Legislation
makers seem to be thinking more about their constituents rather than
themselves. While normally, this is something that Americans appreciate, it is
interesting to think about the difference in rights that government employees receive-
or don’t receive. Leaves of absence are something that is widely discussed
throughout the nation, but as opportunities seem to be looking up for the
average worker, distinct policies still remain uncertain for politicians and
federal employees.
The D.C.
government recently introduced legislation that would provide sixteen weeks of
paid family and medical leave- even for those who work on Capitol Hill
(excluding residents of Maryland and Virginia). However the government “may not
be able to insist a Capitol Hill office rehire a staffer after taking the full
sixteen weeks (Gale).” This legislation, as well as many of the policies that
are currently in place can lead to difficult decisions for federal employees.
They must choose between their job and their family. While federal roles are
one of the most important jobs in our society, political members deserve to
have their personal lives respected just as much as the average citizen; it is
unfair to have certain policies (or lack thereof) prevent some of the choices
that they should be able to freely make.
The current
policy of leave among federal employees varies between offices. The amount of
time one can take a leave of absence can be as many as three months, and as
little as no paid leave at all. These differences can be based on anything from
time spent on staff, to gender, to what type of birth the mother has. However
this can cross into dangerous territories. With this case-by-case system,
lawmakers could be leaving themselves vulnerable to potential lawsuits
including sex discrimination cases or work place discrimination cases. How does
one determine who gets the most time of leave? Will federal employees that are
more critical to the policymaking process be treated differently than lower
level staff members? This lack of clarity calls for a stricter ruling with a legislative
backing.
Some offices
force their members to use their sick days or vacation days after their child
is born if they wish to leave the office. “In many offices, no formal leave
policies exist, allowing members of Congress to address leave on a case-by-case
basis and forcing staffers to beg, plead, and uncomfortably negotiate with
their bosses for time off (Lovley).” This leaves staff members- especially
males- under serious social and cultural pressures to not take the leave that
they ultimately deserve, especially when they work under male bosses. There are
some offices, usually those run by women, which have more generous policies.
However even when offices offer an extended paid leave, men claim that they can’t
use it to its entirety because they feel a strong obligation to remain at work.
Nearly ten percent of offices on Capitol Hill do not offer any paid maternity or paternity
leave, and nearly twenty-five percent offer less than the six weeks that Obama offers
his executive staff (Gale). The Constitution prevents the executive branch from
governing congressional employees, so it is up to Congress itself to make
decisions on how they wish to handle their paid leave. The new proposed
legislation shows that views on parental leave- especially paternity leave- are
evolving. Hopefully this progress translates into legislation that will be
beneficial for all family members and not put politicians in a position where
they must choose between their jobs and their personal lives- as they already are
obliged to do so frequently.
5 comments:
I think Congress has really set themselves up for failure when it comes to picking individual cases that will be granted leave. No matter what they decide, everyone would have something to say about who was able to take leave and why, there would be no good way to make it work and make everyone happy. The better way to do this would be to have one set standard of leave for everyone. Yes, people would have something to say about that too but if it was a standard that applies to everyone than it would cause fewer problems. I don't think that Congress is nearly done with working on this issue, there seems to be a long way to go.
This bill, while putting law makers in a bind as to whether or not they should continue working after a baby is born or risk losing their jobs if they take the time off, seems to be making baby steps in regards to a more feminist society. Paternity leave is just as important as maternity leave because with only maternity leave, the mother is the one who is taking care of the child on a daily basis and the father won't be able to be as involved with raising his child if he wants to. How likely do you think it is that this bill will pass? The United States is one of the few developed countries that still does not have a legislated paid maternity leave and this gets me thinking about how the government needs to take action and make some sort of legislation in order to catch up with the rest of the developed countries in this regard.
The state of maternity/paternity leave in this country is fairly atrocious. I wonder if this issue is one of the things keeping women from running for Congress? What are your thoughts?
In response to Rachel’s question, I don’t know if the issue of maternity leave is necessarily keeping women from running for Congress, but it could potentially be a factor as to why they don’t run for re-election. The rise in paternity leave could contribute to more women running for Congress however, since they won’t feel as much of an obligation to remain at home. One of the factors that I think adds to the low amount of women in Congress is the high standard that women hold themselves to. Our book claimed that women are more committed to their parties, their policies, and their constituents than men. This level of commitment and passion could leave other women feeling unworthy of a spot in Congress.
Post a Comment