SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Should workers receive paid family leave to care for a newborn or a sick relative? It's a question being debated in the Oregon Legislature, which last week heard testimony on a bill that would create a state insurance program to accomplish just that. Under the proposal, workers at companies with 25 or more employees would be assessed a two cent per hour payroll tax for a state fund which would then provide $300 a week in paid leave for full-time employees up to six weeks. Part-time workers would receive pro-rated benefits. (Similar legislation narrowly failed in the state Senate in 2007.)
Currently, workers who meet specified criteria are generally eligible for up to 12 weeks of unpaid family leave under state law (a period which can be extended under certain conditions), but paid leave is not mandatory.
This isn't just an issue in Oregon. In the nation's capitol, a bill is pending in Congress that would create a paid family and medical leave insurance program, and other legislation is under consideration that would provide some paid leave for federal workers.
Supporters of paid family leave like Regan Gray of Children First For Oregon call the bill "life happening insurance." Meanwhile, opponents such as J.L. Wilson, a business lobbyist with Associated Oregon Industries, say the bill is "government at its worst." He worries that the program will lead to further taxes on workers or businesses and would be unfair to those who don't need such leave.
What are your thoughts on taxing employees to fund an insurance program to provide paid leave benefits? Have you had to take off work to care for the birth of a baby or sick relative? Did you receive paid leave? Are you a business owner who would like to offer paid leave to your employees? What's the best way to do this? Whose responsibility is it to pay when an employee needs family leave?
Guests:
- Teresa Weis: Member of Parents for Paid Leave and a prevention intervention counselor at Merlo Station High School in Beaverton
- Elizabeth Hovde: Opinion writer for The Oregonian
- Andrea Paluso: Spokesperson for Parents for Paid Leave and a writer for the Activistas web site
- J.L. Wilson: Vice president for governmental affairs for Associated Oregon Industries
Tagged as: benefits · employment · health
Photo credit: John Carleton / Flickr / Creative Commons
-
By the way, I didn't know I wouldn't be able to post my actual name above...so the above post was written by Jillian Starr!
-
I am fortunate to have a job with great benefits. But even in that scenario, I had to "scrimp and save" sick days and vacation time to be able to take off the 3 months legally allotted me to stay home with my youngest child. An even more challenging proposition seeing that I have a daughter with a medical condition requring lots of medical appointments, which equals more missed work.
I do support Paid Leave and am hosting an Open House to inform others of the issue today (thursday) at the Gresham Library at 4:30; sponsered by Parents for Paid Leave.
-
There are many businesses that strongly support this legislation and we are one of them.
SB 966 is not government at its worst. This proposal was not designed in a bubble, it has been carefully crafted to be successful.
Assessments of the proposal by the Bureau of Labor and Industries and the Women's Policy Institute, review of the California paid leave program - which this program primarily mirrors, and other private cost reviews point to a self-sufficient program.
As an employer, we have reviewed the employer requirements for program administration. It is exceedingly simple for employers. There is no new reporting form, just another line on the OQ worksheet. There is no need to determine eligibility, manage or administer funds, all program benefits are managed by BOLI - not the employer.
Of course, ease of administration and cost-effectiveness are only some of the considerations for a program like Paid Family Leave.
Many Oregon workers who have the right to take unpaid time off to care for their families cannot afford to do it (unpaid family leave is provided under the Oregon Family Leave Act, passed in 1995).
There has been some rhetoric on this issue around "personal responsibility" and the like. However, workers who have to stretch every paycheck are not less responsible than other workers. And facing the economic reality of living paycheck-to-paycheck does not make you less of a parent, less of a son, less of a daughter, or less of a human being.
Hardworking Oregonians deserve the opportunity to welcome a newborn baby, aid an ill family member, and address other family needs.
This modest proposal will make this opportunity real for many Oregonians who have no real choice at all.
All the best,
Tony and Jennifer Fuentes
Milagros Boutiquehttp://milagrosboutique.com
-
I fully support this legislation. I am pregnant with our second child and yes I do qualify for unpaid leave, but I have had to juggle our finances quite a bit and save up any vacation and sick days I have to try and have some income during my maternity leave. This will leave me without any vacation/sick/paid days to take when I come back to work. I have a toddler in daycare that gets sick and can't go to daycare, then I have to take more unpaid time to take care of her.
My husband's job does not allow him any options at all. He has to bid his vacation a year in advance- before we knew a due date, so he can take one or two days off then has to return to work. If he does not work then we do not have any income at all. This legistlation would allow for us to have income and be able to take care of our newborn without wondering how we will feed our family.
FMLA is great to have but if you can not afford to take the time without pay then you can not even use that time off.
Tanya
-
I am absolutely in support of Senate bill 966. And I am someone who is done growing my family. Too often, I think people focus on the aspect of htis bill that provides support for new families. I support it for what it provides to existing families.
Almost every Oregonian has family - parents, grandparents, siblings, partner, or children. And for many, tragedy will strike in the form of an unplanned illness. Whether it is a heart atttack or childhood leukemia, we need to be able to assist in the healing of those most important in our lives without fear of not being able to pay the mortgage or keep on the power. The poverty that can arise from these unplanned absences from employment can be devestating beyond the stresses already being experienced.
As young professional who has children and aging parents, I urge all Oregonians to encourage their senators to support this bill.
Megan
-
Paid family leave is a positive, healthy response to today's workforce. The Associated Oregon Industries should familiarize themselves with the employers' benefits of paid family leave. Research has shown for years now that (see "Why Americans Need Family Leave Benefits" on the National Partnership for Women and Families Report by Betty Holcomb):
- 98% of employees return to work for the same employer after taking their longest family leaves (Deloitte and Touche, Amoco, IBM, etc.)
- 77% report savings due to DECREASED TURNOVER
- 84% of covered establishments report that FMLA has either no effect or has a positive effect on PRODUCTIVITY
- 90% of covered establishments report that the FMLA has either no effect or has a positive effect on PROFITABILITY
- 90% of covered establishments report that the FMLA has either no effect or has a positive effect on GROWTH
- INCREASED MORALE in 24% of establishments
- 83% of women and 75% of men favor insurance programs that would give families some income when a worker takes family leave
In talking with with employers in Oregon, I have found that they simply plan for these events; replacement for these workers takes planning. It is an ongoing process to anticipate the skills and availability of temporary work and to keep a file of such workers. They have found that these temporary work assignments are highly attractive to retirees and others who want job flexibility.
I will write or call in an entirely separate comment on what my research has shown when paid family leave is not in place. It creates untold and unnecessary stress and damage to women and families.
Lisa Senders, Ph.D., psychologist
-
I am in total support of Paid Family Leave Insurance. Although I am now retired I have had more than one instance in my life where I could have used some Paid Leave to take care of family.
Because I worked in position covered by a union contract I was allowed to use my personal illness leave and vacation leave to take care of my mother when she was dying. If I had access to Paid Family Leave, I could have used my vacation time for myself after her death.
I also took care of my step father as he was dying, again using my personal vacation time.
Now, as a grandparent, my husband and I have volunteered to do full-time childcare for our great-grandchild. Our granddaughter went back to work barely 5 weeks after the birth of her first child. Her second child was born February 2 and, because she is more established in her position, was able to take 2 full months. We can see a real difference in her -- nursing her baby is going better, she is much better rested, and the baby is thriving. If Paid Famly Leave had been available to her when her first son was born, I'm sure her experience then would have been similar.
As she said recently to me, "I would hardly miss two cents an hour."
I strongly urge our Legislature to put Oregon on the map with Paid Family Leave Insurance. It can only benefit employers, employees, and their families.
-
I wholeheartedly support Paid Family Leave because, in addition to the financial burdens to families that others have described above, providing for the health of loved ones, from our youngest babies to our eldest parents, contributes to the health of our entire society. Our society is overly focused on work; we could learn a lot from Europe's standard work week, as well as their maternity and paternity leave practices, which shift priorities back to human relationships, health and happiness.
As a new mother of a beautiful, healthy five month old daughter, I believe staying home with her is establishing innumerable benefits for her physical, emotional and mental health that will last her whole lifetime. My husband and I are both living on federal student loans while completing advanced degrees; if I delayed completion and sought work now, I can't imagine making any more money than day care would cost. So, while we would not currently qualify for the benefits of this bill, I hope it would contribute to an environment that may find creative solutions for also supporting the family needs of the unemployed and those with significant student loan debt in the future.
-
I work as a public health nurse and see families of all types and economic situations struggle to balance the demands of work and family. I support Family Leave Insurance because I see it as cost-effective way to promote health and because it will especially benefit low-income families. Low-income families are more likely to be in poor health and less likely to have jobs that offer any paid leave. Many workers simply cannot afford to take the unpaid time off that FMLA/OFLA allows.
Research has shown that access to paid parental leave can reduce child mortality and contribute to healthy child development. There is also evidence that parents-both mothers and fathers-benefit from being able to take leave. Mothers who are able to delay returning to work after giving birth are less depressed. Fathers who take longer leaves after the birth of a child are more involved in childrearing activities once they return to work.
Family Leave Insurance would improve health outcomes for vulnerable children and improve the economic situation of many Oregon families. Those are things we should all support.
-
First, thanks for hosting this show!
It's funny, the comments here are about as lopsided in favor of this bill as the testimony was last week in the senate committee hearing. 40 in favor, 3 against.
While I come at this issue as a parent with 2 young children, both of whom I had while working full and 80% time, respectively, it has truly become a broader issue as my parents age across the country. Not only did I exhaust my (scant) sick and vacation time to make up for my lost income while home with newborns (recovering from birth and newly parenting), I exhausted it again to care for my father (then 75) after surgery. After which I had 2 young kids and not one single hour of sick leave. Yet strangely, in this country, I'm one of the lucky, because I had those benefits at all.
Our family budget factors in my income, of course, so when it disappears (and health care premiums accrued during the time off are due upon return to work) and the bills don't, one has to scramble. Save? Possibly. If you earn enough and foresee the crisis. With more than 50% of pregnancies and, (dare I say) all family health crises, unforeseen, saving is not always an option. Take from your retirement? Doesn't seem prudent.
And in our case, my husband simply worked a lot to pick up extra money; sure would have been nice to enter parenthood as a team, not a juggling act. Did it work? We paid the bills. Was it how I would have liked to begin parenting? Absolutely not. Did I know I'd feel that way before the baby was born - when there was still time to plan? Of course not, how could I? I hadn't become a mother yet - that's when you "get" how all this feels, how you're stuck in a system that undervalues and therefore doesn't accomodate family life.
The current system isn't working (we're one of 4 countries on the planet w/o paid family leave - surely we're not the ones who've gotten this *right*), people are choosing between providing for their families and caring for them, which isn't a choice I think people should have to make. When my parents are dying, my child is seriously ill, or my husband has a car accident, I plan to be there, caring for them the way I should - not at my desk because the PGE bill is due. That's not the Oregon I want to live in. You?
-
As a company that has experience with paid family leave in other states (California and now New Jersey), I can attest that when implemented there was absolutely no negative employee reaction to the very minimal deductions that took place to fund paid family leave. In fact, I would say that our associates don't even notice the deduction any more than they notice the small tax for funding a portion of workers compensation.
I believe this is a very reasonable bill and as VP of HR for a smaller to mid-sized company (400 employees in 16 states), I do not see it as a burden to organizations or companies. We see a number of situations annually where an associate has a family member with a serious health condition that needs their attention and care. An example may be a spouse with cancer or a parent who has broken a hip - in both cases, there are no workplace benefits that help ease the financial burden in these cases. The employee tries to juggle coming to work and being there and often ends up feeling like they are failing in both. This bill would provide them the opportunity to take the time needed. It does not provide any more burden on an employer than the current OFLA or FMLA requirements.
As for those who think that this is unfair to single employees - unless that employee has no family - no parent, child, sibling or spouse - they may very well find they will be in a situation where they will benefit from this program. We would all be so lucky to not have a need for the benefit, however, it would be there if it is needed. The United States is actually in the minority, I believe, in developed countries regarding access to at least a minimum of paid leave. Oregon can be a leader on this and I would encourage other businesses to support this bill.
Gretchen Peterson, VP of Human Resources, Hanna Andersson LLC
-
No this is not right if you cannot afford the child do not have it.
-
Steven,
This bill is not just for new parents. It is "family paid leave". It covers those who need to care for sick family members. Even those who are able to successfully plan 100% of our pregnancies, we can't always prepare fully for sick parents and partners.
Cary
-
I fully support this bill and struggle to understand who would not be in favor of it. We have many forms of social welfare (e.g., social security, unemployment insurance, subsidized student loans, medicare, etc) and all have provided an invaluable safety net for Americans. I believe the U.S. is one of the few countries that have no paid leave policy. Can the speakers address this? How many countries have no policy?
I too was in Salem last week for the hearing. One of the few witnesses against this bill was a young woman, probably in her mid-20's. She said she resented paying into a system she would not benefit from. As someone who is well beyond her mid-20s that sounds wildly naive to me. Will she never have a sick parent? Never have children?
Enlightened societies take care of their weakest. This legislation will provide a safety net in the same way that unemployment insurance provides a safety net. With 12.1% of Oregonians currently unemployed we can see that these forms of social welfare are critical to our community.
Cary
-
so what your guest is saying is that her and her husband failed to PLAN for the pregnancy
-
I fully support paid family leave for all families in Oregon.
-
I believe there is an overpopulation problem on our planet, and it drives me crazy that our government encourages and rewards people for reproducing!
....And doing it on the dime of those who choose NOT to have kids.
I feel pople should be rewarded for not breeding, not encouraged to have as many children as they can.
Thanks.
-ClarencE-
-
Well hopefully those that are reproducing are smarter than you! We need some people to run this country and let's be honest...some peoples kids will and some peoples kids won't.
Don't get me wrong....some people should NOT be parents, but unfortunately most of those parents are continuing to reporduce and tax an already burdened system.
Point...this is a weak argument!
-
Instead of taxing all workers to pay for unpaid leave to have more babies, we should instead encourage those wishing to take this paid leave to tax themselves. A deposit in a savings account every payday would allow you to take personal responsibilty for your family's finances, without forcing us to subsidize your childbearing. I don't plan on having children, so why should I be responsible for their financial well-being? Maybe that should give me a say in their upbrining.
At the very least, taxpayers should be allowed to opt out of. I would never expect to take handouts when I someday must take family leave to help my ailing parents.
-
So you want to opt out and then when you have a family emergency and need to care for your parents you will not have PLANNED ahead. You will have to take time off without having money to cover your own expenses in addition to managing the stress of caring for your loved one.
This bill is about more than just caring for newborns!!
-
Some people are capable of saving money and covering their own expenses without hand outs when the unforseen happens.
-
Cubilist, I beg to differ that you can plan for anything and everything that can happen. You just don't know. I really I hope that your family never has the kind of emergency that makes you rethink your ability to completely plan ahead.
-
Kelly,
You act as if I haven't had an emergency before. I am very good at saving my income. I have and job and I have health insurance. I don't have credit cards, kids, or outstanding debt. . For me the unforseen gets dealt with as easily as the rest because I live a structured life. I don't make rash decisions that comprimise my financial future.
From buying a t.v. to having a baby, I wish more people would move away from making quick-fix/life changing decisions without thinking it through. Actions have consequences and after the financial meltdown, it's about time everybody realizes that.
-
I completely support this effort to bring paid leaves to family. My husband and I had to go live with our in-laws for three months in order to be able to afford to have three months with our newborn. Three months goes by like a blink of the eye and you should not have to spend that time worrying about how to make ends meet. It should be the happiest time of your life.
I also have three employees right now who are taking FMLA. They have to take that leave without pay. It is a hardship to them and their families in what is already a stressful situation for them.
We are one of four countries in this world who do not have some kind of paid leave. The other three are third world countries. It is time for us to value the human experience rather than capitalist anti-human restrictions.
Thanks for bringing this issue forward, Jessica
-
The guest that says that one can plan for every eventuality is not being realistic...there are many ways in which families who plan and plan and plan cannot be prepared for a debilitating illness for a relative that makes it so that an individual cannot work.
To say that this is for higher wage workers is a true and absolute falsehood. In fact, the people who will use this are those who need it most-- the low wage workers who have fewer resources, less credit and less of an ability to fudge their budgets.
-
At the risk of opening a can of worms I have to ask: Where do anti abortion/ ”right to life” groups stand on issues like this one in Oregon. I would think that caring for your family during birth and sickness is a family value.
-Tim, Portland
-
Nice idea, but who makes these burdensome laws?, definately not 'employers' and 'economic developers'. Must be the noisy constituents who are 'employees' and 'unemployed'.
The current Family Leave Law is greatly abused, but does meet need of required care for family.
I have hired employees at foreign locations that have 'entitlements' such as the proposed bill, this are very hindersome to business, and will morph into an entitlement by the time it gets approved (Which of course it will in OR, WA, and CA).
There are ways to encourage responsible family care, outside of government mandates. I did 32 yrs of unexpected elder care, as well as did single income family support for my own family. As your speaker says... "life happens, anyway", deal with it.
-
I am a stay-at-home mother to two children. I have worked on and off part-time. I am baffled every year by the tax code. You can deduct the cost of child care if you work, but there’s no benefit if you take time off to watch your child(ren). For our family, the cost of child care more than cancels out income I could get (especially when considering travel, clothing, etc.). It seems like it would make sense to allow stay-at-home caregivers (for elderly/disabled people included) to at least get some sort of tax credit for child/dependent care that would be equal to deductible child care costs when provided by someone else. Perhaps this would be a way to help in place of/as a supplement to the proposal for paid leave.
Just a thought,
Cara
-
When my son was born three years ago, I hobbled together a combination of sick leave, vacation time and unpaid leave in order to take four months off. It was a challenge both financially and emotionally for all of us.
Even with a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby, I worried throughout my leave about what impact this time would have on our family. Could we afford the unpaid leave coupled with our large COBRA payment to maintain our health insurance during that time?
In some ways our family was lucky - I was able to take four months off. Now as I work with expectant families as a breastfeeding educator, I hear some women saying they will go back to work after 6 weeks or earlier. One mom of twins told me she planned to only take 6 weeks off and I worried about her health and recovery as much as I worried about her babies. What if they came early and needed special care? We don't know what life will bring our way and even the most prepared of us can't anticipate everything. Let's help make life a little easier for families by supporting Paid Family Leave!
-
What a great oppportunity to keep families together in their time of need! Let's keep Oregon being progressive and pass this bill!
-
This is not a safety net program. This is like unemployment and social security. It’s something we fund with minimal personal contributions to use if/when we need it. Is the guest also against social security and unemployment? Some people never use those, either. This is part of progressing our rights and standard benefits as a workforce. It alleviates pressure for us personally and also on the employers who can’t offer benefits.
Why should I have to be an unsupported, drug-using teenager to get support for time off with my new baby? I work, pay taxes, support the economy. I want to have a fund to pay into to support this benefit. I want my son to be able to feel he can take a couple weeks off to take care of me when I’m old and sick.
How does the guest think that we can go to a one income model?
In Europe, which has better insurance programs for things like this, in my experience more women are working careers than here. I lived in Germany for 6 months and never met a stay at home mom, unless she was on family leave. Insurance promotes the ability to work and have a healthy family. Out of a 45 year career, they might be taking off 2 years. -
As a childless taxpayer I'm already expected to pay for public schools, and a variety of programs to benefit indigent children and their parents. Now the government wants to dip into my pocketbook again, and without any explanation as to why this would benefit the public as a whole. Would somebody please explain to me why I should subsidize what amounts to a vacation for someone else?
-
Re public education: it's called community. Also, this bill is for anyone to care for any family member, it is NOT just a maternity leave bill. A vacation post surgery? Sure.
-
Well, simply, everyone benefits from an educated society. Also, you had the opportunity to attend public school paid for by people who did not have children. Your social security will be paid by other people's children. You drive on roads that are paid for by other people's tax money. If you have a catastrophic medical event, your support will be paid for by other people and their children. Would you really want to live somewhere that school is not paid for?
-
I'm trying to be a good liberal Democrat, but have to stand up to oppose any of these new laws that chip away at personal responsibility!
If you can't afford to take leave, or don't have health insurance as a safety net, then you need to reconsider having children that this point in your life.
-
Health insurance doesn't have anything to do with Leave- paid or unpaid.
-
This is about workers taking responsibility for access to insurance funds. We as a workforce want an insurance program that is independent of our employer, but funded by our pay.
-
This new nanny state program would provide $300.00 a week to every illegal alien McDonald's minimum wage worker who has an anchor baby in Oregon. Is this some sort of a late April Fool's broadcast. We can't afford more government and taxes.
-
I would gladly pay 2 cents an hour so another parent could have paid time to care for his/her new born. People should be ashamed to quiver over who is paying for what, rather than what is best for all of "OUR" children. It is a safe, healthy, and morally correct solution.
-
The United States is so behind the times. We do not support our families to thrive. I am a mother of two, who works for a company in Oregon who does pay a 6-week leave. With my first child, we planned as best as two young, (early thirties) people who have never had children or raised a family could. However we ended up running up debt which took 3 years to pay off. My husband was laid off when i was 8 months pregnant. We could not have planned for that. I took the full 4 months leave, 2.5 of which were unpaid. Thanks to a lot of hard work and diligence in paying our debt we are now debt free, but it was not easy and it was painfull. Who gained? The banks who we had to pay interest to for those years on our debt.
I want to make the point that even I, who had the support of my company, family and friends, run into trouble. I would like all listeners who oppose this bill to think of not your situation or how good you planned but rather for the single mother, or the waitress, or the women who is in a violent relationship, how much more hardship it adds to not know how they will pay the bills, the rent or even get food to their family. Think about the babies going into childcare at 1 week or 2 weeks. Think about the women who go back to work after a few weeks post-partum without allowing their bodies to recover.
And lastly, life does happen, paying the tax insures that if you ever have to care for a family member, it does not have to be a child, you too will be able to take advantage of this bill.
-
If there is a need to support families it has to be for all families not just those who happened to have the right kind of job that qualifies them for this paid leave.
This would further encourage parents to leave their children in the care of others by only paying those who are working outside the home. Stay at home parents are further discriminated against and they provide the bulk of volunteers at most schools.
Everyone deserves support not just the political savy.
-
I think Elizabeth Hovde's heart is in the right place when she talks about wanting to protect the most vunlerable in our society. But she misses an essential point: When people need time off work to care for their families, they ARE vulnerable, even in the middle class.
Today, having a baby is a leading cause of poverty spells in the U.S. Paid Family leave has been shown to reduce the risk of entering poverty by 25%. What we're talking about here is a systemic solution to something that impacts everyone, and an essential element of a social safety net that will save money by keeping people out of poverty.
-
Why are none of my comments being posted?
-
While being called on to care for an ill parent, sibling or spouse is not necessarily a choice, having a child is. Why should I contribute to the financial support of families who make a choice to take on an expense they can't independently afford?
-
Because these children are going to run the country when you are old and in need of assistance.
It takes a village!
-
last time I checked, taking care of a dying parent wasn't a choice. It's just the right thing to do.
Think of it this way: we all pay for the fire department because we know that if there's a fire anywhere in the neighborhood, our houses could be at risk too. You can think about paid family leave in this way too. We need healthy families and workers who can pay the bills (and their taxes), so we create this insurance program to help stop the economic "fire" that we know is caused by needing to quit work to care for a family member.
-
Human sexuality/procreation is so much more complictaed than that, though, isn't it? Having children is far more than a calculated expense, as I'm sure you know. The opportunity to parent simply can't be available only to those of means. I imagine you know that.
-
Maybe people can afford the children once they are working again. That is the point of the insurance.
-
Why should I have to pay more money out of my payroll taxes for someone elses poor decisions?
I have chosen not to procreate for the simple reason that I cannot afford it. Wouldn't it be prudent to choose to not have a baby if you fear that you cannot afford it.
It's cheaper to pay for these families to get on birth control or have abortions.
As far as having more burden falling on social services later (if we don't fund this program) is nonsense. Poor families have a harder time with upward mobility so the fact is that more than likely these children will grow up to be as much of a drain on society as their dead beat parents.
-
EXACTLY!!! Some families will continue to be a drain on society!
Why not also help the families that are NOT a drain on society?!? Majority of the people that are a drain are not employed and this would not help them anyway. Let's help the people that actually need it for once.
-
you may not have children, but I bet you have parents. And your parents, like millions of others in the baby boom generation, are aging. In this economic crisis, even the parents who have saved for retirement are seeing that fall away -- and if they don't have enough to pay for home health care, what are you going to do? Chances are, you'll need to go help your folks out when they are sick, or be at their bedside as they near the end of their lives. You'll have to do this because it's the right thing to do, and because it will help save money on health care costs. When that time comes, Paid Family Leave will help you weather the storm.
Just think about it. This is real and it impacts everyone. We have to stop living in this fantasy world where everything goes according to plan. If we've learned anything from this economic crisis, it's that we have to have system-wide plans in place to protect everyone from disaster.
-
All I'm saying is we should increase funding for planned parenthood before we begin to fund a paid family leave program.
I understand sometimes people need help, but what you and I consider a drain is quite subjective. I would argue that anyone who has a child and cannot afford to care for it is justly a drain.
-
Cubilist, I agree that we need more funding for Planned Parenthood. but to suggest that as the only answer to a multi-faceted problem is to oversimplify. And as I noted above, tying the option to procreate (a biological urge last I heard) directly to finances too closely is not a place we should go, nor is at all a rational way to approach this issue - why seek a policy answer that failes to account for reality?
-
I understand this is a multifaceted issue and we should absolutely frame policy around reality. The reality is that too many people are getting down and making babies. Seriously though, I think that to really address this issue and find a realistic solution we need a top down reform of reproductive education. We need to get over the stigma of sex = sin. We need a sexual education system that embraces contraceptives above abstinence. We need well funded organizations like Planned Parenthood. I'm not suggesting this is the only answer, but if we begin here we would be well on our way to eliminating the problem of parenting in at risk situations.
As I said earlier in the thread, from buying a TV to having a baby, I wish more people would move away from making quick-fix/life changing decisions without thinking it through. Actions have consequences and after the financial meltdown, it's about time everybody realizes that.
That's my beef. With that said, I could care less about 2 cents an hour.
-
Lets put a licensing (similar to hunting and fishing licensing) system on peoples privilage to have babies and use that money to pay for peoples paid leave.
-
Now there is a good idea.
-
As a mom of a disabled child, I would have welcomed this ability to take time off with my child. At around 16 months he became seriously ill. After a long bout of illnesses, he was eventually hospitalized. When we took him home from the hospital, I noticed there was something different about him, something not right.
Because I had already missed so much work from this string of events I decided to take the rest of the year off to get a handle on his illness, his lack of development. I thought the fact that he was in daycare so much (50 hrs wk) and exposed to so many viruses, etc, were causing him to lag developmentally. If I could just work with him at home, I could get him back on track.
The something not right with my son did not go away, it was diagnosed as autism. Which was unfortunate as now I had no job and no insurance. I'm in a pickle barrel now.
Something is very wong with a society that watches tragedy happen again and again to families and does nothing to help. How many families of the sick can we ignore? There is seriously no to little help here in the world of disability and illness. Do not think for a second that it can't happen to you.
I see this bill as a basic step forward to becoming an enlightened and caring society. A society that even cares for healthy single people who believe they don't, and won't ever, need anyone. Sometimes your bootstraps snap.
-
- "Elizabeth Hovde: Opinion writer for The Oregonian"
Please identify her fully as the Right-Wing Conservative Opinion writer for the Oregonian. She replaced the Reactionary-Conservative David Rheinhard (SP?).
-
Can we also say that she lives in Vancouver, WA and does NOT contribute to Oregon income tax?!? She also has the luxury of working from home. I only wish I could be so lucky!
.
-
There's a huge piece that folks don't seem to be getting...this program will help anyone who has a family member -- your spouse gets into a car accident, your elderly mother breaks her leg, your sibling gets some really bad news from the doctor. It's there for everyone...
As for the piece about not wanting to pay for children -- the more we invest in children and their well-being today, the better our society will be in the long run. We can live in an individualistic box, living only for ourselves, and expect everything to be OK in the long run. Social security, medicare, the health of our economy -- it all depends on how well today's children are cared for.
One more thing -- it ends up being more expensive for a society to NOT have paid family leave -- emergency services, bankruptcy, poor health for children -- these are all incredibly expensive realities for our economy. Mitigating these, providing programs that prevent these, is an incredibly wise investment to make.
-
My families household income is 49k a year. We just make our expenses. My mother just was diagnosed with cancer. She is starting chemotherapy. As we just had a new baby three months ago we have no money to see or care for her more then a week. 300 dollars a week would be enough, that with using credit cards we could actually be there for the six weeks to take care of her.
-
I am a small business owner in Portland. I also am a new mom. Currently Oregon has, I believe, the 3rd highest unemployement rate in the country. I had to work incredibly hard through all 40 weeks of prgnancy to keep my business open during its start-up, and during tough times in our world economy. My family had to very tightly budget and sacrafice to give me just 8 weeks off for birth and care of a newborn.
My point is, when I am investing my own money to start a business and providing jobs to my fellow Oregoninans, why was there no help available to me as a mom and business owner?
Why is there no support by this state, which supposedly a big supporter of small business, provide me no help to give my employees the benefits they deserve?
This is why I support this bill.
-
How do you know people will not actually take the family leave? Do you have any research to back that up or is it merely a fear tactic/straw man argument? Please give a reference so that the public can also read your research and make sure it actually says what you claim.
-
I imagine you can request the actuarials from Parents for Paid Leave or Children's First for Oregon. They do exist and testimony about them was provided at the senate committee hearing on 4/8. Also, there is 5 years of daya from CA to consider re usage, sufficient funding, reasons people request the benefit, etc...
-
LTF-
I should have been more clear in my question - it was directed at the business lobbyist that was claiming that nobody would use the leave as nobody uses FMLA (something like 80-90% he said of people wouldn't use leave). He kept throwing stuff out there without any research backup. And the contrast is that the paid leave proponents have actually done their research and can show that the program is solvent. I should probably take time to compose my thoughts rather than just stream of conscious throw them out there.
-
dogo, the same thing caught my ears. the AOI arguments contradict each other.
Wilson said that fewer than 20% of employees would use paid family leave. therefore it's not needed.
Yet at the same time the AOI website says they oppose it in part because it wouldn't be sustaining. Contributions wouldn't meet demand, and then business would be asked to chip in.
They can't have it both ways.
-
It is apalling that the people in this country do not care about their babies and elders. There is NO social conscience. Many European countries provide for in home nursing care paid for by federal taxes. We do not care about the highest juvenile delinquency which begins in the cradle. In Europe in home nursing care is provided to EVERY young Mother & Father.
-
"It is apalling that the people in this country do not care about their babies and elders. There is NO social conscience."
That is the Conservatives that you are talking about, they only care about humans before they are born (fetuses) or when they are brain dead (Terri Schiavo), actual living persons are only valued by Conservatives as Cheap-Labor to be used up and tossed aside when their usefulness as workers is over.
Conservatives know the word Compassion but have no familiarity with the concept.
Many many Americans do care about people but the fight has always been against Conservatism and over the past thirty some years the Conservatives have won out.
-
With the aging of America, it's hard to imagine that this would only used by 10 - 20% of Oregon employees. What an interesting statistic from AOI. How will people take care of their aging or ill parents? It's not just about new parents taking care of their new child.
-
The current economical crisis is a perfect example of how we are all interconnected... when some of us flounder, we all pay a price. We must protect eachother if we want to protect ourselves... (plus, it's the moral thing to do!).
I Support Paid Family Leave Insurance!
-
I think it's a great idea, to have paid leave to care for a family member, BUT I'm also a great advocate of zero population growth.
I'm Single, have no children, by choice, so I can't say that I'd like to see my money going to a family who already has a couple kids, or worse yet, a family who seems to be bent on re-populating the earth.
After two children I think you should give up any pay to have more kids, and have sufficient money on your won to fund your fruitfullness.
-
Paid leave is also to care for a spouse or ill parent. Unless you are an unmarried orphan, this bill would still apply to you.
-
Actually yes, my parents are both dead, I'm divorced, no children, so the bill doesn't or wouldn't apply to me.
So, I'm all for the common good and giving the a parent's or parents' children good health care, good education.
But the trade off is that I don't support huge families that use state funds to get by - excepting those familys that truly embody Christian chairty and expand their family through fostering or adoptiing. If these families adopt high needs or special needs kids more power to them, and I'd willingly kick in more tax out of my check to give those kids, the kids who otherwise woudn't have a home, a loving family.
Apologies for the last 'off topic' paragraph.
-
oh, yeah, and I'm also gay and a veteran, so the bill probably wouldn't apply to me, being a second class citizen, even though I've put my life in harms way for this country and it's people.
-
FredPDX,
People have a tendency to vilify "those people" that are manipulating the system or having way too many kids. I'd turn that around and ask you to look at your neighbors and ask you how you would feel if one of them had a sick parent, a child, or a terminally ill spouse. Would you begrudge contributing $42 a year so that they could take leave to care for their loved one? What about your friends? Are they all a bunch of freeloaders? If you don't support this bill because you assume there's a bunch of opportunists in the next town over, support it because the people close to you might be helped by it.
-
- "J.L. Wilson: Vice president for governmental affairs for Associated Oregon Industries"
I note that he emphasizes "standard of living" as having luxuries, completely sidestepping and ignoring "quality of life".
I think that we ought to change the goals of business from consumption and transfer of wealth from the workers to the wealthy, to better quality of life for all.
-
I think that the point has been lost. This isn't about money, this is about families, and whether we value families and family values. One caller applauded how we had better standards of living than anywhere else in the world - but do we have better families? Are children and elderly better off when they are shoved off to facilities to get their early learning, or to die? Is our ability to buy a third car more important than spending time with those we (should) love and care for? If we really value families and family values, as you would think listening to presidential election campaigns, then this 2 cent tax, whether used by those paying it or not, should not matter.
-
God bless you. That is the best argument I have heard yet in support.
-
I agree. Our children are less educated now than in many, many countries. Could this be because our parents are always working rather than caring for and teaching their children?
-
Or could it be that to many stupid people had to many kids and that cascaded into the overloaded educational system we have today?
-
To Cubilist-
Wow. And could it be that there are so many 'stupid' people beacuse our educational system is underfunded, and these 'stupid' people sat in front of tvs while their parents both worked?
-
wait, are we calling the kids stupid too? Is it underfunded or overloaded? Probably both. :)
Either way...maybe both parents work" because they needed that oversized exurban home, that flat screen, that H2, that promotion, that vacation...On top of that they work 46 mins. from home.* For sure bridgit, Good thing they got that bigscreen babysitter. Stupidity breeds stupidity.
-
Regardless of the topic, the US does not have anymore the highest standard of living. Please, let´s change this silly post Second WW mentality. Western Europe and Canada are today far beyond the US in social and transportation standards. Americans need to travel more and stay overseas for a while before they say we are always the best. Some times, we can learn from others.
-
AGREE!
-
I had called in to provide research data for OPB's "Talk Out Loud" re: the paid family leave bill in Oregon. I was placed on hold, as I listened to claims by J.L. Wilson and the writer from the Oregonian that cannot be supported by research. In a national survey, 83% of women and 75% of men favor insurance programs that would give families some income when a worker takes a family leave. Rather than focus on a few personal experiences, I had hoped that "Talk Out Loud" would take a comprehensive look at what variables contribute to the downturn families suffer (from health, social and economic perspectives) when they need to provide income and nurturance simultaneously. Paid family leave is a viable and sustainable remedy, and its positive effect has shown economic, employment and health benefits across the board in cross-cultural studies. It is a shame that this information was not aired.
"Talk Out Loud" obviously is not a proper forum for evidence based reasoning or the dissemination of meaningful information. I expected more from OPB.
lpb
-
Agreed. It's also shameful that they refused to have Sen. Rosenbaum on the show in support of this bill as she's the one that authored it.
-
One thing that I think is holding our country back from a policy perspective is this insistence that we cannot have a program that someone might possibly in some way abuse. What this results in is a situation where we all suffer because of a small minority of people. Insurance companies deal with this all the time in the private sectors. It means there's a slight overhead in the cost of providing a service if you account for some level of abuse but not that you stop providing the service. Obviously you try everything you can to prevent and stop the abuse but by refusing to provide a program based on it just makes us all suffer.
We really need to get past this hangup as a society. The world is not black and white and it is to our own detriment if we pretend that it is.
-
I fully support Paid Family Leave. I am shocked by some of the opposition to it that runs along the lines of "I don't have kids so I don't want to pay a dime to those that do. If you want kids, pay your own way" and "Plan for your own problems - if you don't have the means, tough luck on you."
The way we collectively value our children, the sick and the elderly says something about our moral fitness as a nation, regardless of GDP. Children are in investment in the future of our society, and it is a sign of how individualistic and self-centered our culture is that those without children think that they can completely abdicate any obligation to provide an environment that nurtures and cares for the next generation.
Taking a philosophical stand such as "I believe in zero population growth" or "low income people shouldn't even have kids" is denying reality. The fact is, people WILL have children. Many of those parents will be in financial difficulty, either due to their income level or due to unforeseen illness of the child. Will we do our best to ensure that those children get the healthiest start they can in life, or do we turn away and shrug off responsibility by blaming the parents for "poor planning"? Such an approach will surely cost us far more in the long run.
Furthermore, it is sheer hubris to think that you can plan for every contingency. Can you say for certain that you will never have a sick or injured family member? That you yourself will never be a financial burden on your family? I have no issue paying 2 cents an hour knowing that it may help my co-worker, whose mother has cancer, whose child is in the hospital or who has just welcomed a new baby.
-
I support Paid Family Leave
-
This show just highlighted what we saw at the public hearing on SB966 and what we are hearing across the state... Oregonians overwhelmingly support Paid Family Leave. Join the growing coalition of businesses, religious leaders, health care professionals, advocates, parents and seniors at www.oregonpaidfamilyleave.org
SB966 is a well thought out plan to assist Oregonians when family needs arise. It has been shown to be financially sustainable and good for business and families alike. Please write your legislators in support of SB966 by visiting www.oregonpaidfamilyleave.org
-
Comments are now closed.
When my child was born two years ago, I could afford to stay at home full time. And when I brought my child home from the hospital I was initiated into the club of parenthood, when you realize that life as a parent so often does not conform to the neat, organized life of society. Because of concerns about milk supply and weight loss, there were daily pediatrician visits along with a medically prescribed routine of breastfeeding, breastpumping and formula supplementing. Anyone who’s ever had to do this while struggling with the realities of new parenthood knows how exhausting and overwhelming it can be. I cannot imagine doing what I did and having to worry about going back to work, losing my job, or paying the bills. And I had it very easy, when you consider that there are parents dealing with larger, more overwhelming and more costly medical issues, or overwhelming financial issues. Paid family leave provides people, particularly women, an equal opportunity to keep a foothold in the workplace while also allowing this next generation of American children to develop the necessary bond with their respective families.
I cannot understand why J.L. Wilson and Associated Oregon Industries declares this bill as government at its worst. It seems that the bill is carefully written to avoid costly administrative overhead as well as to avoid costs to both large and small businesses. So what then is bad about providing an insurance option to mothers of newborns? And since this bill is also insurance for the care of a sick spouse or relative, it’s not discriminatory but in fact an insurance option that most members of our society can utilize. I feel that J.L. Wilson does not understand the true needs of mothers, women, newborns and families, and I urge AOI to reach out to mothers of all backgrounds and discover the hardships that every new parent faces.