Last night I attended a showing of the Motherhood Manifesto documentary. This documentary highlights the work of MomsRising.org, a growing movement with over 50,000 members – and particularly their effort to end employment discrimination against mothers.
I’m all for ending that discrimination – my own mother was denied a job because she was asked a question to determine whether she had daughters or sons (one of the benefits the employer offered would have been considerably more expensive for daughters). Yet I was left with a subtle feeling of increased anomie after the show. 24 hours of thinky thoughts later, I think I know the source of my discomfort, and I also have a new outlook on business and labor law.
To provide some background, the big red hot button on my political activist agenda is dignity in the workplace, including improved support for job transitions. In the current (lack of) system, people spend far too much uncompensated time, effort, anxiety, and humiliation on job transition periods. When that transition goes on for longer than a few months, I think words like “slavery” should start to come into play – especially when there is ongoing free labor (to “prove yourself”) or free work product and/or consulting involved. I appreciate the risk of trivializing the word slavery, but given the physical suffering that can be involved with deprivation of health care and demeaning treatment by others, I think we’re getting closer to a slave system than most Neo-Con economists would care to admit.
I’m a proponent of “blind hiring” – a new hiring process that would take names off resumes, remove pictures and “first impression” personal interviews from the process, and do away with the crony-based recommendation system. I’d like to reduce the focus on networking. Instead, I’d like to see an increased focus on skills: not just more training, but more emphasis on making skills visible through free or cheap credentialing. I also think steps should be taken early to prevent temp agencies from being used as buffers that enable businesses to avoid anti-discrimination laws. I believe businesses that cling to more personal forms of hiring are really casting about for excuses to practice discrimination – unfortunately perceived as a “gut feeling”.
Given my intense interest in the subject of fair employment, I should probably be the chief bullhorn wielder for MomsRising.org. Discrimination against mothers is a widespread, egregious, and stupid form of discrimination that has been leaving a trail of family wreckage for decades.
Today I realized the problem is that this is still just one form of discrimination – and when we finally do something to alleviate it, the suffering will just be transferred to some other group in a competitive economy. For instance, studies show overweight white women face significant pay discrimination. If the overweight white Moms get a boost, will the overweight white single women be in even worse condition? While it’s true that the Mom’s have childcare responsibilities, what about the people with massive eldercare responsibilities?
In short, it seems like there are myriad forms of discrimination, and they all create human suffering and undermine families. And every time our political representatives get it together to finally pass a law against some form of discrimination, they just end up with yet one more layer of regulation – leaving businesses howling about the skyrocketing costs of compliance and fostering a cottage industry in loophole-lawyering.
One of the tenets of socially responsible entrepreneurship is to “leave no one behind and hold no one back.” It seems to me that the best way to follow through on this sentiment would be to eliminate all forms of discrimination from the hiring process in one fell swoop. This would decrease the costs of compliance and take a lot of the song and dance out of the hiring process, therefore greasing the wheels of the economy and pumping up productivity by capturing a lot of labor that’s just going to waste right now. (Really, how does the general economy benefit from 100 rewrites of one’s resume and a thousand personalized thank-you notes? It’s the social equivalent of busywork.)
Here’s my idea. Why don’t we regulate what can be asked during a job interview instead of what can’t be asked? In stead of having 2,376 obscure anti-discrimination laws on the books, why not simply write an interview guide that excludes all personal and family questions? If there were a standardized format for interviews (with a “fill in the appropriate skill set here” section), then it would also be easier for people to prepare for interviews. If “blind hiring” policies were also implemented, then we might make strides toward eliminating discrimination all together. And think of the compliance savings! This alone would be putting billions of dollars back into the actual businesses.
It seems to me that the only obstacle to such a policy is people are scared of the unknown: no matter what people profess their values to be, they secretly want to hold on to opportunities to discriminate because it helps them hold on to power over other people. While the unknown is scary, power feels like safety. I guess the only way to overcome this is to promise that by reducing discrimination, you make everyone safer, which thus reduces the desperation for power.
If there are any lawyers or policymakers in the house, I’d like to know if there’s any reason standardizing job interviews wouldn’t be less expensive than dealing with all the anti-discrimination laws. It seems obvious to me.
Tnere are many single adults (age 40+) who are also discriminated against in interviews, refused employment (soley on the basis of their age) in favor of someone just out of college who still has their head buried in the textbooks!
And the focus always on Mothers and kids! Want the newest clothes, toys and name-brand foods? Make do by going to the Salvation Army, garage sales, buy store brands, go to a food bank, or skip meals! Can’t afford gas? Walk! Do your own car repairs, or find someone who will do them for $ if you buy the parts! Vacation? Go camping, instead of feeling that you are entitled to the best of everything just because you have kids. Medical Insurance? Kids get coverage on Medicaid or on your husband’s policy.
Don’t be so damn greedy and stop crying poor me, I have a kid. It is not my fault you had a kid that you couldn’t afford, just as it is not your fault that I have multiple disabilities and only receive $620 a month in SSD/I. If I can make it month to month on that, you can definitely do it on more.
I’m very aware of this since I’m edging up on 40 myself (with much gray hair), and I’ve never made it past the entry level of a career. I certainly didn’t mean to leave ageism out, and I would hope this form of discriminsation would be wiped out along with all others if we as a society would just consent to give up on discrimination and adopt blind hiring procedures.
I know how you feel about everything being “for the children”. In California, you can only get MediCal if you have children. Everyone thinks MediCal is a safety net for the poor…but no.
This is something I actually want to bring up with MomsRising.org. Non-mothers may not perceive this “discrimination against mothers” even if it can be statistically proven. People will feel the pressures of discrimination on their own lives, and if they are told the discrimination someone else is experiencing is more important, they will say “what, are you kidding me?”
I’m hoping the movement will increasingly focus on the family – embracing eldercare as well as childcare. Most of us will have to deal with caring for our parents.
Ps. I have a disabled friend, and we often commiserate about how people would rather have a vast red tape that offers the minimum support instead of pay less for a system that gets more money to the people who need it.
Nice reply!
I went on an interview once when my daughter was still a toddler. My boss was my reference and told me that the perspective employer asked her if my kid got in the way of my work. My boss and I agreed that the question was over the top and that it was not the company for me. Since I became a mom, I have consistently taken less pay to work for companies that are willing to work with the fact that I do have responsibilities outside of work.
I cannot figure out what benefit would be more costly for girl kids than boy kids. I’m darn curious. Care to enlighten me?
Descrimination works on so many levels. Blind interviews or some such thing makes a kind of intuitive sense. Appearance, disability, family status, gender, age, etc. would disappear with such an idea. I like it, but I don’t see companies endorsing it.
The girl vs. boy benefit was for a situation you don’t find much anymore. My mom applied for a job at an all-male college. The college had the benefit of paying tuition for children of faculty and certain categories of full-time staff. Boys would just go to the college, but for girls, the college would have to pay the tuition for another institution. My mom had three girls, two in high school (creeping up on college age) at the time. It sucks to know I kept my mom out of a good job. The job she ended up in paid minimum wage and had no benefits. 🙁
I don’t see companies endorsing blind hiring, either. I can also see individuals resisting it because they always trust their personal judgment/gut feelings about people, and they don’t want to give up the little thrill of exercising that judgment. That’s why I think it would be best to legislate a standard format that applies to everyone all at once. If everyone’s doing it at the same time, it’s fair – and that sense of fairness and universality (safety) might make up for the relinquishing of a bit of personal power.
By the way, an economist gave me an example of blind hiring in practice: some orchestras have people audition behind a curtain, so they’re judged only on their music skills.
I can also see individuals resisting it because they always trust their personal judgment/gut feelings about people, and they don’t want to give up the little thrill of exercising that judgment.
Two words: power trip.
an example of blind hiring in practice: some orchestras have people audition behind a curtain, so they’re judged only on their music skills.
That was challenged in court by someone who didn’t make the DSO, for some reason. Don’t recall the result off the top of my head. And, again, from firsthand experience, I can tell you that there is no such thing as a “blind hiring practice” where a person is judged soley on merit.
If that were the case, I would be employed in journalism, judged soley on what I write. Instead, I have been told that I am unqualified as I do not have a journalism degree, despite the fact that I have attended grad school. I’m told to do internships, (which basically consist of getting coffee for someone). I worked at a small neighborhood paper when I was in high school–everyone did everything. At one type, I knew how to set type!
A friend’s husband is on the verge of being “credentialed” out of his job to someone just out of college who has some a degree in computer science. Never mind the fact that the guy knows his stuff backwards and forwards.
Shows what a waste of being self-taught is. I remember when that was considered initiative.
Darn – that’s disappointing about the orchestra.
I know there’s never a 100% full-proof way to get blind hiring, but we can certainly get closer to where we are now.
I’m with you that a degree shouldn’t carry heavy weight as a credential. Beyond blind hiring we would have to get into the question of blind admissions, uneven educational experiences, and the illusion of meritocracy. I’d rather see decisions made on testing and work samples. I know there are a lot of questions about bias in tests and test prep, but we can always work on improving them.
I’m also self-taught in all my work skills. My degree was in extremely obscure history. :-p
Don’t remember exactly what the decision was, or how long it took–pretty sure there was an appeal. Anyway, DSO lost some good people on account of it. It was a total mess. (Friend I used to hang around w/ushered and heard some things.)
Since I became a mom, I have consistently taken less pay to work for companies that are willing to work with the fact that I do have responsibilities outside of work
And other people have no responsibilities outside of work?
Please.
Wow SK…I am just dumbfounded by your anger at women with children. You have taught me a great deal about people with disabilities. Yet, I saw the point of this diary is to break away from all discrimination, including discrimination against the disabled. With blind interviews, a possible employer could not disciminate against the disabled. Don’t you see that this diarist is only using women with children as an example? One of many?
Of course all people have responsibilities outside of work, but most can be juggled. A kid cannot be juggled. I cannot work overtime on the spot because I must pick up my kid from daycare. If my kid is sick, I must stay home and/or take her to the doctor. A kid is different (as are sick elderly) from other obligations.
I am not mad that I couldn’t afford the best for my kid or myself. I love Salvation Army and Goodwill. I also camp for my vacations and love it, when I can afford a vacation, and I wouldn’t have it any different. I don’t ask for more than my childless co-workers, but I do demand a bit of flexibility and understanding.
I understand where the anger is coming from. People without children are constantly sent the message that they’re worthless. They can’t get any help for anything because their problems are “personal”, and how dare they feel “entitled” to help. Being a parent gives you an entitlement card.
Parents, especially single parents, have nearly impossible lives, and there are a lot of things that society could do to ease the burden. But I think a fair exchange would be for people with children to not shut the door behind them. Perhaps they could start advocating for people without children? The hostility comes because the “for the children” argument asserts exclusions against the people parents need as allies. :-/
Parents, especially single parents, have nearly impossible lives, and there are a lot of things that society could do to ease the burden.
Single parents have it easy, as the kid is a built-in sympathy card.
Please.
Having a traumatic brain injury (or any other disability) and living on SSD/I isn’t.
If I could be a single parent w/no disability or a traumatic brain injury survivor, give me single parenthood any day of the week and twice on Sundays!
I agree about the build in sympathy card, but the sympathy card comes with built in with a lot of extra burdens and responsibilities. I think it balances out – which is why I would say there is discrimination against Mom’s, but the way to handle this is to address discrimination against a broad range of people.
the sympathy card comes with built in with a lot of extra burdens and responsibilities.
Having a disability also creates additional burdens and responsibilities that are near impossible to live with, but, someway, somehow, some people with disabilities can survive it. Fact of the matter is that many don’t. Also, compare having a disability and being a mom on SSI compared to the so-called burdens of being a just a mom are nothing compared to the burdens and responsibilities of having a disability or having a disability.
I emailed this link to a couple friends, both single moms, and am printing some experts from their responses as well. (BTW, I left identifying/personal info out and cleaned up the language.) The first is from a single mom (who was denied for SSD/I) with a disability (that I was suprised to get as quickly as I did). Checked email at a public site.
The second is from a single mom, who works full time in retail (job title and responsibilities similar to my former ones). This was also heavily edited and some info that directly relates to me was omitted.
but the way to handle this is to address discrimination against a broad range of people.
As I pointed out (and the first email excerpt further illustrated), women with disabilities are tossed aside. There is nothing dignified about that.
I saw the point of this diary is to break away from all discrimination, including discrimination against the disabled.
If the point of this diary was to break away from discrimination against all people then issues that people with disabities would have mentioned. Women have disabilities too. BTW, I’m female. (There is a story behind the SK.)
Also, women with disabilities in the workfore do face more difficulties then men do. Instead, the focus is on women who are fortunate enough to not have a disability.
Experience and exposure w/a disability rights organization/legal issues faced, addressed the subject(s) of “reasonable accomodations”, and the harrassment that people with disabilities face in the workplace, just to name a few examples. Instead, more catering to moms and putting the concerns that people with disabilities face daily were in a comment as an afterthought.
I cannot work overtime on the spot because I must pick up my kid from daycare. If my kid is sick, I must stay home and/or take her to the doctor.
Before my traumatic brain injury (when I was working), I had to cover other departments so many times for those same reasons that you listed. I guess its completely impossible to call whoever is doing your day care and say, “I’ll be late today.” Excuse me, but you’d be late if you got stuck in a traffic back up due to an accident. Kind of funny how kids always get sick after a few days off or around a holiday. (Seems to me if a kid is that sick where time off is needed, the father would pitch in and also take time off from work, as opposed women taking a week off because their kid has sniffles.)
I finally refused to cover other departments and walked off my job–retail management. (Retail management is crazy hours–one day you open, the next day you close, some days you open and close.) Got an offer to return at a higher salary. Took it and gossip got out about my raise–one woman in the office. Didn’t need the aggravation from the other women on the floor who were convinced I slept with someone for the raise when I didn’t. On my day off, I filled out an application at a competitor and was hired on the spot at more than my previous salary, including the raise. I was up front about why I was job-hunting. (Gave my notice the following day.) That was where the traumatic brain injury happenned.
I don’t ask for more than my childless co-workers, but I do demand a bit of flexibility and understanding.
You don’t see that you are asking your co-workers to cater to you in the last part of your statement (which I bolded)? That is not in the least bit fair to your co-workers or to your manager. So, why should women with kids (having a built-in sympathy card that they use to get extra time off or to not do their jobs) make the same amount as women who really work?
And, as I said in my other post below:
People with disabilities who do live responsibly are cast constantly cast aside and told to “do more with less”. And the difficulties that people with disabilities have to face on a daily basis are much greater, and, in many instances, there are NO services that are desperately needed that are available, due to funding cuts that favor women who live irresponsibly and their children. Again, I have seen it and have repeatedly been told that I should have children for eligibility reasons. Example: When I was recovering from pneumonia at the beginning of this year, my doctor filled out all of the necessary paperwork so that I could have some home health care. I was so weak, walking around my apartment was exhausting. Again, denied because of budget cuts, but if I had children, I would have got it.
Why do women with kids constantly want more and more and more that what they already have, at the expense of others who don’t even have or can’t afford the necessities that are desperately needed? Why are women with kids so selfish?
The larger question in the background is should women be compensated for the real work they do in raising children. Society needs to reproduce itself, and women shouldn’t be punished for serving in that role.
The fear seems to be that women will start popping babies out for pay and other social benefits. And in a free country, we can’t start selecting who gets to have children or even how many they have. Therefore, the current burdens on motherhood seem to be a social effort to inhibit population growth and push child production up to the top of the class scale without admitting that we’re tinkering with freedom. I think it would be much more honest to say we want to set limits on population growth, even if it’s limitation on freedom, and come up with fair ways to allocate reproduction instead of punishing women for having babies.
should women be compensated for the real work they do in raising children.
No! People with disabilities are not adequately compensated. Why should people without disabilities who do not face the same degree of discrimination and harassment in the workplace that a person w/a disability does be compensated for not having a disability?
FYI, I had to sue to get medical treatment and lawyers got the remainder. I’m not sitting on a fat bank account. Never was. I tried to work after and it got me nowhere.
The fear seems to be that women will start popping babies out for pay and other social benefits.
Like I said earlier, I have had workers (plural) tell me to get pregnant so I would be eligible for more services.
the current burdens on motherhood seem to be a social effort to inhibit population growth and push child production up to the top of the class scale without admitting that we’re tinkering with freedom.
Simple. If people percieve a child as a burden, don’t have one!
And, on the subject of freedom, how much freedom does a person w/a disability who is dependent on social programs for survival have? None!
I think it would be much more honest to say we want to set limits on population growth, even if it’s limitation on freedom, and come up with fair ways to allocate reproduction instead of punishing women for having babies.
Fair? How about treating people with disabilities fairly? I would love to have the access to the job market and actually earn enough to live on, not just survive that a person w/o a disability does. It’s called “reasonable accomodations under the ADA”, which is constantly ingored by businesses. All this gutting of social services is comparable to a slow, painful euthanasia of people with disabilities, so women w/kids can have more and more, instead of making do w/what they are fortunate enough to have now.
/No! People with disabilities are not adequately compensated. /
But why should the glass be half empty here? Why not properly compensate people with disabilities as well as mothers?
Why not properly compensate people with disabilities as well as mothers?
Why people are so unwilling to prioritize and advocate for compensating people with disabilities that they have absolutely no control over ahead of the fortunate able-bodied moms who do have the ability to make realistic choices about their home and work situations, but refuse to do so?
A recap of comments:
and
and when I had pneumonia
There are NO moms groups that admit how selfish their trivial concerns are, when compared to what people with disabilities live with. NO moms group is speaking out and saying something like, “Hey, we have enough, there are people in worse shape than us, so let’s speak up for them.” Instead, the moms groups want more and more and more for themselves, no matter who gets hurt in the process, including other women.
and one I never got an answer to
And as you mentioned
A lot has changed since you were in school re: policy. However, funding levels have mostly been cut. In a few (rare) instances, there has been a slight increase, but not enough to keep up w/the increasing cost of living. (When there is one increase, everything else is decreased, under the guise of budget balancing.) I never thought that I would have a traumatic brain injury as a result of an accident on the job that I enjoyed and did well. (It could have been a lot more serious than it was, if not fatal.)
If it happenned to me, it can happen to anyone.
Think about it.
I understand how people with disabilities get shafted, and the piecemeal way we approach legislation (there is no rational approach – the noisiest, richest, and best connected get served first). I don’t think this will change if we just shift around priorities in general. That’s why I think we should attack discrimination at its core. Discrimination is largely an error in judgment caused by inadequate info and the tendency to make kneejerk decisions based on gut feelings. The issues-based approach assumes that people will start putting more time and research into decision making: they just need to be educated in the issues. I think blink decision-making is inevitable, so it would be better to give people a tool to prevent discrimination as much as possible.
And, the way to stop the discrimination against peolple with disabilities is to shift priorities so their concerns are heard first and foremost. Otherwise, people with disabilities will continue to get shafted, while other noiser, connected and selfish groups get voices heard resulting in obtaining what they want, not need, at the expense of the needs of people with disabilities. The needs of people with disabilities are constantly ignored, it’s as simple as that.
Non-mothers may not perceive this “discrimination against mothers” even if it can be statistically proven.
In MI, there is NO discrimination against mothers when it comes to eligibility for any type of social services. All a woman has to do is bounce her kid on her knee and (sometimes) cry about the fact that she is a single mom and she is handed everything–I’ve seen it repeatedly. A single adult w/a disability has to fill out countless paperwork, go thru a year or more of appeals and is then denied. (Just happenned again.) I have had workers tell me to get pregnant so I would be meet eligibility. (Hell of a reason for having a kid!)
People will feel the pressures of discrimination on their own lives, and if they are told the discrimination someone else is experiencing is more important, they will say “what, are you kidding me?”
My point exactly! People with disabilities who do live responsibly are cast constantly cast aside and told to “do more with less”. And the difficulties that people with disabilities have to face on a daily basis are much greater, and, in many instances, there are NO services that are desperately needed that are available, due to funding cuts that favor women who live irresponsibly and their children. Again, I have seen it and have repeatedly been told that I should have children for eligibility reasons. Example: When I was recovering from pneumonia at the beginning of this year, my doctor filled out all of the necessary paperwork so that I could have some home health care. I was so weak, walking around my apartment was exhausting. Again, denied because of budget cuts, but if I had children, I would have got it.
I’m hoping the movement will increasingly focus on the family – embracing eldercare as well as childcare. Most of us will have to deal with caring for our parents.
Again, there is so much that senior citizens are eligible for that people with disabilities also need, but are not eligible for, soley on the basis of their age. (I’m 46.) Have had my own experiences w/Medicare D and had to do it all myself. Senior citizens have God-knows-how many agencies public and private that will offer assistance. A person w/a disaiblity is again pushed aside and told either, “Call this number.”, “Go online.”, “I don’t know.”, “That’s not my job.”, or “Call your congressman/self-advocate.” (Who only tells you the same thing that a worker says.)
Ps. I have a disabled friend, and we often commiserate about how people would rather have a vast red tape that offers the minimum support instead of pay less for a system that gets more money to the people who need it.
What have you done about it, other than “often commiserate”? Or are you another token-grabber?
I understand this is a huge problem, and that’s why we shouldn’t take such a piecemeal issues-focused approach to addressing discrimination. What we’re doing now is playing musical chairs. We fund and legislate for the squeakiest wheels and increase the burden on the people who aren’t lucky enough to have a massive advocacy group in the process.
In my opinion it’s all because we can’t let go of that “power trip.” All the piles of paperwork and legal loopholes are in the end about finding the “workarounds” that will allow people to continue to discriminate without admitting that’s what they’re doing.
/Or are you another token-grabber? /
I have no idea what a token-grabber is. Comisserate in this case means “shared problems”. I’m also disabled (though not to the extent that my friend is and not to the extent I need SDI yet), and I did work with advocacy groups when I was in school.
But you did exactly that–took a piecemeal approach, as a large segment of the population has been completely ignored by a self-interested “advocacy” group. It just means continuing w/more of the same.
Fact of the matter is that some of the more “vocal” disability rights organizations are in the midst of their own political games or are geared to professional organizations.
All the piles of paperwork and legal loopholes are in the end about finding the “workarounds” that will allow people to continue to discriminate without admitting that’s what they’re doing.
In many instances, not just mine, denial. I was at a state-wide conference last year, and you would be shocked if you knew the brainpower that is being wasted.
BTW, you really should have phrased your PS a bit differently. (It came across as condescending.) Token-grabber is slang (regional maybe?).
I honestly don’t understand how you think I’m taking a piecemeal approach when I’m advocating for eliminating all forms of discriminating in the hiring process. You can’t get any broader than universal.
I totally agree that a staggering amount of brainpower is being wasted.
You seem interested in more information, especially links to solid research, legislation, and technical advice, instead of “advocating” practices that are illegal for another book or your website, provide your email address and I will gladly send you a resume that outlines my expertise on the subject(s) I have mentioned and others, writing and research samples. I now refuse to write w/o payment. I will as gladly introduce you to others who will provide firsthand accounts of their own experiences.
Call me a consultant and quality costs.
I appreciate the offer of links – you can reach me at manifestdignity AT breakingranks DOT net. However, I think you might be mistaking me for Robert Fuller. I maintain the breakingranks.net web site and blog there. If you want to be talking to Fuller, just leave a note in that Dignity Story box on the right hand side. He totally gets back to people.
I’ve proved myself, not just by my writing on this site, but on others, including epm where I use my real name.
Additionally, there was this which was picked up by tech site(s), and some newsfeeds, to name just a few.
In keeping with the model you advocate, I only research for/email links to for free for one online friend, or myself. I am more than willing to re-do my resume (yet again) and mail it to you, when I finish the project I am presently writing.
Maybe you are right, my offer should really be Bob Fuller and it is contingent on regular employement, including health coverage, at the market rate, not six bucks and hour or occassional Pay Pal contributions.
However, I will also consider payment on a 1099, again, at a rate that will cover my own health care expenses.
As I said, quality costs. Bob Fuller knows what other sites I write on. If he is interested, he can find out how to get in touch with me. But, as stated, I will send you an resume when my current project is completed. Unlike some in this world (and that is meant only as an example–it is not directed at any one specific person in particular), I keep my word.
I’m also a night owl, so I am calling it quits now. Nite!
Also, just so you know, I’m not representing Bob Fuller in this opinion, either. Everything I blog about concerns my ideas and outlook. Fuller has his own account here and elsewhere (username: “Robert Fuller”).
Thanks.