Paid parental leave for federal employees - when would it begin?

[Anonymous]

I think Trump will sign. It's something he's indicated he wants and something that Ivanka has pushed for. I don't think it will cost the government more than your current salary already does. After all, they don't hire temps while you're out.

That being said, I'm jealous too. We saved for years to take all the unpaid time off. My work actually had everyone think up projects to do with the extra money that my office had from the money saved by my salary. (It wasn't phrased like that, but my LWOP was the reason my work had extra money).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's a part of the FY21 legislation, then it should have an enactment date included in the Bill. I haven't seen the language anywhere, but in my experience, most legislation takes over a year to implement - so if you're pregnant now it probably won't help you this round. . .

I'm not sure this would actually be the case. Obviously, this would depend on the language in the bill, but this is spending authorization bill, and the money for spending is for next year I believe? But I could be wrong.

It's a spending authorization bill - but the Act enacting the legislation is not dependent on yearly authorization any more than anything else that the government needs money to do.

That said - devil in the details - but I think it's entirely possible that you could be eligible for it up to a year after the birth of the child, as long as there is still within the year of birth, similar to FMLA.

It's possible, but based on the House language it's unlikely. That provision would have only provided benefits for babies born or adopted Oct. 1 or later. I doubt the agreed on language is more generous, but I haven't seen it, yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The original language had it only applicable for babies born after October 1, 2020. I haven’t been able to find the latest agreement, though. They should be voting today. So we’ll find out shortly.

SIGH. I would be very surprised then if this was earlier. It would have been SO NICE not to have to use all my leave and take time unpaid. Also, to have my husband (we're both feds) be able to spend some real time home with the baby as well.

Yup. I'm on maternity leave right now. It will be nice for others and I don't begrudge it to them, but it will be bitterly disappointing to use up all of my sick and annual leave, take a 10% pay cut for the year due to unpaid FMLA (I've only been a fed instead of a contractor for 1.5 years), and miss paid leave by a hair. Like, that's such a huge cost i would probably have waited a year to get pregnant if I'd known.

You do sound very bitter, yes.

Eh, she said it’s nice for others and she doesn’t begrudge it to them. Doesn’t sound bitter to me. I’m a fed who recently took my second maternity leave. Covering the first one was tough and covering the second one was even tougher because I didn’t have as much time to accrue sick/annual leave, plus I had a difficult pregnancy the second time around, so I had to use sick leave before the birth. The current fed approach just kind of sucks, and it’s awesome that it might change for the better!

+1 - for the professional crowd (doctors, lawyers, etc.) it's been a maxim that you have the children before you go public if you can because parental leave benefits are so far behind what the private sector offers. This will be a big attraction to would-be parents who are thinking they want kids in the future. Now, they stay put because they don't want to give up those benefits. In the future, they are more likely to jump prior to getting pregnant - which is a big bonus to the government to get new people in who may stay for a long time.

Yeah, I’m a lawyer and the difference in maternity leave benefits for private sector versus the feds is really significant. Still, I’m glad I didn’t have to go back to working at a law firm when I returned from leave.

[Anonymous]

Trump tweeted today he would sign so as long as Congress does their job ... is the 12 weeks for both mother and father?

[Anonymous]

For those that want to read the language, the conference report is here: https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191209/CRPT-116hrpt333.pdf
and the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act language starts on page 2647.

The summary report language states:
Federal Employee Paid Leave Act (secs. 7601-7606)
The House amendment contained several provisions(sec. 1121 through 1126) that would provide 12 weeks of paid leave to the Federal workforce for reasons covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (Public Law 115-232).
The Senate bill contained no similar provision.
The Senate recedes with an amendment that would provide 12 weeks of paid leave to Federal employees in connection with the birth or placement of a child to an eligible employee.

[Anonymous]

i'm not going to lie that's its hard for me that I'm missing this by four months. so much money and time off I can't save.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i'm not going to lie that's its hard for me that I'm missing this by four months. so much money and time off I can't save.

It sucks but there has to be some sort of cut off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump tweeted today he would sign so as long as Congress does their job ... is the 12 weeks for both mother and father?

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump tweeted today he would sign so as long as Congress does their job ... is the 12 weeks for both mother and father?

What is "as long as Congress does their job" in this tweet mean? Not impeach? Not vote for removal? Open an investigation into a random Biden?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those that want to read the language, the conference report is here: https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191209/CRPT-116hrpt333.pdf
and the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act language starts on page 2647.

The summary report language states:
Federal Employee Paid Leave Act (secs. 7601-7606)
The House amendment contained several provisions(sec. 1121 through 1126) that would provide 12 weeks of paid leave to the Federal workforce for reasons covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (Public Law 115-232).
The Senate bill contained no similar provision.
The Senate recedes with an amendment that would provide 12 weeks of paid leave to Federal employees in connection with the birth or placement of a child to an eligible employee.

I understand the thinking behind not giving paid fmla and only giving paid maternity/paternity leave. Women have kids in the 25-35 year range when they often don’t have enough leave saved to cover 12 weeks. Whereas those getting cancer or heart attacks are normally much older and have thousands of hours of leave saved. (I’m past having kids now so it doesn’t matter to me).

[Anonymous]

Paid FMLA for feds would also have covered other caregiving--everyone who needs time off to care for a parent, or a very sick child, for example. So overall this is a pretty limited and sort of discriminatory "benefit"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm not going to lie that's its hard for me that I'm missing this by four months. so much money and time off I can't save.

It sucks but there has to be some sort of cut off

Yes, I understand that. But it does suck. Also, how nerve-wracking would it be to be due 10/1. you'd be praying to god your baby wasn't born early.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Paid FMLA for feds would also have covered other caregiving--everyone who needs time off to care for a parent, or a very sick child, for example. So overall this is a pretty limited and sort of discriminatory "benefit"

There is an emergency leave bank. Not to mention, sick and annual leave can be used. I’ve actually met a Fed who needed leave to take off to care for a parent or sick kid and couldn’t cover it. Maternity has been a different story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Paid FMLA for feds would also have covered other caregiving--everyone who needs time off to care for a parent, or a very sick child, for example. So overall this is a pretty limited and sort of discriminatory "benefit"

There is an emergency leave bank. Not to mention, sick and annual leave can be used. I’ve actually met a Fed who needed leave to take off to care for a parent or sick kid and couldn’t cover it. Maternity has been a different story.

There are also STD and LTD policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn’t OPM have to promulgate regulations on it first before it becomes effective?

No, I don't think so. I'm sure they will issue regulations or guidance, but the way it's written you are entitled to the leave. I assume the 10/1 start date is to allow agencies to budget for it in FY21.