Greetings,
This is an open letter that I am writing to the women of America, as well as other managers/C.E.O.s of companies across America. This letter is meant to discuss pregnancy in the work place as well as pose possible solutions.
I am the manager of a large firm. I
recruit the best and brightest students from elite colleges around the nation
every year. As a manager, I screen these students through various methods such
as grade-point averages, resumes, and interviews. Jane Doe, a female who was
the top of her class at Harvard law has everything I look for in an employee
accept for fertility. Ms. Doe has the ability to become pregnant, which is her
worst quality. Even though pregnancy is a natural process, maternity leave is a
very complicated issue; I will have a difficult decision to make regarding the
hiring of Ms. Doe.
At this point, despite her shining
resume and flawless interview, I am extremely skeptical of Ms. Doe. How do I
know that after she gets pregnant, she won’t quit her job to care for her new
born? How can I efficiently find employees to fill her job while she is on
maternity leave? Despite my skepticisms, however, The Pregnancy Disclaimer Act of 1978 mandates that my decision of whether to hire Ms. Doe cannot be based on the
fact that she may become pregnant; if I were to make such a decision, it would
be discrimination. As an employer, this is extremely discouraging because there
is a possibility that Ms. Doe may take a maternity leave and possibly quit her
job, but there is no way for me to mitigate the situation.
So, I end up hiring Jane Doe. Over
the first few months, she proves herself to be a star employee. Then about a
year down the line, she knocks on my door and tells me she is pregnant; my
worst nightmares have suddenly come true. I grin, congratulating her, “Jane!
You is it a boy or a girl? I’m so excited for you.” Three minutes after she
leaves, I throw my coffee mug at the wall, yelling every expletive I can think
of. My star employee is gone, and there is nothing I can do about it. According
to law, “[Her] pregnancy must be treated like any other employee disability ormedical condition,”.
Jane has the right, under the Family andMedical Leave Act to “twelve workweeks of
leave in a 12-month period to care for her child.” But that’s not all, however.
This leaves me as an employer in a tough position because Ms. Doe was a leading
employee in the firm. How will I replace her for twelve workweeks without
losing efficiency?
Let’s say the scenario plays out
differently, however. Say Ms. Doe attempts to prove stereotypes wrong. She
decides that she does not want to be known as a woman who takes her maternity
leave, and then disappears from the workforce. Under laws, “[She] can’t beforced to take leave as long as [she] can do [her] job.”
For the period of time leading up to her pregnancy, she waddles around the
office doing a horrible job due to cramps, increased fatigue, and mood swings. In
addition, there is now the distinct chance that her water may end up breaking
in the office, ruining the very expensive carpets that line the floors. Despite
her inefficiency over the past months, I cannot fire her, which ends up losing
me money.
Don’t get me wrong; I think that
pregnancy is a beautiful thing. However, pregnancy loses money, and as a boss,
making money is my first priority. How do we solve this situation for myself
and other bosses? I propose a “pregnancy clause.” This clause mandates that
before being pregnant, each female employee must work for a certain period of
time, depending on how valuable they are to the firm. I think that its only
fair seeing that when women get pregnant business is compromised. Let me know
what your views on my proposed policy are. Is it too invasive? Are there other alternatives?
I would like to have your feedback, especially female feedback that way if
there is a solution out there, we can find it.
Sincerely,
The C.E.O.
Dear C.E.O.,
ReplyDeleteI found your letter to be quite interesting. Ideally, I wish we could be living in a world where everyone was hired due to experience, GPA, and interviews, but that is not the case. When a woman walks into an interview, the employer, just like you were, is often interested in her personal life and how that might affect her contribution to the company.
Being pregnant and giving birth should always be looked at as a medical procedure, and maternity leave is thus inevitable. For women who undergo C- sections, a major surgery, recovery time is crucial. You ask how you will replace her for 12 weeks without a loss in efficiency. There is no easy answer for that. Since she is guaranteed her job back when she returns, you may look to those in her department who might be able to temporarily fill in. Perhaps distributing her workload to multiple workers could solve the problem of hiring someone temporarily.
While I agree that a maternity leave can hinder business, I do not think that the pregnancy clause is a possible solution to this issue. To begin, I do not think it is "only fair". Yes business is compromised, but I am not sure that you can control a woman's body and give them a time frame where they cannot get pregnant. In some cases, pregnancies are unplanned, and I am curious as to how this policy would address that. If there were to be a loophole for unplanned pregnancies, what would stop all women from claiming that their pregnancies were unexpected? Another point that would need to be addressed would be the repercussions to getting pregnant at this time. Would expectant mothers be fired, and would that be a form of discrimination? While I don’t think that the pregnancy clause would be effective, I do think that it might be time that we start an open discussion surrounding pregnancy in the workplace. There are many misconceptions regarding expectant mothers in the workplace, and it is time that companies start to understand these women and create an environment that ensures productivity and realistic expectations.
In the nicest way possible, a "pregnancy clause" that suggests all women work for "x" amount of time prior to becoming pregnant is absolutely ludicrous. There is a fine line between humans being valued as efficient workers, female or male, and humans being valued as biological beings who engage in more than just work on a day-to-day basis.
ReplyDeleteI find that this pregnancy clause forces women to think critically about when exactly they want to become pregnant, and that's not fair. Mandating when someone can and cannot have a child does not only vastly overstep the work-personal life boundary, but it suggests that employers maintain the ability to dictate or interfere with natural biological processes of humans. I find this offensive, sexist, and overbearing -- I'd even argue that it's inhumane.
At the end of the day, no employer should be able to hold a woman's job over her head as an incentive to not get pregnant before "x" date. As for business being compromised, there are plenty of other instances in the workplace where business can be compromised, many of which an employee cannot be fired for.
Should the best carpenter at Company Q who injures his back on a job and needs surgery, unable to return for 9 months, be fired for business being compromised? Or even another angle, how are the males to be held to accountable for a pregnancy? A woman is only 50% responsible for the pregnancy, and who's to say that the pregnancy was 100% mutually agreed upon? What if birth control fails-- or in severe cases, a woman is raped? In my humble opinion, this clause will face questions of constitutionality and will not be upheld as the 14th Amendment offers "equal protection" for all citizens [with various medical conditions in the workplace in this sense]. Pregnancy lasts 9 months, but workers who have sight problems, ADD, or other lifelong medical conditions are protected. How do you justify firing a woman who becomes pregnant before "x" date, under the notion that this woman is compromising business, but not a man whose sight or work efficiency (due to medical conditions that occur with old age) decreases? There are too many "what if" situations and terribly sexist implications that come with this "pregnancy clause" and I for one do not support it in the slightest.
C.E.O.,
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting post and really brings up a few thoughts. My initial concern is regarding the possibility of pregnancy and how it relates to being "disabled" and being treated like a disabled person. You stated that it would hurt the efficiency of the company if she were to get pregnant and leave, however how is this now the same as any other form of medical leave? What a man were to break his leg and was out for the same amount of time? It seems as though the POSSIBILITY is what is scary for you. Well, unfortunately, "disabilities" can happen to anyone - one of your workers could get into an accident.
There is a reason why these laws were mandated. Pregnancy occurs to only one sex, and because biology states that, it would be irrational and unfair to punish the woman for being, well a woman.
I ask you to reconsider your mindset towards pregnancy as a handicap. It seems as though Jane Doe is dedicated to your company. You should be prepared for pregnancies, do not see it as a negative thing - as you said it is a beautiful thing.
Nabila, I like your idea of temporary substitutions from within the same department. I also like the idea of distributing the workload, even though it may inconvenience other employees temporarily. I do not believe that there is a solution to address unplanned pregnancies. The purpose of the clause, however, was to encourage further planning in the pregnancies of employees.
ReplyDeleteCassandra, I can tell you are very upset with the idea of a pregnancy clause. You believe that there is a fine line between humans being valued as workers and biological beings; could you explain this more? The harsh reality of it is that as a C.E.O. I can come up with a the monetary value of each and every one of my employees; it is my job to harvest every cent I can out of my employees. That's just business, nothing personal. I believe that your bias clouds your mind to the point that you can't even consider the possibility that pregnancy can be inconvenient. You bring up a carpenter who needs surgery and is not able to return for 9 months. There are flaws in your logic in this instance because a carpenter can be replaced more easily than a lawyer who has specific credentials which is the scenario at hand. In addition, there is a larger risk that after pregnancy a woman will completely quit her job to raise her children. When you bring the rape scenario into the question, I believe that you take the issue too far. Rape is a very different circumstance. As a boss, if an employee (male or female) approached me after being victimized, I assure you the situation would be dealt with very carefully. Overall I appreciate your post, but I would have wished to see you purpose solutions instead of let your emotions run rampant. The purpose of my somewhat exaggerated original post was to illicit emotions, but more so than that, to foster a discussion about pregnancy in the work place and find a solution if there is one. I appreciate your comments, and did not mean to offend you with the original post.
Asif, I understand point about disability leave. What differentiates a woman from a man that breaks his leg, however, is the fact that women are more likely to leave the workplace completely after pregnancy.
Sincerely,
The C.E.O.
PS. I would like to stress the point that the views of the C.E.O. are not my personal views. The purpose of the original post was to illicit emotions, and come up with possible solutions to the issue at hand. Thank you for reading and commenting. --Arnold
Dear Arnold,
ReplyDeleteIn light of your comment, I wish to stress that I completely understand that a CEO is responsible for placing an intrinsic value upon each and every employee. However, I find this to be the root of the problem. If a CEO values his/her employees as only such, financially productive beings, then he/she completely disregards the fact that actual humans, with actual personal lives, personalities, values, morals, hobbies, etc. work for him/her.
I find that this proposed clause is geared entirely towards women, simply because women become pregnant. I find that signaling out women as the problem (or at least the potential problem) is simply sexist and that a CEO who seeks to impose such a clause should make it universal. For example, I would argue that all employees, regardless of gender, could sign a contract that binds their employment for a specific, standard amount of time. The top harvard law grad, male or female, holds the same value in this firm, and he/she should be treated as such, regardless of the fact that a female can possibly at some point become pregnant.
With respect to your objection of my use of a carpenter, who is likely easily replaceable, I'd argue that if a firm is able to pull the top harvard graduate, they can easily afford to locate and pull another premier law graduate to fill the same position. Thus, the ability to replace a particular worker, in this situation, I find to be irrelevant.
Ultimately, I think that a possible solution to this scenario is to enforce contracts upon initial employment. Then, regardless of the employee's gender, he or she will be held just as accountable for leaving the firm permanently, prior to the agreed upon date. However, at the end of the day, I do find that the company should honor women's rights and abilities to become pregnant and should consider the pregnancy as a medical condition, no different than a worker who becomes injured and must take time off work. Whether your premier lawyer becomes pregnant, becomes ill for a great length of time, injured or a multiplicity of other medical instances, one subset of your job as a CEO is to remember that "life" [largely in the sense of health and medical instances] sometimes must take priority over "work", and there are laws that protect employees from avid business sharks who fire employees under these particular circumstances.
While I absolutely understand the business logic, I just find it to be much too narrow-minded when dealing with larger, ethical questions of biological interference and responsibility.
All best,
Cassie
Cassie,
ReplyDeleteI like your proposed solution of making the clause universal. Application of a work clause upon initial employment of ALL employees, instead of just females, would certainly create a workplace that is more of a leveled playing field. In addition, like you mention, as a C.E.O. I must be more considerate and accommodating of my employees' medical leave status whether it be because of a pregnancy or a broken leg. Thank you for your thoughts and proposed solutions. I will be sure to pass this on to my colleagues.
Sincerely,
The C.E.O.