Maternity leave in the United States is not mandatory for employers, but workers with more than two years of employment must be granted paid maternity leaves. Pregnant employees must be granted the same health, disability, and sick-leave benefits as any other employee with a medical condition. The availability of these benefits depends on company policy. The United States has no national policy for maternity leave, but several states have mandated a maternity leave policy on their own.
Maternity leave in the US is primarily governed by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which provides eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year for the first 12 months. Federal law doesn’t require employers to provide paid maternity leave, and most states require an employee to use their accrued PTO if they want to be paid during maternity leave. However, certain states have paid maternity leave programs. Parental leave laws in the U. S. vary widely across states, with some offering extensive benefits while others follow federal guidelines.
Maternity leave in the United States is regulated by labor law but only requires twelve weeks of unpaid leave for mothers of newborn or newly adopted children, and only if they work for a company. As of January 1, 2022, all employees get up to 12 weeks of paid leave in any 12-month period in the event of the birth or adoption of a child, serious illness of the employee, or if the employee has worked for the company for at least 50 years.
There is no federal paid maternity leave, and it’s left to the states to figure out. The only states with an active policy are California, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Maternity leave is automatically granted, partly before and partly after childbirth. Fathers receive up to 25 days of paternity leave, while employees are required to take at least 8 weeks leave.
Eligible employees can take up to 52 weeks of maternity leave, with the first 26 weeks known as “Ordinary Maternity Leave”.
| Article | Description | Site |
|---|---|---|
| Maternity Leave in the U.S.: Everything to Know & Expect | Unfortunately, the only federal law guaranteeing maternity leave in the U.S. is unpaid — and it applies only to some employees. The law that … | thecut.com |
| Paid Parental Leave | Paid parental leave under FEPLA is limited to 12 work weeks and may be used during the 12-month period beginning on the date of the birth or placement involved. | dol.gov |
| Maternity Leave Benefits in the United States | by A Vahratian · 2009 · Cited by 26 — Specifically, covered employers are required to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave to eligible employees for certain family and medical … | pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov |
📹 Mandatory Paid Maternity Leave is a Bad Idea
The case against mandatory paid maternity leave. Why would anyone be against it? Do they hate mothers?! Watch and find out.
Why Doesn'T The US Pay For Maternity Leave?
In the United States, not all states provide paid parental leave, largely due to employers perceiving it as too costly, overlooking its potential to retain skilled employees. The U. S. stands as the only wealthy nation without a national paid parental leave program, reflecting a stark absence of federal mandates on maternity leave. This reality positions the U. S. among just seven countries that do not have a national paid maternity leave policy. Furthermore, while many countries offer specific leave for fathers, the U.
S. continues to lag. The movement for paid parental leave has been ongoing for over a century yet remains stalled despite widespread public support and recognized health benefits. Currently, only two countries globally, the U. S. and Papua New Guinea, provide no paid leave for mothers. Legislative efforts are in flux, with Congress now deliberating a mere four weeks of paid family leave, down from an initially proposed twelve weeks.
The lack of a federal mandate reflects the perception of paid leave as a state issue, with varied state laws in place. Overall, the absence of comprehensive paid parental leave in the U. S. highlights a significant disparity compared to other developed nations.
How Much Is Maternity Pay?
Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) in the UK provides up to 39 weeks of payment for eligible individuals. The payment structure is as follows: for the first six weeks, you receive 90% of your average gross weekly earnings without any upper limit. Following this period, you receive either a flat rate of £184. 03 per week or 90% of your average weekly earnings, whichever is lower, for the remaining 33 weeks. For those in the U. S., however, there is currently no federal mandate for paid maternity leave, leaving it to individual states and employers to provide support.
Only a few states have publicly funded paid maternity leave, and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for certain employees. The amount you receive and the duration of maternity leave will depend significantly on employer policies and state regulations. Many employers do offer some form of paid leave, but the specifics may vary widely. Women may take leave ranging from a few days to a year, based on their circumstances and provisions available. It's essential for individuals to research the policies applicable to their situation and understand both federal and state laws regarding maternity leave.
What States Don'T Require Maternity Leave?
Maternity leave policies in the United States are largely determined by individual states, as there is no federal mandate for paid maternity leave. As of 2024, California, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Oregon, and Washington are the only states with publicly funded paid maternity leave programs. Other states, like Vermont, will gradually expand maternity leave benefits to include a wider range of employees by 2025.
Currently, many workers, particularly in states like Tennessee, Texas, and Utah, have no access to maternity leave benefits at all. The federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for family and medical reasons, but this does not guarantee pay. Employees often have to rely on their accrued paid time off (PTO) for compensation during maternity leave. Some states have developed comprehensive paid family leave systems, yet significant gaps remain, with many workers lacking access to paid parental leave.
As of 2023, 13 states and the District of Columbia have mandated paid family leave, using a social insurance model. Understanding the intricacies of state laws and compliance obligations is essential for businesses, as these laws impact employee rights and organizational policies on maternity leave significantly.
Can You Choose Not To Take Maternity Leave?
According to the law, new parents must take at least two weeks off work after the birth of a child (four weeks for factory workers), regardless of maternity leave eligibility. Pregnant employees maintain rights at their workplace, including health, disability, and sick-leave benefits akin to other medical conditions. Employers cannot compel mandatory maternity leave, and employees who have worked for 12 months may qualify for protected Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave, even if unpaid.
If an employer dismisses an employee due to maternity leave, it could constitute discrimination under Title VII. Maternity leave policies must be equitable, ensuring that offering more maternity leave than paternity leave may violate discrimination laws. To maximize the benefits of maternity leave, employees should determine their leave options and understand the relevant laws in their state and workplace.
Employers cannot force employees on maternity leave to remain until childbirth if they are fit for work. Open communication about maternity-related needs is essential. While it is culturally common for women to take maternity leave, the choice remains personal. Unused maternity leave cannot be reclaimed, and employees are encouraged to utilize their full entitlement. Employees can decide when to begin their leave, which may last up to 52 weeks. If desired, flexible arrangements can be made for the use of this leave.
Why Maternity Leave Should Be Mandatory?
Paid parental and maternity leave significantly enhances the health of mothers and infants. Research indicates that increases in paid leave correlate with reduced infant mortality and lower instances of child abuse-related head trauma, as parents experience reduced stress and engage more positively with their children. Comprehensive paid leave policies are crucial, allowing parents to focus on bonding with their newborns during a transformative time that influences long-term physical and mental wellbeing, including risks for mood disorders and intimate partner violence.
In the United States, despite broad support—with 82% of Americans favoring mandatory maternity leave—systemic barriers persist, as the country lacks universal paid leave policies for mothers and fathers alike. A minimum of six months' paid leave is recommended for optimal health outcomes, but current provisions such as the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) only guarantee job protection for 12 weeks, without pay. The absence of comprehensive leave policies affects women’s workforce participation and contributes to the gender pay gap.
Offering paid parental leave can promote gender equality and improve workplace dynamics, though men often face stigma in taking leave. Guaranteeing paid maternity and paternity leave not only benefits families directly but also enhances productivity and retention in the workplace, addressing long-standing issues related to occupational stress and gender discrimination.
What Happens If I Start A New Job And Get Pregnant?
Maternity leave is a fundamental right for employees, and you are entitled to it even if you start a job while pregnant. There's no obligation to reveal your pregnancy during a job interview or to your employer after starting the job. However, if you begin a new job while pregnant, you won't qualify for Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) due to the 'continuous employment' requirement. Experiences vary; some might consciously avoid getting pregnant soon after starting a new job, while others may find themselves pregnant unexpectedly.
Legally, you cannot be dismissed for being pregnant, and organizations cannot discriminate against you due to pregnancy, as mandated by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). When navigating new roles while pregnant, effective communication about your situation is essential. While many companies don't offer paid maternity leave, some provide decent options. It's important to consider job security and individual circumstances when transitioning to a new employer during pregnancy. Ultimately, while applying for jobs and managing pregnancy simultaneously can be challenging, understanding your rights and protections can ease the process.
When Can I Use Maternity Leave?
In the U. S., employees can request and track various types of leave including vacation, sick leave, and maternity leave across small to large teams. Maternity leave, applicable in all states, allows parents to take leave within the first 12 months after a child's birth, adoption, or foster placement. Under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), both mothers and fathers can utilize leave for bonding and pregnancy-related incapacity, with eligible employees entitled to up to 12 weeks of unpaid and job-protected leave.
Maternity leave typically begins a few weeks prior to childbirth, and the Maternity Leave Act permits up to 8 weeks of leave. Employees can start taking FMLA leave at any time during their pregnancy and for prenatal care. Eligibility requires at least 12 months of service, a minimum of 1, 250 hours worked, and employment at a location with at least 50 employees. While FMLA does not necessitate paid leave, using accrued vacation or sick leave can enhance income during maternity leave.
Women often begin their maternity leave close to the expected delivery date, with a standard recovery period of 6-8 weeks post-birth. Parents have a total of 26 weeks of paid leave per benefit year, encompassing various types of family and medical leave. It's crucial for employees to understand state laws regarding parental leave in addition to federal regulations.
Is Maternity Leave Required By Law In The US?
The United States lacks a federal paid maternity and family leave policy, making it unique among high-income nations. States like California, New Jersey, and New York have implemented their own paid leave legislation, while others follow federal guidelines. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) governs maternity leave at the federal level, providing eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave annually for the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child. Although this law offers necessary job protection, it does not mandate paid leave, leading to a significant gap in support for new parents.
Many states have developed their own maternity leave policies, with variances in eligibility and benefits. Only 13 states and the District of Columbia have instituted mandatory paid family leave systems, while nine others maintain voluntary systems. Comparatively, 96% of countries offer some form of paid maternity leave, leaving the U. S. noticeably behind. Efforts to implement paid leave have been proposed over the years, but the lack of a national standard continues to impact millions of employees who often rely on the FMLA for unpaid leave. Understanding state-specific maternity leave laws is crucial for employers, as it ensures compliance and supports expecting parents effectively.
What Happens If I Get Fired Before Maternity Leave?
Upon returning from maternity leave, you are entitled to your previous position. If terminated wrongfully before your leave, you may have grounds for a settlement claim. Even if fired prior to your leave, you might still be eligible for maternity benefits, barring circumstances like misconduct that could disqualify you from regular Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. If you believe your rights have been violated during pregnancy, seeking legal assistance is advisable.
Employers who terminate or lay off pregnant employees must compensate them for any maternity benefits they would have qualified for. If you suspect pregnancy discrimination, you may file a lawsuit or complaint against your employer. It is crucial to gather evidence if you are dismissed, as this will support your case with your attorney. You are not obligated to disclose your pregnancy in job interviews, nor to your boss unless necessary. However, if laid off during maternity leave without adequate cause, this may constitute illegal termination.
Laws like the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act protect against such discrimination. Despite being able to be laid off while on leave, it should not be due to pregnancy. If wrongful termination occurs shortly after your return from maternity leave, legal options are available, including potential lawsuits. Remember, firing due to pregnancy is generally considered illegal discrimination.
📹 Legal Rights When Returning From Maternity Leave UK
Mothers returning to work often find they have been overlooked for promotion, have had managerial responsibilities taken away …
I find the moral argument the most compelling. It’s wrong to use force on people to do things, including forcing them to pay someone who isn’t actually working for them. People should be free to negotiate paid maternity leave as part of their contract with their employer, when it’s negotiated voluntarily then it’s actually moral.
If a company wants to offer it that’s fine but I have 2 problems with mandatory paid maternity leave. First, you shouldn’t be making your employer work around your personal life. Pregnancy is 100% preventable. Since failure of birth control is always a possibility, even if very slight, it is not an excuse in my opinion. Not having sex works every time. Change your personal life around your job or quit your job to focus on your personal life. Remember that it’s not actually your job. It is a job that you fill, you do not own the job. Second, where is a similar benefit for me as a man who can not have children and has no significant other any way? Maybe every time a woman in the company gets to use the benefit I should be given a few weeks of paid vacation. It’s sexist to only offer this to women.
Or women could not be concerned about climbing the corporate ladder, and actually focus on raising children. I’m not being a backwards male chauvinist pig here, I’m just saying, children are literally, our future. If we do not reproduce, all the financial success in the world won’t mean squat when we are old, weak, and helpless on our deathbeds with no family to call our own, or carry on our legacies.
i have to agree, in fact since feminism has gotten outa control lately, if i was an employer id avoid hiring women all together just because they are too much of a liability, not just for this maternity leave issue but a woman can accuse a male employee of sexual harassment or claim discrimination and guess what happens? the company would have to settle outa court or whatever, lose money basically, all kinds of things that lose my company money
Here in Canada, employers don’t pay out maternity leave. It goes through employment insurance. You get a year off that you can split between both parents. You get 55% of your income. My wife is 8 months pregnant. She makes slightly more money than I do. (Unless I am doing over time which I constantly do) The money you get is an average of what you make on average over a period of time. Which is why I work 60 to 80 hours a week to bump up what I will get for paternity leave, plus the savings from it. I really like this system. I am really glad we have it here.
In Sweden we have 28 weeks maternity for each of the parents, of what 22 is payed, all is payed by the government. All but 12 weeks can be transferred to the other parent. There is also 10 days mandatory leave right after the birth for both parents. If the companies discriminate against people how take there maternity leave they get dragged into court, in theory. This is done by the anti discrimination board. In theory, the problem is that anti discrimination board don´t take care of discrimination cases because you are a man, then you have to drive the case your self, that is not really possible if you are not a lawyer. You can´t really fire people for any reason in Sweden (except crimes against the employer), so what they do in steed is demote men that take the parenting leave, well, men only of cause. This way they can have the theory gender neutral law, but in real life they just ignore the discrimination cases against men
You’ve hit the nail on the head, the only way to overcome the disadvantage of maternity leave whether that be paid or unpaid, is to have mandatory paternity leave that must be used with the birth of a child. The company must enforce a leave of absence for all workers male or female for the mandatory time allotted to these schemes. So let’s say that a woman gets 12 weeks maternity leave when the child is born, then the father must take his paternity leave whether he wants to or not for the same allotted 12 weeks within 6 months of the child’s birth. Then it does not matter whether the employee is male or female, these rules can apply to everyone that is being hired and negates the unconscious bias associated with reproductive needs to the business demands. Just try and get the femitards to see it this way and they’ll start saying that it’s just adding to male privilege when it is in fact negating the male privilege associated to workplaces, promotions, pay and procreation. It also negates the female privilege of maternity leave which is why they are dead set against it. But the biggest issue really isn’t setting up a system to accommodate equitable parental leave entitlements (optional unpaid leave is a choice that has consequences), it’s the fact that businesses are being forced to operate as social welfare centres for their employees. Social welfare is the purview of government, not business, so any payments on these random and often disproportionately used, with multiple use scenarios mainly in the early stages of a career, discriminating against people who do not or cannot have children, should be wholly paid from government coffers at a rate that is equitable to the lowest paid recipient.
Why do people against paid leave not understand how it is paid for? Maternity leave is paid for by the government with taxes dollars, not the employer! Example a woman earning $3000 a month goes on leave. In Canada she receives 55% of that per month for 9months from The government. The employer is only required to let her return to work at the end.
A few months ago I was left fuming in my workplace: I booked a holiday which was originally certified but the week before the holiday, I got a rota for the next week with me on it :O. When I brought it up with the manager, he said it was a colleague who was pregnant and was taking maternity leave and he legally was required to pay her for her 24 hours per week contract even though she wasn’t coming into work yet he needed someone else to cover the 24 hours of work the business needed that someone was being paid for, yet not working. To clarify, this was a shift job at minimum wage in the UK, which has a legal system of paid salary for up to 9 months of maternity leave and women also can get 3 months unpaid leave to have up to a whole year off following the birth of a baby with the right to return to work after a year. The employer needs to cover that woman, however, legally they can only take on a replacement temporarily because it would be considered ‘pregnancy discrimination’ but ‘taking the new mother’s job away’. Also the company has to pay twice the money for the role just cause someone who isn’t doing the work thinks their entitled to be paid. I’m a MGTOW/WGTOW kind of woman who’s sick of these selfish cows who expect the world to be laid at their feet just for having a baby.
Why people don’t understand that there are not such a thing as “paid” leaves?? If the employer is paying for a day the employee did not work, the employer is either taking money that the employee should have received as result of his/her work or the employer is making everyone else pay for the leave by confiscating part of their “production”. Usually what will happen is the same thing that happens with all other non-salary compensations: the employer factors them in the total cost of the employee and reduces the pay to be able to afford them, which is one of the key reasons salaries seem not to follow the increase in production in the past 20 years. Example: if an employee is entitled (by law) to $2000/year health insurance, the total cost of the employee is salary + health insurance, not only salary. The budget will account for that and the employee will not receive a raise if he/she is not able to make more than salary + health insurance. In the case of paid leaves, the same thing happens: let’s take the case where there is a mandatory sick leave of 5 days and vacation of 20 business days. This employee will work about 230 days/year. Suppose the employee makes with his/her work $20/hour (not earns, because this is not the salary) and works 8h/day, them the total amount of money made is: $36,800 per year. Since we have the paid leave of 25 days (sick + vacation), the maximum salary the employer will offer is $18/hour, so that it is possible to save the extra $2/h to pay for the leaves.
I haven’t watched any of your other articles, but if this is any indicator of the rest, then they are probably bonkers bad the rest of them. But i could be wrong. The us is among 9 countries that do not offer any form of paid maternity leave. Your unpaid version is only a half messure and for all intents and purposes 40% of the workforce are not able to use this form of leave. It has been shown that in California where some level of maternity leave has been mandated, and 91% of businesses experienced it boosted profits or had no effect on the the company and many experienced that it increased productivity, higher moral and reduced turnover. Also it is not like having children is an unimportant function for society, also it is of great importance to give the children a good and healty start in life, and that is most definitely not accomplished by depriving them of their mothers early in life. I myself come from a country that offers 52 weeks of paid maternity leave for all, and that is made up of leave that is only for the mother and parts are made up so both parents can share the leave either at the same time or alternatingly. After the leave the woman can return to her job no questions asked. The 52 weeks are actually 4 weeks pegnancy leave, that is 4 weeks prior to the expected birth, after the birth you are required to provide 14 weeks of maternaty leave for the mother. For the father you are required to provide 14 days of leave. After that you are required to provide 32 weeks of parent leave of which the parents can decide who use.
My wife is a stay at home mom who has no boss, sets her own schedule and if she decides not to clean the house no one is going to fire her. I have yet to figure out what is so attractive about going to work and having schmucks nit pick your work and ask you why projects they pawned off on you aren’t done. I’m not saying being a stay at home mom is glamorous but most working women aren’t high powered lawyers or doctors either and I can’t begin to count the amount of working mom’s who have told me they wish they were home with their kids.
It would be idiotic to assume an employer won’t assess risk/reward when managing staff. Forcing employers to pay only makes the calculation that much colder. If the government is going to force paid maturity leave, the government should pick up the check. If the government can’t afford it, then it should fuck off and acknowledge that it has other financial priorities.
Employers can “demand” anything they want from workers, just like consumers can “demand” anything they want from a landscaper, mechanic, lawyer, babysitter etc they hire. Since a “demand” in this case is not really a demand, it’s a request for a voluntary action that both parties can refuse at any time. If I want to take my car for a service to a mechanic based on him being white, male and in his 20s – no law would prevent me to do so, nor should it. A “job” should have no legal status whatsoever.
I used to drive truck for a mom and pop company… and their philosophy was “If you don’t do the work, you don’t get paid.” and I think a LOT of people need to adapt to that idea, because some companies can’t afford to pay people for not pitching in to make the company profit on personal vacations.
I have a small business and I am an employer. My overhead is so high that I am perpetually just 4 months away from going out of business. I simply cannot pay someone who is not working the way a large corporation could. If the government forced it upon my business I would only hire women over 40. I have my own family and kids to take care of.
Actually, this may work out in the favor of 40+ year old women. Not many women who are 40 and older are having kids and it would help them get out of unemployment since it is hard for women who are 40 and older to find work due to the younger women getting the jobs.. The young women who want to have kids would have to be a stay at home mom for a awhile.
In Canada, maternity (and paternity) leave is part of the unemployment system. You get like 60-80% of your wages (capped at 400/week) paid out through the government. This removes the specific penalty from employers on a per employee basis. It also allows each parent to weigh the pros and cons of taking time off. Paid leave for rearing children is good for the government and the economy. If you don’t keep birth rate above 2.1, you ether have to accept a lot of immigrants or accept a shrinking economy, neither of which seem to be populate in the US.
Paid maternity leave is a HORRIBLE thing. For one thing, showing blatant favoritism by allowing poor attendance and diminished production, and paying someone to not work, are absolutely unacceptable. it creates a very unfair, resentful, unpleasant environment for everyone else. If the pregnant women can work remotely from home, and produce what she was hired to produce, FANTASTIC!!! But MOST businesses really actually do need the people they hired to be at work, producing the work they were hired to produce. They NEED her to be to work on time, clocked in, and producing the work she was hired to produce, just exactly as everyone else is required to do. If she misses too much work and fails to produce then very simply she needs to be replaced by someone who will actually meet the requirements and produce the work they were hired to produce.
this, as well as several other benefits and working conditions, are basically a form of compensation. the proponents of these don’t want to call it that or concede that’s what it is, because it would reveal that they are actually getting much more compensation than they claim to be. this is extremely relevant in the context of the gender “wage gap”, minimum wage, and paid maternity leave. for paid maternity leave, it’s like sick-leave supplemental insurance through your employer that you are asking your employer to pay the premiums for. another way to look at it is asking to be paid for a 40hr/week job while only doing an average 37hr/week on average over a 5 year period(depending on how long the leave is). effectively, it’s just a negotiation tactic to increase the ratio of compensation to work performed while trying to call it something else. Julie is very astute in noting that this will result in lower employment/hiring rates for women: it makes the cost to employ women much higher relative to men. they are trying to hide this increase compensation as something else, but employers will know, and will respond appropriately.
Believe it or not it happens to men too. My husband was told by his boss not to have any more kids because we had two miscarriages in one year and he missed one day of work each time. I’m 34 weeks pregnant with a healthy baby and my husband is scared to tell his boss. We live in Indiana and employers don’t have to have a reason to fire you. Yes, what his boss said is illegal but how is he going to prove it?
Putting on the ring means that one or more people are dependent on their paycheck, not because it’s some signal about them being dependable. A man with kids isn’t going to flake at work because he needs the job to support his family. Give men the same options as women for leave and this problem solves itself.
Freaking valid argument. I’ve worked in an environment where I see the validity of the workers. I’ve told people to go home and take care of your family, because I knew they would be back at it. Back dated vacation slips, damn two week notice my ass. I had a boss who told me “Get the hell out of here”, when my granddad was dying of cancer. It took my boss and 3 of us managers to convince another manager to leave and take care of his paralyzed son. Mandatory is bullshit. If stuff needs to be taken care of, it needs to be taken care of, and if others have to step up for a good worker << I mentioned validity >> you figure out how to take care of them and keep the ball rolling.
We have paid paternity leave where I live. Any man can take 5 paid weeks off no matter how long he has been working for the employer. So this new guy that just got hired a few weeks ago is now leaving for 5 weeks, forcing the employer to hire a temporary replacement that will lose his job once the father returns.
Yeah, I don’t like the idea of it being forced. My biggest gripe with the concept of maternity leave is filling position or work. As a small business owner, why should I have to train and pay someone to do your job and pay you or pay all of your coworkers overtime for picking up your slack and pay you for slacking. Unless you’re so amazing at the job I’ll take you back, I’d give someone a month or so of pay and three months of job security. It sounds harsh I guess, but as someone without money, when I imagine myself having it or managing it I am always tight.
What? Other countries do not have paid maternity leave. Women can claim employment insurance if they take time off for pregnancy. Because they are not able to work and qualify for the benefit. Employers do not pay that, ei does. So if women get paid wages maternity leave then I should keep getting paid if I get laid off.
And what if the paid maternity leave is paid by the government, not the employer, to remove these sources of discrimination against young women, such as they do in Australia: “Under the Paid Parental Leave scheme, eligible working parents can get government funded pay when they take time off work to care for a newborn or recently adopted child. They may receive up to 18 weeks of Parental Leave Pay or 2 weeks of Dad and Partner Pay. Full time, part time, casual, seasonal, contract and self employed workers may be eligible.” humanservices.gov.au/business/services/centrelink/paid-parental-leave-scheme-for-employers/
So because some employers discriminate against women that means we should tip-toe around their sexism and not give working mothers paid maternity leave? Inspiring stuff, Julie! So courageous, so bold! Guaranteed paid maternity leave is the world standard. Every advanced industrialized nation gives mothers (and often fathers) paid paternity leave as a right. If it works for everyone else, it can work for us.
The problem is that a lot of women take it personally or as an act of hateful discrimination when employers overlook them for integral job positions when really, it’s just about business. If paid leave were mandatory, not only would they have to find a replacement and pay them but they’d also have to continue paying you, essentially doubling the cost to get the same exact job done. Also, it isn’t only male employers who might overlook a married woman for a job or promotion; I’m sure plenty of career-oriented women in employer roles do the same thing all the time.
Correct me if I am wrong Here (I am not American). When I was in school, we were told that American mother were required to take six weeks of leave after the birth of their child, strictly for health reasons. It seems reasonable that if you are being forbidden to work during that time, that you should be compensated (by the government that took away your job). Though at the same time, getting pregnant and the consequences of it was your own choice, so perhaps you should bear the full weight of your own decisions.
I really want to see paid maternity AND paternity leave. I agree that treating women like this will give employers all the more incentive to discriminate. But I hate that as a man I’m not expected or given the opportunity to take time like that either. The problem with unpaid leave is that if you’re operating on a small budget, then unpaid leave is a spot where other support networks have to fill in the budget. I’m about to go into debt financing further education, and unpaid leave if she got pregnant would not be fun financially without a her making enough to cover both of us, medical costs, and all this before going on her own leave for the actual pregnancy. I’d love to see both parents given the opportunity to be with their child at birth and not have to worry about the career setbacks that may entail. But ideals aren’t always practical, I’d just like to try to make it that way.
Not necessarily just single married women – since over 40% of children today are born to unmarried women. It’s just bad news for fertile women, period. It’s really bad news for everyone – if businesses start going with non-fertile women, there will be yet more whining, leading to more laws about who one must hire, and so on. It’s not just a “slippery slope,” it’s a slippery slope with a snowball at the top.
Say hypothetically that a company (or the person responsible) does make conscious decisions to withhold promotion or even hiring of a woman on the count that she either openly admits, implies, or is assumed to take an extended period of time away from work in the future to care for her newborn child. Companies do value people who are willing to invest more of their time and energy into their career. Also, depending on the industry, taking a significant amount of time away from work, regardless of sex, can be a detrimental to the company and to the person taking time away as their skills, knowledge, and intuition may be compromised due to lacking exercise and practice. I remember listening to people discuss this, and one suggested that for anyone this is a problem. They used a science + technology position as an example to show how taking a significant time away from that job will leave that person greatly handicapped and left behind in the development of the industry, and would have to re-learn much of what has been going on. This just seem logical. Many job applications do have a question to the effect of “will you be taking significant time away from work in the near future?” My question is: based on this reality, is the concern over whether an employee will be taking significant time away from work from the employer’s perspective actually realistically bad and unreasonable?
Simplest way… If you do not work, YOU DO NOT GET PAID!!! Any person with a job of any kind knows that illness, injury, pregnancy, etc. can and will happen. Be responsible for your own life. squirrel some money aside for those emergencies. I’m not talking medical insurance. I’m talking about being responsible with your money.
I won’t argue with your assertion that managers avoid promoting women due to the potential for pregnancy. As a manager and business owner, that never came in to play over my 40+ year career. That question was indeed discussed prior to hiring a candidate not so much as discussing pregnancy but more as to whether the candidate was serious about a dedicated career and was asked of both sexes since developing a project manager is time consuming and costly. If a law were put into place that required me to pay women 12 weeks at full salary for maternity leave, I would never hire another woman that wasn’t post-menopausal. To put it in perspective, if that were law, I would have to have a fund set aside for each female employee to be able to meet that requirement. If I had 5 women who made $60 per hour, that would mean I would need to have $144,000 set aside for this possibility. For a small business, that would be devastating to fund. So, i’m with you 100%
Your reason here is the most logical reason (other than principle) to be opposed to mandatory Paid Maternity Leave. While it sucks that you might be judged as more dangerous an investment as a woman because you might have kids, this is something that cannot be helped. It is a fact of life. Just as men are more risky for car insurance, so will women be more risky to employ generally speaking. The least risky labor investment a business can make in a politically correct western nation is to hire white men. Isn’t that the opposite of what the progressive left wants? The more anti-discrimination law the more dangerous it becomes to higher minorities, women, etc.
I think maybe making the FMLA a little bit longer would be a good idea, as in unpaid leave (if you are gone for a long time your employer can hire a sub to work instead of paying you). I think 12 weeks is a little to little to be able to be home with a baby AND for the days you are sick and pregnant. Especially if you have more than one kid.
having a baby is a personal choice/families choice. Its not the companies responsibility to pay for the woman’s/families choices of having a child. if a family has a child, its a necessity for one of the parents to stay home with the child. if its decided that the woman, after birthing the baby and the 12 weeks leave, wants to come back to work and, instead, have the father quit his job and go home and take care of the child then that would be a families choice. But this also pushes the idea that you should be in the financial position to actually have a child when you choose to. That financial positions does not include special privilege’s for women or men that guarantee a salary to do nothing. Im really getting sick of the entitlement in the ever growing liberal minded world. If you want to have a kid, thats on you.
Here is the solution for unpaid and paid maternity leave’s issues presented. Mandatory maternity leave for both parents for the same period of time. Goodbye incentive to not hire mid 20’s women. On the married men being preferred, I can just spin it to single man being disfavored. (Don’t know how to solve it)
Yes, this is the biggest issue facing this country right now. I seriously hope this doesn’t become a big debate question because it’s not something that should be forced and somehow I think the string of endless wars, decaying infrastructure, environmental and energy problems among other things are more important what’s really a personal matter for individuals to settle with their employer.
So, I have a general question, if I may. Even if I may not, it’s still going to happen, so might as well bear with me a moment. First off: interesting, thought provoking perspective on the issue, thank you. Second, my question: If someone has to take maternity leave (ie, they are a woman, and have a child) but are unable to have a source of income during this time (ie, someone who is below the usual income level to warrant paid maternity leave as an additional job incentive) what incentive is there for that person to contribute to the gene pool? It seems that a lot of people talk about how bad it would be for businesses, but we are talking about the most overworked country on the planet. People here will work themselves to death just to put food on the table for themselves at current wages, or to compete with their peers (a thing, that even as someone who is a democratic socialist i still have no problem with) but for those who are worried about their income ceasing, being… you know… the main breadwinner, will have little inspiration to propagate.
Obviously the state would have to pay the salary, the company needs the money to hire a replacement. That’s how it works in Germany: We have 14 months parental leave (no more than 12 months for one parent) where you get a certain percentage (usually ~2/3) of your salary or a minimum amount. And you can take up to 3 years off without loosing employment (if you get a another child in that time even longer). Can of course still be a huge pain in the ass to replace them, and it is entirely reasonable for a company to discriminate against someone they expect to vanish for a long time in the near future. That would only change if it would be common that men take off equal time when having children.
Being pro-life, I feel kind of obligated to support maternity (and paternity) leave. That said, I don’t know the best strategy for implementing it. I suppose at a minimum, we should have enough mandatory paid leave for a woman to recover from birth if she is giving up the child for adoption, then have either unpaid or negotiated leave for parenting. Also, larger employers should have on-site childcare.
I do understand your point, but there is nothing currently preventing this discrimination, except of corse the productivity numbers from companies that have paid leave programs. The other side of the coin is that people can rarely take unpaid time off, especially with a new expense. I’m honestly not sure which us the better solution, and, to be honest, there are far worse things we should be worried about. Like the number of people who die here every year because of lack of medical care. or the amount of money the government wastes in no bid contracts, or just giving money away to the companies that lobby congress.
Thank you Julie for providing what I feel was the most honest view about the kind of discrimination women face in the job market. almost every other article i have seen to date do not articulate the specifics of the issues of sexism women face which makes it really hard to empathize with making them sound unfortunately just whinny! I do however agree with you on your article, in the job market competition is everything as it ensures the best of services being provided for people. There has to be a better way to ensure women can have autonomy to be parents without forcing the business to cop it!
The thing that I hate about paid maternity leave (not that itself, but the larger implication) is that I think that it is absurd that both people in a relationship usually have to work in order to support themselves; that is the most asinine thing that I have ever heard of, now if you support your family on one income, but want more money, than that is a different story. Also too, not talking about both people in a relationship needing to work in order to support themselves, why would anyone not want to raise their kids themselves? I would want my kids ONLY raised by myself and my wife, not by some daycare, or babysitter. Period. I see this obsession nowadays with women wanting to work while “raising kids”, that is not “raising kids” the only way successfully do anything is to devote 100 percent of your effort to it, raising kids included. If a woman wants to work with kids, then that is fine, I am not going to stop her, but I just think that it is ridiculous, either me a parent or be an employee, I don’t care if even just the dad stays home, whatever, as long as one parent is fully raising the kids, and the other parent helps out significantly when they are off work. Also too, having a child is a CHOICE, and a company should not have to pay for someone’s personal choice. I am done with today’s society.
Paid maternity leave works, on a social and economical level. Studies show that the psicological bond with a child for the first months of its life will set the path for the remainder of their adult existance. It also benefits the woman, not all women have perfect birthing experiences, do your research and you’ll find real horror stories… and it works for the employer, since it technically is cheaper for them to hold a position for 3 months rather than train someone else for the job, which usually takes up to 6 months… as for the payment of leave: tax money. Employers dont put out a single cent. As for taxpayers, do you have any idea how much bs you unknowingly subsidise? think unemployment, how much wellfare it takes up. If a woman loses her job bc of her child she becomes a permanent burden on the system, would you rather pay 3 months of leave or years and years of it? It all comes out of your tax money whether you like it or not… and my last reason would be considered racist by some, but hear me out: as a society, which kind of people do you want to incentivate reproduction among? In todays reality both men and women must work to sustain a family, yet you insist women not have children to further their career… that means that white collar workers, middle class, will have to think twice about having children because of the toll it will take on their economy. On the other side of the equation are the low income to non people who dont give a crap about their economical status and will keep on munching off wellfare.
I think its all a matter of the Job, Job Title, and The Financial Situation of both the Mother and the Company. I don’t feel it should be mandatory, rather more regulated. Corporations that don’t offer probably should, but then again most of them already do. I’ve known plenty of mothers who have continued working not just throughout the pregnancy, but also while on leave. But here is a situation that does not come up often but should still be considered. In some cases I do feel men should be offered some kind of paternity leave. Either if the mother has had a very rough pregnancy and labor and needs extra care her self, and this does happen, if the mother is lost while giving birth. The father is often left alone and in a very tough situation.
Mandatory maternity leave = discriminatory toward women. What about mandatory maternity AND paternity leave? If both parents are working somewhat equally shouldn’t they also somewhat equally share the responsibilities of childcare? However, I tend to lean toward not having paid maternity leave at all. Although I’m sure it would be seldom, I can see it being abused, perhaps even unintentionally. What if a lady just keeps popping out babies? If she can’t do her job, she shouldn’t get paid.
I saw the title and thought you were trying to be controversial at first. I listened to your point of view and have to say this is your best yet. I am a woman 35 years old and married. That bias is there in different cases. The biggest take away I have is that people are allowing the government to make more intrusions into their everyday lives. Why continue to make more laws to piggyback off of what already exists? Excellent article.
Julie.. you are usually on point. but here, I think you missed on VERY crucial point. Quotas, Now, I know you are against quotas but if this were to be implemented… Quotas would ALSO be implemented to ensure “women were forced to be hired”.. not based on merit, but based on “forcing outcome of equality”. We see the issue, but what is the solution. It seems feminism has made it worse for women and not better.
Covered it pretty well. MPML would be really hard on small/medium sized businesses as well. They are not successful enough to easily pay someone 3 months wages for nothing. Nor can they reject an applicant because they are female. So pretty much if this went through then it either could make employees too expensive for businesses, or it could force businesses to pay employees less to compensate for when some employees are draining money for no work.
I see your point and it may open the eyes of some who haven’t thought of such unintended consequences. However, isn’t the stronger argument that it’s wrong for the gov’t to forcefully insert themselves between 2 parties negotiating terms of employment? In other words, even if you couldn’t point to such an unintended consequence, who’s the gov’t to tell employers and employees how to voluntarily enter into agreements? Also, thank you for your work to add a bit more common sense in the world. I enjoy your articles.
I would bet that the number of employee lawsuits against employers is 10 to 1 – women to men. It does seem unfair that women have to raise children and work, but I don’t think that the employer should be the “fixer”. I wouldn’t mind a govt. benefit for say, half pay for a maximum number of weeks after 1 year of employment (almost like unemployment).
+Julie Borowski great article as usual. I also see an “if you want more of something, subsidize it” kind of situation. From the government point of view with it Social Security ponce scheme, it would love a greater increase in the birth rate as it would slow down the bankruptcy that coming for a few more years. Business, on the other hand like you said, would definately want to reduce its fertile female employees (though if I read some propositions correctly, new fathers could also benifit from this and could equalize this descrimination a bit). And since the current culture has move towards a more hand-out society, where you could possibly get paid for 12 months but only work 9, I see some unscrupulous workers going the baby factory route. (though this is rhetorical on my part as I like to believe in my fellow inhabitants of this country being more responsible than anecdotal evidence seems to indicate).
i think if you make under the poverty line the government or the business should help you. no mother should be away from her baby its bad for the baby. it leads to the baby having mental health problems. we should prioritize moms being there to hold and cuddle their baby 24/7. despite what anyone says since when is the bottom line of a business more important than your baby. when you work for someone they are basically part of your family. i spend almost more time with my co workers than my own husband on a daily basis. caring more about income than the welfare of newborns is pretty horrible.
Hmmm. You pose very good points in this article. Having mandatory paid maturity leave is good on the surface, but with all the conscious and unconscious biases out there, it’s very hard to effectively put it in practice. We can’t become like other countries on this so readily. One would have to change the entire thinking of the entire society to fix this so it can be totally effective. And that takes time.
This analysis is too shallow. The government already enforces quotas on the number of women (but not men) that must be hired, and there’s plenty of favourable scholarships and positions offered to female only candidates. Forced paid maternity will raise the cost of labour, but government programs will make it evenly distributed. Obviously increases in labour costs will affect the private sector much more than the public sector, where price is not an issue. As private employees are mostly male, the changes will ironically hurt them as they shoulder the burden for increased female wages through higher unemployment.
You discuss this as though it is bias against young women . -. . but then you recognize that it is risky for employers to higher people that may not be there when needed. If young women in the in their mid-20s are in this group, then promoting them is risky. So not only young women are in a bind . . . but so are businesses.
Well clearly, Julie, the solution is to enact mandatory, married female hiring quotas. After that though mandatory baby making for employees especially the females, and of course, to achieve parity; mandatory male, marriage and paid maternity leave. Now, we’re leaving out the former parents that have passed both the benefit and have no plans to have more children; so children we be provided mandatorily which will also be paid for by the employer. After that .of course we need to give maternity leave to those couples that are incapable of offspring SO mandatory leave AND in vitro for all infertile couples as well as same sex….. Hmm, have we left any body out? Welcome to the new America,I guess…. BTW it’s MANDATORY. 🙁
Firstly, no one forced these women to get pregnant. It’s on them to figure out how they are going to financially survive. Additionally, if the employer is going to be forced into paying for her maternity leave, then the employer should have a say in her maternity pay/leave. Lastly, what about the rest us who are working who choose not to have kids or get pregnant, yet we see one of our coworkers getting pay, time off, and job security because they freely choose to make kids, do we get a few extra paid weeks off? How about a bonus at least? If you think women should have those perks because they freely choose to make kids, then I want all those perks for the coworker who goes out snorts a few pounds of coke up their nose and is temporarily comatose for a few months.
If your gonna do the mandatory paid maternity leave as a country, then you might as well get it right the first time and include fathers. My country has had maternity leave for several decades now and it still causes problems with equality. We keep tweaking the system bit by bit to share the burden among the employers of both the mother and the father. Yet it never seems to go right. Wait a bit longer and learn from the mistakes of other countries while also factoring in differences in systems. Lately we have been reducing the time and sharing the time more equally to fathers also. Obviously the feminist will never be content. But many men have been happy to take the paternity leave that is offered, as some of the time must be used by the father in our system. Kids are young for a such a short time, it’s nice that fathers also have the chance to slow down in their work life, if they so choose. Although frankly I think that women do a better job in the first couple of years and that the more important role of the father comes along when more of the disciplinary measures are needed-> later on in the children’s life. So optimal solution could be to divide the paternity leave for the following decade or so somehow.
When a woman goes on maternity leave the income of the family approximately halves. It is in the interest of the socieaty to ease up this situaton, so I think general tax dollars should pay for it. I could imagine a fixed amount of money unrelated to the previous salary of the woman because it should be about the needs of the child, not about maintaining the standard of living. And surely the workplace must not be punished individually for hiring women.
Do you realize that these laws would require employers to extend the same paid parental leave to the father as they do the mother? The second part of your article doesn’t make much sense in light of this informations. Under your hypothesis for corporate reaction to mandatory parental leave, employers should discriminate equally against both men and women of child rearing age, since both would be extended and most likely take the offered time off. Furthermore, families provide stability for individuals, something employers very much like.
Generally companies do not have to pay for maternity leave out of their own pocket. That would be insane… Of course no one would hire a woman in that instance. You’d have to pay two wages for one job. There are also general rules, such as you have to work at a company for a while before you are entitled to leave. It’s interesting you would complain about the stats of the gender pay gap (and that gender pay gap is smaller in lots of countries with mandatory paid maternity leave, but that’s probably just because there are so many billionaire Americans) but you didn’t try to find stats that showed women are actually hired less or refused promotion because they might have children.
Forgot to mention waging war on women. Being in the position of hiring people, I confess being very very careful when considering people for jobs. Married and having children works against your argument a bit but I see what you mean. Paid leave is another left wing “how can you argue against this” nice idea with huge unthought-of consequences.
Funny enough, many career women are putting off having kids and then by the time they hit early 40s, that ‘ol clock starts going crazy. Problem is, many women find at that point it’s tough making babies when your old… Funny concept huh? Here’s a crazy idea, if you want kids have them, but don’t expect an employer to cut a check every time you make one (Im a father of 2 kids of my own) on the flip side, if you don’t want kids during your prime baby making years, wonderful but be warned that this choice may cause you future heart ache… Life is about choices and consequences. And despite modern media telling you otherwise, there is only so much time in a day., and you will have to choose what’s more important a fancy job or a family. Someone’s career wil have to be sacrificed If you and your partner want kids. Your choice, just make sure it’s a choice your happy with.
in my country paid maternity leave has been in place for a long time. it’s true that you hear stories about employers being reluctant to hire young women but it doesn’t happen as often as you’d think. i think people are simply used to this law by now. But some political parties propose splitting materninty leave between parents to further alleviate this problem. is it a good idea? well, i believe that toddlers are naturally more attached to their mothers but on the other hand women’s competitiveness on the job market would increase. there are always pros and cons.
You act like Family and Medical Leave Act is something that employees WILL be safe under. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean employers will follow it. It’s like the Civil Rights Act– it’s legal, but people still continue to discriminate. The importance of paid maternity leave is so that mothers can take the time to nurture their babies and be guaranteed a secure place back at work. It’s a simple human rights issue. Your argument that paid maternity leave “would increase discrimination for young married women in the work place” is an assumption, and you’re not looking at it from the perspective of a basic human value.
America is only conscious country among all western in the world . However, American minds are rapidly changing into Scandinavian dummy ones with sick liberalism and its cousin, feminism growing. So, Bill Clinton and Hillary can’t be elected ? Then who can be next president, Americans? Sleepless nights and need a prozac for American voters if you think you need to vote.
well I’m still for paid maternity leave but maybe we can get some of that corperate welfare for smaller businesses if it becomes a problem, otherwise they can just pay their rockstar ceos a little less. look at it this way for you fuming conservatives out there, it’s not liberal politics as usual it’s just a way for business to be more family friendly. you don’t want women to have abortions or stay at home collecting welfare do you ? well are we to expect women to be solely dependant upon the man as the bread winner, is that what you’re saying ?
This is the problem that I see so much from Libertarians. Proposition X is good, but if made mandatory company Y will not employ them, therefore, do not support Prop X. What this completely ignores is the underlying problem that the company is choosing its profits over the individual who in the current situation needs a job in order to survive. Since Libertarians are all about increasing someone’s personal freedom, why is it then that they don’t choose to attack the root of the problem, employers having the power to deny people a wage based on the need to make a profit. Seems to me if you eliminate that then not only will these women not be discriminated against, but you won’t even have the system of “working to make a living” Please understand that you’re not attacking the root issue here, you’re just handing over power to the bosses, Democratic workplaces are a good step in the right direction.
Julie, you used to make some very poignant libertarian points. And you completely destroyed your libertine equivalent Cathy Reisenwitz in the debate on Stossel a year ago. But lately your posts are getting weirder and weirder. Keep making more articles like this one. Take us back to some Mill and Bastiat. Keep explaining libertarianism for the average person!
Paid maternity leave is an awful idea! As a mother of 2 and a business owner, I have the right to speak on this subject. Why exactly should a business pay for their employees to take time off? The company didn’t knock you up. Then the company has to either suffer minus one employee or hire someone else to replace you while you’re out. While still paying you for not working. This will have a very bad end result if this ever goes mandatory. What’s going to happen is 1. pregnant women won’t get hired. 2. As soon as a company finds out a woman is pregnant they will start looking for ways to fire her. I’ll ask again, why should a business pay someone for getting pregnant? If you can’t afford to support a child from birth up then you shouldn’t be having children. It’s that simple. I don’t think my children should suffer and go without because I’m being forced to pay for an employee who is not doing the job I hired her for.