There have been several articles on workplace issues in the last few months posted to Childfree News, one on a similar issue in South Africa, one from a HR site, and one on the latest Hewlett whine-and-flop.

Most notably, California lawmakers are considering a bill that would make parents a protected class for purposes of employment discrimination. This is notable, since such protection is actually rare, and typically reserved for such classifications as race and religion. The general law in the US is that all employment is at-will, and aside from these rare exceptions, employers are free to let people go for any reason. Could this signal the demise of one of the last vestiges of capitalism and free-market economy that America supposedly believes in? Or is it an anomaly of the law signaling just how far pronatalism has come?

The original article has been removed, although one lone comment remains. I cannot find trace of the bill elsewhere; it may well have died in committee. Californians, keep your eyes peeled for news in case a call for action is later required.

Technorati Tag: childfree

Reader Responds to Bias Against Moms

Last week, the SF Weekly posted an article about how MomsRising is fighting the "bias" against mothers:

Mother’s Work

Some working moms face job discrimination, while others encounter barriers to success. They're all potential activists for the new grass-roots group, MomsRising.

MomsRising wants to address the obstacles faced by working mothers up and down the socioeconomic spectrum and push legislation to eliminate them. The barriers vary: Some women struggle to keep their jobs while managing pregnancy or child care, while others feel they've been knocked off the leadership track by inflexible work schedules or bias against mothers. Their reactions, however, are strikingly consistent. When women can't be both model employees and stellar moms, they feel frustrated and defeated, and often blame themselves. Rowe-Finkbeiner says they're turning their anger in the wrong direction: "We argue that when this many people are experiencing the same problems at the same time, it's a societal issue, not a personal failing."

This week, a reader responded in a letter to the editor:

Where's Dad?:

While I enjoyed Eliza Strickland's "Mother's Work," [Dec. 6] I found it one-dimensional. Often, the reason employers do not want mothers as workers is because — quell surprise — they don't work as much as childless workers or men.

Unfortunately, due to pervasive sexism, women still take the brunt of child care, usually working 10 more hours a week on housework/child care than fathers (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics). The missing part of Strickland's equation are fathers — where are they? Why aren't they picking up their kid when she's sick, or teaching them yoga? There's a reason her article is called "Mother's Work" not "Parents' Work."

Besides, it's unrealistic for mothers to expect they would get the same pay and prestige for doing a worse job than other employees. I'm sorry, but you just can't be as good a lawyer working 40 hours a week as you can working 60.

Having children in this day and age is a choice: to expect that that choice should not affect your career is delusional.

I'm beginning to wish that a blog could give a standing ovation.

Read comments to this post on Childfree News.

Technorati Tag: childfree