I was reading a blog by Judith Warner on the New York Times the other day ("The Other Home Equity Crisis") that talked about women in the economy.  It highlights a report put out by Congress that details the reason for women leaving the workforce in recent years.  And it's not because they are getting more flexible workplaces to allow them to spend more time with their kids!  No, it's because women are hit disproportionately hard during recessions.  Prior to this report, it was believed that women were leaving in order to spend more time with their kids, not because they were being forced out.

What is so sad about this is that it's not necessary.  Female workers are often in part-time jobs because of their care-giving responsibilities; so that they are able to attend their kids' school and extracurricular activities, be home when they get home from school, be able to take their parents to doctor appointments, and so on.  Part-time workers are often cut first, making women a target.  Yet it doesn't have to be this way!  Full-time workers should have the ability to take comp time instead of overtime so that they can make up the time that they take off to care for their family.  The public sector is already doing this.  A mom who takes her elderly parents to the doctor one afternoon is allowed to stay late the next day to make up the time, whereas in the private sector she is punished by getting fewer hours and fewer benefits that week.  If she does choose to make up the time, her employer is required to pay her overtime, making it unlikely the employer will allow her to do so. 

Just today, the Labor Department reported that the number of part-time workers jumped over 1 million in the last year, a huge and dramatic increase.  The weak economy could be driving this increase or it could be the lack of family-friendly policies.  Either way, whether it be women or men affected by this, our employment laws discriminate against our working families.  They not only refuse to allow flexibility so that workers COULD work more but our laws also make it difficult for part-time workers to acquire insurance.  Part-time workers are less likely to qualify for employer-provided insurance.  When this happens, they are forced to purchase their own health insurance outside the workplace, which our tax laws discourage through much higher tax burdens. Why does it have to be this way?  Why can't our laws make investing in health insurance equal for both employer and individually sponsored plans? Why couldn't our laws allow part-time workers to accept lower wages in return for more valuable health and retirement benefits? 

Families are struggling in today's economy.  But at least in terms of workplace rigidity and health insurance, it doesn't have to be so hard for workers, male or female, part-time or full-time.  Why can't it be easier? 

One Response to “It Doesn’t Have To Be So Hard”

1. Jennifer James McCollum Says:
   August 1st, 2008 at 7:17 am

   I navigated to you from Jean Warner's site, but of course I am familiar wit you and your work. I can't tell you how much this post resonated with me. I have three kids - 10, 2 and 1 and two aging parents - one with Alzheimer's. There were never enough hours in the day. After TWENTY years in PR and working as a government spokesperson, I left fulltime work about two months ago. I started a virtual PR shop (Zenobiapublicrelations.com). I wrote a post recently about working while I was pregnant. Once, I wrote an OP Ed in the Oklahoma about working moms, which greatly annoyed a bunch of stay-at-home moms who blogged about it and even responded in letters to the editor, etc. What they didn't understand was I was speaking on behalf of working moms who were subjected to a workforce dominated by decision makers who didn't have to leave kids at bus stops or daycares or have parents in nursing homes they never had time to visit. *Crushing* Thanks for writing. jen

Leave a Reply