Bring Your Baby to Work Day
I just posted this comment on a Motherlode (new parenting blog on the Times) post about the two presidential candidates' positions on national family issues:
Clearly, most businesses do not believe that child care, flex work schedules, maternity leaves, and other similar programs that benefit mostly mothers are in their interest. I wonder exactly how John McCain intends to convince businesses, especially small ones, that they should pay for these programs themselves when the benefits are no doubt remote and indirect? Most companies see workers as fungible and discount the cost of turnover, so arguments like "give a woman maternity leave so that you don't have to pay for replacing a valuable employee" is unlikely to be effective.
Any benefits of the Family & Medical Leave Act are social and macro (unlike addressing the health insurance issue, which has a direct impact on any given company's bottom line) and therefore require government intervention. Especially in this economy, we cannot leave such a sensitive issue up to companies that will be tightening their belts and shedding employees anyway. The critical aspect of expanding these programs is how to do so in a cost-effective manner that will not hurt corporate competitiveness in the global marketplace and will not cost the taxpayers more when we are already saddled with so much debt.
As for the family values of the particular candidates, parading a special needs baby at crowded, brightly lit event after event is a pretty clear indication that Sarah Palin does not think women need assistance in balancing work/life (heck, have the baby on the plane if you have to!). McCain never noticed his wife's prescription drug habit, though she was charged with the care of their very small children. Ambition first, family last.
Clearly, most businesses do not believe that child care, flex work schedules, maternity leaves, and other similar programs that benefit mostly mothers are in their interest. I wonder exactly how John McCain intends to convince businesses, especially small ones, that they should pay for these programs themselves when the benefits are no doubt remote and indirect? Most companies see workers as fungible and discount the cost of turnover, so arguments like "give a woman maternity leave so that you don't have to pay for replacing a valuable employee" is unlikely to be effective.
Any benefits of the Family & Medical Leave Act are social and macro (unlike addressing the health insurance issue, which has a direct impact on any given company's bottom line) and therefore require government intervention. Especially in this economy, we cannot leave such a sensitive issue up to companies that will be tightening their belts and shedding employees anyway. The critical aspect of expanding these programs is how to do so in a cost-effective manner that will not hurt corporate competitiveness in the global marketplace and will not cost the taxpayers more when we are already saddled with so much debt.
As for the family values of the particular candidates, parading a special needs baby at crowded, brightly lit event after event is a pretty clear indication that Sarah Palin does not think women need assistance in balancing work/life (heck, have the baby on the plane if you have to!). McCain never noticed his wife's prescription drug habit, though she was charged with the care of their very small children. Ambition first, family last.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home