Commentary

Tara Hodgkins: Insurance program is the answer to family leave conundrum

Editor’s note: This commentary is by Tara Hodgkins, who lives in Ludlow.

I am writing to express my full support for the creation of a paid family and medical leave insurance program for Vermont. I support this as a mother, a caregiver to my husband, and a conservative Vermonter.

After my son’s birth in 2014, I took just 10 days off to recover. After my daughter’s birth in 2016, I took just 13 days off. Despite the fact that both of them were born via C-section and I didn’t have adequate time to recover or bond with my new children, I got back to the grind right away. I hadn’t even visited my doctor yet to have her clear me for driving let alone working.

Some people thought I was crazy. My employer actually told me I was nuts. However, the decision was made for me. I had to go back to work immediately because my employer isn’t able to offer paid maternity leave or short-term disability leave. Despite having a flexible employer, I wasn’t eligible for unpaid leave through state or federal law because my employer is so small that we don’t qualify.

Not only did lack of paid leave cut into my ability to recover and bond with my new children, but it also cut into my ability to breastfeed and caused feelings of guilt and inadequacy in every aspect of my life. I was just learning to be a mom, but I needed to focus on being an employee and getting work done. I am proud to be a hard worker and am committed to my work, but I’m also deeply committed to my family and current policies don’t allow us to commit to both without sacrificing something, somewhere.

If conservatives want to continue to hold family and hard work as traditional values, we need to do all we can to ensure programs like paid family and medical leave become a reality.

 

I also support paid family and medical leave insurance as a spouse and caregiver to my husband. He became ill shortly after we got married. He has a chronic disease that will cause him to flare up and have issues throughout the course of his life. So, I know for a fact that during my working career there will be periods of time where I will have to take care of him.

It’s incredibly important for us to be able to care for ourselves and our families, but without policies in place to help us balance work and family lives it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible. I have strong work and family values and I want to do everything I can to be a great employee and take care of my family, but sometimes it is hard to make it all work with the few resources available.

I also support this as a conservative Vermonter. We often hear about support for public programs such as this from the left and not so much from the right. But this truly isn’t a political issue. It’s a human issue with a political solution. The need to care for ourselves, our children, families, and aging parents crosses party lines.

If conservatives want to continue to hold family and hard work as traditional values, we need to do all we can to ensure programs like paid family and medical leave become a reality.

If I just had a little more time with my kids before going back to work, it would’ve made all the world of difference. I don’t want my children to have to pay bills over bonding. I don’t want them to have to choose work over focusing on the wellbeing of their family. We need to change this for the next generation because we are better. We need to prove to our kids that they matter.

We need to put more emphasis on caring for ourselves and our families. We can’t have our lives jeopardized by one surprise event or one medical issue or the birth of a child and sit there as hardworking Americans, wondering if we have job security or means to pay the bills.

We are better than this.


If you read us, please support us.

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer.

We moderate every comment. Please go to our FAQ for the full policy.

Commentary

About Commentaries

VTDigger.org publishes 12 to 18 commentaries a week from a broad range of community sources. All commentaries must include the author’s first and last name, town of residence and a brief biography, including affiliations with political parties, lobbying or special interest groups. We have a minimum length of 400 words. We have found the ideal length is approximately 600 to 800 words. We provide some copyediting support, but we do not have the staff to fact-check commentaries. We reserve the right to reject opinions for matters of taste and accuracy. Commentaries are voices from the community and do not represent VTDigger in any way. Please send your commentary to Cate Chant, cchant@vtdigger.org, and Anne Galloway, agalloway@vtdigger.org.

Email: opinion@vtdigger.org

Latest Commentaries

Recent Stories

  • Edward Letourneau

    The trouble with this plan is will tax people who will never receive the presumed benefit. that is unconstitutional.

    • JohnGreenberg

      Edward Letournea:

      “this plan …will tax people who will never receive the presumed benefit. that is unconstitutional.” If that were so, then taxing the property of anyone who doesn’t have children woudl be unconstitutional.

      • Daniel Carver

        John,
        Although they may never have school children, they were once children eligible for public school enrollment, so they did receive benefit from program supported by others paying property taxes–property taxes used to be a lower % of household income–and cost per student was significantly lower than today.

        • JohnGreenberg

          Daniel Carver:

          ”Although they may never have school children, they were once children eligible
          for public school enrollment …”

          But when they were children, they were not taxpayers, and
          once they are taxpayers without children, they receive no (DIRECT) benefit. In other words, the benefit they received was
          not based on THEIR taxes, and the benefit they pay for is received by someone else
          entirely.

          Mr. Letourneau argued that it is unconstitutional to “tax
          people who will never receive the presumed benefit.”

          First, he ignores the fact that we ALL receive benefits from living in an
          educated society. His argument is way
          too narrow.

          But more broadly, his position appears to be that taxes are legitimate
          only when they provide a direct benefit to the individual paying the tax. That’s constitutional hogwash.

          He appears to have forgotten the words of Constitution’s
          preamble: “to … promote the general Welfare.” Education taxes are clearly
          constitutional.

      • Edward Letourneau

        The current education tax is unconstitutional. Everyone should pay an equal amount of the shared cost, but Vermont makes homeowners pay more based on their income.

  • Matt Young

    Tara, with all due respect, what if a small business owner cannot afford to pay his or her insurance premium, they go out of business and then aren’t able to take care of their own family?