Monthly Archive for November, 2009

What Are Lawmakers Afraid Of?

Published on November 17, 2009 in Jody Heymann and Work & Family. 1 Comment
Jody Heymann
Jody Heymann, Founding Director, Institute for Health and Social Policy, McGill University

Ensuring a floor of decent working conditions is crucial for the majority of Americans. 

For decades, we’ve debated whether the United States can afford to provide more family-friendly workplace policies and protections, and whether doing so will increase unemployment and harm our economic competitiveness.  

At the Institute for Health and Social Policy at McGill University, we set out to answer those questions through an eight-year study that examined policies, protections and supports in 190 of the world’s 192 countries. 

Through the study, we learned that the United States lacks many key work protections that are crucial for working adults and their families, and lags behind most of the 190 countries whose labor laws we examined. 

photo.blog.globalfloor.bookThe new study, Raising the Global Floor: Dismantling the Myth that We Can’t Afford Good Working Conditions for Everyone, found that:

• 164 nations guarantee paid annual leave; the U.S. does not.
• 163 nations guarantee paid sick leave; the U.S. does not.
• 157 nations guarantee workers a day of rest each week; the U.S. does not.
• 177 nations guarantee paid leave for new mothers; the U.S. does not.
• 74 nations guarantee paid leave for new fathers; the U.S. does not.

We also found that, globally, none of these working conditions are linked with lower levels of economic competitiveness or employment. In fact, many of these guarantees are associated with increased competitiveness. Of the world’s 15 most competitive countries, 14 provide paid sick leave, 14 provide paid annual leave, 13 guarantee a weekly day of rest, 13 provide paid leave for new mothers and 12 for new fathers.

Similarly, the majority of the 13 countries with consistently low unemployment rates provide paid annual leave (12), a weekly day of rest (12), paid leave for new mothers (12), paid sick leave (11), and paid leave for new fathers (9).

While the implications of guaranteeing decent work have always been important, they are particularly critical during the economic downturn that began in 2008 and that will likely affect United States workers for years to come.

So what are our lawmakers afraid of?  Now we know that the world’s most successful and competitive nations are providing the supports the United States lacks, without harming their competitiveness.  We can – and should – do better.

To learn more about the new study, visit www.RaisingtheGlobalFloor.org.

A Historic Moment…But at Women’s Expense

Published on November 10, 2009 in Debra Ness, Health Care and Reproductive Health. 0 Comments
Debra Ness

Debra Ness

The health reform bill the House passed this weekend had some long-overdue advances — and an eleventh hour amendment so appalling it taints the entire bill.

The U.S. House of Representatives brought the nation one huge step closer to giving all Americans access to high quality, affordable care. We’ve been fighting for decades to get here, and it was an historic moment.

But the outrageous, reckless, and unnecessary restriction on abortion coverage — added at the eleventh hour by opponents of women’s right to choose — threatens to undermine the promise of reform and endanger women’s health and lives. It simply must not stand.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) includes some real advances.   This bill’s greatest strengths include ending gender rating, limiting age rating and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions.  It is long past time for these disgraceful practices to end.  We are pleased that H.R. 3962 would extend these new federal rating rules to all individual and fully insured group markets.

The House bill also covers maternity care, well-woman and well-child visits, and cancer screening — and it includes no-cost language to let states expand access to Medicaid-covered family planning services without a cumbersome waiver process.�

We also applaud the provisions that will help lower-income families with the new obligation to buy health insurance, and support the expansion of the Medicaid national ‘floor’ to 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. But more must be done to ensure that affordable coverage is within reach for low- and moderate-income families.

But the inclusion of the Stupak-Pitts anti-choice amendment utterly taints this bill. Unless that amendment is removed, the promise of reform will ring hollow for women who will lose coverage for essential reproductive health care that we now have.

This is a historic opportunity that lawmakers must not squander by capitulating to the anti-choice extremists who would deny women coverage for basic reproductive health care.