The Work It, Mom! Blog
with Nataly
Hi, I am Nataly and I am the co-founder of Work It, Mom!
I write the daily Work It, Mom! Blog where I talk about issues affecting working moms, goings on in our Work It, Mom! community, new site features, updates,and contests. I also share my own juggle between work and family and love to see members jump in with comments. Come and visit often!
Nataly's profile on Work It, Mom!
The recent post on the Motherlode blog highlights parenting-related legislation that’s either been passed or is under consideration in several states:
In North Dakota, parents now face a fine if their kids skip school. Minnesota lawmakers are considering making it illegal for parents to smoke in the car when their kids are there. And in Colorado a law is under consideration that would fine employers who don’t allow parents to take time off from work for things like parent-teacher conferences and disciplinary issues.
I find myself completely conflicted when thinking about the idea of the government regulating parenting through laws.
On the one hand, while I think sure, it’s the government’s role to protect the safety of children, it’s a slippery slope to allow it to regulate, through law, parenting choices. Unless the parents are endangering or hurting their children, the government should stay out. Otherwise, what’s to prevent things like a breastfeeding law, whereby all moms would have to attempt to breastfeed because there is enough evidence that breast milk is good for the kids, or no sugar in the lunchbox law, because there is enough evidence that sugar causes tooth decay?
On the other hand, few things have more at stake than parenting children and why shouldn’t there be regulations to keep parents in check? For example, smoking with kids around is not child abuse, but I’d argue that the potentially terrible health consequences are bad enough for me to support something like a law that prohibits smoking around kids.
The one category of parenting-related laws that I wholeheartedly support, without any doubt, are those which provide incentives for employers to be more family-friendly. For example, I don’t understand why existing laws, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, don’t apply to companies with fewer than 50 employees — are their rights as parents not important enough? I’ve worked for 8 companies in my career so far, and with a couple of exceptions they had fewer than 50 employees and were not extremely family-friendly. Why not have regulations that don’t make this a choice?
Sound off, I want to hear what you think about this idea of parenting laws. Do you think they should exist or do you think the government should stay out of private family lives? Are there parenting-related laws that you do think we should have?
Subscribe to blog via RSS
I am not sure how I feel about some of it, but after take a HUGE salary cut this year for unpaid maternity leave I feel VERY STRONGLY that it should be a government mandate that new moms are allowed at LEAST 6 weeks of paid maternity leave. The small amount of time I was able to spend with my newborn has put a HUGE financial strain on my family, especially with the added cost of health insurance, day care, and day to day child care supplies. And yes, some would argue that you should wait until you can truly afford to have children to have them, but would anyone ever really have them? I believe we are one of the few countries who does not have a law about this and I believe that shows how much value is put on family here….
Sara | March 23rd, 2009 at 8:16 am
I also am not a huge fan of the government telling me how to raise my child but would love it if they did require all companies to pay at least 6 weeks maternity/paternity leave. The company I work for is large enough that I had 12 weeks available to me for maternity leave. With 5 weeks paid by short term disability. The rest of the time I had to use my vacation and sick time. I went back to work after 10 weeks beause I was out of vacation and sick time. I would have loved to have been home longer with my son.
Yes the US is one of the only developed coutries that doesn’t have employer payed maternity leave.
Angel | March 23rd, 2009 at 9:07 am
Sad with how some parents are now days- I would support a law that bans adults ( any adults) from smoking in a car with minor children. If they won’t or don’t have enough sense to do it on their own- please give these people some help. Have always felt - if you want to kill yourself with smoking ( or any other bad habits) don’t kill the people around you on your way down. Some things should not be shared.
And should parents be held accountable for their children- yes- their are too many parents that forget how to be the parent. You should know where your children are and what they are doing. Here where I live they said years ago- that the kids could only miss X amount of days - or the parents would be held accountable- sadly they did not back up their word. And as a result I have a 23 yr. old step daughter that never finished High School- never really even started and no one got in trouble not her Mother- not her. Sad- she needed to be in school and finish her education. Oh- yes, she lived full time with her Mother. That’s another whole different story. If we would govern ourselves- others would not have to step in so much.
eileen | March 23rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
It’s illegal for parents to allow children to skip school. School is compulsory for certain ages. In California, if a student is truant often enough, the parents are dragged into court and fined. Which I think is a great thing, personally.
Robyn | March 23rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
As a general rule, government should not meddle in parenting. The biggest reason is that government is run by politicians, and the vast majority of politicians are not qualified in child development. Rules coming out of the political process are not the result of well-reasoned analysis, but money, lobbying, sensationalism, dishonesty, etc. The government has screwed up almost everything it has attempted to manage. A child’s development is too important to leave to such an incompetent, self-serving group.
Second, there is no one right way to parent. Some kids thrive on things that popular hype would legislate against. Some kids are harmed by things that popular hype would require. There’s no way the law could effectively take all these things into account.
Third, the most important factor in how a child will respond to a particular parenting decision is whether or not the decision is made and implemented with love and enthusiasm. Government mandates would be counterproductive for this reason. I might decide to do something happily, but the minute the government arbitrarily says I have to, I might do it grudgingly. And no, those politicians, cops, etc. do NOT love or truly care for my child.
Several people above say that they’d be happy to have the government force employers to give them money, but would not be happy being forced themselves to do something. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. There are good reasons why small businesses are not required to make accommodations for maternity leave. Unless the job you’re doing is so unimportant that anyone off the street could do it with little training, your maternity leave puts your employer in a difficult position - either she will have to pay a lot of money or lose business because of your absence, or she will simply not hire women of childbearing age for the jobs where a long absence creates difficulty; and women in general will have less long-term opportunity in those companies (as is the case in Canada, etc.). There are many US employers that have good maternity leave policies. If you chose not to work at those companies because, on balance, you preferred the small employer, then you have to live with your decision. If you did not work hard in school/previous jobs to earn more bargaining power once you wanted kids, again, that was your choice; perhaps you enjoyed your life before children without a thought for the responsibilities to come, I don’t know, but you always had the choice. One thing I love about this country (up to now, anyway) is that (a) we have choices and (b) our choices matter. Those who choose to study and work harder, economize, and save are rewarded. Many people are pleased that they have the choices but they don’t think it’s “fair” for them to deal with the consequences. I think that is the more unfair position.
I am conflicted about where the line should be drawn when it comes to child safety laws. Obviously there needs to be some line beyond which a parent needs to be prosecuted. Recently my sister told me of a baby whose parents had broken various of his bones, including a spiral leg fracture; they got the child back after a fairly short time. If I’d gone next door and done that damage to someone else’s baby, I’d be in prison for so long, the child would be in high school before I got out. While our laws allow these kinds of parents to continue to parent, it seems antithetical that people with happy, healthy kids are being cited based on where they smoke, whether they attend parent-teachers’ meetings, and whether their kids wear a bike helmet. This is what happens when you let politicians “go there.” Let’s focus on protecting kids who are in immediate and obvious danger, and after we accomplish that, maybe we can have a chat about whether well-meaning parents need the government to tell them what to do.
SKL | March 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
I’m a supporter of mandated provision of mat leaves, with a job to come back to. I think the individual should have to come up with the cash to support themself while at home with the child though.
I probably feel this way because I was raised in Canada. It’s an emotionally charged topic for sure, and I don’t think kids suffer when mom is back to work after five weeks, but I think MOM suffers and I think that’s relevant.
It’s an excuse that the gov’t doesn’t want mat leave laws b/c it’s a hardship on small businesses. The culture of employer sponsored health care premiums is a burden on small businesses but that’s been ignored since the 90’s at least.
It wasn’t good for the bottom line of the steel companies to have child labour laws, and # of hours worked per week laws but implementing those laws was the right thing for government to do. If America is truly as innovative as we are told it is, then surely it can figure out a way to ensure women get a decent mat leave and have a kickass economy. Based on how tired people say they are with little babies, the work these women are doing must be total crap anyway…
To just say CHOOSE to stay home, is not reasonable, when the economy is built/dependent on excessive consumption already. What effect would it have on the US economy if every family just CHOSE to cut its spending by $40K a yr and have mom stay home? What effect is it already having on the economy that there are lots of skilled women who when forced to choose b/t 5 wk mat leave and leaving workforce altogether, choose leaving the workforce altogether? Is it possible that more women might choose to work 27 years and take a year off for each of say three kids, rather than just say Eff it, I’ll take 8 yrs off, and then go back at a much lower level job than I would otherwise have, when the kids are older, if a proper mat leave were in place?
Lindsay | March 24th, 2009 at 1:23 am
Since the topic of small business was brought up again, I’d like you to try looking at this from the other side. I am a partner in a small business. We have three partners, all women. A few years ago, one of the women had a baby. She happened to be the leader of a key part of the business, and possessed a lot of knowledge that nobody else in the business had. If the law had required the company to (a) pay for her to take off a year, and (b) not find a permanent replacement for her (because you would never find a temporary replacement for such a narrow specialty), it would have meant disaster for the company. The company did provide paid maternity leave, followed by flexibility to arrange hours around the child’s special needs appointments, but the new mom also needed to agree to remain available to answer questions and, after a couple of weeks, do some work at home to keep the practice alive. If she had taken a long leave, there basically would have been no business for her to come back to.
I believe that the option for women to work in a small business, or to found a small business with women employees, is valuable to many women. If we legislate requirements that will effectively choke these small businesses to death, we “may” be helping a few women, but at the expense of others. Someone always has to pay, and it isn’t always a rich white male.
Again, if maternity leave is a priority for you, do your research and apply only at companies that offer (or will negotiate) the kind of maternity leave you want. If you didn’t consider this before you got pregnant, that is nobody else’s fault.
SKL | March 24th, 2009 at 9:54 am
I’m not a fan of the government interfering in parenting, unless of course a parent is endangering their children. Let’s be honest, some of the laws would have to be so all-encompassing that many good, responsible parents could be charged with various offenses. Skipping school, for example. My parents would NEVER allow me to skip school! Never. But I did it almost daily when I was in junior-high and high-school. I’d get in trouble, of course, but they had to send me back to school the next day, where I’d skip again. Holding my parents responsible would be totally unrealistic. It would be a waste of court time and tax-payers money to try to enforce something like that!
As a Mom, I agree that a mandatory paid Maternity leave would be very nice, and wish I could have had some. However, I cant support something like that being made into a law. It takes dollars out of the pockets of those who choose not to have kids, and lines the pockets of those who do! Why should my position be held while I take care of my baby, when some other perfectly qualified child-less person could be promoted in my absence? The holding of a position, and paying for leave should be entirely at the discretion of the employer, no matter how large or small the company.
We are not a socialist country [yet]. And the choices we make affect our lives and our standard of living. Why should the rest of the country be held hostage because a few people choose to be idiot parents?
Rachelle | March 24th, 2009 at 11:40 am
I think that the laws directed at employers are a good idea as these aren’t directed at parents or “parenting” so to speak. I don’t think that employers really care about their effect on American family life, they really only care about the company. However, a fine for a kid skipping school?? That’s ridiculous. How can a parent control that?
Oceans Mom | March 24th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
“I don’t think that employers really care about their effect on American family life, they really only care about the company.”
I don’t mean to pick on any one person, but this is a theme I see either stated or implied often on this site.
First of all, employers are people just like you & me. Most of them are parents, too, and most have been employees at some point (or currently are). What’s with this “us vs. them” mentality?
“Us vs. Them” makes sense only in groups whose members have no hope or desire to ever become one of “them.” Is that the type of individual that comprises this site? Or are we just so used to this kind of talk, we don’t really give it a thought?
Whenever you start thinking about “them,” consider whether you would be any different if you were “them.” And also, be honest with yourself about how much you really know about the motivations and values of “them.” Maybe “they” are struggling to find ways to maintain the ability to hire people at all, with or without benefits. I’ve never met a businessperson who relished the idea of cutting staff, pay, or benefits, or of seeing her employees suffer.
SKL | March 24th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Every state has different employemnt laws so people’s opinion depends on the state in which they live. I have lived in three and only one of them had fair laws for both. I have lived in CA which is way too employee friendly and does screw over employers, I am not a fan of that either. This is why so many companies have pulled out of that state. It has caused a lack of employment and many other issues in CA. However, I am now in FL which is the opposite. It is completely employer friendly to the detriment of employees, which I also do not agree with. Employers can, and do, get away with murder here. Example - forcing employees to report to work during a hurricane in a mandatory evacuation zone. Many people got fired for evacuating and not reporting to work during various hurricanes. Because of the laws here, however, nothing could be done to help get these people’s jobs back after this happened or to hold the employers accountable. So, view points, I think, are coming from different states where people see employers behaving very differently. In my state, it is very one-sided and that does need to be changed.
Oceans Mom | March 25th, 2009 at 9:04 am