For International Women’s Day, we should get paid parental leave and paid sick leave
March 8 is International Women’s Day, and it’s shameful that women in the United States are lagging behind in some crucial areas, like work policies.
Women here have a much harder time working and caring for their family members at the same time.
Even something so basic as getting paid time off to raise a baby is denied to most women in the United States. We rank last out of 21 industrialized countries in our parental leave policies, according to a recent study by the Center for Economic Policy Research. The United States mandates no paid maternity leave, virtually alone in this group of nations.
Equally as shocking, paid sick leave is not required in the United States, either. Almost half of women working in the private sector have no sick time. In the largest industry that employs women, accommodations and food service, 78 percent go without paid sick time.
We need to get paid parental leave and paid sick leave if we, as a society, are going to be as fair and just, as we view ourselves as being.
We can make some of these gains locally or statewide.
Several states, for instance, have mandated some modest paid time off for new parents. These states are California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico also has such a policy.
For paid sick leave, San Francisco has led the way, putting it on the books back in 2007. The citizens of Milwaukee followed suit this past November, with nearly 70 percent of voters favoring the ordinance, which my organization, 9to5, helped promote. Unfortunately, the local chamber of commerce is suing the city to block enforcement of the ordinance.
While we can make headway city by city and state by state, the issues of paid parental leave and paid sick leave are national ones. And they go to the heart of what kind of country we want to be. Do we want to provide time for new parents to be with their babies? Do we want to let people stay home when they are sick without fear of losing their jobs? Should we, the people who live in our communities, set these policies, or must we leave everything in the hands of private companies?
Ironically, having paid parental leave and paid sick leave policies is good for business. It provides a positive incentive for employees to stay with the company, thus limiting expensive turnover. And, in the case of sick leave, it keeps the germs from coming to the office.
This is actually a public health issue. If a restaurant worker, a hotel worker or health worker must go to work sick because they don’t have paid sick days, they infect the rest of us. That hurts us all.
On this International Women’s Day, it’s time for the United States to catch up with other advanced industrialized countries.
Women need — we all need — paid parental leave and paid sick leave.
Sangita Nayak lives in Milwaukee. She is the lead organizer at 9to5 Milwaukee, and has been engaging in community organizing for the last decade. She can be reached at pmproj [at] progressive [dot] org.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Resist Censorship in Tucson
- Banned in Tucson
- An Interview with Carlos Muñoz on the Tucson Book Ban
| Banned Authors Respond | |
CURRENT ISSUE: FEBRUARY 2012
Inside the Occupy Movement
| We visited nearly thirty occupations in twenty states in two months.
What I got at Occupy Wall Street
I spent seven weeks in Zuccotti Park, and here is what I got.
Danny Glover
| The Progressive Interview | March 2012 issue
To Wed or Not to Wed
| March 2012 issue
Progressive Matt
The Koch Brothers Conspire to Buy the White House
Comments
You don't really have an argument, do you? In defending the leftist aim of redistributing earnings, your so-called argument is to change the subject to abortion and homosexual rights. You flatter yourself by saying that I "ran" from your attempt to change the subject, but I did nothing of the sort. I will address my points briefly.
Is it "laughable and sad" for me to ask whether your plan to force a minority to create wealth for the majority is a form of slavery? How so? And what do "little green men" have to do with it? Perhaps "slavery" is a word reserved for a certain place and time and cannot be used in politically-correct circles. Ok, let's call it servitude. It would seem that you approve of using government to force a minority into servitude, creating wealth for the majority. Am I wrong?
I didn't say or imply that "only the owners of a business...are wealth creators". Why would you put those words in my mouth? Is it maybe because you find that an easier argument to answer than the one I really posed? Is that one of your usual tactics - to create your own straw man arguments that are supposedly conservative and then shoot them down? Bravo, Guy. You've bagged another scarecrow of your own making.
All the people engaged in a venture contribute to the creation of wealth. That much is obvious. But you make the leap that somehiow all are EQUALLY creating that wealth. Not so, my friend. And our free-market system attempts to reward all contributors according to their contributions. Supply and demand. The bigger reward goes to those who contribute more. It isn't always accurate but it is more accurate than any other system.
And yes, the top earners tend to also be the top contributors. This is where a leftist will argue that the janitor works harder than the entrepreneur, the founder, and the CEO. In a simplistic, F=ma sort of way this may be true, but not in terms of wealth creation. A janitor or a dozen may work up more sweat but they cannot match the wealth-creating contribution of the leader.
You wrote that this type of observation is "unconscionable" and that it shows that I am selfish. Hmmm. Ok, which is more selfish?
a) Group A make a habit of choices in life that lead to creation of wealth. They are on average more talented, ambitious, self-disciplined, and/or creative, and those are characteristics that lead to wealth creation.
b) Group B are not bad people but they aren't as talented as A, or don't try as hard, or are not as able to stick to a disciplined plan. Or maybe they are just not interested in creating wealth. But They feel they should be able to take group A's earnings because group A has more.
Which group is more selfish?
Finally, please address the logic of your policies. If you reward unsuccessful choices and punish successful choices, you will incentivise people to make less successful choices. Over time, where will that take society?
Now Guy, try to address my points, not the straw men of your own making.
Cheers.
And FYI:
This conservative didn't evade the draft, he enlisted. Did you serve?
And guess which American president has a cabinet full of tax cheats? Do you really want to accuse on that score?
And conservatives don't push their values on others any more than liberals do. Conservatives aren't the ones with "ever-changing values", they are inclined to maintain traditional values, hence the root "to conserve". This is really basic stuff, Guy.
.