From: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net (Orville R. Weyrich)
Subject: Re: Family Leave Act
Reply-To: uunet.uu.net!weyrich!orville
Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 15:19:07 GMT

In article <BvnH9q.5vH@apollo.hp.com> betsyp@apollo.hp.com (Betsy Perry) writes:
>In article <ted.718056682@sage0> ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) writes:
>>	Not really.  Spoken like a true pragmatist.  Terry was trying to
>>	point out the reality of what would happen.  Currently, in the
>>	US, a government mandated family leave policy would end up with
>>	companies offering family leave to women, but not to men (I
>>	believe that the family leave package proposed only mandates that
>>	women be granted paid leave for pregnancy and recovery periods).
>
>You remember incorrectly.  The Family Leave Act that Bush vetoed
>proposed *unpaid* leave of up to twelve weeks for all *parents* (male
>or female) to recuperate from childbirth,  care for a newly-adopted
>child, or care for a sick family member.  (There were limitations
>based on company size and on the "indispensability" of the
>employee as well; I believe the sick family member could be a
>parent as well as a child.)
>
>>	In such a case, companies would be more hesitant to hire young
>>	women (mostly married, but perhaps also single) since they might
>>	be more "expensive".  The logic is that if you hire a young woman
>>	then she might get pregnant and take the family leave and then
>>	the company would be short one more FTE for the duration.  If you
>>	hire a young man, you won't have to worry about offering him the
>>	leave if his wife/girlfriend gets pregnant.
>
>This is not true under the act as proposed.  Both men and women are
>free to take unpaid leave to care for a new child.  

But since it seems to be mainly women that are demanding this benefit [in part
because of real physical needs that men do not have], it might be presumed that
women would take greater advantage of it.

>On to a larger question.  Several posters have proposed that the U.S.
>would be a better place if employers were free to avoid hiring women
>of childbearing age because of their increased risk of maternity
>leave.  Do the people who support this idea also support
>discriminating against other individuals on the basis of their
>membership in statistical groups?  Should UPS be free to ban all
>single men under 25 as drivers because of their statistical higher
>rate of road accidents?  Should IBM be free to refuse to promote
>middle-aged white men because of their statistically greater risk of
>heart attack and stroke*?  Should Hewlett-Packard be free to fire
>employees who reach 60 because "They don't have many years left in the
>workforce, so they don't have that long-term point of view?"

I don't know about other posters, but I mainly oppose forcing employers to 
bear the cost of the maternity leave. If you constrain a system along
some degrees of freedom, then the remaining degrees of freedom will pick
up the slack and display far more severe fluctuations. A natural consequence
of forcing employers to provide such benefits is to make them disinclined
to hire those that require the benefits. Further constraining the system
by requiring the employers to hire such employees anyway causes employers
to seek ways to avoid hiring employees [in this country].

Any rational basis for public policy must begin by recognizing that [for
example] women DO have different physical needs and ARE NOT completely
interchangeable with men. This idea is currently not politically acceptable.
I am mainly arguing against "Political Correctness." [I am not saying that
women have less (or more) value, just different value].


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
--------------------------------------   **************************************