*

*
Today at the Forum
Opinions from members of the Enquirer Editorial Board


David Wells,
Editorial Page Editor


Ray Cooklis,
Assistant Editorial Editor


Krista Ramsey,
Editorial Writer


Dennis Hetzel, General Manager,
Kentucky Enquirer/NKY.Com


Jim Borgman,
Editorial Cartoonist



Powered by Blogger

Friday, March 21, 2008

Does being a parent hurt you on the job?

They're qualified and hard-working and yet they fear they won't be hired -- because they're moms.

There's a new name -- maternal profiling -- for the old problem of employers discriminating against women who have children or may one day plan to. Sometimes they're simply seen as a risk -- will they be juggling childcare arrangements when you need them to complete a job, will they have to stay home with a sick kid when they're supposed to make a presentation? Sometimes they're discreetly slipped into mommy tracks that never lead to top jobs.

Twenty-one states (not including Ohio or Kentucky) specifically ban discrimination based on marital status. There are federal laws and state laws in Ohio and Kentucky that prohibit discrimination against pregnant women.

Still, on-the-job issues get murky. Women often don't know how much employers can ask about family issues, and discriminatory behavior can be subtle and hard to prove.

I'm interested in if you've encountered this matter -- maybe as a mom, but maybe as another employee who feels you've had to pick up the slack when a co-worker continually has to deal with family issues, or as an employer who has to manage it all.

And I don't think for a minute that dads aren't discriminated against as well -- let us hear your thoughts.


6 Comments:

at 5:31 PM, March 21, 2008 Blogger rpa said...

as someone who has spent his entire professional career picking up slack for working mothers:

1) don't assume because someone doesn't have kids that it's "no big deal" to ask them to double their workload for weeks at a time to cover maternity leave and for days at a time through childhood illnesses, for years at a time because co-workers can't stay late because "they have to get the kids from daycare" etc...

2) i've NEVER seen anyplace where working fathers have had that kind of consideration (lowered expectation of hours on the job, time worked, effort put forth, etc.)

i wish i had the extra money i have earned picking up the slack for my coworkers with children. oh well, i guess i have to settle for being taken for granted and not getting any extra compensation for all the extra hours i've worked as a male without children.

 
at 10:20 AM, March 22, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

We may have laws against discrimination in Ohio, but I've never seen them enforced. When I was pregnant, I said so in interviews, and I was not hired by two good companies that I applied to (and was qualified to work for). The third place I went, I kept the fact a secret, and *poof*, I was hired. To this day, twenty years later, companys 1 and 2 do not get my business, but company 3 does.

I worked for a large financial institution in Cincinnati at one point, and as a single mother of a child who got migraines, I had to remain home one day due to the medication rendering my child unconscious. The next day, I was told I needed to readjust my priorities. I agreed, and left the job. I don't bank there now.

Here's the irony of it all: now I'm getting ready to graduate from college with an excellent academic record and a good degree to have. My child is grown and no longer lives with me. I'm ready to be married to a job - and I can't get hired because I'm over 40. That's also illegal, and I don't mention my age in interviews, but college recruiters can tell I'm non-traditional, obviously, and I seldom get second interviews.

You'd think employers would love someone like me: young enough to still give a solid 20+ years of work, old enough to be past the hassles of daycare and parenting, not about to get pregnant again, and eager to embrace my new career. So you tell me, when is it EVER fair?

 
at 11:23 AM, March 22, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

You ask a very good question,Krista, and I can see how the first poster would
resent constantly being required to take up the slack for working moms.

I was one for 13 years, and I was fortunate that it did not affect my
working life. Several reasons: we had only one child, and we adopted him when
he was ready for pre-school. Luckily, he
was very healthy: only two illnesses
during his school days that my mother
covered for--strep throat and mumps.

Too, we had a rule at our house that
applied to all three of us: if we are
sick, we go to bed. No TV, no fun and
games. (If one is really sick, that's
all you want, anyway.) Therefore, our
child did not develop mystery illnesses
that magically disappeared after school
started!

It is harder when you have more than one
child, as my friends told me. But we
needed both paychecks and my bailing out
was not an option.

 
at 11:59 AM, March 22, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is true that people assume if you are an employee without children that it is OKAY to load the extra work on you. We have a receptionist at our office who is out of the office more than in the office. Therefore, I must do this person's work and my own work more often than not. Plus, this receptionist works part-time so that he/she can get government help along with his/her regular employment's pay. Also, he/she does not have any personal time to use at this point. Doesn't this smell fishy!

Married or single without children are treated differently than those with children. We should have a law written for our rights! But ... this will never happen. So we will continue to be handed the extra workload because it is the way it works!

Nothing against people with children, but remember those who do not have a life, too!

 
at 3:32 PM, March 22, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ditto, what rpa said. But I'm a near retirement working woman without children.

I've been in very strenuous entrepreneurial companies with tight profit margins to maintain and also in non-profit environments.

In the former, it was certainly dog-eat-dog at those times when the
new mothers were on maternity leave. Most companies have never been able to realize the feminist dream of daycare on the job, etc etc. etc. And in this economy, we can barely create jobs, let alone...I did resent it, but not for any sour grapes reasons. That's why I rushed to say that I am female in order to give full disclosure. I just think that the original purpose of feminism was to insure equal pay for equal work and that the advent of the birth control pill made women think that they could control their biology, and we now have a boatload of books on the subject of how to have it all, or confessing they can't have it all, etc.

In the non-profit environment, temps were hired and trained to cover maternity leave, and generally speaking, paid maternity leave was one of the many good benefits making the lower non-profit salaries more palatable.

I just think mixing maternal duties with the workplace requires the support of management otherwise you have a personnel problem (and rightly so - I have a life too, you know.......).

 
at 8:53 AM, April 01, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

The answer to the question of "does being a parent hurt you on the job?" is yes, of course so does being a lot of other things too. But before I go any further let me state my qualifications on this issue: I am a father of six year old twins. Therefore I have seen and worked on both sides of this issue. I do find it somewhat interesting though that no one has mentioned anything about the employer's rights.

Too many individuals these days seem to think that they have a right to this or that when in fact they do not no matter what the government has to say. I mean if we all really got to decide what work "rights" we had we would all have very short to nonexistent work weeks and at least six figure salaries.

Government has no legitimate right to force people and companies to hire those they do not want working for them no matter what the reason any more than they government has a right to say that women will always only wear dresses or the color blue. There is no "right to work" for the company of your choice let alone a "right to work" at all.

Government when it forces itself into areas like this does so at the expense of all citizens' rights. Today's worker may be a company owner and an employer in their own right tomorrow. Both workers and employers should be able to get along with an absolutely minimum amount of government interference. Our Founding Fathers got it right way back when they stated that the government that governs least governs best.

 
Post a Comment*

* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.

By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site. << Home


Blogs
Jim Borgman
Today at the Forum
Paul Daugherty
Politics Extra
N. Ky. Politics
Pop culture review
Cincytainment
Who's News
Television
Roller Derby Diva
Art
CinStages Buzz....
The Foodie Report
cincyMOMS
Classical music
John Fay's Reds Insider
Bengals
High school sports
NCAA
UC Sports
CiN Weekly staff
Soundcheck