Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!spp
From: spp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Job protected maternity leave
Message-ID: <10225@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 28-Aug-85 13:15:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10225
Posted: Wed Aug 28 13:15:35 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 22:19:30 EDT
References: <2711@sun.uucp>
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 20


     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)