It's been a few months since my last blog post. I was left go of my position with a large publisher (and several other problems occurred -- health problems with my daughter, issues with my home, etc. -- prohibiting me from writing), which is the basis for my post today. I initially thought myself lucky to be going back to work after a year's mat leave. In the United States, one-year maternity leaves just don't exist. And, of course, for many those who are freelancers or self-employed, there is no mat leave at all. But the real reason I felt lucky is that my job still existed. For many moms that I know, there is that unenviable call from their employer that comes somewhere between the sixth month and the 11th month of their mat leave.The call that tells them they do not have job to return to. There are many ways that employers do this -- positions are eliminated (easy to do when the employee wasn't replaced -- if the other employees are taking up the slack, they can continue to do so) or job descriptions are changed (I know of one woman who job suddenly become bilingual, something her replacement was and she wasn't).
In Canada, companies legally have to allow women to take a one-year maternity leave. Women are to return to their job, or another job with the company that offers a similar pay. Unless their position no longer exists. This is the law. But it is not the experience for many women, myself included. For the women who return to their original position, that sense of job security they feel upon returning is false. When a company downsizes, often women who have taken recent maternity leaves are first to go. A company may realize that the year with the maternity leave replacement was less expensive than a year with the experienced employee -- so that woman is let go, a new, more junior title is given to the replacement and, along with the new title, a much smaller salary. Or a woman may just come back to a new environment -- a new boss, new coworkers, etc. -- and find that she is now the odd woman out and it's only a matter of time before she is "restructured" out.
Most women, myself included, would tell you that the trade off was worth it. Raising a child is the most important job that they've ever had or will ever have. But isn't the point of the law that we no longer have to choose? That we can have children at any point in our career because our career will be waiting for us? Is there a solution? An amendment that can be made to the law? I doubt it. Companies are not people; they are not "loyal" to their employees and would find a way to circumvent a tougher law. Loyalty is a work concept of my parents generation, and not one that I understand. I KNOW that my employer, any employer, will pay me as little as they can and will let me go if there is a cheaper alternative, or let me go if I simply don't kiss the right ass.
I've heard that in Finland women can take up to a three-year maternity leave, though they are not compensated for the entire time. Perhaps that works for them -- or maybe the women in Finland simply start looking for a new position after two and half years.
No comments:
Post a Comment