How Mandatory Paid Maternity Leave Hurts Women

Hillary Clinton said that it was time to “join the rest of the advanced world” in having mandatory paid maternity leave at the Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday night. She accused Republicans of “scare mongering” about the ill-effects that it could have. Well, whether Hillary likes it or not, mandatory paid maternity leave would have unintended consequences that are important to discuss.

To clarify, the U.S. already has unpaid family leave through the Family Medical Leave Act signed in 1993. The law says that employees can take off 12 work weeks in a year to deal with pregnancy, illness, caring for a family member, etc. and they cannot be legally fired for doing so.

Hillary Clinton wants to take it a step further and force employers to pay them their regular salary during their leave of absence.

Who would be against this?

A lot of the Republican arguments against mandatory paid maternity leave have been focused on how small businesses can’t afford it. Indeed, this is true. Another lesser known argument is how it would actually hurt career driven young women.

Young women, especially if they’re married, face different obstacles in the workplace. Some bosses assume that these women will get pregnant soon. Therefore, they are more hesitant about hiring or promoting them.

Some people might think I’m exaggerating here. And years ago, if I heard that, I’d probably think the same and assume that there’s another reason. Now, I’ve seen it happen. I know someone who was told, point blank, that this is why she wasn’t moving up at work. Because they figured she would pop out a baby soon and didn’t want to give her more responsibility at work.

That’s why it’s common for married women to take off their wedding rings for job interviews. One out of three women admit to doing it, fearing that the ring will damage employment prospects. For women, a wedding ring can send a message that they prioritize family over work. For men, it’s the opposite, a wedding ring can send a message that they are dependable and take work seriously.

From an employer’s perspective, he or she doesn’t want to hire or promote someone who they expect to take a long leave of absence in the near future. For a young woman’s perspective, it stinks, especially if she doesn’t want kids, doesn’t want them for a while, or if she wouldn’t even be the primary caregiver. Yet, there are still assumptions made because of her age and relationship status.

There are already speculations about young women that can hold back work opportunities for us. Now, technically, that kind of discrimination is illegal. But, c’mon, it still happens and it can be hard to prove.

Now, imagine that the game changed. Employers have to pay for a woman’s maternity leave. So, not only would the woman go missing for an extended period of time– but they would have to pay her the entire time that she’s out.

Does that help or hurt women’s employment prospects?

I’d say the latter.

People who support mandatory paid maternity leave likely have good intentions. But in practice, it would increase judgement and discrimination towards women in the workplace.

This is not to say that paid maternity leave is bad— just like I don’t think paid vacations, holidays, and sick days are bad things. These are benefits that employers voluntarily (key word) offer to attract workers to their company. I imagine that we will see more employers offering paid maternity leave as the culture continues to change.

There are good reasons to be against mandatory paid maternity leave. It’s not because I’m against working mothers and trapped in the 1950’s. It’s not because I like to scare people, Hillary. It’s because I recognize that it would actually increase the stigma against young women in the workplace. As a young working woman, I’d like to avoid that.