Barack Obama : "Family-Friendly Workplace Policies Are Not Frills -- They're Basic Needs"

President wrote an article for Huffington Post and I thought it was worth sharing here. Just quoting some of the paragraphs, full article is here: www.huffingtonpost.com...

Family leave, childcare, flexibility and a decent wage aren't frills. They're basic needs. They shouldn't be bonuses -- they should be the bottom line.

Parents who work full-time should earn enough to pay the bills and go to work every day knowing that their kids are in good hands. Workers who give their all should know that if they need some flexibility, they can have it -- because their employers understand that it's hard to be productive when you've got a sick kid at home or a childcare crisis. And talented, hard-working people should be able to say yes to a great new opportunity without worrying that their families will pay the price. Nearly half of all working parents surveyed say they've chosen to turn down a job not because they didn't want it, but because it would be too hard on their families. When that many members of our workforce are forced to choose between a job and their family, something's wrong.

Some businesses are realizing that family-friendly policies are a good business practice, because they help build loyalty and inspire workers to go the extra mile.

Whether its a politician talking or not,I personally do fully agree with the article. I am not American, but I do believe family is the most important and no person, whatever their job, should be set on choice : "Either job or family" and that is how it should be in every country in the world.

When the company does not let a mother take care of her sick child, it is inhumane... The first years of a newborn are incredibly important and quality time with parents during that period affects the development of the child a lot. Round here, there is 3 years of paid mother leave, to be honest, when I first heard US did not have any required legally, that was quite a shock. Family comes first, always, and that is something every company should respect.

In the end, taking care of the employees will pay itself off for the companies as well. Increased productivity from less worries, less stress,which could both lead to severe productivity loss from the health issues these lead to, especially long-term. Respecting family values is a win-win for everybody.

Children are the future of the nation. No child should suffer because of their parents bad decisions or their parents poor financial status. Whether rich or poor, the opportunities for a child should be the same. Investing in children is investing in the nation´s future and will pay itself off sooner or later.

a reply to: Cabin

It all starts with the family unit. Whatever it takes to give children some security and a sense of belonging. No guarantee of an outcome, but a decent and supportive start to life. 100% of children deserve that.

How do people with common sense achieve that? IDK, but realization has to factor in somewhere.

It's not the government and it's not corporations that are going to fix it on their own. You are a piece of meat to a corporation. A battery. Supply side economics was a lie. Bank deregulation was a lie. Everything that comes from the corporate memes and the corporate owned USG is a lie.

Murican Christianity, with it's aggression and consumerism is a lie.

Look elsewhere.

a reply to: Cabin

Actions speak louder than words.

Unfortunately, Obama's actions have proven that those words are meaningless.......

And after the speech, he promptly returned to destroying families by continuing to bankrupt the country.

Nothing to see here folks.

originally posted by: Cabin
Children are the future of the nation. No child should suffer because of their parents bad decisions or their parents poor financial status. Whether rich or poor, the opportunities for a child should be the same. Investing in children is investing in the nation´s future and will pay itself off sooner or later.

While those platitudes all sound great on paper in execution they only lead to one place; a larger and more intrusive government.

How do you mitigate a 'parent's bad decision'? Or their poor financial status?

a reply to: Cabin



One of the best things Mr Obama has said.

And very true too. I hope companies apply these "basic needs" across the board!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There does not need to be any government intrusion to people´s lives. Who cares, whether the parent is rich or poor... There should not be a question whether child is from poor or rich family, whether they qualify or not - it just adds more administrative fees. Both should get the same benefits, unless parents decide for another option (ala private education or private childcare or stay-at-home mum/dad if they can afford).

How I would see it personally:

1) Law which requires every mother to have certain period of mother leave.
2) Government-funded (from taxes) quality childcare (kindergarten basically,teaches as well ) with lunches provided by goverment
3) Quality public education with school lunches provided by the government (not paid by parents, because every parent can not afford it)

4) Additional flexibility and paid leave for employees with children (a´la sick child leave, 1st school days, sometimes letting of early so they could get the child at practice, get from school if needed, school meetings etc)

originally posted by: Cabin
1) Law which requires every mother to have certain period of mother leave.

We already have that, it is called the Family and Medical Leave Act.

2) Government-funded (from taxes) quality childcare (kindergarten basically,teaches as well ) with lunches provided by government

Really? So how would a government run program not make the government larger or more intrusive? And more taxes? They are high enough as it is.

3) Quality public education with school lunches provided by the government (not paid by parents, because every parent can not afford it)

This is already available under the National School Lunch Program, the Summer Food Services Program and the Special Milk Program.

4) Additional flexibility and paid leave for employees with children (a´la sick child leave, 1st school days, sometimes letting of early so they could get the child at practice, get from school if needed, school meetings etc)

Most employers are flexible and give full time workers Paid Time Off (PTO) and/or vacation time.

The irony being that the family unit has been eroded constantly and will continue to do so.

Brave new world.

originally posted by: corvuscorrax
The irony being that the family unit has been eroded constantly and will continue to do so.

That is the crux of the problem and no amount of taxes or an over-reaching Federal program is going to correct that. It has to happen from within.

i fully agree with the sentiment behind the article as well. I think family obligations should come before work and you should not have to sacrifice your children's care and well being for any one, even for your job. Most large industry employers already offer this to their employees as part of the initial contract or company policy as sick days and personal days. I would think this is a way to get all of the smaller businesses and large businesses who don't offer enough days, to be legally inclined to follow suit and standardize the amount of time that is acceptable.

I already offer this to my employees. i don't think i have ever denied anyone the ability to stay home if they or their children didn't feel well. i like a no stress work place, it makes better employees, families, and children.

a reply to: Cabin