When her husband was dying of lung cancer, Christine LaVault had to kiss him goodbye each morning and go to work, not sure whether he’d be alive when she returned. Nancy Yarborough stayed by her mother’s side in her final days but had to spend years digging out of debt as a result. And everywhere in the US, children with cancer lie in hospital beds alone because their parents might lose their jobs and health insurance or the ability to pay the rent if they took time to be at the child’s side.

Struggling US families turn to crowdfunding to cover childcare costs Read more

Finally, politicians of all stripes are starting to offer plans for paid leave. But the rejoicing depends on those devilish details.



Take the proposal inserted in the budget by Donald Trump, who called for paid family leave in his State of the Union speech. His plan provides for six weeks of partial pay to parents of new children via state unemployment insurance funds. That’s not just woefully inadequate but a step in the wrong direction. It would give too little time and money to too few people from an unsustainable source – and it would increase gender disparities.



While the administration refers to the plan as “paid family leave”, it’s actually paid parental leave – or more precisely, partially paid leave for parents to care for new children. It wouldn’t cover the parents of those hospitalized kids. It wouldn’t have helped Christine LaVault or Nancy Yarborough.

In fact, more than three-quarters of leaves taken under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) – the only national leave policy, which merely guarantees unpaid time – are to address a personal or family illness. Even those of us who aren’t parents have parents, partners and other loved ones who may at times need care – not to mention our own surgeries and heart attacks and bouts with cancer.



Even for parents of a new child, the six-week plan that Trump proposes falls far short of the 12 weeks established as a floor by the unpaid Family and Medical Leave Act and called a necessary minimum by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Infancy is a critical period for child development; we can’t afford to shortchange the next generation.



And who would pay for the leave? The White House proposal would draw on existing unemployment insurance, a program that is already severely under-funded. The low wage-replacement rates of unemployment programs (they offer about one-third the wages of an average worker) make leave unaffordable for millions of parents.

Even those of us who aren’t parents have parents, partners and other loved ones who may at times need care

Many states would provide a benefit only by cutting benefits for laid-off workers and limiting eligibility – for example, denying benefits to same-sex couples – or by raising rates for employers. Funding is to come from eliminating fraud. Given the lack of widespread fraud, there is little hope that this tactic will increase the pool of money; instead, it will only pit new parents against the newly unemployed for these limited benefits.



Finally, a plan only for new child leave would heighten existing gender disparities and encourage gender discrimination. Although this Trump proposal does include fathers, unlike the original version presented during the campaign, employer stereotypes still assume that women are more likely to take the leave. Without including time for self-care, the proposal would set back gender equality in the workplace and foster discrimination against female workers.



We also can’t isolate this paid leave plan from the rest of a budget that would exacerbate conditions for vulnerable families. With the draconian cuts proposed in food subsidies, Medicare and student loan forgiveness, not to mention the attacks on immigrants, this budget increases the economic vulnerability of low-income families and makes them less likely to risk taking a low-benefit leave.

The public overwhelmingly needs and supports a paid family and medical leave policy that is inclusive of all families and meets the “Triple A” test: accessible, affordable and adequate for all workers. The good news is that we know what it looks like, because it already exists and is successful in several states. It relies on a social insurance model, pooling small amounts of money from employees and employers to create a fund that workers can draw on when they need time off for any of the reasons laid out in the FMLA. The Family Act, which uses such a model, is pending now before Congress.

Bankrupted by giving birth: having premature twins cost me everything | Jen Sinconis Read more

The social insurance model is cause to rejoice. It demonstrates a cost-effective approach that boosts workers’ economic security, families’ wellbeing, public health and the overall economy. It also has overwhelming support from voters.

The state laws and Family Act are still a modest minimum compared with what families need and what the rest of the world provides. But we need to remember that 25 years have passed since the Family and Medical Leave Act became law. We probably won’t get another shot at this for a long time, so we need to ensure meaningful change – and introduce a realistic floor for real families in the US today.

Ellen Bravo is co-director of Family Values @ Work, a national network of state coalitions working for affordable time to care.



Sign up for the Guardian US opinion newsletter