With little public debate, the United States has chosen a radically different approach to maternity leave than the rest of the developed world. The United States and Australia are the only industrialized countries that don’t provide paid leave for new mothers nationally, though there are exceptions in some U.S. states.
The U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act provides for 12 weeks of job-protected leave, but it only covers those who work for larger companies.
Put another way, out of 168 nations in a Harvard University study last year, 163 had some form of paid maternity leave, leaving the United States in the company of Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland.
How did it end up this way? “To me it’s a puzzle,” says Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, a professor of child development and education at Columbia University.
The Clinton administration wanted to allow states to use unemployment funds for maternity leaves, but that was shot down by the Bush administration after opposition from business groups. A bill introduced in the House by California Democratic Reps. Pete Stark and George Miller would establish a fund that would replace 55 percent of pay for workers on FMLA leave. Contributions to the fund would come from employers.
But U.S. employers already pay $21 billion a year in direct costs related to the FMLA, according to Michael Eastman, Director of Labor Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in addition to indirect costs like additional overtime.
Five states -- California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island -- and Puerto Rico require employers to have temporary disability programs, which pay benefits if the pregnancy is defined as a disability by a doctor.
“When I tell people that, as a teacher, I get zero paid maternity leave, they’re stunned,” says Kelsey Goss, a New York City public-school teacher. “In a job like that, that’s about taking care of kids, those are the benefits?”