35 Years Of Family Leave Should Be Awakened To Welfare.

There are always some very different policies which are always in a dormant period. No matter how embarrassing or impractical, even if they exist in name only, they will remain calm.

Recently, media coverage of family leave policy has caused netizens to rise and fall.

The longest stay of 45 days of family leave has been introduced for 35 years. Many people never stop and even say "never heard of it".

35 years ago, in 1981, the employment distribution objectively caused the workers to leave their homes. The regulations of the State Council on the treatment of visiting relatives by employees were approved by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. The maximum length of holidays for unmarried workers to visit their parents is 45 days.

In the past 35 years, many people have never heard of this welfare. Some enterprises and institutions that have the conditions of taking leave of absence for family visit are usually not allowed to take leave on leave for a variety of reasons. Employees will voluntarily abandon their vacation on the basis of various concerns.

In addition, many units will deduct the merit pay of employees who have paid off family leave, and only pay basic wages during their vacation.

The regulations for visiting relatives are promulgated under the condition of planned economy. When the State implements the distribution system, it objectively causes workers to stay away from home, thus giving workers the corresponding treatment on vacation.

Nowadays, under the background of market economy, citizens' freedom to choose jobs, abundant public holidays, and the statutory paid vacation system have been established, together with the convenience of pportation, and the simple and strong push of family leave provisions 35 years ago is obviously out of date.

Under the premise that the state has not explicitly abolished the provisions of family leave, it is no different from breaking the law to deprive workers of their rights and interests.

35 years ago.

It is obviously inappropriate, but it has never been modified or abandoned. It has become an awkward existence. There is a need to seriously review and revise it as soon as possible, so that this policy will become more reasonable and reasonable.

Should the abolition of a family visit leave in name only? The answer should be No.

Family leave is an interest of workers and a part of citizens' right to rest. It is not appropriate to simply cancel and deprive this right. The better way is to further improve and perfect the threshold of taking leave to visit relatives in the new situation, so as to make this policy more scientific, feasible and reasonable.

For example, it is possible to link up family leave and annual leave, and expand it to workers outside the organs and state-owned enterprises or institutions, or to give different places according to the mileage of the workplace and the place of visiting relatives.

The longer the mileage, the longer the vacation days can be extended.

In fact, the impractical policy of visiting relatives is not a case in real life.

Such as the 5 yuan only child fee that has not been changed for more than 30 years, the cost of washing up fees and books and newspapers, which can not be carried out, can not be put into practice, and the compensation standard for the loss of the checked baggage of the air pportation has not changed for nearly 20 years.

These "sleepy" regulations not only expose the "metabolism" function of system design but also reflect the administrative omission of public policy adjustment.

It is often related to people's livelihood and to the vital interests of the broad masses of the people.

Public policy formulation, adjustment and revision should respect public opinion and absorb public opinion, and should be updated and perfected with the times.

A small number of public policies lie dormant for a long time, ignoring the development and changes of the economy and society, ignoring the voices and complaints of the masses. The administrative omission of this policy area reflects the arrogance and prejudice of policy makers on the masses.

The public has the right to question the relevant departments, and how many long "dormant" zombie policies such as parental leave and plastic restriction have not been awakened? In the face of public opinion, the policy supply department should respond positively? Public policy must keep pace with the times and constantly amend and improve.

It is hoped that the relevant departments will comply with public opinion and take the initiative to clean up and modify those inappropriate public policies, so that public policies can catch up with the economic and social development and echo the expectations of the public.