What People Think
 |
 |
23% For, 77% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 626, The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009 (108 comments ↓ | 12 wiki edits)
H.R. 626 would provide that 4 of the 12 weeks of parental leave made available to a Federal employee shall be paid leave.
()
[832 views]
Cost per :
Learn More
Visitor Comments 
Bruce
January 28, 2009, 6:05pm (report abuse)If I had to be terse, I'd just ask "Why?".
Are federal employees underpaid compared to those in the private sector? Is there a shortage of employees for the positions that exist even in this economy? Is it really that difficult to retain employees at jobs that are virtually indestructible?
There are many very talented folks that are out of work in the private sector. Even if this were a good idea, the timing is almost over the top.
JR
February 1, 2009, 8:16pm (report abuse)There is no valid reason this kind of entitlement should be afforded to federal employees. Just another attempted grab by a self-serving group.
JD
February 3, 2009, 1:02pm (report abuse)To above commenters:
Can you afford to take off 6 - 12 weeks without getting paid? It would take not taking ANY leave for almost 3-4 years in order to save up enough to be able to take 3 months off with your newborn and still get a paycheck. The other thing that isn't considered is that the federal government does not offer any short term disability. So if I want to stay home 3 months with a newborn, I either have to not get paid, or zero out on any leave I have accrued. That leaves you in another lurch as now that you have a child someone has to stay home when they get sick. Don't act like we are all self serving. Especially when it is putting the government on par with most other companies.
JR
February 3, 2009, 6:50pm (report abuse)It's called planning. The reason you have sick leave is for this type of situation, not to be used as an extra day off when you don't want to go to work or want a three or four day weekend. It is also a wisw idea to save up a bit of regular leave, especially if you think you might have a child in the future. Don't ask the taxpayers to pay for your lack of ability to deal with the needs of a birth and newborn child. And if you really believe private companies pay for maternity leave you are somewhere out in space.
BV
February 4, 2009, 8:13am (report abuse)Do any of you have children? It doesn't look like it. Try having a child and trying to save up leave. It's impossible. Then, try to take off at the minimum (for the mother) 6 weeks. Most could pull off 3 weeks by exhausting their current leave, but then adding three weeks of unpaid leave with a new baby in the house? I don't care how much you plan in advance. In this economy it's unreasonable to think that people just have money stashed away for a rainy day. And yes...planning for a new baby is great. But there's the other 80 percent of the population that don't have that luxury.
JR
February 4, 2009, 11:20am (report abuse)So you think it is the responsibility of the taxpayers, who pay your salary, to pay for your vacation? Not likely.
MR
February 5, 2009, 11:59am (report abuse)Vacation? You would consider having a child to be a vacation? It's not the rensponsibility of the federal government to take care of it's employees, but it is somehow is the government's responsibility to provide paychecks to those who are too lazy and unmotivated to find work?
JR
February 5, 2009, 5:22pm (report abuse)If you aren't working you are on vacation, no matter the reason. It still doesn't explain why you think it is appropriate to pay for time off, over and above any leave accrued. So you think it is okay to pay for your slacking off from work just because some poor soul gets public assistance? Get real, please.
PD
February 6, 2009, 6:40pm (report abuse)JR - While this bill doesn't specifically address the gender of the recipient, it's not like women who have children have the choice of not taking off work when they deliver a child. It is, in fact, a medical necessity. Your point about sick leave is well taken, but most men I know don't have a medical reason that necessitates being out of the office 8 - 12 weeks. Hardly seems fair.
Most large corporations have maternity of parental leave policies that are outside their regular sick leave policies. This just catches the federal government up with them. Federal benefits are excellent and so is the job security, but make no mistake, the federal government is by no means cutting edge when it comes to their benefits package.
PD
February 6, 2009, 7:16pm (report abuse)At least half the 1000 largest companies in America have some sort of additional maternity/parental leave benefit. Just a few examples for you. Microsoft has eight weeks leave. Bank of America has eight weeks. GE has eight weeks. General Mills has six weeks. That's either maternity leave of parental leave - not sick leave. They let you add that on top. I could give you more examples, but I think that the point is clear - 4 weeks of maternity leave for a large, modern US employer is not out of the mainstream.
PD
February 6, 2009, 7:21pm (report abuse)Oh, and did I mention that the military gives women 6-8 weeks maternity leave. And the Marines give three weeks of parental leave for new fathers?
JR
February 7, 2009, 3:42pm (report abuse)I don't care what any corporation does, that does not make it a requirement that the government give civilian employees the same gift. And if the civilian sector is so good why aren't all these government employees working there? Could it be that other benefits of government service offset this one advantage to civilian employment?
LH
February 9, 2009, 11:13am (report abuse)So what you are saying is because someone is a federal employee they should not be entitiled to what main stream america is. I have a child that has major medical problems already. My leave goes to take care of him. Now that my wife is pregnant we will go without pay for our next child. If I cant pay my bills then that will come back to the american tax payer as well. Plus more and more young people don't want to work for the government because of these things. So the best and the brightest are going to private companies. So when airplanes flies over your house, you don't want the best people working on it.
JD
February 9, 2009, 2:28pm (report abuse)If the govt would offer even a short-term disability insurance policy, I would GLADLY pay into it for my entire career to not have to worry about the 6-8 weeks I need to take off with a child. But we are not offered it.
JR
February 9, 2009, 8:03pm (report abuse)There are commercially available disability policies out there. Why not get one of those instead of asking the taxpayer to pay for your time off.
As to the comment about the "best and brightest" leaving - that has never been a problem for the government. You would have to have some of those before you could lose them.
PD
February 9, 2009, 8:52pm (report abuse)JR - I suppose if you hold those who serve you in contempt, then you wouldn't be interested in treating them equitably and trying to have a competitive compensation package to recruit additional talent.
My experience as a federal worker and as a worker in the private sector is that federal workers are among the most professional and dedicated I have worked with in 20 years. I've twice served in combat zones as a federal civilian employee, including during the invasion of Iraq. Thousands like me are doing that kind of work away from their families, and I can tell you they aren't getting compensated the same way KBR compensates its employees. Their motivations are service to their country and fellow citizens. Something that is all too often lost on people like you.
Look, all anyone is saying here is that USG should give women who have children one-half the benefit enjoyed by the segment of the population that works for the largest companies in America. Is that so wrong?
Jeff
February 10, 2009, 11:21am (report abuse)What is wrong with the federal government setting an example to allow fathers and mothers to care for their newborn children?? This is especially good for young federal employees with little accumulated leave that are having children. Not too mention many federal employees relocate away from family to work. Hopefully, the private sector will take the hint and do the same. Come on, let's start focusing on people and not the "bottom line."
JD
February 11, 2009, 12:35pm (report abuse)JR,
Real nice. Let's insult the entire federal workforce. We can safely assume that you are nothing but a bitter and angry person that has nothing better to do than try and make other people as miserable as you. Bravo.
GR
February 11, 2009, 4:07pm (report abuse)JR - Just a thought...those working for the federal gov't keep food safe, keep trade alive and well, fight fires, protect homes, protect lives, and a multitude of others things. There is a lot of science, engineering, accounting, designing, and marketing going on. If we're so dumb and can't be considered among "the best and the brightest" I ask you to take over and do the job....any of them... I am a scientist and I work for the feds because I want to make a difference in this world and economy...for the good of my family and for other struggling families. You either enjoy playing devil's advocate or are just completely anti-family which to me means anti-future. If you're so concerned with "your" tax dollars going to pay for "my" parental leave, when it's my turn to take a bit of leave for a baby or whatever please just let me know where I can send your quarter back. I'll be sure it gets there ASAP.
CB Hill
February 20, 2009, 12:59am (report abuse)I'll tell you what - just as soon as everyone else has the same benefit I'll support this. Until then all you federal employees can suck eggs.
NB in FL
February 21, 2009, 4:44pm (report abuse)Someone tell me where one can find jobs in main stream america that offer these benefits?
Not one person I know was paid anything for their Maternatiy leave and most companies here laugh when you mention Paternity leave; if they don't have to look the word Paternity!
I considered myself lucky that my employer 'allowed' me to log into my computer from home and continue working immediately after the birth of my child.
So tell me again why I'm paying for someone else's maternity leave??
MLH
February 22, 2009, 3:30pm (report abuse)You can’t keep saying "Your" tax dollars... The fact of the matter is we all have to pay taxes. Whether I am a federal employee or a regular joe working a regular job. I look at it as I'm paying my taxes and if part of that may benefit me when I’m on maternity leave great. If I take time off for medical reasons, for my family, for a funeral because a loved one died, or yes... for a vacation it's nobody’s business. I don’t need to know what you’re doing when you’re not working your butt off. I’m not saying your slacking, but you don’t know what we do either. And I can guarantee that 99.9% of us federal employees don’t slack off. We are hard working people, and we do our jobs.
CB Hill
February 22, 2009, 5:41pm (report abuse)OK MLH, here's what you can do - When you are off on maternity leave you forfeit all other government services. Why? because all the money you pay in taxes is now tied up in paying you not to work. So you can't have any other benefits that would accrue from paying your taxes. No use of anything that has federal funding will be allowed until you return to work and become productive.
CB Hill
February 22, 2009, 5:44pm (report abuse)Oh, and by the way, no member of your family can use any of these services either, unless they are paying taxes of their own.
Jeff
February 25, 2009, 9:35am (report abuse)CB Hill,
Don't you understand that if federal employees receive this benefit then private employers will have to up their benefits to compete and retain talent. Are you content to allow the entire nation's benefits continue to spiral down the tubes? At least someone is trying to make things better and not worse. People first, then money!
JM
February 25, 2009, 10:12am (report abuse)I believe this bill is needed to provide parity to the federal employees with the private industry. All psychologists agree that this is a very important time for parents to bond with their children. I hope lawmakers pass this bill as soon as possible for the well being of our children.
CB Hill
February 25, 2009, 10:32am (report abuse)No one says you can't "bond" with your newborn. The question is why should the taxpayer be forced to pay for it?
And Jeff, perhaps the idea is that benefits are already good enough. The choice to have children is the employee's. But again why should taxpayers be forced to pay for time off? The employees have vacation and sick leave already, why should more paid time-off be added? As to forcing private empoyers to provide the same benefit - who do you think will end up paying for that? The customer will see higher prices to pay for any added benefit. As to the downward spiral of benefits, you need to look at the historical facts. There have been increases in real benefits, not decreases.
LB
February 26, 2009, 1:08am (report abuse)I don't believe some people realize how antiquated the current leave system is with respect to maternity/paternity leave. I would bet those against it do not have families and have that "old school"/antiquated mentality that has kept the current system intact... As PD referenced many of the largest corporations offer their employees maternity/paternity leave above and beyond the leave they currently earn. Providing 4 weeks is certainly reasonable especially for younger federal employees, esp. considering it would take just over 2 years for them to earn enough S/L to take 6 weeks to care for a newborn.
LB
February 26, 2009, 1:09am (report abuse)I think the "why should taxpayers be force to pay" spiel is too easily thrown around - really what is the cost... I'm with GR - let me know where to send my 2 cents back and I'll be more that happy to do so.
There are many ways people exploit the federal system, but this is not one them. (How about the amount of money doled out for bogus service-connected claims - we could start there...)
PD
(logged in user) February 26, 2009, 8:43am (report abuse)CB Hill - as pointed out repeatedly above, mainstream America, as represented by over half the 1000 largest corporations in America, offers twice the leave benefit for new mothers.
Perhaps you are unclear on the concept of a compensation package, but it is, in part, a competitive business decision for USG to offer a similar benefits package as most large companies. They do not, however, offer stock options or huge annual bonuses.
When you buy Kleenex, it goes to fund someone's maternity leave. When you buy a light bulb, part of that goes to maternity leave. I don't see you complaining about that. When you pay your taxes, guess what, part of it goes to pay for the benefits package of federal employees. When you pay a driver's license fee, it goes to state employees. Property taxes, teacher's salaries. College tuition for your kids, professors sabaticals and maternity leave.
Just because you personnally don't get something doesn't mean you should begrudge it from others.
Mike P.
February 26, 2009, 3:00pm (report abuse)PD,
While I agree that all benefits are funded by the users, at least I have a choice when I buy goods and services to decide if I want to buy from a particular vendor. When it comes to the federal government there is, thankfully only one. As a taxpayer I want the choice to say whether a federal employee gets snother benefit, especially when I, who happens to work for a large university, do not have the same benefit. I would be interested in seeing just how many, and which, "large companies" are actually offering this benefit. So far all I see is several people saying it is so but no proof.
PD
(logged in user) March 5, 2009, 12:14pm (report abuse)Mike - I'm not sure that I like the idea of the taxpayer being the HR Department for all federal employees. In fact, OPM doesn't clear everything that it does with Congress. Having said that, Congress generally ends up being the one to push OPM to expand its selection of benefits.
Do you have flexible spending plans at your university? We just got those a couple of years ago, thanks to Congress, when the rest of the private sector has been enjoying them for 20 years.
I think if you look at the benefits provided by your large university and compare them with those provided by USG, you will probably find they are comprable, or that yours come out ahead. Do you have to pay for health insurance? We pay about 28% of our costs. When I worked in higher-ed, the university paid 100%. They also had a maternity leave policy as well and that was 15 years ago.
Mike P.
March 5, 2009, 3:32pm (report abuse)My school is middle-of-the-road on benefits.
1. No paid maternity leave. If the employee has used ALL leave they can borrow 2 weeks from sick-leave bank but must pay it back in next 3 years or pay back the sick pay.
2. Employee pays 25% of health insurance for self - $97.50 per month this year.
3. Employee pays total cost for family insurance - $535 per month for just my wife. (The family costs are higher to subsidize the employee costs.)
4. We got a flex-plan three years ago. That does not really cost the school anything since employees who use it pay administration fees.
5. School pays 38.5% over and above salary for benefits. More benefits equals higher tuition and more taxes to support them.
OPM may not consult on everything but they eventually have to ask congress for the money. Taxpayers always end up paying the costs, regardless of who pushes for them.
As far as I can see we are not ahead of government employees in benefits and won't be any time soon.
Sue
(logged in user) March 6, 2009, 8:46am (report abuse)Having a child is a choice, just like traveling Europe for a year or being a participant on a reality show. Should your employer, and in this case, my tax dollars, pay for these choices? Absolutely not. Private sector jobs MAKE MONEY, therefore private sector employers can CHOOSE to pay employees these types of benefits. Federal jobs TAKE money, they make nothing, therefore these types of benefits should not apply. If you want to have a child, go right ahead, just plan for it accordingly.
.
March 6, 2009, 3:21pm (report abuse)"The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else."
PD
(logged in user) March 9, 2009, 10:53pm (report abuse)Sue - I guess I am a little disheartened that you consider the people who dedicate their lives to providing you with peace and security so that you can be in the private to MAKE MONEY as such leeches. We're the overhead that gives you transportation infrastructure, a social safety net, education, the rule of law, courts to enforce your contracts and security.
And who are the workers that are going to pay for your retirement and buy your products? Well, those workers are the "choices" that you seem to think of as equivalent to a trip to Europe or a reality TV show.
The reality is that your views aren't consistent with those of mainstream America. The Real America doesn't see children as "choices" or family friendly leave policies as something exclusive to the private sector. Certainly not the same way they see a trip to Europe of a TV show.
Plus, I think we're going to see this bill pass both House and Senate and then become law, so you will probably be disappointed.
Mike P.
March 10, 2009, 1:21am (report abuse)PD,
If you think Sue is out of touch perhaps you should get out more. There are many people who do not believe federal employees should have more benefits when they are struggling just to keep a roof over their heads. If the members of the congress do pass this, which I personally doubt will happen, that will just be another black mark against them in the next election.
TO
March 13, 2009, 12:12pm (report abuse)I'm surprised about the comment that having a baby is a choice. Almost half of all pregnancies are unintended. And if federal jobs take money, then why does the recent stimulus package include giving millions to federal agencies-it is to generate money and new jobs. Additionally, some federal agencies which work in public health work on prevention efforts to SAVE the tax payers money from costly health care costs.
LBB
March 13, 2009, 1:37pm (report abuse)What is missing from this whole discussion is what benefit parental paid leave (for all workers,Federal and otherwise) does for children,families and society as a whole. Do you realize how far behind the U.S. is on this issue? The U.S is one of only 4 countries that doesn't offer any paid leave to new mothers -- the others are Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, and Lesotho. Paid family leave combats poverty, gives children a healthy start, and lowers the wage gap between women and men by providing structural support to balance work and family. Paid family leave has been shown to reduce infant mortality by as much as 20% (and the U.S. ranks a low 37th of all countries in infant mortality). So by supporting paid family leave, we all benefit!!
AB
March 13, 2009, 4:26pm (report abuse)Bravo, LBB. The US is long overdue for a bill like this. I hope not only that this bill passes, but also that it leads to similar bills for parental leave for all US workers, and for more than 4 weeks of paid leave. Paid parental leave is good for children, families, and society. It's time for the US to join the rest of the industrialized world in this regard.
OA
March 13, 2009, 10:43pm (report abuse)JR, I have read a portion of your comments and would just like to post a rebuttal to one in particular to say that when you have children, that is a full time job, not vacation as you seem to believe... so, mothers who take maternity leave to take care of themselves and their newborns after delivery are just going from one full time job to another. If you don\'t have children, I don\'t think you should voice an opinion on this subject. I agree that this bill is long overdue and can only benefit families and therefore society as a whole.
JR
(logged in user) March 14, 2009, 9:03am (report abuse)My wife and I have three children. She chose not to work, a decision I fully supported, until the last child was in school. We made it just fine without any support from the government. So it seems your argument, OA, holds no water.
LBB and AB, why is it you think we should do things other nations are doing?
For those who cannot plan for or take precautions against pregnancy - I still do not see where it is the responsibility of others to support them. In this day, especially for those who have healthcare insurance available, which federal employees have, there is no reason for this to happen.
If a private employer provides this extra benefit it must be paid for by increasing the price of the goods or services they produce. If their product is too expensive because of this I can choose not to buy it. But since the government can only get money from taxes I do not have that choice. As a citizen I have to pay. I say no and will continue to campaign against this unnecessary cost.
L
March 22, 2009, 3:41pm (report abuse)I am trying to understand the extreme dislike of the proposed legislation. I started working for the govenment 6 months ago, after 10 years in the private sector the bank I came from would have paid for 8 weeks of family leave ( call it what ever you like. I was hesitant to make a move to government sincey wife and I plan to adopt this bill would be a real blessing for us because there is no possible way to build leave quickly enough under the current system. I know that this is something I would support no matter what my situation was private sector or government. It makes sense and allows people the means to create a family and be happy. The arguments I have read are valid in their own right. I would only ask that those opposed consider the impact this could have for children and their parents.
Katie
March 24, 2009, 12:44pm (report abuse)I am a government employee & JR's comments are so disgusting I can’t wrap my brain around it! Good for you, your wife chose to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Newsflash, things have changed! Does she know what you have been posting here? Pregnancy isn’t always a choice believe it or not. As government employees, we do not get any disability offered through the government and no paid maternity leave. So, even if I were struck by a car I would be just as screwed as I am with child. And to complain about taxes, don’t you think we pay taxes? Think of how much more we spend on welfare programs for people who don’t want to work and choose time and time again to pop babies for a welfare check? And you complain about those working to better your government? It will be interesting to see how they retain employees w/ little to no benefits when the baby boomers all retire with the lack of benefits offered.
JR
(logged in user) March 25, 2009, 1:09am (report abuse)Katie,
I think we can look forward to a better class of federal employee in the future, after all the whiners and complainers have moved on to those much better jobs in the private sector.
Jen
March 25, 2009, 12:42pm (report abuse)I’m absolutely floored by this discussion. First, take precautions against pregnancy? What about WANTING a child, but not being able to afford to take the leave to have one? For example, I have a young son. At times, he’s sick and can’t go to daycare; therefore I must take off of work, using my accrued leave, to take care of him. So, here I am, years later wanting another child, however I do not have 2 or 3 months of leave to take off after having one. Most Americans today can’t afford to be off of work without any type of pay. So, am I supposed to limit the amount of children I’d like to have in my life because I don’t have enough sick leave to cover my maternity leave period? Private sector jobs offer their employees an amount of paid leave for maternity, and I whole-heartedly believe the Federal Government should as well. This is not whining or complaining…is simply is what it is.
Stop commenting JR
March 26, 2009, 3:29pm (report abuse)JR, Haven't you gone back to your cave yet?
DM
March 26, 2009, 8:40pm (report abuse)I would have to save ill time and vacation time to equal all that time off.Why are the feds any different? What is good for one should be good for all .Try to get that passed in healthcare. We get the guilt trip laid on us to work and work and work and not abandon the patient.Do you do double shifts routinely?
DM??
March 27, 2009, 1:13pm (report abuse)Do you get disability? Feds don't! How much leave do you accrue? I bet it is more than Feds. The only feds that have it made are those working for DOD! They get 30 paid days a year, but I guess that is fine with everyone here
JR
(logged in user) April 5, 2009, 12:56pm (report abuse)So your employer doesn't provide disability insurance - too bad. Private disability insurance is available to anyone who wishes to purchase it. Take some of those high wages you make and go buy some.
To JR
April 10, 2009, 11:47am (report abuse)No, private disability is not available, you are wrong, absolutely and infallibly wrong. High wages???? You have to be joking and are obviously not in the government sector. It is the opposite of high wages rather. Sure, if you work for DOD you might be earning a high wage, but for the rest of us? NOPE! A job like everyone else. Educate yourself before you comment. It will help you sound less ignorant!!
JR
(logged in user) April 11, 2009, 12:17am (report abuse)Anyone who chooses can find a private policy. You may not want to pay for it but it is available. As to wages you will find that your wage base and benefit package is better than many of the working-class folks you are aking to pay for your new benefits. Now you can wipe the ignorance off your face.
the MAN
April 12, 2009, 11:35am (report abuse)JR, you are a conservative moron!!! Ha, take that!!! Do you really think that this bill will affect the taxes you pay. You pay a set percentage based on your tax bracket, so to say you shouldn't have to pay for me to take parental leave holds no water!!! Second, you are still a moron!! I am going to get paid regardless whether I take sick leave, vacation, or the going-to-be approved "FREE" parental leave. The only time that the government will "end up paying anything" is when I retire. Man, you use your brain and THINK before you post idiotic and thoughtless garbage. Peace and may the lord be with you!!! You need him!!
JR
(logged in user) April 13, 2009, 2:38am (report abuse)To the MAN,
Sorry but your lociv does not work. Anything I can do to stop the growth in government spending will also slow the rise in total taxes. The new administration is bent on spending us into a very deep hole and I will do everything I can to stop that, including this silly and unwarrented "bonus" benefit for those who really don't deserve or need it.
D Baugher
April 13, 2009, 2:50am (report abuse)All you federal employees can kiss my working a$$. You don't deserve what you already get much less more.
MM
April 14, 2009, 1:55pm (report abuse)Those who are against this bill raise a good point but why stop here? Why are my tax dollars going to fund any vacation time at all for federal workers? I don't pay taxes so that you can sit on a beach for three weeks a year. And sick time? Why should I pay you to be sick? At least we've managed to reign in the civil service a little but that darn military...we give the lowest buck private 30 whole days of paid leave every year...and for what?? And don't get me started on retirement benefits...just 'cause some guy spent 20 years in the military (or in a DOD hospital like me putting these heros back together) doesn't mean my tax dollars should now go to pay them NOT to work after they retire. Sheesh! Let's cancel all non-salary benefits for military and civilian workers...that'll really save some money! But at what cost?
To MM
April 14, 2009, 10:32pm (report abuse)Be careful what you ask for, there those who will be happy to provide it for you.
MM
April 15, 2009, 1:52pm (report abuse)Let them...and them let see how much their lives change with no military to protect them and no federal services administered by the civil servants who will leave in droves. As a physician, I accept a dramatic cut in pay and benefits to work for the federal government but I do it because I love my country and wish to serve those who defend it. I defy anyone to walk through the halls of my hospital and tell the dedicated men and women - military or civilian - who care for our wounded warriors that what they do is not worth it.
..
April 16, 2009, 1:03pm (report abuse)MM,
While you may have convinced yourself of your altruistic motivation, perhaps others don't buy it. For instance, you are not required to pay for malpractice insurance and you are, for all intents and purposes, immune to civil legal action if you screw up. You don't have to worry about if you will have a practice tomorrow and you don't carry all the other burdens of civilian practice. So the next time you want to trot out your self-worship pedestal just remember that some of us don't really believe all your BS.
MM
April 16, 2009, 1:29pm (report abuse)There is no need to be so cynical. Because you only seem to understand greed or the drive for profit as a motivation, the altruistic decision can, of course, seem a confusing choice. I suppose that you think all of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines only join the military for the free food and clothes! Nevertheless, my aim is certainly not to exhalt myself. I've seen too many good men and women who have given far more than I ever could to believe that I am somehow worthy of special admiration.
MM
April 16, 2009, 1:33pm (report abuse)As regards your other contentions: 1) when I was in private practice, my malpractice premiums were a business expense paid out of gross revenues. I still made plenty more than I do now even after that expense; 2) In 15 years of private practice, I never had a claim against me...and if I had, it would have been covered by my insurance (see #1). The risk of lawsuit certainly does not influence the way I practiced now or then; 3) true, although my former practice is still thriving; 4) I would posit that military/government practice has burdens of its own-not better, not worse-just different. But do not presume that they don't exist. In any case, we are getting far afield. The point I have been trying to make is that we need to be careful about how we treat those who serve us or we may find that many no longer wish to serve. If we value the services they provide, that would be unfortunate. If we do not value those services, please feel free to mail me your Social Security check!
..
April 17, 2009, 8:50am (report abuse)Nothing in the legislation or the earlier discussions concerns the military. You are trying to throw up a smoke-screen and divert attention from the intent of the bill. There is no reason to give federal civilian employees another benefit. They are paid netter than many who will foot the bill. And, regardless of statements to the contrary, very few civilian employers provide the same benefit being sought.
..
April 17, 2009, 10:55am (report abuse)According to the latest figures, based on data provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (part of the Commerce Department) the pay and benefits gap between federal employees and private industry taxpayers is wide and getting wider. The average private sector worker compensation: $53,289. The average compensation for federal employees: $106,579.
And you people want more? Give me a break.
Cole
April 18, 2009, 11:33am (report abuse)You know, normally I would always side with the mother, but this is rediculous. What makes the federal employess, who by the way, are not only making more than double most of us for doing half the work, but get every single possible holiday off paid by us. What makes them any more special than my sister in law, who has had to save since she found out she was pregnant, in order to afford to take her maternity leave, because her employer doesn't pay for it. Why are those of us who make only $10 per hour in a private sector any less special than the federal employess making enough to support three of our families? This is just one more example of the federal government driving our nation into the ground.
RC
May 6, 2009, 10:40am (report abuse)Cole - I'd say go and find a better job. There are plenty of employers who offer similar or better benefits than the ones you are so opposed to granting government employees.
Your comments about twice the pay at half the work show a complete lack of understanding of the federal workforce and, quite frankly, an unjustified stereotype based on political spin that doesn't bear up to reality.
AF
May 6, 2009, 7:10pm (report abuse)I am a federal employee and don't make nowhere nearly enough to support anything. I work very hard certainly not a job for the weak. I am pregnant not even 32 wks, had a doctor visit today and was taken out of work way earlier than expected. I have had problems with this pregnancy from the get go causing me to have to use all my sick leave and annual. So now comes the time when they take me completely out and I have nothing. I do think there should be some sort of assistance, how is it ok for unemployed people to get financial assistance but people who work hard end up having to use their time, and needing that time later with it not there, not eligible for some sort of assistance. I have 2 other children and a husband who seperated from the Air Force just wrong timing, to where he can't get hired. I understand and obviously accept people that truly need assistance, but those that abuse it it's hard to sit here knowing today that my life could change in a bad way for a while. Scared!
ES
May 7, 2009, 8:57am (report abuse)I cant wait till this gets passed! Why would anyone be against this? The people who are against this dont understand how many hours 6 weeks of maternity leave really is - 240 hours. Federal Employees accrue 104 hrs sick leave per year. Do the math. It takes nearly 3 years to save enough to take six weeks of maternity leave! That is without taking a single day off for a doctor's appt, surgery, the flu, etc...Do you get it now? As if this is wasteful spending. Think about what true wasteful spending is and then think about a mother getting 4 to 6 weeks paid maternity leave to be home with an infant. The people who are saying go ahead and take the 6 weeks of unpaid leave - What planet do you live on?
Not JR
May 8, 2009, 5:53am (report abuse)This bill just passed out of committee without a peep of an objection. That's because Republicans know that it is family-friendly and won't stand in its way. The only comment against it was that someone might use it to foster a child every year just to get the leave (the old, one person might abuse it, so we can't do it argument). The last time it passed the House with 2/3 support (note, that is BIPARTISAN support).
This has nothing to do with the expansion of government. Lots of large corporations with professional workforces offer this benefit. To read some of these comments, 4 weeks (4 weeks!) of parental leave on the birth of a child is something that will destroy the country. Billions to corporations and out-of-control Republican spending? Bah. What makes this country great is civil servants without parental leave!
NK
May 14, 2009, 9:03pm (report abuse)For the record, Government employees pay taxes toooo therefore we are just as entitled as the next guy. Stop whinning about the government acutally doing something good with a small amount of money in comparison to what they throw a lot more money away on.
..
May 17, 2009, 12:14pm (report abuse)NK,
You don't pay enough taxes to fund your own benefits now, much less wanting more. Wht should non-productive, non-responsive, non-working employees be given a benefit not available to the large majority of those who would have to pay for it? No reason. Vote NO!
LJ
May 18, 2009, 2:56pm (report abuse)As federal employees, we are not ELIGIBLE for short term disability--even from external companies! Once you tell them you are a federal employee, they tell you they are not allowed to cover you. We waste billions on social programs for people who are too lazy to even go and get a job, so why not help out people who actually have a job HELPING the government?
Gs0905
May 19, 2009, 10:58am (report abuse)The nation is bankrupt bc of the private sector's greed and wasteful spending. Everyone seems in it for themselves. I took a $100k pay cut three years ago to come work for the federal gov. We are understaffed, under resourced, but dedicated to our mission of serving the nation. Public service is a gift to others. Without this legislation to bring us closer to standard corporate benefits, I would have to leave gov service to be able to afford having a family. I don't think the naysayers understand the gift of service they get from federal employees. If I were in it for the money and benefits, I'd be a contractor or go back to K St making 2-3 times as much. Congress should vote to pass this bill and support the American family!
GW
May 21, 2009, 9:04am (report abuse)There is a fundamental value decision here - how do we value our families and children? We are a country that abhors abortion, yet are not willing to make sacrifices to support mothers. Providing a woman with one month of salary after having a baby seems to me to be fair. I for one, being a pregnant women who will NOT have any paid leave, would be willing to pay my tax dollars for this, even though I will not enjoy the benefit myself. I would love it if all new mothers had such support - whether in the private or public sector.
..
May 23, 2009, 1:09pm (report abuse)Who says we "are a country that abhors abortion"? You fundamentalist zealots may say that but not all Americans agree. Find some other way to justify throwing money at a small group of over-paid government employees. I'm sure you would "love it if all new mothers had such support". Just another form of welfare payments. Get pregnant - get a check. What a crock!
rwd
May 25, 2009, 3:10pm (report abuse)"There is a fundamental value decision here - how do we value our families and children?"
Well, I value my own family and children enough to prefer to spend my money on them rather than to support a new federal benefit that nobody I know in the private sector has.
When I had my oldest child, I certainly didn't get any paid leave beyond my normal sick leave. Somehow, we managed to bond and survive, and with the second, I actually quit my job to raise my kids. Try making some personal sacrifices for your children, don't ask US to sacrifice for them. Sheesh.
CX
June 1, 2009, 5:46pm (report abuse)I am sorry that no one you know in the private sector enjoys that benefit. Actually, most people I know in the private sector enjoy that benefit. And not everyone can quit their jobs and still survive, so please don't make assumptions about whether or not those people sacrifice or care for their children. We allegedly value families in this country, but somehow there is a shocking level of outrage in these comments generated by a bill that simply suggests that new parents need help, and will ultimately cost $8 to provide it to each family. I would also support a bill that required PRIVATE employers to pay parental leave. Why are you all so angry about this bill, which will cost the taxpayers literally pennies but will make a big difference in the lives of government employees who are starting families??
JLJ
June 2, 2009, 10:20am (report abuse)The birth of a child is the number one cause of a poverty spell in America. How can we honestly say that it is better for children to live in poverty than to provide less than medically necessary parental leave. I support this measure, not to put those working for the federal government above me (working in the private sector and paying for my maternity leave out of pocket) but as a measure to ensure that one day, all families are guaranteed, at minimum, the medically necessary leave to ensure the health and safety of both the mother and the child. You can talk all you want about how horrible it is to spend tax dollars on maternity leave, but consider that spending just a few dollars on maternity leave would decrease the tax dollars spent on programs set up to help new families struggling because of a lack of maternity leave (WIC, childcare assistance, etc.). Do you want to spend your money fixing the problem or bandaiding it?
RC
June 2, 2009, 9:46pm (report abuse)The $8.56 cost is actually a per family cost over 5 years. The annual cost for an individual tax payer is about 51 cents/year over 5 years.
Compare that with the numbers being thrown around to AIG, GM, Chrysler, Citibank, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, etc. which the Bush Administration pushed through virtually without debate. Add to that the cost of the Iraq War, tax cuts (which are really a tax increase on future generations), interest on the debt, the so-called prescription drug benefit, etc. No outrage there, but to give someone 50% leave of what is medically necessary to have a child. Oh well, let the gloves come off because of some perceived entitlement culture.
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
From the Blog
More Bills on the House Floor Next Week
Here are some more of the bills that the House will consider this week: H.R. 325 - Avra/Black Wash Reclamation and Riparian Restoration Project H.R. 1120 - Central Texas Water Recycling Act of 2009 H.R. 1393 - Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Co...