Shocking.  One thing to note about this is that, with the demographic bulge heading towards retirement, the idea that childless workers are more productive than parents who work will be hard to sustain (whether or not it is true today), inasmuch as family leave and absenteeism will also accrue to those who need to take care of aging parents (and, for that matter, spouses).

I think the point here is that, under federal law, there are no protections against discriminating against people because they have children.  You are right, I suppose, that such workers aren't discriminated against if they are less efficient than their coworkers.  But one could imagine a workplace in which the employer presumes generally that workers with children will be less efficient, and, say, lays them off first.  It may or may not happen, but there is no barrier in the law against it.  

I wonder to what degree the absence of protection stems from the fact that conservative policymakers continue to come from the part of the right that opposes women working in the first place.

A key way to stop discrimination against parents, especially moms, is to bar employers from even asking in interviews whether an applicant is married or has kids....

But what would the job applicant do if asked the question?  A friend of mine faced a similar dilemma in med school interviews.  She knew that such questions were not legal, but she figured that refusing to answer would be a decisive black mark.  (She later talked with some people on the admission committee and had been spot on in her assessment.)  I think that having such a law would be better than not, but I don't know that it would accomplish much. 

I tend to think that parents need protection against discrimination that assumes that becuase they are parents, they can't be counted on to be professional about pulling their weight, taking their jobs seriously, etc.

On the other hand, I have seen cases where parents seemed to think it was okay to "put their family first"--ahead of the job--even in a non-emergency. As an example, I remember a co-woker who seemed to think that it was perfectly reasonable to fire her child-care person (not for abusing her children but for feeding them peanut butter and jelly for lunch instead of something heathier ) and then call in and say she couldn't come to work for a week until she found a new caregiver. Meanwhile, others had to pick up the slack while we were on deadline. She was apologetic, but as she explained it she felt she had to "put her children first."

As a working mother, I would have felt that I had to keep said care-giver (who also let the kids watch too much TV) until I could find a substitute--interviewing applicants at night after work.

This leads me to think that employers, co-workers and clients also may need some protection from parents who believe that they have a right to put family first, while holding onto a job--even if that means that other suffer.

Here, I'm again thinking of a specific example. A friend, who is an immigrant from Mexico, takes his children's education very seriously. (He also helps other kids in his neighborhood--parents who don't speak English send their kids to his house for help with their homework.)

Recently he was complaining to me that his daughter's 3rd grade teacher isn't doing her job. It seems that she is pregant, and having some difficulty with the pregancy, so is very frequently absent either because she has a doctor's appointment, or because she isn't feeling well.

In the past few months, she has been out about a third of the time. Each time, the class has a "sub" and little work gets done.

In addition, even when the teacher is in school, she is tired, and often doesn't collect the homework. So many students have stopped doing it. His daughter continues to do it (her Dad insists) but is very disappointed when it isn't collected or checked.

He said that he went in to talk to the principal about this--with no success. "The principal said she is a very good teacher--and I agree," he said. "I have no problem with her as a good teacher. But this year, she isn't teaching, and my kid needs a teacher. This is hurting my kid."

It strikes me that this is a case where the teacher really should have started taking her six-month paid maternity leave as soon as her pregnancy began keeping her out of school. Instead, she is saving the six months until she has the baby, so that she can spend six months at home with her child.

This is understandable, but not fair to her students.

I'd be interested, Nathan, in your view--should there be a law that forces her to take a leave (either the six months paid maternity leave that she has coming, and/or an unpaid leave) so that her students have a full-time teacher?

P.s. I definitely think she should have a right to take as much as a year's leave (paid, unpaid, or ssome combination) without losing her job.

People really ask such things?  I would have thought that we'd all know better.

If the presumption turns out to be true, then the employer can deal with it.  If there are some kinds of demonstrable grounds to think that a specific individual will not perform their job well, then the employer doesn't have to hire them.  If the employer applies this standard to every interviewee that walks in the door, and hires accordingly, then it's discriminatory (in the common meaning of the term, though evidently not under the law).

Why do so many people not find it disturbing that one of the issues at the heart of this is that we as a nation place more value on "work" than "family"?

I personally find it upsetting that a large number of people in this country -- almost certainly the pro-productivity crowd included -- proclaim themselves to be "family values" people yet subscribe to this line of reasoning. What exactly IS "family values" and if you discriminate or remove "family-types" from the workplace, how can they support a family in the first place? Do we form some kind of insect-like society with breeders and worker drones, each exclusively performing their required tasks?

Isn't this argument ultimately about supporting a system which is emphasizes capitalistic priorities while demonizing and damning family priorities? I think about the list of things we as workers have been forced to give up or endure in the name of "productivity" in recent years (smaller staffs, increased job requirements, diminishing benefits, lack of job security, out sourcing, wages out-of-synch with cost of living increases, etc.), and from my perspective it is "family" that is now on the chopping block as something a "good worker" should avoid. This is very troubling to me.

Good point... every job candidate sells themselves in their own way. I do a lot of theatre outside of work. One friend of mine, who is an actor, doesn't mention it to his employers because he's afraid they will see him as just trying to find a day job while he's really pursuing another dream. I've always emphasized it in the interview because I think it will make me stand out as somebody with creative interests.

Either method seems to work fine. It's a matter of style.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I fully agree with you there too, I do not thing that everyone should be family first...unless of course they decide to have a family. It's at that point that I think they should be! IMHO, our country has had a serious problem over the last few generations in the steady increase is selfish, ego driven lifestyles while raising a family. All I'm saying is that if you're going to have a family...WANT to have a family and live your life and alter your priorities accordingly. Children are not fashion accessories and families are not health club memberships. If everyone had kids of course over population would be worse than it is. But we should not make life more difficult or impossible for those who do wish to have them. And for those that do, step up to the responsibility.

Even for those who do not wish to have families, placing primacy on capitalistic priorities can and will still hurt you. Replace "family" with "personal quality of life" and the formula is the basically the same isn't it? Sure it's great that someone achieves a high level of professional success and, if they are lucky, a tidy sum of money too. But at what cost? I suppose I'm looking for a more Yin/Yang approach to personal/professional life in order to attain happiness and success. And I think that's a reasonable and attainable expectation! If I retire rich but haggard after years of thanklessly being chewed up and spat out by my job I'm not sure I'd look back and see success. I guess money can't buy you happiness, just lots of stuff to make you forget how miserable you are. Maybe there's some solace in that.

Get too it!

I am expecting a kick-ass novel that cures cancer within the next year or so (I need some new reading material and maybe it will be preventive too)!

I might mention the family thing when I think it has strategic value (when I'm the one being interviewed, of course), either because of the kids pictures on the wall, or because sometimes mentioning things that interviewers know they can't ask you, even if they don't care, makes them think they've learned a lot about you.

How craven interviewing for jobs makes me.... 

right, but it's often hard to fire after hire. for this reason, I've met people who hire based on personality, age, sex, skills, the university where they graduated, etc...

they've also used job descriptions to encourage certain people to apply while discouraging others.

as much as I've tried, I haven't been able to change work culture, etc... and, thus, I've had to go through a few jobs, etc..., before I found my current position where, as far as I know, the power balance and expectations worked out.

for that reason alone, I don't see why laws are needed because the "at will" labor contracts let people move around to find happiness and fit.

in some ways, I see Nathan trying to put square pegs in round holes.

one innovative company that prefers "work-at-home moms" is JetBlue. (see article) I remember reading that the JetBlue CEO gushed about these women because they were loyal (low turnover), on the job (didn't call in sick) and took a lot of pride in their jobs.

my point is that win-win job situations can be as powerful, or even more powerful, than writing laws that people ignore and/or fight.

To boldly go...

I agree with you personally - I work in a very portable field, and tend to rely on the union of my two feet to protect my rights as a worker.

One of the blogs that I read (Of Two Minds) is talking about about the barriers of being a small business.

It's interesting to ponder what will happen in the future with pensions and health care benefits. Since I don't have either, my "economic interests" seem to lie with "lower taxes" in order to preserve my nest egg from being used to bail out underfunded pensions and health care promises.

However, I see single-payer, universal health care as a good political solution since it equalizes the benefits and entices both sides to support it.

To boldly go...

If a coworker goes home early to care for a sick child, they typically make sarcastic cracks like "I have to stay home and take care of my dog..."

I find myself wondering if anybody really wants to live in a society that reifies this attitude as policy.  A person might not like his coworker to leave to care for their sick child, but would he really want to work in a place where the coworker is compelled to stay?

Or maybe in all fairness it's that the speaker is unlucky, because the parent will come back bearing germs.  That's the complaint I'd have, if I were the complaining type.

You are the perfect straw man for this issue. I fully support the idea that profiling of parents, and particularly mothers, as less qualified workers is a serious problem, and should be illegal.

However, it is a personal choice to have children. I cannot stress this enough. In a society with available birth control and legal abortions, not to mention adoption, all people ultimately CHOOSE to have children or not. This choice should not have spillover consequences to other people. I think that parents should not be given special treatment in terms of their children by law, although of course, companies should be free to negotiate with employees for family leave.

Re: Mothers are not hired on the presumption that they will be less productive

Unless the interviewee brings it up herself hgow would the employer even know if a prospective employee they are interviewing is a parent? Employers obviously find out later who has kids, but during the hiring process I have never found that marital or parental status comes up in any way.