From: betsyp@apollo.hp.com (Betsy Perry)
Subject: Re: Why do Americans get so little vacation time?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:46:34 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

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.
>>
>>"It seems to us that the readers who want fiction to be like life are
>>considerably outnumbered by those who would like life to be like fiction."
>
>I see by your signature line that you may disdain those who fantasize, or at
>least mix fantasy with reality.  Am I right?  

No, you are not.  My .sig quotes a character in a novel by Sarah Caudwell; the
character is explaining why the novel *she* is writing is somewhat more
lurid than real life.  I have no objections to fantasy, except when
propounded as reality by political leaders.

>I am sure that I do not 
>agree with government enforcement of utopian fantasy programs; such as
>family leave. 

"Utopia", if you go back to the Greek, means "no place".  I find it
difficult to describe a social benefit available in most
industrialized nations as Utopian or fantastic, unless you believe Europe to be
imaginary.                                                

>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.

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.)

> 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.
-- 
Betsy Hanes Perry   (note P in userid)     betsyp@apollo.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard Company
"It seems to us that the readers who want fiction to be like life are
considerably outnumbered by those who would like life to be like fiction."
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc