GOP comes up with plan to have state workers pay for state maternity leave

[TexasTowelie]

Rep. Clarke Tucker of Little Rock has been working for months on legislation to provide paid maternity leave for state employees. It's low-cost (no cost, really), pro-family and good for the workplace.

So today comes new legislation on the subject from two Republican legislators, Sen. Missy Irvin and Rep. DeAnn Vaught. If there's to be paid state maternity leave, the Republican view is, other state employees should pay for it.

They propose to have paid maternity leave provided by allowing use of days donated to a catastrophic leave bank by state employees. Maternity leave — either for a woman giving birth or a woman taking an adopted child into her home — would be considered a catastrophic event for this purpose.

The Republican Party has generally followed a policy of attempting to stymie Tucker's work because he's one of the Democratic Party bright lights. (Lt. Gov. Tim Griffin's truncation of voting in the Senate on a Tucker ethics bill in 2015 was a notable example.) It wouldn't do for him to build up a record of achievements. Additionally, he defeated Stacy Hurst in his first race for House and she's a Hutchinson administration insider, from the Governor's Mansion to the Heritage Department she now runs. She is one sore loser.

Read more: http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2017/01/12/gop-comes-up-with-plan-to-make-state-workers-pay-for-state-maternity-leave

[font color=330099]I have mixed reactions to this plan. While I understand that some fellow employees are willing to donate some of their leave to a common pool, it is a misnomer to consider maternity leave as a "catastrophe". Having a child is supposed to be a joyous event instead of a catastrophe.

In addition, having worked in both the public and private sectors I can say without a doubt that the fellow employees already pay for the worker out on maternity leave by having to work increased hours and assume additional responsibilities. When I worked in state government there was a woman that had only been with the agency for a few months who went on maternity leave for 12 weeks after giving birth to her second child. Less than a year later she became pregnant again and went out on maternity leave for another 12 weeks, then at the end of that period she resigned. The woman was gone from the office so much that she barely made any significant contributions and she also occupied a position where someone else could be hired.

Finally, it is also possible that some resentment might occur among the other employees. Is it fair to the employees that chose not to have children? Why isn't catastrophic paternity leave not available to the male employees?

If the state wants to provide a maternity leave pool then they should step up to the plate and provide for those benefits rather than placing the burden on the other employees to donate time to a catastrophe sick pool. Let the catastrophe leave pool be for employees that had a heart attack, stroke, cancer, aneurysms, in need of organ transplants, etc. The plan being suggested could become divisive and may result in a negative impact on the catastrophe pool. [/font]

[riversedge]

1. This plan sucks.

........................................Republicans will say that their leave bill provides full pay while Tucker caps his at $500 per week. I'm sure if the cap is the problem, Tucker would be happy to take it off. The money for all these salaries is already budgeted, no additional expenditure is incurred by the leave his bill provides. Under Tucker's bill as written, the state actually saves money on anyone making more than $26,000 a year.

The Irvin bill insures the state won't spend a cent. Money is tight. But I suspect this is more political than fiscal.

I wish I'd known about the Hutchinson administration's submarining of Tucker on this bill before I wrote a glowing column about the governor this week. At a minimu, I'd have added an asterisk.

If paid maternity leave is good employment policy — it is and it ought to cover men, too (a deficiency of both bills) — the employer should pay for it, not ask a bunch of working stiffs to fork over their accrued days off to do it.

Pregnancy isn't a catastrophe in my book. Republican governance? That is another matter.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Having worked at the University of Arkansas, I donated a number of

my medical leave hours to the fund. It's for people who have a catastrophic illness such as cancer and don't have enough of their own paid leave to cover time off.
I had Stage IV cancer while working there and needed 33 afternoons off for radiation treatments plus time off for doctors and surgery and recovery. Thankfully, I had enough paid leave in the bank to cover my time off without asking the catastrophic leave fund to help.
I hate Republicans.

[TexasTowelie]

3. I also donated hours to the catastrophic leave pool when I was a state employee.

As I stated above, the pools are a worthy cause when they are used for their intended purpose. In my opinion, a catastrophe is an unplanned event where there is either a severe physical or severe mental injury.

I can also agree that if employees want to donate accrued time to a pool for maternity leave then they should be able to do so. However, unless there is a C-section or some other significant complication a pregnancy (planned or unplanned) doesn't meet the same standard as catastrophic leave. It could result in other employees being less willing to donate their time to the pool if there is a perception that the recipients are on an extended vacation.

Congratulations on being a cancer survivor.