John Stossel: Paid time off for families not government’s business |
Featured Commentary

John Stossel: Paid time off for families not government’s business

John Stossel

Both Republican and Democratic politicians want government to “do more” to give parents paid time off.

“This is not a women’s issue. It’s a family issue,” says Ivanka Trump.

“(E)very worker in America should be guaranteed at least 12 weeks,” says Sen. Bernie Sanders.

“That’s a very arbitrary number! Why not 14 weeks? Why not 26 weeks?” asks Independent Women’s Forum analyst Patrice Onwuka. She opposes Sanders’ plan, saying government one-size-fits-all policies don’t meet most parents’ needs.

When Onwuka had a baby, IWF gave her six weeks off with pay. She wanted more time off, so she supplemented her maternity leave with vacation time and “personal days.” She says she was glad “to be able to customize the time off.”

Of course, government programs are hard to customize. But that’s where the U.S. is probably headed.

“Just us and Papua New Guinea!” complains comedian John Oliver, sneering that those are the only two countries in the world that do not require paid time off.

“It’s disingenuous,” responds Onwuka, pointing out that most American workers already get paid parental leave. “Seventeen percent,” she says, and the number “jumps to 60, 70, 80% when you consider people have sick time off, overtime or all-encompassing personal time.”

In other words, companies and workers already are working this out — voluntarily, without government telling them how they must handle it.

“Paid leave is spreading,” says Onwuka, and not just for high-earners. “Chipotle workers, CVS workers — Walmart workers started to get paid leave.”

Why would CVS and Walmart provide this voluntarily?

“For an employer to attract good talent or retain talent, they need to offer benefits that really resonate with workers. Paid maternity and paternity leave is one of those benefits.”

Arrogant politicians claim they must tell ignorant businesses what’s good for them. President Obama and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand both claim mandated parental would be “good for business.”

But business owners know better what’s good for business. Most, as Onwuka pointed out, offer paid time off, but not all do. Every business has different needs.

In truth, mandated leave is not only bad for most businesses, it’s bad for many women. That’s because such mandates could make hiring a young woman a risk.

“If an employer has a young woman of childbearing age in front of him, he’s thinking, OK, I have to provide paid time off,” Onwuka points out. He hires “another employee who’s a male.”

In Europe, lots of women work, but most work in lower-level positions — probably because companies worry less about leaving those positions empty for months if the woman takes her government-dictated parental leave.

“American women are more likely to be in senior-level positions, managerial positions, than women in Europe,” says Onwuka. “And it’s very much tied to these mandates around paid leave.”

Can’t we just leave government out of it and let employers and employees work this out to meet individual needs?

Apparently not, because now even “conservative” politicians want government to “do something.”

Sens. Marco Rubio, Joni Ernst and Mike Lee propose that parents be allowed to tap into Social Security savings for childbearing expenses.

But Social Security is fiscally unsustainable already. Allowing parents to take out money early will make that worse.

Give me a break — can’t we ever say something is not government’s job?

America’s already $22 trillion in debt. We don’t need another government program.

John Stossel is author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.