To clarify the "poor planning" part, first of all, it doesn't matter how long in advance the department knows, if they do not have enough resources to cover the position of someone on maternity leave they simply cannot do it. Planning is no substitute for a decent budget. My point was that for an institute to tell its department to provide maternity leave (or any other benefit) without providing financial support for it puts a lot of pressure on the departments involved to try to get around the issue, and this can lead to sex descrimination. If we want to get rid of discriminatory practices, we have to get rid of the incentive to discriminate.
As for having "4-6 months to plan ahead", that is not always available. While I think that any responsible employee would provide the information as soon as pregnancy has been determined, this does not always happen. Even after a woman begins to show, it is pretty delicate to have to ask whether she is pregnant or just putting on weight. In any case, if the pregnancy is likely to create hardship for the department, the pressure to conceal a pregnancy exists. That is another reason why the institute, not the individual department, should shoulder the financial (and personnel) burden of maternity leave. Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bilodeau, Rebecca -- MFG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 5:40 PM Subject: Re: gender issues in ecology > The issue of someone "suddenly leaving on maternity leave" is a > non-issue in most cases. Generally the University/company has at least > 4-6 months to plan ahead. What about staff who suddenly leave on any > medical leave due to stroke, heart attack, family medical emergencies? > Everyone has seen examples of that in both men and women. That can > happen to any person, regardless of gender or age, and is a more > expensive issue because it is unplanned. In the examples Bill provided, > it sounded like very poor planning on the department/lab's behalf.
