From: hwatters@armltd.uucp (Helen Watters)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: gender "data-hiding" (vs. discrimination) [LONG]
Keywords: maternity benefits, discrimination, birth rate
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:01:40 GMT
Organization: Advanced RISC Machines Ltd



Alan, 
     I liked your reply. I felt it clarified what I was thinking even if
it wasn't quite what I posted.

Russ,

    Start living in the real world.


**************
*There are also numerous reports of women hired when a man was "the
*better person for the job".  Better yet, there are laws and quotas
*behind some of these decisions; not just the irrational impulses of
*a marginally-lawful employer.  If a man gets a job when a more-qualified
*woman doesn't, she can take legal action against the employer.  If a
*woman gets the job, despite being less qualified, they can claim that
*Affirmative Action forced them to make that hiring choice.
**************

In the UK where I am posting from there is no AA, so your argument does not
apply. Too many women I talk to in the UK about their company's employment 
policy, say there are no women in moderately senior or very senior positions, 
even though from where they are sitting there are eligible candidates. I
have talked to a few american women and most believe they were the best
qualified person for the job, but they wouldn't have got the interview, if
AA had not been in place.  Clearly systems designed by humans are rarely 
perfect, but the few women I have talked feel, AA has done an enormous amout
of good.

As to suing for dicrimination, I personally know of no one who has sued. Why
not? It is liable to get you labelled as a troublemaker and therefore
it will be harder to find another job. But there have been at least one
case of a  white middle class male(WMCM), who sued a council for 
discrimination, because they employed someone of ethnic descent, who was
not as well qualified for the job as the WMCM and the WMCM won.

*******
*In my business, at least, turnover corresponds roughly to the number
*of opportunities available; in a recession, people hang on to what they've
*got.  Otherwise, most job-hop decisions are salary-motivated ("my current
*employer doesn't offer me as much of a raise as I'd get if I went to
*work for...").  The typical scenario where I work:  Women take advantage of
*their maternity-leave benefits, which are available very quickly.  Potential
*fathers need to accrue time and defer taking vacations for a much longer
*period if they wish to spend any real time with their new children.
*******

Prior to recession many engineers were very mobile.  A women only receives
maternity leave/benefits if she works for a company for TWO years prior to
taking the maternity leave. But I still hear guys saying you can't employ
a women she will only get married and leave to have children. 
The recession has changed alot of things, so this situation will probably
only get worse.

******
*I, for example, am entitled to a one-shot "bonus" of 4 weeks off, which
*most men here seem to plan around child-bearing time.  However, that's a
*benefit that I don't qualify for until five years of employment.
*******

MATERNITY LEAVE IS PRIMARILY DESIGNED FOR THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER AND BABY. 
Got that.  Mothers who work up to the birth of the baby are more likely to
have problems, than those who don't and more likely to have a still born
child. OK maybe only one extra baby dies per several thousand births, but
it will still be extremely upsetting for the mother. 

What about the father you ask? Well your ideas seems to advocate to me,
that his feelings do not matter. Why should a REAL man get upset over
the death of a much wanted child? I suspect most men would shed a few 
tears over the loss. 
A small baby needs round the clock attention.  The child must be fed every 
few hours. The primary care giver must be on hand.  However much we spout 
about equality when the child cries, of the mother and father, it is 
usually the mother who responds first.  
I have talked to mothers and they say the cry of their baby brings at
instant response. By the time the first cry is out, they are up on their 
feet and running. Their baby's cry is something, they CAN NOT ignore.
A father, however much he loves the child(ren), however much he cares,
he simply does not respond as fast.

So it is usually the mother who gives round the clock care to the child 
at the start of that child's life.  The mother has been through a physically
demanding experience and then she has take of a person, who requires
lots of attention. So she is getting very little sleep. She becomes
exhausted.

GETTING THE IDEA.
 
Paternity leave enables the father to help the mother care for the child,
but the father does not need to recover from the physical side of having
a baby or have to cope in the same way  with the demands of the baby.
There was a TV program on who suffered more stress, who worked a longer day
A father who commuted to a professional job, or a mother taking care of
3 children, the youngest was 2.  The mother suffered far more stress
and worked on average 18hrs a day.

I also feel from your sugestion about how maternity leave should be allotted, 
you look on maternity leave as leave. A nice little holiday for the mother.
Which it ain't

I don't know about the USA, but in the UK, although a women may retain her
job, she loses all other company benefits, while she is away on Maternity
leave. She is effectively not an employee. I dont know what happens to man
who take study leave etc., but the feeling is that it would not be as harsh.
In the UK a company can force a women to take her maternity leave, if
she takes any time off at all during the last 6 weeks of pregnancy.

******
*Most women, though, are
*back to normal within four (especially for the second and subsequent
*children).
*****

Most women cannot afford the loss of earnings to stay off work any longer.
Children are very expensive and there is so little financial support. 
A women who returns that quickly is unlikely to be fully effective.
It bad for the company, bad for the women and probably bad for the baby.


****
*I don't see that (drop in birth rate) as a major problem.
****

I do. As the population ages there are fewer young people, to pay for
the services the elderly need. The type of health care the elderly often 
need is the expensive care of the chronically sick. Fewer young people
to pay for the pensions of the elderly etc. In the UK there is a 
pension of sorts for all who paid national insurance. I also believe
that the money I pay to the geovernment now is being used for services now.
When I retire, I don't intend to commit succide, and I would like to
have enough money to live on. Few young people supporting lots of old people
 could mean high taxes for those in work. The best and the brightest
leave the country, to work somewhere where taxes are lower.
Alternative low taxes, mean  not enough money to pay for sevices the 
elderly need, but who cares, there gonna die quicker than me. Life is for
the young. Lets kill the elderly off quick. Sentiments I CANNOT agree with.

Ok, suppose we do decrease, the population of the UK. Perhaps the country 
experiences a boom, where will it find the workers? Fewer employees means
higher wages. Oh lets import people from poor countries to do the work.
Well we only want highly skilled people, so the poorer countries, lose their
most valuable skills to the UK. Well the West has always taken what it needs.
It is OK, so who cares?. I try to care.

Europe tried this policy as well in the 50's and 60's. It imported 1000s of
people to do our dirty work.  The UK is supposed to have the best race
relations in Europe and the UK has not got it completely right yet.
In the UK, if you have lived here for 7 years, you can apply to stay 
permanently(not necessarily granted). In other European countries, this does
not happen. Some of them, say the media (not necessarily accurate) are being
deported from countries in which they have lived for approx 20 years.  Many
of the children have never been to their parents country of origin.

The West took what it needed in the good times, but come the recession, it
just discards people.  The attitude of some seems to be, "if only we get
rid of those **** immigrants, there would be jobs for all."  I don't think 
this is the solution, but the media seems to be reporting the rise of
more right wing racist parties.  So clearly some people think this way.

******
*One would think that with resources being more plentiful, a stream
*of educated, socialized people is exactly what we'd have.  We'd be
*able to afford the education, and our social structures would no longer
*be overtaxed.
******
No you could not.  The people who are primarily having kids, are the
very rich (only a few) and the very poor, lots of these.  The poor are less
able, for a whole load of very good reasons(like it is too expensive) to
educate their kids. So you end up with masses of poorly educated people,
whose expectations are often better than their skills.  
I have recently been reading up on the link between training and
success. All my reading has CLEARLY shown that better trained people, do
better quality work.  If a country wants commercial success in the world it
MUST make sure it has a well educated work force. 

What do I know about Japan? Not alot, but I will try and illustrate the
this point.  Japan keeps the majority of its population in school till 18.
It is also commercially a very successful country.

If a country ends up with mainly poorly educated people, it can't afford
anything. Let alone wonderful social programs.  It ends up as a poor
country.

*******
*No effect.  The job/worker ratio wouldn't change significantly, as the
*number of jobs would diminish with the reduced demand for products and
*services.  Yes, this means that companies would go out of business.
*In this model, though, certain constant things-- like tax RATES-- would
*decrease, as we have fewer and fewer entitlement programs to worry about.
*This would mean you end up doing less work for the same standard of
*living.
*
*With a decreasing population, your voice in government increases, and your
*representatives become more responsible to you.  
*******
List the poor countries, which are democratic. It seems to me that only the
rich west can afford democracy. Poor countries seem to have various flavours
of dictatorship. 
 
*******
*But the thing you haven't suggested:  WHO is to support these parents?
*******

Perhaps the question should be why?  Middle class couples currently have 
little incentive to have kids. As a result the middle class is dying out.
Most middle income couples are having either no children or only one.
The middle class are usually the ones who supply, your next generation of
educated workers. The rich can survive very nicely. Many of the systems in
place discourage the poor from trying, never mind succeeding.  I read 
somewhere, supprisingly small amounts of say tax relief would ease this
problem.

But the pervading attitude seems to be, if you want children you support
them. So middle income couples don't have children and there are fewer 
educated workers and the country goes down hill.

Your proposed solutions are just pie in the sky, likely to bring misery to 
millions. 

I get the impression from your posts, you want a well paid interesting
job, but without trying to get an education.  Well it doesn't work like
that.  Only those who work hard and are determined, get ahead.  An
education helps open a few doors. Lack of education means you have
to work harder to open the doors.  But it is what you do when you are 
through those doors that matters.

Helen