Of all industrialized nations, the United States is the only country to not have a law granting paid family leave for mothers’ with a newborn. It was not until 1993, did the U.S. enact the Family and Medical Leave Act which allows workers time off to: bond with a newborn child; treat their own serious health condition; or care for a family member with a serious health condition. The intent for FMLA is to allow workers to balance family life with job obligations, but without wage replacement, many are unable to afford unpaid time off. Further, FMLA’s eligibility requirements exclude a substantial portion of the working population, primarily part-time, temporary, and vulnerable low-wage workers. Some states, such as California have taken action to ameloriate these pitfalls through paid family leave programs using state temporary disability insurance funds. California has been a frontrunner in many public health initiatives including being the first state to provide a comprehensive Paid Family Leave (PFL) program with “a wage replacement requirement for the time parents take to bond with a newborn or adopted child” (Cohen, 2011, p.2 ). This analysis will further examine California’s paid family leave program including its’ provisions, strengths, weaknesses, and its’ overall potential to be used as a template for future federal policy.
Limited leave taking in the United States is largely a result of the eligibility restrictions for job-protected leave under FMLA and the inability to finance unpaid time off even if deemed eligible. PFL’s provisions aim to relieve these difficulties to ultimately reduce disparities and increase overall leave taking. California’s Paid Family Leave took effect in 2004 and is a component of the State’s Disability Insurance (SDI) program. PFL covers anyone who is covered by SDI. PFL provides up to six weeks of partial wage replacement to individuals who take time off to care for “a seriously ill child, spouse, parent, or registered domestic partner, or to bond with a new child” or child in connection with foster care placement/adoption (State of California Employment Development Program, 2010). “PFL's weekly compensation is 55% of the employee's salary, subject to a maximum benefit cap [of $987], and the benefits may not exceed six weeks within a twelve-month period” (Cohen, 2011, p.4; Kilgour, 2011). In order to fund PFL and SDI, California issues a mandatory employee payroll tax which is collected by employers and then forwarded to the State.
PFL is notable in its’ almost universal coverage. To be eligible for FMLA, an employee must: have worked at least 1,250 hours in the past year; have been employed for at least twelve months before leave; and work for an employer “who employs 50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year"(Cohen, p.__). Unlike FMLA, there is not a specified time that an employee must work for an employer nor a firm size requirement to be eligible for PFL; “they need only to have earned $300 or more in an SDI-covered job during any quarter in the “base period,” which is five to seventeen months before filing a PFL claim” (Appelbaum & Milkman, 2011, p. 2). PFL does not guarantee job protection, but is granted if claimant is covered under FMLA, California’s Family Rights Act (CFRA), or Pregnancy Disability Leave provisions of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.
PFL is particularly beneficial for expecting mothers and child birth. Under SDI, women are allotted up to ten weeks of paid leave (four weeks prior to child birth and six weeks after), and an additional six weeks of partial wage replacement for bonding with a new child. With SDI and PFL combined, new mothers can have up to sixteen weeks paid leave and eighteen for those who undergo caesarian delivery. PFL also entitles fathers to six weeks paid time off for bonding (Kilgour, 2011). PFL has been operating for nearly nine years now and has been accumulating positive reviews. Milkman and Appelbaum produced a study in 2010 investigating PFL’s impact and revealed promising results of PFL fulfilling its’ intended purpose. They found that 84% of respondents in low-quality jobs who used PFL received at least half of their usual pay while on leave compared to the 31% who did not use PFL. In addition, among workers with low quality jobs who used PFL, “91% reported a positive effect on their ability to care for the new child, compared with the 71% percent of those who did not use PFL.” Likewise “72% reported a positive effect on their ability to arrange child care compared to 49% of those who did not use PFL” (Appelbaum & Milkman, 2011, p. 5). Their data also determined that the program was relatively efficient, easily to utilize and payments were processed and issued in a timely manner. Another study conducted by Rossin-Slater, Ruhm, and Waldfogel demonstrated that after PFL was enacted, overall maternity leave increased by an average of three weeks and gave evidence suggesting that growth may have been particularly large for non-college educated, black, unmarried and Hispanic mothers (2013).
PFL is usually analyzed from the employee perspective and interest, however growing evidence indicates that employers are satisfied as well. Appelbaum and Milkman recently surveyed 253 employers and 500 employees and “found that 89% of employers experienced “no noticeable effect” or a “positive effect” from PFL” with the majority reporting little impact on their business operations (2011, p.4). Sixty percent of employers indicated savings by combining their own benefits with SDI/PFL (Appelbaum & Milkman, 2011). Thus far, PFL has demonstrated solid favorable outcomes, but areas in need of improvement do exist and should be examined for future policy and revisions. Despite overall success, studies have revealed some weaknesses that hinder PFL reaching its’ full potential. A critical finding in Milkman and Appelbaum’s data indicated that those who are least likely to be aware of PFL are those who are most in need of its’ benefits (2011). Those with lower education, lower income, and in the under thirty-five age group (those most likely to become new parents) were less aware than their counterparts. In addition, studies displayed that profound racial disparities exist in the awareness of PFL.
Among those who were aware of PFL, a couple reasons arose for not participating in the program. In Kilgours study, “the main reasons given were that they would not have received enough money (31.2%) or that they were afraid the employer would be unhappy (31.5%), afraid it would hurt opportunities for advancement, (28.9%) or afraid of job loss (23.9%)” (2011, p. 289). Those who indicated that they would not receive enough money are made up of mostly low-wage workers who are unable to financially sustain themselves on 55% of their weekly pay compared to higher wage earners. Thus as Kilgour agrees, PFL is more advantageous for the middle and upper class than those with lower incomes (2011). Furthermore, similar to the social security tax, PFL is capped. In 2010 the wage ceiling was capped $93,316, thus favoring those in higher income brackets (Rossin-Slater, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2013).
Another concern involves eligibility of PFL. Despite PFL’s generally wide coverage, most public sector employees and the self-employed remain excluded from its’ benefits. Additionally, parent-in-laws, grandparents, grandchildren, and siblings are all excluded from PFL and deserve consideration given the high prevalence of nontraditional family relationships present today.
All this considered, California’s PFL program is effective and thus should be examined as a potential guideline for enacting federal policy. As Cohen argues, the need for federal paid family leave is necessary in order to achieve FMLA’s purpose, because without it many are left out of FMLA’s protections due to an inability to forgo income. She continues that not only is it necessar,y but it is also urgent. The main reason for the failure of federal policies’ passage regarding paid family leave is due to costs, particularly in a time of economic hardship. However, Cohen points out that not only is “this type of legislation even more crucial during times of economic hardship because workers are in greater need of support ,“ but also that historically in economic downturn our nation has passed laws to help workers, such as the Social Security and Unemployment Insurance of 1935 during the great depression (2011, p.5).
Cohen further argues that the present political atmosphere is a window of opportunity for achieving passage of federal paid family leave. Current President, Barack Obama, lists improving the balance of work and family life in his top five goals, while the White House and Senate is currently controlled by pro-labor Democrats. Further, the successful enactment of wage replacement programs in certain cities and states, like California’s PFL discussed above, can provide the foundation for guiding similar legislation at the federal level. Cohen acknowledges opposition for financial reasons and determines them insubstantial arguing that “family leave insurance is an effective job retention device and reduces turnover costs, which in turn supports the needs of business as well as families in a time of economic crisis” (2011, p. 6). California has proved that a comprehensive paid family leave program is possible and efficient without causing a severe economic burden by using existing funding mechanisms. Further exploration is needed to best determine methods to expand the reach of the program’s participants, particularly those of low socioeconomic status. Yet all considered, California has accomplished a major milestone by providing a sound starting point in the movement to secure paid family leave for all citizens.

Sources

Appelbaum, E., & Milkman, R. (2011). Leaves That Pay: Employer and Worker Experiences With Paid Family Leave in California. Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved from http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/paid-family-leave-1-2011.pdf.

Cohen, Caroline. (2011). California’s Campaign for Paid Family Leave. Golden Gate University Law Review Journal, 4(213): 1-34. Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com.libproxy.tulane.edu:2048/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=138617&sr=AUTHOR(Cohen)%2BAND%2BTITLE(CALIFORNIA'S+CAMPAIGN+FOR+PAID+FAMILY+LEAVE%3A+A+MODEL+FOR+PASSING+FEDERAL+PAID+LEAVE)%2BAND%2BDATE%2BIS%2B2011-01-1

Kilgour, J. (2011). California’s State Disability and Paid Family Leave Program with a Review of Other State Actions. Compensation and Benefits Review, 43(5): 282-290. Retrieved from http://cbr.sagepub.com/content/43/5/282

Rossin-Slater, M., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2013). The Effects of California’s Paid Family Leave Program on Mothers’ Leave-Taking and Subsequent Labor Market Outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(2): p.224-245. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.libproxy.tulane.edu:2048/store/10.1002/pam.21676/asset/pam21676.pdf?v=1&t=hnoy00zo&s=2e40a0516759f3384ef59ed7091e721d711bda72

State of California Employment Development Program. (2010). Paid Family Leave. Retrieved from http://www.edd.ca.gov/Disability/Paid_Family_Leave.htm