Yahoo recently hired a pregnant woman to be their new CEO. This is generating a fair amount of discussion on the subject. The best so far is from Forbes.
[Marissa Mayer]’s a CEO and can give herself work-from-home days if she needs to. She can hire a nanny, a nurse, a courier, a cook. She can set her company policy so that infants are allowed in the workplace (which has benefits like higher morale in the office!). Her hot-ass husband is a venture capitalist with a flexible schedule who can take the kid to doctor appointments and whatnot.
You know who’s not a CEO? Almost everyone else. Marissa Mayer is an outlier, and while her actions may make splashy headlines, her situation doesn’t apply to the rest of us. […]
Things have improved immensely since the early ‘70s for college-educated women like me: In 1971, 27% of working women with B.A.s were able to take paid maternity leave; by 2006, that figure was 66%.
For women whose education topped out at high school, though, 16% had paid maternity leave in 1971. And these days? Why, would you look at that: The number hasn’t improved at all.
The vast majority of women going back to work after two weeks have nothing in common with Marissa Mayer. They’re dragging their weary butts back to work, and wrapping up their boobs because there’s no place to pump at work. They’re getting paid by the hour.
Clancy has quite a bit of vacation and sick leave saved up, so we’re not going to be taking as much of a financial hit as a lot of people do when it comes to maternity leave. Even so, it’d be nice if Clancy had been able to take her vacation days and get some time to take care of the baby after it is born. A lot of other countries apparently manage this, but not ours.
Having said that, there are some real concerns that would come along with it. The Forbes author gives an anecdote about how she declined to take advantage of something she was legally entitled to. Similarly, I know a pregnant woman who is under a degree of pressure not to take advantage of her due maternity leave. She talked of taking eight weeks of leave, and the response was along the lines of “We’ll see.” She was legally entitled to it, but an uncooperative employer can make life difficult for you if you take advantage of it. And if you force, force, force it upon them and go after them for anything that merely sniffs like a punitive response, you have essentially added a asymmetrical cost to hiring women.
Another female acquaintance, in response to Mayer’s hiring at Yahoo, mentioned on Facebook that she got her current job while pregnant. She said during the interview “I don’t know if you realize I’m pregnant or think I’m just a porker, but I’m only somewhat porker and very pregnant.” (You’d have to know her to believe as I do that yes, she would actually say this in a job interview.) She got the job. Would she have gotten the job if it meant that she would be gone for 12 weeks and that they’d have to pay her and a replacement? I don’t see employers as being that far-sighted.
So where does that leave us? The government could take care of paying the parents. A social evolution where men were just as likely to take the time off as women could negate any discriminatory effect. Alternately, if you had generous leave that was so limited that men would almost have to take the time off, you could relieve the discriminatory effect. Of course, then you would be discriminating against one-parent households. Unless you said that a single parent gets twice the leave, which then penalizes women who married their child’s father.
One other possibility, I suppose, would be tax credits to corporations with family-friendly policies. That would encourage more companies to offer paid maternity leave, but would let those that are worried about it off the hook. That would, of course, be yet another line in the tax code. There would also likely be some employers that would take the credits and then apply pressure on employees not to use them. Intuitively, it seems like the abuse would be less than simply by demanding maternity leave for everyone. Of course, you’d have to strike the right balance between “enough of a tax credit to encourage employers to do it” and “not too much of a tax credit to where they have to do it whether they intend to comply or not.”
About the Author
10 Responses to Maternity League
Leave a Reply
please enter your email address on this page.
I have to deduct points for plagarizing yourself.
Forbes: Her hot-ass husband is a venture capitalist with a flexible schedule who can take the kid to doctor appointments and whatnot.
It should be pointed out that a magazine such as Forbes would NEVER directly comment on the attractiveness of someone’s wife. They might say she is a former model or cheerleader, but nothing beyond that.
Of course, then you would be discriminating against one-parent households.
That would be a feature, not a bug.
—
Generally speaking though, why SHOULD companies be responsible for this sort of thing? If a company feels it is a good idea, then they can implement it. Obviously, women of that age are a burden in the workplace. Only out of charity are they hired.
I have to deduct points for plagarizing yourself.
There wasn’t intended to be the separation between the NaPP post and this one. This one just fell through the cracks.
It should be pointed out that a magazine such as Forbes would NEVER directly comment on the attractiveness of someone’s wife.
Probably not, but Mayer’s appearance has gotten more mention than a good-looking male equivalent would have.
That would be a feature, not a bug.
Maybe, but politically unacceptable.
If a company feels it is a good idea, then they can implement it. Obviously, women of that age are a burden in the workplace. Only out of charity are they hired.
For a guy who is against employment-at-will, this sure sounds a little like employment-at-will.
Will, the government does pay the parents. At least in California, maternity leave is unpaid — but, people who pay into unemployment and disability can claim some benefits for several weeks. The government benefits usually kick in four weeks prior to the due date, and go to 6 weeks afterward. The unpaid leave is up to 16 weeks by law.
Most licensed daycares start accepting infants at 6 weeks.
Can’t *you* get any leave as a teacher, or are you exempt as a substitute?
Oh, and the unpaid leave requirement doesn’t kick in until a person has been employed for a year.
“For women whose education topped out at high school, though, 16% had paid maternity leave in 1971. And these days? Why, would you look at that: The number hasn’t improved at all.”
I can’t figure out why this would be, since the leave is paid by the government. I’ve never known any woman whose company provided *paid* maternity leave. Wait, maybe some goverment workers, such as teachers.
Unless, of course, the high-school-terminal working women are part-time and/or tend to either be independent contractors (and therefore don’t pay unemployment and disability taxes) or don’t stay at jobs long enough to qualify for the benefits.
And I cannot figure out what the writer’s source is for this assertion: “The vast majority of women going back to work after two weeks have nothing in common with Marissa Mayer. They’re dragging their weary butts back to work, and wrapping up their boobs because there’s no place to pump at work. They’re getting paid by the hour.”
She cites nothing to back this. And by the way, most women with children under school-age *don’t* work.
Upper-class journalists and academics tend to make a lot of unwarranted positive assumptions about the work ethic, responsibility, and approach to parenthood of lower-class mothers. Here’s one yesterday praising unwed motherhood by spoiled-brat fame legacy Katie Roiphe.
Here’s the link, since I screwed up the html: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/in-defense-of-single-motherhood.html?pagewanted=all
Sheila,
California is an outlier. FMLA does not typically leave you paid. I can’t find a state other than California where that’s the case. (I didn’t know that was the case in California, but you’re right it is!)
I was wondering if you’d read that piece. It practically mocks itself, doesn’t it? “We can’t truly discuss single motherhood unless we’re looking at Ivy League grads, lest we get the wrong idea…”
She cites nothing to back this. And by the way, most women with children under school-age *don’t* work.
Really? I thought that was a class thing. Those of the upper-middle can afford not to go back to work, those below the working class go the alternative route for as long as they can, but in between you’re back at work before too long. This is wrong?
The majority of women with children under school-age (it may even be older) do not work, period. Most womenin that category aren’t well-off. I read that several years ago and have no reason to believe it would have changed.
My perception, although I have no cite, is that work with younger children is in fact an upoer-class thing. A liberal would theorize that lower-class jobs don’t pay enough to make paying for child care worthwhile (although there are child care subsidies available for the poor). A conservative would theorize that lower-class women are eligible for welfare, and therefore demotivated to work.
Will: Just so we’re clear, I wasn’t saying the FMLA leave itself is paid in California. FMLA is unpaid, BUT state disability and unemployment pay benefits for a few weeks during pregnancy and after delivery. Is that truly not the case in other states? That’s hard for me to believe. A pregnant woman is disabled for a while, and the parent of a newborn is advised to keep the infant home for a few weeks which therefore means he/she is temporarily unemployed.
Sheila, I think you live in an unusual state. Not unique, but not typical. Here is a rundown.
I’ll take your word on most parents not returning to work, though if you happen to have a source on that I could cite for future reference, that’d be great.