Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!think!rutgers!seismo!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!eric From: eric@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Eric Fielding) Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women Subject: Re: Yale-Harvard marriage study Message-ID: <1202@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> Date: Mon, 13-Oct-86 00:30:25 EDT Article-I.D.: batcompu.1202 Posted: Mon Oct 13 00:30:25 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 14-Oct-86 05:04:58 EDT References: <1150@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> <7916@sun.uucp> <597@chinet.UUCP> <1157@peregrine.UUCP> Reply-To: eric@batcomputer.UUCP (Eric Fielding) Organization: Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY Lines: 79 Xref: watmath soc.singles:487 soc.women:317 In article <1157@peregrine.UUCP> mike@peregrine.UUCP (Mike Wexler) writes: >In article <597@chinet.UUCP> rissa@chinet.UUCP (Garret and Trish) writes: >>Basic changes in the way we as a society view and value families and >>children would be a good start. Instead of trying to find ways to >>adapt your working and living conditions to an outmoded workplace, >>maybe you should ask yourself why the government hasn't taken steps >>to meet your's (and millions of other people's) needs for child care, >>maternal and paternal leave, etc. >I think that basic changes in the way society views and values families are >happening. that is one of the reasons why there is so much turmoil. >--------- >Why should the government make the changes. Why not use individuals. >Society is becoming more varied. Different people may have different >solutions. Why have the government extract money from everyone to implement >a solution that is not necessarily best for everyone. >> >>We will not have women's equality in this country until this accomplished. >>As things stand now, all women are penalized by society for their role in >>child-bearing and child-rearing, regardless of whether they have children >>or not. Instead of trying on their own to overcome the enormous logistic >>and economic problems most working couples with children face, theses per- >>sons would do better to push for legislative changes. >>Trisha O Tuama >Mike Wexler I thought I would mention what other countries do about "parental leave", quoted from a radical left-wing magazine :-{)} (Business Week, 6 Oct. 1986) [I don't normally read BW, I found it on a long airplane flight.] "In most countries--and more than 100 offer such benefits--leaves are extendable for multiple of complicated births, and the employee is guaranteed the same or a comparable job upon return to work. The U.S. has no parental leave policy. "Canada 15 weeks for mothers at 60% of pay, with national social insurance picking up the tab. Two additional weeks at no pay. "France 16 weeks for mothers at full pay, but only up to a max. covered by social security. Six months at up to 100% of maximum for third or subsequent child. Unpaid parental leave of up to two years for both mothers and fathers (only for companies with >= 100 workers). "Sweden 40 weeks for mothers or fathers at full pay, 90% covered by social insurance 10% by employer. 12 additional weeks at preset flat rate... Additional unpaid leave until child reaches 18 months. "West Germany 14 weeks for mothers at full pay, with social insurance paying up to the average wage and the employer the rest. Subsequently, up to 10 wks with social insurance only, plus another 10 wks at a reduced rate." Of course, all four of these countries have some form of social insurance that is providing most or all of the maternal leave pay, and also all four are trying to increase their population (Sweden, France and W. Germany all have birth rates below the replacement level). From the same article: "A parental leave bill is pending in the (U.S.) House. It would provide up to 18 weeks of unpaid leave for mothers or fathers within two years of the birth or adoption of a child... But the bill has been bitterly opposed by business groups as too expensive and leading toward mandated paid leave. Passage may not be in the cards this term." "...if we don't meet the needs of poor children, they can grow up into teens and adults with expensive problems Society should not regard child care as a luxury." (Descriptions of what some companies are doing to suit working women.) "If labor shortages occur in the 1990's....companies sell themselves to prospective employees, women will look at employers in a better light if they meet their needs" "80% of (female employees) earn less than $19K a year, mainly in service jobs.... It's unclear when women as a group will start to make real progress on pay. Although the average female worker has 12.65 yrs of schooling, while males have 12.57, women's pay for full-time work avergages only $15.6K/yr compared with $24.2K/yr for men.... But leading companies have started the process--and the work place may never be the same." ++Eric