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 (112 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.
()
[876 views]
Cost per :
Learn More
Visitor Comments 
SFE
June 3, 2009, 4:11pm (report abuse)As a pregnant federal employee, I obviously support this bill. I live in California. If I worked for a private employer in California, I'd get paid at least 6 weeks of disability. As a federal employee, I get nothing. It looks like I get penalized for working for the federal government, if you ask me.
Gw
June 4, 2009, 10:30pm (report abuse)This is great idea. The "cost" of this is lost productivity not an additional expenditure. So yes it may take longer to get your patent application or FAA certification approved because somebody is on leave, but it does not cost more since the government does not hire replacement workers. We have been able to keep the country running fine with thousnds of Feds doing year long guard and reserve tours for the military, a few weeks of maternity leave won't have any real impact on costs.
JR you are ridiculous.
NFE
June 5, 2009, 10:10am (report abuse)Here's my question...how is it that when people hear "federal employee" they somehow conjure up Uncle Money Bags from Monopoly just skipping along, spending taxpayer money with glee? I can attest that it isn't the case. And just like ALL Americans are having to tighten their belt, please don't think a federal employee is exempt...actually, we are under even more pressure because we have the eyes of the media and the taxpayer on us 24/7. So now, you want to get angry because of 4 weeks paid parental leave...really? When most federal employees net a combined 4 weeks in sick and annual leave a year? When a woman has a child, the doc tells her she needs at least 6-8 weeks off work. So, if you exhaust all of your sick leave, and annual leave, then you're left with 4 weeks of leave without pay. How many of you people posting comments could afford that? So, if you aren't in favor,PLEASE stop talking about family values or any of that other drivel-put your $ where your mouth is.
RC
June 5, 2009, 9:09pm (report abuse)Well, JR's comments not withstanding, this bill just passed the House 258 - 154. That's a pretty good majority - includes 24 Republicans.
Next up is S.354, the Senate companion bill. Once that passes, it will be signed into law by President Obama. Last time around, this didn't make it to the Senate floor. I think this time, with a Democratic President, it will coast through during the summer.
CRT
June 6, 2009, 12:57pm (report abuse)Don't count your chickens yet. The house is much more liberal than the senate and you may find that your hopes are dashed again. I certainly hope so.
s. williams
June 7, 2009, 2:48am (report abuse)This bill is good for the country. Our children are our future. Aren't they worth investing in? We all pay taxes for unemployment benefits which many of us never use. Some of us are contributing to a social security system that may be obsolete by the time we retire. This would be no different and the amount paid in taxes is nominal. We are one of the few developed countries that has no paid family leave. Please, let's stop being so short sighted as a country, that's how we got into the current economic mess in the first place (greed). Hopefully, if this bill passes for federal employees it won't be long before private sector employers get with the program as well.
VeronicaB.
June 7, 2009, 3:02am (report abuse)I wonder if those who oppose this bill are the same hypocrits who claim to be "pro-life" or "pro-family values." I would guess this is the case. Who in their right mind would oppose having a parent have the option of caring for their newborn child paid for a meager 4 weeks? Those who oppose must be ignorant of child development and the adverse effects of stress. This bill couldn't be more timely at a time when families are struggling financially. The house of reps are showing some common sense by passing this bill; what a breath of fresh air and shows we have thinking rational people making decisions. It is akin to proactive health care versus waiting until your foot falls off before getting care in the emergency room.
James R. Giddens
June 9, 2009, 11:54am (report abuse)It appears all the banter regarding this bill is between employees in the private sector who are given paid medical leave and federal employees. No one is asking why retirees living on a fixed income have to share in the cost of this bill. And you can bet neither of the combatants are complaining about receiving tax free health insurance when it's not made available to those paying for it on their own. Now that group really has a grievance but ask a congressman to help with it.
CRT
June 10, 2009, 8:30am (report abuse)VeronicaB,
You asked "Who in their right mind would oppose having a parent have the option of caring for their newborn child paid for a meager 4 weeks?"
I'll tell you who - the people who have to foot the bill while they do not have the same benefit. If you think it is smart to throw your money away on BS like this I'm sure there is a rat hole somewhere you can pitch your money into. I'm trying to hold onto what I can so I will have enough to live. I hope the senate throws this crap out soon!
BAW
June 10, 2009, 10:42am (report abuse)Why should the private sector "BAIL OUT" federal employees who have OR ADOPT babies? You people already get more benefits than anyone else and at a smaller or no price, specifically health insurance.
CRT has hit the nail on the head!!!
LD
June 10, 2009, 2:37pm (report abuse)It seems that we are all bickering over who has to pay for a benefit that everyone agrees we all should have. The government just sets a standard for what the private sector should adopt and will adopt in order to keep competetive with government jobs. So in deciding whether to support this bill, ask yourself whether you feel parental leave is a right EVERYONE should have because ultimately that is the road we are all heading down.
jdg
June 26, 2009, 2:32pm (report abuse)Wow. I can't believe that people think that federal employees are rolling in dough.
I have basic health insurance, for which I pay MORE monthly than ANY of the people I know. Dental insurance is not covered, so if I want a plan, I find my own. I get a few weeks of leave a year, but nowhere near enough to cover time after my baby is born, and I have friends working as receptionists for offices and others in RETAIL establishments that take home more money than I do.
Nobody in my office makes anywhere near the "average" that someone quoted earlier of over $100k.
On top of that, most everyone working in the state of CA can receive 6 weeks of state paid disability plus additional paid family leave through another state program -- both of which I cannot even TOUCH.
So yes, I plan on putting money away for next year when my baby comes, but it's not easy. I wholeheartedly hope this bill passes, even though it might not be in place in time to help me out with this child.
CRT
June 27, 2009, 2:12am (report abuse)Apparently this isn't very important to the members of the house or they would have included it in HR 2990. Although this is a veterans benefits bill it also included the following for federal civilian employees:
CREDIT FOR UNUSED SICK LEAVE
COMPUTATION OF CERTAIN ANNUITIES BASED ON PART-TIME SERVICE
AUTHORITY TO DEPOSIT REFUNDS UNDER FERS
RETIREMENT CREDIT FOR SERVICE OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES TRANSFERRED FROM DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SERVICE TO FEDERAL SERVICE
By the way this bill zoomed through the house with very little resistance. Makes you wonder what really matters.
USG Employee
August 3, 2009, 11:43am (report abuse)First, I want to state that I am very proud to be a Dept of Interior employee. I love my job and find it very rewarding to be a public servant. My three sisters all have jobs in the private sector in the midwest. They all make more money than me, pay substantially less for health insurance AND have paid maternity leave, disablity insurance or a combination of both. Federal Employees are not eligible for disability insurance.
Just because you won't be able to use it does not mean it isn't the right thing to do. MANY private sector jobs have paid parental leave - I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that most of you complaining about this don't have a college degree. If that is the case then yes - you probably won't get a job with great benefits.
My husband and I don't have any children yet but everytime our county votes for an increase in taxes for schools I vote YES! I would gladly pay more for the education of our children. Shame on you people for not supporting this bill.
...
August 8, 2009, 12:43am (report abuse)Why shame on us? Just because you feel it is okay to pay taxes doesn't mean I should feel the same way. Shame on you for asking the taxpayers to carry another burden that is neither necessary nor fair.
JLR
August 17, 2009, 2:03pm (report abuse)All this bill does is allow Feds to use 4 weeks of their own accrued sick leave for time with their newborn(s). There is no short term disability in the federal government, like there is in most private sector jobs. Therefore, if you are a realtively new federal employee having a child, you have no time to take off. At 4 hours sick/4 hours vacation per 2 week pay-period, unledd you have been working in the government for awhile before you have your baby and take no time off for vacations/being sick, you have very little, if any, time off. This is not much to ask for.
Andy Kierst
August 17, 2009, 6:10pm (report abuse)Absolutely ridiculous. Just another Bill to give some class of citizen another handout. This Bill skould not pass. I'm a Federal Emplotee with 30 years of service.
Chesapeake guy
August 19, 2009, 8:44am (report abuse)I see this bill passed the House on June 8th and sent to the Senate. Any idea how long until they vote on it?
Also, I assume this counts for the fathers as well as monthers, correct?
Adam
September 4, 2009, 10:39am (report abuse)Federal employees work in the service of the taxpayer and the serviceman/woman, and we are obligated to always conduct business in the most inexpensive way possible (which means buying the cheapest equipment, taking the cheapest flights even if it means 2 layovers, etc).
We have none of those little perks that those of you in the private sector are so used to. Such as fancy paid lunches or tickets to sporting events to "network".
So to imply that allowing workers to have a benefit that exists in most major private corporations is somehow just another wasteful government practice is ridiculous.
Many of you need to stop assuming that everything the government does is a waste and start realizing that federal employees actually work for the country (unlike those who just work for a profit).
...
September 10, 2009, 7:30pm (report abuse)Perhaps you can name the "most major private corporations" you mentioned. I doubt you can name any significant number who allow paid leave over and above accrued sick/annual leave. Want to try?
Adam
September 14, 2009, 2:45pm (report abuse)http://www.opm.gov/oca/leave/HTML/ParentalReport.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_par_lea_pai_mat_lea-labor-parenta...
...
September 14, 2009, 3:34pm (report abuse)You better go back to school and take some math courses. You said "most major private corporations" provide this benefit. Take a look at the references you yourself provided and tell me what percentage you come up with.
LMB
September 30, 2009, 11:00pm (report abuse)Example: Bank of America offers 12 weeks off paid for both mothers and fathers.
...
October 4, 2009, 1:45am (report abuse)That's one. Gpoing to need a lot more before we have "most major private corporations" listed.
Not LMB
October 20, 2009, 7:21pm (report abuse)It's an established fact that most Fortune 500 companies provide significantly more parental leave than this bill gives - I think the burden is on you to prove that this isn't a common benefit in corporate America, because it obviously is. The people who will take this leave are in their 20's and 30's - not big wage earners on a gravy train.
The kicker here is whether the Senate will pass the companion bill in the current economic environment. They certainly want to, it just might take them some time. And hey, if your for family values, what demonstrates that more than 4 weeks parental leave? It still requires the employee to put in significant leave time themselves, so it isn't a free ride - just a helping hand.
The "cost" associated with this is pretty limited - unlike, say the prescription drug benefit, 2001 Bush Tax Cut, and Iraq War that have so badly impacted our national balance sheet and all of which I'm sure you supported.
huh?
October 23, 2009, 2:56pm (report abuse)i work more days per year than most of you on this thread (must work 12 weekends a year for the military, which is a requirement for most federal jobs) for 30 - 40% less money, in a desirable field (i'm a computer programmer and database administrator) and you're all complaining about 4 weeks of paid time off when a child is born?
i know federal employees who have only been working here for a year or two. they are working in a professional field, they're college graduates, they're married, they're homeowners, many of them have been on military deployments, and they are told that if they have a child, their leave will be mostly unpaid. that's what you're supporting?
my wife and most of my friends work in the private sector and they get at least six weeks of paid leave when they have a child.
if you really think the federal employee has it made, feel free to apply for a federal job, there are plenty out there. likely, you'll miss your old paycheck and time off though.
ISUACSCHICK
October 23, 2009, 5:23pm (report abuse)Some businesses in the private sector do offer parental leave. Canadian's get 1 year of paid leave. Europe has a sweet deal too. The US government tends to pay employees less than public sector therefore they need to add some add perks if they want to be competitive. Maybe you should ask the question if we pay Federal employees less, and give them less benefits, what kind of employees are we going to end up with? I think we all know the answer - employees that couldn't get hired in the private sector. You can't even get a free cup of coffee working for the government.
FedUP2
November 9, 2009, 9:37am (report abuse)WHat do you value most in life? Your Job, Your Child, your car? How about having to chose between the items because you can't have more than one at the same time???
I know plenty of govt. employees that are married, but cannot afford to have a child. Oh. they CAN have a child, but they cannot afford expending their small amount of leave, not to mention use FMLA and take 12 weeks of UNPAID time off.........
Of course if you took the 12 weeks UNPAID that is an option, the who will pay your mortgage?....the tooth fairy? ... how will the car and gas be paid for???......
I don't understand how some Taxpayers want to complain about paying for something like this,,,, did we forget that GOVT. employees ALSO PAY TAXES! If you want to complain about your taxes being wasted, start complaining about the Welfare system first!
prego fed
November 10, 2009, 11:07am (report abuse)I graduated with a PhD, got a govt contractor job first, then a federal job. I had to get myself well established as a researcher in order to be taken seriously, I believe in part because I'm a woman and also because 75% of the researchers I work with are men in their late 50's that aren't used to having either fresh graduates or women with degrees around. So now I'm 32 and finally ready to start a family. Of course the men I work with don't give a darn if I get paid time off because they all have housewives that do as they're supposed to, stay home and raise the family. When I was a contractor, the company I worked for would have given 6 wks paid, that didn't come out of my sick or vacation leave, and been fully reimbursed by the govt for every cent. Why shouldn't the govt do this for their employees. Right now the govt is in dire need of well-educated young US citizens in order not just to compete with other countries in research but to not get left in the dust.
prego fed
November 10, 2009, 11:18am (report abuse)By the way, this year my father with early onset Alzheimer's got sick and died. I had to choose whether or not I could afford to take time off and go see him before he died. As a fairly new employee I didn't have much accrued time off and I was already pregnant. Now tell me if you could choose between seeing your dying father or taking care of your newborn and still being able to pay all of your bills. This money is put to much better use going to people who have a job then have children that to the many people caught in the welfare cycle that continue to live off of the system and breed like rabbits with no hope of ever getting off of the system. Wouldn't you rather encourage people who have degrees and work for a living to procreate? Have you ever seen Idiocracy?
So prego fed
November 10, 2009, 1:20pm (report abuse)You seem to be saying that your problem is that you were born the wrong gender. And because of that you think you are getting a raw deal. Awww, too bad.
As to your elitist ideas about intelligence and welfare folks - you really are a sad individual. You certainly did not learn any civility in your so-called education. Simply another over-educated pig who now wants everyone else to bow down and kiss her feet. Screw you.
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...