Is it possible to talk about parenthood and work without stepping into "Mommy War" territory? Is it possible to have a reality-based discussion on this topic? Two recent articles in the Atlantic took very different stances on parenthood and work. While both made interesting points, I don't think either discussion was entirely relevant to the lives of most women.
More here.
Apt. 11d 
Brilliant take on it as usual but I can’t help thinking “Festivus, for the rest of us” when I read your headline!
LikeLike
Great article.
While I understand that the article was more about “identifying the problems” rather than “solving the problems,” I was a little confused by the example of the “school teacher who wept as she explained that she chose to leave her current position.”
It seemed to be framed as an example of “here’s the problem,” but given your take that part of the goal is more part-time work for parents with younger children, isn’t this really the path that we want to encourage? She had a teaching job that went through July, and now she has a young child who she wants more time with, so she switched to a job that ends a month earlier for less money, and then when her kid is older she can shift back to the longer-hour/ more-pay job.
Given the rest of the article, I was confused why that example wasn’t framed as “Here’s a great example of a working mom being able to make this trade off. Why aren’t there more opportunities like this?”
LikeLike
It is a great article. However, based on the comment thread, I must have read it too quickly and missed the part where you asked people to reveal their socio-sexual fears.
LikeLike
Yes, that would been a better way of framing that anecdote. Sigh. #fail. That anecdote was the only paragraph that remained from the Thursday draft. The rest of the article was written with one finger on an iPad on the car ride to Boston. Not the ideal setup for writing.
LikeLike
Well, I wouldn’t go all hashtag on yourself or anything.
It was more of a question than a criticism, because it really could have gone the other way. I mean, sure, one way is to re-frame it as a how teachers and nurses have these choices that other employees don’t have, because teaching and nursing are historically women-dominated professions. But no matter how you frame it, in the end you’ve still got a weeping teacher. And if the “improved” solution ends with an unhappy employee, then maybe it’s not actually a good answer.
“In a better world, families armed with more complete information and increased work flexibility could make rational, long-term decisions about work and family.” So, did the teacher have irrational expectations where she wanted part-time work with full-time pay? Or is there some other sort of “fix” that would make the sad teacher happier?
LikeLike
I think maybe the problem is that even the good (part-time, fulfilling, flexible) solutions are often REALLY precarious, with childcare cobbled together, the salary BARELY covering the childcare and everything sort of teetering. Get a new boss, or a change in job description or something similar and everything goes to hell (as it did for the teacher in the story).
I can relate because I once had a great job where I finished work at 3, and could still get to school to pick up my kids at 3:15. Then they lost their lease on the place they worked (small nonprofit) and moved to a new location which was 45 minutes farther away for me (depended on where exactly you lived in Northern Virginia). All of a sudden, I had to find 45 minutes of childcare 5 days a week — be serious. Who wants to work for 45 minutes a day? The answer is: no one. The arrangement fell apart and I had to quit.
The problem is that everyone’s flextime job seems to exist at the whim of their particular boss, and unless you have parents who want to raise your kids, you tend to have a precarious childcare arrangement. I think that what many people want to see happen is some form of actual legislation or arrangement where maybe any provisions for part-time work are formalized, rather than resting on the whims of one individual.
Also, I really like Laura’s point about how maybe there’s a way to introduce more transparency into the process. I think it’s true that even if a mom or dad works out an arrangement with a boss to get some flexibility, they are often explicitly cautioned not to tell anyone else or they’ll all want it. Thus, many people are in a position where they can’t articulate what they need or make a case for it because they’re operating in the dark.
LikeLike
On the transparency topic, in my world this already exists. Just look up your current employer on glassdoor.
The real issue, IMO, is employees’ inability to negotiate any meaningful change. There’s just too much economic insecurity right now – employers hold too many cards.
And as an aside – giving up *tenure* for a one-time extra four weeks with your kid? Really? That’s almost an economic Darwin award. Just call in sick a lot like a normal person!!
LikeLike
My part-time job fell apart because part-time childcare was really hard to do. But I also was feeling like I sucked at everything. I still do, but now I suck full time with benefits. 🙂
LikeLike
I’d add that a special needs child throws all of those calculations out of whack. While others are worrying about paying for college and the empty nest, we’re still worrying about having someone at home when Autistic Youngest gets off of her school bus around 3pm and how we’ll deal with the day when she graduates from the school system into a world that doesn’t give a damn about autistic adults.
I’m sadly taken aback by all the “women lose respect for men who make less money than they do” posters over at the Atlantic. Really? REALLY? I outearn my husband by more than 10-1 yet we are equal partners in this enterprise: without his efforts, there’d be no one at home for Autistic Youngest (see above). I also can’t stifle the thought that if women aren’t suppose to respect men that make less, that maybe all of these wage-earning men don’t believe they have the perfect excuse to disrespect women who’re making less money, too.
LikeLike
oh, yes. to both comments, Janice.
I’m handling two kids, one with special needs, and trying to earn a living this summer, by writing. Let me tell you about it. During the year, I was thinking about doing a traditional PT job, which would fit into a school day, but I couldn’t because I knew the summer was coming. I would never make enough money to pay for all that childcare. Luckily, I love writing and have a nice venue to publish my stuff. Do you know how much it pays? Should I tell you guys? OK. In the spirit of openness, I’ll tell you. I make $150 per article. I probably put about 20 hours into that last article, so that means I made around $8 an hour. When I blogged for MM, I made nothing. They don’t pay me enough to read the comments and respond to them.
LikeLike
“In the spirit of openness, I’ll tell you. I make $150 per article. I probably put about 20 hours into that last article, so that means I made around $8 an hour.”
Now I’m starting to wonder how much they pay their official bloggers. A couple (MM and Sullivan) have headed off for greener pastures.
Here’s a not-very-honest idea for increasing per-column pay: solicit fees for product placement from major advertisers. Example: “I was just reading X’s article on work-life balance while enjoying a Diet Coke and watching my kids” or “I was thinking about work-life balance while loading groceries into the generous storage space at the back of my Subaru.”
LikeLike
Thank you, Janice! I too was floored by the idea that women lose respect for men that make less than they do. I think that may be an outdated attitude, but maybe I’m kidding myself.
A family should make decisions that are for the best of that family. My husband and I decided that my career would give us the best life and so I’m leading…. all the way to Europe. For the last five years, my husband hasn’t had the legal right to work, so he has taken care of all aspects of our personal life, while also finding interesting and fun volunteer opportunities. We have no children, so I can’t even say he is busy with kids. Do I respect him any less for making it possible for me to have this career development opportunity? Absolutely not!
To Laura’s point, it can be very difficult to succeed without someone to manage the personal aspects of your life (with or without kids) when you work tons of hours. I hope in the future it becomes more socially acceptable for my situation. More women as senior leaders in corporations/governments is a good thing.
LikeLike
Nice take on the articles with your own perspective. One note-there is an economic downside to working part time comes which comes at retirement. If you only worked part time, you had no or a lesser contribution towards retirement funding (pension, savings, 401K) etc,. If you have been adversely affected by one of the D’s as we call it (divorce, disability, death or spouse being a d***) then you may have to put off retirement for a significant amount of time or even indefinitely. It is important to look at not only short term but long term needs.
LikeLike
If people had PT jobs with real responsibility, then if there was a disaster then they could more easily move into a FT position.
62% of working women would prefer a PT job. And the idiot researchers didn’t even bother to ask that question of SAHM. My guess that the vast majority of SAHM would be happy to have a PT job. If most women want a PT job, why not give them those opportunities? People have different levels of risk that they are willing to take on. What’s right for one family/individual, isn’t right for another.
LikeLike
“If people had PT jobs with real responsibility, then if there was a disaster then they could more easily move into a FT position. ”
Do you mean for the company or for the person? For example, if a company has a part time employee and gets a big new client that requires full time effort can they draw on the part-time employee during the high demand period? With the reciprocity that if the part-time employee would have first priority at full-time employment if they wanted it from their end?
My issue in thinking about work/life balance is that I want to see people talk about it from both the employee & employer point of view. I think there are good reasons to modify the employment workplace in mutually beneficial ways that break away from the old molds (well, or at leas the mold of the 50’s, with the reciprocal agreement being that you sign over your life to the company and they agree to employee you for life, with solid benefits on retirement).
LikeLike
“…well, or at leas the mold of the 50’s, with the reciprocal agreement being that you sign over your life to the company and they agree to employee you for life, with solid benefits on retirement…”
I wonder how common that really was even in the 1950s. My grandpa had one of those 40-year jobs at a saw mill, but they didn’t have any retirement program in the beginning (I think the mill was started by some brothers who were former officer after WWII). Retirement (and presumably other benefits) appeared much later on at the mill, only after it started making good money.
LikeLike
Many years ago, for a post at half-changed world on part-time work, I ran the numbers for the cost to an employer of part-time workers. At the time, the costs were as follows:
Total cost to employer of one employee making $120K/year
Base salary 120,000
(Non-generous employer’s) health insurance 6,500
Employer contribution to FICA 5,580
Employer contribution to Medicare 1,740
———
TOTAL 133,820
Total cost to employer of two part-time employees, each making $60K/year
Base salary 120,000
(Non-generous employer’s) health insurance 13,000
Employer contribution to FICA 7,440
Employer contribution to Medicare 1,740
———
TOTAL 141,180
That’s a difference of $8,360.
If you alter these calculations for the employer with generous health benefits, the difference rises to $11,860.
These are, as they say, non-trivial expenses. And insurance has only gone up since then. There are significant structural barriers to taking more folks on as part-timers.
LikeLike
Who gives insurance to part time employees?
LikeLike
The difference jen calculated is actually a little low as it ignores unemployment and worker’s comp. Employers pay on the first XX dollars to an employee, so 2 employees double their costs for both those items. (This makes turn over more costly as well)
Employers resist part time work because it is more expensive for them and this is also why part time jobs are less likely to offer benefits.
MH – my employer offers insurance to part time employees, but the portion the employee pays rises (the employer pays more toward the premium for a 3/4 time employee than for 1/2 time employee and doesn’t offer any insurance to a less than 1/2 time employee.)
LikeLike
“Who gives insurance to part time employees?”
Some universities do — part time techs were given health insurance in my experience (I’m guessing adjuncts weren’t). The university also only charged the pro-rated benefits rate to grants, so there was no cost to grants to having two part-time employees. Of course, there must have been a cost to the university, but the person in charge of the hiring didn’t have to make the cost-benefit analysis. Presumably the university offset the costs by charging a higher benefits rate for everyone (i.e. charging 25% of base salary, rather than 20%, or whatever it would have otherwise been). Setting the benefits rate as a percent of base salary also meant that higher paid workers were paying respectively more of the benefits cost than the lower paid employees (to the extent that the cost was fixed, like health care).
In Jen’s numbers, changing the health care system so that employers aren’t providing health care benefits on a per/person basis and changing the FICA cap would neutralize the numbers. I think there’s still a cost to part-time employees, in management and coordination, but it’s more likely that those amorphous costs would be offset by the benefits of having access to a larger pool of expertise, both in choosing employees and in the employees you have.
Of course, the other problem with part-time employees is how one defines “professional” level responsibilities, along the lines of we pay you a FT salary and you get all the work done, no matter how long it takes you. If FT employees work 70 hours/week, and PT employees works 20 hours, they’re really not working FT.
LikeLike
I think the model of tacking benefits on to individual employment is tied to an old model of employment, where both employees and employers were making a very long term commitment, including through stages of employment (from junior to senior, with changing salary and changing benefits). In a system where employees move (for higher salaries or better opportunities or to move in and out of the work force), where employers hire and fire people at will as short term needs change, where employers go bankrupt (like the airline industry which is using bankruptcy as a standard practice), where law firms fall apart with regularity, the system just can’t work any more.
I think we’re in a period of change. My main policy changes are a stable retirement and health insurance that’s independent of employment. Politically that means fighting significant changes in the benefit structure of social security (though I don’t consider changing the caps or retirement ages significant changes) and fighting for health care that isn’t tied to a particular employer. I think these changes will do more to make PT employment tenable for employers than mandates and regulations.
The trend in economics these days is for everyone to want to pay the incremental costs of whatever it is they want; someone has to pay for the base costs (say health care needs over a lifetime, children’s needs, infrastructure of both people and things). Those base and surplus costs need to be paid for centrally as a community, through taxation.
LikeLike
The trend in economics these days is for everyone to want to pay the incremental costs of whatever it is they want; someone has to pay for the base costs …
That’s certainly the way university grants work. If you have one grant that lets you build the structure, you can do other things very cost effectively.
LikeLike
“…where employers go bankrupt (like the airline industry which is using bankruptcy as a standard practice)…”
Airlines have been a risky business for a long time. Pan Am died in 1991 and Eastern Airlines died the same year. (I had a pilot uncle who flew for a small WA airline and I remember him losing his job in the very late 1980s, much to everybody’s distress.)
LikeLike
I forget the name of the airline involved, but at the end of their big early 1970s trip to Europe, my parents wound up trapped at an airport on the wrong side of the Atlantic for about three days with no money and nothing to eat after their airline went bankrupt.
LikeLike