Wednesday, March 20, 2002

A story released today by Fox News.com reports that for first-time mom Kathy Kogut, 34, isn't always sure she's adequately meeting the challenge and responsibility of new motherhood.

She would like to stay at home a year or so and thinks her family could get by on her husband's pay check for a while, but the impact on retirement savings, Social Security contributions and her future earning potential would be disastrous, she said.

Her company has no written policy that would hold her job as a software applications consultant. In any case, she said, "If I were to stay out of my job for more than six months, I would be obsolete."

In Ann Crittenden’s book entitled, The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World Is Still the Least Valued, she describes stay-at-home mothers as the nation's "invisible" and "unpaid" laborers whose work needs to be better recognized.

"Women have not made it clear to the world that the work we do [in the home] is tremendously important," said Crittenden. "We got the right to be hired. We won respect professionally. Now we need respect for raising kids."

Crittenden's proposals have found supporters and critics in unexpected places. The harshest critics thus far: childless workers who feel the family-friendly trend has already spiraled out of control.

The childless workers argue they get stuck with benefits packages they can't use, pay high taxes to supplement family tax breaks and are ignored by politicians. Another journalist, Elinor Burkett, championed this cause in her book Baby Boon two years ago.

"It's favoring some over others because it's good social policy for the country," said Thomas Coleman, executive director of the American Association for Single People. Coleman said such policies leave single workers with part of the tab for people's personal choice to have children.

Coleman believes employers should offer "cafeteria-style" benefits that allow workers to pick and choose as they need.

Depending on your political bent, Crittenden's proposals can sound a lot like old-fashioned welfare, affirmative action and giant entitlement programs — funded by taxpayers and enforced in the courts.

"It's basically asking that social welfare programs be incorporated into the private sector," Coleman said. "I don't think that's the job of business."

Many of Crittenden's ideas are based on policies in place in Western Europe and Canada. Sweden, for example, provides 12 months of parental leave for new parents, and allows parents of children under eight to work 80 percent of a regular work schedule.

"Everyone is always saying, 'Oh, what's wrong with kids,'" Kogut said. "It's because parents are so busy working they don't know what's going on."

There's no doubt the workplace has become more family friendly since Crittenden left her job at the New York Times.

While the Family Medical Leave Act of 1996 requires companies with 50 or more employees to grant 12 weeks of leave for the birth of a child (it does not mandate companies pay for this time), many companies have acted on their own to establish flexible work schedules, job-sharing, telecommuting arrangements, and longer leaves.

"It all has to do with recruiting and retaining talent," said Jim Sinocchi, a spokesperson for IBM. Big Blue allows employees to take up to three years of unpaid leave and has pioneered flexible scheduling and telecommuting, with 30 percent of employees now working off-site.

"We believe that if we offer a flexible work-life package, they'll come and they'll stay," Sinocchi said.