dbercel@sun.uucp (danielle & the Kitten brigade) (08/27/85)
In the United States there is no national policy on maternity leave for
parents. The United States is the only industrialized nation without a
job protected maternity leave. What currently exists is the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act passed in 1978. This is a joke.
Consider:
A hospital worker in Louisiana asked for a leave of absence in her
second trimester. She was fired.
An assistant drugstore manager became ill in her seventh month of
pregnancy. She was fired.
An Ohio banquet coordinator arranged for a temporary leave during
her pregnancy. When she returned, she was fired.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act classifies pregnancy and childbirth as
temporary disabilities, and stipulates that expectant mothers must
receive the same health insurance coverage, income and job protection as
employees who suffer other disabilities. However, an employer who does
not provide such fringe benefits is not required to establish them. Even
if a a company does provide disability benefit coverage, it usually only
covers the time during which you are medically certified unable to work -
usually no more than six to eight weeks. If you elect to extend your
leave by taking an unpaid leave of absence beyond the time when you are
medically disabled then the law no longer provides any protection.
Further, the act applies only to companies with fifteen or more
employees, to employment agencies and to labor organizations. If you
work for a smaller company...forget it.
There is currently a bill (HR2020) introduced by Pat Schroeder that would
require employers to give mothers OR fathers at least a four-month unpaid
leave and protect their jobs if they choose to stay home with a newborn,
newly adopted or seriously ill child.
What do you think?
I think this is just another example of how we're discriminated against
at so many levels.spp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope) (08/28/85)
I'm a little ambivalent about whether job-protected
maternity leave should be required by law. Many larger
companies provide it voluntarily, but it would be an
economic drain on smaller firms.
Also, pregnancy arises by choice, not by chance like
other "disabilities". I for one don't feel like subsidizing
other people's breeding expenses.
True, many socialist western European countries provide
long paid maternity and paternity leaves. They also have
six or eight weeks paid vacation per year, and welfare programs
that go far beyond anything in the U.S. They also have
economies that are in the pits due to the extremely low
worker productivity that all this results in.
On the other hand I think there should be legislation
or regulations enforcing maternity/paternity leave plans
when companies claim to offer them, if as you suggest
there is a problem with employers flaking out on these benefits.
steve pope (spp@berkeley)mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (08/29/85)
> > I'm a little ambivalent about whether job-protected > maternity leave should be required by law. Many larger > companies provide it voluntarily, but it would be an > economic drain on smaller firms. > Also, pregnancy arises by choice, not by chance like > other "disabilities". I for one don't feel like subsidizing > other people's breeding expenses. > True, many socialist western European countries provide > long paid maternity and paternity leaves. They also have > six or eight weeks paid vacation per year, and welfare programs > that go far beyond anything in the U.S. They also have > economies that are in the pits due to the extremely low > worker productivity that all this results in. > On the other hand I think there should be legislation > or regulations enforcing maternity/paternity leave plans > when companies claim to offer them, if as you suggest > there is a problem with employers flaking out on these benefits. > > steve pope (spp@berkeley) You seem to be: a) For legal discrimination against pregnant women b) For legal discrimination based on size of employer company. How would you support making such exceptions to the equal treatment under the law clause of the Constitution? Note: The European countries you disparage also have a *far* lower per capita wages. By all appearances, workers and employees there have an implicit agreement by which workers settle for lower wages, but gain greater benefits and paid vacation. I am not aware of any conclusive proof that this arrangement is inherently inferior to the American (greater wages, fewer benefits) or that is is the reason for European economic troubles Marcel Simon
muth@amdahl.UUCP (John A. Muth) (09/04/85)
<> > Note: The European countries you disparage also have a *far* lower > per capita wages. By all appearances, workers and employees there have > an implicit agreement by which workers settle for lower wages, but > gain greater benefits and paid vacation. > > Marcel Simon I year ago, I had a conversation with one of our European employees about the differences in compensation between American and European employees. He told me that the major reason that the European employees got better benefits and less base pay than American employees was because of the tax system in Europe. The marginal tax rates in Europe are far higher than in the US. He said that in order for the company to give an employee $1 more in take-home pay, the employee's gross pay had to go up by $12. (I'm not sure about that figure, but I remember it was somewhere in that ballpark.) No implicit agreement nessesary, just simple economics. -- John A. Muth ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun,nsc}!amdahl!muth
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (09/05/85)
> > There is currently a bill (HR2020) introduced by Pat Schroeder that would > require employers to give mothers OR fathers at least a four-month unpaid > leave and protect their jobs if they choose to stay home with a newborn, > newly adopted or seriously ill child. > > What do you think? > > I think this is just another example of how we're discriminated against > at so many levels. Does this bill have any chance of passing? How can we help? While I'm not considering fatherhood for the next couple of years I am glad that there is some movement to allow new parents time with their children. I am especilly encouraged to see that there is a provision for fathers to be there. Such a law might even eliminate some of the discrimination mentioned. Wait a minute, Who's President? Are you kidding? NOW? I don't think so, but there's always 1986. -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto Public Health Research Institute, 455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016 (allegra!phri!lonetto) "BUY ART, NOT COCAINE"
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (09/05/85)
> > There is currently a bill (HR2020) introduced by Pat Schroeder that would > require employers to give mothers OR fathers at least a four-month unpaid > leave and protect their jobs if they choose to stay home with a newborn, > newly adopted or seriously ill child. > > What do you think? > > I think this is just another example of how we're discriminated against > at so many levels. I think such a bill is great idea, which in the current political stream has little chance of passing. I plan to write both Rep Schroeder and my own Rep in support of it Marcel Simon
joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch) (09/06/85)
> > There is currently a bill (HR2020) introduced by Pat Schroeder that would > require employers to give mothers OR fathers at least a four-month unpaid > leave and protect their jobs if they choose to stay home with a newborn, > newly adopted or seriously ill child. > > What do you think? > > I think this is just another example of how we're discriminated against > at so many levels. Would this bill effect small businesses? It seems to me that this could impose a great hardship on them, since the absence of even one employee at a small firm can be a handicap and in many cases hiring a temporary employee to fill the gap is not practical or is very expensive. It seems to me a employer might tend to discriminate, in hiring, against young married people, and in favor of single and/or older people. Joel Upchurch