In 1900, Sweden ventured into brand new territory: It became the first country in the world to introduce paid family leave for new mothers. Since then, 177 countries have joined the Nordic nation, leaving just a handful without paid family leave — a notable exception being the United States. While unpaid leave is available to some workers in the US, there is no federal mandate for paid leave, leaving only 13 percent of Americans with access to a formal policy. The effects of this shortcoming disproportionately affect women and low-income workers; almost half of workers who need leave don’t take it because they cannot afford it, and 41 percent of working mothers say that parenting interferes with the advancement of their careers. Meanwhile, paid family leave barely impacts businesses that provide it. After California mandated paid leave in 2002, a survey of California businesses reported that over 90 percent either had positive or no effects on their profits. YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki noted that “when Google increased paid maternity leave to 18 from 12 weeks in 2007, the rate at which new moms left Google fell by 50 percent.” Beyond mothers and low-income workers, the benefit helps companies avoid high employee turnover, which is costly and can hurt employee morale. Despite these empirical findings, the United States still remains a global exception to the trend of paid family leave, but recent initiatives may give families more flexibility at work.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) into law. The act, the only national family leave legislation currently in action, provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for Americans who are new parents, as well as Americans who are experiencing a serious health condition or have a close family member experiencing one. It also provides 26 weeks of leave for those caring for a family member who was injured while serving in the military. But while the FMLA may seem generous, especially toward military families, it falls short by only providing unpaid leave. Additionally, the FMLA doesn’t cover workers at firms with fewer than 50 people, automatically disqualifying more than 28 percent of the private sector workforce. For the remaining 72 percent, there are other stringent requirements, such as a minimum number of hours worked for the firm and the number of employees the firm has in the area. Compounding these problems are the low rates of leave, as only 25 percent of people who have access to this kind of unpaid leave are actually using it. Even with the FMLA, cultural cues, economic conditions, and professional pressures still force many Americans to prioritize between their careers and families.
Recognizing a deficiency on the national level, some states have decided to take matters into their own hands; California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington, and, most recently, New York, have all passed a paid family leave policy. All four states that have implemented policies fund them through payroll deductions but have slight variations in the amount of leave available. While these states are leading the way, others have proposals in the works.
On the national level, progress seems increasingly imminent. President Obama has called for paid leave in both the 2015 and 2016 State of the Union addresses. The same debate is now playing out in both the Democratic and Republican parties. On the Democratic side, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced a bill, the Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act, that operates on the same model as existing state bills, with a small payroll deduction that would be gender and age neutral and take out about two dollars per week for the average worker. In the presidential race, Hillary Clinton opposes a payroll tax, instead seeking to fund paid leave by raising taxes on the wealthy. Her primary opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), is a co-sponsor of Gillibrand’s bill. Across the aisle, Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) has presented a bill that offers credit hour agreements in lieu of overtime pay. While this may be a step forward from the FMLA, it doesn’t do enough to help low-income workers who face the choice between income and time off. Further up the ballot, former presidential candidate Marco Rubio also expressed support for a national policy that would propose tax credits to employers who guarantee paid leave for their employees. While Rubio presented a more traditional Republican plan, critics feared that it would mainly benefit employers who already provide paid leave, without significantly expanding access to paid leave programs.
For now, the United States remains in the vast minority of countries without paid family leave — joined only by Papua New Guinea and Oman — but there might still be hope. With support from presidential candidates, both parties, states that have implemented or plan to implement paid leave, and the private sector, a national policy may not be far away, allowing workers to truly “have it all.”
Art by Sebastien Albouy