A. It's fun to use studies that are a decade old at best, and 30 years old at parts.
B.
Quote:
We're talking about average absence as a result of a pregnancy. That includes time taken off in the last months of pregnancy, plus the time taken off after the child is born. It's not uncommon at all for a woman to be "out" for 4-6 months (6-8 weeks STD plus another 12 weeks FMLA, plus whatever vacation and sick time she can pull together). In California, for example, the minimum time she can take off without detriment is 18 weeks. She can get more if there are complications.
And when you factor in the number of women who don't return to work (or return for part time work instead of full time) by choice this becomes very statistically significant.
LOL, not uncommon? It's EXTREMELY uncommon for a mother to be out 4-6 months. And companies aren't required to offer additional time above what FMLA mandates. And very, very few women (or men) have 2 weeks sick+vacation time, let alone more. At least in the US.\
And your job isn't guaranteed for you if you want to return part-time, btw. The employer only has to guarantee a job with the same hours, working environment and wage as whatever you were doing before (generally, you return to the same position).
And women who don't return to work at all are a minority, because people can't afford it. That was true 30 years ago, according to the study you linked, and it's only more true now.
Another note? If you don't return to work at the end of your leave, you are required by law in many states to pay back, in full, whatever the company spent on your health insurance while you were on leave.
And I'm convinced you didn't even read the study you linked. It doesn't talk about statistics regarding how maternity leave and such affects women's positions in companies (though it cites that it warrants a study). It's a historical analysis over time that concludes that, by the end of the 90s, the expectation is that women will work before childbirth, and continue working afterwards.
Furthermore, the study you linked concludes that, women are more likely to suffer wage loss from having a child, yes. But it has nothing to do with the reasons you proposed. Women are more likely to change jobs following the birth of a child, which results in lower wages in the long run (as their promotion options evaporate). Women who stay with the same company earn appropriately higher wages.
What it doesn't compare is what those women (who stay) make compare to the ones who never had kids at all. I'd guess it isn't a significant number.
And so the problem remains that a man and woman with the same number of years of experience and equal credentials will not have equal pay. And you have yet to prove that it is due to the maternity leave. The study you were so kind to link actually only hurt your argument--good job.
[edit]
Quote:
You start calculating the percentage of women who have children, then the percentage who return to work after having a child, and it should become quickly apparent that you're going to get a measurable shift in total time in a field and that this will cause discrepancies in relative pay. IMO, failing to account for that when discussing this issue is going to make your conclusions (and arguments based on them) just plain wrong.
And what you've failed to realize is that many of those women leave the original company for a different job (likely with reduced/part-time hours) and so are not part of the equation when you consider relative wage earnings of a woman in that field. And many are leaving jobs altogether.
So when you calculate the relative wages of women to men in a job role (say, an accountant), the women without jobs aren't included. Only women who remained and women who never had kids are included. And I SERIOUSLY doubt maternity leave for 1 or 2 kids can justify a 15% difference in wages.
Edited, Mar 8th 2011 10:24pm by idiggory