenn! 918]

Updated: 1:36 a.m. ET Feb 1, 2007NEW YORK - The United States lags far behind virtually all wealthy countries with regard to family-oriented workplace policies such as maternity leave, paid sick days and support for breast-feeding, a new study by Harvard and McGill University researchers says.

The new data comes as politicians and lobbyists wrangle over whether to scale back the existing federal law providing unpaid family leaves or to push new legislation allowing paid leaves.

The study, officially being issued Thursday, says workplace policies for families in the United States are weaker than those of all high-income countries and many middle- and low-income countries. Notably, it says the U.S. is one of only five countries out of 173 in the survey that does not guarantee some form of paid maternity leave; the others are Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea.

"More countries are providing the workplace protections that millions of Americans can only dream of," said the study's lead author, Jody Heymann, founder of the Harvard-based Project on Global Working Families and director of McGill's Institute for Health and Social Policy.

Among the study's findings:

Fathers are granted paid paternity leave or paid parental leave in 65 countries, including 31 offering at least 14 weeks of paid leave. The U.S. guarantees fathers no such paid leaves.

At least 107 countries protect working women's right to breast-feed; the breaks are paid in at least 73 of them. The U.S. does not have federal legislation guaranteeing the right to breast-feed at work.

At least 145 countries provide paid sick days, with 127 providing a week or more annually. The U.S. provides unpaid leave through the Family and Medical Leave Act, which does not cover all workers; there is no federal law providing for paid sick days.

At least 134 countries have laws setting the maximum length of the work week. The U.S. does not have a maximum work week length or a limit on mandatory overtime per week.

According to the study, the U.S. fares comparatively well in some areas — such as guaranteeing significantly higher pay for overtime work and ensuring the right to work for all racial and ethnic groups, regardless of gender, age or disability.

"The U.S. has been a proud leader in adopting laws that provide for equal opportunity in the workplace, but our work/family protections are among the worst," Heymann said. "It's time for a change."

The topic is of keen interest in Washington.

The Labor Department is examining regulations that give workers unpaid leave to deal with family or medical emergencies — a review that supporters of the rules worry might be a prelude to scaling back these protections, as requested by some business groups. Comments to the agency on the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act — which grants eligible workers up to a total of 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year — are due by Friday.

At the same time, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., plans to announce Thursday that he will propose new legislation that would enable workers to take six weeks of paid family leave. Congress also is expected to reconsider the Healthy Families Act, a bill introduced last session that would require employers with at least 15 employees to provide seven paid sick days per year.

On the state level, some New Jersey lawmakers are pushing legislation that would make their state the second, along with California, to provide paid family leave. Under one New Jersey proposal, workers who take leave would be paid through the state's temporary disability insurance fund, augmented by a 0.1 percent charge on workers' weekly wages.

Traditionally, many conservatives have opposed moves for paid family leave, but there are signs of some shifts. A prominent anti-abortion leader, the Rev. Paul Schenck of the National Pro-Life Action Center, recently said he would support paid maternity leave on the premise that it might dissuade some pregnant women from having abortions.

"Across the political spectrum, people are realizing these policies have an enormous impact on working families," Heymann said in a telephone interview. "If you look at the most competitive economies in the world, all the others except the U.S. have these policies in place."

Source

[ace13 0]

liberty of contract

[peejay 327]

Kind of makes you wonder why so many lie, cheat, commit fraud, and outright sneak into America to come here illegally and why there is such a long line to come here legally. A lot of them from the enlightened high-income countries and many middle- and low-income countries with all the bennies on the books. People don't flee utopia for a kick in the a$$.

I'm not saying that the USA shouldn't consider these measures...I'm just curious about the dynamics at play here. The article is kind of one-sided.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm not saying that the USA shouldn't consider these measures...I'm just curious about the dynamics at play here. The article is kind of one-sided.

It is. There's something to be said, however, about the lack of work/life balance and the effect it has on the family. I think improving the work/life balance situation in America today is something that mysteriously gets lost in the whole family values debate that the "conservatives" love to engage in. The FMLA, for example, is family values in action. IMO, anyone wanting to cut back on it cannot be taken seriously as a defender of family values.

[GaryC 7]

I'm not saying that the USA shouldn't consider these measures...I'm just curious about the dynamics at play here. The article is kind of one-sided.

It is. There's something to be said, however, about the lack of work/life balance and the effect it has on the family. I think improving the work/life balance situation in America today is something that mysteriously gets lost in the whole family values debate that the "conservatives" love to engage in. The FMLA, for example, is family values in action. IMO, anyone wanting to cut back on it cannot be taken seriously as a defender of family values.

The problem with the FMLA is not whats in it. It's that its an unfunded mandate. It puts all the burden on the employer. Now some large companies may be able to afford the hit caused by it but some of the smaller companies cannot. That is the part that makes me oppose it.

[Robor007 0]

I think that article is misleading. Just because it's not federally or state mandated doesn't mean many companies don't provide some/all of the items mentioned.

[GaryC 7]

I think that article is misleading. Just because it's not federally or state mandated doesn't mean many companies don't provide some/all of the items mentioned.

I agree with you there. My company has had most of those benefits before the law passed.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm not saying that the USA shouldn't consider these measures...I'm just curious about the dynamics at play here. The article is kind of one-sided.

It is. There's something to be said, however, about the lack of work/life balance and the effect it has on the family. I think improving the work/life balance situation in America today is something that mysteriously gets lost in the whole family values debate that the "conservatives" love to engage in. The FMLA, for example, is family values in action. IMO, anyone wanting to cut back on it cannot be taken seriously as a defender of family values.

The problem with the FMLA is not whats in it. It's that its an unfunded mandate. It puts all the burden on the employer. Now some large companies may be able to afford the hit caused by it but some of the smaller companies cannot. That is the part that makes me oppose it.

Unfunded? Are you suggesting that the gov't needs to re-imburse businesses for mandating to grant employees leave w/o pay? The company doesn't pay the employee on FMLA unless it chooses to. Small companies (those with less than 50 employees) are not within the scope of the FMLA.

[Robor007 0]

The problem with the FMLA is not whats in it. It's that its an unfunded mandate. It puts all the burden on the employer. Now some large companies may be able to afford the hit caused by it but some of the smaller companies cannot. That is the part that makes me oppose it.

Uh, oh... I agree with you on something.

/feels the ground to see if it's getting cold

Seriously though, about 3 years ago I worked for a 'big' company with several thousand employees. The office I was the admin (IT) at was closed and I was laid off. I went to work for another company doing IT support for medical imaging (MRI, CT, Xray, etc) centers. There were 3 of us in the company. The benefits? None. With such a small business the owner couldn't afford them. The owner and my coworker were both married and used their spouses benefits. I was single and while it sucked not having benefits it was a job and paid the bills. I left that job about a year and a half ago for another job with a larger (100 employees) company paying the same $$$ but with great benefits. I know that doesn't offer much in the thread - just an example of how my former employer would probably not be able to run her business if she was forced to provide benefits.

[GaryC 7]

I'm not saying that the USA shouldn't consider these measures...I'm just curious about the dynamics at play here. The article is kind of one-sided.

It is. There's something to be said, however, about the lack of work/life balance and the effect it has on the family. I think improving the work/life balance situation in America today is something that mysteriously gets lost in the whole family values debate that the "conservatives" love to engage in. The FMLA, for example, is family values in action. IMO, anyone wanting to cut back on it cannot be taken seriously as a defender of family values.

The problem with the FMLA is not whats in it. It's that its an unfunded mandate. It puts all the burden on the employer. Now some large companies may be able to afford the hit caused by it but some of the smaller companies cannot. That is the part that makes me oppose it.

Unfunded? Are you suggesting that the gov't needs to re-imburse businesses for mandating to grant employees leave w/o pay? The company doesn't pay the employee on FMLA unless it chooses to. Small companies (those with less than 50 employees) are not within the scope of the FMLA.

There is a significant cost involved in hiring a temp to take the place of someone on leave. If the company had the employee in the first place that means that person is needed. A lot of positions (like mine) require specific skills that are not instantly available. If the government mandates that the company requires that they give leave with or without pay then they should also fund it.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I'm so glad that when I'm eventually done with all my school (and have my PhD), I'll be my own boss. I've worked for other people before, and it's not fun.

The upside to working for yourself is you can (theoretically) make your own hours and take off when you feel like it. Of course, that's all theoretical. In practice, you try and work as much and as often as you can in order to make money, so you don't really have "great" hours or a "lot of time" off. But if needed, you can take the time off or cut down on your workload, which is nice, since you don't have to report to anyone but yourself. B)

For those who have no choice but to work for another person, I really do think more time off is needed. I've read studies that suggest that people require three days before they get into "vacation mode" and most businesses only give two weeks vacation (maximum) a year. I'm not suggestion the U.S. virtually shut down for a month or two (that'd be terrible for the economy), but I think white-and-blue collar workers need some time to unwind.

As far as maternity leave goes, I thought that was mandatory for businesses? Maybe I'm wrong about that. Seeing as how I am most definitely not a mother (or a father for that matter!), nor have I ever been married. Whatever the case, I don't see anything wrong with giving new mothers a few months off for maternity leave. Now...paternity leave, that's a new one for me. I've never heard of that. Might be interesting to look into as well.

Of course, there'd need to be some serious caps on the leave for both mothers and fathers. Ninety days (three months) is probably sufficient. Any longer than that and work productivity will begin to decline, and affect the business in question -- especially if the mother and/or father are in higher-level positions.

Anyway, I could go on writing about this all day, but I won't. As it is, I may have written too much. We'll see.

[Tim and Bethanie 1]

I heard on the radio that companies in the UK are allowing days off to take care of sick pets. That is stretching it. I can imagine here in the states calling in for a paid day, because my dog has the farts. Difficult enough to call in when my kids have been ill.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm not saying that the USA shouldn't consider these measures...I'm just curious about the dynamics at play here. The article is kind of one-sided.

It is. There's something to be said, however, about the lack of work/life balance and the effect it has on the family. I think improving the work/life balance situation in America today is something that mysteriously gets lost in the whole family values debate that the "conservatives" love to engage in. The FMLA, for example, is family values in action. IMO, anyone wanting to cut back on it cannot be taken seriously as a defender of family values.

The problem with the FMLA is not whats in it. It's that its an unfunded mandate. It puts all the burden on the employer. Now some large companies may be able to afford the hit caused by it but some of the smaller companies cannot. That is the part that makes me oppose it.

Unfunded? Are you suggesting that the gov't needs to re-imburse businesses for mandating to grant employees leave w/o pay? The company doesn't pay the employee on FMLA unless it chooses to. Small companies (those with less than 50 employees) are not within the scope of the FMLA.

There is a significant cost involved in hiring a temp to take the place of someone on leave. If the company had the employee in the first place that means that person is needed. A lot of positions (like mine) require specific skills that are not instantly available. If the government mandates that the company requires that they give leave with or without pay then they should also fund it.

If your skills are not instantly available, how will funding change that? If you get into a bad car accident on your way to work (God forbid that happens to you or anyone), how will your company cope while you are tied to a hospital bed?

I'm not denying that there is a cost associated with temporarily replacing an employee. What I am syaing, though, is that this is a mandate that employers - now that it exists - factor into their overall labor cost. It is the cost of doing business.

[GaryC 7]

I'm not saying that the USA shouldn't consider these measures...I'm just curious about the dynamics at play here. The article is kind of one-sided.

It is. There's something to be said, however, about the lack of work/life balance and the effect it has on the family. I think improving the work/life balance situation in America today is something that mysteriously gets lost in the whole family values debate that the "conservatives" love to engage in. The FMLA, for example, is family values in action. IMO, anyone wanting to cut back on it cannot be taken seriously as a defender of family values.

The problem with the FMLA is not whats in it. It's that its an unfunded mandate. It puts all the burden on the employer. Now some large companies may be able to afford the hit caused by it but some of the smaller companies cannot. That is the part that makes me oppose it.

Unfunded? Are you suggesting that the gov't needs to re-imburse businesses for mandating to grant employees leave w/o pay? The company doesn't pay the employee on FMLA unless it chooses to. Small companies (those with less than 50 employees) are not within the scope of the FMLA.

There is a significant cost involved in hiring a temp to take the place of someone on leave. If the company had the employee in the first place that means that person is needed. A lot of positions (like mine) require specific skills that are not instantly available. If the government mandates that the company requires that they give leave with or without pay then they should also fund it.

If your skills are not instantly available, how will funding change that? If you get into a bad car accident on your way to work (God forbid that happens to you or anyone), how will your company cope while you are tied to a hospital bed?

I'm not denying that there is a cost associated with temporarily replacing an employee. What I am syaing, though, is that this is a mandate that employers - now that it exists - factor into their overall labor cost. It is the cost of doing business.

A car accident is one thing. That falls under the category of sh!t happens and it can't be helped. But if I wanted to take 3 months off because of a family issue then I would need to be replaced. At the moment we are trying to hire 8 more people that have the same job classification and have been doing so for months now. For the government to force any company to give unpaid time off with a pledge that the job will be there when they come back really puts the company in a bad way. The law sounds fair and pro-family but in reality is totally unfair to the companies. The unintended fallout wasn't taken into account when the law was passed. Not all companies are Fortune 500 and have unlimited resources.

[Henia 11]

I really the set ups in some countries: free childcare France, cash sickness benefit and 3yr maternity leave (for women) Hungary, free healthcare in Canada. I am sure there are flaws in their systems too, but they sure sound nice!