RESPONSE PANEL
To:Carmelo Freda and Tiffany Nicholas
From:Chava Golding, and Sophia Zhang
Date:April 13, 2015
Re:Lack of Paid Maternity Leave in the United States
The significance of the issue was outlined well in the presentation. After analyzing the consequences which might be caused by the lack of paid maternity leave, the panel agrees that something must be done. The health benefits of paid maternity are clear. The bond between mothers and their newborns is extremely important as well as the physical and mental recovery of the mother. During the first six months of life parents need to be aware of every stage of development of their newborn to notice if the newborn is developing normally and noticing any delays in development.
Women who were on maternity leave had significantly lower postpartum depression scores compared to their peers who had returned to work. Furthermore, The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months.In addition to containing all the vitamins and nutrients your baby needs in the first six months of life, breast milk is packed with disease-fighting substances that protect your baby from illness.
Without paid maternity leave, many women struggle to afford time off to take care of themselves and their newborns after the birth of a new child. Over 40% have to take unpaid leave, and 25% either quit or are let go from their jobs when a new child arrives. Among those who receive only partial pay or no pay at all during leave, the financial hardship is clear: a third borrow money, dip into savings, and/or put off paying bills, and 15% even have to go on public assistance to get through. Paid leave will help new mothers and their families avoid these tough choices.Moreover, as the presenters mentioned, the United States is the only developed county that did not adopt a paid-maternity policy. From the aspect of humanitarianism, the issue should be addressed.
The argument for paid maternity leave was overall strong. However, it failed to address the discrimination against hiring female workers. Although anti-discrimination of female workers is regulated by the law, we must acknowledge that the employers are inherently profit-seekers and they may be naturally more inclined to hire males. Furthermore, high turnover is common in low-skilled industries and there would be little motive for the employers to increase costs to hire female workers when there are male workers available with equal abilities. Potential and hidden discrimination to female workers seems unavoidable. This issue is most evident in the first policy option where a combined payroll tax is suggested. The bill needs to be revised, addressing the issue of discrimination against female workers, and expanding it to paternity leave. Additionally, we would have liked you to explain the source(s) of funding for replacing the workers when they are on maternity leave.
The second option of adjusting social security tax cap is plausible, although it needs a transition period to be accepted and approved by the law-makers. The drawback of this solution is that it is time consuming and will require must debate and efforts to overcome the opposition minorities.
No other policy options come to mind. Agreeing with the presenters, perhaps the most politically feasible route would be the third policy option. The Family Act Plan seems the most practical and will encounter the fewest obstacles. It is a self-sufficient fund that won’t add any financial burden to the Federal Government. Through the accumulated contribution of 0.02% from both employees and employers, it is acceptable for both parties. Furthermore, paid 12 weeks of leave seems more economically and practically responsible than the 24 week option proposed in the other options. The issue of unpaid maternity is significance and we are confident that with the implementation of the third policy, mothers, babies, and business will be better off.