These numbers don’t surprise me. I am curious whether the number of discriminatory events varies by career field. Before taking an in-house position, this type of discrimination was not uncommon at the law firm I worked at for 6 years. Taking into account flex-time issues, partnership track, bonuses and billable hour requirements, the firm failed almost across the board.

In the end, it was the firm’s loss. A number of my female co-workers took jobs elsewhere, and were often the most talented and hard working associates. One of our female attorneys left over some pregnancy related issues and is now general counsel of a large company in the area. The firm lost twice here. First, it lost a great attorney. Second, it lost the opportunity to do any work for this company when she took the general counsel position.

The primary issue was always the failure of the firm to punish partners and practice group leaders who avoided hiring and promoting women attorneys who decided to have a family.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reports that they are seeing more complaints, and more suits filed, on behalf of pregnant women who have been discriminated against.

You don't suppose that has anything to do with the leadership inspired by the Bush Administration, do you? Via Digby:

Karl Zinsmeister is currently President Bush’s chief domestic policy adviser, hired when Claude Allen stepped down after being charged with shoplifting.

A new article in The New Republic shows that Zinsmeister was also hostile toward women...

[From the article]When she angered him by taking a four-month maternity leave, Zinsmeister told Cadiz, “I am never going to hire another woman because they just get pregnant and leave."

That makes me sad. I am in college right now so hopefully by the time I am out some legislation is made to defend women that plan to be or are pregnant. I know I want to have children, but is my future PR firm going to give me the boot because of it?

Every inch of this is frustrating. First is the obvious angst against women who are (or may become) pregnant. But what really burns me up is the sense of 'you should feel grateful that we gave you the 12 weeks unpaid leave' that gets tossed around. In other countries, mothers get 52 weeks to bond with her baby. Many of these countries, such as Sweden, pay for the leave.

What is WRONG with America?! Are we so stuck on the 'get paid' mentality that we've completely forgotten what it means to actually ENJOY life while you live it? Part of that includes enjoying your family.

Besides that- why is it too much to ask for paid maternity leave? Nothing eases the stress (and new financial 'tension') of a new baby like a loss of income. You get paid for vacation time... why not maternity (or paternity) leave??

Okay, let me say first off that I'm absolutely NOT supporting discrimination against pregnant women and I believe something should be done.

That said, an economic justification could be made for not paying for maternity leave.

It's true that on vacation you are paid for time that you are not working. However, it is also true that vacation time is acrued during time that you are working. The longer you work there, the more time you get. Maternity leave is based on the fact that you're a woman and you have a baby. You haven't "earned" the time in the same way that vacation time is earned, you're just given it. So, in addition to offering you your vacation time, your employer is now asked to pay you further time that you're not working based on nothing you've done for the company at all.

It's not a nice argument, and it's probably not the best argument. But it is an argument.

Economic justification for discrimination because one sex has been constructed for carrying and birthing a baby? I don't think so.

I see this as an issue of the need for a shift in how companies view pregnancy and pregnancy leave. I am of the mind that if men were the ones who carried a baby around for nine months the rules would be different. With shifting society views on women and men being allowed pregnancy leave, this might change, but as it is, certain company environments are extremely discriminatory. This brings to mind the "Behind the Pay Gap" analysis of why women earn less than men, and it is disheartening to see that women who return after being pregnant earn less than before their pregnancy. Yuck.

Musings:

1. There is a silver lining. Women might be bringing complaints in larger numbers because they feel justified in doing so and feel like a court or a lawyer will listen to it. Before pregnancy discrimination can go away, women have to fight for their legal rights.

2. I agree with Kimmie. I do find it somewhat odd that, once you've worked there twelve months, you can get three months paid leave, no questions asked. What might make more sense, bot for businesses and women who are getting a very expensive right (i.e. what amounts to a 25% raise), is to stagger the right. For example, you may get three months off, 1/2 pay, if you've worked there for a year; if you've worked there for two years, you get full pay, 3 months; three years, full pay, four months.

While I'm all for resources for pregnant women, the fact is that a woman can take a job, get pregnant three months later, take three months paid maternity, and repeat the process two or three more times, with the effect that she's getting paid for four years of work but only doing three years of work. That's expensive - no way around it.

3. As a pro-lifer, I'm all for resources for pregnant women and adamantly against pregnancy discrimination. I just wish that there were a better way to align the interests of women, families, and their employers, because it seems rather unfair for an employer to bear the societal cost of maternity leave. We all benefit when kids are born (personally, I do - I want doctors, plumbers, engineers, and all of those people in my old age!), so it's something that we should all look into paying for. Libertarian that I am, I wouldn't mind partial tax funding for maternity care - i.e. the state government reimburses 1/2 of the salary or something.

4. I know that, on Feministing, mentioning men's rights will get one a butt-kicking, but how do y'all feel about paternity leave, and, more importantly, do men sue for that? Sadly, when men exercise the right, it's seen as more legitimate. I'm all for strong families and husbands helping out their wives during pregnancy.

I want to be perfectly clear. I was NOT advocating the economic argument as being good or defensible. I was just playing devil's advocate a little bit and putting forth what might be an argument someone would claim. I absolutely believe that maternity leave is desperately important (and paternity leave, too), and I agree that the additional economic hardship of lack of pay for Mommy, Daddy, and baby is not going to help anyone.

oeniphile-
family leave is 12 weeks unpaid leave!It would be GREAT if it were paid. Most places do NOT pay you for that time off. Which is why I took 2 weeks off with my first daughter, and I took out an AFLAC short term disability policy a year before I planned on having my second daughter- because trying to pay the bills without one paycheck doesn't work so well!

Funny story, I think I've told this one before, when I had my first daughter, since I was so young my dad qualified for family leave at his job as a state employee, but his was paid. so he spent 6 weeks in colorado, skiing- while I spent 2 weeks home with my daughter and then went back to work full time. Paid family leave would benefit everyone. Having a new baby is a huge change emotionally and physically- the financial aspect of it hits you, no matter how prepared you think you are ahead of time.

Kimmy,

I know that you were not saying that it is defensible, but that is exactly why there is pregnancy discrimination.

On one hand, it's good that it's economically motivated: that's easier to change than sexism. (As I said, one thing would be for everyone's tax dollars to reimburse employers.)

I can see why people get upset about the idea of businesses that put profit before people, but, trust me, if what you're doing is at all important, you're needed in the business. You can hate on business all you want, but they are the ones who are paying you and giving you a job.

Random question: why is it not okay for businesses to give someone's job away if she takes more than her allotted three months? Hasn't she violated her end of the contract? It has nothing to do with pregnancy and everything to do with taking more time than is her right. If someone took six weeks of vacation time instead of two weeks, we wouldn't mind a company firing her.

I don't know how, but somehow, we have to change the workplace before women will truly have equal opportunities. We need to incorporate into the structure of work the fact that women are the ones to bear children and that bearing children is a social good. IMHO, we must stop stop stop this 'it's not fair; she gets something I don't get and she's not working as many hours as I am' mentality and understand that a childbearing woman is ipso facto doing socially productive work. Now a society that incorporates into it the value of 'family' can surely find a way to fully integrate women, in all our physical modes, into that society and find a way to finance it. The structure needs an overhall--work hours, flextime, on-site daycare, lactation rooms, breaks, leaves, more nuanced definitions of production, etc. If women have special needs because they do special work (childbearing), the workplace must be aligned to accommodate those needs. We'll never have equal opportunity, equal access, and equal rights until femaleness becomes normative.

On one hand, it's good that it's economically motivated: that's easier to change than sexism.

But the economics behind it ARE sexist. The entire system of business, as it is, is patriarchal, set up by and for men. The reason that women have so much time "adapting" to the workplace and "balancing" their lives with their jobs (as you see a million times over discussed in every mainstream media there is) is because the system was specifically designed WITHOUT women in mind, if we're felling generous, or specifically designed to keep women out, if we're not. Economics can be sexist just like any other system.

My mistake, Kp.

So weird that your dad got time to ski in Colorado and you couldn't get paid leave. Very sad, actually.

Even if you aren't getting paid maternity leave, the employer does have the costs of replacing you for twelve weeks (a low-level temp will cost about $25/hour, once you're done paying a temp agency), training the person, and, of course, if you're any good at your job, lost productivity.

Consider a receptionist who makes $15/hour and gets pregnant. While on maternity leave, the company hires a temp to replace her. Once they are done paying the temp agency, they're out about $4,000 more than they would be if the original woman stayed on.

As I said, though, I don't like how the interests of the companies and women are not aligned.

Wah wah wah businesses have to shoulder the costs waaaaah.

Businesses get pwned by every federal, state, local tax/fee/permit imaginable. I don't think the physical well-being of their workers is a stretch to pay for. Especially since most of the leave is unpaid.

Great post, Grace.

"But the economics behind it ARE sexist. The entire system of business, as it is, is patriarchal, set up by and for men."

Precisely.

Grace, I think you're on to something. You helped me think of an analogy:

Childbearing should be cast in the same light as something like serving in the National Guard. Yes, it's costly for businesses to hold open jobs for people in the National Guard, but there's also a social obligation for them to do so. Businesses are required to hold open those jobs and no one sees it as "unfair" the way they often see pregnancy.

The problem is that we see bearing children as a selfish activity (akin to a ski vacation in Colorado) and not as a social service (akin to the National Guard). And that's what needs to change.

What's more - imagine an argument where someone said "well, you chose to be in the National Guard, so why should I have to pay"? You could say "well, if there are huge barriers for people like me to make such a choice, our country will suffer."

Truth is, our country would suffer a lot more if no women had children than if no one served in the National Guard.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, unless I missed it, is that these arguments for the economic side of maternity leave seem to disregard the loss of profit to businesses due to increased sick days for both mother and child when the mother has to return to work earlier than what is ideal, as well as the children (most of the time) having to be put into daycare when very young. I don't have any sources to quote, so maybe I'm way off track and this post is erroneous, but it seems that this situation leads most likely to more sick days taken for the mother and the baby. When I had my baby two years ago, I was working for a private mental health clinic that had less than 50 employees. I had to take my vacation time as my maternity leave, and was on bed rest the week before my induction. So I took one week before my son's birth, and one week after. My employers were nice enough to give me one paid week off as a gift. My son was twelve pounds at birth, and I had a C-section. Needless to say, I needed more than two weeks to recover! But it was back at work two weeks after his birth, as I just couldn't afford to stay at home. Since then, I have had to miss work due to gallbladder stones, kidney stones, stomach upset, etc. It is just now getting better and I believe that it is because I got too exhausted and run down after his birth. How much money would my agency have saved by just being able to give me twelve weeks off and letting me recover, then having a healthy two year work period? (I don't blame my employers, they were wonderful and being a small company would never have been able to afford twelve weeks paid leave.) I do blame the government. I think subsidized paid leave is the answer. We can afford billions towards the war effort but can't subsidize maternity leave? Whatever.

I would say Grace has a good hand on the situation -- there are so many things that need to be changed before women can truly have equal rights. It's important to keep in mind, though, that the same societal attitude problems that make life tough for pregnant women also make it hard for the companies themselves to change their policies, especially small ones. I will personally work at a large company until after I have kids (hopefully in the next five or six years), because at least the good ones do provide these benefits -- currently, I get 6 weeks paid, then 6 weeks at 60% pay, and I can take unpaid up to 6 months without worrying about losing my job. Same deal for men who want to take paternity leave. My company will even help out significantly with adoption costs and services, and THEN give all that paid leave. We've got thousands of employees world-wide, but for a small company, this type of financial burden is nearly impossible to bear, and we've got to start from ground-up to get that changed.

Hello,

I would just like to add to kpsisu's point that the 12 weeks of sick time under FMLA is not only not required to be paid by the employer, but you only get the 12 weeks once a year on a rolling calendar year basis. So it's not as though you can take the 12 weeks leading up to the December 31 and then start another 12 weeks starting January 1 (or any other year-marker, fiscal, employment anniversary, or otherwise). And it's not like you can say to management, ta ta, I'm off for some sick leave -- there is a verification process requiring doctor certifications in most (if not all) situations.

It's also not necessarily more expensive for an employer to replace a person on sick leave with a temp. Employees usually cost 1.25 - 2 times their salary when you factor in benefits, taxes, worker's comp, other types of insurance, etc., depending upon the locale. While you pay more to the temp agency per hour than you might pay your worker in straight time, taxes, insurance, etc. are included in that fee. So often a temp will end up costing less than the permanent employee. (And I don't know what temp agencies can get $25/hour for a "low-level temp" - maybe in some markets but none of the markets that the agencies I worked for were in.)

Furthermore, taking long leaves of absence can be risky for the employee, as there are situations in which the employer can replace the employee. The employer must put the employee into a position with comparable responsibilities and compensation, but the employee can still get bumped around. (What if he or she ends up in a unit that is in a bad fiscal position, and gets laid off a year later?)

I would support leave for the non-birthing parent with a new child. I hate to call it "paternity leave" because it presumes that at least one parent is male. If both parents are present, both should share equally in the child-rearing.

Economic arguments for not giving paid leave (or any leave) for childbirth, adoption, or extended illnesses generally presume at least middle-class income levels. It's a vicious downward cycle when you're already in the hole and then need extended time off, not to mention ending up with horrendous health care bills.

Economics is a natural law. You can't change it by policy.

It will always be expensive to train people, unless the woman in question is working in an unskilled job. It will always be expensive to pay her benefits (to whomever said that benefits add a lot of cost: what, do you think that she stops receiving health care while on maternity?) and to pay another employee to do her job. It's never going to be cheap to lose an employee for three months, no matter how you slice it.

(Depending on the business, it can take anywhere from a few weeks to several years for a company's investment in an employee to pay off. There is a reason why companies try to only hire people who will stay on for a long time: it's too expensive to search for new workers, hire them, and get them up to speed. It takes their time and it takes time of the people who train them.)

The only way that policy changes will make economics friendly to women is if women on maternity leave are required to do flex time or telecommute from home. Otherwise, there's a huge loss.

I do take issue with the fact that it's difficult to ask a woman if she intends to return to work. If she does, great - the company can hire a temp or rearrange workers to take over her duties. Otherwise, it's best if the company knows sooner rather than later, so they can make appropriate arrangements for a new worker. (The woman could, for example, help to train the new employee, thus making the transition easier for the business.) Rules that discourage honesty (after all, the woman would be forgoing three months of benefits) aren't good for business and discourage pro-woman solutions.

Do some research on temp agencies. Most take at least $10/hour for their own fee. Not cheap.

The only solution, IMHO, is for society to recognise maternity leave for what it is:
1. socially desirable; and
2. an unfunded mandate.

We know that there are costs associated with hiring replacements or getting other workers to do OT to pick up the slack, and we know that there's costs associated with reacclimating a worker who has been gone for several months. Why not reimburse businesses for maternity leave, at least in part?

It is incredibly short-sighted to feel slighted over paid maternity leave. Let's remember that women are not just 'having babies' but they are raising the next generation of doctors, teachers, musicians, engineers, artists, and TAXPAYERS that are going to be contributing to our country. Raising a kid is a complete NEGATIVE DRAIN on parent's bank accounts. It's a huge responsibility emotionally and financially to raise a kid. If no one took this on, we wouldn't have a work force and wouldn't have much of an economic future.

Why not support America's families and give us the time we need to be involved in our kids lives so we can raise healthy, smart, well-adjusted kids? This goes for giving dads a reasonable work week (remember what 40 hrs used to be?) too.

This is so freaking obvious as the right thing to do but when our gov cares more about big business than the people, what can you expect?

Economics is a natural law. You can't change it by policy.

So all of the countries that run off a much more socialist economic system are . . . unnatural?

Actually, economics is the study of how products are produced, distributed and used. There are many different economic systems. And if it was a natural law, there would not be thousands upon thousands of individuals studying its various aspects and the ways in which the economy and economic systems fluctuate, because it would be far more predictable.

I'm sorry, that should say "produced, distributed and consumed."

I'm not exactly an economics buff, either.

Note: I posted this a few hours ago, but it had too many links, so it got held up in moderation. Anyway, here it is sans links.

Libertarian that I am, I wouldn't mind partial tax funding for maternity care - i.e. the state government reimburses 1/2 of the salary or something.

I second this idea (or some scheme along similar lines), oenophile. I absolutely agree that we need to think about birthing and childcare as a social responsibility, rather than a private choice that individual parents must bear the burden of completely on their own . . . or that companies should fund. If companies knew that taxes would help pay for family leave, there would probably be a lot less discrimination against people with young families. (Or people with aging parents or sick families members, for that matter!)

I know that, on Feministing, mentioning men's rights will get one a butt-kicking, but how do y'all feel about paternity leave . . .?

Um . . . mentioning "men's rights" is only a problem (in my opinion) when the rights in question are not consistent with a feminist ethic! Clearly, parental leave for fathers would be an awesome step toward a more feminist future. Men should be offered the same options as women for family leave AND encouraged to take it AND not penalized for doing so . . . just like women!

I don't remember any recent stats on men suing for parental leave. There was a great special report in of The American Prospect this spring about the family-and-work question, which included "What About Fathers?" and "What Do Men and Women Want?" I thought the whole report was fascinating.

P.S. And Grace, you posted after I left the computer the first time. I loved how you put this:

We must stop stop stop this 'it's not fair; she gets something I don't get and she's not working as many hours as I am' mentality and understand that a childbearing woman is ipso facto doing socially productive work.

I think it's absolutely crucial that, as parenting becomes (thankfully) more of a choice, childcare become more of a social responsibility--like (as Barbara P noted) National Guard service.

Syllogizer: Great point about non-gendered "parental" leave that would recognize the right of any involved parent to time off to care for family.

Also, I absolutely agree that we need to keep in mind that unpaid parental leave is just not available to all of us. I work in retail, and a co-worker (whose husband runs another store) just returned after her 12 weeks of "disability" after childbirth. Her husband took all his vacation time for the year to be home the first few weeks. Neither of them had the option to "opt out" and stay home with their daughter after that. Many of us can't afford to do the parenting we want to do.

You know Oeno, you argue about it not being fair to companies that have to pay out or workers in general who have to pick up the slack for a woman on maternity leave. But here are a few things not "fair": pap smears, menstral cramps, periods in general, menopause, breast growth in middle school, and less pay. Only ONE of those things can we change economically. So I don't support the arguement that 'someone has to pick up the slack' or 'why should WE pay?'. It's garbage.

Please, this is America, everyone is picking up the slack from someone else- we work our butts off in hopes we can enjoy life at 65. Gimme a break.

We can afford millions of dollars in contracts for super models, sports stars, and entertainment but maternity leave is the straw that breaks the camels back? What?!

And I agree with whomever it was who mentioned the friggin war effort. Now there is money being well spent. Why is there this mentality that we have to start from the ground up and figure out a way to balance work and family? Almost all of the other industrialized countries have figured it out... Take some notes at the next UN meeting and lets go for change!!

We aren't hunting unicorns here.. we're having babies. And what about this final note? You want to talk about 'fair' and 'equal'- what about the simple fact that after a child is born MOST of the child rearing responsibilities fall onto the MOTHER'S shoulders. This isn't to say fathers don't help out. But 90% is MOM'S work. So how bout that full time job/career and the full time job waiting for you back at home?

GO MOMS!!! :)

Bah. I hate when we have these discussions because everyone wants someone else to pay for their children and their ability to raise them. I don't mind paying taxes for schools, roads, public transportation, etc, etc, but there are limits as to how much of my money I want to give up. There just isn't that much money to go around. So if my co-worker, X, wants to go on maternity leave, by company (retail) will probably not hire someone new; instead, it will be "work harder." So 5 of us will be doing the work of 6, so I am getting paid less to stock the shelves because I must stock more shelves than before, AND you want to subsidize X's maternity leave by taking more money out of my paycheck?

Yes, it would be nice if work would be nicer to its employees all around, and give us more flex time and breaks and etc. But that is just not feasible for smaller businesses, or hell, in many cases, larger businesses.

Also, I am not sure why I should, for instance, as Grace says, redefine what productivity means. I mean, I love that people have babies. But I am not going to like it if X and I get the same pay if she works 6 hours a day and I work 8, because we have redefined productivity to mean that she worked less in order to better raise her child. If we are both working an hour at the store, we are each getting paid to do a specific amount of work in a specific amount of time. Getting paid to raise a child- there is no standardzation there, and there is no way to check out what she is doing with that paid time off.

YouDontOwnMe- how does a supermodel getting paid a specific amount of money mean there is less money for X in the midwest with me? The model is not subsidized by the government. Nor does she work for my chain of stores.

Cara,

The fact that training costs money cannot be changed, regardless of your good intentions.

Socialism doesn't necessarily work the way it is intended to work. ;) See Sweden's PM election results last fall. Socialist countries have higher unemployment rates, lower productivity rates, and are actually worse for women and low-skilled workers. That's a tangental issue, though.

To all,

I've said that I fully support socially-funded maternity leave. So before you get your fur all raised, read what I'm writing.

Reality is that maternity leave is a drain on business. Hiring people costs money; replacing workers costs money. Cara doesn't believe this to be true, but 99% of the world disagrees with her.

Since hiring and replacing workers costs money, a rational company will want to avoid doing this. Laws prevent the company from acting in its own economic best interests. That's one step in the right direction: the cost of lawsuits will increase the cost of discrimination above the cost of compliance.

The second step is to decrease the cost of compliance (a carrot, not a stick). As I said ages ago, kids benefit all of us. I like my tax dollars to be used for education, national defense, and not much else, but I would happily pay extra taxes to ensure that women get adequate prenatal care, maternity leave, and the like. Fact is, it shouldn't cost businesses money to do socially beneficial things.

You all ask why a woman should bear the cost of raising a child. I'm with y'all. (I'm all for public education and the like, which, FYI, shifts costs from parents to society.) I just don't understand why the big bad wolf, whoops businesses should bear that cost. Social costs are borne by society, not by individuals or by businesses.

What we ultimately really need is feminist economic policy and scholarship- pro-woman and pro-business policy.

YDOM:

You said,
But here are a few things not "fair": pap smears, menstral cramps, periods in general, menopause, breast growth in middle school, and less pay. Only ONE of those things can we change economically. So I don't support the arguement that 'someone has to pick up the slack' or 'why should WE pay?'. It's garbage.

1. Learn to read. I said, explicitly, that we should pay. Get a grip.

2. You're not logical. Here's a bunch of things that aren't fair: earlier death, higher rates of suicide, higher rates of murder, and a lower chance of getting the kids during a divorce. Only one of these things can be changed socially, so let's award kids to dads more often.

Yeah, that's a crappy argument, and not because it's anti-woman. Simply put: businesses are not responsible for any of the "unfairness" you complain about (sorry, unless you work for Playboy, your job and your chest are unrelated), so it's not their problem. Secondly, the "unfairness" is mostly biological... so how does that justify economic measures to fix that which can be fixed? Use economics to fix economic inequalities; don't conflate biology with econ.

"Maternity leave is based on the fact that you're a woman and you have a baby. You haven't 'earned' the time in the same way that vacation time is earned, you're just given it. So, in addition to offering you your vacation time, your employer is now asked to pay you further time that you're not working based on nothing you've done for the company at all."

Take out the "you're a woman and" part, and this point applies just as much to paternity leave.

"We need to incorporate into the structure of work the fact that women are the ones to bear children and that bearing children is a social good."

OTOH, doesn't maternity or paternity leave apply after the child has been born or adopted and can fit in a father's arms just as easily as in a mother's? Shouldn't leave for pregnancy complications be treated as a medical issue instead of lumped together with maternity leave? You know, like the way leave for skiing injuries should be treated as medical instead of lumped together with vacation?

"Childbearing should be cast in the same light as something like serving in the National Guard. Yes, it's costly for businesses to hold open jobs for people in the National Guard, but there's also a social obligation for them to do so. Businesses are required to hold open those jobs and no one sees it as 'unfair' the way they often see pregnancy."

...and society pays National Guard soldiers for their social good. If they have civilian employers, we don't expect those to pay for their NG wages, weapons, etc. If they are unemployed, we don't expect them to stay unpaid during NG duty. Paying maternity and paternity leave the same way would make tons of sense.

"I would support leave for the non-birthing parent with a new child. I hate to call it 'paternity leave' because it presumes that at least one parent is male."

When I say "maternity or paternity" leave I'm including adoptive moms too. :)

"We can afford millions of dollars in contracts for super models, sports stars, and entertainment but maternity leave is the straw that breaks the camels back? What?!"

Somehow, I doubt the small businesses that can't afford parental leave can afford multimillion dollar celebrity contracts.

Socialism doesn't necessarily work the way it is intended to work. ;) See Sweden's PM election results last fall. Socialist countries have higher unemployment rates, lower productivity rates, and are actually worse for women and low-skilled workers. That's a tangental issue, though.

So one election tells you that Socialism doesn't work? By that same logic, the U.S.'s 2006 election tells you that "pro-life" policies don't work. But I doubt you'd agree with that.

Sweden is worse for women how? It was actually named the #1 place in the world for women last year. I'm sure that it's hardly a definitive study, but I know that I would rather live in a country with free health care, a year paid maternity leave and free college than in THIS country which is, to put it nicely, quite the opposite.

"I'm sure that it's hardly a definitive study, but I know that I would rather live in a country with free health care, a year paid maternity leave and free college than in THIS country which is, to put it nicely, quite the opposite."

Unfortunately I heard that in Sweden a lot of companies are reluctant to promote female workers because they assume (wrongly) that any promoted woman will have a baby, go on 52 weeks of maternity leave, give birth again during that leave, be owed another paid 52 weeks off, etc. and they'll have to pay her the higher salary for several years in a row of not working for them. Does anyone here know if that low promotion rate really happens?

Hmm. Good question, Mina.

But to be fair, they do the same thing here. Businesses are constantly not hiring women because they're worried about them getting pregnant and needing maternity leave and not being as "dedicated" to their jobs . . . same with if they already have kids. And we don't even get the paid leave out of it.

"Hmm. Good question, Mina.

"But to be fair, they do the same thing here."

I should have been clearer - from what I heard, it's even worse there since the few workers who act that way rack up even higher costs. o_O

As I've mentioned a few times before, I live in New Zealand.

We are not a strictly socialist country by any means, but we do have many socialist-type policies, for example, 12 weeks paid parental leave, and 20 hours free childcare a week for 3 and 4 year olds.

We also currently have the lowest employment rate in the OECD.

We have a female Prime Minister, and women are heads of many large companies...

We still have a wage gap, and rife sexism, but I seriously challenge Oenophile's assertion that women are worse off under socialist governments.

Although Oenophile won't think this is a good thing, abortions here are provided for free, as is all maternity care.

Low income earners qualify for very cheap healthcare. (My 3 monthly Depo injection costs me $5, which is about $3.25 American dollars)

Prostitution is legal, because this is seen as a way of supporting and protecting sex workers.

So, yeah, I'll see your "socialism is bad for women" and raise you a "doesn't seem so bad to me".

That should say "lowest UNemployment rate"!!!

My husband (who is Australian) will probably kill me for saying this, but I want to live in NZ, now!

Actually, a lot of N.Z.ers go to Australia for work, because wages are higher there (much bigger economy and all that), but the cost of living is higher there too, and so often the "grass is greener in OZ" doesn't work out for many N.Z.ers there.

Also, their Prime Minister is an evil, hate-filled bigot.

So, shorter me: come on Cara, bring your Aussie hubby and move on down!

It does seem odd to me that someone would try to argue that socialist social policies aren't beneficial for women.

I just don't see the logic.

Well we actually live in the U.S., now. I did live in Oz for 3 years, though. Yes, it is VERY expensive (VERY), and the PM is in fact an evil, hate-filled bigot.

Do you think it was more expensive to live in OZ than the States? (sorry for the thread derailment, I'm just interested!)

I always thought the States was more expensive, but I've only been to the States once on a visit, not as a worker or anything, so it's hard to compare.

"It does seem odd to me that someone would try to argue that socialist social policies aren't beneficial for women.

"I just don't see the logic."

Especially since not all socialist social systems are the same!

Well exactly, Mina!

But even still, most policies that could be defined as socialist are about spreading out the wealth...so women, who are generally poorer, or out of work more because of child-rearing, are more likely to benefit.

Oops! Damn double click!

Anorak, It depends on where you live. When I lived in OZ, I lived in a suburb of Sydney, and even though I was paid much more, it was much more expensive to live a day to day life. In the states, I live in a rural area, so obviously the cost is lower. Though I did live in a relatively rural area of OZ for a few months, and I found that to also be more expensive than here. (my apologies for the thread derailment as well!)

Thanks Cara, now I can use your empirical evidence to convince my best friends to come back from Australia, where they are working too hard for not enough to show for it! (Come on home girls, you know it's more expensive there than even in the States, Cara says so!) ;o)

I will contribute to the thread derailment (sorry to butt in, Cara and anorak) to say that my husband lived in Oz for a few months last year (we live in the States) and he found it more expensive in Oz - in just about every area of expense. And anorak, in extolling the virtues of NZ, you forgot to mention that it is *one of the most beautiful places on earth*. Unrelated to all the social services you were mentioning, but a key part of the sell.

Thanks Charity, I will forward this comment to the friends I'm trying to lure home!

But, damn! you're not supposed to mention N.Z.'s beauty! What are you tryin'ta do?! Soon this place will be crawling with natural-beauty seeking socialist-leaning feminists who read about it here!

On second thought, that doesn't sound too bad at all. Come one, come all!

I haven't been to NZ, but Oz is gorgeous as well . . . I think it makes up for the cost of living difference, actually.

And, um . . . sometimes women get pregnant in Australia. I hear that there are some pregnant women in NZ, too. And some of them have jobs. And stuff.

Yeah, way to get the thread back on track Cara!

What can I say? I have a gift for segues.

Oh I could go *on and on* about my big NZ love, anorak (and Cara my husband loved Oz too)...but if you're worried about too many of us flocking to your shores, I'll quickly think of some deterrent.

*Still thinking*

Possums? We were told many people take issue with the possums. And I guess it was kind of...windy. And my husband, who is British, didn't appreciate "Pom" all that much, which I thought was HILarious (no one's EVER had better slang for Brits than for Americans, in my experience, so that was a real treat, even if it was just randomly in the newspaper here and there.)

But yeah, pregnant women with jobs and stuff.

Oh Charity, don't get me started on the possums. Little bastards.
I propose starting a possum-fee for those visitors who come to enjoy our socialist-natural beauty double whammy. Americans who visit after reading about NZ in this comment thread must take two possums home with them.
And, just for you Charity, any Poms who visit must take home three!(I am honestly very sorry about the turn this thread has taken, and take full responsibility.)

OK, I'll stop now...thank you for the big laugh and for indulging me. I'll pretend those *weren't* the worst things I could think of to say. And I will inform my Pom of the requirement!!

*back to official thread*

"Do some research on temp agencies. Most take at least $10/hour for their own fee. Not cheap."
***
Actually, ma'am, I ::worked:: at a temp agency. Pushed the buttons on the calculator myself while the client was on the phone, negotiating our fee. The fee was a percentage over and above what the worker's hourly wage was; therefore, our fee varied, which is why I objected to your quoted $25/hour cost. As I said, it would depend on the market you're in. In our market, I doubt you could find a receptionist getting paid $15/hour; in the market I'm in now, receptionists might get $12 if they have oodles of experience. (I should note here that I'm no longer in the temp business, though, so my experience in this region is based on trying to find a job that pays a wage I can live on.)

I really don't appreciate your patronizing tone. I see that you've made snide remarks to others, as well ("Learn to read" and "Get a grip" are examples that stand out at the moment). Such commentary really only serves to undermine your argument.

In any case, I think that this problem will slowly improve -- not necessarily at the mega-corporation level, though. Two things: first, women starting their own businesses tend to be a bit more understanding to both men and women and are more willing to work with employees who are dealing with childbirth, adoption, and extended illnesses. Secondly, the economy tends to go through cycles where, for a time, there are more people needing work than jobs, and at another time, there are more employers needing talented workers than people needing jobs. The latter time is when employees can ask for better benefits effectively, and the ones that really matter will last through times like the former.

You know, I would argue that the sexism is much deeper than corporate policies.

Yes, women have the babies. Yes, breastfeeding is a good thing, and it's easier if the woman's time is at least more flexible.

But in the five months since my pregnancy became common knowledge, not one person has asked my husband how long he's taking off after our baby is born. His employer did not sit him down and explain his FMLA rights. They did discuss use of sick time, although the assumption is that he will be back at work within the week. I, meanwhile, am facing appalled looks at the idea that I'm going to start spending 20 hours a week at work when she's about 6 weeks old. And we can only manage that because I'm incredibly lucky to have a flexible job that allows me to do a lot of work from home.

No one is asking him how he's going to balance work and childcare, and yet, there's really not a whole lot of reason why he couldn't assume a chunk of the burden if we operated on the assumption that all parents need at least flexible time for a bit after the child is born/adopted.

Did I mention I bring in about 2/3 of our family's income?

The sexism isn't just in how we treat pregnant women and mothers. It's in how we think of and structure childcare.

"first, women starting their own businesses tend to be a bit more understanding to both men and women and are more willing to work with employees who are dealing with childbirth, adoption, and extended illnesses."

Which reminds me, what parental leave for childcare workers?

"Secondly, the economy tends to go through cycles where, for a time, there are more people needing work than jobs, and at another time, there are more employers needing talented workers than people needing jobs."

Great point.

"...The sexism isn't just in how we treat pregnant women and mothers. It's in how we think of and structure childcare."

Exactly.

Oops, that should have been "...what about parental leave..."

Lucy,

I experienced the same thing you did - I made 2/3 of the family income, yet had people telling me things like "you'd be surprised at the ways you can find to live on one income" (who obviously were not privvy to our family's finances - like I'd be surprised at how well refrigerator boxes keep the rain out?)

Unfortunately, I can't report that it gets much better as the child gets older. When I registered my daughter for public school, the father's name appeared first on all the forms except one: the emergency contact form. Then, the mom's name appears first, because of course that's who will be available to take time off of work, etc.

It's subtle, but when it's everywhere like that it adds up to enormous pressure. And by the way, other women are very much complicit in this. (The quote above was from a woman.)