Why family time could empower our schools
A newborn infant observes its world through the sense of touch. Until about the age of one, the visual cortex has not developed sufficiently to give an infant a clear perception of the surrounding world. The audio cortex develops slightly faster, but the language areas have a ways to go still.Something as simple as human touch has profound effects on a growing brain. Perhaps you’ve seen the 20/20 stories of Romanian kids being ignored in orphanages that have severe developmental and emotional problems. Maybe that’s an extreme example, but it represents the importance of holding and embracing a child.
I’ve worked alongside new mothers and I have the utmost respect for what they must juggle. A three month maternity leave goes by very rapidly and they are back to work. In a professional setting, these mothers try to maintain as much contact as possible with their kids yet are forced to work 40+ hours normally. Our laws have not evolved with the times to allow mothers or even fathers to balance out work and life better. We are not going to regress to a time when women did not work, god forbid. So we must progress to a time when parents can remain in close contact with their kids while maintaining an active career.
We should offer parents the opportunity to take a respectable amount of family leave. To compromise with business interests, the family leave does not have to be a static affair. We could structure it so that a business could choose among a series of options that best fits its business model. The actual length of family leave could vary. One option could involve overriding the FLSA rules to ensure a business cannot work a professional more than 40+ per week for some period. We could offer paternity leave to men (or grandparents) so that the total amount of leave gets divided between two businesses instead of loaded onto one. Why not allow more opportunity to work part-time, three-quarters time or from home, and not just in reference to new parents, but to all parents?
Imagine a moment when a mother has the right to work just three-quarters time for the 6 months before childbirth then receives 3 months maternity leave, and the father gets 3 months paternity leave thereafter, and both can resume successful careers. Could there ever be a society so progressive as to offer over a year’s worth of time off to care for a newborn? Hint: watch video! It’s not just about giving people a respectable amount of time to enjoy the experience. It’s about establishing an environment that supports optimal brain development for the next generation of Oregonians that will walk through the doors of our schools and our society. It’s about taking all the knowledge that we now have on the brain and the body and applying it to our daily lives.
Vi måste tänka i nya banor!
|
May 26, 2009 |
Jenson Hagen | Comments (12 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Jenson | May 26, 2009 11:38:34 AM
And here is a link if you would like to show your support of the bills: Click to support family leave.
Posted by: Steverino | May 26, 2009 11:50:04 AM
Sounds like a very good argument for encouraging stay-at-home moms.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | May 26, 2009 12:09:00 PM
Sounds like a very good argument for encouraging stay-at-home moms.
Or maybe stay-at-home dads....
Until it's time to pay for college and b/c only one parent was working they can't do it.
Posted by: Jenson | May 26, 2009 2:21:51 PM
Or maybe work-at-home mom and dads using remote access and online video conferencing.
Welcome to the 21st century!
Posted by: Joe White | May 26, 2009 2:40:59 PM
Jenson,
Telecommuting is something I've talked a lot about, but I don't see too many companies making it available to their employees.
That's disappointing because:
It would save them tons of money (fewer office spaces needed, lower consumption of energy to light/heat/cool buildings, less construction maintenance of office buildings).
Great for the environment (fewer gas burners on the road).
Less maintenance and upkeep/upgrades needed for the roads.
Less traffic/traffic accidents/traffic injuries and deaths.
Employees would save money (lower gasoline bill, fewer car repairs, less money spent on work clothing, no need to 'eat out' at lunch or feed the vending machine, money already spent to heat/cool the home during working hours actually benefits someone instead of heating/cooling empty space).
I'm surprised that so many 'greens' spend little to no time talking about telecommuting and a lot of time trying to make sure no one can buy an SUV.
Posted by: Miles | May 26, 2009 4:11:32 PM
The Family Medical Leave Act already allows both mothers and fathers to take maternity/paternity leave. If both parents work for different employers, they each can take up to 12 weeks of leave for the birth or adoption of a child.
The problem, as others have pointed out, is that the time off isn't paid. Thus, if you don't have 12 weeks of sick leave/vacation saved up, you don't get paid, and a lot of people can't afford to go without pay. I support mandatory paid family leave in principle, although there are some real policy issues that are difficult to overcome:
1. To require true paid leave at existing salary levels is very expensive, and lots of people already take the maximum leave without pay. (For example, my wife took 12 weeks, the last 8 without pay, but we were able to budget for it.) That means that you're adding a large new cost to employers which, in some cases, doesn't result in any net benefit to society. But there is no easy way to give paid leave to those who "need" it (and would go back to work quickly without) while excluding those who don't (such as my wife and I). Means-testing is a possibility, but has its own complications. The $80,000 a year couple in San Francisco probably needs paid leave more than the $50,000 couple in Oklahoma.
2. Paid family leave creates some real equity issues in the workplace. As a manager, I have many staff with children, and a handful without. Paid family leave for new children is a major new benefit that is only available to those who choose to have kids. That creates resentment from those who choose not to. Not only do they not get the new benefit, but they often have to cover for those who are out on FMLA. So they're working harder in order to support someone else's kids. The legitimate argument that it's best for "society" falls flat when they're putting in 80-hour weeks so you can bond with your child.
3. There is also a real danger of increased discrimination. Imagine an employer with two qualified candidates, one a woman of child-bearing age, the other a middle-age man. The first has the potential to cost 25% more than the second. While in itself this is not a good reason to oppose paid leave, it's difficult to envision an enforcement mechanism that can deal with it.
Our laws have not evolved with the times to allow mothers or even fathers to balance out work and life better.
In your post you're making a good effort to include fathers, but it still comes across as a second thought. When talking about this, we must include fathers as a legitimate first option. Although the law treats both equally, society still doesn't. My wife took three months after the birth of each child. I took one month. People reacted to her leave as though it was normal. Women reacted to my leave as though I had moved heaven and earth to be the best father in history. Men reacted by telling me they had only taken three days when their kids were born (translation: you're planning to be out too long, let your wife take care of the kid.)
Posted by: travesti | May 27, 2009 2:19:32 AM
Here is a very helpful summary that was passed on to me by a friend.
Posted by: travesti | May 28, 2009 10:56:01 AM
Thank you very much for this useful article and the comments. I love this site as it contains good
Posted by: Matt Pettini | May 30, 2009 4:11:42 PM
Sweeden, the North Korea of Europe. Great example.
Posted by: Perpugilliam Brown | May 30, 2009 4:25:50 PM
Miles, why do you (and many others) insist on penalizing thost that have made the most responsible choice, to not have kids? Not only can we NEVER get a decent debate on population policy, Demicans fall all over themselves constantly throwing the fecund classes freebies. Having kids is a choice. It is never good policy to reinforce some choices, while ignoring others, arguably more virtuous.
...time to enjoy the experience.
Funny. That sure sounds like the language you use to characterize a hobby!
This is typical American stopgap politics. The problem is that US corps give less discretionary time to workers, full stop. Treating each issue as an opportunity for legislation only creates more enfranchised and disenfranchised divisions, oh, and is great for pundits and the political media.
That said, Jenson is one of the few good posters left on this blog, imho, founders excepted. While most have to ridicule the oppostion, every now and then an issue gets addressed- if the national committee says it's a focus issue- but there are very, very few proactive, hang it out there suggestions. And you've got that in spades.
All those that scoff without a counter proposal are casting a big vote for the next "canya believe what those talk radio Neanderthals said today" post.
Posted by: travesti | Jun 18, 2009 7:54:53 AM
Our laws have not evolved with the times to allow mothers or even fathers to balance out work and life better.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | May 26, 2009 11:26:24 AM
Legislation on paid family leave was introduced in the Oregon Legislature last month (SB 966 and HB 3160). It has both strong backing (from AARP to MomsRising to SEIU) and strong opposition (AOI, NFIB, etc.)