Conference turris::womannotes-v1

Associated Press Wed  1-APR-1987 17:38                         Parental Leave

1-APR-87

          Panel Hears Debate On Parental Leave Legislation statehouse

    BOSTON (AP) - Lt.  Gov.  Evelyn Murphy joined parents' rights advocates 
    Wednesday to support state legislation  which  would  extend  maternity 
    leave  from  eight weeks to 18 weeks, give fathers the same protections 
    as mothers and create a state fund for parents on leave.
   
    "The issues of parental and maternity leave used to be considered  just 
    women's issues. Now they are family issues and economic issues," Murphy 
    told the Legislature's Commerce and Labor Committee.
   
    "Working parents need the stability and economic security  provided  by 
    legal  rights  to  parental leave with restoration of the same level of 
    benefits, pay and seniority when they return to the workplace after the 
    birth of a child," she said.
   
    Under current state law, mothers' jobs are protected for eight weeks of 
    maternity leave.
   
    Money for the proposed state fund to compensate parents on leave  would 
    come from a .025 percent tax on employee's income.
   
    Committee  members were generally receptive to the proposal but worried 
    about unfairly taxing workers who plan to  remain  childless  or  those 
    past their child-bearing years.
   
    But  the  bill  would  benefit  all  of society, argued Rep.  Mary Jane 
    Gibson, D-Belmont, chairwoman of a special commission which  researched 
    the  parental leave issue and drafted the legislation.  "The cost of no 
    action is enormous," she said.
   
    "The workplace has changed  in  our  lifetime  and  the  rules  of  the 
    workplace  must  catch  up," she said.  "Fathers have a family role and 
    mothers have a role of breadwinners."
   
    The number of families headed by working women increased from 2 million 
    in  1970 to 5 million in 1985, said Helena G.  Rees, a lobbyist for the 
    National Organization of Women.
   
    She said 27 percent of married women have husbands who earn  less  than 
    $10,000  a  year  and  41 percent are married to men who earn less than 
    $15,000 annually.
   
    "Clearly, women's wages are essential  for  the  economic  survival  of 
    today's families," Rees said.
   
    Robert  Gray, director of the Men's Rights Parental Leave Project, said 
    the legislation is badly needed to protect working fathers.
   
    Gray pointed to the case of Richard Last, a  Holyoke  teacher  who  was 
    denied  an  eight-day  unpaid  leave  follwing  the birth of his second 
    child.  If Last were a female teacher, Gray said, the school would have 
    given him up to a year's leave.
   
    "It  is sad when a dedicated father like Richard Last is prevented from 
    participating  fully  in  caring  for  a  newborn  child,"  Gray  said. 
    "Fathers, as well as mothers, need time to bond with their babies."
   
    But employers' groups warned against the measure.
   
    The  legislation  would  eliminate  the  flexibility  of  companies  in 
    providing leave  and  child-care  options  for  their  employees,  said 
    Loretta Harrigan of Associated Industries of Massachusetts.
   
    "Employers,  like  individuals,  are  not  all  alike.  They need to be 
    allowed to react and respond freely to these issues.  Some perhaps will 
    do  more than this proposed legislation would require; others, based on 
    their needs  and  workplace  demographics,  will  decide  to  do  less. 
    Companies are dealing with these issues," she said.
   
    Her group urged caution and further study on the issue.
   
    Murphy, however, said, "As an economist, I can say without equivocation 
    that sound parental leave and  day-care  policies  make  good  economic 
    sense as well as progressive social policy."
   
    The  League  of Women Voters also supported the measure, calling it the 
    "minimum necessary to ensure the stability  and  economic  security  of 
    parents with new babies."
   

    Des conges paternites, pourquoi pas si c'est pour que ces messieurs
    puissent se reposer de s'etre occupes du mouflet (argot pour "bebe")
    toute la nuit !
    
    Mais des peres porteurs, voila qui serait interessant ! Mon reve
    est que mon ami puisse porter son enfant lui-meme s'il lui prend
    soudain l'envie insoutenable d'en avoir un... je sais, les feministes
    vont hurler, mais je pense que c'est la seule facon d'avoir une
    reelle egalite entre les sexes ("Tu veux un enfant ? A ta guise,
    mon cher, je te souhaite une heureuse grossesse !"; et le futur
    pere tout heureux pourrait avoir un enfant VRAIMENT a lui, qu'il
    aurait fait avec sa chair et son sang, et pas seulement avec son
    sexe).
    
    Finis, les pretextes machistes ! Finis, les "de toute facon, ce
    sont les "bonnes femmes" qui font les enfants, elle sont faites
    pour ca, pour pondre et se taire, alors qu'elles se taisent et qu'elles
    se laissent monter et engrosser comme des juments !"
    
    Ouf ! Ce serait bien le moment ! Enfin !
    
    Zoziau

    Translation for 266.2 please?
    

	"All society will benefit". What absolute rot!! The only
thing most of us working folks get is a new tax. Hey duke where the he**
are you? Write your reps and senators. This is a travesty to tax payers.

    
    While I understand the need for some sort of action in this area,
    I have some reservations about levying a tax to pay for it.
    
    If I had to decide tomorrow whether or not I would ever become a
    father, I would have to say no.  I have very specific reasons against
    it.  Hence, I would be paying for a benefit I might never enjoy.
    The cynical among us may say "well, the same is true for Social
    Security..."
    
    I might be the indirect recipient of the benefits of properly raised
    children, but you're going to have a tough time convincing the
    electorate of that.  Particularly the ones in families with both
    parents working and several children who did not receive this benefit.
    
    Tough issue.  I look forward to hearing more about it.
    
    DFW

    re .1:
    
    maybe it's time for me to consider having a kid someday if
    Massachusetts is going to make it that easy for me.  Are they going
    to pay the college expenses too?
    
    Just kidding, folks.
    
    	-Ellen

    	I think a compromise that might work would be:
    
    	Legislation that requires companies to allow men and women to
    take extended *unpaid* paternal leave without loss of seniority, benefits,
    etc.  
    
    	Then for those who think they will want to take advantage of
    this,  an insurance plan similar to the one we have for long term
    disabilty.        
    
    	I don't know about you, but LTD costs only about $1.50 a week
    for me.  If I choose to risk living without it, I can.  But if I
    want it it's there.
                            
    	(Of course on the other hand, maybe LTD is so cheap because DEC
    is subsidizing it?  Does anybody know?)
    
                                                                     
    	(See what I mean about sitting on fence?  I can't even write
    I reply without disagreeing with myself...)
    
    tlh

This will bring the selfish people out of the woodwork for sure.

Let's see, on a $40,000 per year salary, this works out to $100 per year.

Now, I'm already paying about $1,000 per year for the local schools
(and I don't have any kids in school).  I doubt that I'd notice
another $100.

Having lived in a society that grants a full year (with pay) to the
parents (to split up as they choose), I have no trouble deciding that
the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

Martin.

    Don't know about the tax issue (I'm a NH native, and you know how
    we feel about taxes!), but if you are going to give maternity leave
    of any kind, paid or unpaid, it is only right that you should offer
    the same option for paternity leave.  
    
    I agree with the notion of an employee paid benefit (like LTD) that
    is a option to employees who may be planning to have children, but
    that wouldn't be insurance. It would be a "savings plan", since
    you would be choosing to take the parental leave, and you don't
    choose to use your long-term disability.
    
    Gloria 

    re 266.8
    
    Ya, $100 a year isn't so bad, but the TV station I heard it on said
    1.5% per year per person.  Are you willing to pay $600 a year (assuming
    a $40K salary)?
    
    Anybody know what the real suggested rate is?
    
    Sally
    

    .025 percent annually.....
    
    cathy

    re 266.11
    
    A rate of .025% can't be right because on a $40K salary .025% is
    a grand total of $10.  $10 a year is not going to be able to fund
    this.  Are you sure it's not .25% ($100) or 2.5% ($1000)?
    
    Sally 

    I agree with the concept of both maternity (not just short-term
    disability) and paternity leave.  Whether or not we all will have
    children is irrelevant.  We all *were* children at one time.
    
    I have heard that most major European countries have allowed parental
    leave for quite some time.  I think it is about time that America
    and Corporate America caught up.  
     
                 Carol    

	My cynical opinion is that this is fluff.  There's no reason that
	they couldn't make laws guaranteeing job position for maternity
	and paternity leaves.  Adding the tax makes the law harder to
	get passed (is this the objective?).  Then there is all the
	problems with administering the money.  Also they're totally
	sidestepping the child care issue which lasts much longer than
	18 months after the child is born.  I don't agree with the tax,
	I think that it might possibly be a way to get more revenue,
	and use it for other purposes too.

	..Karen

    
    Once again, the impact on the business involved must be considered,
    also.  Certain small businesses are already in fear of bankruptcy
    in the event they have to honor the maternity portion, alone.  Leaving
    a vital personnel slot open for any length of time can get *VERY*
    expensive, and even the largest of companies don't like the prospects.
    
    Don't get me wrong, I fully intend to take advantage of any paternity
    leave benifits which are accorded to me, if the opportunity presents
    itself.  BUT, there is a brutal reality on the other side which
    must be considered.  We (the US) are already priced out of many
    world markets.  Any additional labor or management costs could send
    many more jobs and companies careening across the oceans.
    
                               Bubba
    

Well, for a different wrinkle here:

i don't believe that it's governments (or societys) role to
encourage people to have children.  People should individually
decide to bear these costs as part of the decision to have children.

I'm not talking about public education here, just more direct costs 
such as the subject of this note.

	~Mike

    What if the leave were called "FAMILY LEAVE" rather than paternity or
    maternity leave and could be applied to any "family" situation? There
    is already leave is there is a death or a birth, but sick children,
    spouse, or parents might also be reasons for wanting to have some extra
    leave. Not to mention dozens of other reasons that are family
    oriented... 
    
    I know if something happens to my parents, I would want to be there,
    but I really wouldn't want to have to choose between them and the
    job, since the job would lose.
    
    I really like the idea (I forget what note is was in) of a leave
    insurance, similar to LTD insurance. Then, everyone is given the
    chance of an individual choice!
    
    This society has to come to grips with the idea that "Dad at work,
    Mom at home taking care of the kids" just isn't reality anymore
    and hasn't been for a long time (and maybe really wasn't there ��ever
    at all...) and that something must be done to adjust the workplace.
    
    janet b.
    	
    

    re .15:
    I don't know how this is being presented in its legislative form,
    but a lot of legislation like this that have to do with businesses
    only applies to businesses that have 'x' number of employees or greater
    for the very reason you mentioned.

    I, too, am leery of the state getting into the act of collecting
    and administering money for this purpose.  I'd rather have the towns
    do it, if it's going to be done at all.  Perhaps the state could
    collect the money and pass it on to the towns to set up local programs
    for daycare or whatever is decided is necessary.
    
    	-Ellen

    Remember the days when, before a woman was hired she was asked if
    she had any plans to get married or have children?  (Now illegal
    questions?)  If paternaty leave is made a right, employeers will
    wonder if a man is planning to have children.
    
    How do you men feel about that?
    
    Sally
    

    >I don't believe that is's government's (or society's) role to
    >encourage people to have children.   People should individually
    >decide to bear these costs as part of the decision to have children.
    
    Mike you have an interesting point.  However (you knew there
    was going to be one of those didn't you? :), if society doesn't
    make it possible/easier for its most productive members to have
    children, society's least productive members are going to be the
    ones to have kids.    I realize it is arguable what is 'most
    productive,' but I am defining a highly productive couple (by society's
    definition), to be a couple wherein both people of the couple work.
    If taking time off from work to have kids is too impossible, the
    most productive couples will see how much they have to lose by having
    kids and ...
    
    Now, you may say that if those people were meant (?--really wanted
    to be) parents, nothing would stop them.   The fact that they let
    things like promotions and such get in the way of their desire to
    have kids just indicates what really unsuitable parents they would
    be.    I just plain disagree with this sentiment.   If you throw
    up enough walls, eventually people get the idea about what type
    of behavior to avoid, ie, if child rearing has enough negatives
    associated with it...   And, further, raising children is downright
    highly expensive, and if having kids has a negative impact on wages...
    Society's next generation *should* be raised by people who consider
    what the impact of having kids is going to be on themselves.  I
    think those type of people make the best parents.
    
    Tamar

In support of .20

My mother  just  sent  me  an  article indicating that children with working
mothers  (I'm  assuming  the  fathers  were  considered  to be working) were
socially  better  adjusted  and  cooperated  better than those whose mothers
stayied at home.

They found   that  the  working  mothers  were  less  satisfied  with  their
performance,  but  the  author(s)  felt  it could be attributed to society's
negative attitudes toward them. 

The working  mothers  tended  to do more things with their children, Scouts,
reading  aloud,  etc. I wonder a bit whether this would slow down if parents
started  gaining confidence and didn't feel as guilty. (I am not a parent. I
*do* work.)

- Linda

    
    	This is a little off the subject, but if I ever marry, and I'm
    	trying 8*), and we proceed to have a family, I would not mind
    	being the one that doesn't work, to raise the child, BUT only
    	and only if the financial end of it was clear.  If I were making
    	more money, and the possibilities for me too continue making
    	more, then I feel that she should raise the child., but also,
    	vice versa.
    
    		Mike
    

        RE: 266.19 and men being asked if they plan to take time out to
        have children. 
        
        I warned my boss long before my first child was born that my
        family was more important than my career, and that I intended to
        put a lot of time into my kids as they were born. Once my wife
        was pregnant, I made it clear that I wanted to work at home. My
        boss was pretty open to the idea, although not convinced it was
        workable. My cost center manager, however, didn't understand
        what this was all about. He never took off time from work
        because of the birth of his kids. Was I implying that he was a
        poor father?
        
        When it looked like I was going to have a hard time getting to
        work at home, I pointed out I had six weeks of vacation coming
        and that I could take it all in a lump and be of no use to the
        company for a month and a half, or use it up a couple of days a
        week over a really long time, or be working full time from home.
        Suddenly working at home looked better. Working at home and
        taking my vacation as I had in the past in smaller lumps, I was
        able to be just as effective as before the baby was born, but
        practically never out of his sight for many weeks. 
        
        To this day, I make sure that people know that family is first
        and career second. "Kid's day", my bimonthly date wit hmy kids
        on the first of the month never gets rescheduled for work
        convenience. I take of days when Selma and the kids are sick at
        once. Despite this I have risen fairly rapidly within
        engineering. 
        
        Now I'll save everybody some time and say that I doubt it would
        be as easy for a woman to get away with decalring that family
        had priority over career as it has been for me. Then again, few
        people women or men are as pig-headed and as inflexible as I am.
        That it is harder for women to get away with putting family
        first, and at the same time more expected that they do so is
        wrong, and needs to be fixed. One of many things that can be
        done, is for more of us to make it clear that these priorities
        are right and can be held by successful and productive employees
        of both sexes.
        
        JimB.

Re: 266.20 and 266.21 re my 266.16; Tamar and Linda:

The implication here is scary to me.  If the government is 
going to directly pay certain people to have children on the grounds 
that their children will be better for society than those of others', 
a lot of consideration must be done first.

Are certain offspring really better?  Better for what?  In whose
opinion?  Is productivity really what is important to the future of
our planet?  Is this a form of bigitry, racism?  How about a form of
breeding? 

What are the social, environmental, economic, and moral questions
here?  I don't even know all the questions, I suspect some of the
"answers" would and should create great unrest. 


The population of the USA is growing by 3 million people per year.
The honest problem, ignored by many, is the effect on quality of 
life for our children.  A major crisis IS coming if we don't act.

(I could go on here for hours, but this note isn't the place)

I believe that if the government is to have any such policy, it
should be aimed at stabilization of our population.  This would be a
true positive for all. 


	~Mike  (disappointed that other noters didn't reply to these 
		points, and wondering why).

re: .24

Mike -

When I  was  younger  and  told my parents my intention not to have children
based  on  a bunch of factors, my father basically told me he felt it was my
obligation  to  have  children  to help populate later generations with more
intelligent people.

There is  a  lot  to  genes, an article in the most recent US News and World
report  talks  about  it,  I  haven't read the whole thing, but it expressed
concern  that there was potential for disallowing the reproduction of entire
races/classes/whatever,  based  on the influence of genes. For example, even
when  children of criminals had been brought up by others, totally separated
from  their natural parents, they were much more likely to be criminal later
in life than those whose parents were not criminals.

Are certain  offspring better or worse than others? And by whose estimation?
Yes, thinking about that type of thing *is* scary, but ....

A big question is what we, as a world, want the future to be like. Do we let
people  do what comes naturally and reproduce as they get the urge, or do we
try to shape the future and its participants.

I like  the idea of shaping my world and the world to come. I don't like the
idea of letting people randomly do things that I feel will be detrimental to
the  future, especially if I ever do change my mind and decide to reproduce.
(from  a puritan writer, roughly, "If there are going to be problems, let me
deal with them now rather than my child later."

However, my  ideas of what the future should be like, and others ideas, will
surely  conflict.  Who  is  "correct" about what is detrimental? What is the
"best" future?

- Linda

    Linda, re .26
    
    You seem to be referring to 'Eugenics' a study of genics very popular
    during the early part of this century, especially here in the US.
    As immigration poured people into this country, many, like yourself,
    became concerned that the genes of the 'poor and huddled masses
    yearning to be free' would contaminate the pure race of the truly
    intelligent and emotionally stable.  There were many very respectable
    scientists and scientific forums verifying the importance of
    controlling breeding.
    
    Much of this work later led to the breeding used now in raising
    animals, etc.  This work also led to the mentality that produced
    the Nazis.  The work was discredited by other very respectable
    scientists and experiments in the late thirties.  There is a book
    entitled 'Eugenics' if you are interested in learning more.
    
    The issued of controlled human breeding will always reappear, I
    think, among people who want a better world and want to alleviate
    suffering.  Those are noble (existential) goals and controlled breeding
    will always appear as a viable alternative.  
    
    It's important, as was noted by the dissenting scientists of Eugenics,
    to get all possible information and experimental results.  For example,
    schizophrenics were considered mentally ill and untreatable as recently
    as the 50s.  Certainly, you and I would not want to 'inbreed' with
    such contaminated 'genes'.  It was a major health problem in this
    country and the hospitals were jammed with untreatable schizos.
    
    Discovered within our lifetime, however, is that the disease has
    little to do with genes and more to do with faulty production of
    a very important neurotransmitter, dopamine.  Dopamine has been
    a VERY critical discovery to aid the interpretation of data regarding
    the mentally ill.  Schizos treated with dopamine showed remarkable
    improvement and returned to fairly normal lives (normal like a diabetic
    is normal).  Would you allow these people to procreate?  Or is the
    issue to take responsiblity for the reality of the decision to
    procreate under these circumstances?
    
    Do we concentrate our efforts on defining genes and controlling
    procreation or by understanding why schizophrenics do not produce
    enough dopamine and then change the genetic material so their bodies
    do produce enough without drugs?
    
    What about infertility?  Should those people not be allowed artifical
    means because their genes are poor?  Is it their genes or their
    environment?  Did you know that women who spend a lot of time on
    CRTs show a higher rate of miscarriages and not-fullterm births?
    That in England women must take 10 minute break away from the CRTs
    for every two hours of use?  How many other health issues will arise
    from this new electronic medium that could be confused as genetic
    issues without great discretion and research?
    
    Well, I've gone on at length here, but only because I sincerely
    empathize with your sentiments having found myself caught up in
    it a few years ago.  Studying Eugenics, neurology and pschobiology
    as topics of personal interest have helped me realize how very very
    much we need humility before nature and an open public forum.
    
    Wendy
    

    re .27
    Thanks Wendy.  What you describe as Eugenics is what I have always
    heard called Social Darwinism, or just plain Darwinism Carried To
    Extremes.
    
    We must be EXTREMELY careful with those sorts of arguments, because
    atrocities can result.
    
    Lee

    RE:  .27
    
    *Please* don't spread misinformation!!!  See below.....
    
    --Sue
    
There have been anecdotal allegations that VDT use is associated with birth
defects and miscarriages.  These allegations have been studied by
government agencies both here and abroad, which have been 
unable to make any connections to VDT use.  
                               * * *

"No causal link could be made between the use of VDTs and subsequent
spontaneous abortion."  (Binkin, N.J., et al, "Cluster of Spontaneous
Abortions, Dallas Texas", Public Health SErvice, Center for Disease 
Control, EPI-80-113-2, May 11, 1981.

                               * * *

"Clusters" or random variations about an average, sometimes higher, sometimes
lower, can occur at any time or place, and it is estimated that for the numbers
using computer terminals, some 50 would occur by chance alone over a three-year
period.  (Binkin, et al, ibid, p. 6)
			
			       * * *

The U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene came to similar findings for this 
incident that VDT work is not likely to be a causal factor.  ("Investigation
of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes, Defense Contract Administration Services 
Region, Atlanta, GA", Occupational Health Special Study No. 66-32-1359-81,
Alexandria, VA, Defense Logistics Agency, 1981)

These anecdotal incidents have been called "clusters".  Such a cluster is
measured as a statistical variation around an average.  So, for instance,
the average low birth weight (under 2500 gr.) rate in the U.S. is 7.3%;
however, depending on the specific population involved, their age, health,
etc., the rate actually varies from a low of 5.7% to a high of 12.6%.  
("Factors Associated with Low Birth Weight", U.S. Department of Health
Education and Welfare, Publ. No. PHS 80-1980, April, 1980)  A similar
variability exists for spontaneous abortions, which are reported at a rate of
16.4 per 100 pregnancies (Binkin, et al, ibid, p. 1); however, they
have been measured at a rate as high as 30% of diagnosed conceptions 
(Sturtevant, J.M., and Handschumaker, R. E., "VDT Radiation Health Effects",
Connecticut Academy of Science, 23 February 1984, p. 3)

                               * * *

"A variety of electromagnetic emission measurements have been reported on
several hundred VDT devices, ranging in frequency from X-rays (ionizing
radiation) to power frequencies."  The apparatus and methods employed
in these studies met high technical standards.  Most measurements of 
X-rays yielded results indistinguishable from background; one exception
is a reading ten thousand times lower than government standards.  The highest
visible and near visible radiation was measured to be on the order of a
hundredth of noon sunlight and a thousandth of government standards.  Radio
frequency and power frequency emission ranged form a tenth to a thousands or 
less of proposed government standards.  There are no reported particle 
emissions from VDTs." ("VDT Radiation Health Effects", special report by
the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering, SA83-54, Hartford, 1984)