This week, I came across several great articles on paid leave. Given this is an election year, it has become a major talking point among many candidates (mostly those on the Democratic side that is). What better time to highlight the issue then now, right? I would suggest readers start with The Baltimore Sun article which breaks down the attempts to get paid parental leave off the ground across the U.S. (with many failures and false starts along the way). Then, move on and check out the articles comparing where several of the Presidential candidates stand on the matter. Worthwhile to see where things might go, depending upon who is elected later this year.
As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week.
Is Paid Parental Leave About to Make Major Strides?
The Baltimore Sun has a fascinating look at the possibility of paid parental leave becoming a reality sooner rather than later. For those interested in how paid parental leave has developed over recent years (albeit, rather slowly), the article does a good job breaking down how paid parental leave has been slow to catch on, but might be well on its way to gaining steam around the country. Well worth a read for those interested in the background of attempts to get paid parental leave policies off the ground in the U.S.
New York City Mayor de Blasio Signs New Paid Parental Leave into Law
Earlier this month, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed an order that will provide paid parental leave to nearly 20,000 New York City employees. Under the order, these employees will be provided with six weeks of paid time off for maternity, paternity, adoption, or foster care leave at 100% of salary. Note, as The Brooklyn Reader points out, the policy went into effect December 22, 2015. Under the policy, the six weeks of leave must be taken within 24 weeks of the qualifying birth, adoption, or foster care. This is quite a development on the parental leave front! It will be interesting to see if other cities follow New York City's lead...
The Huffington Post has a good article that points out the minor differences between the paid leave policies proposed by Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. (Note, both candidates support paid leave to allow employees to take time off, with pay, to care for a newborn or sick relative.) Of note, the bill currently pending on Capitol Hill (and co-sponsored by Sanders) would impose a small payroll tax of 0.4 percent (split evenly among employers and employees) to finance the replacement wages that workers would get. Clinton's proposal would instead impose a new tax on the wealthiest Americans to finance the replacement wages.
Ohio Governor John Kasich, who is running as a Republican candidate for President, recently stated his belief that it should be up to employers to decide if they will allow their employees to take paid family leave. Instead, Kasich proposed the focus should be on helping women work from home or simply to stay at home and care for children. This is a sharp contrast from the position of Clinton and Sanders who have proposed that the government should ensure that all employees be allowed to take paid leave.
CNN noted that as of now, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who is also running as a Republican candidate for President, is the only Republican candidate to offer any proposal on paid leave. Under Rubio's plan, employers would be offered a 25% non-refundable tax credit if they offered their employees between four and twelve weeks of paid family leave to new parents, those caring for sick family members, and families of members in the military. Under the proposal, pay would be capped at $4,000.00 per employee per year. Might this be Senator Rubio's attempt to move more towards the center of the aisle and make a play for independents...assuming he gets the Republican nomination?
Comments
Post a Comment