Paid Maternity Leave on the State’s Chopping Block
January 29, 2013 
4 Comments
Senator Rodney Tom
Washington reveres itself on it’s family friendly nature, and generally speaking we deserve it. In 2007 the Washington State Legislature passed a bill allowing a 5 week paid time off for new parents (Based on everything I learned from TV show, The Office, it is not a vacation).
The funding source for the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act is still yet to find a funding source in Washington, yet some legislators are fast at the throat of the act claiming “We don’t have the money to do it”. But the reality is, the program has never been funded. It is a law on the books to support working families of Washington; the families prime sponsor, Tom Rodney (D,-48LD), seems to be forgetting about in his East Seattle suburban legislative district.
The repeal of the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act doesn’t do anything for the bottom line of Washington State’s budget (until it gets funded, at least), but it does a lot to the bottom line of families in Washington State. Over half of new mothers in the U.S. have no paid leave at all for childbirth – no paid sick time, no vacation, no disability, no maternity leave – according to the U.S. Census Bureau. FMLI is designed to help cover new parents that have the ability to take unpaid leave, but cannot because they cannot afford to.
According to an article in Washington Work & Family Coalition,
Repealing paid family leave will also increase the odds that more of our state’s working moms and dads will fall into poverty due to the birth of a child, and have to rely on the state for help. Research from Columbia University shows that 25% of all poverty spells in America begin with the birth of a new child. In states with paid family leave benefits, just 10% of new moms went on public assistance, compared to 24% in states without those programs. Women who returned to work after taking paid leave were 40% less likely to receive food stamps. They’re also 54% more likely to report wage increases than women who did not take paid leave.
The families of Washington State deserve better than to have their families undervalued by the State.
About the Author
Do you feel it’s right to force person x to give person y money for five weeks? Unless a voluntary contributor donates the money, I don’t see how this can be considered a decent solution.
Also, do you feel it’s right to force a business to retain an employee who isn’t working for five weeks?
I feel your intentions are in the right place but I just can’t approve of force to reach your goals. I suggest we should consider only solutions which are based on peaceful, voluntary cooperation.
Let’s look at it this way; should we pay for new parents to have 5 weeks off with pay or should we pay for children to go to school? As our economy swirls the drain (look at the 4th quarter 2012) and no improvement in the foreseeable future, we need to make hard choices.
The state constitution says education is the highest priority; not new parents paid maternity leave.
If you really believe in paid maternity leave, find the money by cutting something else like paid junkets to India and Europe by the Governor and her entourage (2012). Cut the number of state employees, lowering the winter thermostat in government buildings etc.
Aligning the benefits of state employees with what is found in the private sector would be more than enough money to pay for paid maternity leave…
It is all about choices….
While I generally agree with the sentiments that I think are being expressed in this piece, I had to read it a couple times to make sure that my lack of clarity was justified. The role in the drama of Rodney Tom or Tom Rodney — depending on whether you are referring to the picture caption or the text of the article — is not clear, unless “the families main sponsor” in the 2nd paragraph is supposed to mean something like “the law’s main sponsor” or the “act’s main sponsor” or something else I can’t guess at. If there is a law or act that is being referred to in the piece, I assume (danger business that ass-u-me business) it is one to repeal the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act, but that is also unclear to me. I will check back to see if the article is updated so that before commenting on its substance I am sure what I am commenting on. (Because my intent is to have the piece clarified for substantive meaning for the benefit of those like myself who are very literal in interpreting words, I am not commenting on other details like “it’s” in the first sentence.)
While I generally agree with the sentiments that I think are being expressed in this piece, I had to read it a couple times to make sure that my lack of clarity was justified. The role in the drama of Rodney Tom or Tom Rodney — depending on whether you are referring to the picture caption or the text of the article — is not clear, unless “the families main sponsor” in the 2nd paragraph is supposed to mean something like “the law’s main sponsor” or the “act’s main sponsor” or something else I can’t guess at. If there is a law or act that is being referred to in the piece, I assume (danger business that ass-u-me business) it is one to repeal the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act, but that is also unclear to me. I will check back to see if the article is updated so that before commenting on its substance I am sure what I am commenting on.
(Because my intent is to have the piece clarified for substantive meaning for the benefit of those like myself who are very literal in interpreting words, I am not commenting on other details like “it’s” in the first sentence.)