AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
ITEM: Campbell Brown, the co-host of NBC's "Today on Thursday," in a July 28 segment critical of the United States for not requiring paid maternity leave, demanded to know: "Why does the rest of the world get paid leave while morns here race back to work?" Not having such a federal requirement, she insisted, is "a real problem."
CORRECTION: This carping begins from a faulty premise. There is an unwarranted assumption that a national mandate, forcing employers to pay new mothers when they are not working, is an overall plus. However, as always, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." While some costs may be hidden--or purposely obscured--there is still a price to be paid. Some companies may want to offer this benefit, and some employees may find it valuable. Those are rightfully private choices, as is the decision of a mother to work outside the home. On the other hand, a mandate for paid maternity leave for all employers, large or small, would carry significant costs and generate negative consequences, even for the supposed beneficiaries.
Current U.S. federal law (under the Family and Medical Leave Act [FMLA]) requires 12 weeks of unpaid family leave for women in companies with at least 50 employees. The current direct cost of the FMLA to employers is $21 billion annually, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This would skyrocket if all employers were covered. Yet, proponents of mandatory maternal leave would dump these huge additional costs on small businesses--forcing them to pay the salary of the mother who is not working (as well as paying for the additional time involved for the personnel actually doing the work).
The NBC report noted above cast the U.S. as being behind progressive nations around the world. Presumably the "best" such leave ...