Lila MacLellan* says a paid leave option for all employees for any personal reason would have multiple benefits and reduce bias against new parents.
Photo: Mario Renteria
In most of the world , deep-pocketed employers try to lure the best and brightest employees with a patchwork of paid time off benefits, including various lengths of parental or bereavement leave, time off to care for elderly parents, and, in a tiny fraction of large firms, personal sabbaticals.
These perks are often advertised as proof that an organisation is inclusive, considerate of employees of all ages and in various phases of their careers, which is admirable.
But if an organisation truly wants to make all feel welcome, there’s an easier, more elegant solution: Apply the rules of universal design and create one policy that serves everyone — in this case, a reason-blind paid leave option for all employees.
Because the truth is, everyone needs a break, a lengthy one, sometime.
Let’s take the spotlight off working parents
The wide adoption of generous, purpose-agnostic paid leave would solve many problems.
For instance, it paradoxically would take pressure off new parents, the group currently most likely to be favoured for paid time off.
That’s because parental-leave policies bring attention to the special needs of working parents, and especially mothers, and erroneously imply that non-parents require less downtime or respite.
Yes, parents need this time.
But isn’t it strange for employers to prioritise this need above that of another employee who might need a similar amount of time away, whether to serve as a caregiver to a loved one or to look after their own health?
Lauren Brody, owner of The Fifth Trimester consulting company, believes employers should find ways to make benefits that help parents available to all.
“What happens at companies where only mothers, or even only parents, have access to those conversations about flexibility, is that it has this unintended bad side effect of creating a bias against parents,” she says.
Women suffer most from this, since they’re more likely to ask for a perk like flex time once they’ve returned to work, and then be judged for it more critically than men.
The same is true of paid leave: If a woman understandably fears that stigma or unconscious bias against working mothers might mean fewer promotions and lower pay in the long run, she might not take all the time that’s needed — and the time which data shows is healthy for parent and child — to protect her job.
Presumably, however, if all workers were equally entitled to leave for any reason, and truly felt there’d be no consequences attached to asking for it, the resentment toward parents and their special treatment would dissipate.
While we’re at it, let’s drop gendered terms like maternity and paternity leave
The gender-neutral language of reason-blind paid leave benefits would also be a welcome change from the terms that describe families now.
This is an issue that progressive employers have been grappling with over the past few years, says Brody.
Her solution would be start afresh with “family leave,” while allowing employees to choose who counts as family and accepting that “family” can be any age and may or may not share DNA.
That’s getting closer to ideal, but a completely unlabelled paid leave option would also make room for someone else: the individual employee.
Can we please treat all employees like adults with full lives?
At the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM), employees have the right to “open leave,” says Suzanne Goulden, the association’s benefits manager.
The recently adopted benefit is meant to cover leave for vacation, personal illness, bereavement, military service, or any kind of caregiving.
And, she says, “So far, it’s working.”
Goulden believes more organisations are moving to the same type of universal leave category because it’s also a way of treating employees “like the adults that they are.”
A reason-blind leave policy signals to staff that they’re trusted, which has always been a priority for workers.
The new normal
All of this may sound outrageous to professionals who came of age in the pre-internet era.
It may seem as though today’s employees feel extraordinarily entitled.
(And, to be sure, for now it’s still a privileged few who get to weigh the merits of frills like “unlimited vacation” or even just “paid time off.”)
Arguably, however, undefined paid leave is hardly as radical as some of the other developments that have reshaped work expectations, like constant connectivity.
If you ask people to accept a longer work week, and late-night messages from the boss, shouldn’t you expect they’ll crave complete and sustained separation at some point?
The trend is also not surprising given what we’ve come to understand about the life-extending value of leading a well-rounded life, and what we know about the youngest workers in today’s economy.
Seeing the writing on the wall, Ernst & Young is now testing unpaid “life leave” in Australia.
Unlimited or open leave policies certainly have their detractors.
Not knowing how many days off to ask for, many employees who have unlimited vacation are said to request less than they would under a traditional plan, critics say, citing some research.
Another problem with unlimited vacation plans: you can’t roll over any leftover days or ask for a payout when you leave the organisation.
But advocates like Goulden note that time off is meant to be used, not banked — precisely to prevent issues like burnout, which can happen to anyone and often can’t be fixed with a one-week vacation.
To be sure, if a universal leave became the norm, it may cause headaches for employers looking to backfill staff or redistribute work, especially if several employees were to temporarily disappear at once.
Then again, the workforce is changing, too, with more people looking to come and go from temporary positions.
Besides, the promise of a one-size-fits-all leave seems worth the challenge.
It may prove to be ingenious in its simplicity.
* Lila MacLellan is a reporter for Quartz at Work. She tweets at @LilaMacLellan.
This article first appeared at qz.com.
