NBC's paternalism over maternal leave.

ITEM: Campbell Brown, the co-host of NBC's "Today on Thursday," in a July 28 segment critical of the United States for not requiring paid maternity leave, demanded to know: "Why does the rest of the world get paid leave while morns here race back to work?" Not having such a federal requirement, she insisted, is "a real problem."

CORRECTION: This carping begins from a faulty premise. There is an unwarranted assumption that a national mandate, forcing employers to pay new mothers when they are not working, is an overall plus. However, as always, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." While some costs may be hidden--or purposely obscured--there is still a price to be paid. Some companies may want to offer this benefit, and some employees may find it valuable. Those are rightfully private choices, as is the decision of a mother to work outside the home. On the other hand, a mandate for paid maternity leave for all employers, large or small, would carry significant costs and generate negative consequences, even for the supposed beneficiaries.

Current U.S. federal law (under the Family and Medical Leave Act [FMLA]) requires 12 weeks of unpaid family leave for women in companies with at least 50 employees. The current direct cost of the FMLA to employers is $21 billion annually, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This would skyrocket if all employers were covered. Yet, proponents of mandatory maternal leave would dump these huge additional costs on small businesses--forcing them to pay the salary of the mother who is not working (as well as paying for the additional time involved for the personnel actually doing the work).

The NBC report noted above cast the U.S. as being behind progressive nations around the world. Presumably the "best" such leave situation is in Sweden. New Swedish parents (married or not) can split 16 months off the job while being paid 80 percent of their salaries. Sweden, lest we forget, is a welfare state where government subsidies have become a way of life. Everyone pays so boyfriends and girlfriends can have babies but need not go to work.

Proponents would like us to think such obligations have little or no costs. That defies reason. Long-term, mandatory maternity leave, among other outcomes, essentially requires employers to pay two people to perform one job.

In such a situation, would an employer be more likely, or less likely, to hire (or promote) a female worker of childbearing years to a high-paying job? The result is obvious to all but radical feminists and welfare statists. Employers would tend to avoid hiring those who would use such costly benefits. The advantages would go to men, as well as to single and older women.

An economics professor from Loyola University in New Orleans, Deborah Walker, years ago made a classic study of leave requirements. Among her conclusions: if more women actually did enter the labor market because of such mandates, the wage rates in female-dominated occupations would be forced down.

Alternatively, she noted in an analysis for the Cato Institute, if employers tried to bear the additional costs, they would become less productive, or might be forced out of business altogether. Both outcomes "translate into fewer jobs." This, noted the professor, "would most likely happen in industries with a great number of female workers. Job opportunities for women would decrease, not increase."