GovernmentExecutive.com

House lawmakers introduced a bill on Wednesday that would institute a paid parental leave policy for all federal employees.

The bill (H.R. 3158), sponsored by Reps. Tom Davis, R-Va., Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., would provide all federal employees with eight weeks of paid leave for the birth or adoption of a child.

Under current rules, employees can use a combination of paid annual leave, paid sick leave and unpaid leave under the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act for childbirth or adoption. Federal parents can take up to 12 weeks of unpaid maternity or paternity leave and up to 13 days of paid sick leave to care for newborn or adopted children.

"Every day, federal employees provide a variety of services vital to the progress of this nation," Hoyer said in a statement. "The work that these men and women do is critically important, and their compensation and treatment in the workplace needs to fairly reflect that."

In addition to providing the eight weeks of paid leave, the new legislation would allow federal employees to use any accumulated annual or sick leave to get to the 12 weeks of unpaid leave guaranteed under current law.

The bill has been introduced in the last three congressional sessions but did not make it out of committee. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, introduced similar legislation in January that would provide at least eight weeks of paid leave for a mother after childbirth, while requiring one week of paid leave for fathers and adoptive parents.

In 2001, the Office of Personnel Management, which administers leave policy, published a report that found the federal government's leave policies compare favorably with those in the private sector.

But by failing to provide paid parental leave, the government lags behind the private sector and many industrialized nations, the bill sponsors argue. Currently, 53 percent of private sector employers provide some form of paid parental leave, the sponsors said.

"Antiquated family leave policies are a talent drain on the government -- they're an incentive for people to look elsewhere for work at the very time when our government needs them most," Maloney said.

OPM Director Linda Springer acknowledged in May that the federal government's lack of paid leave was hindering its ability to recruit women of childbearing age. Springer said OPM may seek to add the benefit through insurance, making it more appealing to budget-minded legislators.

Meanwhile, Maloney recently introduced two broader pieces of legislation that would expand family-friendly workplace policies. One bill (H.R. 1369) would establish a pilot program for federal employees, allowing them to use 24 hours during any 12-month period to participate in a school activity of a son or daughter, such as a parent-teacher conference.

Another bill (H.R. 2792) would amend current law to allow federal employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a domestic partner, same-sex spouse, parent-in-law, adult child, sibling or grandparent who has a serious health condition. Current law only allows such leave for the care of parents, children under 18 or a legal spouse.

Last week, Liz Connell, a legislative assistant and senior health adviser for Stevens, said that the gradual bipartisan support for paid leave policies for federal employees puts the legislation in good standing for passage this Congress. "Its chance of becoming a reality is greater than ever," she said.

COMMENTS

• Does this ever became law, was it passed and signed by the President? Humberto Marchand Posted May 6, 2008 12:38 PM
• Cat, I am so sorry for your loss, your struggle with cancer, and for you ailing mother. Congratulations on beating the ovarian cancer though (at least I pray you have won). Some advice...make your mother as much of a priority in your life as mommies and daddies make their kids. You are legally entitled to the same benefits they are with an ailing parent. They don't work late because the won't, not because they are "allowed" and you are not. Set you own limits...what's the worst that can happen? Your boss is says you aren't exceeding expectations? Well, sounds to me like you have as good as an excuse as anyone with children. I'm biased though...I would much rather have a child-less person working for me than one with a child....child-less folks don't set limits and will just work the extra hours. And trust me, after I have a child, I plan to take advantage of the system set up to protect my rights to balance my life....just like you should. Work is work, but family is FAMILY! May God bless you and your mother. First-Time-Mom Posted August 6, 2007 12:33 PM
• Christmas Tree and Michael, I think we are actually agreeing here. I don't think the government (ie tax payers) should pay for things that don't make sense. I actually don't think the government should be involved in education. It's not like they are doing the best job with it anyway. But at the same time, I don't know of any business that could figure out how to serve lunch for $1 a child. That's a bit beside the point though. Like I keep saying, I'm thrilled to get 12 weeks of LWOP just like everyone else can take under the FMLA (which needs extended to include not only immediate blood relatives). This will give me the opportunity to see if I enjoy being a mom all day every day without the satisfaction of serving our nation and to see if living on one salary and our substantial savings is sufficient for the lifestyle that we have CHOSEN. Trust me, we live much below our means and yours already. So personally, I don't think I should get paid for maternity leave, but I just thought we could have a decent discussion instead of a child vs child-less argument. So, you aren't proving much to me by lecturing me on monetary responsibilities, as I am in the top 10% of the nations savers. So, let's get some good arguments that make sense (note: separation of church and state doesn't count). First-Time-Mom Posted August 6, 2007 9:26 AM