Reduction of Family-Friendly Job Benefits Hurts Working Women Most

A fundamental assumption being made here is that the jobs will return. I'm not so optimistic. The union-busting activities of the past decade have made the workplace worker-unfriendly, regardless of gender. If we are, as anti-union proponents are quick to suggest, free to negotiate one-to-one with a company for wages and benefits, then the employers ought to be rolling out the red carpet with 5 star employment perks... but, of course, that is not the case.

Male management typically favors male employees and perpetuates the idea that "he HAS to have this job because he has a family to raise" so a man gets the slot/hours/promotion, even though in reality there are more women raising families than men and they are just as, if not more, competent than their male counterparts.

Truth be told, women employees cost one-third less in terms of wages than men because that is the pay disparity women have been faced with for decades now. Cut male salaries by one-third and you begin to level the playing field (only wage cuts will be considered, I know, because raising women's wages is out of the question, apparently).

Frankly, any company that is family-unfriendly is on a downward spiral to making themselves obsolete, or at least undesirable from a worker's perspective. Google doesn't treat its employees like automaton slaves, and you'd be hard pressed to argue that they aren't either productive or profitable.

Aine of MI 7:19PM December 17, 2009