The Labor Department issued a ruling today allowing employees in a same-sex relationship to care for the child of his or her partner under the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act.  The new ruling is based on language used in the 1993 law, and cites that “a biological or legal relationship is not necessary” for someone to be in loco parentis with a child.

Good news!  Yet the FMLA still does not allow same-sex couples to care for one another, because the U.S. government does not recognize same-sex partnerships.  Individual employers are free to provide benefits to homosexual couples, but they are not required to under federal law.

How are the children of same-sex partners supposed to do well if their parents aren’t treated well?  How can any parent be expected to care for a child if they themselves are not cared for?  There’s some important logic missing in this ruling. Continue reading »

Tweet

0

Pin It

The U.S. could learn a thing or two from Scandinavia.  No, not how to distill better vodka or design inexpensive build-it-yourself furniture.  The U.S. should learn how to treat its parents.  I don’t mean Britain and God, I mean its citizens with children.

NPR reports that the United States is now the only industrialized nation that has not mandated parental paid leave from work.  “Australia, which used to keep us company in that category, just passed a law that guarantees 18 weeks of leave at the federal minimum wage.”

Guess how much the Australian federal minimum wage is?  Nope, higher.  Higher.  Close!  It’s $570 a week.  (Our minimum wage is $290.)  And since their paid leave will be available to both mothers and fathers, an Australian couple can rest at home with their newborn for 18 weeks, raking in $4,560 per month.  That’s assuming both parents will be allowed to take leave simultaneously, as is the case in many European countries.

But in America, the picture for new parents isn’t so rosy.  I went back to work in my daughter’s fourth month, because my unemployment had run out.  A friend of mine was able to get disability for a while because she had a complicated pregnancy carrying twins.  Sure, the US Family and Medical Leave Act provides for 12 weeks of unpaid leave for mothers or fathers, but that’s only if you work at a company with over 50 employees and have been there for at least a year.  New parents are forced to find creative ways to piece income together while “resting” and “enjoying” their baby.  But then there’s the decision about what to do when it’s time to go back to work.  “Can we afford childcare?  If not, who should stay home?”  That’s a lot of stress for people who are supposedly on “leave.”  Continue reading »

Tweet

0

Pin It

We middle- and upper-class parents can moan (rightfully) about the pathetic state of this country’s maternity leave policies, but I suspect nothing will change until the low-wage worker is brought into the mix. After all, those with greater means  can pretty  much make things work out. We have more choices, though it doesn’t always feel that way.

Workers who don’t earn much, however, suffer the brunt of our pathetic Family and Medical Leave Act (guarantees time off; does not guarantee pay). When you  earn at or near minimum wage, is there really much of a choice than to pass the placenta and get back on the job?

This goes for breastfeeding, too. Women who don’t live near poverty can take time off, find a private room to pump, demand a private room to pump.  Or get someone to bring the baby to the office to nurse.

Bringing baby to the workplace was the strategy of Maria Chavez, a cashier a Los Angeles taqueria, who wound up getting fired for nursing. On her break. In her car.

Oh, but there’s justice at the end of this story. Continue reading »

Tweet

0

Pin It