This seems to me to be circling back toward the days when women of child-bearing age were considered undesirable employees because they really did not want to work, wanted the job only long enough to qualify for the maternity leave so they could then take it–large employer sentiment, not mine–same thing is said about mandated unemployment benefits by employers of all sizes.
My proposal and the reason I’m active on this forum bears mention here (as it does, and will be, in my responses to your main proposal coming in a day or two). The People’s Mandate-Healthcare for All Americans (you’ll have to search it because I haven’t figured out how to include it in comment as a direct link, yet) was originally designed to be a major change in healthcare funding (paid for by our politics and a very small piece of the excess profits of our most successful businesses–who can afford it–not out of anyone’s taxes–individual or business) that provided equitable access to high quality care to everyone; eliminated employer-linked coverage and its many inequities (vastly reducing employer costs at the same time); stabilized the state banking system; reined in federal political corruption; got the federal government and the legal system OUT of much of healthcare; got insurance companies out from being in between patients and their preferred doctor and hospital; and reduces stress for everyone (including unborn children and their mother/parents) without adding a nickel to the national debt. All it requires legally is a simple, much-needed change to campaign finance law and a very simple rule added to business tax code for deductions under advertising. Once it is in place for a while, it would become essentially a long-term UBI (again, NOT provided by redistributing wealth via taxation) that could go a long way toward supporting long-term disability/elder care and supplementing the other glaring social deficiency of modern America–steadily increasing inequity in access to post high school education, and net-negative educational costs, i.e. debt (the education is so expensive, there’s no way for a student who has no alternative but to borrow to pay for it, to be able to pay back the the debt incurred out of income earned from a position that requires the education to get the job (medical schools being at the top of this list–leading to a host of other problems in our profit-driven, Big Pharma/corporate medicine-owned, medical system). All of it happening while students are not fully informed (informed consent) about this problem as they compete to get into the net-negative income career path. Changing course is rarely a viable option. Many are left with no other “choice” than to never have children. Americans should not be left feeling like they cannot AFFORD to be alive (much less to support the life of a dependent child).
Hope I’ve piqued your interest enough to get you to do the search for the People’s Mandate and to read the (short) basic proposal.
Re: your question about "What about a new mother who is not, “employed by a company with at least 50 employees in a 75 mile radius for employees who have been employed by that employer for at least one year and have worked at least 1,250 hours for that employer in the last 12 months preceding the maternity leave.”
Those conditions are the same ones imposed by current Family Medical Leave laws, in order to avoid over-burdening small businesses with laws that it would be too difficult to accommodate.
It would be covered by taxes. We already pay for “State Disability Insurance,” however it benefits all Americans–you used to be a baby, right?
It is also not prejudicial to fathers–fathers do not give birth; do not require recovery time; parenting a newborn is not a 24/7 two parent job either; and finally, making it maternal leave, (instead of forcing tax payers to pay twice the price for dual maternal AND paternal leave to cover a job that the mother is already responsible for doing), is a more politically viable alternative. Also, the intermittent leave, and other family leave options, still give fathers plenty of time with their kids.
OTOH, I understand that this policy is likely too liberal for Trump and the GOP. They shot down a paid FMLA already. However, I’m just throwing this out there, regardless, because I believe that we need a policy like this, and the benefit outweighs the cost.
-You need to learn a whole lot more about small business (PS–my first job was with one. Then I went to work for a corporate multi-national–which offered far more benefits, but was awful, so I started my own business, and did both for three years. When I’d built my own up enough, I quit the BIG company, and, about ten years after that I went back to graduate school, worked in another small business for about 18 months and then started and ran my second small business for ~twenty years. “avoid over-burdening” is BIG speak for; ignore because they threaten the BIGs. The BIGs (including BIG government) tries to make it sound like they are doing something FOR small business (again, ACA being another grotesque example of NOT!). They’re not. The main efforts of the BIGs for the past thirty years has been to put all small business OUT of business, so everyone, is dependent on the BIGs (again, including the government). THAT does not help anyone as an adult individual (dependency needs to be accommodated for infants and children, not created for free adults–to keep them under control), especially new mothers/parents, but not them and their kids who still need them as they get older, too. Them, as in both mother and father–sorry, yes, one parent can take care of an infant, and yes, I do recognize men do not give birth, nor lactate, but that does not mean the entire society should not recognize early bonding is important for fathers, too, and that infant care is NOT just a mother’s “job.”
And BTW, I don’t believe I ever paid for “State Disability Insurance” as an employee or an employer, nor was that offered to me when I became permanently disabled in 2018. I live in PA, a relatively “poor” state. I thought I saw somewhere you said you were in CA–even if I’m mistaken on that, you need to get a little clearer on that fact that your paying for any State social program does NOT automatically mean you are paying into something that benefits all Americans, and ditto, trying to model the whole country on whatever your individual state does, no exceptions, is unlikely to benefit all Americans.–it’s why we have states, my friend.
PPS–Small business in America is the direct descendent of the FAMILY farm. It’s what gave Americans, all of them Independence like no other country had ever offered to its citizens. FAMILY is what you and I are talking about here…or at least it should be…
In response to you saying “the entire society should not recognize early bonding is important for fathers, too.” My policy actually affirms the importance of a father bonding with their child. It offers some paid family leave options, AND an option to get 8 hours unpaid time off for BOTH parents. However, I do not agree with paying for DUAL leave, for TWO parents, to do a one-person job that is already covered by maternal leave.
Secondly, maternal leave benefits everyone for a few basic simple facts: (1) everyone used to be a baby, and benefited from the care they received from their primary caretaker, (2) fathers benefit by having a stronger family overall, and (3) healthy children in healthy families grow to become healthy and productive members, and consumers, of a healthier, stronger society/economy.
In addition, parenting, as well as recovering from child birth, is not a “social program.” It is our job.
This policy helps buffer the disruption that our paid full time job, and unpaid college work, can often cause to people’s lives.
As a reminder, right to FMLA does not apply to small businesses or to people who haven’t worked enough hours, or worked there less than a year. And not everyone is fortunate enough to own their own business in their young, child-bearing years.
Great suggestion! You’re the only one who thought of custodial fathers! Since my daughter was born, I have been dad/mom at the same time. Vicky’s mother had lost custody of the child due to neglect and domestic violence. Now, she’s deceased. I have my own business and therefore do not fall into any category of parental leave. However, I think of the many fathers who live the same condition as me and who often find it difficult to raise their own children.
The only discussion point I would raise is a way to require the state to be first in payment with a potential federal matching. This way, we avoid federal oversight and control. Don’t we want to reduce the size of the federal government and return the primary power levers to states? Tax revenue - before shipping it to other countries, should be used to serve better programs to encourage policies such as this one while simultaneously increasing the power at the local/state level. Just a thought: I like the policy.
Unpopular view but unless we are incentivizing families (getting married) and better wages overall, I don’t see how this will help regarding the mandatory 12 week paid leave. I do think that caregiving should be better protected beyond what are the current FMLA laws. I also think that employers should be fined if they try to circumvent the rights of FMLA workers.
Is there a way to bootstrap @LadyJustice1776 and @AshleyLuna policy suggestions to 1) encourage the policy and 2) strengthen FMLA without diminishing either? Both promote the family. Can the state’s priority be enhanced without adding to the federal oversight? Can the state direct the policy with FMLA suggestions bootstrapped under the Federal? Just throwing that out there.
It’s really not a liberal idea if you consider that paid parental leave is essentially temporary financial support for mothers to ensure both they and their children are healthy. Not much different from unemployment except the plan is to return to employment.
Perhaps add a provision to support companies in maintaining an employee’s salary during this leave. Many businesses, especially smaller ones, want to offer paid leave but find it challenging financially, especially if it wasn’t planned into their budget. A model where the company covers part of the leave pay, with additional government support, could make this more feasible. Of course the specifics would need worked out but this is the gist of something that might improve it and help both sides or many sides of the aisle get in board.
If my proposals are lucky enough to be considered, then I would recommend that legislators contemplate these alternative ideas as well. While some republicans might balk at these ideas, I hope that it at least points them in a direction that would benefit and heal our country/families/working class people in so many ways.
I scoured this site for the perfect maternal leave policy proposal, this one is pretty near perfect but I think it should be at-least 26 weeks for mothers and the “custodial father,” should receive 6 weeks to help the mother transition. In the scenario where the mother may be deceased, unfit mentally or physically he should also be given 26 weeks.
I wavered on giving my vote on this policy just due to the time given, but its better than the little time off or none at all that the USA has right now. Something is better than nothing, and the parental leave issue is such a large problem here, its one of the main reasons almost every woman I know that has yet to have a child wants to move abroad.
I desperately hope your proposal gets more traction, and hope it actually gets viewed and discussed when Dons quarterly review comes.
Thank you. I proposed 12 weeks because I knew that a six month paid leave is not on the table right now. We have to remember that in the GOP trifecta, even 12 weeks federal paid family leave is unlikely to pass because of fiscal conservatives. Dem’s couldn’t even pass it even with their trifecta because Manchin opposed it.
The policy I proposed (12 week maternal leave, as well as the unpaid intermittent leave for some workers) is likely still too liberal for the GOP trifecta to pass. However, it’s still less costly than the Democrat 12 week paid family leave because it primarily covers the mother, instead of paying for two parents to simultaneously do one job. Also, Ivanka Trump told her dad that he should support some form of maternal leave. And this is also a maternal health issue, as she is recovering from child-birth, and a behavioral health issue for children (because the lack of enough quality parenting time can lead to developmental/behavioral issues & toxic stress). So who knows, maybe Trump will consider this, or some variation of it, and if Trump supports it, maybe a few moderate Republicans could support it, too.
Another advantage to Trump passing paid maternal leave? It takes away a reason to vote Democrat in the next election. And the unpaid intermittent leave idea also relieves some of the need for paid childcare.
All in all, it’s good to keep pushing for more discussion for policies like this, and the underlying issues/the reasons for it, to show leaders the policy direction that we really want. I truly believe that these policies would advance freedom and good health for our society.
6 months should be the federally mandated standard for mothers and 3 months for fathers to take at their leisure.
2 to heal, 2 to bond and 2 to transition back to the workforce and create a daycare plan and transition back to workforce. That should already be law for mothers. The government wants babies. Allow mothers the time to be with their children, learn them, heal, bond and establish my return to work where I can pay a second mortgage on daycare
In a perfect would it would be 9 months 3 to heal, 3 to bond and 3 to create a daycare plan and transition back to work but that would never happen nor pass
While this one is far less extensive than the main one you posted, I can appreciate the idea behind it. I’d highly recommend striving to make every post of yours (I encourage everyone to do this) as well written and professional as possible. The more detail you can go into on these kinds of things portrays more credibility & people will be more likely to look closer at what you’re saying. A friendly tip!
“Dual leave can be important…” to YOU. But it’s not important for my tax dollars to pay for TWO people to simultaneously do the same job, that the mother is already doing.
This proposal, in addition to the two weeks paid family leave for the father, would also allow up to 12 weeks total paid family leave for fathers in which that paid leave would be important:
The mother is deceased or incapacitated.
The mother presents a post-partum diagnosis that she is suffering from a mental illness that is so severe, that it would present a risk of self-harm or harm or neglect to her child.
The mother has lost custody of her child to the father due to her neglect, abuse, suicidality or criminality.
Mother remains hospitalized beyond the two weeks family leave, and the parents have an additional child at home under age six requiring the father’s care.
In the event of a twins or multiples’ birth.
Remember, also, that this policy also grants both parents the right to request 8 hours unpaid time off per week from their full time jobs following the expiration of their leave.
Oh of course, I didnt mean paid leave. Sorry should have specified. Just protected leave so fathers can bond without losing their job. Missouri has a ‘at will’ clause for employers to fire emplyees without reason.
Fathers who have no medical reason for leave should not sap tax dollars. I should be clear.
This also allows a loophole for women. My finacé was fired from the print shop she worked at ‘because she was too slow’. She never mentioned to them she was pregnant, because she wanted to keep working. This lady got major ADHD and she is not ‘slow’ haha.
I also got removed from my job at a dealership because I stayed home to help, she had a 3rd degree tear.
Nonetheless it lead to a good thing, us starting our business. Sorry about the previous comment, far from what I meant.
