Tweet
One of my coworkers has taken a maternity leave now (well, now now; this post was written back in 2008, and the girs is already 6 m.o. or so), and this made me think again about this concept and the whole controversial practice of hiring future mothers.
On one hand, this seems fair: a new mother cannot work, so she has to be supported by someone. In our age of family erosion, you cannot guarantee it will be her husband. The father of the child might be a student who needed some money to buy dope 7 years ago so he went and donated sperm. It's only logical that it should be the employer.
But let's look at it from the other side of the fence now. You are the employer, and you are going to hire a woman who is going to pay more attention to childbearing in the near future. What does this mean for you? This worker might leave your company soon, and convincing her to stay is somewhat immoral: what can you offer a pregnant woman, a fully paid abortion?
This is already bad enough to avoid hiring her, but look what the state is enforcing: you have to keep her "employed", so after several years of happy childbearing and childrearing she can go back to work in your company. But what if her sphere of competence is volatile, like IT or Russian accounting or taxation? After 3 years, she'll have to relearn a lot, and there's a limit to what you can learn between breastfeedings. Of course, a smart person learns quickly, but there aren't many. I've seen a lot of less than bright people succeed by sheer continious effort. Such a long break can be disastrous for them.
But not only do you have to keep them "employed", but you have to pay them for their "work" too. So, basically, for at least a year you're going to have an employee who is paid for doing nothing and is not even your mildly distant relative. Even if you can pay less than a full salary, you can still hire an immigrant for that money who will at least do something.
Firing a woman if she's gotten pregnant seems a natural solution, but the state says you cannot do that. Not hiring her in the first place is also logical, but this means not hiring any woman who's young enough. This is, of course, a sexual discrimination, and the state says you cannot do that either. The only way out is shaping your job requirements to exclude the women without saying you do exactly that. Something like "must have balls to overcome the challenges".
But let's go back to the other side of the fence. You are a young woman who wants to be financially independent. But no one is willing to hire you, simply because you can have babies. What can you do, have your tubes tied? This will work, but what if you do want to have kids later? Are you stuck with McJobs that need no prior working experience?
Well, there are other possible solutions:
1. Have an early child. The financial burden falls on your parents in that case, but by the time you are old enough to find a real job, your child is already old enough to keep your employer happy.
2. Find a job that makes it possible to work from home. Programming, translating, something like that. The problem is, there aren't enough telejobs for everyone. What if you're an encyclopedia salesman or worse, a factory floor engineer?
3. Delegate your childrearing duties and return to work as soon as possible. This is probably the most common solution among modern career-conscious women. Some companies even reward women for doing so. It's a good thing if your own mother doesn't work and can look after the child, but what if it's not an option? Not every job pays well enough to let you hire a daytime babysitter, even if she came from Mexico stuffed into a car dashboard.
4. Promise your employer you will quit instead of taking a leave and start your career again later. This is an acceptable solution only if you have another source of income, like a husband.
So, what is the net result? Finding a balance between your career and children is hard, and trying to accommodate both is unfair to the employer. But the real result is a decrease in birth rate. 2-3 children per woman are required to maintain the population, but it's hard enough to have a single one if you want to have a career as well. Should we abandon the idea of career-conscious women or at least accept that not every woman will be able to succeed in being both a mother and a professional?
On one hand, this seems fair: a new mother cannot work, so she has to be supported by someone. In our age of family erosion, you cannot guarantee it will be her husband. The father of the child might be a student who needed some money to buy dope 7 years ago so he went and donated sperm. It's only logical that it should be the employer.
But let's look at it from the other side of the fence now. You are the employer, and you are going to hire a woman who is going to pay more attention to childbearing in the near future. What does this mean for you? This worker might leave your company soon, and convincing her to stay is somewhat immoral: what can you offer a pregnant woman, a fully paid abortion?
This is already bad enough to avoid hiring her, but look what the state is enforcing: you have to keep her "employed", so after several years of happy childbearing and childrearing she can go back to work in your company. But what if her sphere of competence is volatile, like IT or Russian accounting or taxation? After 3 years, she'll have to relearn a lot, and there's a limit to what you can learn between breastfeedings. Of course, a smart person learns quickly, but there aren't many. I've seen a lot of less than bright people succeed by sheer continious effort. Such a long break can be disastrous for them.
But not only do you have to keep them "employed", but you have to pay them for their "work" too. So, basically, for at least a year you're going to have an employee who is paid for doing nothing and is not even your mildly distant relative. Even if you can pay less than a full salary, you can still hire an immigrant for that money who will at least do something.
Firing a woman if she's gotten pregnant seems a natural solution, but the state says you cannot do that. Not hiring her in the first place is also logical, but this means not hiring any woman who's young enough. This is, of course, a sexual discrimination, and the state says you cannot do that either. The only way out is shaping your job requirements to exclude the women without saying you do exactly that. Something like "must have balls to overcome the challenges".
But let's go back to the other side of the fence. You are a young woman who wants to be financially independent. But no one is willing to hire you, simply because you can have babies. What can you do, have your tubes tied? This will work, but what if you do want to have kids later? Are you stuck with McJobs that need no prior working experience?
Well, there are other possible solutions:
1. Have an early child. The financial burden falls on your parents in that case, but by the time you are old enough to find a real job, your child is already old enough to keep your employer happy.
2. Find a job that makes it possible to work from home. Programming, translating, something like that. The problem is, there aren't enough telejobs for everyone. What if you're an encyclopedia salesman or worse, a factory floor engineer?
3. Delegate your childrearing duties and return to work as soon as possible. This is probably the most common solution among modern career-conscious women. Some companies even reward women for doing so. It's a good thing if your own mother doesn't work and can look after the child, but what if it's not an option? Not every job pays well enough to let you hire a daytime babysitter, even if she came from Mexico stuffed into a car dashboard.
4. Promise your employer you will quit instead of taking a leave and start your career again later. This is an acceptable solution only if you have another source of income, like a husband.
So, what is the net result? Finding a balance between your career and children is hard, and trying to accommodate both is unfair to the employer. But the real result is a decrease in birth rate. 2-3 children per woman are required to maintain the population, but it's hard enough to have a single one if you want to have a career as well. Should we abandon the idea of career-conscious women or at least accept that not every woman will be able to succeed in being both a mother and a professional?
The rules here are a bit complicated :
Comment