regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (07/11/85)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics,net.social >A matter of practical concern: Several have suggested that after a >woman has interrupted her career to have a child, she should return to >work and the husband should now interrupt his career to care for the >child for a while. This sounds good on the surface and in a utopian >world, it probably would be. Certainly it would be fair but would it >be practical? In this competitive world of ever rising cost of >living, does it make sense to interrupt *both* careers? Think about >it before you start flaming at my "male arrogance" and remember that >neither I nor any other male designed the "plumbing" of either sex. >(:-}) >Charlie Sorsby Some years back, there was concern that shortening the work day to 8 hours in some industries would make certain jobs less "productive" and put the employers at an economic disadvantage (and therefore, they would not agree to an 8 hour day). Ah....how "impractical". The fact that many parents of both sexes may interrupt their careers for a short period to deal with small children would help to reduce the stigma of leaving for short periods of time for personal reasons -- regardless of sex or the reason itself. We, the actual workers in the market, are as much the molders of this "competitive world" of rising cost (and of work expectations, which is what you are really dealing with, since cost is just a translation of the worth of a certain body of work). Afterall, it is by our actions, expectations, beliefs, vote, lobbying, insistance that we create our own environment. Women have historically "chosen" to take time off to deal with children. I submit that men have historically "chosen" NOT to. If the former chooses to do so less, and the latter chooses to do so more often, the workplace will adjust to include the notion of "time off" for kids as a universal benefit for workers, regardless of sex. Time-share jobs started out just that way, and haven't created massive binds in the market, either. Yes, I know you can give me a negative example. I can give positive examples. Do we need to go through that exercise?) Of course, men can continue to chose NOT to, but what is their gain? 'course, so many men don't think of it thatta way.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/13/85)
Personally, I would be delighted to see a further spread in time-share jobs, particularly in my own field, provided they did not include a large cut in pay. Unfortunately, in many fields the benefits vs. costs of hiring 3 workers to work 40-hr. weeks are significantly greater than those obtained by hiring 4 workers to work 30-hrs. a week. If all workers demanded a sufficient amount of extra pay for working the additional 10 hours, it would be equally profitable for the employer to hire more workers for fewer hours each. I don't think such circumstances are likely to arise. In any case, it would not necessarily be all to the good, as the loss in net productivity per worker would be reflected in prices. Mike Sykora
crs@lanl.ARPA (07/15/85)
> > Women have historically "chosen" to take time off to deal with children. > I submit that men have historically "chosen" NOT to. If the former chooses > to do so less, and the latter chooses to do so more often, the workplace > will adjust to include the notion of "time off" for kids as a universal > benefit for workers, regardless of sex. Unfortuneately, by the time the market adjusts to allow me to do so, my children will have grown to adulthood so I am unlikely to benefit, though they may. > Time-share jobs started out > just that way, and haven't created massive binds in the market, either. I didn't mean that the market (if by market, you mean the employers) would suffer; I meant that in todays world the careers of *both* employees rather than just of one, would suffer and the family as a whole would be at a disadvantage with respect to income. > Yes, I know you can give me a negative example. I can give positive > examples. Do we need to go through that exercise?) No. > Of course, men can > continue to chose NOT to, but what is their gain? Beats me; I'm on your side. I was just calling some practical considerations to your attention (collective form of "your"). > 'course, so many men don't think of it thatta way. -- Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa