Conference turris::womannotes-v1

Maybe because we're tired of voicing "opinions" while someone else
tells us what we MUST do to conform to THEIR standards????

Actually, I must shamefully hang my head and admit that the first time
I HEARD anything about this was Friday night when I watched some news
with my mother-in-law.  I've been amazingly out of touch with life
lately.

I guess the crux of the issue is whether or not the mother should be
GUARANTEED her job back after 4 months, not her rights to have an
unpaid leave or if the employer will accommodate her.  Even DEC says
that yes, you can leave, but after n months we won't guarantee your
job.  And that's not restricted to maternity leave.  A guy in my group,
a software engineer, has taken a 6-month LOA to take a trip around
the world.  He's got a job at DEC *IF* they can place him when he returns.

One side of the coin is that commerce is claiming to encourage and help
women in many issues, and helping them keep their jobs is one way of
doing that.  The other issue is that it's going to be at a cost to the
employer... The employer cannot get someone else for that position
in the meantime.  And 4 months is a pretty long time.

So, it depends on WHO you're defending as to which is the best idea,
yes???

Karen    

    When I read the base note, I went poring through two Sunday papers
    trying to find any mention of a recent ruling on this topic, and
    failed.  I recall one from at least a year ago (if not more) that
    ruled that maternity leave must be considered a disability leave,
    and must be treated just like any other such leave.
    
    So - if there was something more recent, could you please fill me
    in?
    			Steve

    The Supreme Court ruling upheld the rights of the states to enact
    laws which treat pregnancy as a special case of medical leave of
    absence.  In this case, California law allows a four month leave
    of absence for pregnancy.  This guarentees a woman her position
    upon returning after childbir.
    
    The opposition claims discrimination againt men and non-pregnant
    women as this ruling would allow a double standard.  The company
    might have a policy of n months medical leave of absence, but the
    state law might require n + m months medical leave of absence
    specifically for pregnan.

    That's CHILDBIRTH and PREGNANCY.  The phone lines are fuzzy tonight.
    Sorry.
    

    
    Of course the ruling discriminates against men.  Men
    do not get pregnant, hence do not face this set of circumstances.
    As far as I'm concerned, the opposition ought to take a course in
    elementary human anatomy and realize they don't have a leg to stand
    on.
    
    DFW

    re -1:
    
    How do you mean the ruling discriminates against men?  Because it
    does not allow for paternity leave?
    
    But really the law *does not* discriminate against men.  It's only
    letting women have what men have always had - the right to keep
    their jobs after becoming parents.  A man who thinks this discriminates
    against men may think differently should his wife become pregnant
    and lose her job (and hence, a significant portion of family income)
    because she became pregnant and needed time off for it.
    
    	-Ellen

    One could indeed argue that the law discriminates against men by
    not allowing them to take a comparable paternity leave.  I felt
    discriminated against when I could not stay home with my newborn
    son unless I used vacation time.  Why aren't you arguing that
    mothers shouldn't be required to do all the parenting of a newborn?
    After all, that's what the current law insists.
    					Steve

    Not  having particularly thought about this until I saw it on the TV 
    news my thoughts were:
    
    1) of course women should have the right of maternity leave and  job 
    security! (I was frankly surprised that they didn't)
    
    2) why is America lagging the rest of the world? (the TV  news  said 
    that  over  100  countries  have legally protected maternity leave). 
    Some countries (Sweden comes to mind) protect  parenting  leave  for 
    both parents...

    /. Ian .\

    
    re: .6 (in reply to my .5)
    
    I evidently failed to convey my point there, which was that the
    claim that the ruling discriminates against men is somewhat shaky
    in my opinion.
    
    Maybe it ought to be phrased this way:
    
    	"Whoever is responsible for maintaining the survival of the
    infant should be free to do so until such time as other arrangements
    (i.e., day care) can be made, with the assurance that their job
    will still be there."
    
    	The other parent, if there is one, ought to be out working if
    possible.  Kids are expensive.
    
    Hopefully lucid,
    DFW

I'm going to side step the "discrimination" point but toss out another
thought.  We, here in Digital and other large Corporations have the
advantage of either covering for an individual when that individual
may be out sick, medical leave or maternity leave but what about those
small businesses that have only maybe 2 or 3 people in the business --how 
can they survive if this law is passed??  

I believe that maternity leave should be handled that allows the woman
to come back to a job equivalent to or similar to IF it is within a
large Corporation -- I don't know really how to cover the issue of
small businesses without "discriminating" against the woman.  But it
is a law that can't be a "blanket" law.

			Marian

< Note 169.9 by HPSCAD::WALL "I see the middle kingdom..." >
                         -< Let me make one thing... >-

    
    re: .6 (in reply to my .5)
    
    I evidently failed to convey my point there, which was that the
    claim that the ruling discriminates against men is somewhat shaky
    in my opinion.
    
    Maybe it ought to be phrased this way:
    
    	"Whoever is responsible for maintaining the survival of the
    infant should be free to do so until such time as other arrangements
    (i.e., day care) can be made, with the assurance that their job
    will still be there."
    
    	The other parent, if there is one, ought to be out working if
    possible.  Kids are expensive.
    
    Hopefully lucid,
    DFW

re :-1

Most of the European countries that I know of have a minimum sized business
to which the law applies (I think in Britain it is 50 employees). In any
event the law usually requires that you state your intent to return when
you leave (which I think would rule against the woman in the Supreme Court
case we are discussing, however...)

So the answer is, I guess, that that is what "temp" agencies are for. If
your employee leaves on parenting leave, stating an intent to return you
hire a temp to do the job for 6 months (or whatever).

/. Ian .\

    Many of my peers (I was graduated from RPI last May), both male
    and female, intend to share the raising of their (generally) future
    kids.   If we (as in society) are giving leave for child-bearing,
    then the child-bearer should have three weeks off (I believe my
    mom was back at work two weeks after having me).   I believe we
    are *NOT* giving leave for child-bearing but for child-REARING.
    Given that this is the case, the Supreme Court decision IS
    descriminatory towards men, however, I still view their decision
    with favor because it is a *step* in the correct direction.
    If society wants to continue, it should certainly make it easy for
    its most productive members, ie the ones in the work force, to
    reproduce! :-}
    
    I always thought that the most ideal situation would be if each
    parent, upon the birth of his or her child, would be allowed a six
    month leave within the first year of the child's life.   This way,
    first one parent and then the other could take leave, ensuring that
    at least the first year's child care would be taken care of!
    
    Tamar
    

    Well, last week we had the "good news" and now we have...
    
Associated Press Wed 21-JAN-1987 10:51                 Scotus-Maternity Leave

                             By RICHARD CARELLI
                          Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON  (AP)  -  States are under no special legal obligation to 
    pay unemployment benefits to women who lose their jobs after  taking 
    maternity leave, the Supreme Court ruled today.
   
    The  court  said  a  federal  law  barring  discrimination  based on 
    pregnancy in unemployment benefit payments bans states from singling 
    out  pregnancy  for  unfavorable  treatment  only.  The law does not 
    mandate preferential treatment for pregnant workers, the court said.
   
    The 8-0 decision is  a  defeat  for  a  woman  refused  unemployment 
    benefits  after  being  denied  reinstatement as a Kansas City, Mo., 
    department store cashier when she wanted to  return  from  maternity 
    leave.
   
    Just  last  week  the court, in interpreting a separate federal law, 
    ruled that states may require employers to give pregnant workers job 
    protections not available to other employees.
   
    The  justices  in  that  decision  upheld a California law requiring 
    employers to grant unpaid leaves of absence and insure reinstatement 
    for  women  whose  pregnancies  leave  them unable to work - even if 
    leaves are not granted for any other disability.
   
    But today the court said no such special protection was intended  by 
    Congress when it passed the Federal Unemployment Tax Act of 1978.
   
    Justice  Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the court, said, "Congress 
    intended only to prohibit states from  singling  out  pregnancy  for 
    unfavorable  treatment  ...    If a state adopts a neutral rule that 
    incidentally disqualifies pregnant or formerly pregnant claimants as 
    part  of  a  larger  group, the neutral application of that rule" is 
    legal.
   
    Missouri  law  disqualifies  anyone  from  collecting   unemployment 
    benefits for leaving work "voluntarily" for reasons not job-related.
   
    According  to  court  documents,  similar  policies  are enforced in 
    Minnesota, North Dakota, Vermont and the District of Columbia.
   
    The practical impact  of  today's  ruling  likely  will  be  limited 
    because  most  states  include  leaves  of  absence taken because of 
    pregnancy in those "good cause"  leaves  that  do  not  disqualify a 
    worker from collecting unemployment if later denied reinstatement.
   
    When  Linda  Wimberly tried to collect unemployment benefits in 1983 
    she was turned down because of the Missouri law.
   
    Mrs. Wimberly had been granted a maternity leave of absence from her 
    job at J.C.  Penney Co. in August 1980. Her child was born Nov. 5 of 
    that year, and on Dec.  1 Mrs.  Wimberly notified  her employer that 
    she was ready to return to work.
   
    At the time, however, no cashier positions were available.
   
    After  unsuccessfully  applying  for unemployment compensation, Mrs. 
    Wimberly sued.  She won in two state courts but the Missouri Supreme 
    Court ruled against her.
   
    Today's decision upheld the state Supreme Court ruling.
   
    In  finding  that  the  Missouri law does not conflict with the 1978 
    federal law, O'Connor noted that "all persons  who  leave  work  for 
    reasons  not  causally  connected  to  the  work or the employer are 
    disqualified from receiving benefits."
   
    "To apply this law, it is not necessary to know (Mrs. Wimberly) left 
    because  of pregnancy; all that is relevant is that she stopped work 
    for a reason bearing  no  causal  connection  to  her  work  or  her 
    employer."
   
    Justice Harry A. Blackmun did not participate in the case.
   
    The case is Wimberly vs.  Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 
    85-129.