Zero Weeks (2017)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is FMLA? The four letters FMLA stand for Family Medical Leave Act. The FMLA was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1993.

 

The purpose of this law is to help American workers who want to or need to leave their job for a while, because they have a problem with their family or with their health.

 

FMLA is a federal law. It applies to all American states and all American territories. Some workers are included (covered) by this law, while other workers are excluded (not covered) by this law.

 

FMLA applies to all government offices. But it does not apply to all private companies. FMLA applies to companies which have more than 50 workers.

 

FMLA does not apply to companies which have less than 50 workers. To be covered by FMLA, you must work for a large company which has more than 50 employees

 

There are more conditions:

 

** You must have been with this company for at least one year

** You must be a full-time worker. Not a part-time worker

** You must have worked at least 1,250 hours for this company

 

If you work for a small company, if you are a part-time worker, FMLA cannot help you in any way.

 

American workers who want to or need to leave their job for a while have a basic question:

 

“If I leave my job for a while, can I return to my old job later, with the same salary and the same benefits?”

 

The answer to this question is: it depends. Perhaps the answer is yes, perhaps the answer is no.

 

You must have a good reason to leave for a while. What could be a reason to leave for a while?

 

# 1. A woman. You were pregnant and you have given birth to a child. You want to have maternity leave

# 2. A man. Your spouse or your partner in life was pregnant and she has given birth to a child. You want to have paternity leave

# 3. Women and men. You have a problem with your health. You need to have an operation. You need time to recover after the operation

# 4. Women and men. A close member of your family has a medical problem. This person must have an operation. You want to take care of this person, while he or she recovers after the operation

 

If you are approved for FMLA, if you qualify for FMLA, what kind of leave will you get?

 

FMLA offers leave for 12 weeks. The leave is unpaid. You will not be paid while you are on leave.

 

FMLA gives you the right to return to the same job or a similar job when the leave ends. You must get the same salary and the same benefits as you had before.

 

FMLA is a federal law which marks the minimum.

 

Private companies are allowed to offer better conditions than FMLA and some of them do this. They may offer more than 12 weeks of leave. They may even offer paid leave. Probably not your full salary but a reduced salary. Perhaps 50 percent of your salary, while you are on leave.

 

Each American state is allowed to offer better conditions than FMLA and some states do this. 

 

How many states are we talking about? At the moment, nine states plus the District of Columbia. 

 

Here is the list:

 

** California

** Colorado

** Connecticut

** District of Columbia

** Massachusetts

** New Jersey

** New York

** Oregon

** Rhode Island

** Washington

 

Four states have passed legislation about paid leave, which will be activated in 2026. Here is the list:

 

** Delaware (from January)

** Maine (from May)

** Maryland (from July)

** Minnesota (from January)

 

The US is the only industrialized or high-income country which does not have a law which offers paid parental leave for all new mothers and fathers.

 

REFERENCE

The topic is explored in great detail in a documentary film which premiered a few years ago (2017)

 

 

Zero Weeks: America's Family Leave Crisis and the Cost of Doing Nothing

 

** Writer and director: Ky Dickens

** Run time: 87 minutes 

 

How many weeks of paid leave does US federal law offer American citizens? 

Zero weeks!

Hence the title of the film.

 

What do reviewers say about this film?

Here are some answers:

 

** 100 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)

** 81 percent = IMDb

** 80 percent = Common Sense

 

Two user reviews are posted on IMDb. Here is a passage from the first review:

 

“I have to admit I wasn't sure what to expect and I certainly didn't think a film about paid family leave could be gripping.”

 

Here is a passage from the second review:

 

“Never in a million years would I think a film about paid leave would be compelling enough to keep my attention for a full 90 minutes.”

 

Both reviewers offer a rating of 100 percent.

 

*****

The Family Medical Leave Act

Passed by Congress and

signed into law by President Clinton

in 1993

 

*****

 

  

The Good Canadian (2025)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Good Canadian is a documentary film which premiered on Canadian television (CBC) in 2025.

 

What is the topic of this film? The topic is a dark chapter of Canadian history: the history of the indigenous peoples in Canada. One reviewer presents this topic with the following words:

 

“Canada likes to pretend that our history is full of noble white settlers, when the reality is dark and disturbing.”

 

Here is some basic information about this film:

 

** Directors: Leena Minifie and David Paperny

** Writers: Kerriann Cardinal, Leena Minifie and David Paperny

** Run time: 88 minutes

 

Several persons are interviewed in this film

Here are the names of the participants

Listed in alphabetical order

 

** Evan Adams

** Cindy Blackstock

** Corina Bye

** Noah Fred

** David Graham

** Jill (no last name given)

** Brady Knight

** Ernie Louitt

** Sheelah McLean

** Dean Neu

** Shiri Pasternak

** Sophie Radecki

** Samir Shaheen-Hussain

** Eily Sprungman

 

Some are members of the indigenous population, while others are Caucasian (white). They have a shared interest: they all want justice for the indigenous peoples of Canada.

 

What can we learn from this film? One reviewer makes the following statement:

 

“This film holds its focus on the treatment of First Nations Canadians, and in particular how their children are treated by the educational, fostering and other systems.

 

“This film presents systematic abuses, racism, and mistreatment at the hands of the police, [the] medical establishment, and other government bodies.”

 

What about the persons who are interviewed in this film? Are they well-chosen? One reviewer makes the following statement:

 

“The people interviewed in this movie are knowledgeable, authentic, and compelling. It was good to see Cindy Blackstock front and centre.”

 

Cindy Blackstock, who appears many times in this film, is a political activist and a professor for the School of Social Work at McGill University.

 

In this film, she explains that she wanted to find out how much the Canadian authorities knew about the lives of the indigenous peoples about one hundred years ago.

 

Were they aware of what was happening? Did they know about abuse and mistreatment? If the answer is yes, was it deliberate? Or did the authorities not have any real information about this topic?

 

While searching through old documents, she came across the name Peter Henderson Bryce, who was the Chief Medical Officer of Indian Affairs in the beginning of the twentieth century.

 

In 1907, P. H. Bryce complied a detailed report about the living conditions of the indigenous peoples, but his report was not published, because it contained information which the government wanted to keep secret.

 

This is how Bryce was silenced in 1907. He continued to serve until 1921. After his retirement, he published his own report from 1907 which had been classified by the government.

 

He was a whistleblower who tried to tell the government and the people of Canada that the official policy towards the indigenous population was wrong.

 

The case of Peter Bryce shows that the Canadian government knew exactly what was happening. 

 

The members of government knew that public services to the indigenous peoples were underfunded but they did not care. This was a part of a deliberate policy towards the indigenous peoples.

 

Many strong words are spoken in this film. The Canadian government is criticized for its past and present policy.

 

The abuse and the injustice which occurred in the residential schools are mentioned many times.

 

Terms like colonial administration and cultural genocide are used more than once to describe the policy of the government.

 

Is this fair? Is there any evidence to support the use of such harsh terms? This film presents evidence in the form of some individual cases as well as statistical information in order to back up the charges which are made here.

 

What do reviewers say about this film?

 

On IMDB it has a rating of 72 percent. At the moment no user reviews are posted on this website.

 

Letterboxd has some reviews. Eleven user reviews are posted on this website. Nine reviews offer a specific rating of 3 or 4 or 5 stars. 

 

No review offers only one or two stars. Two reviews do not offer a specific rating, but they are both positive.

 

The average rating of the nine reviews is 4.1 stars, which corresponds to a rating of 82 percent.

 

I understand the positive reviews and I agree with them. The topic is important. The story deserves to be told, and in this film, it is done very well.

 

I want to go all the way to the top with this product. I think it deserves a rating of five stars (100 percent).

 

PS. The reviews from which I have quoted here are posted on Letterboxd.

 

REFERENCES

 

# 1. Books

 

A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential School System, 1879 to 1986

By John S. Milloy

(1999 = first edition) 

(2017 = second edition)

 

Justice, Indigenous Peoples, and Canada: 

A History of Courage and Resilience

Edited by K. M. Campbell and Stephanie Wellman

(2023 = hardcover)

(2025 = paperback)

 

# 2. Film and video

 

We Were Children

This documentary film premiered in 2012

 

Dear Flora

(the original French title: Pour toi, Flora)

This six-part television series, which premiered in 2022, is inspired by true events

 

# 3. The Canadian Encyclopedia (available online)

Here are some relevant items:

 

Section A = topics

Indigenous Peoples in Canada

Rights of Indigenous People in Canada

Genocide and Indigenous Peoples in Canada

Systemic Racism in Canada

Prejudice and Discrimination in Canada

Residential Schools in Canada

Residential Segregation of Indigenous Peoples in Canada

Health of Indigenous Peoples in Canada

Colonialism in Canada

Sixties Scoop

Government Apology to Former Students of Residential Schools in Canada

 

Section B = individuals

Sir Oliver Mowat (1820-1903)

Peter Henderson Bryce (1853-1932)

Duncan Campbell Scott (1862-1947)

Cindy Blackstock (born 1964)

 

*****

 

Students and teachers in front of a

residential school in Canada

 

*****

 

The Canadian political activist 

Cindy Blackstock

(born 1964)

 

*****

 

A National Crime:

The Canadian Government and the 

Residential School System, 1879 to 1986

By John S. Milloy

(1999 = first edition)

(2017 = second edition)

 

*****