Nearly all workers will at some point need to
take time away from their jobs to deal with a serious personal or family
illness or to care for a new child. Yet many of them do not have access to paid
family leave through their employers. A national family and medical leave
insurance program would help with this issue. On March 18, 2015 Kirsten
Gillibrand introduced the FAMILY Act (S. 786).
The FAMILY Act would (1) “provide eligible
employees with up to 12 weeks of partial income when they take time away from
their jobs for their own serious health condition, including pregnancy or
childbirth, the serious health condition of a child, parent or spouse, the
birth or adoption of a child, the injury of a family member who is in the
military, or exigencies arising from a service member’s deployment”; (2) “insure
individuals for benefits equal to 66 percent of their typical monthly wages”;
(3) “cover workers in all companies, no matter their size”; (4) establish an
efficient, self-sustaining national insurance fund paid for through employee
and employer payroll contributions of two-tenths of one percent of a worker’s
wages”; and (5) be administered through a new Office of Paid Family and Medical
Leave within the Social Security Administration” (nationalpartenrship). The
United States is currently the only industrialized country in the world that
doesn’t have paid leave.
Just this Monday, President Obama issued an
executive order Monday that “requires federal contractors to grant at least
seven days of paid sick leave to their employees” (politico). In his Labor Day
speech, Obama mentioned Senator Gillibrad’s FAMILY Act as “one national family leave insurance proposal
that Congress should consider” (rhealitycheck). In response to Obama’s
executive order, Kirsten Gillibrand said:
“Paid
leave is a long overdue economic policy that will help grow the middle class,
protect families and strengthen our workforce. Without it, our nation will
continue to forfeit billions of dollars in lost wages and economic growth…The
President’s Executive Order on paid sick days is an encouraging step in the
movement to establish a comprehensive paid leave program, but we still need a
national policy to ensure that paid leave is available to every worker in
America. I will continue to work with out growing coalition to pass the FAMILY
Act so that women and men no longer have to choose between a paycheck and
caring for themselves or those they love” (gillibrand).
This
example specifically shows how legislative and executive branches can work
together, even if this is an executive order. President Obama recognized the
effort Gillibrand has put into this movement and is using his power to make
some of it happen. And while Gillibrand recognizes this, she calls out Obama by
saying that this order is not enough. This topic also shows how Gillibrand
faces the idea of the two congresses. While at the New York State Fair, she
brought paid leave to her constituents’ attention.
Resources:
3 comments:
When discussing paid leave in this sense—and family health more generally—gender plays a major role in who usually takes such leaves (hint: it's women). Yet, in Sen. Gillibrand's response to the Presiden'ts acknowledgment of the FAMILY Act, you noted that she said she would push for its passing "so that women and men no longer have to choose between a paycheck and caring for themselves or those they love." While many men certainly take work leaves to care for their own and their families' health, the role of caretaker in many contemporary families is still placed upon women. That's why it is so interesting that Sen. Gillibrand's response (nor the wording of the legislation, at least the section you quoted) does not discuss the intersection of this important legislation with gender roles and women's rights. How can we make legislation that will likely ease the burden of women's dual expectations of worker and caretaker (read: the second shift) without explicitly acknowledging, and engaging in discussion about, women's expected roles that persist even in 2015? What does this silence around the topic of gender inequality say about the condition of our Congress?
Like Jeffrey I agree that this issue intricately involves gender and gender norms. This bill would greatly expand the American welfare state. The explicit goal of the bill is to expand paid leave opportunities, but this bill has a lot of implicit affects on women and their role in childcare. In many European countries, governments have expanded access to paid leave and as a result the burden of child care had been greatly lessoned as the government takes on a larger role in the process. The FAMILY Act would likely have similar results. In European countries, these expanded welfare programs led to more women entering the workforce because they no longer needed to choose between a career and family. It's interesting that this isn't the angle that Senator Gilibrand is taking with the FAMILY Act. Why do you thing the Senator isn't emphasizing the impact this could have on women? Is the lack of emphasis on the possible gendered outcomes a specific tactic to help the bill gain support in Congress?
In agreement with the two previous comments, the FAMILY act brings about questions regarding gender equality as well as gender representation in Congress. Is it possible that the wording that Gillibrand and Obama use includes an equal share of men and women’s time (when typically it is women that are spending more time away from work for personal health reasons) in order to appeal to a Congress that would not accept an unequal balance in women’s favor? It is imperative that children be raised properly because they are the future of this country. However when one is struggling between the demands of raising a child and the need to earn a living in the work place, it is difficult to find a balance. Paid leave is crucial.
By just doing a quick Google search I can see that there is an alarmingly small amount of women in Congress as compared to men. There are less women fighting for the rights that all women deserve- including an extended paid leave of absence from work in order to raise a child who will in turn contribute to society. Do members consider this statistic when wording certain pieces of legislation? Is it easier to fight for the population as a collective group rather than a certain demographic of people (who happen to be underrepresented in the body of leaders who make the decision)? If the demographic of Congress was more similar to that of the people it serves, would Congress be easier to relate to and easier to discuss issues with?
Post a Comment