Thinking About 1919 This Women’s History Month
During this Women’s History Month, I am thinking about 1919, when a group of men belonging to the International Labour Organization (ILO), a social justice labor organization formed at the end of World War I, issued the Maternity Protection Convention. The convention was a list of items that needed to be included in something that was, at the time, a new idea–maternity leave. Despite being issued over a century ago, there are still workers in the US who give birth and don’t have access to comprehensive paid leave time and fear they will lose their job for the time they take away from work after giving birth.
This document, which served as the early beginnings of paid leave, outlined what was needed for a just system of leave for pregnant workers. The labor organization updated the Maternity Protection Convention in 1952 and in 2000. With the last update, most of the European countries represented in the ILO had enacted maternity protection legislation at the national level. They also enacted national legislation for workers that set labor standards and developed policies and programs that promoted decent working conditions for all workers. The United States is one of only seven countries that do not have a paid leave policy on a national level.
According to the ILO, the necessary elements of maternity leave include health protection, benefits and job protection. But it doesn’t just address workers while they are away from their jobs. Breastfeeding and breastfeeding facilities at work sites are also a part of the Maternity Protection Convention.
It is a source of both frustration and hope that there was a clear understanding a century ago of the role of birthing women in caregiving. Women are primarily responsible for caring for children as well as family members who need care. Despite this understanding, 40 percent of working women in the US don’t qualify for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The FMLA protects a worker’s job for 12 weeks while they are on leave. But leave under FMLA is unpaid. There are few families in the US that can financially withstand the loss of income for 12 weeks. Some private employers offer maternity leave as a benefit, but only 12 percent of women working for private employers have access to paid maternity leave. And, without paid leave, 30% of working women left their jobs after giving birth.
The lack of access to paid leave does not come without consequences. Studies have shown that women with paid leave may have better mental health outcomes. It also yields better health outcomes for infants. Low wage workers, who are mostly Black and Latinx women, bear an even heavier cost. Only nine percent of the lowest paid workers have access to paid leave. And pregnancy-related discrimination runs rampant among low wage employers. Reports of discrimination include job loss, being denied job advancement and having to perform physically taxing work.
How can we begin to address the high numbers of Black infant and birth parent mortality if a basic need, such as paid time away from work, isn’t addressed? Why would we place families at-risk for an increased number of rehospitalizations that come with the lack of access to paid leave? Where is our compassion for families?
I will spend Women’s History Month thinking about 1919, but I am firmly grounded in 2024. It is a shame that we are having conversations about paid leave that are over 100 years old. It is a shame that leaders understood in 1919 the need for time away from work, but some leaders a century later still aren’t convinced. I urge you to join me in hope and frustration this month. Contact your representatives in Congress and demand paid leave legislation on a national level. The well-being of our children and families depends on it.
By Josie Kalipeni, executive director Family Values @ Work
