Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!petsd!peora!joel
From: joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Job protected maternity leave
Message-ID: <1591@peora.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 10:04:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: peora.1591
Posted: Fri Sep  6 10:04:58 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 07:17:26 EDT
References: <2711@sun.uucp> <422@mhuxr.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl.
Lines: 20

> 
> 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