Stop Sacrificing Mom!
There is an article in the Wall Street Journal by Sue Shellenbarger about Pregnancy Discrimination explaining that claims are up and pregnant women are shocked to learn they have very few rights.
“Pregnancy-bias complaints recorded by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission surged 14% last year to 5,587, up 40% from a decade ago and the biggest annual increase in 13 years.
The agency also received 20,400 pregnancy-bias inquiries at its call center last year, the center’s first full year of operation; that doesn’t include thousands more walk-ins asking about the same topic at fair-employment offices.
“I thought we were protected,” said an advertising executive during a recent gathering of 100 working mothers. “Then I find out we can be fired while we’re pregnant, employers can refuse to hire us — what exactly are our rights?”
While employers can indeed fire, lay off or refuse to hire pregnant women, they can’t single them out for worse treatment.
Many hotline callers also don’t realize they aren’t entitled by federal law to paid childbirth leave, says Melissa Josephs of Women Employed, an advocacy group that runs a hotline,” the article states.
The Family Medical Leave Act only guarantees 12 weeks of unpaid leave and only if they have over 50 employees. Many women use their disability insurance and vacation days to keep getting a paycheck for 6-8 weeks.
Both times I was pregnant I experienced pregnancy discrimination. The second time I was fired at 8 months after repeated comments about my pregnancy being inconvenient to them and losing their training investment. My final firable infraction? Placing labels on a newsletter I wrote for them crooked. What I could do about it? Nothing.
‘”Employers can’t justify adverse actions by using stereotypes, either, such as “now that you’re pregnant, the best thing for you to do is go raise your kid,” says Elizabeth Grossman, an EEOC regional attorney,”‘ says the article.
Oh, you mean like when my boss told me that No I couldn’t work from home, even though he allowed one male editor to work from his San Francisco home and then explained when I quit that he respected my decision to stay home with my baby cause he believed that was best.
It was shocking to me too how few rights pregnant women have against discrimination. Perhaps you too have been thinking you have more rights than you do?
What action can we take? Join MomsRising.org and join the Mother’s Movement to end pregnancy discrimination and expand the Family Medical Leave Act.
Here’s MY family values - Stop Sacrificing MOM!
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Fabulous Mars & Venus, Fabulous Mothering, Fabulous Politics, Fabulous Work Life Balance
36 opinions for Stop Sacrificing Mom!
Ashley
Apr 14, 2008 at 7:24 am
My husband and I really want one more baby. Money is the number one reason we can’t. After piling on the sheer cost of a new baby, hospital bills etc. how can anyone afford to go for 3 months without pay?
Tracee
Apr 14, 2008 at 8:21 am
Money - and more directly family leave policy - is the number one reason why we too are not having a 3rd child.
Our choices about our poverty level, and when I should be going back to work, after baby were so painful and detrimental to our marriage and family that we decided we couldn’t face those sucky choices again.
It’s time for families to do something about it with MomsRising.
Bailey
Apr 14, 2008 at 9:44 am
I think there should be more paid pregnancy leave, however if you really can’t put aside six paychecks toward the pregnancy, you probably can’t afford to have another baby.
Ditto if you are getting food stamps, free school lunch, WIC, CHIP insurance, subsidized child care and other public welfare programs.
I know it is an emotional decision, but women need to start being rational about having children. If you can’t afford it, you can’t afford it.
Stop looking to the government to pay for your decision to procreate. What’s after maternity leave? You’ll want me to pay for your kid’s food, health care, day care expenses and education.
Oh, and defying all reason, you’ll also want a tax break for your new little one.
Tracee
Apr 14, 2008 at 10:44 am
By your logic Bailey people would stop having children because most Americans in this economy need their incomes to survive.
It’s not just about the money either. I think a baby needs more than 6-12 weeks of the mother’s time. Every other industrialized nation on this planet has better maternity benefits than the US. THEY respect motherhood - your arguments do not.
Maternity benefits are not necessarily paid by government either. That’s an erroneous assumption - disability insurance and workmans compensation would be two example of a paid benefit that the employer and employee contribute to that are not welfare programs.
The flaw in your logic is that you assume only poor people need maternity leave. ALL people who have children, and the children themselves, need maternity/paternity leave. People work to get an income to pay their bills - without the income - their personal economics suffer. Tune into My Super Sweet 16 to see what happens when only the independently wealthy are allowed to breed and then let me know if you want those kids to grow up and take over the world.
By making the workforce so unfriendly to motherhood you’re creating future dependents on the welfare system by pushing professional women out of paid employment. Duh.
Basically, the current strategy of devaluing motherhood and devaluing women and families, will cost you more welfare dollars in the end.
Bailey
Apr 14, 2008 at 11:52 am
Maybe you didn’t read that I said I agree with more paid parental leave.
Just because I think families need to take more personal responsibility for their choice to have additional children, does not mean I disrespect mothers. Talk about hyperbole.
I also never said I thought people should stop having children - just children they CAN’T AFFORD. Are you saying women should purposely get pregnant knowing they can’t buy food for their children or pay for their health care or day care? That seems like really irresponsible advice.
My point is that if you are currently getting any public welfare program, and you can’t afford to take leave under the current system, you probably shouldn’t have more children. It’s a pretty simple equation.
It has nothing to do with whether I think women deserve better workplaces or paid pregnancy leave. I do.
Tracee
Apr 14, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Again, by that logic my husband and I - and practically all other middle class Americans - would be “irresponsible” for having children.
We work cause we’re dependent on our incomes and not independently wealthy.
Time out of work for the middle class dips us below the poverty level because it’s unpaid.
Your argument takes us further from paid leave, not closer.
In other words - Like most Americans, If I have paid family leave I can afford it, if I don’t then I can’t.
Bailey
Apr 14, 2008 at 1:10 pm
So by your logic, women should have babies full well knowing that they can’t feed, insure or educate them.
Yeah, that’s not irresponsible.
Tracee
Apr 14, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I think even the poor have a fundamental right to have children. I would never infringe on any woman’s reproductive rights, including poor women.
You say you want better employment policy but argue against it in the same breath - how is that useful?
Rebecca
Apr 14, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I have to weigh in on this. First, it doesn’t seem obvious to me at all that Bailey is arguing against a better employment policy.
There is a difference between having a right to do something, and it being irresponsible to do that exact same thing. It is everyone’s right to have as many children as they want. And it should always be that way! Otherwise, we might as well live in communist china or something ridiculous like that.
However, in my mind it IS irresponsible to have children if the family can’t afford to take care of them financially. I think there is also a huge difference between desperately needing a better employment policy, such as a decent amount of paid maternity leave, as opposed to after someone has already had a baby, not being able to afford to take care of it.
I’m pretty sure that if a good maternity policy is not available, then that easily-accessed bank account that has 3 to 6 months of expenses stashed away that Dave Ramsey preaches about would come in handy.
Tracee
Apr 15, 2008 at 6:43 am
Let’s consider the long term implications of the logic that if you can’t afford to take maternity leave under the current system then you shouldn’t have children.
In today’s world the average American family makes $33,000. They also have $10,000 in credit card debt and no savings whatsoever. Give or take a few pennies these are about the stats that Dave Ramsey, Suze Orman and Millionaire Next Door give to paint a picture of America’s present economic situation.
Every month that gas and groceries cost more and more - that $33,000 becomes worth less.
In this picture, it follows that these people - most people - can’t afford to have children and let’s say for a minute that they don’t. This creates a baby deficit.
We currently have a baby boomer generation coming into retirement. This generation will live longer and need more healthcare than any generation in history. Healthcare is more expensive than it ever has been and inflation isn’t slowing a bit. Many of them don’t have insurance and can’t get it because if you live to 60, you probably have a preexisting condition or two so they rely on our Medicare and Medicaid systems and Social Security. It’s not unlikely that they’ll still be alive and costing us tons of money when my 2 year old starts paying taxes.
We need children. Even children who need a school lunch program, even children who qualify for head start or SCHIPS. We need lots of children who grow up and get jobs and pay taxes. Because I can not afford to pay for that myself.
Tracee
Apr 15, 2008 at 6:57 am
“Myself” - I misspoke - I was pushed out of the workforce by employment policy hostile towards motherhood - I’m “one husband away from welfare” myself.
Tarah
Apr 15, 2008 at 6:59 am
The average family has $10,000 in credit card debt? yikes…I had no idea. I’d freak. I know a lady who though use to charge groceries and I could not understand why in the world would you charge groceries!? But then she told me she didn’t have money for groceries because her husband (who had 4 children from a previous marriage) had to pay child support and he actually DID pay it..no matter what ..always first thing out of his check..had to give him credit for that.
Tarah
Apr 15, 2008 at 7:01 am
And of course he SHOULD have paid that first.
Tracee
Apr 15, 2008 at 7:06 am
Maybe his wages were garnished. That’s when the government takes the child support out of your check first because you are in arrears.
Lots of people charge groceries and gas because their $33,000 median income that they could live on a few years ago is worth more like $25,000 with today’s inflation rate.
Tarah
Apr 15, 2008 at 7:20 am
Oh, no his weren’t garnished..he actually made out a check and paid his ex-wife.
You are right about today’s inflation rate. I remember, in the good ol’ days, if you had a million dollars you’d be set. Now that may pay for your kid’s college if you have any amount of children. Gives me a headache thinking about it.
Tarah
Apr 15, 2008 at 7:22 am
Well , maybe it will pay for school and their cars. lol
Violet
Apr 15, 2008 at 10:50 am
No one is having children for the good of the tax base, and there is no shortage of them. In fact, there are over 800,000 children sitting in foster homes and orphanages that no one wants.
But hey, those abandoned children will grow up and pay social security, so it was all worth it! Thank God their parents decided to have children they couldn’t take care of!
If everyone has a child they can’t afford, where does the money to care for them come from? I don’t follow your logic here. Who do you think should pay for this?
Single people? People without kids? People who were smart enough to earn and save?
If you can afford 10K in credit card debt, you can make better decisions and afford to take care of your own children.
Rebecca
Apr 15, 2008 at 11:04 am
I think if someone can’t afford to take maternity leave, then the option (besides not having children or the policy changing) is to save up for those months out of work ahead of time. I’m sure the vast majority of people couldn’t afford to take two or three months of work with no pay, unless they prepared for that.
Tracee
Apr 15, 2008 at 11:13 am
The premise is that parents and babies should be fine with that length of time (6 - 12 weeks).
I am not. We CAN do better and we should be willing to fight for it.
Tracee
Apr 15, 2008 at 11:33 am
Violet - Who do you think is going to pay your social security and rising health costs?
The working poor exist and being angry at them isn’t going to make them go away.
Poor old people with their arthritis, high blood pressure and cholesterol costs the middle class more than paying health care and school lunch for poor children.
Those children get jobs and help shoulder the burden - I don’t forsee a future where our big problem is that the working-class have children.
It’s a circle of life - that’s what I’m saying.
Bad employment policy - like lack of paid maternity leave - costs more money in the long run.
Violet
Apr 15, 2008 at 11:40 am
You didn’t answer my question. Who do you think should pay for this?
Tracee
Apr 15, 2008 at 11:56 am
You should Violet.
Violet
Apr 15, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I’d like to see the benefits for parents extended somewhat, but sometimes I wonder how many months an employer should be expected to carry a person who is not actually working.
What do you think? 16 weeks, one year, two years? Again, who should pay for it? Government? Employers? Do individuals have any responsibility for their choices?
Discussions like this are always long on outrage and short on analysis. I’m always left with questions.
I often hear European time off discussed only in relation to mothers, but most industrialized countries also offer better time off options for everyone. My friend was dating a guy from Switzerland and he got 12 weeks off every year. I think to fight to extend those benefits to moms and no one else is short sighted.
Violet
Apr 15, 2008 at 12:05 pm
That’s what I mean. People advocate for a policy, but get flip when a real question is asked.
It’s hard to get behind ideas with no details.
Tracee
Apr 15, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I think an insurance option would be doable. Just as the employer and employee pay into a workman’s comp and disability insurance plans.
I think at minimum 1 year would be adequate but 2 would be best. Other countries do it, because they respect the family and caring functions in general, so we know it can be done.
I think you’re arguing semantics and it’s not very helpful to getting laws passed. In fact, I think it hinders getting laws passed.
I know that you know that FMLA covers everyone. Men and women, parent and non-parent, for caring for any family members.
I also know that you know that I’m not about excluding non-mothers from benefiting from employment policy reforms.
Since you are a woman you too suffer from motherhood discrimination on the grounds that you are a “potential mother.” So, I think it stands to reason, it would be most effective, and in your own best interests, to get behind better employment policy.
Violet
Apr 15, 2008 at 12:33 pm
The insurance plan seems like a good idea actually.
I was wondering if women should start something similar to the “save myself fund” for having children. Something similar to an IRA where you could set up auto deductions and save the money tax free. Maybe we need to get young women to understand that this is something they have to plan for as far in advance as possible.
With compound interest, 5-10 years of saving could really make a difference. Even if we get better laws in place, it could help women have even more flexibility. Of course it is highly dependent on making good financial decisions, something I wasn’t so great at in my early twenties. But no one was telling me about this future difficulty and what to do about it either.
I actually think it would make your case stronger if we were revamping the workplace for everyone, but that’s just my take on it.
Tracee
Apr 15, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I have very often wished I planned on a “stay-at-home” mom fund. But, when I was professionally employed I was a writer making between $7 and $10 an hour for the majority of it. I could barely pay my bills.
The problem was that is there was no way to predict where we would be right now. This is an issue unique to our generation. I truly believed as a teen and young adult that my working would be an intellectual choice, not one that would necessarily effect our family’s ability to survive.
But, I definitely plan to make sure Ainsley understands the need for such a fund. And I agree we need to be talking to young girls about this issue.
My financial fantasy is that I make enough money to pay for my in-laws retirement, our retirement, my kids’ college funds and a “stay-at-home mom fund” for my daughter. That’s not too much right?
Violet
Apr 15, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I know, I feel kind of dumb that it really didn’t occur to me that this might be an issue later on.
I have the same fantasy. I want to take care of my parents, pay for my nieces and Hub’s two young siblings to go to college, be a philanthropist and buy a house on a beach somewhere. I refuse to believe that it can’t happen. :)
Rebecca
Apr 15, 2008 at 2:10 pm
god y’all are all so much more generous than me. my financial fantasy involves massive vacationing on a semi-yearly basis. :)
Tarah
Apr 15, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Rebecca
I hear ya!!!!!
Ashley
Apr 21, 2008 at 7:39 am
Some of the comments above really pissed me off. I know this was like a week ago - but I have to comment.
First of all, you all are arguing two different issues here. I someone is ‘living off the government’ they are probably not working a full time job, or a job with ANY sort of benefits. There have been financially difficult times in my life in which I have been on Wic and once on food stamps. For anyone above whose busy making pumping themselves full of fantasies of me sitting around eating bon bons purchased on food stamps (or YOUR MONEY) I was a single mom struggling through school. I worked part time and damn well paid my taxes from my little measly part time job. Furthermore, I’ve had some sort of job since I was 14 years old. It is time for the upper middle class to STOP calming their concerns about our economic crisis by convincing themselves the lower middle class - and the poor are lazy buggars who’ll take advantage of tax money if given the chance. It’s BS! Yes, there are some lazy people out there living off of government assistance. But the majority of struggling Americans are struggling because they didn’t forsee the obstacle course of financial strain! I certainly didn’t expect to pay more for health insurance than for rent. I certainly didn’t expect to pay $4 a gallon for gasoline. I didn’t expect my gas bill to be higher than my electric year around. And I didn’t expect to have an accidental pregnancy at 21 either. And by the way, accidents happen a lot when ‘poor’ women have no freaking health insurance for birth control. So if your answer to all of our economic problems is for all poor women to stop having babies, that solution is just a teensy bit flawed.
I guess what I’m really trying to say, is that if you are one of the ‘responsible’ people who knew exactly what your financial future held and planned accordingly (or you know, just lived off of your parents’ money or married well) then GOOD FOR YOU. The rest of us, are doing the best we can down here and it would be nice if you and your kind would at least give us the gift of careful consideration rather than writing us off as lazy, shiftless, irresponsible idiots who are hungrily seeking all of your tax money. I realize that this helps you sleep a little better at night about voting republican, but it’s really ignorant and unfair.
Ashley
Apr 21, 2008 at 8:38 am
wow - when am I going to learn that an angry rant w/ out proof reading and spell check is a sad, sad thing.
Violet
Apr 21, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Hi Ash. I can only speak for me, but I was responding to comments that women should purposely have children they know they can’t afford to take care of. I still think that’s a bad idea - for lots of reasons.
But I don’t begrudge assistance through a hard time. Most of us have been there. I’ve gone to the food bank in the past and had to ask my clergy to help with rent while I was unemployed. Once, Catholic charities paid to have my electricity turned back on. Thank God. I had no other option. I agree with your assessment about lack of health care.
People have this inaccurate image that women on welfare are living the high life and having babies left and right to work the system. Truth is, the average welfare recipient is white (another stereotype) and has two children.
I think more of us will be asking for help before this recession is over.
Ashley
Apr 21, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Hi Violet. I was really directing that at Bailey up there. Hate to get so personal, but I feel really strongly about this. I’ve been recieving a lot of ‘vote republican’ forwards lately from some really unexpected people and they’re basically full of these sweeping, hateful judgement calls about the poor. I finally got so angry - I wrote out a long response to one of them and forwarded it back to my friend and everyone she had forwarded it to..
I haven’t gotten another one..(scratching head) I wonder why?
Ashley
Apr 21, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Also, anyone who’s purposefully having babies they can’t afford in an effort to ‘beat’ the system is in for a rude awakening. Food stamps only pay for FOOD.. And a medicaid pregnancy is definately not the fluffy, frilly pregnancy of the insured. It’s not exactly the high life.
But you’re right. Many white upper class people cling to that inaccurate image because it allows them to ignore the sad reality of the situation.
(Having babies to ‘beat the system’ kind of reminds me of the people who go to the casino boats thinking they’re going to make up for their losses at the free bar..lol.)
Violet
Apr 21, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Unfortunately, there are some bad apples, and they are the ones who make the news and make everyone feel like they have a right to hate and judge the poor.
Not everyone who is poor can just “make better choices” or “get a job!”
My developmentally disabled sister works full time, but she makes minimum wage (I think like $6.50 an hour. That’s roughly $13,000 a year. Who can live on this?) and has no insurance and a daughter. She can’t just go back to school, she doesn’t have the capabilities. She doesn’t get assistance, because my parents help her out, but she is just the type of person I don’t mind helping out one bit.
Prenatal care saves money in the long run, so do programs like WIC. These are much more complicated issues than they might appear.
Now where is this free bar you speak of…
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: