I recently emailed U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski as a constituent with a request for her support of the Family Medical Leave Insurance Act of 2013 (S. 1810), which was introduced by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York. Murkowski's reply to me was an unfortunate rehashing of short-sighted politics that favor the status quo over the good of America's citizens.
Her response fell far short of my expectations, but it did provide a nice overview of S. 1810 and how it differs from existing legislation:
If enacted, S. 1810 would require all employers, regardless of the number of employees, to provide up to 12 work weeks of paid protected leave to employees engaged in an activity described in the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). S. 1810 would also remove the FMLA's enforcement jurisdiction from the Department of Labor, and place it under a new federal agency entitled the Office of Paid Family and Medical Leave to be created within the Social Security Administration.
Current law requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide up to 12 work weeks of protected unpaid leave for qualifying employees who need additional time off due to: a serious health condition, care of a family member with a serious health condition, pregnancy, birth of a child, qualifying emergencies arising from the deployment of a service member, and care for an injured service member."
Essentially, her "concerns with increasing government regulation" and the deficit overshadows her concerns for the people affected by the current system. While she may "sympathize" with them, she thinks that the current laws are good enough.
My concern is that Murkowski and other lawmakers who do not support The Family Medical Leave Insurance Act of 2013 can't seem to see the difference between:
1) A coverage requirement that applies to all businesses and one that only applies to businesses with over 50 employees
2) 12 weeks of unpaid leave and 12 weeks of paid leave
I wonder if these lawmakers have ever had to go three months without a paycheck while living paycheck-to-paycheck.
I wonder if these lawmakers have ever had medical bills pile up during time off taken to care for someone, further adding to the financial and emotional stress of losing a paycheck.
I wonder if these lawmakers have ever had to take off work to care for someone while not only losing the security of their pay but also losing the security of their position, making it harder to ask for a raise or be considered for promotion.
I wonder if Murkowski and her colleagues have ever thought about how unjust it is that existing laws mean the basic decision to have a child can set back a woman's career and cause financial hardship for her and her family.
Something tells me that the answer to all of these questions is no. I don't believe that she or any other lawmakers who would oppose this act have ever had to worry about any of these possibilities happening to them.
Murkowski's stated sympathy for those families means and does nothing to institute a national workforce structure that truly supports families. By supporting families, providing them the means for economic survival when faced with the results of inevitable, unavoidable human frailties, and not punishing them when they decide to have children or take care of sick family members, we make a stronger, healthier, more productive workforce. We create a MORAL workforce.
Additionally, we create a more equal and just workforce because the large majority of people who end up becoming the caretakers or whose careers are either put on hold or put in jeopardy for the time off are women. As the system stands, it encourages the kind of unfair treatment that has effectively institutionalized women's economic oppression.
Men would benefit from the change as well because they would be guaranteed the paid opportunity to be with their children and family members, either as primary or co-caretakers, without the loss of pay or position, something that is not possible within the current restrictive allowances of the FMLA.
As far as I can tell, it looks like her real sympathy is for the greedy, unethical policies of a sexist, non-family-friendly—and therefore inhumane—system. It's our responsibility to ensure that as citizens we do all that we can to call out inhumane policies and the lawmakers who support them. Only then can we create the kind of workforce that will serve the nation by serving its citizens.
Allison Palumbo lives in Anchorage. She is a University of Kentucky PhD candidate teaching composition courses and writing a dissertation that examines feminism, heterosexuality and power dynamics as they are expressed in popular media.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.