SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
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.
Mar 07, 2016
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, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Demos
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.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.