From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:28:54 GMT

I've stayed away from this topic, but again, I find I'm compelled to
jump in.  Forgive me, it's a weakness...

In article <1992Oct9.204732.12246@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.230609.23542@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (Keith R. Jurena) writes:
>>
>>No wonder you sound so dumb.  You see, the Family Leave Act allows 3
>>months of unpaid LEAVE with the specific purpose of ensuring that a job
>>still EXISTS when that worker returns.
>
>What is the business supposed to do with the work that needs
>doing during these 3 months?  Just let it pile up?  Pay
>for somebody to be trained, only to be laid off before being fully
>qualified?  Hire more people than necessary and endure the
>overhead all the time?

What is the business supposed to do with the work that needs doing during
the three months that a woman takes off to have a baby?  Or do you not
wish women who give birth or adopt should be able to take even one single
day off of work?  Is that the kind of family values that you value?
I see absolutely no difference between maternity/paternity leave and
family leave.  Except for the fact that you don't have to pay even a
percentage of a salary for family leave, while most companies do provide
for about 70% for maternity/paternity leave.

>
>Do you think a business with 50 employees can afford to
>keep a few extra employees around not doing anything while
>nobody is on family leave to satisfy the government mandate?

Do you think a business with 50 employees can afford to keep a few extra
employees around not doing anything while nobody is on maternity leave
to satisfy the government mandate?

>
>>
>>>This bill hinges on the premise that employers are cold and
>>>mean slave drivers who don't care about their employee's families.
>>>I have a revelation for you: they are NOT.
>>
>>Uh, Keith - why do you think the bill needs to be passed?  Because these
>>imaginary benevolent employers in your fantasy are ALREADY granting such
>>leave?
>
>Those employers which are large enough to handle the burden do
>provide family leave, in some cases paid.  One of my friends
>and coworkers at IBM got ~3 months PAID leave -- another used some
>vacation time.

*I've* never worked for a company which provided family leave.  And I've
worked for some pretty large companies....I've worked for companies that
provice paternity leave, but the men are usually not encouraged to take it,
and in some cases, even told it could hurt their career.

Family leave is a tough issue. On the one hand, you have a supposedly
valued employee who needs time off and a guarantee of a job to come back to
(otherwise face possible homelessness).  On the other hand, you have a
business which possibly can't afford to lose that employee for that
short time.  IMO, unless someone forces companies to come up with some
sort of family leave, most companies won't provide it, as they are too
shortsighted to see that paying a temp or contract worker for that 3 months
is much cheaper than losing a valued employee and having to search for another
person which has to be trained.  By the time they find a new employee and
have him/her trained, the three months could be up--easily.  And, the
old employee could have lost his/her home.

You expect companies to "see the light" on their own.  That hasn't happened
in general before.  Studies have proven that on-sight day care reduces
absenteeism, increases productivity, and increases employer morale and
decreases employee turnover.  However, how many companies provide sucn
a thing?  Obviously, they don't think it is in their best interest to
do so and just as obviously they aren't paying attention to either the
needs of their employees or any of the studies.

Sure, some companies are mosre progressive than others, but we all can't
work for Apple, can we?

>
>>No-o-o-o-o...it'll ensure that people taking such leave will NOT be
>>unemployed.  Your grasp of the guts of this bill seems tenuous at best.
>
>Who will hire somebody knowing that they might have to be given
>leave time? 
>
EVERYONE may need time off.  It could be you, or me.  We don't know when
a family crisis requires our attention. 

And, to refute your insinuation that companies won't hire someone who
has a good chance of taking time off, why are companies hiring women?
Women take time off--and lots of it--when they have babies, or when
their kids get sick.  Women are still being hired.

>>Exactly.  Just the reason we gotta make sure creeps like SOME employers
>>are DON'T make people who need leave to give up their jobs.
>
>This is the point!  SOME employers are creeps and are gouging
>their employees.  In SOME cases, giving an employee leave could
>seriously damage the company.  We need a GUIDELINE, not a LAW!

I doubt that the expense required to search for a replacement, hire that
person, train that person would amount to more than what was lost by
a valued employee leaving--unpaid--for 3 months.

If a company has enough incentive, it will find a way to survive, even
thrive.

>
>Also 3 months seems a little long to me.  Why not make a shorter
>period mandatory, with longer periods earning the employer tax
>breaks?  Why is this bill the only answer??
>
>David Shackelford

Obviously, David, you have never had a baby.  Believe me three months is
not enough time to adjust to that baby.  Sure, you're recovered from the
birth by then, generally, but you aren't sleeping very much and you can't
be very productive if you aren't getting enough sleep.

I have a three-month-old son.  I am just now adjusting to sleeping only
6 hours a night.  And I stay home with him, where I can rest during his
naps if I have to do so.  If I'm feeling tired for some reason, or he
awakens unexpectantly, I'm BEAT by 2 pm.  Just think of how productive
I'd be at a computer terminal.

In fact, almost every day, I'm too damn tired by the time all the kids
get to sleep to even think about sex.  My husband knows this, and when
we want to do the nasty, he comes home for "lunch".  That's the only
way I can be assured of having enough energy for me and him.  I thank
god that I don't have to "work"--I'd be a dead person.


Jennifer
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52617 alt.politics.clinton:11133