I keep linking to Pomplamoose, because they are so darn cute.
Fighting against maternal profiling.
After you've blogged for a few years and learned how Internet traffic flows, it's very tempting to write blog posts that will send in the google searchers or the low lifes, but it is better to write quality material that will get forwarded through e-mail or facebook. And so does Penelope Trunk, I see.
Apt. 11d 
I have also seen maternal profiling in action. It’s horrible and unfair, but the way the system is currently set up I don’t think it’s reasonable to simply legislate against it and hope to force compliance. The financial repercussions need to be discussed realistically.
An employer takes a hit from maternity leave on two fronts.
First, there is the time the mom is out. Every employer has to deal with this, and especially for smaller companies it can be extremely disruptive. All employers know that, in theory at least, they should not have any single points of failure. They should never have an entire office where only one person can (for example) do payroll. But then there’s the reality … which is that for many roles, it’s just too hard and expensive to get dual coverage on all tasks. So in effect what’s going on here is that maternity leave is forcing these employers to face the music on their bad business continuity planning. It’s SO much easier for employers to simply try to duck the situation.
The second way an employer is impacted by maternity leave is the paid leave aspect. Not all employers pay for maternity leave, but those who do are taking a big hit for that woman’s leave. I took two 12-week leaves when I had my two kids; for the first leave, my boss tried to replace me because he had never seen a female employee actual come back from maternity leave. (He could not find anyone in time, and I was openly discussed as a “trailblazer” afterwards, for proving that a woman might actually come back to work.) These are big issues for employers, real problems for them. It is ridiculous to presume that employers won’t be aware of this tremendous hit to their bottom line.
IMHO the whole maternity-leave-paid-by-the-employer is a setup for a hard feelings for everyone. Maternity leave coverage should be like unemployment insurance, a national benefit everyone contributes to in part, and partially covered by the employer. After all, we all (eventually) benefit from the new taxpayer who is born. We should all help bear the burden. And make the employer’s decision to be magnanimous less of a direct financial cost to that employer.
LikeLike
I’m – I think – with Jen. Maternity leave becomes something which only big firms can deal with, so it makes it yet harder to be a small firm.
If you are hiring, and small, it is tempting to look for 45 year old hires to insure against maternity problems. And to hire temps, for anything where continuity isn’t necessary.
LikeLike
I also agree that simply legislating maternity policies that are significantly against economic interests are unlikely to work. Of course employers try to avoid the significant economic impact of hiring folks who are likely to take time off, perhaps with pay, and then perhaps not return. One could try to respond by arguing that’s discrimination and then legislate against that, too. But, the problem with profiling is that it’s nebulous and hard to grab hold of, not likely to be very easily addressed by legal solutions.
I think that the problem needs to be addressed by addressing the economic disincentives — paying for maternity leave through social insurance, non-employer tied health care. Those things will help. They won’t prevent discrimination, because having key employees leave will always be hard for a company.
LikeLike
I was quite confused by the article, as I’d always been told — including in how-to-interview presentations by our HR department — that asking about marital status or children was against federal law. Is that not the case?
LikeLike
The HR trainings I have attended have always commanded us to not directly ask about marital status or children (or age). Based on that I’ve always assumed it was illegal in Illinois.
Which doesn’t keep people from asking things like, “Where do you see yourself in 5 years?”. Unfortunately thought right now I think the employers and female employees alike are pretty on edge about this stuff, which means that no one tells the truth. I can’t tell you how many times I told my co-workers I was coming back from maternity leave. And they were all like, yeah right, whatever. Those same guys were visibly stunned when I actually returned (and asked for a lactation room on the IT floor).
LikeLike
The EOC site says that those questions cannot be asked with the purpose of using the information to discriminate against women, and that if the questions are asked, they may be evidence that discrimination might be possible. But, I don’t think it’s “illegal” to ask the questions.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_marital_status.cfm
The article was tone deaf, though, ’cause it didn’t acknowledge the more nuanced rules. Folks do try to dig for the information, but they do so in a more nuanced way (at least the big companies, who worry about EOC claims). Small businesses may have more flexibility (some of the rules don’t apply to them).
LikeLike