Beyond the obvious affront on personal free will, the problems with this proposal are so numerous and egregious it’s making our heads spin. Firstly, Europe as a whole already suffers from low female labor participation rates; continent-wide, only six out of ten women work. This is a major problem for the region, as it turns out women have been the key factor driving economic growth worldwide in recent years (“women have contributed more to global GDP growth than have either new technology or the new giants, China and India,” according to a pre-mancession article in The Economist). Stigmatizing women by telling employers outright that women will not, by law, be as committed to the workplace as men is a foolish and self-defeating move.

Potential economic impact aside, what really riles us up is the huge step backwards the proposition would entail in social and cultural terms. By mandating that women take maternity leave, and saying absolutely nothing about fathers, the EU would send a continent-wide message that being a parent is primarily a woman’s responsibility. Some individuals happen to believe this; that’s their opinion and they’re entitled to it. But this viewpoint and the mandatory maternity leave proposal violate the EU’s own official goals, which state that women and men should have the same opportunities to combine their work, personal, and family lives. Not only would the mandate push women back into an antiquated role of homemaker and caretaker that many of us have struggled, for centuries!, to free ourselves from, it would signal to the citizens of the European Union, and to the world at large, that women belong at home with their babies, and that work, for childbearing women, comes second. Whether or not you would personally make the choice to stay home for the first weeks or months or even years of your child’s life is one thing: feel free to do as you please. But forcing everyone to do this is a sign that, from the top down, society has reached a verdict on parenthood, and that verdict places women firmly in the role of primary caregiver.

Not only does this possible mandate have a potentially disastrous effect on women, but on men as well! For the past couple of decades reform has been slowly but surely brewing regarding fatherhood. Official policy has not always caught up with social norms. The view of the “modern father” of the twenty-first century is not the suit-clad man who returns home from work late at night; he is the Baby Björn touting playground regular who sees fatherhood as a hands-on job. Sweden has provided paternity leave for fathers for decades. The rest of Europe has, in recent years, been catching up. Each day of paternity leave given to fathers is not just a day won in the life of a family, but a huge achievement in the direction of a cultural paradigm shift- one where shared, even equal, parenting is the norm. The damage the EU mandate, which completely ignores fatherhood and sends the message that the care of children is only a mother’s right as well as responsibility, may have on the view of parenting can’t be overstated.

To put it simply: the EU proposition sends a message that is at odds with all the progress recent years have shown about cultural views of parenthood.

Don’t get us wrong, parental leave is a wonderful thing. It gives parents the opportunity to bond with their babies. It gives families options. But mandating that all women take leave for the first six weeks is preposterous! What if the woman is the sole breadwinner in the family? What if she has post-partum depression? What if the couple prefers that the husband be the primary caretaker during the first six weeks? What if she can’t breastfeed? (Breastfeeding seems to be at the core of those arguments that support women staying home rather than men with young children. But not all women choose to breastfeed and some cannot, and some choose to pump so other caregivers can feed their baby breast milk So don’t use breastfeeding as an argument for why men are not as qualified as women to take care of babies. We’re not buying it.)

Sweden, which already guarantees mothers and fathers 18 months of parental leave to be split between the parents as they see fit, has slammed the proposal. In an op-ed, Sweden’s Minister of EU Affairs, Birgitta Ohlsson, writes “On a personal level, if the proposal were to come into force it would prevent me from working. As a mother-to-be I would have had to turn down my new job as Swedish Minster for EU Affairs.” If the proposal passes, it threatens not only to put Ohlsson out of a job, but also to compromise Sweden’s uniquely egalitarian parental leave policies as a whole. Don’t bring bad decisions down on countries that already have better policies of their own.

Hey EU Commission: scrap the proposal! And write a new one that guarantees a certain number of weeks of parental leave for women as well as men — but don’t force anyone to take it. That would truly be taking a step in the right direction.

A Peaceful Revolution is a Huffington Post blog about innovative ideas to strengthen America’s families through public policies, business practices, and cultural change. Done in collaboration withMomsRising.org, read a new post at the Huffington Post each week.

Enter Pamela Stone, a sociology professor at Hunter College and CUNY Graduate Center in New York City. In 2008, Stone published Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home (University of California Press) to academic and popular acclaim. Based on in-depth interviews with married moms who quit their high-status jobs, Stone’s work is a welcome antidote to years of bickering about professional women and the workplace.

We caught up with Stone in New York to discuss her book. We don’t want to overwhelm you with too much brilliance all at once, so we’ll be posting our conversation with Stone in four parts. In Part One, Stone debunks common myths about the workplace and provides some refreshingly pragmatic and recession-friendly advice on how to improve it.

Myth #1: An invisible hand in the market dictates that work must be inflexible, brutish, and long.

Pamela Stone: Speaking now, in this economic crisis, it gets harder and harder to argue that there is an incentive for businesses to implement flexible policies. That said, every single study that has ever been done has shown that the introduction of workplace flexibility and new work arrangements result in increased productivity, increased retention, and less turnover. So, in fact, even in today’s economy, there is still a bottom line argument that can be made for flexibility.

I think that employers are often resistant to hearing this evidence because our current models are so heavily entrenched that a lot of people, workers included, tend to mystify their work processes. They think that there is some sort of invisible hand in the market that drives them, not understanding that there is no invisible hand other than our own.

The problem is that we are so used to a “go it alone” kind of market-driven system in the US that we have no idea that in other, comparable countries people consider these things to be rights. It is completely alien to us to think that we have a right to parental leave. Or that we have a right to a certain number of vacation or personal days. The hope is that people will realize that it is not their individual problem to solve, but that it is a collective problem that springs from the enormous mismatch between the institution of the workplace and the reality of working families today.

What can be done?

Nix the long-hour work culture.
Pamela Stone: There is almost a glorification in some occupational cultures, especially managers and professionals, of working to the extreme. Frankly it is macho. These cultures become self-sustaining.

In the old days you’d hear people say things like “that’s not women’s work, I can’t see a woman doing that.” Well, everybody knows that they can’t say that anymore, even if they think it. But what they can do is make the demands of these jobs so great that it is impossible for anyone who has childcare responsibilities to do them. You replace essentialist stereotypes with the so-called “time demands” of these self-important jobs, and you accomplish the same thing. It is all about the construction of jobs and the glorification of crazy time demands.

Small changes have a big impact.
Pamela Stone: What really came out vividly in my interviews for the book is not that these women [who quit their jobs] needed some major change. Rather, they often needed like one day of telecommuting a month or a week. Often it is changes around the margin that make a huge difference between being able to make it all work and not. So we do have to re-imagine work, in particular getting rid of this insane long-hour culture, but I also think that we have to realize how much we can do around the margin and be open to making small changes.

Reform part-time work.
Pamela Stone: I think for the foreseeable future it is tough to deny gender roles. I don’t expect the next generation to become 50/50, even if they do think in more egalitarian ways than previous generations. I think women are still going to be the ones to take on more of the family responsibility and so they are still going to be the ones who ask for flexible work arrangements to a greater extent than men. Believing that to be the reality, and being pragmatic about it, I think that we need to be on guard about making sure that the penalty to part-time work is as minimal as possible or completely disappears.

—

Click here to read Myth #2: Most women who quit their jobs do so because they choose motherhood over career success.

- Liz and Astri

But what about our parents? I’ve recently begun thinking about mine. My mom walks religiously and eats organic, darling. Dad is a 61-year-old trapped in a 45-year-old’s body. He hasn’t touched a drop of liquor in 20 years (had a lifetime share back in the Russian Motherland), doesn’t smoke or even drink coffee, and can be seen darting back and forth in his pool year-round. Unfortunately, absolutely none of these enviable habits guarantee that my parents will remain healthy in the years to come.

The difficult realization that my parents are mere mortals made my heart skip a beat when I learned about Melton v. Farmers Insurance Group, a November 2008 U.S. District Court decision which ruled that Farmers was not required to grant an employee’s request to work from home in order to care for her cancer-stricken mother. The employee that brought the suit, Shawna Melton, is a single-mother with a young child. Melton’s request to work from home was denied and eventually she was fired for excessive absenteeism. Melton sued her employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and Oklahoma public policy. The court ruled that though they were “not unmoved” by the plaintiff’s situation, the company was not guilty of discrimination under those laws.

Whatever the legal intricacies of this particular case, there is a greater social issue at play. In the United States, there is no law that requires employers to provide employees with sick days, let alone allow employees to take sick days to care for ill family members. This is not the case in other rich countries: of the top 20 economies in the world, the United States is the only one that does not have a national standard for paid sick days. As a result, nearly half of all full-time private sector employees in the U.S. get no paid sick days at all.

Why doesn’t our system of social protections help us deal with events as inevitable and uncontrollable as the illness of our children and parents? Why should we have to sue–sometimes unsuccessfully–to take care of our families, in a country that so vehemently espouses the importance of “family values”?

To my mind, the best course of action for Farmers would have been to grant Ms. Melton’s request to work from home (they had, after all, previously allowed an employee to work from home to care for his disabled wife. Is it really fair to leave these decisions up to managers?) Farmers would have gained a more productive and eternally loyal employee–and probably lowered overhead office costs to boot. But how far should the law go in regulating employer actions? Can you really legislate flexibility?

Certainly, employers should be free to run their companies as they see fit. But what if they prefer not to hire Asians or lesbians or balding men? We have laws against that. (Okay, maybe not for bald guys.) Laws are extremely important in our society; companies fear lawsuits and jurisprudence often shapes our norms. We cannot always rely on lawsuits, however, to solve our social problems. For one thing, the legal process is costly and time-consuming. Besides, in some cases laws have not kept up with dramatic changes in our society, such as the rise of single-parent families (see Melton v. Farmers).

If we really want change, we have to demand more responsive legislation and far more responsive employers. In 2005, Senator Edward Kennedy introduced the Healthy Families Act, federal legislation that would have given most workers the right to seven paid sick days a year to take care of their medical needs and the medical needs of their families. The bill was never voted on.

The political dillydallying on sick leave is getting old–and so are our parents, I’m afraid. At the end of the day, if I was in the position of having to care for a sick parent I would want the option of leave and of an alternative work arrangement– wouldn’t you? Your parents may be superhuman in your eyes, but at some point they will need your help. Will your employer stand in the way?

(Originally posted on The Huffington Post – Peaceful Revolution blog).

Until recently, many of us twentysomethings were quite certain that we were invincible. Perhaps the only ones who now definitively know better are those fallen young analysts among us. Alas, in these tough economic times, some of us have succumb— gracefully, no doubt— to that catchy “last one hired, first one fired” refrain. Well, at least you still have your dashing good looks and your health, eh?

But what about your parents? I’ve recently begun thinking about mine. My mom is a sprightly 45; she’s gone through a mid-life crisis slash makeover, walks religiously and eats organic, darling. My dad is a 61-year-old trapped in a 45-year-old’s body. He hasn’t touched a drop of booze in 20 years (had a lifetimes share back in the Motherland), doesn’t smoke or even drink coffee, and can be seen darting back and forth in his pool year-round. Unfortunately, absolutely none of these enviable habits are even a remote guarantee that my parents will remain in good health.

Which is why my heart skipped a beat when I came across an article bluntly entitled “Company Not Obliged to Allow Employee to Work at Home to Care for Mother with Cancer Under the ADA” in the Labor Relations Bulletin.

The sad facts: a single parent whose mother was diagnosed with cancer asked her employer if she could work from home in order to be able to care for her sick mother and young child. The request was denied and eventually she was fired for excessive absenteeism. The woman sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and Oklahoma public policy. The court ruled  (Melton v. Farmers Insurance Group) that though they were “not unmoved” by the plaintiff’s situation, the company was not guilty of discrimination under those laws.

Whatever the legal intricacies of this particular case (and with one humbling semester of Con Law under my belt, I will bow out of that discussion, thank you), there is obviously a far greater issue here. In the United States, there is no law that requires employers to provide you with sick days, let alone allow you take sick days in order to care for ill family members. Not so, in many European countries. But even this glaring hole in our system of social protections doesn’t quite get to the heart of the matter. When push comes to shove, how far should employers have to go to accommodate their employees' family responsibilities?

To me, it seems that it would be more fruitful for Farmers to have granted the plaintiff’s request. This employee would have been far more productive if the employer let her work from home, rather than costing the company by being absent. Farmer's could have gained a grateful, eternally loyal employee to boot. But how far should the law go in regulating employer actions? Can you really legislate flexibility?

Certainly, employers should be free to run their companies as they see fit. But what if they prefer not to hire Asians or lesbians or balding men? We have laws against that. (Okay, maybe not for bald guys).  Laws are extremely important in our country; companies fear lawsuits and jurisprudence often shapes our norms. I believe, however, that we can’t rely on the legal system to solve these issues. The public, employees, you, me— we all need to make it known to the government and employers that we demand and deserve certain workplace protections. If I was in the position of having to care for a sick parent, a situation I have no control over, mind you, I would want the option of leave and of alternative work arrangements— wouldn’t you?

The problem is that especially for us youngins, it is difficult to foresee these situations and it is perhaps even more difficult to make demands (“first one hired, first one fired,” remember?).

But it is not impossible. I’m thankful for organizations like MomsRising that present us with opportunities to actually take action on important work-family issues. Now, we need to spread these opportunities to more and more people.

The Lattice Group, a grassroots non-profit that aims to get young people to engage in a public dialogue on the issues that arise when trying to balance work, family, and personal responsiblities in a globalized world, looks forward to doing our part. If you have any ideas, shoot us an email at info@thelatticegroup.com

- Vetta

"Company Not Obliged to Allow Employee to Work at Home to Care for Mother with Cancer Under the ADA." Fair Employment Practices Guidelines. 1/1/2009. Labor Relations Bulletin. Issue 644, p3-4. 

]]> http://www.momsrising.org/blog/companies-courts-and-cancer-oh-my/feed/ 1