The social (and economic!) value of paid family leave benefits is undeniable. Research indicates more bonding time lowers rates of infant mortality, improves infant health, and has a strong positive correlation to improved access to medical services. And when workers have time to recover from a serious illness or care for an ailing parent, they have higher morale and are more productive when they return to work.
But despite these obvious benefits, the United States has been reluctant to guarantee workers the right to earn parental leave on the job. As the only industrialized nation without a paid maternity leave system, some U.S. states have taken it upon themselves to implement state-level paid family leave insurance programs — allowing workers to earn paid maternity leave. But these benefits are only available in 5 states, and are linked to the ‘disabled status’ of the pregnant women — meaning fathers and adoptive parents are not eligible to earn the benefit.
So what are mothers in the other 45 U.S. states (and American fathers) missing out on? Here’s a quick look at paid leave programs in Sweden, Canada and Australia, compared to that of the U.S. — and Washington State in particular. Read the rest of this entry »
Filed under: health care, work and family , children, community, economic security, economy, health, paid family leave
From the Public News Service:
SEATTLE – More than half the people questioned in a new national survey said they’ve either gone to work with a contagious illness or sent their kids to school or child care sick, because they didn’t have paid sick leave and couldn’t afford to stay home.
The University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center found that 86 percent of people surveyed think workers should be able to earn a minimum of seven paid sick days per year. Senior fellow and survey director Tom Smith says employers have several ways to minimize paid time off for illness.
“We found that many workers have only a very restricted or limited version [ of paid sick days]. They may not be able to use it for family members, or they may have only a few days of paid time off, which has to cover not only sick days, but vacations, jury duty, etc.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Filed under: work and family , health, paid sick days
Via the Public Welfare Foundation:
Nearly one in six people polled in a national survey (16 percent) say they have lost a job for taking time off from work to care for a sick child or family member, or to cope with their own illness. Released today, the survey was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago this spring.
It finds that the lack of paid sick days is harming our public health, and straining the national health care system, in measurable ways:
Read the rest of this entry »
Filed under: work and family , public policy, business, united states, family, health, middle class, unemployment, paid sick days, economic security
Forbes Business points out that many people go to work sick, especially if they “just have a cold”. But it also notes that only 57% of private industry workers have the option to stay home and take a paid sick day, despite the low cost of doing so: just 23 cents per hour!
The upshot? Workers with a fever or more serious illness are more likely to show up to work, even if they shouldn’t — and that costs businesses money:
Yes, there’s a financial price to coming to work ill. It’s called presenteeism, and it costs employers $180 billion annually, according to a 2007 study by the Society for Human Resources Management. That’s more than employers shell out for employee absenteeism, which costs only $118 billion a year.
Sick employees don’t just affect their own work; they infect co-workers who then need to take time off themselves. (Or who come in sick and spread the germs further.)
Read more from Forbes: When Should you Call in Sick?
Filed under: work and family , business, economic security, family, health, paid sick days, public policy
