New study reveals importance of comprehensive maternity leave, brings up questions about tie between leave and fair pay

Today two important things are happening for working women: the House votes on the issue of fair pay and two well-regarded studies were released that associate better leave with better maternal and infant health.

I'm stymied as to how either of these issues are even a question.

First, considering fair pay...it's more than forty years past when Congress outlawed wage discrimination and we're one full generation at a minimum past the Women's Liberation movement (depending upon which wave you mean). Women are as crucial to the workforce as men.

And yet, as I cited in the article I posted yesterday, compared to white men, women are way underpaid:

• Caucasian women earn 77 cents for every dollar paid to their white male counterparts
• African-American women earn 63 cents for every dollar paid to their white male counterparts
• Latinas earn 53 cents for every dollar paid to their white male counterparts

And why is that?

I'm just old enough to have been in the workforce long enough to recall hiring managers talking about preferring men over women because they're "more stable, reliable, and less likely to quit once they get married or have kids." I'm just old enough to recall being asked if I planned to get married or have kids...in a job interview. Some employers thought it made it "fair" if they asked that question of men, too, but it doesn't. It only made it worse. Also, I don't think the mens' answers were weighted in a negative way as the womens' were.

Most workplaces continue to not offer an adequate family leave package for men or women who are becoming parents, despite scientific studies that prove this to be a health and economic "bad choice." And women continue to be afraid to take adequate time or leave fearing consequences to their careers.

So let's look at the facts.

First, DAILY WOMEN'S HEALTH POLICY REPORT today reported that:

Two new studies from University of California-Berkeley researchers found that pre-birth maternity leave and longer post-birth maternity leave are associated with better health for both infants and women, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

[lead author Sylvia Guendelman, professor of maternal and child health at the university] said, "What we're trying to say is that taking maternity leave may make good health sense as well as good economic sense." She added, "These new studies suggest that making it feasible for more working [women] to take maternity leave both before and after birth is a smart investment" (Tucker, San Francisco Chronicle, 1/8)

If you consider the time and cost to replace employees, it makes sound economic and continuity of quality work sense to retain an employee, even if she does need maternity leave and becomes a mother.

According to calculations from iSquare, the cost of employee turnover, "will easily reach 150% of the employees annual compensation figure. The cost will be significantly higher (200% to 250% of annual compensation) for managerial and sales positions."

To put this into perspective, let's assume the average salary of employees in a given company is $50,000 per year. Taking the cost of turnover at 150% of salary, the cost of turnover is then $75,000 per employee who leaves the company.

Retaining employees, then, is clearly good managerial and corporate practice.

That said, it makes sense, then, for companies to institute policies that create the best circumstance for a new parent to adjust to a change in life status, such as providing adequate leave with appropriate financial compensation. Without this, employees are more likely to not take enough time or decide to quit.

I speak from personal experience.

Forced with the impossible choice of either (a) returning to work before I or my infant was ready, and while not earning anything during my leave time anyway or (b) quitting to take my time as we needed, I chose to quit.

I reasoned that I could always find another job, but I could never relive this time.

Also, with a colicky and sick infant, I knew I would not be able to be able to work to my best ability. Once my baby passed that three month mark and improved her health and sleep, I knew I could have returned and done fine, but unfortunately, I was only allowed six weeks.

Had my company and my culture allowed just six additional weeks, the company could have saved money, time, and trouble replacing me (which can easily take longer than six weeks, not to mention the three month probationary and "get up to speed period" on top of that) and I could have kept my job and lessened my stress about finding a new one.

The two studies released back up this opinion of mine:

The first study -- funded by the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration and published in Women's Health Issues -- is the first study to assess birth outcomes among women who work full time, according to the Chronicle. The study assessed 447 Southern California women who work full time, comparing women who took leave after 35 weeks' gestation with those who worked up until the time of their delivery date. Researchers found that women who worked up to the time of their delivery date were four times more likely to have a caesarean section, which can lead to complications and a longer recovery period for women, according to lead author Sylvia Guendelman, professor of maternal and child health at the university.

Guendelman said, "We don't have a culture in the United States of taking rest before the birth of a child because there is an assumption that the real work comes after the baby is born." Researchers noted that financial obstacles can deter women from taking pre-birth maternity leave because many women do not receive full-time pay while on leave.

The second study, published in Pediatrics, examined data from 770 women who work full time, finding that women who took less than six weeks of maternity leave were four times less likely to breastfeed. The American Academy of Pediatrics and numerous studies recommend breastfeeding, which is associated with a reduced risk of allergies, obesity and sudden infant death syndrome in infants. The study also found that women in managerial positions or those who had more autonomy or flexibility at work were more likely to breastfeed.

These studies are not a shock to me; it's good sense. I've lived it and know anecdotally from my own and other mother's experiences that this is true.

Verizon, which was recognized and rewarded recently by the New Jersey Breastfeeding Task Force for its supportive policies for new mothers, proves that some companies can grasp the importance of supporting the family:

...stated Martha Delehanty, Vice President of Human Resources. “Supporting new moms is good business for both Verizon Wireless and our many working mothers as breastfeeding provides substantial health benefits to the mom and her child, while reducing employee absenteeism and overall healthcare costs.”

I continue to believe, though, that motherhood is a huge factor in the lower wages offered to women.

I also believe women themselves hold some fault, as stated in an essay I wrote in my personal blog about how women need to learn to ask for what they're worth and quit being so squeamish about money ("Whatever is not an actual salary and will not pay the bills," Julie Pippert: Using My Words, 5/2008).

However, if you already feel as if you are "on sufferance" due to your sex and motherhood status, it makes it even harder to squabble over salary and worth.

We need to improve our cultural and workforce support of families. Companies need to institute better leave and flexibility policies to accommodate the needs of employees with children or parents to care for, and personal life needs of even those single employees with no dependents. That will decrease absenteeism, allow for better work flow coverage, and will lower turnover. As stated above, this can save companies money...a significant amount of money.

People who are in charge of dependents---whether it's a generation above or below---can make great employees, whether they are women or men. Unfortunately, women, who are generally the main caretakers in our society, have been the ones penalized as a sex for this outmoded idea that women who are caretakers can't be relied upon at work. I'm fairly sure as soon as we recognize that women, even, or better, especially mothers can make great employees, and value those women, we can square away the wage gap between women and men.

That will not only end wage discrimination, which I think is only a single factor in this, but it will also open up more managerial and executive opportunities for women. This will increase higher wage employment for women, and decrease the lower wage underemployment so many women---especially after having children---face.

Before you know it, women will be matching men dollar for dollar.

So let's get to it.

Comments

[thordora]

And I get cranky at a year with 55% of Gross pay. Sometimes I remember how lucky I am-I remember talking to coworkers in our US offices who were back a month after having their kids, pumping in the toilet...and being unable to find any legislation to help them, while I went back to work at 3 months by (mostly) choice.

Not cool.

[EmJay]

I have worked at two large companies and the maternity leave policies actually provide an incentive to women to have c-sections. The companies I work for follow FMLA and allow 12 weeks of unpaid leave. If you want to get paid during that leave you can use vacation (which in both cases is usually capped in terms of the balance you can carry at about 3-4 weeks) and/or you can use short term disability to get some type of income. Short term disability typically pays 4-6 weeks for a regular birth and 8 weeks for a c-section. One of the companies I worked for was better than the other because they allowed you to buy-up on the short term disability to receive 100% of your salary. The other company caps that out at 65%. If you want to spend more time at home with your baby and you need some income having a c-section (if that is a medical option for you) makes financial sense.

[Lawyer Mama]

Yep, Short Term Disaibility policies actually encourage women to have c-sections. You get more STD pay - 2 more weeks worth.

God, I remember pumping in the courthouse bathroom right after I went back to work. It was horrible. And that was after 3 months of leave. I can't imagine only 6. No way.

I was so lucky with my first law firm, they paid us full salary for 16 weeks of maternity leave and let us take 2 more weeks of vacation on top of that. And then we could take off another 6 months unpaid (although it would affect our partnership track status). Didn't realize how spoiled I was at the time.

[ask medical question]

good article.