TNR BLOGS

May 09, 2008 | 9:33 AM
May 08, 2008 | 8:55 PM
May 08, 2008 | 6:06 PM

May 09, 2008 | 10:15 AM
May 09, 2008 | 10:10 AM
May 09, 2008 | 12:12 AM

May 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
May 02, 2008 | 5:26 PM
May 02, 2008 | 2:40 PM

May 08, 2008 | 9:12 PM
May 08, 2008 | 3:26 PM
May 08, 2008 | 2:38 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
28.03.2008
Not to Diss Swaziland, But...

Dana Goldstein, in linking to Sue Shellenbarger's Wall Street Journal column on pregnancy discrimination, makes an underappreciated point:

Many American women, until they get pregnant, have no idea that they are entitled to no paid leave under current law. Indeed, a study from Harvard University last year found that of 168 nations worldwide, the United States is one of only four whose government doesn't require employers to provide paid maternity leave. The others are Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland.

Not exactly great company. I would question, though, whether this is really something we want to be requiring employers to provide. Insofar as paid maternity leave is something we think we need (and it should be!), funding it is a shared responsibility that government needs to undertake, not employers. If your welfare state rests on a foundation of coercing corporations into providing benefits, you're probably going to wind up with a lot of economic distortions and a pretty crappy welfare state to boot.

--Josh Patashnik 

Posted: Friday, March 28, 2008 12:04 AM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

lymon1 said:

Yeah, that will drive the male and single voters out there into the arms of Dems!  Let's have the taxpayers fund working mothers (no matter how many children they wish to have?) and if you're single or a small family or just work at a company who really doesn't need the disruption at the moment, suck it up.  

March 28, 2008 9:44 AM

bcbaird said:

Economic distortions?  What bout outright discrimination?  Would the gender gap get better or worse if employers knew that women of child-bearing age would, on average, cost a lot more to employ than their male counterparts?

March 28, 2008 11:01 AM

Maverick_VII said:

"If your welfare state rests on a foundation of coercing corporations into providing benefits, you're probably going to wind up with a lot of economic distortions and a pretty crappy welfare state to boot."

Hmm, this reminds me of some other major benefit provided by government in most other countries, but by corporations in the US.

March 28, 2008 11:24 AM

geoffgraham said:

We Texans used to react to our low rankings relative to other states on things like infant mortality or environmental degradation by looking at the state sure to be even lower on the list and saying "Thank God for Mississippi." As Americans, we can now console ourselves with "At least we're better than Swaziland."

March 28, 2008 1:00 PM

ericad said:

no No NO!  I am as liberal as anyone (and moreso than most) but I guess that since I've opted against having kids, I don't want ANYONE getting paid for not working until we find a way for single people who aren't having kids and married people who aren't having kids to ALSO get a government - paid period of time off (notice I didn't say "vacation"?  I at least KNOW child rearing, especially an infant, isn't "vacation").  If you're going to have kids (which, as our planetary population soars and our resources plummet, might be something to reconsider), you need to do it on your own time and own dime.  Except for subsidized high-quality day care and pre-school. That benefits all of society (eventually) so should be shouldered by all.  ***BTW< GEOFF--that was hysterical!!***

March 28, 2008 3:25 PM

ndmackenzie said:

John B. Judis provides a related metric in his current article on NAFTA:

-- Mexico's--and Canada's--labor laws are actually more progressive than U.S. laws. Mexico, for instance, has ratified 78 of the International Labor Organization's core labor standards, while the United States has ratified only 14.

www.tnr.com/.../story.html

March 28, 2008 4:38 PM

jwl2672 said:

I absolutely love this!

Entitlement nanny state dems versus intellectual elitist single old maid dems.  HAHAHA.  Which will win for the latter camp, the hatred for traditional families who chose to have kids or the desire for the nanny state to protect the weak? (women and children)

March 28, 2008 5:28 PM

The Plank said:

In response to my earlier post , Dana Goldstein points me toward a bill introduced last year by Chris

March 31, 2008 8:03 PM