Because maximum PPL is below minimum wage, it often entails income reduction. However, even small payments are appreciated when contrasted with an extended length of unpaid leave. In DOL’s 2006 survey, over 80% of mothers who took PPL said it lessened money worries, eased the transition from two incomes to one, and contributed to financial security. 69% of PPL-taking mothers said that “the need to maintain your current income level” was important or very important in the decision to take PPL.[1] Moreover, “financial pressure” was by far the most common reason for taking less than twelve months of PPL, and 55% of those that took PPL agreed or strongly agreed that the ending of PPL payments had a significant impact on deciding when to return to paid work.[2] This suggests that parents are aware of the impact a lowered income will have on themselves and their children, and many will sacrifice bonding time for this. Lengthened PPL would not entail this sacrifice.
However, extended PPL has complicated long-term effects on family economic wellbeing. According to the OECD (2001), ‘very long’ leave may reduce skills and earnings, and damage career paths. If this leads to lower living standards, it will also impact children’s wellbeing. Presumably, even a well-paid extended leave period would have these effects on career skills. This supports the moderate extension of PPL to perhaps six months, rather than a year. In any case, consideration of family economic wellbeing suggests that current unpaid parental leave should at least partially become paid, in order to maintain living standards during the leave period.
[1] DOL 2007, p. 32.
[2] 61% of respondents stated financial pressure as a reason for taking less than twelve months PPL. The next most common reason was “felt ready/needed adult company”, which was cited by only 7% of respondents. Ibid., p. 34.