Comparison of SSCRA and arguments against fair wages due to motherhood

[MysticSang'ha]

What are your thoughts about the U.S. Re-Employment clause of the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act?

Here is a portion of the rights of deployed armed forces men and women who have been called to duty: http://hss.sbcounty.gov/VA/PDFs/8-Re-employmentSSCRA.pdf

I remember when my husband was active duty and called to serve overseas for over a year. We had a ton of resources protecting his rights of employment upon his return, and I've been curious as to why working mothers don't have the same representation.

I've heard before that the reason why the wage gap exists is because:

1) Motherhood creates time away from a job, and therefore makes women less capable, less trained, and less productive to a company
2) Women don't negotiate as much as men do in interviews and pay raises aggressively
3) Women have historically chosen jobs that are not as life-risking, safer, and more mundane - hence the "hazard wage" difference.

My initial foray into the wage gap argument is to challenge the "time away because of motherhood" assertion by introducing the reality of the SSCRA in the U.S. It isn't a new act by Congress. It was introduced, in fact, in 1918.

Here are my thoughts on what is creating the discrepancy between the two according to governmental thought:

- The SSCRA is there to cover the armed forces and their families that the country is calling for them to serve. Motherhood is different in that it is a choice. I challenge that by saying that we have a volunteer military now and not by conscription.

- War is more hazardous than motherhood. There is risk of life and limb when preparing to battle and entering the battle theatre. During peace time I challenge that notion, however I concede that war is certainly much more hazardous than parenting.

- Motherhood happens much more often than deployment, and economically unsustainable if the country were to ensure mothers re-entering the work force has the same protections as deployed military personnel. I would like to see the numbers of women who choose to care for their babies full-time compared to the numbers of military personnel who are deployed for a more realistic analysis.

What are your thoughts on this approach to challenging the wage gap?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Bumpity-bump :bounce

 

[InformedIgnorance]

With regard to the first half of the first point "Motherhood creates time away from a job" I personally believe that this is the only potentially valid argument I have heard on the issue. I do believe that pregnancy (rather than simply motherhood) whether planned or unplanned can result in a situation where that woman's capacity to do perform in her current role is undermined both before and after birth - she may for example not be able to perform a more physically intensive position or may need adaptations to the workplace and work flow to facilitate her work (such as provision of additional breaks, new equipment etc) then of course there is the time off for birth itself.

In terms of planned pregnancies it would be much like demanding an employer pay you for five days of work a week when you only intend to turn up four times. In terms of unplanned pregnancies it would be like having a non-work related accident, such as when slipping over and breaking your leg when you were going to the bathroom at home.

Why should the employer have to pay for such a thing? In the first case your refusal to turn up to work will cost you pay and you should be grateful if you are not fired (of course negotiating with them before hand should allow this) it was your own decision - deal with it; in the later it is not the employer's responsibility but hopefully you have insurance that covers your accident and will cover health expenses and lost wages.

In terms of parenthood (not motherhood) yes I believe some degree of allowances should be made in much the same way as one might negotiate time off in advance when pregnancies come about; that would of course depend on your agreements with bosses but hopefully they can allow some flexibility and they often do try (unless you just have a scumbag supervisor) there are however times when it is simply not possible. In which case you have a decision to make about your priorities - but that isnt their fault.

This is particularly problematic for small businesses... they should never have to pay someone under such a circumstance; having a small firm go under because two of the women working there chose to get pregnant (planned pregnancies) or else simply were careless and it happened anyway (unplanned)... it is not unheard of - and it should be well within the employers right to turn around and say 'I paid you for five days a week not four'.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

With regard to the first half of the first point "Motherhood creates time away from a job" I personally believe that this is the only potentially valid argument I have heard on the issue. I do believe that pregnancy (rather than simply motherhood) whether planned or unplanned can result in a situation where that woman's capacity to do perform in her current role is undermined both before and after birth - she may for example not be able to perform a more physically intensive position or may need adaptations to the workplace and work flow to facilitate her work (such as provision of additional breaks, new equipment etc) then of course there is the time off for birth itself.

In terms of planned pregnancies it would be much like demanding an employer pay you for five days of work a week when you only intend to turn up four times. In terms of unplanned pregnancies it would be like having a non-work related accident, such as when slipping over and breaking your leg when you were going to the bathroom at home.

Why should the employer have to pay for such a thing? In the first case your refusal to turn up to work will cost you pay and you should be grateful if you are not fired (of course negotiating with them before hand should allow this) it was your own decision - deal with it; in the later it is not the employer's responsibility but hopefully you have insurance that covers your accident and will cover health expenses and lost wages.

In terms of parenthood (not motherhood) yes I believe some degree of allowances should be made in much the same way as one might negotiate time off in advance when pregnancies come about; that would of course depend on your agreements with bosses but hopefully they can allow some flexibility and they often do try (unless you just have a scumbag supervisor) there are however times when it is simply not possible. In which case you have a decision to make about your priorities - but that isnt their fault.

This is particularly problematic for small businesses... they should never have to pay someone under such a circumstance; having a small firm go under because two of the women working there chose to get pregnant (planned pregnancies) or else simply were careless and it happened anyway (unplanned)... it is not unheard of - and it should be well within the employers right to turn around and say 'I paid you for five days a week not four'.

Before we continue, a couple of questions:

1) Did you read the OP considering that this is not an invitation to debate the merits of the wage gap, and that it is a treatise on introducing the SSCRA as a comparable argument for protecting the rights of working women?

2) Do you know which forum you're in?

.

.

.

If you're wishing to have a debate about the points made, I invite you to start a new thread in the open forums.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I didnt notice it was the feminist forum >_> but I did agree with every other point you made so I do believe it was a pro-feminist point (since I believe I am a pro-feminist though given the multiple definitions of feminism some might challenge that)

I was attempting (perhaps poorly) to note the effect on SMALL businesses (as opposed to large institutions such as the armed forces) and the impact of non-work related injuries (given the propensity of work (including training) related injuries within the armed forces) being contrasted with non work related injuries (that have nothing to do with deployment, training and so forth)

It is also particularly important for the unplanned pregnancies given that SSCRA is (from my understanding) only effective upon request and is therefore likely to involve some need for planning things to effectively make use of the provisions. Most noticeably this is done because someone is planning to undergo service to their employer - not to depart from service to that employer unless you are attempting to suggest that having babies is a service to the armed forces (there is some argument that could be made to suggest that it is a public service perhaps that could be offset by the government, but unlikely by the employer - i.e. armed forces) - this is particularly important for the issue about contracts regarding foreclosure etc

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I didnt notice it was the feminist forum >_> but I did agree with every other point you made so I do believe it was a pro-feminist point (since I believe I am a pro-feminist though given the multiple definitions of feminism some might challenge that)

Fair enough.

I was attempting (perhaps poorly) to note the effect on SMALL businesses (as opposed to large institutions such as the armed forces) and the impact of non-work related injuries (given the propensity of work (including training) related injuries within the armed forces) being contrasted with non work related injuries (that have nothing to do with deployment, training and so forth)

Are you contrasting the demands made by small businesses as opposed to the demands made by the USMC or other military corps?

It is also particularly important for the unplanned pregnancies given that SSCRA is (from my understanding) only effective upon request and is therefore likely to involve some need for planning things to effectively make use of the provisions. Most noticeably this is done because someone is planning to undergo service to their employer - not to depart from service to that employer unless you are attempting to suggest that having babies is a service to the armed forces (there is some argument that could be made to suggest that it is a public service perhaps that could be offset by the government, but unlikely by the employer - i.e. armed forces) - this is particularly important for the issue about contracts regarding foreclosure etc

I'm sure we can go into further discussion regarding intention to return because it's certainly relevant were the SSCRA considered a comparable argument. I think we can safely assume for the purposes of this discussion to regard working mothers simply wanting protection when they do return to work.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Are you contrasting the demands made by small businesses as opposed to the demands made by the USMC or other military corps?

Not the demands made BY them - the potential impacts of demands made OF them. A large organisation has significantly more capacity to weather the storm so to speak or to mitigate the very real organisational impacts of employee pregnancies.

I'm sure we can go into further discussion regarding intention to return because it's certainly relevant were the SSCRA considered a comparable argument. I think we can safely assume for the purposes of this discussion to regard working mothers simply wanting protection when they do return to work.

Okay simply for returning to work, that certainly narrows the scope of potential impacts on the business - personally I would consider it a very reasonable proposal in most cases were the scope so defined (there may be some few exceptions depending on organisational restructuring etc that have occuried in the mean time, but SSCRA I believe also does it's best to account for these).

I would hold it to be a reasonable expectation of either government or industry bodies to be able to implement such provisions in most organisations (possibly excluding small businesses depending on how it was worked out) were the political will to pass such regulation/legislation available, I am not however sure that it is at this stage - it would likely be more practical to attach it to some other related legislative item such as some industrial relations bill.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Not the demands made BY them - the potential impacts of demands made OF them. A large organisation has significantly more capacity to weather the storm so to speak or to mitigate the very real organisational impacts of employee pregnancies.

Okay. Got it.

Okay simply for returning to work, that certainly narrows the scope of potential impacts on the business - personally I would consider it a very reasonable proposal in most cases were the scope so defined (there may be some few exceptions depending on organisational restructuring etc that have occuried in the mean time, but SSCRA I believe also does it's best to account for these).

I would hold it to be a reasonable expectation of either government or industry bodies to be able to implement such provisions in most organisations (possibly excluding small businesses depending on how it was worked out) were the political will to pass such regulation/legislation available, I am not however sure that it is at this stage - it would likely be more practical to attach it to some other related legislative item such as some industrial relations bill.

Giving this some thought. Thanks!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What are your thoughts on this approach to challenging the wage gap?

Sounds a lot like the approach here:

Rights During Pregnancy and Parental Leaves

Employees on pregnancy or parental leave have several rights.

The Right to Reinstatement

In most cases, an employee who takes a pregnancy or parental leave is entitled to:

• the same job the employee had before the leave began; or
• a comparable job, if the employee's old job no longer exists.

In either case, the employee must be paid at least as much as he or she was earning before the leave. Also, if the wages for the job went up while the employee was on leave, or would have gone up if he or she hadn't been on leave, the employer must pay the higher wage when the employee returns from leave.
[...]

The Right to Be Free from Penalty

Employers cannot penalize an employee in any way because the employee:

• took a pregnancy or parental leave;
• plans to take a pregnancy or parental leave;
• is eligible to take a pregnancy or parental leave; or
• will become eligible to take a pregnancy or parental leave.

The Right to Continue to Participate in Benefit Plans

Employees on pregnancy or parental leave have a right to continue to take part in certain benefit plans that their employer may offer. These include:

• pension plans;
• life insurance plans;
• accidental death plans;
• extended health plans; and
• dental plans.

[...]

The Right to Earn Credits for Length of Employment, Length of Service and Seniority

Employees continue to earn credits toward length of employment, length of service, and seniority during periods of leave.

Pregnancy and Parental Leave | Ministry of Labour

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In terms of planned pregnancies it would be much like demanding an employer pay you for five days of work a week when you only intend to turn up four times. In terms of unplanned pregnancies it would be like having a non-work related accident, such as when slipping over and breaking your leg when you were going to the bathroom at home.

Why should the employer have to pay for such a thing?

Because as a general principle of law in your country and mine, employers are required to accommodate disabilities of their employees.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Speaking as a person with a disability - pregnancy is not a disability; it is a temporary condition resulting either from choice or accident, the former being the employees responsibility and the later is in many ways akin to an injury (which in Austrlaia at least unless done at work or on the way to or from work is not the employers responsibility)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Speaking as a person with a disability - pregnancy is not a disability; it is a temporary condition resulting either from choice or accident, the former being the employees responsibility and the later is in many ways akin to an injury (which in Austrlaia at least unless done at work or on the way to or from work is not the employers responsibility)

Sorry - I thought you were in the US.

You argued that it's a physical condition that affects a woman's physical ability to do her job; that makes it a disability. The fact that it's a temporary condition makes it a temporary disability; it doesn't make it not a disability.

In any case, regardless of your personal opinion or mine, U.S. law considers pregnancy a disability for the purposes of anti-discrimination rules and workplace accommodation.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Yet certain types of discrimination is allowed where it is deemed functionally relevant in that it would prevent them being able to perform the job (such as allowing an advertising company to discriminate against middle aged men from becoming female lingerie models for an advert that was to appear in a magazine aimed at young women) or a number of other issues (for example religious discrimination by a religious institution) seen as functionally relevant points of discrimination which can be legally used for screening applicants for different types of positions.

You cannot for example discriminate by not hiring someone in a wheelchair for a desk job (because you do not want to pay to put in an elevator to the second floor) but you CAN discriminate against that same person applying for the job of a tour operator where the tours will involve significant amounts of walking across country due to the lack of roads available on a national heritage site. Pregnancy is a functionally relevant point of discrimination for many (if not most) types of employment, because there will be times when mobility is vastly diminished, stamina etc, in addition to having to actually take moths off.

 

[Alceste]

I did read the OP, I've just been thinking about it. Basically I just don't know anything about SSCRA. All I can say is that if our society doesn't value the sacrifice of parents, especially mothers, at least as highly as that of soldiers, it's a completely deranged society, and it's priorities are f*****.

The approach I prefer is to ensure both parents can take an equal amount of parental leave and have their jobs waiting at the end of it. I think that's how it works in Canada for full time permanent employees, although it varies from one province to another.

I would prefer to treat all parents the same, and all soldiers the same, but comparing parents to soldiers makes my head hurt.

If your soldiers are getting more perks than your parents, raise hell. That's just wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The approach I prefer is to ensure both parents can take an equal amount of parental leave and have their jobs waiting at the end of it. I think that's how it works in Canada for full time permanent employees, although it varies from one province to another.

The way it works in Ontario is that a pregnant woman can get pregnancy leave (17 weeks, starting either at some point during the pregnancy or at birth), and either spouse can take parental leave, which is split between the parents as they see fit. Fathers and adoptive parents (male or female) can take parental leave but not pregnancy leave.

 

[Alceste]

The way it works in Ontario is that a pregnant woman can get pregnancy leave (17 weeks, starting either at some point during the pregnancy or at birth), and either spouse can take parental leave, which is split between the parents as they see fit. Fathers and adoptive parents (male or female) can take parental leave but not pregnancy leave.

Thanks. Didn't know that. I guess I should look up how things are in BC.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Thanks for the contributions, y'all.

I remember what that was like when hubbie was deployed overseas for over a year. We were flooded with information on his rights and given the paperwork to fill out, send in to his employer, and maintain. It was basically a reminder that wherever he worked, he had the right to return to his job with the same pay (with raises) as he would have received had he not been deployed at all.

Whether or not pregnancy is termed a disability, it's time away from work. I like to focus on that first before the classification.