GOP comes up with plan to have state workers pay for state maternity leave

Rep. Clarke Tucker of Little Rock has been working for months on legislation to provide paid maternity leave for state employees. It's low-cost (no cost, really), pro-family and good for the workplace.

So today comes new legislation on the subject from two Republican legislators, Sen. Missy Irvin and Rep. DeAnn Vaught. If there's to be paid state maternity leave, the Republican view is, other state employees should pay for it.

They propose to have paid maternity leave provided by allowing use of days donated to a catastrophic leave bank by state employees. Maternity leave — either for a woman giving birth or a woman taking an adopted child into her home — would be considered a catastrophic event for this purpose.

The Republican Party has generally followed a policy of attempting to stymie Tucker's work because he's one of the Democratic Party bright lights. (Lt. Gov. Tim Griffin's truncation of voting in the Senate on a Tucker ethics bill in 2015 was a notable example.) It wouldn't do for him to build up a record of achievements. Additionally, he defeated Stacy Hurst in his first race for House and she's a Hutchinson administration insider, from the Governor's Mansion to the Heritage Department she now runs. She is one sore loser.

Read more: http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2017/01/12/gop-comes-up-with-plan-to-make-state-workers-pay-for-state-maternity-leave

[font color=330099]I have mixed reactions to this plan. While I understand that some fellow employees are willing to donate some of their leave to a common pool, it is a misnomer to consider maternity leave as a "catastrophe". Having a child is supposed to be a joyous event instead of a catastrophe.

In addition, having worked in both the public and private sectors I can say without a doubt that the fellow employees already pay for the worker out on maternity leave by having to work increased hours and assume additional responsibilities. When I worked in state government there was a woman that had only been with the agency for a few months who went on maternity leave for 12 weeks after giving birth to her second child. Less than a year later she became pregnant again and went out on maternity leave for another 12 weeks, then at the end of that period she resigned. The woman was gone from the office so much that she barely made any significant contributions and she also occupied a position where someone else could be hired.

Finally, it is also possible that some resentment might occur among the other employees. Is it fair to the employees that chose not to have children? Why isn't catastrophic paternity leave not available to the male employees?

If the state wants to provide a maternity leave pool then they should step up to the plate and provide for those benefits rather than placing the burden on the other employees to donate time to a catastrophe sick pool. Let the catastrophe leave pool be for employees that had a heart attack, stroke, cancer, aneurysms, in need of organ transplants, etc. The plan being suggested could become divisive and may result in a negative impact on the catastrophe pool. [/font]