http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_on_bi_ge/workplace_families_3
So, Harvard and McGill University researchers came out with a study that suggested the US is behind on the mandatory provision of family benefits to workers.
Apparently, many more enlightened and progressive countries force employers to offer a plethora of benefits, including paid maternity and paternity leave, thus relegating the US to the Uncaring Bastards Category yet again.
The thing is, I’m a family woman myself. I produced a grade schooler (scholar…schooler….hmmm….whatever), acquired a husband, and adopted a cat. (not necessarily in that order). I, and they, experience sickness and medical appointments and I’m sure at some point we’ll undergo a death in the family. So I’m not entirely unsympathetic to family issues and, of course, would benefit from pro-family workplace policies.
The thing is, though, it is my choice to have those responsibilities. My employers—past, present and future—had nothing to do with my reproduction. Why would I have the expectation that they’d pay me for 6 weeks whilst I’m off birthin’ babies? How can anyone justify legislating such a benefit?
I’ve heard the argument that these sorts of policies encourage healthier children and stronger families, thus improving society in general and benefiting everyone—in the end. Maybe, but where does that leave those who opt out of breeding?
Let’s say I go off for 6 weeks of paid maternity leave. During that time (while I’m romping with my newborn, reading books, watching Oprah and doing nothing to contribute to my workplace) my co-workers are covering for me and also doing their normal work activities. One could say, well it all evens out because you’ll cover for them when it’s “their time,” but many people will not go off and have a baby, or will have 1 when others have 2, 3, 4 babies… Or had their babies decades ago when nobody got maternity leave. Or are male and would never burden their company by staying home and getting paid for 6 weeks…
I’m just sayin’.
Maybe the only real answer is to give each employee 6 weeks of paid discretionary time-off per year. That way, they can use it for breeding, gardening, funerals, trips to Belize, naps, the flu, trying out for American Idol…whatever. Otherwise, rewarding childbirth and overburdening other workers just rubs me the wrong way…
Am I wrong?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't even know of anyone that has had an offer of pay during maternity leave. Time off, yes. No Pay.
It's not common practice in the US, but the initial article I'd referenced suggested it happens in other "more enlightened" countries and the writer implied it should happen in the US.
Just catching up with your blog. :)
I actually groove to the idea of how other countries deal with maternity leave. In Sweden, all working parents are entitled to 18 months paid leave per child, the cost being shared between employer and State. To encourage greater paternal involvement in child-rearing, a minimum of 3 months out of the 18 is required to be used by the "minority" parent, in practice usually the father. In the UK, all female employees are entitled to 52 weeks of maternity leave, 39 weeks of which is paid, with the first six weeks paid at 90% of full pay and the remainder at a fixed rate. Canada has up to a possible 50 weeks paid leave.
What does this accomplish (other than making their US counterparts jealous?) is that (hopefully) the kids get a good start in life, the mothers return to work happy and satisfied that their offspring are now set on the right path in the world. Sweden and Denmark (52 weeks of leave) are consistently on the list of "The Happiest Places on Earth" - not counting Disneyland.
I know its not everyone's cuppa to stay home with the little anklebiters, but I do really abhor the practice of women returning to work fresh out of the delivery room. If you didnt want to raise the kid, why have the kid?!
Post a Comment