Jessica Champagne holds Benjamin Roth-Champagne, 3 months, outside a D.C. Council hearing to show support for a paid family leave bill in Washington on Oct. 6. (Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
No Kids? Here's Why You Still Have a Stake in Paid Family Leave
Paid family leave is finally gaining steam in the United States. President Obama and the Democratic presidential candidates universally embrace the idea. And while a conservative Congress may stymie federal action for years, states from New York to Colorado to Oregon are moving toward implementing their own family leave insurance systems, building on the success of policies already in place in California, New Jersey and Rhode Island.
Paid family leave is finally gaining steam in the United States. President Obama and the Democratic presidential candidates universally embrace the idea. And while a conservative Congress may stymie federal action for years, states from New York to Colorado to Oregon are moving toward implementing their own family leave insurance systems, building on the success of policies already in place in California, New Jersey and Rhode Island.
In New York, Governor Cuomo has proposed a program that would allow all employees to take up to 12 weeks of leave and be paid a portion of their regular wages. New York's program would be funded by employee payroll contributions starting at 70 cents a week, eventually increasing to $1.40 weekly. Polls show overwhelming public support for the proposal, including strong backing among Republicans.
Among a small minority, an unfounded objection continues to surface: why should I pay for my co-worker to spend time with her new baby? I don't have children or plan to have any. Why should I shell out even $1.40 a week for someone else's benefit?
Setting aside the unabashed self-centeredness of this argument--the willingness to disregard, for example, the substantial health benefits of paid leave for parents and the next generation of Americans--how can this objection be addressed?
In part, the objection rests on the misconception that paid leave can be used exclusively for bonding with a baby. In fact, in New York and most other state and federal proposals, paid leave can also be used by workers caring for family members who are injured or ill. That's why the AARP--not primarily known as a child welfare organization--has endorsed the proposal and mobilized its 2.6 million New York members to in support.
To the paid leave dissenter I'd say: maybe you aren't expecting a baby now. But if you have an aging parent who may someday need your support or a spouse who might require care to recuperate from a sudden illness, you will benefit from paid leave.
If your sister is hit by a truck, paid family leave will help you afford the time off work to be at her side in the hospital and through physical therapy--even if she lives in another state.
And if you're the one hit by a freak accident or illness? Paid family leave may enable a loved one to be there for you.
In some ways, the arguments against paying for paid family leave mirror the claims of "young invincibles" reluctant to pay for health insurance because they were convinced they wouldn't need medical care in the foreseeable future.
The reality is that none of us are invincible. The world of work is structured as if we are truly independent and isolated, appearing on the job fully capable, without a need to give or receive care from cradle to grave. For decades, this fiction was sustained by the unpaid care of women: mothers, wives, and daughters nurturing and supporting workers and families. Now that women are fully a part of the workforce, and American families rely on their incomes to make ends meet, we can't continue pretending to live in a universe where working people never need to provide care or be cared for.
We all relied on care as infants and children and more than likely will need someone to care for us again before we die. If someone ever cared for you, you have a stake in paid family leave.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. The final deadline for our crucial Summer Campaign fundraising drive is just days away, and we’re falling short of our must-hit goal. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Paid family leave is finally gaining steam in the United States. President Obama and the Democratic presidential candidates universally embrace the idea. And while a conservative Congress may stymie federal action for years, states from New York to Colorado to Oregon are moving toward implementing their own family leave insurance systems, building on the success of policies already in place in California, New Jersey and Rhode Island.
In New York, Governor Cuomo has proposed a program that would allow all employees to take up to 12 weeks of leave and be paid a portion of their regular wages. New York's program would be funded by employee payroll contributions starting at 70 cents a week, eventually increasing to $1.40 weekly. Polls show overwhelming public support for the proposal, including strong backing among Republicans.
Among a small minority, an unfounded objection continues to surface: why should I pay for my co-worker to spend time with her new baby? I don't have children or plan to have any. Why should I shell out even $1.40 a week for someone else's benefit?
Setting aside the unabashed self-centeredness of this argument--the willingness to disregard, for example, the substantial health benefits of paid leave for parents and the next generation of Americans--how can this objection be addressed?
In part, the objection rests on the misconception that paid leave can be used exclusively for bonding with a baby. In fact, in New York and most other state and federal proposals, paid leave can also be used by workers caring for family members who are injured or ill. That's why the AARP--not primarily known as a child welfare organization--has endorsed the proposal and mobilized its 2.6 million New York members to in support.
To the paid leave dissenter I'd say: maybe you aren't expecting a baby now. But if you have an aging parent who may someday need your support or a spouse who might require care to recuperate from a sudden illness, you will benefit from paid leave.
If your sister is hit by a truck, paid family leave will help you afford the time off work to be at her side in the hospital and through physical therapy--even if she lives in another state.
And if you're the one hit by a freak accident or illness? Paid family leave may enable a loved one to be there for you.
In some ways, the arguments against paying for paid family leave mirror the claims of "young invincibles" reluctant to pay for health insurance because they were convinced they wouldn't need medical care in the foreseeable future.
The reality is that none of us are invincible. The world of work is structured as if we are truly independent and isolated, appearing on the job fully capable, without a need to give or receive care from cradle to grave. For decades, this fiction was sustained by the unpaid care of women: mothers, wives, and daughters nurturing and supporting workers and families. Now that women are fully a part of the workforce, and American families rely on their incomes to make ends meet, we can't continue pretending to live in a universe where working people never need to provide care or be cared for.
We all relied on care as infants and children and more than likely will need someone to care for us again before we die. If someone ever cared for you, you have a stake in paid family leave.
Paid family leave is finally gaining steam in the United States. President Obama and the Democratic presidential candidates universally embrace the idea. And while a conservative Congress may stymie federal action for years, states from New York to Colorado to Oregon are moving toward implementing their own family leave insurance systems, building on the success of policies already in place in California, New Jersey and Rhode Island.
In New York, Governor Cuomo has proposed a program that would allow all employees to take up to 12 weeks of leave and be paid a portion of their regular wages. New York's program would be funded by employee payroll contributions starting at 70 cents a week, eventually increasing to $1.40 weekly. Polls show overwhelming public support for the proposal, including strong backing among Republicans.
Among a small minority, an unfounded objection continues to surface: why should I pay for my co-worker to spend time with her new baby? I don't have children or plan to have any. Why should I shell out even $1.40 a week for someone else's benefit?
Setting aside the unabashed self-centeredness of this argument--the willingness to disregard, for example, the substantial health benefits of paid leave for parents and the next generation of Americans--how can this objection be addressed?
In part, the objection rests on the misconception that paid leave can be used exclusively for bonding with a baby. In fact, in New York and most other state and federal proposals, paid leave can also be used by workers caring for family members who are injured or ill. That's why the AARP--not primarily known as a child welfare organization--has endorsed the proposal and mobilized its 2.6 million New York members to in support.
To the paid leave dissenter I'd say: maybe you aren't expecting a baby now. But if you have an aging parent who may someday need your support or a spouse who might require care to recuperate from a sudden illness, you will benefit from paid leave.
If your sister is hit by a truck, paid family leave will help you afford the time off work to be at her side in the hospital and through physical therapy--even if she lives in another state.
And if you're the one hit by a freak accident or illness? Paid family leave may enable a loved one to be there for you.
In some ways, the arguments against paying for paid family leave mirror the claims of "young invincibles" reluctant to pay for health insurance because they were convinced they wouldn't need medical care in the foreseeable future.
The reality is that none of us are invincible. The world of work is structured as if we are truly independent and isolated, appearing on the job fully capable, without a need to give or receive care from cradle to grave. For decades, this fiction was sustained by the unpaid care of women: mothers, wives, and daughters nurturing and supporting workers and families. Now that women are fully a part of the workforce, and American families rely on their incomes to make ends meet, we can't continue pretending to live in a universe where working people never need to provide care or be cared for.
We all relied on care as infants and children and more than likely will need someone to care for us again before we die. If someone ever cared for you, you have a stake in paid family leave.