|
MichaelBerkovits-SecondPaper 13 - 20 May 2008 - Main.MichaelBerkovits
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< |
The Case for Universal Paternity Leave
-- By MichaelBerkovits - 05 Apr 2008
Paternity leave, unknown for much of the last century and still rare today, serves several functions. For employers, it is an attractive benefit to dangle in securing employee talent. For family advocates, it is a means of ensuring that more children grow up with involved fathers. For the women's movement, paternity leave counteracts the traditional female monopoly on child-rearing and its contribution to the paucity of women in powerful positions in society.
Women remain underrepresented in significant part because of continued expectations - by men, women, and employers - that women are far more likely to interrupt their careers to raise children. So long as women, including those well-educated, do so in vastly larger numbers than men, the problem of female underrepresentation will continue.*
- What is the point of making footnotes in a wiki, and then not linking them? The whole style is unhelpful and absurd. If you need purely explanatory notes, which you shouldn't in an essay like this any more than they would be tolerated on the Op-Ed page, then link them to the word or phrase to which they apply.
Maternity Leave: A Partial Solution
The creation of maternity leave, its enshrinement in law, and the increased availability of paid leave has allowed some women to forge successful careers who would not have done so under the older system.** Since The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), most large employers are required under federal law to offer new mothers at least 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Some employers offer more generous programs, in an effort to attract and retain the best female talent. Overall, however, no more than 15% of American women have access to paid parental leave.***
Even paid maternity leave programs (MLPs), however, do not solve the female underrepresentation problem. First, firms that instituted leave policies purely in response to the FMLA may well discriminate against female candidates for hire or promotion on the theory that they will take advantage of FMLA protections and hence be inefficient investments relative to other candidates. Second, even at firms with generous MLPs, women surely fear - accurately, no doubt - that taking a lengthy break mid-career retards career advancement, if not precluding promotion entirely.
Paternity Leave: One Step Better
MLPs mitigate the female underrepresentation problem by incentivizing some women to begin careers that would otherwise be inconsistent with their vision of family life. In contrast, PLPs ensure that more men take time off to help raise children. The more men who take paternity leave, the less parental leave is a distinctly female issue and the less it operates to exclude women from privileged positions.
Paternity leave has gradually become more common. Indeed, the FMLA treats males and females symmetrically. However, while many employers go beyond the minimum requirements for female employees, the same is not true for men. Among the Institute for Women's Policy Research "Working Mother 100 Best Companies" - a set of employers presumably sensitive toward family leave issues - none offered more than six weeks paid leave for new fathers. Nearly 50% did so for new mothers. According to another study, conducted in 2005, 54% of all employers offered some paid maternity leave, while only 12% offered (any) paid leave to new fathers. So long as PLPs remain less generous than MLPs, men will not find leave as attractive an option as do women. | >
> | This paper has been revised and is in final form. | | | | |
<
< | Furthermore, even if PLPs were both universal and as generous as MLPs, men might still be unlikely to utilize them. In Sweden, where all couples have access to sixteen months leave at 80% salary, to be split as a couple sees fit, men only take about 20% of the available leave.**** As each parent earns nearly his or her entire salary while on leave, the reason for this disparity cannot be that husbands earn more than their wives. The operative factor must be that women are expected to raise children, whether because of beliefs about their superior parenting skills or lingering prejudice about their unsuitability for the workforce. Also, whether explicitly or not, employers are likely to reserve coveted positions for the most demonstrably committed employees. So long as most leadership positions go to males, men cannot afford to take themselves out of the running by taking paid leave, even when it is available. And so long as men remain less likely than women to take extensive leave, the problem of female underrepresentation will continue. Something more than merely expanding the availability of PLPs is necessary.
Universal Paternity Leave with Equal Leave Time for Both Parents: A Bold Leap Forward
The rise of PLPs incentivizes more men to take parental leave than otherwise would. However, so long as paternal leave is optional, females, because of powerful economic and social forces, will continue to take the vast majority of leave. In order for paternity leave to dent the problem of female underrepresentation, it must be universal and it must be mandatory.
- That's ludicrous. People have rights. Your proposition is unconstitutional, just as it would be unconstitutional to tell mothers they have to stay home with their children until their children are ready to enter first grade.
Immediate implementation is politically unrealistic, but the Swedish system is a workable model and a worthy goal, so long as it is modified to require that couples split their leave 50/50 - either sequentially or concurrently - if they opt into the system at all.
- A government benefit cannot be conditioned on acceptance of an unconstitutional condition. Such a statute is as void as one that requires you to register as a Democrat in order to pay into or collect Social Security.
The system would be expensive, but at least part of the costs to productivity would be offset by a happier workforce no longer forced to fight the family - career battle.
- A "happier workforce"? Who do you think you are kidding?
A few couples might be dissuaded from having children altogether because of the burden of required leave by both parents. Other couples might have children later in their careers, after having comfortably moved through the ranks, leading to more parents having children for the first time when older. But these effects, if present, will be on the margins. Most parents will choose to have children, and most parents would opt in to the system of paid leave. The result could be a society of parents who take career breaks of equal lengths in order to raise children.***** Many more children could grow up with two parents involved in their lives from birth. Family, rather than being in constant conflict with career, could be in harmony with it. And the problem of female underrepresentation could be one step closer to being solved.
- This isn't social analysis. This isn't even science fiction. There is no polite name for what this is. You don't have any evidence in support of these predictions, because no society on earth has dared the experiment on your astoundingly tin-eared terms.
Notes
*It is true that one reason for the female underrepresentation problem may be that, because women on average hold less powerful (and hence less lucrative) positions than men, many women elect to serve as the parent who takes time off to raise children because it is the rational economic decision in light of the parents' respective salaries.
- It is true that one reason women are underrepresented in positions of power is that women, being underrepresented in positions of power, stay home more with the children? That's not logically coherent.
| >
> | | | | | |
>
> | How Swede It Is | | | | |
>
> | -- By MichaelBerkovits - 19 May 2008 | | | | |
<
< | In this sense, the fact that women bear the brunt of the child-rearing burden is an effect of the problem of female underrepresentation, as well as a cause. Regardless of the precise mechanisms at work, however, it is clear that the cycle must somehow be broken. | >
> | Congress does not ordinarily look to Scandinavia for guidance on economic and social policy. But when it comes to paternity leave, Sweden has it mostly right, and America has it mostly wrong. | | | | |
<
< |
- This is a sort of description of a feedback cycle, as opposed to the first sentence, which is a fallacy. But it is not a credible description of such a cycle, because the causal mechanism is unidentified.
| >
> | In Sweden, all parents have access to up to sixteen months leave, thirteen of which are paid at 80% salary. The cost of the program is split between employers and the government. In a two-parent household, the sixteen months can be split as the parents see fit, provided that at least two months are taken by each parent. | | | | |
>
> | The Swedish model serves several objectives. First, while no one is forced into the system, the generous subsidies provide strong encouragement to opt in, ensuring that more children grow up with early, full-time parental support than otherwise would. Second, the two-month minimum for each parent ensures that male parents in households opting into the system take time off to help raise their children; indeed, more than 80% of new Swedish fathers do. Third, Swedish women gain a somewhat more equal career playing field, relative to Swedish men. In a society where most people take at least two months of leave, per child, lengthy career interruptions are the norm for both genders and not merely for childbearing women. Therefore, Swedish women as a group do not suffer as severe a competitive disadvantage as do women in countries with fewer reasonable options for paternity leave. | | | | |
>
> | The American System
Parental leave has gradually become more common and more generous in the United States. Late into the twentieth century, women were often fired for having become pregnant. But since The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), most large employers are required under federal law to offer new mothers at least twelve weeks of unpaid leave. Some employers offer more generous programs in an effort to attract and retain the best female talent. Overall, however, no more than 15% of American women have access to paid parental leave. | | | | |
<
< |
- So far as breaking the cycle, is concerned, why didn't you take the simple route, dissolve the "nuclear" family, and call for communal child-raising? You would at least have had the kibbutzim to provide you with some data. Too radical for your very moderate social taste? Then why didn't you take another simple and much more moderate route, and call for a pervasive system of guaranteed state-provided work-time child care, allowing any custodial adult taking care of a child at any preschool stage of life to sign that child up for competent and well-monitored care during the adult's daily work period? Sixty-two million French people are wrong, perhaps. But at least you would have some data. Non. You would prefer to make up a crackpot system not in use anywhere in the world because no one wants to stand for it, and which is flatly unconstitutional in your own legal system, because that way you can be sure to solve the Woman Problem. Or at least as sure as you can be given that you have absolutely no data of any kind.
| >
> | While paid maternity leave is rare, paid paternity leave is nearly unheard of. The FMLA treats male and female parents symmetrically, mandating that employers offer at least twelve weeks unpaid leave for fathers as well as mothers. But while many employers go beyond the minimum requirements for female employees, the same is not true for men. According to a 2005 study, 54% of all employers offered some paid maternity leave. Only 12% offered any paid leave to new fathers. | | | | |
>
> | The Problem | | | | |
>
> | The American system of parental leave fails to perform any of the three functions which the Swedish system serves. First, the FMLA’s guarantee of twelve weeks leave pales in comparison to the sixteen-month Swedish model, which allows a much lengthier period for full-time parent-child bonding. Indeed, the three-month FMLA period, at least for some women, is barely sufficient for full physical recovery from pregnancy. Second, the paucity of compensated paternity leave in America means that few fathers can afford to take any substantial time off, especially considering that male wage-earners often contribute a large share of the family income. Approximately 15% of the men eligible for paternity leave under the FMLA request it, suggesting that the FMLA does little to encourage more paternal involvement in child-rearing; it may well be that those men who take time off under the FMLA tend to be more motivated fathers who would have found ways to take time off work even before the FMLA was passed. Third, because so few men take parental leave, the American system has utterly failed in creating a workforce in which interrupting career for family is an ungendered phenomenon. In Sweden, most men and women take lengthy amounts of time off work to raise a family; in the U.S., this remains a female phenomenon. | | | | |
<
< | **At one time, women were frequently fired merely for having become pregnant. | >
> | Toward a Solution | | | | |
<
< | ***The study shows that only 8% of American employees, male and female, have access to paid parental leave. Assuming approximately equal numbers of men and women in the workforce, this means that, at most, 16% of women have access to paid leave. | >
> | The Swedish system benignly “forces” men as well as women to interrupt careers to raise children by providing strong incentives to opt into a program of generous compensation. In the process, it encourages greater early parental involvement with children, greater involvement by fathers, and the growth of a workforce that cannot be easily divided along gender lines in terms of who is liable to interrupt a career to raise children and who is not. | | | | |
<
< | ****The statistic might be even more skewed if not for the fact that each parent is required to take a minimum portion of the available leave time - approximately 20%!. | >
> | Each of these three benefits can be approached in degrees, without a wholesale shift to the Swedish model. The present American system guarantees many Americans three months of unpaid leave; expanding the federal requirements to, say, six months leave with at least six weeks paid at 80% salary, would go a long way toward achieving some of the benefits of the Swedish system. Significant resources would be necessary to make the program work (indeed, the full program eats up 1% of the Swedish GDP), but it is not hard to imagine that a combination of federal funding, employer tax breaks, and self-funding (perhaps through a modest increase in social security, as is done in admittedly more socialist Sweden) could work. | | | | |
<
< | *****Single parents raise different issues which are outside the scope of this paper. | >
> | While Sweden requires that both parents take at least some leave, it is unlikely that this most effective method of ensuring male opt-in – mandating it – could be instituted in the United States (even at a modest 80/20 or 70/30 split). The Supreme Court has held that the federal government may not condition a benefit, e.g., leave pay, on the waiver of a constitutional right. While passage of the Equal Rights Amendment might have altered the Constitutional fabric sufficiently to allow for such legislation, our present Constitutional structure would seemingly preclude a wholesale move to a Swedish-style model. | | | | |
<
< |
- I look forward to your solution to the problem of how to get men to do half the housework.
| | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | Nevertheless, expanded parental leave, including robust requirements for employers to provide compensated paternity leave, needs to stay on the political radar. While the full extent of the Swedish model may not be implementable here as a matter of American constitutional law and practical politics, the social benefits of expanded parental leave, including strong, institutional encouragement of paternity leave, are too great to ignore. |
|
|
MichaelBerkovits-SecondPaper 12 - 10 May 2008 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | This essay is ready for grading. | | |
The Case for Universal Paternity Leave | | | Paternity leave, unknown for much of the last century and still rare today, serves several functions. For employers, it is an attractive benefit to dangle in securing employee talent. For family advocates, it is a means of ensuring that more children grow up with involved fathers. For the women's movement, paternity leave counteracts the traditional female monopoly on child-rearing and its contribution to the paucity of women in powerful positions in society. | |
<
< | Women remain underrepresented in significant part because of continued expectations - by men, women, and employers - that women are far more likely to interrupt their careers to raise children. So long as women, including those well-educated, do so in vastly larger numbers than men, the problem of female underrepresentation will continue.* | >
> | Women remain underrepresented in significant part because of continued expectations - by men, women, and employers - that women are far more likely to interrupt their careers to raise children. So long as women, including those well-educated, do so in vastly larger numbers than men, the problem of female underrepresentation will continue.*
- What is the point of making footnotes in a wiki, and then not linking them? The whole style is unhelpful and absurd. If you need purely explanatory notes, which you shouldn't in an essay like this any more than they would be tolerated on the Op-Ed page, then link them to the word or phrase to which they apply.
| | | Maternity Leave: A Partial Solution | | | The rise of PLPs incentivizes more men to take parental leave than otherwise would. However, so long as paternal leave is optional, females, because of powerful economic and social forces, will continue to take the vast majority of leave. In order for paternity leave to dent the problem of female underrepresentation, it must be universal and it must be mandatory. | |
<
< | Immediate implementation is politically unrealistic, but the Swedish system is a workable model and a worthy goal, so long as it is modified to require that couples split their leave 50/50 - either sequentially or concurrently - if they opt into the system at all. The system would be expensive, but at least part of the costs to productivity would be offset by a happier workforce no longer forced to fight the family - career battle. A few couples might be dissuaded from having children altogether because of the burden of required leave by both parents. Other couples might have children later in their careers, after having comfortably moved through the ranks, leading to more parents having children for the first time when older. But these effects, if present, will be on the margins. Most parents will choose to have children, and most parents would opt in to the system of paid leave. The result could be a society of parents who take career breaks of equal lengths in order to raise children.***** Many more children could grow up with two parents involved in their lives from birth. Family, rather than being in constant conflict with career, could be in harmony with it. And the problem of female underrepresentation could be one step closer to being solved. | >
> |
- That's ludicrous. People have rights. Your proposition is unconstitutional, just as it would be unconstitutional to tell mothers they have to stay home with their children until their children are ready to enter first grade.
Immediate implementation is politically unrealistic, but the Swedish system is a workable model and a worthy goal, so long as it is modified to require that couples split their leave 50/50 - either sequentially or concurrently - if they opt into the system at all.
- A government benefit cannot be conditioned on acceptance of an unconstitutional condition. Such a statute is as void as one that requires you to register as a Democrat in order to pay into or collect Social Security.
The system would be expensive, but at least part of the costs to productivity would be offset by a happier workforce no longer forced to fight the family - career battle.
- A "happier workforce"? Who do you think you are kidding?
A few couples might be dissuaded from having children altogether because of the burden of required leave by both parents. Other couples might have children later in their careers, after having comfortably moved through the ranks, leading to more parents having children for the first time when older. But these effects, if present, will be on the margins. Most parents will choose to have children, and most parents would opt in to the system of paid leave. The result could be a society of parents who take career breaks of equal lengths in order to raise children.***** Many more children could grow up with two parents involved in their lives from birth. Family, rather than being in constant conflict with career, could be in harmony with it. And the problem of female underrepresentation could be one step closer to being solved.
- This isn't social analysis. This isn't even science fiction. There is no polite name for what this is. You don't have any evidence in support of these predictions, because no society on earth has dared the experiment on your astoundingly tin-eared terms.
| | |
Notes | |
<
< | *It is true that one reason for the female underrepresentation problem may be that, because women on average hold less powerful (and hence less lucrative) positions than men, many women elect to serve as the parent who takes time off to raise children because it is the rational economic decision in light of the parents' respective salaries. In this sense, the fact that women bear the brunt of the child-rearing burden is an effect of the problem of female underrepresentation, as well as a cause. Regardless of the precise mechanisms at work, however, it is clear that the cycle must somehow be broken. | >
> | *It is true that one reason for the female underrepresentation problem may be that, because women on average hold less powerful (and hence less lucrative) positions than men, many women elect to serve as the parent who takes time off to raise children because it is the rational economic decision in light of the parents' respective salaries.
- It is true that one reason women are underrepresented in positions of power is that women, being underrepresented in positions of power, stay home more with the children? That's not logically coherent.
In this sense, the fact that women bear the brunt of the child-rearing burden is an effect of the problem of female underrepresentation, as well as a cause. Regardless of the precise mechanisms at work, however, it is clear that the cycle must somehow be broken.
- This is a sort of description of a feedback cycle, as opposed to the first sentence, which is a fallacy. But it is not a credible description of such a cycle, because the causal mechanism is unidentified.
- So far as breaking the cycle, is concerned, why didn't you take the simple route, dissolve the "nuclear" family, and call for communal child-raising? You would at least have had the kibbutzim to provide you with some data. Too radical for your very moderate social taste? Then why didn't you take another simple and much more moderate route, and call for a pervasive system of guaranteed state-provided work-time child care, allowing any custodial adult taking care of a child at any preschool stage of life to sign that child up for competent and well-monitored care during the adult's daily work period? Sixty-two million French people are wrong, perhaps. But at least you would have some data. Non. You would prefer to make up a crackpot system not in use anywhere in the world because no one wants to stand for it, and which is flatly unconstitutional in your own legal system, because that way you can be sure to solve the Woman Problem. Or at least as sure as you can be given that you have absolutely no data of any kind.
| | | **At one time, women were frequently fired merely for having become pregnant. | | | ****The statistic might be even more skewed if not for the fact that each parent is required to take a minimum portion of the available leave time - approximately 20%!.
*****Single parents raise different issues which are outside the scope of this paper. | |
>
> |
- I look forward to your solution to the problem of how to get men to do half the housework.
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
MichaelBerkovits-SecondPaper 11 - 10 Apr 2008 - Main.MichaelBerkovits
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | THIS ESSAY IS STILL BEING EDITED, but comments are welcome. | >
> | This essay is ready for grading. | | | | |
<
< | The Case for Mandatory Paternity Leave | >
> | The Case for Universal Paternity Leave | | | -- By MichaelBerkovits - 05 Apr 2008 | |
<
< | Paternity leave, unknown for much of the last century and still rare today, serves several functions. For employers, it is an attractive benefit to dangle in securing employee talent. For family advocates, it is a means of ensuring that more children grow up with involved fathers. For the women's movement, paternity leave counteracts the traditional female monopoly on child-rearing and that monopoly's contribution to the scarcity of women in power positions in the economy. | >
> | Paternity leave, unknown for much of the last century and still rare today, serves several functions. For employers, it is an attractive benefit to dangle in securing employee talent. For family advocates, it is a means of ensuring that more children grow up with involved fathers. For the women's movement, paternity leave counteracts the traditional female monopoly on child-rearing and its contribution to the paucity of women in powerful positions in society. | | | | |
<
< | Women remain underrepresented in such positions, in significant part because of continued expectations - by men, women, and employers - that women are far more likely to interrupt their careers to raise children. So long as women, including well-educated women, do so in vastly larger numbers than men, the problem of female underrepresentation will continue.* | >
> | Women remain underrepresented in significant part because of continued expectations - by men, women, and employers - that women are far more likely to interrupt their careers to raise children. So long as women, including those well-educated, do so in vastly larger numbers than men, the problem of female underrepresentation will continue.* | | | Maternity Leave: A Partial Solution
The creation of maternity leave, its enshrinement in law, and the increased availability of paid leave has allowed some women to forge successful careers who would not have done so under the older system.** Since The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), most large employers are required under federal law to offer new mothers at least 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Some employers offer more generous programs, in an effort to attract and retain the best female talent. Overall, however, no more than 15% of American women have access to paid parental leave.*** | |
<
< | Even paid maternity leave programs (MLPs), however, do not solve the female underrepresentation problem. First, some firms that instituted leave policies purely in response to the FMLA will discriminate against female candidates for hire or promotion on the theory that they will take advantage of FMLA protections and hence be inefficient investments relative to other candidates. Second, even at firms with generous MLPs, women surely fear - accurately, no doubt - that taking a lengthy break mid-career retards career advancement, if not precluding promotion entirely. | >
> | Even paid maternity leave programs (MLPs), however, do not solve the female underrepresentation problem. First, firms that instituted leave policies purely in response to the FMLA may well discriminate against female candidates for hire or promotion on the theory that they will take advantage of FMLA protections and hence be inefficient investments relative to other candidates. Second, even at firms with generous MLPs, women surely fear - accurately, no doubt - that taking a lengthy break mid-career retards career advancement, if not precluding promotion entirely. | | |
Paternity Leave: One Step Better | |
<
< | MLPs mitigate the female underrepresentation problem by incentivizing some women to begin careers that would otherwise be inconsistent with their vision of family life. In contrast, PLPs ensure that more men take time off to help raise children. The more men who take paternity leave, the less parental leave is a distinctly female issue and the less it operates to exclude women from privileged positions in society. | >
> | MLPs mitigate the female underrepresentation problem by incentivizing some women to begin careers that would otherwise be inconsistent with their vision of family life. In contrast, PLPs ensure that more men take time off to help raise children. The more men who take paternity leave, the less parental leave is a distinctly female issue and the less it operates to exclude women from privileged positions. | | | | |
<
< | Paternity leave has gradually become more common. The FMLA treats males and females symmetrically. However, while many employers go beyond the minimum requirements for female employees, the same is not true for males. Among the Institute for Women's Policy Research "Working Mother 100 Best Companies" - a set of employers seemingly especially sensitive toward family leave issues - none offered more than six weeks paid leave for new fathers. Nearly 50% did so for new mothers. According to another study, conducted in 2005, 54% of all employers offered some paid maternity leave, while only 12% offered (any) paid leave to new fathers. So long as PLPs remain less generous than MLPs, men will not find leave as attractive an option as do women. | >
> | Paternity leave has gradually become more common. Indeed, the FMLA treats males and females symmetrically. However, while many employers go beyond the minimum requirements for female employees, the same is not true for men. Among the Institute for Women's Policy Research "Working Mother 100 Best Companies" - a set of employers presumably sensitive toward family leave issues - none offered more than six weeks paid leave for new fathers. Nearly 50% did so for new mothers. According to another study, conducted in 2005, 54% of all employers offered some paid maternity leave, while only 12% offered (any) paid leave to new fathers. So long as PLPs remain less generous than MLPs, men will not find leave as attractive an option as do women. | | | | |
<
< | However, even if PLPs were both universal and as generous as MLPs, men might still be unlikely to take time off. In Sweden, where all employers offer sixteen months leave at 80% salary (subsidized by the government), to be split as a couple sees fit, men only take about 20% of the available leave.**** | >
> | Furthermore, even if PLPs were both universal and as generous as MLPs, men might still be unlikely to utilize them. In Sweden, where all couples have access to sixteen months leave at 80% salary, to be split as a couple sees fit, men only take about 20% of the available leave.**** As each parent earns nearly his or her entire salary while on leave, the reason for this disparity cannot be that husbands earn more than their wives. The operative factor must be that women are expected to raise children, whether because of beliefs about their superior parenting skills or lingering prejudice about their unsuitability for the workforce. Also, whether explicitly or not, employers are likely to reserve coveted positions for the most demonstrably committed employees. So long as most leadership positions go to males, men cannot afford to take themselves out of the running by taking paid leave, even when it is available. And so long as men remain less likely than women to take extensive leave, the problem of female underrepresentation will continue. Something more than merely expanding the availability of PLPs is necessary. | | | | |
<
< | As each parent earns nearly his or her entire salary while on leave, the reason for this disparity cannot be that husbands earn more than their wives.
Rather, the reasons must be cultural. Women are expected to raise children, whether because of beliefs about their superior parenting skills or lingering prejudice about their unsuitability for the workforce. Also, whether explicitly or not, employers are likely to reserve coveted positions for the most demonstrably committed employees. So long as most managerial positions go to males, men cannot afford to take themselves out of the running for these positions by taking advantage of paternity leave, even when it is available. And if men remain less likely than women to take extensive leave, the problem of female underrepresentation will continue. Something more than merely following the current trajectory of expanding PLPs is necessary.
Mandatory Paternity Leave with Equal Leave Time for Both Parents: A Bold Leap Forward | >
> | Universal Paternity Leave with Equal Leave Time for Both Parents: A Bold Leap Forward | | | The rise of PLPs incentivizes more men to take parental leave than otherwise would. However, so long as paternal leave is optional, females, because of powerful economic and social forces, will continue to take the vast majority of leave. In order for paternity leave to dent the problem of female underrepresentation, it must be universal and it must be mandatory. | |
<
< | Immediate implementation is politically unrealistic, but the Swedish system is a workable model and a worthy goal, so long as it is modified to require that couples split their leave 50/50 - either sequentially or concurrently - if they opt into the system at all. The system would be expensive, but at least part of the costs to productivity would be offset by a happier workforce no longer forced to fight the family - career battle. A few couples might be dissuaded from having children altogether because of the burden of required leave by both parents. Other couples might have children later in their careers, after having comfortably moved through the ranks, leading to more parents having children for the first time when older. But these effects, if present, will be on the margins. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4629631.stm][Most parents will choose to have children], and most parents would opt in to the system of paid leave. The result could be a society of parents who take career breaks of equal lengths in order to raise children.***** Many more children could grow up with two parents involved in their lives from birth. Family, rather than being in constant conflict with career, could be in harmony with it. And the problem of female underrepresentation could be one step closer to being solved. | >
> | Immediate implementation is politically unrealistic, but the Swedish system is a workable model and a worthy goal, so long as it is modified to require that couples split their leave 50/50 - either sequentially or concurrently - if they opt into the system at all. The system would be expensive, but at least part of the costs to productivity would be offset by a happier workforce no longer forced to fight the family - career battle. A few couples might be dissuaded from having children altogether because of the burden of required leave by both parents. Other couples might have children later in their careers, after having comfortably moved through the ranks, leading to more parents having children for the first time when older. But these effects, if present, will be on the margins. Most parents will choose to have children, and most parents would opt in to the system of paid leave. The result could be a society of parents who take career breaks of equal lengths in order to raise children.***** Many more children could grow up with two parents involved in their lives from birth. Family, rather than being in constant conflict with career, could be in harmony with it. And the problem of female underrepresentation could be one step closer to being solved. | | | | |
<
< |
*** Notes | >
> | Notes | | | *It is true that one reason for the female underrepresentation problem may be that, because women on average hold less powerful (and hence less lucrative) positions than men, many women elect to serve as the parent who takes time off to raise children because it is the rational economic decision in light of the parents' respective salaries. In this sense, the fact that women bear the brunt of the child-rearing burden is an effect of the problem of female underrepresentation, as well as a cause. Regardless of the precise mechanisms at work, however, it is clear that the cycle must somehow be broken. | |
<
< | **At one time, women were frequently fired for merely having become pregnant. | >
> | **At one time, women were frequently fired merely for having become pregnant. | | | ***The study shows that only 8% of American employees, male and female, have access to paid parental leave. Assuming approximately equal numbers of men and women in the workforce, this means that, at most, 16% of women have access to paid leave. |
|
|
MichaelBerkovits-SecondPaper 10 - 10 Apr 2008 - Main.MichaelBerkovits
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
THIS ESSAY IS STILL BEING EDITED, but comments are welcome. | | | Paternity leave, unknown for much of the last century and still rare today, serves several functions. For employers, it is an attractive benefit to dangle in securing employee talent. For family advocates, it is a means of ensuring that more children grow up with involved fathers. For the women's movement, paternity leave counteracts the traditional female monopoly on child-rearing and that monopoly's contribution to the scarcity of women in power positions in the economy. | |
<
< | Women remain underrepresented in such positions, in significant part because of continued expectations - by men, women, and employers - that women are far more likely to interrupt their careers to raise children. So long as women, including well-educated women, do so in vastly larger numbers than men, the problem of female underrepresentation will continue. It is true that one reason for the female underrepresentation problem may be that, because women on average hold less powerful (and hence less lucrative) positions than men, many women elect to serve as the parent who takes time off to raise children because it is the rational economic decision in light of the parents' respective salaries. In this sense, the fact that women bear the brunt of the child-rearing burden is an effect of the problem of female underrepresentation, as well as a cause. Regardless of the precise mechanisms at work, however, it is clear that the cycle must be broken if we are to become a society with a sex discrimination-free workplace. | >
> | Women remain underrepresented in such positions, in significant part because of continued expectations - by men, women, and employers - that women are far more likely to interrupt their careers to raise children. So long as women, including well-educated women, do so in vastly larger numbers than men, the problem of female underrepresentation will continue.* | | | Maternity Leave: A Partial Solution | |
<
< | The rise of maternity leave, its ultimate enshrinement in law, and the increased availability of paid maternity leave has surely allowed some women to forge successful careers who would not done so under the older system, where women were frequently fired for being pregnant. Maternity leave refers to an employer policy guaranteeing a mother a return to her job after time off for pregnancy or infant childcare; the leave may be paid or unpaid. Since The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), most large employers are required under federal law to offer at least 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Some employers offer more generous programs, in an effort to attract and retain the best female talent, though only 8% of American employees (male and female) have the option of taking paid parental leave. | >
> | The creation of maternity leave, its enshrinement in law, and the increased availability of paid leave has allowed some women to forge successful careers who would not have done so under the older system.** Since The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), most large employers are required under federal law to offer new mothers at least 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Some employers offer more generous programs, in an effort to attract and retain the best female talent. Overall, however, no more than 15% of American women have access to paid parental leave.*** | | | | |
<
< | Even paid maternity leave programs, however, do not solve the female underrepresentation problem. First, among firms who have leave policies only because they are required to do so under the FMLA, some will discriminate against female hires because of the likelihood that they will take advantage of the firm's leave policies and hence be inefficient investments relative to employees who will not take lengthy breaks. Second, even at firms with generous maternity leave programs, women surely fear - accurately, no doubt - that taking a lengthy break mid-career will retard one's rate of career advancement, if not precluding promotion entirely. | >
> | Even paid maternity leave programs (MLPs), however, do not solve the female underrepresentation problem. First, some firms that instituted leave policies purely in response to the FMLA will discriminate against female candidates for hire or promotion on the theory that they will take advantage of FMLA protections and hence be inefficient investments relative to other candidates. Second, even at firms with generous MLPs, women surely fear - accurately, no doubt - that taking a lengthy break mid-career retards career advancement, if not precluding promotion entirely. | | |
Paternity Leave: One Step Better | |
<
< | Maternity leave programs help mitigate the female underrepresentation problem by incentivizing some women to begin careers that would otherwise have been too harshly inconsistent with family life. Paternity leave programs mitigate the underrepresentation problem by ensuring that more men take career breaks in order to help raise children. The more men who take paternity leave, the less parental leave is a distinctly female issue, and the less it operates to exclude women from privileged positions in society. | >
> | MLPs mitigate the female underrepresentation problem by incentivizing some women to begin careers that would otherwise be inconsistent with their vision of family life. In contrast, PLPs ensure that more men take time off to help raise children. The more men who take paternity leave, the less parental leave is a distinctly female issue and the less it operates to exclude women from privileged positions in society. | | | | |
<
< | Paternity leave has gradually become more common. The FMLA treats males and females symmetrically: employers covered under the FMLA must offer at least twelve weeks of unpaid leave to new fathers as well as new mothers. However, while many employers go above and beyond the FMLA-required minimum limits for female employees, the same is not true for male employees. For example, among the Institute for Women's Policy Research "Working Mother 100 Best Companies" - a set of employers that one would expect to be particularly friendly toward family leave issues, none offered more than six weeks paid leave for new fathers, while nearly 50% did so for new mothers. Another study, conducted in 2005, found that 54% of all employers offered some paid leave to new mothers, while only 12% offered (any) paid leave to new fathers. So long as paternity leave programs (PLPs) remain less generous than MLPs, men will not find leave as attractive an option as do women. | >
> | Paternity leave has gradually become more common. The FMLA treats males and females symmetrically. However, while many employers go beyond the minimum requirements for female employees, the same is not true for males. Among the Institute for Women's Policy Research "Working Mother 100 Best Companies" - a set of employers seemingly especially sensitive toward family leave issues - none offered more than six weeks paid leave for new fathers. Nearly 50% did so for new mothers. According to another study, conducted in 2005, 54% of all employers offered some paid maternity leave, while only 12% offered (any) paid leave to new fathers. So long as PLPs remain less generous than MLPs, men will not find leave as attractive an option as do women. | | | | |
<
< | However, it is likely that even if PLPs were both universal and as generous as MLPs, men would still be less likely than women to take time off. For example, in Sweden, where employers are required to offer sixteen months paid leave at 80% salary (subsidized by the government), to be split as a couple sees fit, men only take about 20% of the available leave. The statistic might be even more skewed if not for the fact that each parent is required to take a minimum portion of the available leave time - approximately 20%!. | >
> | However, even if PLPs were both universal and as generous as MLPs, men might still be unlikely to take time off. In Sweden, where all employers offer sixteen months leave at 80% salary (subsidized by the government), to be split as a couple sees fit, men only take about 20% of the available leave.**** | | | | |
<
< | The explanation cannot be that husbands earn more than their wives, because each parent earns (nearly) his or her entire salary while on leave.
The reasons, then, must be cultural: women are expected to raise children, whether because of beliefs about their superior parenting skills or lingering prejudice about their overall unsuitability for the workforce. Also, whether explicitly or not, it is clear that employers are likely to reserve coveted promotions for the most demonstrably committed employees. So long as most managerial positions go to males, men cannot afford to take themselves out of the running for these positions by taking advantage of paternity leave, even when it is available. And if men remain less likely than women to take extensive leave, the problem of female underrepresentation will continue. Something more than merely continuing the current trajectory of expanding PLPs is necessary. | >
> | As each parent earns nearly his or her entire salary while on leave, the reason for this disparity cannot be that husbands earn more than their wives.
Rather, the reasons must be cultural. Women are expected to raise children, whether because of beliefs about their superior parenting skills or lingering prejudice about their unsuitability for the workforce. Also, whether explicitly or not, employers are likely to reserve coveted positions for the most demonstrably committed employees. So long as most managerial positions go to males, men cannot afford to take themselves out of the running for these positions by taking advantage of paternity leave, even when it is available. And if men remain less likely than women to take extensive leave, the problem of female underrepresentation will continue. Something more than merely following the current trajectory of expanding PLPs is necessary. | | | Mandatory Paternity Leave with Equal Leave Time for Both Parents: A Bold Leap Forward | |
<
< | The slow rise of PLPs incentivizes more men to take parental leave than otherwise would. However, in a system where parental leave is optional, females, because of powerful economic and social forces, will continue to take the vast majority of leave. In order for paternity leave to dent the problem of female underrepresentation, it must be universal and it must be mandatory. | >
> | The rise of PLPs incentivizes more men to take parental leave than otherwise would. However, so long as paternal leave is optional, females, because of powerful economic and social forces, will continue to take the vast majority of leave. In order for paternity leave to dent the problem of female underrepresentation, it must be universal and it must be mandatory.
Immediate implementation is politically unrealistic, but the Swedish system is a workable model and a worthy goal, so long as it is modified to require that couples split their leave 50/50 - either sequentially or concurrently - if they opt into the system at all. The system would be expensive, but at least part of the costs to productivity would be offset by a happier workforce no longer forced to fight the family - career battle. A few couples might be dissuaded from having children altogether because of the burden of required leave by both parents. Other couples might have children later in their careers, after having comfortably moved through the ranks, leading to more parents having children for the first time when older. But these effects, if present, will be on the margins. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4629631.stm][Most parents will choose to have children], and most parents would opt in to the system of paid leave. The result could be a society of parents who take career breaks of equal lengths in order to raise children.***** Many more children could grow up with two parents involved in their lives from birth. Family, rather than being in constant conflict with career, could be in harmony with it. And the problem of female underrepresentation could be one step closer to being solved. | | | | |
<
< | Immediate implementation is unrealistic, but the goal is a worthy one. The Swedish system of paid leave at 80% salary is a workable model and a goal that should be aimed for, with the modification that couples are required to split their leave 50/50 if they opt into the system at all (and perhaps fewer than sixteen months leave). The system would be expensive, to be sure, but at least part of the costs to productivity would be offset by a happier workforce that was no longer forced to fight the family - career battle. A few couples might be dissuaded from having children altogether because of the onerous burden of both parents having to take a leave from work so long as one does. Other couples might choose to have children later in their careers, after they had already moved through the ranks, so as not to torpedo their chances earlier in their careers. Decisions like these might lead to more parents having children for the first time when older. But these effects, if present, will be on the margins. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4629631.stm][Most parents will choose to have children], and most parents would opt in to the system of paid leave. The result could be a society of parents who take career breaks of equal lengths in order to raise children. Many more children could grow up with two parents who were involved in their lives from birth. Family, rather than being in constant conflict with career, could be in harmony with it. And the problem of female underrepresentation in our economy could be one step closer to being solved. | | | | |
>
> |
*** Notes | | | | |
>
> | *It is true that one reason for the female underrepresentation problem may be that, because women on average hold less powerful (and hence less lucrative) positions than men, many women elect to serve as the parent who takes time off to raise children because it is the rational economic decision in light of the parents' respective salaries. In this sense, the fact that women bear the brunt of the child-rearing burden is an effect of the problem of female underrepresentation, as well as a cause. Regardless of the precise mechanisms at work, however, it is clear that the cycle must somehow be broken. | | | | |
>
> | **At one time, women were frequently fired for merely having become pregnant. | | | | |
>
> | ***The study shows that only 8% of American employees, male and female, have access to paid parental leave. Assuming approximately equal numbers of men and women in the workforce, this means that, at most, 16% of women have access to paid leave. | | | | |
<
< |
- You end in a slightly different place than I expected you to. I would either conclude where you started - with some good things about paternity leave (the safe route) - or slightly modify the thesis and conclude with some forward-looking solutions. I think the second would probably be better. -- AdamCarlis 8 April 2008
| >
> | ****The statistic might be even more skewed if not for the fact that each parent is required to take a minimum portion of the available leave time - approximately 20%!. | | | | |
<
< |
- Adam, your comment came before I put in the final section of my paper - look forward to your comments once I finish up. - Michael
| | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | *****Single parents raise different issues which are outside the scope of this paper. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
MichaelBerkovits-SecondPaper 9 - 09 Apr 2008 - Main.MichaelBerkovits
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
THIS ESSAY IS STILL BEING EDITED, but comments are welcome. | | | -- By MichaelBerkovits - 05 Apr 2008 | |
<
< | Paternity leave, unknown for much of the last century and still rare today, serves several functions. For employers, it is an attractive benefit to dangle in securing employee talent. For family advocates, it is a means of ensuring that more children grow up with involved fathers. For the women's movement, paternity leave functions as a way of counteracting the traditional female monopoly on child-rearing and that monopoly's contribution to the scarcity of women in power positions in the economy. | >
> | Paternity leave, unknown for much of the last century and still rare today, serves several functions. For employers, it is an attractive benefit to dangle in securing employee talent. For family advocates, it is a means of ensuring that more children grow up with involved fathers. For the women's movement, paternity leave counteracts the traditional female monopoly on child-rearing and that monopoly's contribution to the scarcity of women in power positions in the economy. | | | | |
<
< | Women remain underrepresented in positions of power, in significant part because of continued expectations - by men, women, and employers - that women are far more likely to interrupt their careers to raise children. So long as women, including well-educated women, continue to take career breaks to raise children in vastly larger numbers than men, positions of economic power will continue to diverge along gender lines. It is true that one reason for the female underrepresentation problem may be that, because women on average hold less powerful (and hence less lucrative) positions than men, many women elect to serve as the parent who takes time off to raise children because it is the rational economic decision in light of the parents' respective salaries. In this sense, the fact that women bear the brunt of the child-rearing burden is an effect of the problem of female underrepresentation, as well as a cause. Regardless of the precise mechanisms at work, however, it is clear that the cycle must be broken if we are to become a society with a sex discrimination-free workplace. | >
> | Women remain underrepresented in such positions, in significant part because of continued expectations - by men, women, and employers - that women are far more likely to interrupt their careers to raise children. So long as women, including well-educated women, do so in vastly larger numbers than men, the problem of female underrepresentation will continue. It is true that one reason for the female underrepresentation problem may be that, because women on average hold less powerful (and hence less lucrative) positions than men, many women elect to serve as the parent who takes time off to raise children because it is the rational economic decision in light of the parents' respective salaries. In this sense, the fact that women bear the brunt of the child-rearing burden is an effect of the problem of female underrepresentation, as well as a cause. Regardless of the precise mechanisms at work, however, it is clear that the cycle must be broken if we are to become a society with a sex discrimination-free workplace. | | |
Maternity Leave: A Partial Solution | | | Maternity leave programs help mitigate the female underrepresentation problem by incentivizing some women to begin careers that would otherwise have been too harshly inconsistent with family life. Paternity leave programs mitigate the underrepresentation problem by ensuring that more men take career breaks in order to help raise children. The more men who take paternity leave, the less parental leave is a distinctly female issue, and the less it operates to exclude women from privileged positions in society. | |
<
< | Paternity leave, once nonexistent, has gradually become more common. The FMLA treats males and females symmetrically: employers covered under the FMLA must offer at least twelve weeks of unpaid leave to new fathers as well as new mothers. However, while many employers go above and beyond the FMLA-required minimum limits for female employees, the same is not true for male employees. For example, among the Institute for Women's Policy Research "Working Mother 100 Best Companies" - a set of employers that one would expect to be particularly friendly toward family leave issues, none offered more than six weeks paid leave for new fathers, while nearly 50% did so for new mothers. Another study, conducted in 2005, found that 54% of all employers offered some paid leave to new mothers, while only 12% offered (any) paid leave to new fathers. So long as paternity leave programs (PLPs) remain less generous than their maternity counterparts (MLPs), men will not find leave as attractive an option as do women. | >
> | Paternity leave has gradually become more common. The FMLA treats males and females symmetrically: employers covered under the FMLA must offer at least twelve weeks of unpaid leave to new fathers as well as new mothers. However, while many employers go above and beyond the FMLA-required minimum limits for female employees, the same is not true for male employees. For example, among the Institute for Women's Policy Research "Working Mother 100 Best Companies" - a set of employers that one would expect to be particularly friendly toward family leave issues, none offered more than six weeks paid leave for new fathers, while nearly 50% did so for new mothers. Another study, conducted in 2005, found that 54% of all employers offered some paid leave to new mothers, while only 12% offered (any) paid leave to new fathers. So long as paternity leave programs (PLPs) remain less generous than MLPs, men will not find leave as attractive an option as do women. | | | However, it is likely that even if PLPs were both universal and as generous as MLPs, men would still be less likely than women to take time off. For example, in Sweden, where employers are required to offer sixteen months paid leave at 80% salary (subsidized by the government), to be split as a couple sees fit, men only take about 20% of the available leave. The statistic might be even more skewed if not for the fact that each parent is required to take a minimum portion of the available leave time - approximately 20%!. |
|
|
MichaelBerkovits-SecondPaper 8 - 09 Apr 2008 - Main.MichaelBerkovits
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, but comments are welcome. | >
> | THIS ESSAY IS STILL BEING EDITED, but comments are welcome. | | | | | | -- By MichaelBerkovits - 05 Apr 2008 | |
<
< | Paternity leave, unknown for much of the last century and still rare today, serves several functions. For employers, it can be a coveted benefit to dangle in attracting superior talent. For those interested in more cohesive family life, it is a means of ensuring that more children grow up with involved fathers. For the women's movement, paternity leave functions as a way of counteracting the traditional female monopoly on child-rearing and
that monopoly's contribution to the scarcity of women in power positions in the economy. | >
> | Paternity leave, unknown for much of the last century and still rare today, serves several functions. For employers, it is an attractive benefit to dangle in securing employee talent. For family advocates, it is a means of ensuring that more children grow up with involved fathers. For the women's movement, paternity leave functions as a way of counteracting the traditional female monopoly on child-rearing and that monopoly's contribution to the scarcity of women in power positions in the economy.
Women remain underrepresented in positions of power, in significant part because of continued expectations - by men, women, and employers - that women are far more likely to interrupt their careers to raise children. So long as women, including well-educated women, continue to take career breaks to raise children in vastly larger numbers than men, positions of economic power will continue to diverge along gender lines. It is true that one reason for the female underrepresentation problem may be that, because women on average hold less powerful (and hence less lucrative) positions than men, many women elect to serve as the parent who takes time off to raise children because it is the rational economic decision in light of the parents' respective salaries. In this sense, the fact that women bear the brunt of the child-rearing burden is an effect of the problem of female underrepresentation, as well as a cause. Regardless of the precise mechanisms at work, however, it is clear that the cycle must be broken if we are to become a society with a sex discrimination-free workplace. | | | | |
<
< | Women remain underrepresented in positions of power, in significant part because of continued expectations - by men, women, and employers - that women are far more likely to interrupt their careers to raise children. So long as women, including well-educated women, continue to interrupt their careers to raise children in vastly larger numbers than men, positions of economic power will continue to diverge along gender lines. One way to work toward eliminating this sex-based difference, of course, is to equalize male and female pay, on the assumption that for some women, the decision to take time off to raise children is an economic one premised on the father's higher salary. While equal pay for equal work is a worthy goal, however, a major part of the problem involves unequal pay for unequal work: more men occupy powerful positions that come with more remuneration. While an old boys' network surely accounts for much of this state of affairs, some is attributable to the fact that so many women interrupt their careers in order to raise children. It is quite likely that women bearing the brunt of the child-rearing burden is both a cause and an effect of the paucity of women in powerful roles in society. | | | Maternity Leave: A Partial Solution | |
<
< | The rise of maternity leave, its ultimate enshrinement in law, and the increased availability of paid maternity leave has surely allowed some women to forge successful careers who would not have chosen to do so under the older system, which tended to harshly penalize women for merely being pregnant by, for example, firing them. Maternity leave refers to an employer policy that allows a mother to return to her job after she has taken time off for pregnancy or infant childcare; the leave may be paid or unpaid. Since The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), most large employers are required under federal law to offer at least 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Employers often compete for the most generous maternity leave programs, sometimes offering paid leave for lengthy periods, in an effort to attract and retain the best female talent, though only 8% of American employees (male and female) have the option of taking paid parental leave. | >
> | The rise of maternity leave, its ultimate enshrinement in law, and the increased availability of paid maternity leave has surely allowed some women to forge successful careers who would not done so under the older system, where women were frequently fired for being pregnant. Maternity leave refers to an employer policy guaranteeing a mother a return to her job after time off for pregnancy or infant childcare; the leave may be paid or unpaid. Since The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), most large employers are required under federal law to offer at least 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Some employers offer more generous programs, in an effort to attract and retain the best female talent, though only 8% of American employees (male and female) have the option of taking paid parental leave. | | | | |
<
< | Even paid maternity leave programs, however, do not solve the female underrepresentation problem. First, among firms who have leave policies only because they are required to do so under the FMLA, some will discriminate against female hires because of the likelihood that they will take advantage of the firm's leave policies and hence be less worthwhile investments. Second, even at firms with generous maternity leave programs, women surely fear the risk - an accurate worry, no doubt - that taking a lengthy break mid-career will retard one's rate of career advancement, if not precluding promotion entirely. | >
> | Even paid maternity leave programs, however, do not solve the female underrepresentation problem. First, among firms who have leave policies only because they are required to do so under the FMLA, some will discriminate against female hires because of the likelihood that they will take advantage of the firm's leave policies and hence be inefficient investments relative to employees who will not take lengthy breaks. Second, even at firms with generous maternity leave programs, women surely fear - accurately, no doubt - that taking a lengthy break mid-career will retard one's rate of career advancement, if not precluding promotion entirely. | | |
Paternity Leave: One Step Better | |
<
< | Maternity leave programs help mitigate the female underrepresentation problem by incentivizing some women to seek out careers that would have previously been viewed as non-family friendly. Paternity leave programs, in contrast, can mitigate the underrepresentation problem by ensuring that more men take career breaks in order to help raise children. The more men take paternity leave, the less parental leave becomes is a distinctly female issue, and the less it will operate to exclude women from privileged positions in society. | >
> | Maternity leave programs help mitigate the female underrepresentation problem by incentivizing some women to begin careers that would otherwise have been too harshly inconsistent with family life. Paternity leave programs mitigate the underrepresentation problem by ensuring that more men take career breaks in order to help raise children. The more men who take paternity leave, the less parental leave is a distinctly female issue, and the less it operates to exclude women from privileged positions in society.
Paternity leave, once nonexistent, has gradually become more common. The FMLA treats males and females symmetrically: employers covered under the FMLA must offer at least twelve weeks of unpaid leave to new fathers as well as new mothers. However, while many employers go above and beyond the FMLA-required minimum limits for female employees, the same is not true for male employees. For example, among the Institute for Women's Policy Research "Working Mother 100 Best Companies" - a set of employers that one would expect to be particularly friendly toward family leave issues, none offered more than six weeks paid leave for new fathers, while nearly 50% did so for new mothers. Another study, conducted in 2005, found that 54% of all employers offered some paid leave to new mothers, while only 12% offered (any) paid leave to new fathers. So long as paternity leave programs (PLPs) remain less generous than their maternity counterparts (MLPs), men will not find leave as attractive an option as do women.
However, it is likely that even if PLPs were both universal and as generous as MLPs, men would still be less likely than women to take time off. For example, in Sweden, where employers are required to offer sixteen months paid leave at 80% salary (subsidized by the government), to be split as a couple sees fit, men only take about 20% of the available leave. The statistic might be even more skewed if not for the fact that each parent is required to take a minimum portion of the available leave time - approximately 20%!.
The explanation cannot be that husbands earn more than their wives, because each parent earns (nearly) his or her entire salary while on leave.
The reasons, then, must be cultural: women are expected to raise children, whether because of beliefs about their superior parenting skills or lingering prejudice about their overall unsuitability for the workforce. Also, whether explicitly or not, it is clear that employers are likely to reserve coveted promotions for the most demonstrably committed employees. So long as most managerial positions go to males, men cannot afford to take themselves out of the running for these positions by taking advantage of paternity leave, even when it is available. And if men remain less likely than women to take extensive leave, the problem of female underrepresentation will continue. Something more than merely continuing the current trajectory of expanding PLPs is necessary.
Mandatory Paternity Leave with Equal Leave Time for Both Parents: A Bold Leap Forward
The slow rise of PLPs incentivizes more men to take parental leave than otherwise would. However, in a system where parental leave is optional, females, because of powerful economic and social forces, will continue to take the vast majority of leave. In order for paternity leave to dent the problem of female underrepresentation, it must be universal and it must be mandatory.
Immediate implementation is unrealistic, but the goal is a worthy one. The Swedish system of paid leave at 80% salary is a workable model and a goal that should be aimed for, with the modification that couples are required to split their leave 50/50 if they opt into the system at all (and perhaps fewer than sixteen months leave). The system would be expensive, to be sure, but at least part of the costs to productivity would be offset by a happier workforce that was no longer forced to fight the family - career battle. A few couples might be dissuaded from having children altogether because of the onerous burden of both parents having to take a leave from work so long as one does. Other couples might choose to have children later in their careers, after they had already moved through the ranks, so as not to torpedo their chances earlier in their careers. Decisions like these might lead to more parents having children for the first time when older. But these effects, if present, will be on the margins. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4629631.stm][Most parents will choose to have children], and most parents would opt in to the system of paid leave. The result could be a society of parents who take career breaks of equal lengths in order to raise children. Many more children could grow up with two parents who were involved in their lives from birth. Family, rather than being in constant conflict with career, could be in harmony with it. And the problem of female underrepresentation in our economy could be one step closer to being solved. | | | | |
<
< | Paternity leave, once nonexistent, has gradually become more common. The FMLA treats male and female parents symmetrically: employers covered under the FMLA must offer at least twelve weeks of unpaid leave to new fathers as well as new mothers. However, while many employers go above and beyond the FMLA-required minimum limits for female employees, the same is not true for male employees. For example, among the Institute for Women's Policy Research "Working Mother 100 Best Companies" - a set of employers that one would expect to be particularly friendly toward family leave issues - 93% offered paid maternity leave, while only 35% offered paid paternity leave. None of these employers offered more than six weeks paid leave for new fathers, while nearly 50% did so for new mothers. Another study, conducted in 2005, found that 54% of employers offered some paid leave to new mothers, while only 12% offered (any) paid leave to new fathers. So long as paternity leave programs (PLPs) remain less generous than their maternity counterparts (MLPs), men will not find leave as attractive an option as do women. | | | | |
<
< | However, it is likely that even if PLPs were both universal and as generous as MLPs, men would still be less likely than women to take time off. For example, in Sweden, where employers are required to offer sixteen months paid leave at 80% salary (subsidized by the government), to be split as a couple sees fit, men only take about 20% of the available leave. The statistic might be even more skewed if not for the fact that each parent is required to take a portion of the available leave time. | | | | |
<
< | The explanation cannot be that husbands earn more than their wives, because either parent earns (nearly) his or her entire salary while on leave.
The reasons, then, must be the standard cultural ones: women are expected to raise children, whether because of beliefs about their superior parenting skills or lingering prejudice about their overall unsuitability for the workforce. Also, whether explicitly or not, it is clear that employers are likely to reserve coveted promotions for the most demonstrably committed employees. So long as most managerial positions go to males, men cannot afford to take themselves out of the running for these positions by taking advantage of paternity leave, even when it is available. Something more than a mere continuation of the current trend for offering paternity leave is necessary. | | |
- You end in a slightly different place than I expected you to. I would either conclude where you started - with some good things about paternity leave (the safe route) - or slightly modify the thesis and conclude with some forward-looking solutions. I think the second would probably be better. -- AdamCarlis 8 April 2008
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
- Adam, your comment came before I put in the final section of my paper - look forward to your comments once I finish up. - Michael
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
MichaelBerkovits-SecondPaper 7 - 08 Apr 2008 - Main.AdamCarlis
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, but comments are welcome. | | | The explanation cannot be that husbands earn more than their wives, because either parent earns (nearly) his or her entire salary while on leave.
The reasons, then, must be the standard cultural ones: women are expected to raise children, whether because of beliefs about their superior parenting skills or lingering prejudice about their overall unsuitability for the workforce. Also, whether explicitly or not, it is clear that employers are likely to reserve coveted promotions for the most demonstrably committed employees. So long as most managerial positions go to males, men cannot afford to take themselves out of the running for these positions by taking advantage of paternity leave, even when it is available. Something more than a mere continuation of the current trend for offering paternity leave is necessary.
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
- You end in a slightly different place than I expected you to. I would either conclude where you started - with some good things about paternity leave (the safe route) - or slightly modify the thesis and conclude with some forward-looking solutions. I think the second would probably be better. -- AdamCarlis 8 April 2008
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
MichaelBerkovits-SecondPaper 6 - 08 Apr 2008 - Main.MichaelBerkovits
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, but comments are welcome. | | | -- By MichaelBerkovits - 05 Apr 2008 | |
<
< | There are many reasons why women continue to be underrepresented in powerful positions in the economy. This essay concerns itself with one that is particularly difficult because it arguably derives from legitimate business interests and not from sexist motivations. | >
> | Paternity leave, unknown for much of the last century and still rare today, serves several functions. For employers, it can be a coveted benefit to dangle in attracting superior talent. For those interested in more cohesive family life, it is a means of ensuring that more children grow up with involved fathers. For the women's movement, paternity leave functions as a way of counteracting the traditional female monopoly on child-rearing and
that monopoly's contribution to the scarcity of women in power positions in the economy. | | | | |
<
< | Introduction to the Problem
Despite the fact that having children is a reliable route to decreased life satisfaction, people continue to reproduce in large numbers. Women are immensely more likely than men to interrupt or forgo their careers in order to raise children; even many high-achieving women contemplate doing so.
Until the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), having a child, for women, often meant being fired or resigning in order to avoid firing. Today, employers would shy from firing women because they have become pregnant. Yet even today, one can imagine that some employers find women to be less desirable candidates for employment or promotion because of a perceived likelihood that they are likely to take significant time off, or even interrupt or end their career, because of a pregnancy. Furthermore, some women likely refrain from beginning certain types of careers because of a concern that prospective employers will not accommodate mid-career leaves of absence in order to have and raise children. Finally, some women, probably correctly, conclude that whether or not employers accommodate parental leave, it is far more difficult to earn promotion and advance in an industry when one takes a substantial amount of time off in order to focus on one's family. All of these factors likely operate to reduce the number of women in powerful positions in the economy. (rephrase so as not to have quite so bold a leap of logic) | >
> | Women remain underrepresented in positions of power, in significant part because of continued expectations - by men, women, and employers - that women are far more likely to interrupt their careers to raise children. So long as women, including well-educated women, continue to interrupt their careers to raise children in vastly larger numbers than men, positions of economic power will continue to diverge along gender lines. One way to work toward eliminating this sex-based difference, of course, is to equalize male and female pay, on the assumption that for some women, the decision to take time off to raise children is an economic one premised on the father's higher salary. While equal pay for equal work is a worthy goal, however, a major part of the problem involves unequal pay for unequal work: more men occupy powerful positions that come with more remuneration. While an old boys' network surely accounts for much of this state of affairs, some is attributable to the fact that so many women interrupt their careers in order to raise children. It is quite likely that women bearing the brunt of the child-rearing burden is both a cause and an effect of the paucity of women in powerful roles in society. | | | Maternity Leave: A Partial Solution | |
<
< | Maternity leave refers to an employer policy that allows a mother to return to her job after she has taken time off for pregnancy or infant childcare; the leave may be paid or unpaid. (Since The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), most large employers are required under federal law to offer at least 12 weeks of unpaid leave.) Employers often compete for the most generous maternity leave programs, sometimes offering paid leave for lengthy periods, in an effort to attract and retain the best female talent, though only 8% of American employees (male and female) have the option of taking paid parental leave. Maternity leave helps address the concern that some prospective female candidates for employment have when choosing whether to enter certain careers or certain places of employment.
Maternity leave, however, does not address the possibility that, at least among firms who have leave policies only because they are required to do so under the FMLA, some will discriminate against female hires because of the likelihood that they will take advantage of the firm's leave policies. Nor does maternity leave address the possibility that women risk the possibility of advancement, or at least retard the rate of advancement, by actually taking a lengthy break mid-career.
Paternity Leave: One Step Better
The extent to which parental leave has a sex-disparate impact depends on the number of men who take such a leave as compared to the number of women. Employers will not discriminate against female candidates based on the perceived likelihood of taking maternity leave, if the number of men who take paternity leave (and the length of that leave) is comparable.
Paternity leave, once nonexistent, has gradually become more common. For example, the FMLA treats male and female parents symmetrically: employers covered under the FMLA must offer at least twelve weeks of unpaid leave to new fathers as well as new mothers. However, while many employers go above and beyond the FMLA-required minimum limits for female employees, the same is not true for male employees. For example, among the Institute for Women's Policy Research "Working Mother 100 Best Companies" - a set of employers that one would expect to be particularly friendly toward family leave issues - 93% offered paid maternity leave, while only 35% offered paid paternity leave. None of these employers offered more than six weeks paid leave for new fathers, while nearly 50% did so for new mothers. Another study, conducted in 2005, found that 54% of employers offered paid leave to new mothers, while only 12% offered (any) paid leave to new fathers. employers who offer maternity leave, 46% offered some paid leave to new mothers. Among employers who offered paternity leave, only 13% offered paid leave to new fathers. While the rising numbers of employers offering paternity leave surely encourage many men to take time off for a new child when they would not otherwise do so, the incentives are not as strong as they are for women so long as paternity leave programs remain less generous than similar maternity programs.
Furthermore, it is likely that even if paternity leave programs were both universal and as generous as maternity leave programs, men would still be less likely than women to take time off. For example, in Sweden, where employers are required to offer sixteen months paid leave at 80% salary (subsidized by the government), to be split as a couple sees fit, men only take about 20% of the available leave. The statistic might be even more skewed if not for the fact that each parent is required to take a portion of the available leave time. The explanation cannot be that, because men earn more, couples are unwilling to have the higher wage earner forgo employment: either parent is paid in proportion according to his or her salary. The reasons, then, must be the standard cultural ones: women are expected to raise children, whether because of beliefs about their superior parenting skills or lingering prejudice about their overall unsuitability for the workforce. Also, whether explicitly or not, it is clear that employers are likely to reserve coveted promotions for the most demonstrably committed employees. So long as most managerial positions go to males, men cannot afford to take themselves out of the running for these positions by taking advantage of paternity leave, even when it is available.
Mandatory Paternity Leave: A Bold Leap Forward
So long women take the vast majority of parental leave, employers will look warily on many female candidates for fear that they will interrupt their careers to the detriment of the employer. Many women will correctly suspect employers of this wariness and be chilled from even applying to various opportunities that would give women a better foothold in the power positions of the economy. The solution is to require symmetry in practice as well as in form. Men should not only have the option of paid leave, but should be required to take it, in durations equal to female leave, whether taken concurrently or sequentially. In this way, both sexes, not just one, would have a hand in the early raising of children. Father-child bonds would be strengthened. Parents would be less resentful of careers and employers that serve as an impediment to, rather than a partner in, family life. Productivity losses due to mandatory leave would be at least partially offset by improved employee life satisfaction in the time immediately preceding and following the leave.
While a system of mandatory paternity leave is so radical a departure from the present system as to have little political currency, the objections it raises are not insurmountable. The primary objection is that the system would certainly involve vast expense, in proportion to the amount by which the government subsidized it. The countries that currently have government-supported paid leave programs are those already with a cultural mindset that embraces social safety nets. While these fiscal concerns are beyond the scope of this paper, suffice it to say that: (1) Movement toward mandatory paternity leave need not be sudden, but can proceed gradually; (2) Industry has already embarked on the trajectory on its own; (3) The government can begin with incentives for employers to begin offering better paternity leave packages, rather than immediately moving to outright funding.
Another powerful objection is that government should not be in the business of hampering some people in the interest of securing equality for all.
Another objection is that we simply need stronger laws to prevent employers from denying promotions based on leave. But this is too hard to police.
Another objection is discouraging childbirth. But see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4629631.stm | >
> | The rise of maternity leave, its ultimate enshrinement in law, and the increased availability of paid maternity leave has surely allowed some women to forge successful careers who would not have chosen to do so under the older system, which tended to harshly penalize women for merely being pregnant by, for example, firing them. Maternity leave refers to an employer policy that allows a mother to return to her job after she has taken time off for pregnancy or infant childcare; the leave may be paid or unpaid. Since The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), most large employers are required under federal law to offer at least 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Employers often compete for the most generous maternity leave programs, sometimes offering paid leave for lengthy periods, in an effort to attract and retain the best female talent, though only 8% of American employees (male and female) have the option of taking paid parental leave. | | | | |
>
> | Even paid maternity leave programs, however, do not solve the female underrepresentation problem. First, among firms who have leave policies only because they are required to do so under the FMLA, some will discriminate against female hires because of the likelihood that they will take advantage of the firm's leave policies and hence be less worthwhile investments. Second, even at firms with generous maternity leave programs, women surely fear the risk - an accurate worry, no doubt - that taking a lengthy break mid-career will retard one's rate of career advancement, if not precluding promotion entirely. | | | | |
>
> | Paternity Leave: One Step Better | | | | |
>
> | Maternity leave programs help mitigate the female underrepresentation problem by incentivizing some women to seek out careers that would have previously been viewed as non-family friendly. Paternity leave programs, in contrast, can mitigate the underrepresentation problem by ensuring that more men take career breaks in order to help raise children. The more men take paternity leave, the less parental leave becomes is a distinctly female issue, and the less it will operate to exclude women from privileged positions in society. | | | | |
>
> | Paternity leave, once nonexistent, has gradually become more common. The FMLA treats male and female parents symmetrically: employers covered under the FMLA must offer at least twelve weeks of unpaid leave to new fathers as well as new mothers. However, while many employers go above and beyond the FMLA-required minimum limits for female employees, the same is not true for male employees. For example, among the Institute for Women's Policy Research "Working Mother 100 Best Companies" - a set of employers that one would expect to be particularly friendly toward family leave issues - 93% offered paid maternity leave, while only 35% offered paid paternity leave. None of these employers offered more than six weeks paid leave for new fathers, while nearly 50% did so for new mothers. Another study, conducted in 2005, found that 54% of employers offered some paid leave to new mothers, while only 12% offered (any) paid leave to new fathers. So long as paternity leave programs (PLPs) remain less generous than their maternity counterparts (MLPs), men will not find leave as attractive an option as do women. | | | | |
>
> | However, it is likely that even if PLPs were both universal and as generous as MLPs, men would still be less likely than women to take time off. For example, in Sweden, where employers are required to offer sixteen months paid leave at 80% salary (subsidized by the government), to be split as a couple sees fit, men only take about 20% of the available leave. The statistic might be even more skewed if not for the fact that each parent is required to take a portion of the available leave time. | | | | |
<
< | It is too difficult to police whether firms are loathe to hire women because of the potential for maternity leave, and because of that, many women will be chilled from ever applying to certain jobs or firms in the first place. The solution, then, is to require symmetry in practice as well as in form. If both employers and women know that
In general, you can only accomplish this through affirmative action, i.e., privileging the disadvantaged class, or through creating a restriction on both sexes that operates to "disadvantage" them equally
But see Harrison Bergeron objection
Also see objection based on discouraging childbirth
Address objection: why not just make make it harder for employers to discriminate?
_________________________________________________________________________________
PreWriting? Notes (For Author's Use Only):
- Some invidious sexism still exists
- Besides addressing that, though, we need to address selection criteria that are perfectly rational and legitimate and not intended to be proxies for sex, yet nevertheless have sex-disparate effects ** We still live in a society where a much greater proportion of women than men interrupt their careers for children; this is true even among high-achieving women
- We have been making strides: * Maternity leave (prevents employers from firing female employees simply for taking time off to have children) - but this still perpetuates the notion that it is women who take time off * Mandatory maternity leave - this turns a benefit offered by some firms into one required by society ** Paternity leave (recognizes that males may want to take time off for their children to, or alternately, recognizes that males may be better situated to do so (maybe the female is the higher earner or the one with the job requiring more continuity), or alternately, recognizes that involves fathers create better-raised children and hence is a good thing for society
Should employers be required to offer paternity leave?
- Right now, women might not enter certain powerful careers because of the prospect of interrupting their careers to have children, and certain employers are less likely to hire women because of the career-interrupting potential of children ** Encouraging more men to take paternity leave would mitigate that risk
- There are certainly downsides: * Government would have to help fund * It would encourage more people to take off work and hence decrease productivity
- There are also some upsides: * It might create happier, less resentful employees, more well-slept employees (this would increase productivity) * Good for society in that more kids are raised by both their parents rather than just one
Should paternity leave be mandatory?
- There are two senses of the word mandatory in this context: * Should a couple opting into the parental leave system be required to split time equally between the mother and the father? ** Current Swedish system, and Swedish proposals... * Should parents be required to take a leave of absence from work? ** This is a massive intrusion into people's private lives and freedom of contract * Harrison Bergeron objection * Optional paid paternity leave is enough incentive; who would want to work while still getting paid? ** But potential to lose out on promotions ** Even if it is illegal to discriminate based on who opted into the parental leave system, there would be no way to police that
| | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | The explanation cannot be that husbands earn more than their wives, because either parent earns (nearly) his or her entire salary while on leave.
The reasons, then, must be the standard cultural ones: women are expected to raise children, whether because of beliefs about their superior parenting skills or lingering prejudice about their overall unsuitability for the workforce. Also, whether explicitly or not, it is clear that employers are likely to reserve coveted promotions for the most demonstrably committed employees. So long as most managerial positions go to males, men cannot afford to take themselves out of the running for these positions by taking advantage of paternity leave, even when it is available. Something more than a mere continuation of the current trend for offering paternity leave is necessary. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
MichaelBerkovits-SecondPaper 5 - 07 Apr 2008 - Main.MichaelBerkovits
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, but comments are welcome. | | | Paternity leave, once nonexistent, has gradually become more common. For example, the FMLA treats male and female parents symmetrically: employers covered under the FMLA must offer at least twelve weeks of unpaid leave to new fathers as well as new mothers. However, while many employers go above and beyond the FMLA-required minimum limits for female employees, the same is not true for male employees. For example, among the Institute for Women's Policy Research "Working Mother 100 Best Companies" - a set of employers that one would expect to be particularly friendly toward family leave issues - 93% offered paid maternity leave, while only 35% offered paid paternity leave. None of these employers offered more than six weeks paid leave for new fathers, while nearly 50% did so for new mothers. Another study, conducted in 2005, found that 54% of employers offered paid leave to new mothers, while only 12% offered (any) paid leave to new fathers. employers who offer maternity leave, 46% offered some paid leave to new mothers. Among employers who offered paternity leave, only 13% offered paid leave to new fathers. While the rising numbers of employers offering paternity leave surely encourage many men to take time off for a new child when they would not otherwise do so, the incentives are not as strong as they are for women so long as paternity leave programs remain less generous than similar maternity programs. | |
<
< | Furthermore, it is likely that even if paternity leave programs were both universal and as generous as maternity leave programs, men would still be less likely than women to take time off. For example, in Sweden, where employers are required to offer | >
> | Furthermore, it is likely that even if paternity leave programs were both universal and as generous as maternity leave programs, men would still be less likely than women to take time off. For example, in Sweden, where employers are required to offer sixteen months paid leave at 80% salary (subsidized by the government), to be split as a couple sees fit, men only take about 20% of the available leave. The statistic might be even more skewed if not for the fact that each parent is required to take a portion of the available leave time. The explanation cannot be that, because men earn more, couples are unwilling to have the higher wage earner forgo employment: either parent is paid in proportion according to his or her salary. The reasons, then, must be the standard cultural ones: women are expected to raise children, whether because of beliefs about their superior parenting skills or lingering prejudice about their overall unsuitability for the workforce. Also, whether explicitly or not, it is clear that employers are likely to reserve coveted promotions for the most demonstrably committed employees. So long as most managerial positions go to males, men cannot afford to take themselves out of the running for these positions by taking advantage of paternity leave, even when it is available. | | | | |
>
> | Mandatory Paternity Leave: A Bold Leap Forward
So long women take the vast majority of parental leave, employers will look warily on many female candidates for fear that they will interrupt their careers to the detriment of the employer. Many women will correctly suspect employers of this wariness and be chilled from even applying to various opportunities that would give women a better foothold in the power positions of the economy. The solution is to require symmetry in practice as well as in form. Men should not only have the option of paid leave, but should be required to take it, in durations equal to female leave, whether taken concurrently or sequentially. In this way, both sexes, not just one, would have a hand in the early raising of children. Father-child bonds would be strengthened. Parents would be less resentful of careers and employers that serve as an impediment to, rather than a partner in, family life. Productivity losses due to mandatory leave would be at least partially offset by improved employee life satisfaction in the time immediately preceding and following the leave.
While a system of mandatory paternity leave is so radical a departure from the present system as to have little political currency, the objections it raises are not insurmountable. The primary objection is that the system would certainly involve vast expense, in proportion to the amount by which the government subsidized it. The countries that currently have government-supported paid leave programs are those already with a cultural mindset that embraces social safety nets. While these fiscal concerns are beyond the scope of this paper, suffice it to say that: (1) Movement toward mandatory paternity leave need not be sudden, but can proceed gradually; (2) Industry has already embarked on the trajectory on its own; (3) The government can begin with incentives for employers to begin offering better paternity leave packages, rather than immediately moving to outright funding.
Another powerful objection is that government should not be in the business of hampering some people in the interest of securing equality for all.
Another objection is that we simply need stronger laws to prevent employers from denying promotions based on leave. But this is too hard to police.
Another objection is discouraging childbirth. But see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4629631.stm | | | | |
<
< | First of all, to be effective, paternity leave must at least be equal to maternity leave (Unpaid paternity leave is no good; only 35% of the "Institute for Women's Policy Research "working Mother 100 Best Companies," which would be expected to be a particularly family-friendly set, offer paid paternity leave: - compare to 93% of companies in that group offering paid maternity leave: http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/parentalleaveA131.pdf) | | | | |
<
< | But even if paternity leave policies are structured the same, there are still problems:
Women more likely to actually take leave because of cultural pressure / habit, the fact that men earn more (few men actually take paternity leave; see Swedish situation:http://www.thelocal.se/10420/20080312/) | | | | |
<
< | Mandatory Paternity Leave: | | | It is too difficult to police whether firms are loathe to hire women because of the potential for maternity leave, and because of that, many women will be chilled from ever applying to certain jobs or firms in the first place. The solution, then, is to require symmetry in practice as well as in form. If both employers and women know that |
|
|
MichaelBerkovits-SecondPaper 4 - 06 Apr 2008 - Main.MichaelBerkovits
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. | >
> | THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, but comments are welcome. | | | | | | Paternity Leave: One Step Better | |
>
> | The extent to which parental leave has a sex-disparate impact depends on the number of men who take such a leave as compared to the number of women. Employers will not discriminate against female candidates based on the perceived likelihood of taking maternity leave, if the number of men who take paternity leave (and the length of that leave) is comparable.
Paternity leave, once nonexistent, has gradually become more common. For example, the FMLA treats male and female parents symmetrically: employers covered under the FMLA must offer at least twelve weeks of unpaid leave to new fathers as well as new mothers. However, while many employers go above and beyond the FMLA-required minimum limits for female employees, the same is not true for male employees. For example, among the Institute for Women's Policy Research "Working Mother 100 Best Companies" - a set of employers that one would expect to be particularly friendly toward family leave issues - 93% offered paid maternity leave, while only 35% offered paid paternity leave. None of these employers offered more than six weeks paid leave for new fathers, while nearly 50% did so for new mothers. Another study, conducted in 2005, found that 54% of employers offered paid leave to new mothers, while only 12% offered (any) paid leave to new fathers. employers who offer maternity leave, 46% offered some paid leave to new mothers. Among employers who offered paternity leave, only 13% offered paid leave to new fathers. While the rising numbers of employers offering paternity leave surely encourage many men to take time off for a new child when they would not otherwise do so, the incentives are not as strong as they are for women so long as paternity leave programs remain less generous than similar maternity programs.
Furthermore, it is likely that even if paternity leave programs were both universal and as generous as maternity leave programs, men would still be less likely than women to take time off. For example, in Sweden, where employers are required to offer | | | | |
<
< | The FMLA is symmetric in the way it treats male and female parents; that is, companies covered under the FMLA must offer at least twelve weeks of unpaid leave to new fathers. | | | First of all, to be effective, paternity leave must at least be equal to maternity leave (Unpaid paternity leave is no good; only 35% of the "Institute for Women's Policy Research "working Mother 100 Best Companies," which would be expected to be a particularly family-friendly set, offer paid paternity leave: - compare to 93% of companies in that group offering paid maternity leave: http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/parentalleaveA131.pdf) | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | Address objection: why not just make make it harder for employers to discriminate? | | |
_________________________________________________________________________________ |
|
|
MichaelBerkovits-SecondPaper 3 - 06 Apr 2008 - Main.MichaelBerkovits
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. | | | -- By MichaelBerkovits - 05 Apr 2008 | |
>
> | There are many reasons why women continue to be underrepresented in powerful positions in the economy. This essay concerns itself with one that is particularly difficult because it arguably derives from legitimate business interests and not from sexist motivations.
Introduction to the Problem
Despite the fact that having children is a reliable route to decreased life satisfaction, people continue to reproduce in large numbers. Women are immensely more likely than men to interrupt or forgo their careers in order to raise children; even many high-achieving women contemplate doing so.
Until the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), having a child, for women, often meant being fired or resigning in order to avoid firing. Today, employers would shy from firing women because they have become pregnant. Yet even today, one can imagine that some employers find women to be less desirable candidates for employment or promotion because of a perceived likelihood that they are likely to take significant time off, or even interrupt or end their career, because of a pregnancy. Furthermore, some women likely refrain from beginning certain types of careers because of a concern that prospective employers will not accommodate mid-career leaves of absence in order to have and raise children. Finally, some women, probably correctly, conclude that whether or not employers accommodate parental leave, it is far more difficult to earn promotion and advance in an industry when one takes a substantial amount of time off in order to focus on one's family. All of these factors likely operate to reduce the number of women in powerful positions in the economy. (rephrase so as not to have quite so bold a leap of logic)
Maternity Leave: A Partial Solution
Maternity leave refers to an employer policy that allows a mother to return to her job after she has taken time off for pregnancy or infant childcare; the leave may be paid or unpaid. (Since The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), most large employers are required under federal law to offer at least 12 weeks of unpaid leave.) Employers often compete for the most generous maternity leave programs, sometimes offering paid leave for lengthy periods, in an effort to attract and retain the best female talent, though only 8% of American employees (male and female) have the option of taking paid parental leave. Maternity leave helps address the concern that some prospective female candidates for employment have when choosing whether to enter certain careers or certain places of employment.
Maternity leave, however, does not address the possibility that, at least among firms who have leave policies only because they are required to do so under the FMLA, some will discriminate against female hires because of the likelihood that they will take advantage of the firm's leave policies. Nor does maternity leave address the possibility that women risk the possibility of advancement, or at least retard the rate of advancement, by actually taking a lengthy break mid-career.
Paternity Leave: One Step Better
The FMLA is symmetric in the way it treats male and female parents; that is, companies covered under the FMLA must offer at least twelve weeks of unpaid leave to new fathers.
First of all, to be effective, paternity leave must at least be equal to maternity leave (Unpaid paternity leave is no good; only 35% of the "Institute for Women's Policy Research "working Mother 100 Best Companies," which would be expected to be a particularly family-friendly set, offer paid paternity leave: - compare to 93% of companies in that group offering paid maternity leave: http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/parentalleaveA131.pdf)
But even if paternity leave policies are structured the same, there are still problems:
Women more likely to actually take leave because of cultural pressure / habit, the fact that men earn more (few men actually take paternity leave; see Swedish situation:http://www.thelocal.se/10420/20080312/)
Mandatory Paternity Leave:
It is too difficult to police whether firms are loathe to hire women because of the potential for maternity leave, and because of that, many women will be chilled from ever applying to certain jobs or firms in the first place. The solution, then, is to require symmetry in practice as well as in form. If both employers and women know that
In general, you can only accomplish this through affirmative action, i.e., privileging the disadvantaged class, or through creating a restriction on both sexes that operates to "disadvantage" them equally
But see Harrison Bergeron objection
Also see objection based on discouraging childbirth
_________________________________________________________________________________
PreWriting? Notes (For Author's Use Only): | | | | |
<
< | Introduction | | |
- Some invidious sexism still exists
- Besides addressing that, though, we need to address selection criteria that are perfectly rational and legitimate and not intended to be proxies for sex, yet nevertheless have sex-disparate effects ** We still live in a society where a much greater proportion of women than men interrupt their careers for children; this is true even among high-achieving women
| | | ** Mandatory maternity leave - this turns a benefit offered by some firms into one required by society
** Paternity leave (recognizes that males may want to take time off for their children to, or alternately, recognizes that males may be better situated to do so (maybe the female is the higher earner or the one with the job requiring more continuity), or alternately, recognizes that involves fathers create better-raised children and hence is a good thing for society | |
<
< | Should employers be required to offer paternity leave? | >
> | Should employers be required to offer paternity leave? | | |
- Right now, women might not enter certain powerful careers because of the prospect of interrupting their careers to have children, and certain employers are less likely to hire women because of the career-interrupting potential of children ** Encouraging more men to take paternity leave would mitigate that risk
- There are certainly downsides:
| | | ** It might create happier, less resentful employees, more well-slept employees (this would increase productivity)
** Good for society in that more kids are raised by both their parents rather than just one | |
<
< | Should paternity leave be mandatory? | >
> | Should paternity leave be mandatory? | | |
- There are two senses of the word mandatory in this context: * Should a couple opting into the parental leave system be required to split time equally between the mother and the father? ** Current Swedish system, and Swedish proposals...
|
|
|
MichaelBerkovits-SecondPaper 2 - 05 Apr 2008 - Main.MichaelBerkovits
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
>
> | THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. | | | | | |
Introduction
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
- Some invidious sexism still exists
- Besides addressing that, though, we need to address selection criteria that are perfectly rational and legitimate and not intended to be proxies for sex, yet nevertheless have sex-disparate effects ** We still live in a society where a much greater proportion of women than men interrupt their careers for children; this is true even among high-achieving women
- We have been making strides: * Maternity leave (prevents employers from firing female employees simply for taking time off to have children) - but this still perpetuates the notion that it is women who take time off * Mandatory maternity leave - this turns a benefit offered by some firms into one required by society ** Paternity leave (recognizes that males may want to take time off for their children to, or alternately, recognizes that males may be better situated to do so (maybe the female is the higher earner or the one with the job requiring more continuity), or alternately, recognizes that involves fathers create better-raised children and hence is a good thing for society
Should employers be required to offer paternity leave?
- Right now, women might not enter certain powerful careers because of the prospect of interrupting their careers to have children, and certain employers are less likely to hire women because of the career-interrupting potential of children ** Encouraging more men to take paternity leave would mitigate that risk
- There are certainly downsides: * Government would have to help fund * It would encourage more people to take off work and hence decrease productivity
- There are also some upsides: * It might create happier, less resentful employees, more well-slept employees (this would increase productivity) * Good for society in that more kids are raised by both their parents rather than just one
Should paternity leave be mandatory?
- There are two senses of the word mandatory in this context: * Should a couple opting into the parental leave system be required to split time equally between the mother and the father? ** Current Swedish system, and Swedish proposals... * Should parents be required to take a leave of absence from work? ** This is a massive intrusion into people's private lives and freedom of contract * Harrison Bergeron objection * Optional paid paternity leave is enough incentive; who would want to work while still getting paid? ** But potential to lose out on promotions ** Even if it is illegal to discriminate based on who opted into the parental leave system, there would be no way to police that
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|