Oliver Attempts to Paint a Narrative Which Simply Isn’t True

by Josh Guckert

Satirist John Oliver is always using his platform on Last Week Tonight to promote his liberal agenda. While he can at times make both valid and humorous points, as when he hosted Edward Snowden to discuss the overreach by the NSA, Oliver just as often spouts off typical progressive talking points with minimal facts or legitimate backing. On Sunday, he provided an example of the latter as he discussed the contentious topic of paid family leave.

Over the last few days, leftists across the country have applauded Oliver and posted the aforementioned segment, wondering aloud how the US could be so far behind on what would appear to be a “commonsense” reform. However, Oliver’s ideas on this particular topic miss the target for a number of reasons.

The comedic tirade by Oliver begins with a “stunning” realization that the US is one of only two countries around the world (along with Papua New Guinea) to not have mandated paid maternity leave. First of all, this provides a clear bandwagon logical fallacy in suggesting that because most countries have such a program, the US should as well.

Additionally, throughout the video presentation, Oliver continually conflates providing paid maternity leave and mandating paid maternity leave by law. For instance, the voice-over in the video clip which reveals the above trivia fact about the US and Papua New Guinea states that the two “are the only countries in the world that do not provide any paid time off for new mothers.”

This is false in that many American companies do provide paid maternity leave. No statement could relay the message better than the one stated in a CNN article from March: “Vodafone gets it. Giving new moms paid time off is good for business.”

To make the statement in Oliver’s video clip true would be to believe that “the US” should in fact be interpreted to mean “the US Government.” On the contrary, it is the entrepreneurs and capitalists who have made our country what it is—not the state. Our nation is unique in that it is defined by its individuals rather than the collective, and that designation has allowed the US to flourish where others have failed.

Moving more to the merits of the policy, mandating maternity leave upon employers only places an additional barrier in the way of hiring women of child-bearing age. One would think that, with the outcries against the supposed “wage gap,” that liberals would do their best to ensure that females not be set back even further from their male counterparts in earning potential.

Many economists speculate that one of the major reasons for women earning less than men is that because women must physically give birth, they are thereby required to take off work, thus falling behind as their husbands continue on an upward arc in their careers. While some believe that introducing a maternity leave mandate would narrow the gap, it would appear that the opposite is true.

While one solution offered to combat any potential sexism that would result is to mandate parental leave for both genders, such a policy makes just as little sense, as this would only hinder employment opportunities and impose additional burdens for both genders in the name of “equality.”

Towards the end of the video, Oliver points to statistics showing that mandates of paid maternity leave have had no effect on workplaces. However, this presents the paradigm of the “seen” and the “unseen.” Many employers (and particularly the larger ones) will have little problem shifting numbers and changing protocol in order to meet new regulations.

But what is unable to be known is just how many fewer jobs or promotions were issued as the result of the new law. Companies will likely have no guilty conscience on the matter, as they are just complying as need be, and the employees who never got these opportunities and don’t know about it cannot complain.

Oliver concludes his segment by targeting Minnesota lawmakers who voted against mandated maternity leave, saying that “you can’t go on and on about how much you love mothers, and then fail to support legislation that makes life easier for them.” Just as he began with a logical fallacy, Oliver concludes with an appeal to emotion. He makes the critical error of suggesting that simply because these legislators do not support his particular vision, they must not actually care about the group to which he is referring.

In conclusion, John Oliver and progressives everywhere should err on the side of liberty and permit mothers and fathers to negotiate with their employers about their work arrangements. Rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all mandate, workers would be able to determine their priorities, and they, in addition to consumers, would provide market reactions to companies’ practices. As is so often the case, the free market provides a better solution than government ever could. John Oliver should learn that when making decisions regarding her own contract agreements, perhaps mother knows best.