Paid Leave and Beyond: The Urgency and Feasibility of Addressing Structural Inequalities Across Race, Gender, and Class

HOW GAPS IN PAID LEAVE WORSEN INEQUALITIES These gaps have had profound consequences;while home to only 4% of the global population, the United States has accounted for 16% of COVID-19 deaths to date,1 with Black, Latinx, and Indigenous Americans twice as likely to die from COVID-19 as White Americans.2 Drivers of these disparities include higher rates of exposure and infection linked to working conditions.3 The enactment of emergency paid sick leave during the pandemic, despite not covering all workers, markedly reduced cases until Congress let it lapse at the end of 2020.4 Furthermore, even in nonpandemic years, paid sick leave has been shown to increase access to preventive care and treatment, reduce job loss, and increase return to work. [...]had a robust, fully inclusive paid sick leave policy been in place when COVID-19 began to spread and for its duration, the United States could have avoided innumerable infections and deaths that occurred because people had to go to work when they were sick or send children to school sick, while also helping people keep jobs critical to their long-term well-being. [...]we are even farther behind than that: 181 countries around the world guarantee paid sick leave at the national level.7 Similarly, 186 countries guarantee paid maternity or parental leave.8 While the US provides unpaid leave through the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), because of racial wealth gaps-which stem from a long history of exclusionary policymaking, compounded by ongoing discrimination9-when the only leave available is unpaid, Black and Latinx workers are far less likely to be able to afford it. [...]the FMLA eligibility criteria for even unpaid leave exclude many part-time workers, the self-employed, workers starting a new job, and those working for small businesses, widening racial and gender disparities in access. [...]when Congress considers new legislation-including new social policies-it should routinely assess who will be affected and how.

US Sick Leave In Global Context: US Eligibility Rules Widen Inequalities Despite Readily Available Solutions.

Research has demonstrated that paid sick leave reduces the spread of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases and improves preventive care and access to treatment across a wide range of conditions. However, the US has no national paid sick leave policy, and even unpaid leave via the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993-often viewed as a foundation for new paid leave legislation-is often inaccessible to workers. We analyzed data from a nationally representative survey to determine the extent to which specific FMLA features produce gaps and disparities in leave access. We then used comparative policy data from 193 countries to analyze whether these policy features are necessary or prevalent globally, or whether there are common alternatives. We found that the FMLA's minimum hours requirement disproportionately excludes women, whereas its tenure requirement disproportionately excludes Black, Indigenous, and multiracial workers. Latinx workers also face greater exclusion because of employer size requirements. Of the 94 percent of countries that provide permanent paid sick leave, none broadly restrict leave based on employer size, and 93 percent cover part-time workers without a minimum hours requirement. Enacting permanent paid sick leave that is accessible regardless of employer size, tenure, or hours is critical and feasible.

Preventing immigration detention of children: a comparative study of laws in 150 countries

The COVID-19 pandemic has shined a spotlight on the fundamental incompatibility of immigration detention with health. Yet immigration detention's threats to human rights did not begin with COVID-19. International treaties are clear that detaining children based on citizenship is a violation of human rights law. However, for international treaties and agreements to be fulfilled, most individual countries must enact domestic laws and policies to implement their commitments. In this study, we examine how many countries have laws to limit the detention of children.To assess the legislative protections for migrant and refugee children from detention, we created quantitatively comparable data on legal provisions across the 150 most populous UN member states. Our primary sources consisted of national-level laws, regulations, ministerial decisions, and executive decrees pertaining to asylum-seekers, refugees, and immigration.Globally, less than a quarter of countries legally protect unaccompanied asylum-seekers from detention and only 11% do so for accompanied minor migrants. Among countries that permit detention in at least some circumstances, only a minority address basic rights such as separation from adult strangers, family unity, access to education, and access to health care. Yet effective and human rights-respecting alternatives to detention exist;the evidence on these is provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of International Journal of Human Rights is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Immigration Detention in the United States: Identifying Alternatives That Comply With Human Rights and Advance Public Health.

Under international law, the United States is obligated to uphold noncitizens' fundamental rights, including their rights to health. However, current US immigration laws-and their enforcement-not only fail to fulfill migrants' health rights but actively undermine their realization and worsen the pandemic's spread. Specifically, the US immigration system's reliance on detention, which precludes effective social distancing, increases risks of exposure and infection for detainees, staff, and their broader communities. International agreements clearly state that the prolonged, mandatory, or automatic detention of people solely because of their migration status is a human rights violation on its own. But in the context of COVID-19, the consequences for migrants' right to health are particularly acute. Effective alternatives exist: other countries demonstrate the feasibility of adopting and implementing immigration laws that establish far less restrictive, social services-based approaches to enforcement that respect human rights. To protect public health and realize its global commitments, the United States must shift away from detaining migrants as standard practice and adopt effective, humane alternatives-both amid COVID-19 and permanently.