28

According to this document (page 3), US is an exception when it comes to total paid leave related to maternity (paid maternity leave + paid parental and home care leave available to mothers). The OECD countries average is about one year (55.2 weeks).

According to Wikipedia, there seem to be some benefits associated with paid maternity leave:

A Harvard report cited research showing paid maternity leave “facilitates breastfeeding and reduces risk of infection”, but is not associated with changes in immunization rate. This research also found that countries with parental leave had lower infant mortality rates. Returning to work within 12 weeks was also associated with less regular medical checkups. Data from 16 European countries during the period 1969-1994 revealed that the decrease of infant mortality rates varied based on length of leave. A 10-week leave was associated with a 1-2% decrease; a 20-week leave with 2-4%; and 30 weeks with 7-9%.[44] The United States, which does not have a paid parental leave law, ranked 56th in the world in 2014 in terms of infant mortality rates, with 6.17 deaths per every 1,000 children born.

Question: Why is there no paid maternity leave in United States? (as opposed to the the vast majority of developed countries)

Alexei
  • 52,716
  • 43
  • 186
  • 345
  • 47
    I wonder if we need a canonical question explaining the role of the US Federal government for those unfamiliar with how the US Federal-State dichotomy works. I feel like there are a lot of questions like these that mistake the US Federal government as the only government in the US. – IllusiveBrian Nov 06 '17 at 14:13
  • 10
    @IllusiveBrian - I think such a question makes sense, as many of the non-US users might not be familiar with this. – Alexei Nov 06 '17 at 14:20
  • 3
    Are you asking for an objective reason (with a rather pedestrian answer of "because there's not enough political support to get enough votes") or for subjective reason ("why isn't there enough support") – user4012 Nov 06 '17 at 14:38
  • 1
    @user4012 - "why isn't there enough support" sounds more interesting, but also more complicated. – Alexei Nov 06 '17 at 14:41
  • 1
    @Alexei - yeah. And danger of being subjective. I asked generically on Meta what we want to do since this kind of question seems pretty frequent – user4012 Nov 06 '17 at 14:46
  • 19
    The question is bizarre; government programs do not exist by default and then must be eliminated for reasons. There's no federal program like that because no President ever signed that bill into law. Why not? Because no President was ever presented such a bill. Why not? Because the House and Senate never passed such a bill. Why not? We could keep on asking why nots forever. – Eric Lippert Nov 06 '17 at 15:57
  • 1
    @IllusiveBrian: And perhaps another one about the general view of the proper functions of government in the US vs in some other countries. – jamesqf Nov 06 '17 at 19:25
  • @Alexei, I think you have a few answers that should satisfy your question. If not, I suggest you clarify your question so that we can further help you. – Daniel Goldman Nov 06 '17 at 19:56
  • 14
    Your Harvard report is bogus. There are 2 reasons why the USA appears to have higher mortality rates. The USA counts ALL babies born as being born, unlike other countries. This a major factor. More subtle is that infant mortality rates differ by race. The USA has a large amount of diversity that other countries don't. Additionally, the suggestion that paid maternity leave will change things is also bogus. The people that would get this benefit are the middle-class and up. They don't have an infant mortality problem, it is the other end of the income spectrum where the problem exists. – Dunk Nov 06 '17 at 21:52
  • 1
    You seem to be suggesting that we should expect the US to be similar to other developed countries. But it is very different in so many respects. The death penalty, gun laws, public health care, the banking system, attitudes to climate change... One of the big differences between the US and other developed countries is that far fewer people travel abroad frequently, so there is far less tendency to absorb ideas from other countries. – Michael Kay Nov 06 '17 at 23:44
  • 3
    @EricLippert laws don't exist by default in other countries either, yet every other developed country mandates paid maternity leave. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to ask why the US is different. – Joe Lee-Moyet Nov 07 '17 at 14:17
  • @yjo: It seems unreasonable to me. I knew a guy once who made small talk at parties like this: "Hi there new person, I enjoy talking about sailing. Do you sail? No? Why not?" It was funny, you see, because it's difficult to justify a negative. The question is basically the same: "why have you not gotten elected to congress and passed a mat leave bill?" except it is being asked of everyone in America. It's not a reasonable question. – Eric Lippert Nov 07 '17 at 14:24
  • 1
    @Dunk, Further complicating it is that the US also counts abortions as an infant death while alot of countries do not. For example Cuba only counts infants that dies if it was born in a hospital and not a result of a midwife. – Frank Cedeno Nov 07 '17 at 15:18
  • @yjo - The answer to "why" is very easy. The USA has traditionally believed that the government should not be mandating people's private affairs. In this case, the compensation provided by people's employers. Fortunately or unfortunately, the USA's attitude on government intrusion is changing, including one specific party whose desire is to control people's thoughts and speech in addition to their actions. They view that as a good thing. That's one of the reasons the country has become so divided. Europeans are used to the government telling them what to do, that's why they have those laws. – Dunk Nov 13 '17 at 23:57

4 Answers4

33

There are states which have paid maternity leave laws [1], and many private employers do offer paid maternity leave. The question of why the United States does not have a universal paid maternity leave is complicated, as most political discussion are.

A lot of it boils down to individual freedoms vs federal responsibility. In order for the federal government to pass a new law that restricts individual (including private business) rights, it generally needs to be shown that doing so fulfills a role of the federal government and that it does so using the least restrictive means.

Additionally, enough members of congress have to be convinced that it is a necessary bill. This is difficult. There is a lot of disagreement between the amount of government involvement needed.

For some additional information, consider H.R. 1022 - 115th Congress. This bill is only for federal employees, so the constitutional issue is reduced. But we still see extreme partisanship with only one Republican co-sponsor, even though there are a total of 75 co-sponsors. This partisanship makes it even more difficult for a bill to make it into law.

Least Restrictive Means

There seems to be an issue with the concept of "least restrictive means." The fifth amendment states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law, while the 10th says that any power not delegated to the federal government is reserved first to the people and then the states. A federal provision which mandates PTO of any kind comes into conflict with those provisions. We therefore have a conflict between law and constitution. Therefore a law which mandates paid maternity leave must (1) satisfy some interest of the federal government, as laid out by the constitution and (2) must do as little to conflict with the 5th and 10th amendments as possible.

Daniel Goldman
  • 569
  • 4
  • 11
  • 7
    So, in order to have a more relevant comparison, OECD should have not included the United States as a whole, but each individual US State which may regulate maternity leave. Does this make sense? – Alexei Nov 06 '17 at 14:17
  • 4
    Alexei, the question was simply about why the United States did not have paid maternity leave. I answered that question. And in some ways the US is more comparable to the EU than a single member nation of it. – Daniel Goldman Nov 06 '17 at 15:14
  • @Alexei each one that doesn't require it, yes (except that some states delegate much of their legislative powers to counties, making it even more complicated). – Christopher King Nov 06 '17 at 20:49
  • 6
    As to constitutionality, I was trying to compare with the federal minimum wage. The case usually cited seems to be West Coast Hotel, and they didn't seem to apply your "least restrictive means" standard. But whatever the relevant standard is, if a minimum wage passes it, it's hard to see how mandatory maternity leave would fail. – Nate Eldredge Nov 06 '17 at 22:57
  • 1
    @NateEldredge: In fact, the constitutionality of the FLSA was challenged when it was originally passed. The Supreme Court found it constitutional, as an implementation of the interstate commerce clause, so it probably only applies to companies engaged in interstate commerce (but most states set state minimum wages equal to or higher than the federal minimum wage). Mandatory maternity leave would probably be similar--federally, it could only apply to companies engaged in interstate commerce. – Jerry Coffin Nov 08 '17 at 00:00
  • 1
    Another relevant part of the constitution is: I.10/1 "No state shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." So, if a contract says "no maternity leave will be granted", and a state says: "you must grant maternity leave", that impairs the obligation of that contract. For federal law, it can only really be passed under the interstate commerce clause, which means it would only apply to interstate commerce. – Jerry Coffin Nov 08 '17 at 00:15
  • The basic answer is that the US does not have anything vaguely resembling a National Health Service. And this is largely because of a knee-jerk reaction against such "socialist" concepts. – Hot Licks Nov 08 '17 at 00:34
  • discussion -> discussions. – Faheem Mitha Nov 08 '17 at 06:10
  • "There is a lot of disagreement between the amount of government involvement needed." Missing words? – Faheem Mitha Nov 08 '17 at 08:47
  • @vasshu : Germany is a federal state just like the US (although I think the Federal Government is a little stronger in the US). – Martin Bonner supports Monica Nov 08 '17 at 10:30
  • @JerryCoffin Even public school employees and hospital employees are covered by FSLA as held in Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183 (1968). See also Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcia_v._San_Antonio_Metropolitan_Transit_Authority The commerce clause has been construed very broadly to consider anything even remotely related to commerce. – DavePhD Nov 08 '17 at 14:35
  • @DavePhD: Sorry--I should have been clear that I was talking only about what the constitution actually allows, not how it's been interpreted to fit people's foregone conclusions about what they want it to mean. – Jerry Coffin Nov 08 '17 at 15:55
11

The group who bears the cost of paying for extended maternity leave is either corporations or members of the upper class, through taxation or loss of productive work time. The group that bears the cost of shorter maternity leave is recovering mothers and young babies. Since corporations and the upper class effectively set policy in the United States, the cost must be born by recovering mothers and young babies. That's just the way the country is run.

fallingfrog
  • 179
  • 2
  • 3
    +1 in countries (and in some US states) where working parents had a significant say in policy during the 20th century, for example through trades unions and social democratic parties (among others) a share of the burden moved towards employers. – Qsigma Nov 06 '17 at 16:30
  • 31
    No, corporations pass the cost on with lower wages. The group that bear the cost is workers without children, who receive lower wages without the compensation. Your assertion that corporations and upper class have sole control over legislation is absurd. – Acccumulation Nov 06 '17 at 18:18
  • 2
    @Acccumulation Thats why you also have a higher minimum wage and strong labor unions for as many professions as possible - to prevent employers from passing the cost on. – Magisch Nov 06 '17 at 19:20
  • 14
    @Magisch: You can't prevent employers from passing on costs. If they don't, they will be operating at a loss, and will eventually go bankrupt. And if they do pass on enough of the costs, competitors in lower cost areas can undercut their prices and so drive them out of business. E.g. China. – jamesqf Nov 06 '17 at 19:34
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Nov 10 '17 at 15:26
8

Paid Maternity leave is offered by some private businesses, as a contractual incentive when hiring workers. Paid maternity leave is not required by the Federal Government, because the Federal Government does not have the authority to interfere in the private employment contracts between individuals. Yes, this includes private businesses, but not in the "businesses are people too" sense.

The power to interfere in private contracts is not one of the enumerated powers of the Federal government you'll find listed in the Constitution. From there, the tenth amendment further curtails excesses by the Federal government, while giving the state government leeway.

Now, there is a willingness by legislators at the Federal level to enforce a paid leave requirement onto private businesses. However, at current they lack the sufficient political or emotional capital to enact such a populist measure.

Drunk Cynic
  • 10,173
  • 3
  • 38
  • 60
  • 23
    In reality, the federal government has the authority to do what it wants (in this area), or else there wouldn't be federal laws regarding minimum wage, overtime, workers comp, etc, as they can all be seen as "interfering in private employment contracts". Your last sentence regarding the lack of political or emotional capital is a more realistic assessment IMO. – Geobits Nov 06 '17 at 16:08
  • 6
    In justifying your criticism, please highlight where the Federal government has the Constitutional authority for laws regarding minimum wage, overtime, workers comp, etc. – Drunk Cynic Nov 06 '17 at 16:22
  • 2
    I'm not arguing the point of authority on paper, but how it has worked in practice. The existence of such laws shows that there is authority, whether appropriate or not. – Geobits Nov 06 '17 at 16:25
  • 7
    @Geobits The existence of legislative/executive overreach beyond Constitutional authority does not equate to having authority. – Drunk Cynic Nov 06 '17 at 16:42
  • 1
    @Geobits, I point out your error in this analysis in my answer. The federal government has the power to do that which it is tasked with doing, by the constitution, so long as it does so by the least restrictive means. – Daniel Goldman Nov 06 '17 at 16:45
  • 16
    In the case of the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (probably the most directly related and/or similar law), the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress indeed has that authority. The authority you claim doesn't exist does, in fact, exist, by precedent. – Geobits Nov 06 '17 at 17:07
  • @vasshu The "least restrictive means" tests are normally used in areas where exceptions to restrictions on federal power are being made (i.e. violations of free speech or freedom of religious practice, for example.) In areas where the federal government has explicit constitutional authority to do something, it may do so by what means it pleases. – reirab Nov 06 '17 at 20:01
  • @reirab Explicit constitutional authority doesn't exist for this situation. – Drunk Cynic Nov 06 '17 at 20:17
  • @DrunkCynic I was addressing vasshu's statement that "The federal government has the power to do that which it is tasked with doing, by the constitution, so long as it does so by the least restrictive means." – reirab Nov 06 '17 at 20:32
  • @Geobits I would note that the federal government got away with a lot of less-than-constitutional things in the 1930s and 1940s, thanks to FDR's less-than-ideal relationship with the Supreme Court (see also: court-packing.) FDR really preferred to be more of a dictator than a President. – reirab Nov 06 '17 at 20:35
  • @reirab Oh I would never claim it's perfect, but "is X constitutional?" is ultimately decided by the courts if challenged. It's been that way for a couple hundred years now, and precedent is a hard thing to overcome. Not impossible, but difficult. – Geobits Nov 06 '17 at 20:48
  • @Geobits Reliance on precedent assumes stare decisis. – Drunk Cynic Nov 06 '17 at 22:03
  • 10
    You are entitled to your opinion as to the constitutionality of this and related measures in employment law (minimum wage, etc), but I think that for this answer to be useful, it really ought to disclose that courts have not agreed with the principles you assert here. – Nate Eldredge Nov 06 '17 at 23:01
5

To add to @DrunkCynic 's answer, people in the United States value personal responsibility. If a mother/father wish to have leave of absence from work, it is expected that they save the necessary amount of vacation days they wish to take. This keeps in line with earning something rather than it being given (forced) without merit and planning.

  • 34
    So ALL people in the U.S. value personal responsibility to the point that they'd rather spend their vacations changing diapers than going sightseeing or visiting far away family? And people in other countries don't value personal responsibility? Even if that were true, saving vacation/PTO time for extended parental leave does not guarantee that your employer will let you use it that way (says someone who saved 6 weeks of vacation time to use as parental leave, but then was told that such a lengthy break was too long). Oh, and this is a cultural explanation, not a political one. – GreenMatt Nov 06 '17 at 15:58
  • 8
    @GreenMatt I think you sort of missed the point there. It's not that people would rather spend their vacations one way or another, it's that people would rather earn their own maternity leave, than have someone else pay for it (and at some point, pay for someone else's). The problem with the latter is that some people choose not to have children, but they have to pay to have other people's children anyway. Also I don't think at any point this answer claimed that ALL people think this way. When you add false inferences like this you end up with a straw man argument. – JBentley Nov 06 '17 at 18:30
  • 10
    @JBentley "The problem with the latter is that some people choose not to have children, but they have to pay to have other people's children anyway" ...But that's how taxes work! – Sebastianb Nov 06 '17 at 19:21
  • 9
    @Sebastianb Precisely, so in a general sense this question / answer is a specific case (at least in terms of political leanings) of "why does the US have lower taxes than other countries?" Political philosophies which place more emphasis on individualism (of which the USA arguably leans more towards than say, Europe) will tend to have reduced social programmes such as maternity leave than those which don't. – JBentley Nov 06 '17 at 19:27
  • 7
    @GreenMatt: No, it's that I would prefer you to take care of your kids. For instance, A has chosen not to have kids, B chooses to have many. Why should A be forced to pick up the costs of B's desire to have children? – jamesqf Nov 06 '17 at 19:30
  • 9
    @jamesqf because B doesn't use public transportation and A does, and B pays the taxes that are used to maintain such transportation and roads. Because C went to community college and is a productive member of the society, and it was paid with taxes from A and B (and C now pays taxes that help public trasportation (A) and PML (B) ), etc. there's something good in everyone paying to the betterment of the society. – Sebastianb Nov 06 '17 at 19:39
  • 8
    @jamesqf: In A's old age there will be no one to take care of them and they'll need help in that, but B will have many children around for providing assistance to their parent and they will also be paying for A. No one is an island. – GreenMatt Nov 06 '17 at 19:56
  • 2
    @JBentley: The answer comes across as a "broad stroke", generalizing statement about the vast majority of Americans. That said, (as I type this) it doesn't say "all", or "some", or any qualifier, so it's just as much a strawman to claim that it doesn't refer to everyone as to claim that it does. And you seem to be missing that I said I earned the time off for my own child, but wasn't allowed to use it ... although I'm sure there are Scrooges out there who think that vacation time is picking their pockets, but they have to offer it for competitive reasons. – GreenMatt Nov 06 '17 at 20:01
  • 1
    @GreenMatt I think you're being pedantic. It is clear to a reasonable reader of this answer that he didn't mean every single last American. As for your anecdote, the question is about paid maternity leave (i.e. being paid to take time off that is additional to your standard paid vacation). The problem you highlight can be solved through, for example, compulsory unpaid maternity leave (thus forcing the employer to allow for your circumstances, but not forcing another worker to fund it), but that's not what the question is about. – JBentley Nov 06 '17 at 20:11
  • @JBentley: We're both being pedantic here. As for my anecdote, I was addressing the statement in the answer that one is expected to save enough vacation time to care for one's child, and demonstrating that it doesn't always work out that way for parents, even when they save vacation time to take care of their newborns. – GreenMatt Nov 06 '17 at 20:39
  • @Sebastianb: You think public transportation is free? A pays to ride it, at least most places I've been. (And B should benefit when it's subsidized, due to reduced congestion.) College isn't free, and to the extent it's subsidized, it pays off in increased tax revenue. But subsidizing childbirth just increases overpopulation. – jamesqf Nov 07 '17 at 04:51
  • 2
    @GreenMatt: Err... Do you live in the US, or are you familiar with life here? Granted, some kids do support elderly parents, but (at least in my observation), it's probably more common for parents to support their adult children. Or for the children to warehouse the parents in a rest home - an inexpensive one, so it doesn't waste all their inheritance. Meanwhile A has invested what s/he'd have otherwise spent on raising kids, and can retire in comfort :-) – jamesqf Nov 07 '17 at 04:57
  • 6
    As a contrast, here in Germany, when someone takes parental leave (yes, both parents can) we all say "go for it, that kid's going to pay my pension". Solidarity is a big thing here. – RedSonja Nov 07 '17 at 07:14
  • @jamesqf I doubt the whole public transportation budget comes from the fees. "B benefiting because of reduced congestion"? well, we can do all the mental gymnastics with the hypotetical benefits enjoyed by all the alphabet. Let's just say everyone benefits, one way or another, from taxes paid by somebody else. – Sebastianb Nov 07 '17 at 12:21
  • 2
    Public transportation is available in some areas in the US, but not where I live. Some of the larger cities are covered, but most of the landmass of the US is not covered by public transit in any form. – pojo-guy Nov 07 '17 at 13:17
  • 1
    @RedSonja: Whereas here it's more likely for people to retire on their own investments (beyond basic Social Security), so they expect to be taxed to support that kid. – jamesqf Nov 07 '17 at 18:07
  • 2
    @jamesqf Again, solidarity is a big thing here. We don't go on and on about religion, we just try to do the right thing. Why should anyone not help their neighbour? But I repeat myself. – RedSonja Nov 08 '17 at 06:53
  • @jamesqf but they are my own investments. I pay into the fund as long as I work, and when I retire I get the pension. The difference is, we don't have a choice. So even the most feckless, ignorant, unhealthy spendthrift does not starve at 80 years old. The state pension is enough to survive. If you want more you can join a private scheme - many people do. – RedSonja Nov 27 '17 at 07:04
  • 2
    @RedSonja: See Aesop's fable of the grasshopper and the ant. – jamesqf Nov 27 '17 at 17:42
  • 1
    @jamesqf exactly! We are all obliged to save like the ants. We Europeans find this a good thing. I suppose those who don't have emigrated to the USA. ;-) – RedSonja Nov 28 '17 at 05:53
  • 2
    @RedSonja: You obviously didn't read the fable. Those of us who do save like the ants have no problems, at least until all those grasshoppers come along and want us to bail them out of the problems they're having because they didn't save. – jamesqf Nov 28 '17 at 18:23
  • 1
    @jamesqf you obviously didn't read my comment. We Europeans are obliged to save, whether we want to or not. The more we pay in, the more we get out. And saving for a private pension plan on top of that is tax deductible. I rather think that is the case in the US too. – RedSonja Nov 28 '17 at 19:47