I would just like to point out that demographic data show declining populations in most European countries, while the U.S. is growing. With a greater proportion of the population in the workforce and fewer adults procreating, the Europeans are certainly in a better position to afford to provide more maternity/paternity leave than here in the U.S.. In addition, with higher unemployment rates, those longer leaves may provide much-needed opportunities for the younger workers to get on-the-job experience while waiting for permanent positions to open up. One more factor is that, by making it easier for people to care for their children, that might encourage more people to reproduce, which would provide a much-needed boost for the workforce in the coming decades when a greater proportion of their populations is elderly.
Carrie DeJaco Britton Estep wrote: > I love how men keep replying to this topic! Where are the professional MOMS > out there?? SPEAK UP! This is a great discussion. > > I am trying to digest the words, "burden", "hardship", "planning ahead" and > the best--- "Even after a woman begins to show, it is pretty delicate to > have to ask whether she is pregnant or just putting on weight"---- > > I think the savvy women on this listserv are having a chuckle. I know I am. > > I am not sure I really have 2 cents to give, other than look at Norway for > an example of a exemplary national system for childcare. Each parent gets 6 > months paid maternity or paternity leave. To me this speaks volumes of the > priorities of that nation, child rearing, bringing up the next generation of > beings is IMPORTANT and to do a superior job you need time, money, love, and > energy. > > America has a lot of re-prioritizing to do. Women work and mother, it ain't > one or the other anymore. > > -Brit > > > > > > On 11/2/06, William Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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. >>> > > > >
