RSS Feed This entry was posted on Thursday, February 7th, 2008 at 2:44 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Why can’t American institutions and policies keep pace with our modern world?
After Super Tuesday has come and gone, I still don't know where the presidential hopefuls put working women in their hierarchy of targeted constituencies. Women make up 54% of the electorate and make MOST spending decisions for American families and millions of small businesses, yet tax laws, labor laws and a host of other institutions are still designed from top-to-bottom for an Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle. I don't say this to marginalize the life many of our grandparents and parents lived. It's merely a direct observation.
Our major economic institutions reward families with a full-time worker and a stay-at-home spouse, and by comparison punish every other arrangement. The labor market does not provide women with the flexibility we need for the varied lifestyles we live in the 21st century.
All I'm saying is that our nation's employee benefit system needs to be reformed in order to meet the needs of women today. We all know that women are more likely to work part-time so that they can look after children or elderly family members. So, women are less likely to ever qualify for employer-provided benefits. Women move from job to job and in and out of the labor market more often than men; therefore, women are more likely to be burdened by employee benefit programs that penalize job switching.
Why can't we have flexible employee benefit systems that make it easier for dual-earner couples to obtain higher wages rather than unneeded, duplicate benefits, and for part-time workers to accept lower wages in return for more valuable health and retirement benefits?
Why can't we have flexibility in labor law, making it easier for workers, especially parents with young children and caregivers for elderly parents, to choose alternatives to the traditional 40-hour work week?
Why can't the system be flexible to enough to reflect the ways people actually live today, rather than the way they lived 50 years ago?
Why can't we have a system in which ALL benefits programs are "portable" — following the worker wherever she goes in the modern, dynamic market?
Have the "big four" presidential candidates - Hillary, Obama, John, and Mike - even talked about such things?
Why can't they?
You tell me…
February 8th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Thanks for good and timely comments.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Why… because noone has brought this issue to the forefront of economic policies. We have not spoken loud enough and maintained our message long enough to get our Legislators attention.
I would be interested in any studies or economic analyses that would show the advantages a flexible benefit system would bring to our lagging economy.
This is not a “woman’s” issue. It is an employee issue, many of which happen to be women.
Forget the tax rebate… give us employee benefit flexibility plans… now that would be a boost to the economy (and a permanent one too) !!
February 18th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Pam, you are correct. This is not a “woman’s” issue. It is an issue men and women struggle with and we have to provide employee benefits that work for our 21st Century lifestyle.