‘Bonding leave’ proposal clears 1st hurdle
June 8, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Health care, In this week's e-newsletter
Employer groups are closely watching a bill that provides federal employees with four weeks’ paid “bonding leave” when they become new parents. The bill got approved by the U.S. House and now heads to the Senate.
Some employer groups fear the bill would become the model for a similar bill mandating paid parental leave for employees in the private sector. Here are the basics of the bill that’s in Congress now:
- It would cover the 2 million people employed by the federal government — the nation’s largest employer.
- The employees would get four weeks’ paid leave immediately following the birth or adoption of a child.
- Mothers and fathers would receive equal leave benefits.
- Congressional estimates of the cost to implement the bill run up to $140 million a year.
Congressional supporters of the bill contend that 75% of Fortune 100 companies provide paid parental leave to employees already, and 168 other countries provide similar parental leave.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Don’t federal employees already get paid vacation, paid sick time and/or PTO? Why is this any different? Seems like just another opportunity to give more paid time off.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
You have got to be kidding me. Does anyone remember that Federal employees are employed by us the taxpayer. Currently Federal employees have the following paid time off:
15 years or more: Annual leave – 26 days, Sick leave – 13 days, Holidays – 10 days.
3 to less than 15: Annual leave – 20 days, Sick leave – 13 days, Holiday – 10 days.
Less than 3 years: Annual leave – 13 days, Sick leave – 13 days, Holiday – 10 days.
Those with 15 years have a total of 49 days off or approx. 10 weeks, those with more than 3 years and less than 15 years have a total of 43 days off or approx. 9 weeks and those with less than 3 years have 36 days off or approx. 7 weeks. Don’t you think the time already given is enough for bonding? Don’t even get me started on how ineffecient the government already is, yet they want you and me, the tax payer to pay more for non-worked time?
June 15th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
This is another expense for taxpayers in an economy that’s the lowest since the Great Depression. Congressional supporters and Congress should concentrate on ideas to build the country’s economy NOT place more burden on it. The initial idea is great but I believe they need a reality check. We cannot keep giving and giving additional paid benefits just because it sounds Socially correct. Prospective employees are told what pay & benefits are prior to accepting a position and have agreed to take the position. They should not be expecting more when our Nation’s in such a financial mess. Shame on Congress & the Senate if they pass this one.
June 15th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I will always believe that goverment workers including senators and congressmen should have to live with the same benefits, pay and retirement packages that the average worker has to live on. I know it will never happen but I believe they would be more careful with everyone’s money if they had to live like the rest of us.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Yes, the flood gates are open. Get your boots on.
September 9th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I’m going to need a second job just to pay my taxes. I guess the government figures the rest of us should just do with less and less while they give themselves more and more.
I agree with Julie, they should be held accountable for every dollar. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
September 21st, 2009 at 11:17 am
They had better be careful. Pretty soon they will have to change the calendar to incorporate more days if they are to work at all. I don’t like the statistice that the Government is the LARGEST employer. My word, that is like owning a home that takes more servants to run than there are people who live there. (Of course, I guess that is the run of the mill at the White House.) God fearing Americans, it is TIME to take our Country back………get rid of the out of control government. We need to have SOME of our money left over to help our fellow man. (Our choice!!)
September 25th, 2009 at 10:33 am
I have heard it all! I think that leave should be considered wasteful spending. SHRM should oppose it as well as taxpayers.