Contact The Editor
Articles By This Author
If you're wondering what the 2016 presidential election will be about, here's one dark-horse possibility: the family-friendly workplace. As millions of Americans struggle to balance family and job demands, proposals requiring paid maternity leave and emergency sick leave have an obvious appeal for Hillary Clinton or any Democratic candidate. The subject is thornier for Republicans, who have resisted new taxes and regulations while also favoring pro-family policies
The latest evidence of the issue's political traction comes from President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), which devotes a whole chapter of its annual report to "family-friendly" policies. It notes, as have others, that the "United States is the only developed country in the world that does not ensure paid maternity leave." Most advanced countries provide at least 14 weeks of paid leave, with the costs covered by employers or special taxes. Half the countries surveyed by the International Labour Organization also provided paternity leave.
The landmark U.S. legislation is the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), passed in 1993 under President Bill Clinton. It requires firms to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for childbirth and some family illnesses. However, there are many exceptions to coverage, including part-time employees and businesses with fewer than 50 workers.
According to one study, only 60 percent of workers are covered. Further, the CEA alleges, the FMLA's unpaid leave discriminates against poorer workers who often can't afford to give up their wages for any long period.
Just how much discontent remains is unclear. The CEA report also notes another study finding that about 85 percent of workers who wanted to take leave in a given week in 2011 were able to do so. On the other hand, a series of articles in The New York Times highlighted workers' complaints of abusive scheduling by firms that "wreak havoc with everyday routines like college and child care."
Either way, the influx of millions of women into the labor force in recent decades has fundamentally transformed both family life and the workplace. Sex roles taken for granted in the 1950s — the man as provider, the woman as caretaker — have blurred beyond recognition.
Consider some CEA findings.
Among married couples, women now account for 44 percent of family earnings, up from 37 percent in 1970 and less in earlier years (in 1920, only 24 percent of women worked outside the home). Meanwhile, men are performing more domestic chores. On average, dads spend about seven hours a week in child care. Though that's still less than mothers (average: 12 hours), it's almost a tripling since 1965.
With more tasks shared — and clear boundaries diminished — conflicts over who should do what have multiplied. One survey finds that 60 percent of fathers in dual-earner couples report work-family conflicts, up from 35 percent in 1977. In another survey, half of respondents said they'd rejected a job offer because it would harm family life.
To some extent, businesses have accommodated these changes. By one study, about half of workers report they have some flexibility in scheduling the hours of their work — suggesting they can get their kids to school without losing their job. In the same survey, about three-quarters of workers said they "had access" to unpaid leave. A few states (California chief among them) have abandoned voluntary approaches by requiring some paid family and sick leave.
The overriding question is whether more mandates would promote better practices or simply impose a new set of costly regulations on firms and discourage hiring. Without endorsing new regulations, the CEA argues that family-friendly work policies are win-win. Workers are healthier and happier. For firms, these policies help retain talented employees, reduce the costs of absenteeism and minimize the expense of recruiting and training new workers, the CEA says.
Whether this is enlightened thinking or wishful thinking is precisely what makes it a worthy subject of debate.
Comment by clicking here.
Previously:
• 02/23/15: Obama's top economists: 'Inequality isn't Middle Class' gratest challenge'
• 02/19/15: A new economic mystery: Negative interest rates
• 02/16/15: Technology doesn't pay off the way it used to
• 02/12/15: World debt is good?
• 02/09/15: The twisted priorities of a graying nation
• 02/05/15: College is no panacea
• 02/02/15: What if everything we know about the 'housing bubble' turned out to be wrong?
• 01/29/15: Austerity on trial: The world watches as 'it's Greek' changes its meaning
• 01/26/15: How other nations' troubles could slow U.S. growth
• 01/22/15: Setting the record straight on Reagan, Volcker and inflation: Part 2
• 01/19/15: Economists are baffled about Obama's recovery
• 01/14/15: 'Dynamic' deceptions: Washington's enlightened budgeting vs. cooking the books
• 01/12/15: Who stopped inflation? Volcker, Reagan and history
• 01/08/15: Europe's other unending crisis
• 01/05/15: Is the economic slog really over?
• 01/02/15: Five economic stories to watch in 2015
• 12/29/14: 'Helping' the middle class won't fix its psychological problems
