According to the OECD, the United States is the only nation amongst its ranks that does not provide a “statutory entitlement” to parental leave, for mothers or fathers. Though 59 percent of Americans claim to be entitled to leave, lack of statutory protection means that the availability of leave is tenuous at best-- and a large number of low-wage workers do not have access to leave at all. Outside of an economic context, public policy communicates our “values” as a society. Thus, if we are a society that places value on strong family relationships and parent-child bonds, then it follows that we should engage in efforts to improve them. A statutory entitlement to parental leave would be a clear affirmation of this “value.” Aside
…show more content…
If mandatory parental leave was implemented, there is an assumption that parents would be given “protected status”-- meaning, that if they were to take advantage of the leave, their employer could not fire them for taking leave. Due to the existence of firm-specific human capital, parental leave policies hold implications for both labor supply and demand in workplaces where skills unique to that employer are necessary. This means that while an employee may see their human capital depreciate as a result of taking leave, at the very least their human capital will not be made irrelevant by the fact that they can no longer work for their employer. Therefore, “protected status” means that having a child will not preclude job advancement (and increased wages), rather, it will only stall their effort. For firms, this also holds benefits. When firms use resources to give specialized skills to an employee, it is often done with the assumption that the firm will make a full return on their investment. However, in the case of mothers who do not return to work due to the absence of statutory leave, they lose this investment completely. With the presence of statutory leave, parents will be able to return to their employer after spending time with their child, continue to develop, and continue to recoup the investment that their employer put into them. A study on the California paid leave policy affirms this-- mothers who took advantage of the policy were more likely to return to work. Ultimately, this means that the disincentive to hire employees (women), due to their ability to have children may
If mandatory parental leave was implemented, there is an assumption that parents would be given “protected status”-- meaning, that if they were to take advantage of the leave, their employer could not fire them for taking leave. Due to the existence of firm-specific human capital, parental leave policies hold implications for both labor supply and demand in workplaces where skills unique to that employer are necessary. This means that while an employee may see their human capital depreciate as a result of taking leave, at the very least their human capital will not be made irrelevant by the fact that they can no longer work for their employer. Therefore, “protected status” means that having a child will not preclude job advancement (and increased wages), rather, it will only stall their effort. For firms, this also holds benefits. When firms use resources to give specialized skills to an employee, it is often done with the assumption that the firm will make a full return on their investment. However, in the case of mothers who do not return to work due to the absence of statutory leave, they lose this investment completely. With the presence of statutory leave, parents will be able to return to their employer after spending time with their child, continue to develop, and continue to recoup the investment that their employer put into them. A study on the California paid leave policy affirms this-- mothers who took advantage of the policy were more likely to return to work. Ultimately, this means that the disincentive to hire employees (women), due to their ability to have children may