From: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net (Orville R. Weyrich)
Subject: Re: Why do Americans get so little vacation time?
Reply-To: uunet.uu.net!weyrich!orville
Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 20:46:06 GMT

In article <BvEsDn.E7q@apollo.hp.com> betsyp@apollo.hp.com (Betsy Perry) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.182440.16208@informix.com> cshaver@informix.com (Craig Shaver) writes:
>>In article <BvAx3p.8ny@apollo.hp.com> betsyp@apollo.hp.com (Betsy Perry) writes:
>>.......
>>>Both are incorrect.  The U.S.  has no mandatory category called
>>>"Maternity leave", and it deserves its zero.  American women who become pregnant
>>>are dependent on sick leave or disability leave if their jobs offer them,
>>>and many jobs don't.  That's why some of us crypto-Socialists thought
>>>the Family Leave Act, although not sufficient, was necessary.
>>>
>>I think we can pick and choose who we work for in most
>>instances and I do not want to unduly burden our business structure with
>>welfare programs that the government should handle (with the support of
>>voter approval).  I think that we should allow companies to pay appropriate
>>wages for the productivity they get in return.
>
>George Bush's rationale for vetoing family leave is that workers
>should collectively bargain for it as part of their contracts.  
>This leaves most non-unionized workers (the bulk of the workforce) 
>out in the cold.   My experience in the workforce is that most
>individual workers have *no* power to bargain with employers: any
>request for change is met with "Take it or leave it,"  or, at best,
>with "I'm sorry, we can't make an exception to company policy."  Many
>of us have tried unsuccessfully to change individual employers' minds.
>It seems to me highly unlikely that worker bargaining can be relied
>upon to produce basic worker needs like safety and fair treatment;
>there's just too much power on the hiring side of the table.

If you are just a cog in a wheel [flipping  burgers a Micky-Dee's, for e.g.]
then you would have little leverage for making demands, but also should  have
little difficulty finding a new job after you have resolved your physical 
needs that exceed your available sick/disability leave.

If you are in a critical and important position, then every company I have
ever worked with was quite interested in how they could meet their needs
and the needs of their critical employees, also. I suspect that Unionized
companies are the LEAST flexible in accomodating individual needs -- need to
follow that Union contract, y'know. Can't bend the rules.

If you were unsuccessful in your negotiations as an individual, perhaps it was
because you made demands but did not offer any way for the company to also
meet its needs? 

Especially in the software business [and probably in many other technical
endevors], maintaining as small of a team as possible and as much continuity
in the team membership is very important [read Brook's "The Mythical  
Man-Month" for elaboration]. When the ideal team [or sub-team] size is 3 to 5,
then having a team member disappear for a few months "maternity leave" is
a disaster. Being forced to bring the former team-member back into the team
several months later is a double disaster.

>On the funding issue, I completely agree that the Federal government
>should fund maternity/paternity leave, rather than mandating it and
>leaving costs to be borne by the individual employer.  Unfortunately,
>with the enormous Federal deficit, we're not likely to see any new
>Federally-funded programs for a very long time.  (Hence my comment
>about "not sufficent" above.)

We agree that the government shouldn't put the burden on the employers,
and that the government can't afford it either. Now, can we come to some
agreement about how we can get the country out of this depression and 
balance our trade and budget deficits and get back to full employment?

>
>> I believe this is why 
>>females are paid less as a general rule, i.e., they get pregnant and take
>>too much time off and disrupt the work schedule.
>  
>The statistics I have seen don't bear you out.  Over the course of a
>normal work career, time taken off by women for childbearing is more
>than offset by time taken off by men for heart attacks and other
>diseases more common in men.  If your rule held true, one would expect
>women of middle age to be paid more than men of middle age, because of
>their better health and longevity.

I don't follow your reasoning -- women tend to need a lot of time off early
in their careers for physical needs characteristic of women.  Men tend to
need a lot of time off late in their careers for heart attacks. Is there
evidence that women in positions of responsibility similar to the men having
heart attacks do not also have heart attacks? My understanding of health
demographics was that diseases that men traditionally have been more subject
to were becoming more common in women, as women have been acting more like
men [particularly, lung cancer and heart attacks].

Since women take off time early in their careers, they tend to get passed over
for the crucial early promotions. Therefore, relatively few of them ever get
into the positions that tend to cause heart attacks, thus making women look
more healthy. 

orville

--------------------------------------   **************************************
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.                        Weyrich Computer Consulting
Certified Data Processor                     POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
Certified Systems Professional                   Voice: (602) 391-0821
Certified Computer Programmer            Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net
--------------------------------------   **************************************
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc