M2 CRITICAL ANALYSIS PAPER 1

Ethical Evaluation Paid Family Leave in the U.S.

M2 Critical Analysis

Jennifer Rector

Gonzaga University

ORGL 601 Communication and Leadership Ethics

Dr. Hoover

June 11, 2016

M2 CRITICAL ANALYSIS PAPER 2

Ethical Evaluation Paid Family Leave in the U.S.

Introduction

Paid Family Leave is a hot topic in the United States. Any Google search will net

thousands of results on the subject. Journalists have covered this from many angles, while policy

makers have debated tirelessly one side or another.

This subject is not just a two-sided issue. There are multiple avenues, arguments,

conversations, and discussions that are taking place around this issue. Should the United States

require companies to provide paid leave for families? What are the benefits? What are the

unintended consequences? In a free market, such as ours, is it even ethical to require companies

to provide paid leave? What happens if we do nothing?

All of these questions frame opinions in one way or another. Advocates for a more robust

government intervention regarding paid family leave argue that requiring businesses to provide

paid leave is the only way the U.S. will catch up with the rest of the world on this issue, while

others argue that government requirements could potentially bankrupt small businesses.

The American Enterprise Institute cited statistics from the labor force claiming the

participation rate of mothers with children under 18 years has increased from 48.8% to 70.9%

between 1976 and 2012, and from 34.1% to 60.7% between 1976 and 2012 for mothers with

children under 3 years (Mathur and Hunter, 2016). Statistics like this are used frequently to begin

conversations around why the U.S. has a severe issue on its hands regarding family leave, in

particular family paid leave.

M2 CRITICAL ANALYSIS PAPER 3

Analysis - Is the issue framed in dialogic?

As we analyze the conversations taking place, and study the articles, videos, and

conversations occurring on Capitol Hill, it is hard to discern initially whether the topic is

actually, from an ethical perspective, dialogic or not. Dialogic communication ethics

acknowledges multiple goods that give rise to and emerge in ongoing conversations, protecting

and promoting the good of learning [ CITATION Arn09 \l 1033 ].

Examples of conversations about this topic; however, seem to have only one thing in

common: whatever you believe, you should shout it as loud as possible without regard to the

other side of the argument. On the surface, those involved in dialogue regarding family leave

and policies around it seem to have great arguments one way or another.

No one argues that mothers and fathers are important to the core of a stable family (a side

that can be classified as a good). On a seemingly contradictory side, no one wants small

businesses to be forced into bankruptcy for any reason (another good to consider). Why then, if

we can identify goods on various sides has it been so difficult for all of the sides in this issue to

come together? The communication occurring regarding this issue has failed to make the

connection that with the evolution of the world economy and the diversity of family structures, it

is necessary to at least try to understand each other so that true dialogue can begin.

One of the reasons these platforms and discussions struggle may lie within the rationale

set forth by Paulo Freier, who argues that dialogue is impossible between groups of power and

non-power (Arnett et al., 2009, p. 87). The perception in a lot of public spaces seems to be that

this issue is rooted in a stalemate between families (the perceived non-power) and a political

system (the perceived power) that undervalues the need for strong families.
M2 CRITICAL ANALYSIS PAPER 4

Also, in addition to the two perceived powers, there are various other diverse groups to

consider. Many frame this as an ethical issue; claiming the country is not doing the right thing for

its citizens. But, in many cases organizations are already offering paid family leave. I, myself,

have taken advantage of paid family leave twice when both of my sons were born (in 2008 and

2015). It was a wonderful experience and I was thankful for the opportunity to have this benefit.

The issue can at this point turn to a financial status issue, with groups arguing that lower

income earners and small business employees are the ones that are actually affected most. An

argument made by Julia T. Wood in Diversity in Dialogue: Commonalities and Differences

between Friends states that societies organize themselves by creating groups with distinct status

and privilege, which, in turn, shape members access to experiences, opportunities, activities, and

circumstances (Wood, 1997, p.8). If we consider that in many instances, arguments around paid

family leave seem to be centered on those with less secure employment, one could argue the

fairness of status and privilege concerning your right to paid family leave another voice in

the debate.

An article posted in The Washington Post online cites the 2015 episode of John Olivers

Last Week Tonight, where he uses satire to criticize the federal government for its lack of

progress on family leave, to make a point that the issue is large and looming. In the article, the

issue is described as an epidemic of personal failings, and a product of a political system that

undervalues and under-appreciates the contributions and needs of mothers and

families.[ CITATION Moy15 \l 1033 ].

Likewise, but representing a different side of the argument, an article published in

Newsweek argues that if the end goal is to retain women in the workforce, forcing paid family
M2 CRITICAL ANALYSIS PAPER 5

leave on employers will have the opposite effect. In the article, the author states, Mandated paid

family leave makes it more expensive to hire workers, particularly women. That makes

employers less willing to hire women, especially those with limited education or skills

(Ghei, 2009).

All of these conversations are alone not considered dialogic. They cant be. They all

continue to demand something. Our text, Communication Ethics Literacy, states that demand

cannot be part of dialogue considered to be dialogic. Just because each source and platform

seems to present its side of the argument in a format that could be defined as respectful, it is not

dialogic. According to the text, respect communication is not dialogic.

The text goes on to argue that respect communication is only the beginning of dialogic

ethics and the demands only get in the way of ever achieving that goal (Arnett et al., 2009, p.

90). To ultimately achieve dialogic communication, each party must address the issue from a

learning perspective first, and then as a listener. It appears that no one on any of the sides of this

issue is listening. In most cases, they really dont even appear to be learning anything from each

other either.

An Ethical Argument?

Dialogic ethics assumes the importance of the meeting of communicative ground that

gives rise to a particular sense of good and is simultaneously open to learning (Arnett et al.,

2009, p. 80). Essentially, for an argument like paid family leave to be ethical, each side must

come to the table ready to learn from each other and agree on some common goods that will

carry the dialogue forward. Each participant in this conversation has to be willing to
M2 CRITICAL ANALYSIS PAPER 6

acknowledge the differences of the others, and commit to fostering continued conversations for

their ideas and thoughts on the matter to also be considered.

Each side cannot expect to get to a resolution or compromise without first understanding

each other. Since these examples of communication regarding this topic do not offer any hint at

this, we cannot consider it an ethical argument as is.

For the matter to be reclassified as such, each dialogue would begin with the

understanding that, first, we must learn by listening to the other and finding a common ground

from which we can begin conversations. One way, I believe, this could be done, would be by

identifying with both sides of the argument. Are there parents who own small businesses who

may contribute to the discussion? Are there examples we can draw from to learn how

compromises have worked out in other places? This is the first step toward making this argument

ethical.

Dialogic Communication Impact

The lack of dialogic communication surrounding this issue has a lot to do with

participants inability to gain ground or even momentum in the decision-making process. The

issue of paid family leave is by most accounts, a national issue, yet we only see progress being

made in small pockets at the state levels. Even this so-called progress seems to be very one-sided

in that it favors those who argue that the government must intervene in free enterprise and

require businesses to offer paid family leave.

This issue seems to be, at times, the poster child for defining an ethical issue. Each side

can frame talking points and reasoning behind why their approach is the right thing to do. But,

without acknowledging that the other side has valid goods, they fail to come to the table
M2 CRITICAL ANALYSIS PAPER 7

prepared to learn, but rather prepared to fight. They set the scene for their side as the ethical one

the only one, and therefore, cannot come to a place where dialogic communication can lead the

way for progress and decisions that are rooted in common ground and understanding.

In order to make decisions that are ethical in nature, we must first stage a dialogue that is

of the dialogic nature. We have to be willing to meet each other on neutral turf and have a

discussion based on respect, understanding, and a desire to learn.

The pragmatics of dialogue unites learning, discernment, and difference, requiring one

to learn from the Other and, additionally, from ones own ground, with each checking and

texturing the other, (Arnett et al., 2009, p. 211).

Until all sides involved with the issue of paid family leave can work toward this idea, the

notion that pragmatic decisions and application can occur is unlikely. No matter which side you

favor, we all must work toward having discussions based on a foundation of reality. Perhaps it is

not practical that all employees be guaranteed paid family leave. On the other side, what happens

when there is no regulations built around a free enterprise that only has the tolerance to worry

about a bottom line without regard for its human employees?

Reality is typically in the middle of the two extreme arguments. In order to reach a place

where dialogic communication is creating an ethical argument based in understanding and

tolerance of all sides, participants must seek a dialogue based on learning and listening. You

cannot, at this stage, bring ethics into this argument because the foundation is not laid for what

the argument actually is in reality.

M2 CRITICAL ANALYSIS PAPER 8

Suggestions

Advocates for this issue have to require the desire to understand. They need to step back

and ask the tough questions about the other side. Why do they feel so strongly about this issue?

What do they know that I can learn from?

In order to make movement or at least come to the table prepared to learn, you must

consider unintended consequences from a realistic standpoint. So many argue one way or another

the right thing to do before they even consider what is the real issue.

These groups must first step back before they can move forward. That takes leadership in

many instances. According to the text, Ethical and Unethical Leadership: A Cross-Cultural and

Cross-Sectoral Analysis, responsible leadership occurs in social processes of interaction with

those who are affected or have a stake in the purpose (Eisenbeib & Brodbeck, 2014, p. 344).

That being the case, this issue is in need of leadership that is willing to begin the process

of finding common good. Ethical leaders must do. And, this issue requires leaders from all

sides to do when it comes to learning and listening.

My favorite quote that seems to sum up my suggestions was listed on page 87 of our text

where a common table is established, and an explanation of the need is made in language stated

as, In an era of difference, from a communication perspective, there is a need for a dialogic

mantra learn from difference or miss the point of the 21st century (Arnett et al., 2009, p. 87).

I couldnt come up with a better suggestion for how to make progress on this issue, both

from a communication and ethical standpoint. How better to describe the way in which we can

accomplish so many things? A lack of understanding and inability to want to learn from each
M2 CRITICAL ANALYSIS PAPER 9

other is at the core of many societal issues facing our world today. Paid family leave is just one

of those issues. We can argue and have conversations all day long from a technical

communication phase on what is the right thing to do regarding any number of issues, but until

we commit to finding a common ground to begin our dialogue, we cease to make real progress.
M2 CRITICAL ANALYSIS PAPER 10

References

Arnett, R. C., Harden Fritz, J. M., & Bell, L. M. (2009). Communication Ethics Literacy:
Dialogue and Difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Eisenbeib, S. A., & Brodbeck, F. (2014). Ethical and Unethical Leadership: A Cross-Cultural and
Cross-Sectoral Analysis. Springer Science+Media Dordrecht, 343-359.

Ghei, Nita. (2009, August 4). The Argument Against Paid Family Leave. Retrieved June 8, 2016,
from Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/argument-against-paid-family-leave-78741

Mathur, A., & Hunter, A. (2016, March 21). Let's Talk About Paid Family Leave. Retrieved June
8, 2016, from AEIdeas: A Public Policy Blog from AEI:
https://www.aei.org/publication/lets-talk-about-paid-family-leave/

Moyer, J. W. (2015, May 11). John Oliver Defends Paid Family Leave on Mother's Day. The
Washington Post. Retrieved June 8, 2016, from:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/11/john-oliver-
defends-paid-family-leave-on-mothers-day/

Wood, J. T. (1997). Diversity in Dialogue: Commonalities and Differences between Friends. 5-

26.