There's been a case in the news lately that points up just how thorny the whole "family leave" situation really is. If you're pro-business you probably regard these laws as putting the good of the individual (and their family) ahead of the company, the other employees, the economy, and society as a whole. If you're anti-business you probably regard these laws as the only thing standing between evil company owners who would skin their employees and sell the hides for footballs if they thought they could get away with it and basic human dignity. As usual, the truth lies somewhere between these extremes...
The case in question seems a bit far-fetched, and the fact that it's being reported by the New York Post does not help. According to the story, the employee was working 60 hours per week up until she began experiencing difficulties with her pregnancy, her doctors required her to spend several months on bed rest, and then only return for 30-hour weeks or less, but the company was not willing to agree to short work weeks, stating that the position was exempt and they would therefore work the poor woman for as many hours as they like. Almost makes the company's managers sound like they should be wearing black capes and twirling long mustachios, doesn't it?
The company isn't commenting on pending litigation (of course there's pending litigation. What made you think there wouldn't be?), but you can imagine how the other side of this story would go: it's a key position; we can't afford to pay two people to work it; we cooperated with the three months plus of family leave and vacations, but we can't just screw around for an undefined number of additional months/years; we understand the importance of family (and health) concerns, but we also have an obligation to our shareholders and the rest of our workforce (who will be unemployed and uninsured if we tank the company); it's not fair to our other exempt personnel, and so on.
So is it a case of somebody trying to achieve work-life balance and being screwed by their (now former) employer, or is it somebody who wants to get paid for 60 hours a week but only work 30, and also sees the opportunity to sue for a huge punitive settlement if they don't get their way? I can't tell you without seeing the actual documents of the case, but it does raise the question of what would you do if it was your company -- and your money? All else being equal -- the hours and working conditions are industry standard, and the employee isn't just trying to scam the company -- at what point do we have to declare that employing this individual is not practical, and request that he or she find another job?
I think we can probably agree that some jobs just aren't well suited to new parents; something that takes you away from your family for 60 hours a week isn't a good choice if you want to maintain a normal family life, and if you've just had a baby it's not likely to work out. By the same token, there are going to be some jobs that can't be split up among multiple employees and require an irregular (and large) number of hours each week. My question is, if you're the owner (or CEO) of a company with that problem, where would you draw the line? And how many people on either side of this issue will be flaming you on the Internet and burning you in effigy in the parking lot, regardless of where you draw it?
It's worth thinking about...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well, having recently come from a very similar situation, I'm very biased to the pregnant employee. IMO companies have to make allowances for pregnant/new parent employees, or the only ones who will be having kids are the very rich (who can afford to have only one parent work), or the very poor (who just let government pay for everything).
If you can show me a company whose CEO and executives are not making multi-six-figure plus salaries and bonuses and thus would really have a hard ship for themselves if an employee needs extra time off for medical/newborn baby reasons, then maybe I'll be sympathetic to the employer. But until then, have the company executives take a pay cut down to $100,000 or give up a bonus and hire another employee who probably needs a job. Somehow, I doubt Elizabeth Arden can't afford to hire another person instead of having the pregnant woman work 60 hours a week.
Well, generally I agree with Jeanette, but in this case I'm talking about the ethical aspect. Keep in mind that we can't have a different policy for each member of the company; the decision has to be consistent for all of the employees.
So is giving an exception to everyone in this same situation fair to the other employees? What about single people (or males) who are not/will never be pregnant? In a publicly-held company, is such an exception fair to the stockholders?
And where do we draw the line?
This is a topic that really hits me close to home, so I'm quite passionate about it.
I also have to wonder how "voluntary" the 60 hour work week is for any employee. Does any employee sign up for a job knowing its going to be 60 hours a week, or does the 40 hour a week job simply turn into 60 hours because the work need to be done and the company refuses to hire more employees? I note the article refers to the employee as "salaried," i.e. she does not earn overtime for those extra 20 hours a week.
And yes, while I can understand having to be beholden to stockholders, this is where I gripe about seeing CEOs and other executives and management personnel get huge salaries and bonuses while their employees struggle to pay their health care premium co-pays. Perhaps if those at the top had their salaries and bonuses down at a more reasonable level, the shareholders would still get a decent return on their investment and the employees would not be overworked and get decent benefits.
BTW, men are also entitled to take FMLA for themselves, a sick relative and/or a new child. Beyond that, no matter what a man says, it still always seems to fall more heavily on the woman/wife/mother to be the primary care-taker of the children.
Ultimately, yes, I think someone's health is a bit more important than a few extra cents or dollars to shareholders. Its a fact of life that employees will get sick or pregnant. That is why there are laws prohibiting discrimination based on disability and sex (although there are certainly no specific laws prohibiting discrimination against mothers, which frankly, I see quite a bit, at least in my line of work).
Post a Comment