Writes Emily Kenway in "Family caregiving should be seen as an expectation — not an exception" (WaPo).
Where this column goes: "Ultimately, caring for loved ones should be a fundamental, protected right...."
Currently, family medical leave is unpaid and so restrictive that, according to the Labor Department, 44 percent of U.S. employees are ineligible. Instead, we could follow Norway’s example, expanding leave to all workers and sharing the costs between employers and government. If you need a business case, consider the recent Harvard Business School finding that providing caregiver leave can reduce turnover, especially of senior-level employees.
পোস্টগুলি
৫১টি মন্তব্য:
Since it's the WaPo, it's fair to ask about Emily Kenway's position on parental rights and who children ultimately belong to. After all, if family care is an expectation, it must be because of the unique bond between family members that isn't matched by other institutions in the broader society.
Obamacares was designed to shift responsibility in order to sustain deficits that force progressive prices that cannot be offset through taxation of both husband and wife, labor and environmental arbitrage, and immigration reform.
This is an apology for men and women who cannot reconcile their ambitions, for people unwilling to plan... coordinate their lives, or who otherwise believe they are entitled to abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too.
It would be nice. But...
Our Government is so far over it's head in spending and particularly in mandatory spending programs, it simply cannot take on another mandatory expenditure that will grow exponentially.
Small businesses cannot afford to do this. Larger corporations, at least some of them, can. It has to be up to the individual companies for now. Possibly if the Federal Government ever got it's financial house in order, we could take on a program that works with businesses. But not now. Now while we spend so much on so much BS. Our discretionary spending for 2022-2023 is $1.6 Trillion. You would think that could handle something like a partnership with business to allow for family medical leave. But we've got too many other 'pet programs' taking up the monies. Waste. Huge amounts of unnecessary waste.
I wasn’t aware, outside of NY and Covid, it was illegal to provide care to family members.
"universal right to paid caregiver leave"
I think it lives right next to the abortion right in the penumbra section of the constitution...
Shockingly, the solution to this problem is another federal program.
i was just wondering? How would we pay for this?
just print more cash?
This paid family care.. It'd apply to illegal aliens too, right? i mean; Of COURSE it would
It's a "right"? In what sense? A right to A implies a duty by B (and C, D, E...) toward A, to provide some benefit or at a minimum not to impede A's autonomy. So here: if I have a "right" to care, who has the duty toward me to provide the care? Is it my family over whom I can now exercise some new legal force, maybe get the police to arrest my daughter if she spoils the soup I want in my bedridden state? Is it the taxpayers, who must fork over more money to pay my daughter to stay home from work but still collect salary?
There is a great deal of trouble packed into that word, "right." Let's dig in; but don't forget your hip waders.
Remember how back in the day life happened and people figured it out on their own? Back when everyone was their own farmer who do you think worked the field when you had a sick family member? You did. There was no company to plow your fields for you.
This is also still the same for small business and people that own their own business. Why should you be special because you work for a company?
Life can be hard. Suck it up buttercup and deal with it.
This sounds great- protect the jobs of people while they care for loved ones in need; compassionate, caring, who could be against it? But as a family physician for the past 30 years, I can attest that for every one legitimate need, there will be two others using it to get paid without working or caring.
I respect cultures that are more open to older/sickly parents moving in with children. Seems like Asian Americans are more open to this than Anglo Americans. Heck, maybe most other ethnic groups are open to it, now that I think about it. What the heck is wrong with us Anglo Americans? We did not used to be this way. What happened?
While I support family care, (and my family has practiced it with our elderly for at least the last two generations,) the claim that providing family care assistance would reduce turnover is specious. Why would any employer want to "reduce the turnover" of an employee that was costing him money but providing no value added to his business?
My grandmother lived with my parents for the last eight years of her life and my mother lived with me for the last six. In neither case did an employer or the government provide any support other than the social security and medicare to which they were already entitled. It's not the responsibility of taxpayers or my employer to subsidize other actions that rightly should be my duty.
A quick note to the person with the idea: Not all "workers" have employers. For independent contractors, small business owners, entrepreneurs, consultants, if you don't work, you don't get paid. There's no employer to step in and pay you for your "fundamental, protected right".
No costs are ever shared between the "employer and government". They're always born by the employee (or taxpayer).
Governments have no money except what is taken from its citizens (or tariffs).
Employers have no money except what's exchanged freely with their customers. If you take money from employers to "share" with others you're just taking it from the customers.
Norway is smaller than most states in the US. It might work for them. But to have a federal program in the US that works?* I got a bridge to sell you...
* Social Security is not an example of what "works". It was sold to the American people on a lie (it has always been a tax) and continues to exist based on lies.
No costs are ever shared between the "employer and government". They're always born by the employee (or taxpayer).
Governments have no money except what is taken from its citizens (or tariffs).
Employers have no money except what's exchanged freely with their customers. If you take money from employers to "share" with others you're just taking it from the customers.
Norway is smaller than most states in the US. It might work for them. But to have a federal program in the US that works?* I got a bridge to sell you...
* Social Security is not an example of what "works". It was sold to the American people on a lie (it has always been a tax) and continues to exist based on lies.
I respect cultures that are more open to older/sickly parents moving in with children. Seems like Asian Americans are more open to this than Anglo Americans.
It's a cultural thing, and entirely necessary in a nation without social security. It's about to bite China in the ass.
There is a similar effect with youth. In the United States there is still an expectation that children will leave the nest at 18. But in some cultures, young men are encouraged to remain at home as adults, especially before marriage.
"Our Government is so far over it's head in spending and particularly in mandatory spending programs, it simply cannot take on another mandatory expenditure that will grow exponentially."
Take the money out of the budgets of the War Department and the intelligence agencies. Easy.
jaydub - Nice post.
I took care of my father for 4 years before he passed 30 years ago. Nobody gave me anything, and I didn't expect anything. NOW, 30 years later, my Mother just moved in with me, because she can't live alone anymore. I don't expect anything. They are family, and you take care of family. I never lived off the Government, and I am not starting now.
"Ultimately, caring for loved ones should be a fundamental, protected right...."
Your boss doesn't love your mother, you do.
Ostensibly some states like Massachusetts are putatively doing this already.
Maybe the proponents are just realizing the scope of this will require money printing.
“ Currently, family medical leave is unpaid and so restrictive that, according to the Labor Department, 44 percent of U.S. employees are ineligible. Instead, we could follow Norway’s example, expanding leave to all workers and sharing the costs between employers and government. If you need a business case, consider the recent Harvard Business School finding that providing caregiver leave can reduce turnover, especially of senior-level employees.”
Hmm. Senior-level employees? Aren’t we talking late Boomers clogging the promotional pipeline? With rather best pensions and stock options? Who are best sited to afford to bring in help for their family members?
It’s not really a good solution though, because it can be open ended. Maternity leave has (so far) a fixed duration. After that, the employees are back at work. Want some more? Have another kid. A third one? Maybe you shouldn’t be working full time. But with family medical leave, for some employees, it could just increase every year, for years, if not decades. I know two women who shuttle their mothers to doctors a couple times a week. Multiple doctors, because the mothers are old. One of them is 101, so is part of the Greatest Generation. Her daughter has been doing it for a decade. The 90 year old’s daughter has only been doing it for 5 or 6 years - so far. But the self indulgent Boomers are now entering this phase of their lives. The good news is that Medicare is rapidly nearing bankruptcy, and paying for all the doctor visits is going to be price prohibitive for most.
Remember how back in the day life happened and people figured it out on their own? Back when everyone was their own farmer who do you think worked the field when you had a sick family member? You did. There was no company to plow your fields for you.
That's what churches were (still are) for. Here's the atheist take.
Because it's local and personal it's the most efficient way to distribute (almost always local) resources. It only works if there is a shared purpose however (high trust societies). Hence the need for religion. Common beliefs bring about common actions.
"Back in the day" church membership was 76%. Now it's under 50% (Gallup). That's 87 million people now without the connection to resources to help.
The government became the dominant church, hence the call for government action. The problem is that it's probably the most inefficient way to distribute those resources and most prone to abuse.
It's easy to scam the government with free paid leave. It's harder to do that when the local pastor shows up to help (and pray).
When I had a medical incident, the whole FMLA process was a nightmare pain in the ass. I'm dealing with a life-threatening condition in the hospital and I'm getting these emails from HR about all these forms I need to fill out and hoops to jump through. Meanwhile, I had plenty of paid sick time that I wasn't allowed to use because....well, because.
"Norway is smaller than most states in the US. It might work for them."
Norway is awash in oil money, which is why it works for them. The Norwegian "oil fund", which is a pension fund for all citizens of Norway has about $1.1 trillion invested and another $89 billion will be added this year.
It's ironic that they also feel guilty about having all that oil because of "climate change."
"If you need a business case, consider the recent Harvard Business School finding that providing caregiver leave can reduce turnover, especially of senior-level employees."
Yeah, people who get paid not to work don't quit much.
"The Norwegian "oil fund", which is a pension fund for all citizens of Norway has about $1.1 trillion invested and another $89 billion will be added this year."
Yuh-huh. And how many "citizens of Norway" will be added this year?
In my book about the idea of factories in the countryside run on part-time jobs and the new lifestyle such factories can make possible, I propose the idea of three-generation families living on small family homesteads, but under two roofs, not one, at opposite ends of the garden. All adults work part-time outside the home, leaving families time to build their own houses, grow gardens, cook and care for their children and grandchildren, and so on. Obviously under this arrangement care of the old will be quite convenient since children and grandchildren will be very close by. A Gallup poll once found that up to two-thirds of all adults might be interested in living this way. I describe it as a wholly new version of the American dream that is suited to the times. There's lots more too it than that though:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
No one is stating the obvious: people’s choices show that care for your parents and children is more important than a job. Research like the Harvard study is predicated on optimizing business outcomes by getting someone else to pay for it. Nice trick if it works.
Using North Sea oil rich Norway as the template for affordability of new social benefits is extremely misleading.
Btw, people’s choices also reveal where they find the most happiness - in family.
I'm so old that I can remember when tying benefits (healthcare) to employment was considered a right-wing conspiracy to handcuff people to their jobs and make them wage-slaves. Fortunately, ACA set us all free to pursue our best lives unshackled from the fear of losing access to healthcare. Who knew that the key to unlocking the next step towards progressive utopia was tying benefits (paid family caregiving leave) to employment?
Brian @ 9:21: Nice post. Agree with efficiency argument: apply the "subsidiarity" criterion and try to push problem-solving down to the local level where there is (often) a lot of know-how and spare capacity. Plus it's generally a more rewarding experience to pitch in and help a neighbor. You might even learn stuff, or teach it, and generally gain credit in your community.
Whereas waiting for the Central Planning Office to schedule an interview so you can be evaluated for eligibility in the Assistance Program? A joyless waste of time, money and purpose.
I was going to mention the Norwegian oil sovereign wealth fund. Essentially, the Norwegians ring-fenced their oil wealth, reserving its value for future generations.
Whereas, our government promises current voters the dole today, on the backs of future generations. And the oil wealth that it sets aside, the SPR, is drained at ill-advised times for political capitol, and then not filled at the opportune time, to deny any potential political capital.
Not saying that I prefer more socialist forms of government, just pointing out the obvious downsides of poorly-managed representative republican forms of government. Looking at you, 81 million voters, none of whom wear Biden-badged paraphernalia in public.
"* Social Security is not an example of what 'works.' It was sold to the American people on a lie (it has always been a tax) and continues to exist based on lies."
Who says Social Security doesn't work?
"I took care of my father for 4 years before he passed 30 years ago. Nobody gave me anything, and I didn't expect anything. NOW, 30 years later, my Mother just moved in with me, because she can't live alone anymore. I don't expect anything. They are family, and you take care of family. I never lived off the Government, and I am not starting now."
Admirable, to be sure. However, there are many who cannot afford to take care of their elderly parents, as they are themselves in uncertain or untenable financial circumstances, and there are elderly people in a poor state (financial and otherwise) who do not have children to turn to.
Looking after the welfare of its citizens is simply part of what any humane society does: provide means by which the least among the citizens may obtain resources to help keep them housed and fed in at least minimally livable circumstances.
One of my library colleagues spent more time working with HR on FMLA hoops and forms (per Mark's comment) than he spent trying to manage his father's care from hundreds of miles away, and doing what work he could remotely, combined.
I was conservator for my Oma during her last four years. As the favorite and by far most dutiful of the four grandsons, it fell to me and her old German and church lady friends to keep her going, alone in her big house.
My two younger brothers were helpful, but our older brother prompted the conservatorship--while I was working full time and going to grad school at night, he was visiting her a few times a week and strong-arming big checks out of her. For school, he said. It took me a year to realize what was going on, a year during which he scammed her for almost as much money as I made.
Much later it became the turn of my younger brothers to shoulder the burden of Mom.
"Looking at you, 81 million voters, none of whom wear Biden-badged paraphernalia in public."
Well, why would they? In fact, why would anyone wear clothing or paraphernalia bearing the images and slogans of any politicians? It is unseemly and mentally and emotionally childish. These people are our employees; we pay them to manage our affairs for our benefit. One may approve of or admire this or that particular public servant, but they should never be elevated to the level of being above us, or to be perceived as anything more than our paid civil servants. Rather than the populace gathering in stadia to cheer and adore politicians, they should come to us humbly--as an employee of a business does each year when they face their boss or a human resources administrator at job review time--hoping to hear we are satisfied with their performance, fearful of our criticisms of their performance, and required to defend to us why they should still be kept on, much less given a raise.
Whereas waiting for the Central Planning Office to schedule an interview so you can be evaluated for eligibility in the Assistance Program? A joyless waste of time, money and purpose.
Thanks Owen. The problem with a church providing such assistance is that it comes with all that yucky prayer. That's a feature though not a bug. It provides the glue to build the community for the times later where that community is needed.
We should have a constitutional rule that says government cannot mandate businesses pay for things that could be done by the state.
I'm sick of business owners having to bear all the burdens, so politicians can have their cake and eat it, too.
If the welfare policy is so amazing, fund it from taxes, don't hide it via mandates.
There is an even bigger problem involved with paid family leave. I speak as an expert on this issue, as this literally is what I do for a medium sized indusial corporation, right now, today, and for the last five years: I attempt to get employees to come to work when they are scheduled, so that our factory, located in the US Midwest, can continue to manufacture a product that is critical to the economy and used daily by the majority of US residents. The problem is that employees have figured out how to game UNPAID FMLA. I believe if that leave was mandated to be paid leave, we would almost certainly shut our plant within a few years, simply because we would never know when/if enough people would report to work to keep our process running And, whenever I speak with peers of mine anywhere else in the US in manufacturing, no matter what product they make, they have similar current problems AND similar fears if this leave were to become paid. This is a huge deal, I can not overstate what would happen to the economy and all of our lives if paid family leave were to become federal law in this country.
“Looking at you, 81 million voters, none of whom wear Biden-badged paraphernalia in public."
Again, repeating what I said a couple of days ago when you made the same statement, it’s tacky. Who wears politician’s faces or slogans on the clothing they wear?
"What the heck is wrong with us Anglo Americans? We did not used to be this way. What happened?"
FDR
Admirable, to be sure. However, there are many who cannot afford to take care of their elderly parents, as they are themselves in uncertain or untenable financial circumstances, and there are elderly people in a poor state (financial and otherwise) who do not have children to turn to.
Looking after the welfare of its citizens is simply part of what any humane society does: provide means by which the least among the citizens may obtain resources to help keep them housed and fed in at least minimally livable circumstances.
5/23/23, 10:38
WHO says I can afford it?? I have the room, but in this economy, we were just getting by ourselves, but Mom couldn't. She isn't ready to put in a Nursing Home, and with the way it is hard for them to get help anymore, I don't want her there, if she won't have the proper care.
It's one thing to "look after the welfare of its citizens", but when we are ALSO looking after the welfare of 5 million invaders who come before said citizens...it is time to stop using the taxpayers money for things we can no longer afford.
Robert Cook asks "who says Social Security doesn't work?" I do. And so does every competent financial analyst and actuary who has looked at it. Robert Cook sounds like one of those silly people who think the so-called social security trust fund is a real thing. The whole thing is based on the theory that the federal government can loan money to itself. The only way the fake bonds in the SS trust fund can be redeemed is if the government raises taxes or borrows the money from someone else. I've believed for a long time that the actual plan for what to do when SS taxes fail to cover the annual payments was to use inflation to lower the actual value of the benefits paid out. And right on schedule...
"Who says Social Security doesn't work?"
Well, I guess it does work. Like cancer. Who says cancer doesn't work? Cancer works great! I don't know why it's not more popular.
"I've believed for a long time that the actual plan for what to do when SS taxes fail to cover the annual payments was to use inflation to lower the actual value of the benefits paid out. And right on schedule...".
Well, except. SS is indexed for inflation. So, I think the actual plan is to get the whole thing spinning so fast we can use it to generate electricity.
In fairness to Cookie, the real question is whether anything else would have worked better. The premise of SS was that the population of retirees would always be much smaller than the population of workers. That proved to be false. But this would be a problem for any scheme of retirement planning. Somebody has to work, or money has no value.
I am reminded of the opening episode of "Frasier" where the two brothers are discussing where their aging father should live. One of them reads a brochure from an assisting living facility, "We care...so you don't have to."
"We care...so you don't have to."
Shared/shifted responsibility. Levine's dreams of Herr Mengele. Ethnic wars... Springs by proxy. CAIR. Demos-cracy is aborted in darkness.
"Who says Social Security doesn't work?"
The problem is not SS per se, but rather deficits incurred through Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacares to manage, not provide care, redistributed through shared responsibility/progressive prices that result in capital depletion sustained through abortion, taxable employment, immigration reform, and labor and environmental arbitrage.
We were lucky that our mother owned the house and had (after 20 years at IRS) her federal pension plus SS widow's benefits. My next brother and I still joked that what we paid in was about equal to what SS was paying out to her.
It also turned out well that neither of my younger brothers launched, and stayed at home. They worked until we imported our mother's oldest sister here from AZ after she was widowed. My youngest brother became essentially an appointment manager, driver, and dogsbody for the two aging and never healthy dames. Luckily again, Aunt Rebecca came along with more money than any of us had--which we managed carefully for the few years she lasted.
After my oldest younger brother died in '10, the youngest had full-time caregiver duties for our mother, with as much assistance as I could give. Her need for care was the most important pull-factor in my decision to retire in '15, and I spent a lot of time out there for the next three years.
Not always to everyone's constant pleasure and satisfaction, if you can believe that.
I've told my wife I'm done with sick old lady duty, so she needs to stay in shape.
there are 50 million caregivers in the USA, who give part time or full time help to relatives or friends (and this may not count the relatives or grand parents who care for the children of their relatives who can't do this).
This is part of family life, and yes, paid leave would help. But so does non governmental help from churches and friends or other relatives.
Getting old is usually horrible, and is preferable only to the one available alternative.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন