Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Child making and rearing
Summary: Employees should bargain for whatever they can get.
Message-ID: <11040@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 10 Aug 90 20:22:31 GMT
References: <6108@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 54
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: blanche.ics.uci.edu

-----
I wrote something in which this small piece has been carried on:

>>> What has yet to be explained is why parenting requires more
>>> subsidization in this society.

In article <6108@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM>, judyd%wizard.cna.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET ("Judy E. Drake") writes:
> There's something here that I think Russell and Brian are overlooking.
> The subsidization of parenting in our society is desirable because
> it's good business. ...

In general, I agree.  Especially in the provision of on-site
day-care, employers can provide a much more congenial and
wholesome work environment for a relatively small cost.
(Unfortunately, many state laws and the pending federal laws will
make it almost impossible for most employers to do this.  These
laws regulate to a ridiculous extreme the kind of building that
must be used for child care, and very few employers will buy a
new building or change facilities to do this.  The gradual
socialization of child care will be a very mixed blessing to
parents.)

The point I intended to address was the political issue, not the
issue of what employees and employers do.  Employees should
bargain for as many benefits as they can get, especially those
that are paid for by pre-tax money.  Employees can decide for
themselves what benefits are most important to them, and this
will vary from business to business.  Employees are not
homogenous, and the need for child care will vary in different
businesses, and even with different firms in the same business.

> I am NOT in favor of legislating that employers MUST provide these
> benefits to their employees. ...

An unfortunate side effect of this is that it actually produces a
mix of benefits that is less optimal for employees.  If, for
example, parental leave benefits are mandated, some groups of
employees that prefer first some other benefit will be frustrated
that they cannot turn these resources to something else.  The
more benefits that are mandated, the more uniform the mix of
benefits in every kind of business and every firm within a field.
Ideally, (from the employee's viewpoint) there would be different
mixes, so that the employee can gravitate toward the mix that
maximizes both benefits and salary for their individual needs.

> You can't provide benefits on an employee-by-employee basis. ...

Cafeteria plans are a step in this direction, though only large
firms can readily provide them.  For small firms, the solution
lies in flexibility and tailoring benefits to each firm's group
of employees.  As I point out above, mandatory benefits makes
this more difficult.

Russell