- Share This Post
- submit
- 12
-
Sparkle (0)
Thanks to BlogHer friend Mike Terry of LitCritter, who pointed me to Lynn Harris' Salon story that puts the whole I-hate-my-Scotch-Guard-carpeted-cubicle thing into perspective.
Being a disgruntled employee dreaming of when she could run her own show, I often forgot the little bennies associated with being a corporate drone--health insurance less and less, but namely the feeling that if I had a personal crisis to attend to I could go handle it without impunity. I didn't see it taken out of my paycheck. If my gynie appointment ran long, I could call in and say I wasn't planning to come back to the office. I could take a few extra minutes at lunchtime to shop or meet a friend. This is part of being at a company--unless you are egregiously abusive with privileges you are treated like an adult with a life.
There's still much to be done by companies to re-integrate women into the who have taken time off for child rearing, and other common--but voluntary--life changes. But basic things such as illness and temporary emergencies are usually considered part of the human condition. Things crop up and need to get dealt with. And if you didn't let people handle them, you'd breed low morale and--consequently--low productivity.
And yet, there are plenty of workers who don't have that kind of leeway, even in the most dire of circumstances. Harris cites a study released yesterday by the Center for WorkLife Law, a research and advocacy group at the University of California Hastings College of Law, that shows that blue collar workers, in particular, could lose their jobs for taking off any work time, let alone taking breaks at Starbucks.
Harris writes that the report, "One Sick Child Away From Being Fired: When 'Opting Out' Isn't an Option," reviews 99 "cases of work vs. life conflict that went to arbitration (the legal negotiation process for union workers)."
I was shocked to read about the ridiculous circumstances under which people had lost their jobs. Among the examples:
...a bus driver fired for arriving three minutes late (her son had had a severe asthma attack); a grandfather at a tractor supply company fired for refusing to work unscheduled overtime (he had to care for his 18-month-old grandchild); a packer fired for leaving work early (she'd just gotten word that her daughter was in the E.R. with a head injury).
This strikes me on a personal level, namely because so much of the most recent phase of my career has been about controlling my career destiny. While it's decidedly an uphill battle, consider those in blue collar jobs who may not have saved enough money to risk going solo, or they may not have jobs that provide them with the skills to run a business for themselves. Many have immediate costs/children to provide for and have to simply make do. They have to endure infantilizing positions that offer them little trust or support.
The study offers up some strong commentary on how the media handles work-life balance issues, often relegating coverage to the "style section" and focusing on whether uber-educated women should raise little Spencer and risk getting bumped from their EVP positions.
Once the press stops covering work/family issues as just a problem for professional women, policymakers will stand face to face with a central irony: In a country committed to the family values of caring for children, elders, and the ill, the lack of supports for hard-working families creates everyday crises for many ordinary Americans.
Even computers stall and break down; how can we expect uninterrupted performance from human capital?
