Sexism: Maternity leave and professional practice Oh My!

[Malamis]

Following a string of particularly interesting events concerning this topic in my workspace, as well as a few relevant articles i've come across; I felt professional sexism could stand a bit of constructive hollering, not least because i'd be interested to see how/if Japan handles it.

1. in a 2nd year university classroom asshat A taunts girl B up to and including insults concerning her reproductive anatomy. Were it not that i'd be fired on the spot I'd have slapped him with the monitor I was moving. Fortunately the (male) Lecturer was on the ball and handled the situation pretty well.

Query/invitations; have you witnessed this sort of thing happen? Do you even know if your work/school place has procedures and policies for it?

2. on the other end of the spectrum, Senior programmer C confides that he has for the past three months had to fill in for the maternally inclined project manager *who they hired 6 months ago on the understanding that the project needed a competent manager*. He is not being compensated accordingly.

This one bothers me, because its the only element that will ever affect me in any way, and therefore it's better to be prepared to deal with it when screaming at my superiors.

Admittedly, the IT sector is close to the fifth least likely place for it to even be an issue, so I expect other folk have more interesting stories to tell.

Political now:
I request that under no circumstances is the financial compensation imbalances between men and women to be used in this discussion, it is a separate part of the very broad issue which this is only an element of

What is your opinion of paid maternity leave? Discarding the legislative element, morally when should sexual discrimination be pursued as necessary for the job function? Is this even applicable in todays society?

This is a pretty lockstep issue in Britain (and for that I blame the likes of J. Smith) so foreign input would be appreciated.

Personally ( this being the pragmatist, as opposed to the puritan Christian speaking) I think that companies should not be legislatively required to provide maternity pay if they voluntarily subsidise all or part of the abortion costs. Naturally this doesn't apply too well to Britain itself as far as I know (free abortions etc), so i'm a bit stuck on any desirable alternatives.

looking forward to seeing what happens here...

 

[nice gaijin]

I'm not too familiar with some of the vocabulary you're using (imba pay grade? martian clergy?) but did you just say you think that companies shouldn't be required to pay maternity leave if they offer to cover the cost of abortion?....

that assertion is simply stunning, and I'm not religious at all.

I think companies should have the foresight to hire competent employees that will be available to engage in their duties, and if they can't for any extended period of time, a suitable replacement should be found. It's not necessary to turn it into a sexist issue.

 

[Haruspex]

I too am of the opinion that maternity leave is necessary.
If you think about it, it was not the womens` choice to play the role they play in reproduction. I am pretty convinced that if they had the choice, they would rather not go through the shat they do.
From a broad perspective, reproduction is an activity usually engaged in by two, so it is not restricted to women, men as well are affected by it. Now maternity leave is something deemed necessary by society. The other thing is that it would be clear discrimination against women to not allow them to go on maternity leave undisturbed. They as a whole sex would become disadvantaged, creating such an enormous group of disadvantaged group is not in the best interest of society (if the fairness argument is not agreeable in your opinion). It is fairly clear that this would cause unrest and disorder.

 

[Kinsao]

It's a knotty problem, maternity leave, and I don't know if there is a simple solution.

I work for an organisation that prides itself on providing equal opportunities, and which is pretty good at making employees feel that if they felt they were being discriminated against, they could easily bring it up with somebody in a supportive environment and would be treated fairly. They are also very fair with regard to maternity leave.

My organisation has a flexible working policy, which is very useful for people with kids at school - I don't feel any kind of resentment about this as we all benefit from it, me included!

They are also pretty good at working out part time arrangements with people (which, naturally, often includes 'new mothers'). Again, I don't feel this impacts negatively on me as a childless employee, as I could also benefit from it if I wanted to. They are also fairly even-handed as regards men and women - if a man wants to go part time for any reason he would get just as equal a chance as a woman, so no complaints there.

Of course people should get maternity/paternity paid leave; the main questions are for how long and for how much? My own view is that there should be a generous amount, but it should be possible to divide it between both partners however they decide between them. This would (a) avoid some of the prejudice against female employees, and (b) enable men to spend more time with their kid in the early weeks/months - therefore being beneficial to all parties.

 

[Malamis]

I'm not too familiar with some of the vocabulary you're using (imba pay grade? martian clergy?) but did you just say you think that companies shouldn't be required to pay maternity leave if they offer to cover the cost of abortion?....

that assertion is simply stunning, and I'm not religious at all.

Revised vocabulary accordingly, I went too far

And yes, yes I did. The point I want to make is the original purpose of legislatively mandated paid maternity leave; not putting individuals at a serious financial disadvantage due to personal choice, circumstance or what have you, is now possible to be abused from the other end. I therefore suggested the simplest method for correcting it, and would certainly like to hear your take on the solution.

I think from your tone in response you might think i'd advocate the execution of the disabled so as to reduce employer obligations, which is not the case. I'm more looking at it from the view that since it is a (usually) voluntary action which directly interferes with the performance of the job function, an employer should not disadvantage themselves in supporting that decision when alternatives are available, or indeed unfairly favor employees based on lifestyle choices.

I think companies should have the foresight to hire competent employees that will be available to engage in their duties, and if they can't for any extended period of time, a suitable replacement should be found. It's not necessary to turn it into a sexist issue.

And long may such companies prosper. Unfortunately this is not always possible thanks to sexual discrimination lawsuits and the eternal pursuit of money for nothing.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

on the other end of the spectrum, Senior programmer C confides that he has for the past three months had to fill in for the maternally inclined project manager *who they hired 6 months ago on the understanding that the project needed a competent manager*. He is not being compensated accordingly.

I don't think this issue is related to maternity leave or sexism, except indirectly. The real issue regards the conditions under which this guy should be covering the manager's leave, regardless of the nature of that leave. Is he her official deputy? What's the company's policy regarding deputation? etc. I think he needs to see his union rep.

What is your opinion of paid maternity leave? Discarding the legislative element, morally when should sexual discrimination be pursued as necessary for the job function? Is this even applicable in todays society?

Assuming that a person in a particular job role is the best person to fulfill that role, it's in the best interests of everyone that they are in a position to do so to the best of their ability. If having children makes them happier as an individual, that's likely in the long term to have a positive effect on their ability to do their job. Out of a 40 year working life, two or three periods of six month's maternity leave isn't such a big deal; even those who have no children have a good chance of taking an equivalent amount in sick leave.

It's not necessarily a bad thing for those having to cover the leave either, providing the employer is fair about how it's done. The manager of my department was on maternity leave recently, which gave someone else a good opportunity to get some management experience.

If maternity leave was abolished the consequences would be disastrous. We'd end up with women leaving jobs they do well because they want to be mothers, those posts would be filled by less able people, fathers would have to work longer hours to make ends meet, some women would sacrifice their desire to have children in order to pursue a career. Giving women six months paid leave is surely the lesser evil.

Oh, and when 'discrimination' leads to a positive outcome for employees who might otherwise be disadvantaged, it's called Equal Opportunities.

 

[Malamis]

I don't think this issue is related to maternity leave or sexism, except indirectly. The real issue regards the conditions under which this guy should be covering the manager's leave, regardless of the nature of that leave. Is he her official deputy? What's the company's policy regarding deputation? etc. I think he needs to see his union rep.

It is a small contracted software house, and they were explicitly requiring someone with the expertise the female in question had (and all present were unable to cover with their current workload). The man in question had applied for the position from the in house application option (so that in the long run they could escalate a vacancy all the way down to hiring a graduate concievably) but the woman was innately more qualified in the database design formats they were using. No hard feelings and all, but now he is expected to work his element as well as her element and the company simply cannot afford to hire two people to do the one job.
And they/he are/is stuck in that position because if they fired the woman, or had not hired her in the first place, there would be a legitimate case of sexist policy in employment, since the woman was more qualified & experienced.

As for the union rep thing, I dont think he is in one, and even if he was to file a grievance (which I doubt, the company is pretty good to him otherwise), the business could realistically go under if they dont meet this contract deadline and he'd be the direct cause of it.

Another example I personally know of happened in a struggling whiskey bottling plant of 6 men + secretary/web monkey, which was forced to close down in part because of being unable to maintain two secretaries/web monkies for the work of one at the same time for 5 months.

This is what i'm getting at, but you could look at it the other way in that companies of small to medium size when given the choice simply wont hire women of child bearing age, simply because they cannot afford the risk of being saddled with maternity payments. This in turn legitimises the grievances that anti-sexist campaigners, prioducing more cumbersome legislation ad nauseum.
Essentially, like any (laudable) benefit system this one is subject to abuse, but given the nature of those interested, informed political debate is a bit on the sparse side.

Assuming that a person in a particular job role is the best person to fulfill that role, it's in the best interests of everyone that they are in a position to do so to the best of their ability. If having children makes them happier as an individual, that's likely in the long term to have a positive effect on their ability to do their job.

Dont know about that one. The only backing i'd suggest is that parents have more motivation to do their job since they have a. more bills and b. different priorities. Balance that against more personal demands and concievably higher levels of stress, and the benefit to the employer ( who quite frankly matters more since their stability and success directly affects more people) to hire *any* married people (female more than male) diminishes significantly.

Out of a 40 year working life, two or three periods of six month's maternity leave isn't such a big deal; even those who have no children have a good chance of taking an equivalent amount in sick leave.

But the Married person gets the sick leave *anyway*, and would have a legitimate legal and moral complaint if one was substituted for t'other

It's not necessarily a bad thing for those having to cover the leave either, providing the employer is fair about how it's done. The manager of my department was on maternity leave recently, which gave someone else a good opportunity to get some management experience.
If maternity leave was abolished the consequences would be disastrous. We'd end up with women leaving jobs they do well because they want to be mothers, those posts would be filled by less able people, fathers would have to work longer hours to make ends meet,

And this is why a sane balance has to be found, which wont happen if it remains a taboo subject.

some women would sacrifice their desire to have children in order to pursue a career.

O NOES!
I was agreeing with you up to there.
I legitimately cannot pursue or express certain political views and certain (as of a few years ago) illegal hobbies as they would infringe on the pursuit of my career ( i.e. government IT admin'ing) . I made the wiser and more productive choice and dont see why my employer has to subsidise someone who hasn't, especially when it is at my expense.

Giving women six months paid leave is surely the lesser evil.
Oh, and when 'discrimination' leads to a positive outcome for employees who might otherwise be disadvantaged, it's called Equal Opportunities.

This I know, as my dear ole disabled mum benefitted from it after I was born.

 

[nice gaijin]

O NOES!
I was agreeing with you up to there.
I legitimately cannot pursue or express certain political views and certain (as of a few years ago) illegal hobbies as they would infringe on the pursuit of my career ( i.e. government IT admin'ing) . I made the wiser and more productive choice and dont see why my employer has to subsidise someone who hasn't, especially when it is at my expense.

First you were saying that offering to pay for abortion is an equivalent substitute for maternity leave, now you're equating the "choice" of having children with whatever illegal activities you had to either give up or cover up in order to keep your job?

You, my friend, have jumped the shark.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

It is a small contracted software house, and ... the company simply cannot afford to hire two people to do the one job.

I agree, that's a difficult situation and I'm not sure what the solution is.

O NOES!
I was agreeing with you up to there.
I legitimately cannot pursue or express certain political views and certain (as of a few years ago) illegal hobbies as they would infringe on the pursuit of my career ( i.e. government IT admin'ing) . I made the wiser and more productive choice and dont see why my employer has to subsidise someone who hasn't, especially when it is at my expense.

As nice gaijin says, having children really can't be compared to illegal activities! Having kids is a pretty compelling instinct for a lot of (most?) people, and I don't see why women should be forced to choose one or the other. Why is choosing a career over children a "wiser and more productive choice"? To name just a few, Marie Curie, Mary Leakey, Margaret Thatcher and Cherie Blair managed both pretty well.

 

[Malamis]

First you were saying that offering to pay for abortion is an equivalent substitute for maternity leave, now you're equating the "choice" of having children with whatever illegal activities you had to either give up or cover up in order to keep your job?
You, my friend, have jumped the shark.

My views on immigration control would have you livid, so I'll be sure never to go into them on here
Not so much cover up as give up following legislative change.
I just happen to like shooting small and/or fluffy and/or furry animals, and am no longer permitted under current law (look up the Dunblane massacre, its pretty sad how sweeping gun laws became after it) to do so with my own equipment. I could either have joined the rather counterproductive protestation and almost certainly get a black mark against my name, or found something else to do with my time. I chose the latter. [before you use this against me on the "valuable return of time and resources" schtick, I was planning to pursue a career in the army at the time, my eyes have since decayed beyond such service after a decade of staring at monitors].

As nice gaijin says, having children really can't be compared to illegal activities! Having kids is a pretty compelling instinct for a lot of (most?) people, and I don't see why women should be forced to choose one or the other.

Force is not the point, forcing other people (i.e. me, my fellow overtaxed bachelors, and the companies we work for 11 hours a day) to pay for it is.

Why is choosing a career over children a "wiser and more productive choice"? To name just a few, Marie Curie, Mary Leakey, Margaret Thatcher and Cherie Blair managed both pretty well.

I could make contention on Thatcher(especially), Blair and Currie, but it wouldn't accomplish much as my citable facts are limited.
As for wiser and more productive choice, choosing investment and refinement of current equipment ( i.e. OTJ training, evening classes, what have you) as opposed to the investment in a parasitic interest with no guarantee of return ( I currently "owe"[by my own estimation, they aren't bothered about it] my parents and aunt-types somewhere in the region of ﾂ≫??5k, and they will be dead before I even manage to earn that much after taxes.) is pretty much a non-choice in any field but the family. You can argue for sentimental and emotional rewards, but quite frankly there is no guarantee of them or the quality thereof.