Mothers in the workplace
Incisive arguments as usual on GMTV this morning.
"Why should workplaces treat mothers specially?" asked Kate
"Because they'll lose a large proportion of the workforce" replied someone. That was the argument and the only one I saw presented.
Here's the deal - if I employ a parent who demands, sorry, requires flexible time and has to disappear of at odd hours or someone who doesn't; I'll hire the person who doesn't. If I can't get someone to replace them, then I'll give them flexible time etc. because of that and not because they're a mother.
Stating that 50% of the workforce are women isn't a reason, how many unemployed are there out there.
Trouble as I see it is that if this keeps going on it'll get stuck into law and it'll be mandatory to offer female mothers flexible time; then equality will mean it'll be mandatory to offer male fathers flexible time etc. Then why should parents get special treatment. So everyone will be on flexible time etc.
At which point everything collapses because workers basically turn up when they want to.
11 comments:
I saw one opinionated women who runs her own business remarking haughtily that she simply refuses to employ any women of child-bearing age just in case she might find out one day that she's pregnant, and she wants to take a year off work, etc.
Now call me silly, but don't fathers get paternity leave as well? So is she now not going to employ any men of child-bearing age either in case they accidentally knock somebody up and decide they want to take time off and flexible hours?
I think it's a question of compromise. Employers don't want any of their employees to be parents, because it's not very convinient for them. But, unfortunately, some employees want to be parents. (I don't know why, but it is an undeniable fact.) Raising children is a sure-fire way to destroy your bank balance — and that's if your employer cooperates. So you can see why parents are anxious to have employers reject them for being parents. And if you're going to go to all the trouble of having kids in the first place, you presumably want to be able to spend some actual time with them, so you want to be able to get the necessary time off to do that.
(Having just said that, I've seen enough parents who apparently don't give a **** about their own children to the point that you wonder why they bothered…)
It boils down to employers wanting employees who will work when they're needed — which is reasonable — and parents wanting to be able to spend time with their children and be able to pick them up at the random times that schools and so forth sometimes demand — which is also reasonable. So we have two essentially reasonable but potentially rather incompatible sets of requirements. Figure that one out…
In reality there's a simple solution
"I've just had a child!"
"Congratulations. You're fired!"
Why should employers bear the burden on this? They didn't instruct their employees to have children, yet they're the ones expected to deal with the situation.
Because if you take that approach, 80% of the population would be fired. Quite apart from the fact that this 80% of the population would now be financially destitute, I'm guessing that the ecomony isn't going to respond favourably to an 80% reduction in the size of the workforce. (On the other hand, I am not an economist. Maybe in some perverse way this would benefit the economy.)
You don't fire people for eating or breathing, even though these things aren't particularly useful to an employer. (Indeed, there are laws requiring employers to let their employees drink, rest, etc.) Reproducing is every bit as natural as eating or drinking, and if employers are going to fire everybody who does this, nobody will ever be able to afford to live ever again. It's that simple.
However eating and breathing don't normally impact on work and are a requirement they're a need not a want. Would you object to firing someone for turning up to work drunk?
Nobody ever needs to turn up to work drunk. I'm nearly 30, and I've never been drunk in my entire life. However, for the continuation of the human race, it's necessary for people to reproduce. ;-)
(Although obviously it would actually be better if we stopped doing that. But it ain't gonna happen.)
Still a want not a need; well except for "We're the last two humans alive, we must repopulate the species". As a species we need to reproduce; as individuals it's a want.
If it's a planned pregnancy, you're expecting your employer to pay part of your wages (and the government i.e. taxpayers to fund the rest) while hiring someone else to fill in for you.
If it's unplanned you're still expecting the same things while at the same time possibly bringing into question your competence.
It's a want that almost every human being alive on the planet has, and it would seem highly unreasonable to grant it to the vast majority of the human population. Only a tiny minority of people are so absurdly rich that they can afford to have a family and not go to work.
I think you meant that it's unreasonable not to grant it to the vast majority. Except why not?
Just this morning a dog-owner was discussing the latest attack and pointed out that it could be classified as the owner's fault. 'If you want to own a dog' he said, 'You should have to pass a test'. Why shouldn't the same apply to having a child; why is it thought of as a right for someone to have a child?
Don't forget that it's not just the species that needs to reproduce. The State needs more citizens, and the best way to get them is to encourage its couples to make them. Up to a point, the State has an interest in making sure its citizens feel they can afford to have kids. How can it achieve this? The cost of the family allowance is easy to see on your tax bills, so that's undesirable for election-scared politicians. You also don't want to have all your parents giving up work for five or ten years and then finding they no longer have the professional skills they had before.
The State has a special power: that of enacting laws. By compelling employers to fund parents it can make parents feel more secure without the cost showing up on your tax bill. By compelling employers to offer flexible working time &c. it can give parents the freedom to keep their hand in, avoiding skills erosion.
Of course, you've already mentioned the down-side. Some employers can afford this even less than the State can. Many employers just won't offer jobs to women who seem likely to have children.
Granted I don't know a lot of people. However. Almost every adult I know is a parent. Almost without exception. (By contrast, I only know of a few people who have pets.)
If employers could fire people for being parents, almost the entire population would be unemployed. Only teenagers would be able to work.
[Although, walking around Dixons or PC World you'd be forgiven for thinking this has already happened!]
If you want to own a pet then fine, you pay for it, and make any special care arrangements for when you're not there because you're at work, etc. But having children is such an automatic part of every single person's life that it seems completely unreasonable to deny every single person in the entire country the ability to have children.
As to whether people should be allowed to have children if they're incapable of looking after them properly — that is a whole other topic. And a very big one, I'd suggest. ;-)
But does the state need more citizens? We have a large unemployment level combined with a growing retired population. Why would we want to feed that machine?
Again why is having children declared to be an automatic part of life that it even features in the Human Rights Act. It's difficult to argue that it's simply a freedom for the individual when the 'freedom' for euthanasia isn't so enshrined.
It's just taken as fundamental that having children is what we do, what we want to do; and therefore shouldn't be hindered in any way, shape, or form.
As a species again sure, biologically again sure; but then biologically there are those with violent mental disorders and we happily lock them up. Ah but this is a normal biological urge so that's different.
Why?
Post a Comment