Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA Rescue Package for Working Women
Wall Street tycoons behave irresponsibly, bring the country to financial brink, hold out their hands for an 11-figure bailout -- and lobbyists applaud that as a rescue.
Women achieve daily miracles fulfilling responsibilities to their employers and their families, ask for modest protections so they won't be fired for having a sick kid -- and lobbyists denounce that as mandates.
What's wrong with this picture?
Not so long ago, we were surrounded by ashtrays and smokers wherever we worked, ate or traveled. Babies sat on our laps in the car. Most paints were lead-based.
In each case, public health experts alerted us to the dangers. Values shifted; what once seemed normal no longer met the test of public acceptability. Groups of concerned citizens petitioned government representatives to do their job and set new standards.
Action on these items was nothing unusual. From child labor to Jim Crow to excluding those with a disability, our government has stepped in to end long-time practices. Each time they did so because popular sentiment said, "Enough."
Once again, there is a need for the government to protect its citizens. This time it's to make sure that workers are not penalized for being good parents.
We have a giant disconnect between what family members need and what the workplace provides.
It flies in the face of our values, and hurts our families and businesses, when workers can't afford to take time to care for a new baby or a seriously ill family member. And it jeopardizes us all when people are compelled to go to work and cook our food or care for our children when they themselves are sick.
Each time we try to advance, opponents rise up to tell us the sky will fall, business will flee. Consider this statement:
"(This bill) would create chaos in business never yet known to us. Let me make clear that I am not opposed to the (goals of reform). What I do take exception to is any approach which is utterly impractical and in operation would be much more destructive than constructive to the very purposes it is designed to serve."
That's Ohio Congressman Arthur Lamneck, arguing in 1937 against proposed rules outlawing child labor and establishing a minimum wage. More than 70 years later, these standards clearly aren't what threaten the American economy. But lack of minimum standards really is harming American families.
I've been thinking a lot about parents I know of three lovely children. Let's call them Scott and Kate. After Scott's job was outsourced to Taiwan, the couple lost their home. Since then, Scott got another job. Recently, they learned their daughter has cancer. Both parents have family leave and understanding employers. The problem is the leave is unpaid. They don't know how they can make ends meet with the double whammy of losing income while on leave and having to cough up the 20 percent health insurance co-pay.
There are many heartbreaking parts of this story. But what hit me the hardest was when Kate said, "I feel like I failed my family."
Kate and Scott have done nothing but work hard and take good care of their children. That should be enough. The failure here is a government refusing to bring the workplace into sync with 21st century realities.
Providing incentives to employers who move jobs overseas rather than those who grow them here -- that's the failure. Allowing health care providers and insurers to jack up prices without regard for the impact on workers and their families, or on employers struggling to keep their heads above water -- that's the failure. Opposing legislation that would bar employers from firing a worker who needs to take a day off to care for a sick child or parent -- that's the failure. So is blocking progress on bills that would provide income for workers during family leave. And even worse, telling workers these are personal problems they have to work out on their own -- that's an outrage.
The current bailout of irresponsible financial actors makes one thing crystal clear: Those who demand smaller government are quite happy to have government intervention in their own behalf.
It's high time we demand government do its job: set and enforce rules that benefit not just the rich and powerful, but the vast majority of American workers and their families.
17 Comments so far
Show AllThe writer's outrage is understandable, but somewhat misplaced; instead of fairness for those with children or who are married, maybe, we need fairness for everyone who works for a living.
As a single person, in a female dominated profession that is 97% female, I have spent large portions of my career covering for women out on maternity leave. Finding licensed, professionally trained, skilled workers for short-term work, no benefits and no guarantee of full-employment afterwards is nearly impossible most of the time, especially in the Atlanta area; and I suspect in most areas. So that leaves the rest of use to "carry on". As a salaried person, I end up working far more than 40 hours with no extra money or benefits or even "consideration" and you want the new mother to get paid for not working?! And, I might add; not one of those new mother's thanked me or the other staff for covering for them. The coverage also continued as time off was needed to care for sick babies and children.
In healthcare, excuses are just not acceptable, so lots of us work far more hours than are healthy or even agreeable to provide care for those who are sick or injured; and I can tell you, patients and residents don't care if you work 8 or 18 hours, they want attention and care.
Having a baby is a personal decision and is often under one's own control, assuming responsible behavior with some pre-planning involved. One can save for maternity leave or at the very least, in many companies, sign up for disability insurance, which often cover at least 50% of one's salary. One can save up vacation and personal time and some companies allow employees to use sick time pay to help cover the maternity leave. While is not a panacea, it is better than nothing at all.
Time off for illness is important, but shouldn't come at everyone else's expense.
DeColores,
Rockerbabe1
Somebody has to have children unless the human race is to end. The choice not to have even one child will always be a minority choice. Our highly social human life depends on a continuum, adults to care for children and adults to care for elders. Tomorrow's adults, who will take care of running the world when we are old and need care, are today's infants.
The work related problems you mention (overtime without pay for instance) should be solved by a union or by more enlightened management policies. Maternity leave could be covered by adeqate staffing or temps. Usually one does not thank others or apologize upon return from a vacation or sick leave, although it would be gracious. You could create an opening by saying, in a nice way, we really missed you. Glad you are back.
The burden of covering for maternity leave, sick leave or even family leave to care for a sick child as in the article should not be borne by an individual. We need 21st century family policies.
Joe
Hmm..this sounds to me like more of the same "keep us divided, fighting each other for the crumbs so we never unite for the whole buffet" kind of thinking that will ultimately lead to our demise. Blaming the people who "choose" to have children (the fact that reproductive rights are sorely lacking in many parts of our country aside) for your poor working conditions instead of blaming the system that keeps us all chained to poorly compensated jobs will only make the rich men richer while they chuckle behind our backs. Many european countries have a year or more paid maternity leave without destroying their remaining work force, and that is for both mothers and fathers. In fact, one of our great current crises is joblessness, so wouldn't it be a natural, logical fix to hire more people to cover those on leave? Of course, the crux lies in your statement
"Finding licensed, professionally trained, skilled workers for short-term work, no benefits and no guarantee of full-employment afterwards is nearly impossible most of the time"
In order to make it work, this is where the attention must be paid. Education must be made more available and affordable and healthcare benefits must also be elevated to a right for all instead of a crumb for us to fight each other for and cling desperately to once grabbed.
Only when we focus on these sorts of reform that help all people, and let go of the short sighted "whats in it for me?" mentality will we get anywhere. As long as you blame the other workers, and expect them to thank you for doing the job you agreed to be paid to do, instead of demanding better working conditions for yourself AND your coworkers, then you will remain under the buffet clutching your crumbs and growling at the others trying to grab theirs.
The author of this article makes it clear she does not understand the nature of the state when she writes:
"It's high time we demand government do its job: set and enforce rules that benefit not just the rich and powerful, but the vast majority of American workers and their families."
But that is not the government's job, to help all people. A state is not devoid of class content. Was the feudal state there to represent the interests of the peasant? Just the opposite, when the peasant revolted against the oppressive feudal system the feudal state smashed them.
The same today. What role does the state play in strikes? It sends its forces to break them or help break them by allowing scabs to break them. If we resist, they kill us. Why does the California Constitution state that moneylenders must be paid? Why does it not ensure everyone has a roof and health care and that human welfare comes before moneylender's interest? It's because the state is a capitalist state and in the last analysis it defends the interests of capitalists and the capitalist system.
This doesn't mean we cannot win concessions from their state, we can, but only temporarily. But in the last analysis, if their system is threatened, the forces of the government will be brought down on us to defend it.
And the same mistake is made regarding Obama. He's nice, well meaning, a good orator. He means well. This is all such personalized rubbish. He is a consumate bourgeois politician. Even if he meant what he said, he would not be able to accomplish these things through the Democratic Party, a capitalist party. Political parties also have class content and society isn't ruled by individuals. Just look who is around him. Paul Volcker? The right wing Zionist Rahm Emmanuel?
Yes it's historic in that a black man is in the white house given the racist history of this country, and with no class alternative, one would have to be a fool to not understand why black folks would vote for him on that basis only.
Lenin wrote that pamphlet State and Revolution and there is a short pamphlet from a speech he gave to Swedish students on the class nature of the state; they are good reading. Marx also said that the state is merely the executive board of the capitalist class; these views correspond with objective reality.
It is a testament to the censorship of genuine Marxist views that someone can teach any sort of social studies in a University and not have read those works; or worse, not learned from them.
Have to say this quote:
"In each case, public health experts alerted us to the dangers. Values shifted; what once seemed normal no longer met the test of public acceptability."
Just reminded me of '1984'.
The title of this article is misleading. A rescue package is needed for all working people.
And GIA, your comments amount to hate filled anti-male bigotry. It's not all "men" creating wars and prisons, it is the ruling class. Usually but not always men, see Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin & Condolezza Rice.
Working class men have lost more in the past 3 decades than any other group. Initially the Left was mostly composed of working class men, with some heroic and historic working class women as allies. Today on the Left, working class men are the forgotten victims.
As far as family policy and working class men, forget about it. Working class men are the most likely to be stripped of their assets, their income and there children by a Family Court system that views men as culprits by default. Rich men can fight that system. Poor men are destroyed by it.
And GWI, those prisons you speak of are populated overwhelmingly by underclass men.
The foremost indicator that a person is oppressed is a person's class status. More so than gender, race or sexual orientation, but in America, class is a dirty word.
I am sure that there are fathers who wish to support their children and simply cannot. For instance I know one loving father who moved out and lived with his parents so his wife could get Medicaid to treat some serious illnesses of two of their three children. His salaries from several jobs (no health benefits) were too small to pay for medical care, but too large for his family to qualify for Medicaid. There is little understanding, justice or generosity for the poor.
Still, I believe that the main problem is men, working class or otherwise, skipping out on their children or spending their money on stupid things like booze, pot, guns, gambling, cars, other women etc. rather than their children. That is on a micro scale.
On a macro scale, that is exactly what our male run government does - spends money on war toys, handing out cash to a small group of low-life, high-living friends, fantasy killing games, boozing up on oil - while the basic needs of children are neglected because .... there is no money for that.
Obviously it is ridiculous to demand money that someone does not have. First thing family court could do, if they were really competent, is to get a father hooked up with a job.
Joe
Women skip out on their children too. Women also spend time and money with other men and sometimes women. A woman's actions can destroy a marriage as easily as a man's, but the man will still most likely be the one that is expected to pay, even if the woman denies access to the kids.
Our family court system is a monster that contributes to the destruction of families by destroying fathers.
Joe, your assertion that it's all the fault of men is just a biased opinion and is not refected by the facts. I suggest the book "A Father and Child Reunion." It might open your eyes to the fact that millions of men are victims of our child custody system.
Family Court not only demands money from poor men but threatens jail time if the bucks don't appear. Our family court system is the only place where someone can be put in jail for owing money. It is completely unamerican and a promotes a kind of enslavement.
Yes, I agree that some women can be childish and irresponsible as well.
Some of our family laws do not distinguish between ABILITY and WILLINGNESS to provide care. If it is inability, we should be more about helping than punishing.
Joe
The road to fairness has a lot of cracks and bumps in it. Some streets aren't even paved so wheelchair users can roll on them or sidewalks don't have curb cuts so one call roll on to the sidewalk. (I'm thrilled that Ellen Bravo mentioned persons with a disability.) I shall use disability as one example: the ADA, Americans With Disabilities Act was passed and signed under Bush I. Through the courts, employers managed to make a mess of the rights of workers with disabilities in re job access going all the way up to bad Supreme Court rulings. Another law was required by Congress to fix it, quite recently. I'm not sure of the law's status now.
Everything is connected. Work, disability, illness, child care, healthcare, education, housing, food, product safety, clean air..... I am happy to have Ellen Bravo remind us of where we've been and yet to go.
I was expecting (hoping for) a far more radical article - but this is a start. Here's what I believe. I believe that the majority of our problems in this country (world) that result in huge expenses (prisons, wars, wall street failures, corruption) are caused by one gender: male. On the flip side, we women earn 75 cents to every dollar men earn. Why then are we paying the same taxes?
I propose women receive huge tax breaks. If men want to fill up the prisons, earn large incomes RUNNING the prisons, if men want to have wars and play games with our money on wall street - then let them pay the majority of taxes.
At the very least - as a start - reduce womens' taxes to our income: 75% of what men pay.
I agree in large part - except that profiteering men are filling up the prisons mostly with other men, poor or black men. In general, the "Suffering Olympics" harms the left.
Women are harder hit by economic problems. For one thing, they usually retain the daily face-to-face care of children. Also they interrupt their work history to care for the young and the old. They still get paid and promoted less for the same work.
I see the results among my adult ed students. Women can be tossed into a sea of troubles with little support.
We can recognize the special needs of a group such as women without competing. We can unite without erasing differences.
Joe
"we women earn 75 cents to every dollar men earn."
Men die on the job more than 5 to 1 compared to women.
"Why then are we paying the same taxes?"
You aren't. You pay according to your income, with no regard to your sex.
Sioux Rose
There's certainly more than a kernel of truth in what you write (GIA), and I'd LOVE to see those who want war and think incarcerating 2.2 million in a nation that has 2 billion guns on the street PAY for what these policies cost. NOT THE REST OF US!
The list of what's wrong with US foreign as well as domestic policy certainly stems from two obscene forms of lust: The LOVE of money (a/k/a worship of mammon) and idolatry of Mars, the oily muscle of the big, bad military man falsely deemed hero when he plunders women and children with high tech weaponry that cost more than it would have cost to feed those whose lives were prematurely stolen.
Priorities governing our nation have been off cosmic course for some time. Greed & militarism are sinking our ship to the extent debt still means anything. There is, too, the spiritual debt which the lords of karma have ways of getting paid... so many of us HOPE Obama will rise to the occasion, on the cusp of 2012, facing astrological implications similar to those that arose during the Great Depression, noting the unmistakable climatic seizures of massive global warming... this is NO time for business as usual, the old team back at the wheel, or the usual "solutions."
Thank you Siouxrose ...
Bring back the Goddess - I've had my fill of this angry old fart in the sky.
"It's high time we demand government do its job: set and enforce rules that benefit not just the rich and powerful, but the vast majority of American workers and their families."
The double-rowed shark-toothed monster, with tentacles all over the globe, but with sensibilities the size of a mustard seed [see? ... there's hope] must be caged and a steel collar must be put on its neck with an unbreakable leash attached to guide it and for outings ... at the pleasure of the public.
The monster, of course, is unregulated, laissez faire capitalism, set free by greedy noodle heads, poking and prodding it to gobble up everything in sight, with them or their lackeys runing behind to scoop up the cash excreted by the monster after his latest meals.
Broad public outrage, vocal and organized, can bring the monster under control. It's been done before. It's gotta' be done again, even though what we're up against is more dangerous than ever before.
We may have to experience the pain of the end of the line first before things change. But we have a new leader now, who seems intelligent, reasonable and dynamic, albeit with a few question marks already.
We will know much more the day after the inauguration. In the meantime send your thoughts, visions, ideas and ANGST to:
www.change.gov
The Office of the President-elect
and keep yelling to your individual members of Congress, re-elected ones and the new representatives of the people heading for D.C. Talk to your neighbors and fill them in, if that's necessary.
Currently less than 1 per cent of our U.S. population owns or controls 70 per cent of our assets. That sounds more like an Oligarchic Empire than a Republic of, for, and by the people with a democratic process designed for the common good and also for addressing minority and individual concerns in a fair manner.
Well, here we are heading for 2009, and one thing we do know, it's going to be one hellava' ride.