The Value of Family Leave

By: Michael Leppert

Women4Change Public Policy Committee Member

I am old enough to remember when the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was signed by President Bill Clinton on February 5, 1993. It was the first of his tenure in the White House, and arguably the most important of his eight years in office. 

My first child was born almost exactly two years later, and a little less than two years after that, along came my second. I was an employee of the State of Indiana then, and I took invaluable time off both times. 

Invaluable is the precise word to describe that time. Was it precious? Was it necessary? Did everyone connected to these two life events benefit somehow from it? Absolutely, yes. But when it comes to making the practice of maternity and paternity leave common, the precise description of it is invaluable.

Since the FMLA was signed nineteen years ago, its benefits have become ingrained in American culture. Parents should take time off from work during these pivotal family moments. Few among us are uncertain of that. But the debate about the value of family leave continues.

Rep. Chris Campbell (D-West Lafayette) filed House Bill 1162 earlier this month. It would create the paid family and medical leave program in Indiana. For most of the last two decades, the primary protection of the federal act was to protect the parents’ jobs while they took family leave. Campbell’s bill would create a mechanism to also provide some short-term compensation to also make the time off affordable. Nine states and Washington, D.C., already have similar programs in place. 

Campbell’s bill did not receive a hearing during the first half of the 2022 legislative session, so it should be considered a dead issue for the year. But the first version of the federal act was filed in 1984—passed congress twice only to be vetoed by President George H.W. Bush, before it became law in 1993. So, I am hopeful that persistence pays off on this front again and that Campbell will continue the fight.

According to the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency, the Indiana bill has an estimated annual cost of approximately $12 million to extend the program to state employees. In a state with a budget surplus approaching $4 billion, the argument that Hoosiers can’t afford it is silly, though some still try to argue that point. Even if that disparity weren’t so painfully true in the moment, the affordability argument does not even consider what the program is actually worth. 

The legislation would also cap contributions to the fund from private employers to 0.7% of the employee’s yearly wages. So, this is where the discussion of its value should return. 

Last year, the National Bureau of Economic Research released an extensive study that shows paid family leave programs do not hurt employers. The next logical step should then be to determine what value these programs create. This is where research like that establishing the value of early education programs should show us how our entire culture benefits from this type of investment in our young families. 

It was invaluable in my life and the lives of my two children. It is safe to predict it would be the same for anyone and everyone else.