Republicans have long claimed to be the party that supports the family unit. Despite balking for years, Republicans finally seem to be getting on board with paid family leave, a policy that, if crafted well, would surely be a boon for struggling parents without padding government bureaucracy too much.
The $3.3 billion provision is part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was signed into law on Dec. 20.
Complicated Relationship
The United States has had a complicated relationship with paid family leave, despite its popularity—and the fact that it’s usually mandated—elsewhere in the world.Still, that has slowly started to change. In general, most workers are covered by the Family Medical Leave Act, which allows up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year to care for family members.
While paid maternity leave is more common, and Democrats have been advocating for paid family leave for a while, Republicans are finally catching up—and it’s none too soon.
In 2018, lawmakers proposed various forms of paid family leave, but none of them even came close to a floor vote.
Past Proposals
Right now, only a handful of states and the District of Columbia have paid family leave laws. On Jan. 1, 2019, residents of Washington state started paying into their mandated paid leave policy, which is basically their version of the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act (FAMILY Act), which was first introduced to Congress in 2013.In this model that many Democrats support, employees and employers pay a small amount from each paycheck into an insurance fund to pay for leave.
A few folks, such as federal employees, self-employed workers, or federally recognized tribes, are exempt from the law. It’s often touted as something that’s helpful for lower-income working people—without compromising Social Security benefits down the road.
Republicans introduced several different types of paid parental leave legislation in 2018. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) worked with Ivanka Trump on a bill—the Economic Security for New Parents Act—that many conservatives favored more. His plan would have allowed employees to draw on Social Security funds for two months of their “paid” leave. In exchange, employees would delay receipt of their benefits by about six months, following retirement. The benefits would have been transferable for fathers and mothers. For many families, this would have been a small price to pay.
The beauty of Rubio’s bill was that it wasn’t a government-mandated program paid for via a tax, and didn’t affect everyone. (This would have been unfair to couples without children, families who have already had children, or families who wouldn’t participate.)
Supporters believe it’s clear that paid parental leave is helpful to the family unit, which in turn trickles down to aid the economy. The question is, if it’s such a boon, why don’t more states do it? Why don’t more employers?
Hopefully, this new provision that offers paid parental leave for federal employees will spur other states, or at least other private corporations, to offer their employees the same.