Femagination » Workplace Issues

It’s About Time: New Bill of Rights for Domestic Workers

Ellen Keim — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:00:33 +0000

In 2002, a satirical novel by Emma McLaughlin and Nicola Kraus ended up on the New York Times bestseller list, which probably didn’t sit too well with all the New Yorkers who had ever employed nannies and/or domestic workers. The book, The Nanny Diaries (which was later made into a movie starring Scarlett Johannson), was widely believed to be a fairly accurate, if exaggerated, look at what nannies go through, especially when they work for nightmare parents.

There will always be nightmare employers of course (although it must be said that not all employers abuse and misuse their staff), but a new bill just passed in the New York State Senate will go a long way toward affording nannies and other domestic workers protections and rights that up to this point they have not enjoyed.

Domestic workers have traditionally been excluded from normal workers’ rights to things like paid sick leave, holidays and vacation, a set work day, overtime wages and termination pay (or two weeks notice of termination). This new bill will correct that. Naturally the bill has met with opposition (especially from Republicans) on the grounds that it will afford protections to undocumented workers and increase costs to employers.

First of all, undocumented workers are not that likely to report violations because of fear that they will be deported. (And believe me, many employers count on that.) Secondly, employers need to recognize the importance of these workers in their lives. Without them most women and some men would not be free to work outside of the home. They are the backbone of many a household.

It’s human nature to want to get something for next to nothing, but that doesn’t mean that it’s right. Nannies, maids and cooks are employees, not members of the family. All too often employers try to treat their employees the same way that wives and mothers are treated in society, the assumption being that women do what they want for love, not for money.

One nanny placement agency I looked up stated that a lot of their nannies are college students looking to get experience for their careers in child development. What does that signal to a prospective employer? That the nannies aren’t doing it for the money. (Of course, if they’re going to work in that field, they better get used to not making any money—child care providers are notoriously ill-paid.)

But many nannies are actually mothers themselves who leave their own children every day to care for the children of strangers. And some mothers even live thousands of miles and years away from their children while they struggle to make enough money to support them from afar. Theirs is heart-breaking work that deserves to be compensated fairly.

The New York bill leaves the door open for a future feasibility study about awarding additional “common employment benefits” like health insurance, personal leave, collective bargaining and cost of living adjustments, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for such benefits. Let’s just cross our fingers that Governor Paterson will actually sign this bill into law. It’s the decent thing to do.

Frankly, I’m surprised that the bill got this far.

Further reading: the New York Times, Broadsheet on Salon.com, the book Global Woman, edited by Barbara Ehrenreich and Arlie Russell Hochschild (Highly recommended!).

Paid Parental Leave: How Do We Stack Up?

Ellen Keim — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:33:20 +0000

Thanks to Fertile Feminism for posting these. For more information (detailed tables) go to the Wikipedia article on “Parental Leave.”

Jane Addams: Woman For Her Time

Ellen Keim — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:08:26 +0000

It’s so easy to think of history as something stuffy and irrelevant. This is nowhere more true than when we’re reading about people who lived and died before our lifetimes. But if these same people were somehow transported into today’s reality, we would see more clearly how much influence they had in their own time.

Jane Addams is one of those people. She was born in 1860 and died in 1935. If she had been born a hundred years later she would be considered a Third Wave feminist. But she was much more than that. She started the settlement house movement* here in America. Besides her charitable work, she became a mover and shaker in politics. She was the first vice president of the National American Women’s Suffrage Association, a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and a charter member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). She organized the Women’s Peace Party and the International Congress of Women. She was the first woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

With her accomplishments, if she were alive today, she would be more influential than all the present-day Third Wave feminists put together. She would be known internationally. And she would only be 50 years old. Her first book, Twenty Years at Hull House, was published exactly one hundred years ago this year and became a bestseller.

We still have the problems she worked so hard to combat: unemployment, lack of medical care and education for the poor, unfair and unsafe labor practices, discrimination against women, African-Americans and immigrants, and last but not least, war. But, unlike most of us, she would be doing something about them. About all of them.

I think what was the most astonishing about Addams was that she was active on so many fronts. Certainly there are women today who are “doing something.” They just aren’t putting themselves on the line the way Addams did. Her International Council of Women traveled to the Hague to try to diplomatically end World War I before the U.S. entered it. She lobbied the state of Illinois to examine laws governing child labor, the factory inspection system, and the juvenile justice system. She raised money for Hull House by lecturing and writing.

She was a mixture of Mother Jones and Mother Teresa (except not as irascible or saintly). In fact, she was not universally loved. There were those who called her a socialist, an anarchist, a communist and unpatriotic. (Sound familiar?) But she didn’t let that stop her. And she led many young people into social work along with her. She believed strongly in the necessity of action, not just for the sake of social justice, but for the sake of the young people themselves. In Twenty Years at Hull House she wrote:

We have in America a fast-growing number of cultivated young people who have no recognized outlet for their active faculties. They hear constantly of the great social maladjustment, but no way is provided for them to change it, and their uselessness hangs about them heavily…Many of them dissipate their energies in so-called enjoyment. Others not content with that, go on studying and go back to college for their second degrees; not that they are especially fond of study, but because they want something definite to do, and their powers have been trained in the direction of mental accumulation. Many are buried beneath this mental accumulation with lowered vitality and discontent. (pp. 120-121)

When the depression of the 1930′s struck, she saw many of the things she had fought for become policies under President Franklin Roosevelt. She received numerous awards during this time including, in 1931, the Nobel Peace Prize. She died four years later, at the age of 75.

*The settlement house (or community center) that she and one other woman, Ellen Gates Starr, founded in Chicago when she was only 29 (1889) was known as Hull House. It offered medical care, child care and legal aid. It also provided classes for immigrants to learn English, vocational skills, music, art and drama. In 1893, when a severe depression rocked the country. Hull House was serving over two thousand people a week. It still operates to this day.

It’s About Time!

Ellen Keim — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:32:27 +0000

WWII Women Aviators Receive Congressional Medals

(Adapted from Feminist Majority Foundation‘s Feminist News)

Amy Johnson was the first woman to fly from Britain to Australia (1930)

The women who flew US military aircraft during World War II were awarded with Congressional Gold Medals on March 10, 2010. The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest honor Congress can give civilians, according to the Associated Press.

The Women Airforce Service Pilots, or WASP, was formed in 1942 despite the initial hesitation of Army Air Corps Chief Lieutenant General Henry “Hap” Arnold to let women fly, according to the Air Force Times. There were a total of 1,102 women aviators during WWII, and 38 of them lost their lives during the war. About 130 of the 300 women WASPs alive today will attend the medal ceremony.

WASP pilots were given permission to fly domestic aircraft in order to free male aviators to fly overseas. These women test-flew every aircraft of the time, reported the Air Force Times, including the B-26 bomber, nicknamed the “Widowmaker.”

Despite their efforts, WWII women aviators did not receive any military benefits or honors. The WASP was disbanded in December 1944 and the records were kept classified. However, with the help of former Lieutenant General Arnold’s son, Colonel Bruce Arnold, and former Senator Barry Goldwater (AZ-D), Congress eventually recognized WASP pilots as veterans in the 1970s. According to the Air Force Times, Deanie Bishop Parrish, one of the original women aviators, and her daughter Nancy, interviewed 110 former WASP pilots during the 1990s, resulting in “Fly Girls of World War II,” an exhibit currently on display at the Women in Military Service for America Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery.

Media Resources: Air Force Times 2/23/10; Associated Press 3/10/10

Also read “The Women Who Dared the Skies” about women aviators before WWII. (See picture of one of them at right.)

Sexual Harassment

Ellen Keim — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:58:23 +0000

There once was a young woman who published a book of essays about her life, including her work as a mid-level aide to a politician. Although her book wasn’t primarily about her work there, it did include instances of what many would term sexual harassment by her office’s chief of staff. When asked if she wanted to lodge a complaint of sexual harassment against her boss, she declined. She was subsequently fired for “using her position for personal gain.” Her boss’s actions were not found to be sexual harassment, but “bad judgment.”

What’s wrong with this (true) story? Was the aide’s firing unwarranted or unfair? Was her boss guilty of sexual harassment? Was there a cover-up? Is this a case of the victim being victimized? Should she have filed a complaint?

The part that bothers me the most is that the young woman, Kathleen Rooney, refused to file a complaint. It’s not clear whether or not she encouraged her boss’s behavior. But even if she did, shouldn’t he have known better than to “place his hand at the base of her neck, or flick her earring, or twist a strand of her hair”? Even if she welcomed his attention, she still writes that “he ran the office…on the ragged edge of decency.”

Sexual harassment is defined as “when one employee makes continued, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, to another employee, against his or her wishes.” If the boss’s actions were welcomed, then it would seem that she wouldn’t have a basis for a complaint. But does that mean that the boss’s behavior was innocent?

I don’t think so. He should have checked his behavior, even if she was flirting with him. That’s like saying that a man is not guilty of rape if the victim was “acting sexy.” Those who are in power should have it drilled into them that it is their responsibility to avoid any actions, words or attitudes that have sexual undertones when dealing with their staff. In fact, that should be drilled into every employee, from the top to the bottom, male or female.

And does it have to be the person who was targeted by the behavior to file the complaint? Not necessarily. If other employees feel that the harassment created a hostile work environment, then they should also be able to file a complaint. The story doesn’t tell us what the other employees said, only what the verdict was. They may very well have complained as well, but their complaints were not accepted as evidence of “sexual harassment.”

That could be because the investigators were reluctant to brand the boss with the charge of sexual harassment, which would look much worse in his file than “bad judgment.” In my opinion, that does constitute a cover-up. It’s the age-old story of making excuses for men when they cross the boundaries of decency. “He was just being friendly. His actions were misinterpretated. The women were too sensitive. They didn’t tell him they didn’t like it.”

But there’s another dimension to the story and that is that Rooney’s own behavior may have hurt the cause of women who are sexually harassed. She apparently did not tell her boss that his attention was unwelcome. She did not complain to his superiors. And when given the chance, she refused to file a complaint.

This is like the rape victim who refuses to bring charges against the rapist. While I can sympathize with the victim–who wants to go through legal proceedings, especially given the grilling that the victim is sometimes put through?–I think it is irresponsible to just let it go. The perpetrator will only continue his behavior, whether it’s rape or sexual harassment, if someone doesn’t go through the legal process of putting him on notice that his behavior is not only unacceptable, but also illegal.

For more information about sexual harassment, what it is and how to deal with it, go here and here.

Women in the Military

Ellen Keim — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:02:24 +0000

AP Photo of Alexis Hutchinson and son Kamani

Back in November, the Associated Press reported on the case of Alexis Hutchinson, an Army cook and single mother who refused to deploy with her unit to Afghanistan because she had no one to care for her then 10-month-old son, Kamani. Spc. Hutchinson was arrested and charged with offenses that could have led to a court martial. Last Thursday, however, the New York Times reported that Hutchinson received a less-than-honorable, or administrative, discharge instead. (Which means no health care or other benefits.)

Needless to say, Hutchinson’s case caused a lot of controversy. People’s reactions ranged from empathy to outrage. Some felt that she should be court-martialed, because her duty to her country takes precedence over her duty to her child. Others felt that any woman in the military could find herself in the same situation through no fault of her own and that she should be cut some slack. There were those who criticized her for getting pregnant in the first place and others who criticized her mother for pulling out of her agreement to watch Hutchinson’s son.

This case is a prime example of the kind of situation anti-feminists point to when they say that feminism has created more problems than it has solved. But those who think feminism is unnecessary or even wrong don’t know their history. During World War II, women were sought by the military to man desks and do other non-combatant work to free the men up for fighting. Assistant Chief of Staff John Hildring explained that “we have found difficulty getting enlisted men to perform tedious duties anywhere nearly as well as women will do it.” *

When legislation was finally passed establishing the Women’s Army Corps (WAC), the men in power insisted that this was only temporary. They wanted it both ways: to exploit women and to dispose of them when their usefulness was over. Many enlisted men bitterly resented women serving their country in any capacity; they felt that women were attempting to take their places and steal their glory.

Even though women were supposedly confined to “safe” positions, they were still often in harm’s way. A clear example of this was the Women’s Airforce Service Pilots (WASP), which was created to free male pilots for service overseas. These women flew domestically, flying new planes from factories to the ports, but they also flew to provide targets for in experienced artillery trainees.

The friends of one WASP who died in the line of duty had to raise money to send her body home, because the Corps was never given official military status. They also kept it from the woman’s family that she had not even qualified to have an American flag placed over her coffin.*

At least women today not only have the right to serve their country, but also the recognition that goes with it. If there are occasional problems that are unique to women (mainly pregnancy), they should be anticipated and accommodated. Do we really want to go back to the days when women pilots were grounded when they got their periods?*

*p.374-378, America’s Women: 400 Years of Dolls, Drudges, Helpmates and Heroes, by Gail Collins (2003).

For an in-depth article on the outcome of Hutchinson’s case, go here.

“Bad” Mothers Are Working Mothers

Ellen Keim — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:08:01 +0000

Germans have a special word for bad mothers: “Rabenmutter” (literally, “raven mother”). For a developed country, especially a Western one, Germany is surprisingly backwards when it comes to how it views and treats working mothers. The long-held ideal is the mother in the home. Germany is so dedicated to this ideal that the majority of school days end at lunch time, because it is expected that mothers are home to take care of their children for the rest of the day. This makes it hard for German women to have children and work outside of the home.

Something has to give. Sometimes that something is child-bearing: Germany has one of the lowest fertility rates in the Western world: 1.38 children per woman (as compared to America’s 2.06). It also affects women’s participation in the workplace: “Today, 66 percent of German women work. But for those with children under 3, that figure plunges to 32 percent. Only 14 percent of women with one child resume full-time work and only 6 percent of those with two.” In contrast, look at these figures for the U.S.:

“In 2003, 63 percent of mothers with preschool-aged children (younger than 6 years) were in the labor force (either employed or looking for work), and 58 percent were actually employed. Of those mothers, 70 percent worked full-time and 30 percent worked part-time. Of women with children ages 6-17, 78 percent were in the labor force in 2003 and nearly all of those were actually employed. Among these employed mothers, 77 percent worked full-time and 23 percent worked part-time.” [Source]

One thing that Germany does have that the U.S. doesn’t is paid parental leave. This, too, is a reflection of the stay-at-home-mother model. But it gives German women a break that American mothers don’t have. The U.S. just doesn’t accommodate working mothers, period, even though so many of them are in the work force. Americans don’t call working mothers Rabenmuetter, but they might as well. Conservatives are well-known for blaming all of society’s ills on the fact that mothers are out of the home working instead of staying home and taking care of their children. (And they blame feminism for this “trend.”)

In contrast, Lois Wladis Hoffman, Ph.D., of the University of Michigan – Ann Arbor, writes in this excellent article on “The Effects of the Mother’s Employment on the Family and the Child” that:

“Twenty years ago, it would have seemed strange to give a talk on maternal employment and not focus on it as a social problem, but there is little in [the] data to suggest it is. The mother’s employment status does have effects on families and children, but few of these effects are negative ones. Indeed, most seem positive — the higher academic outcomes for children, benefits in their behavioral conduct and social adjustment, and the higher sense of competence and effectiveness in daughters.”

Whether we approve of working mothers or not, they’re here to stay. Most middle and working class families need two incomes to survive and that’s not even counting the number of women who are raising children alone. Rather than bemoan this state of affairs, we need to be doing more to help children thrive: more affordable, quality day care; after-school programs; more liberal postpartum leave policies; flexible work schedules and more at-home ways to make a living.

Even Germany is changing. Surely we can learn from its example.

Read this NewYork Times article about Germany’s attempts to accommodate working mothers through day care and longer school days. See and listen to this interactive excerpt about four very different German mothers.

Women’s Health Care Issues You May Not Have Thought About

Ellen Keim — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:28:28 +0000

From The Nation magazine

I found two articles on The Nation‘s website that covered two health care issues of concern to special categories of women: those undergoing plastic surgery and those who are pregnant and in prison.

The first one, “Feminism’s Face-Lift” by Alexandra Suich, is about an excise tax being proposed on all elective plastic surgery, including the administration of Botox. What is surprising is that the National Organization for Women (NOW) has come out against this tax (which is becoming known as the Bo-Tax). NOW is contending that often people (usually women) seek out plastic surgery because they need to compete in the marketplace.

This is a reversal of NOW’s usual idealistic stance that when a woman undergoes plastic surgery she is just accommodating herself to society’s standards, which feed on her fear of becoming older. Apparently NOW–which is, some say, a rather stodgy feminist institution these days–is made up of women who have faced the realities of what aging and lack of beauty do to a woman’s chances of advancing in the work world. It’s fine to say that it shouldn’t be that way, but the societal emphasis on youth and beauty hasn’t changed much–if at all–in the years since the feminist movement of the ’60s, when NOW was first formed (in October, 1966).

The second article, “Pregnant, In Prison and Denied Care” by Rachel Roth, is about the inhumane treatment of pregnant prisoners. Although it is their constitutional right to receive health care, enough horror stories are out there about the consequences of substandard or missing prenatal care to cause alarm about what exactly is being done. Women have been made to wait hours, days, even weeks to be taken to the hospital when they are leaking amniotic fluid. One such case resulted in the collapse of the fetus’ skull from lack of amniotic fluid. Other women have been ignored when they are bleeding. Apparently it’s a common occurrence to do as little as possible as late as possible.

Some may say that a prisoner has given up her rights by committing the crime that caused her to be incarcerated. But others argue that this lack of care constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment.” It’s also an attitude that is short-sighted about the future of the children who are born to these women. If their mothers don’t receive adequate prenatal care, the babies can be born prematurely and/or need continuing care ti overcome health conditions that result from lack of medical attention.

Then there are the women who will someday return to free society, scarred mentally and sometimes physically from their horrendous experiences. Surely punishment should not include the loss of one’s child or ability to bear more children.