Imagining a World with Paid Sick Days
by Linda Meric
August 26, 2010 - 6:00am (Print)
Today is Women's Equality Day. This article is provided courtesy of American Forum.
There are many areas of life in this country where it appears that we live in two worlds. And that’s no different when we consider paid sick days. In the first world, if you’re sick, you stay home from work, take care of yourself, and have the time to get better.
In the second world, if you’re sick, you go to work anyway. In the second world, you go to work, even when your child is sick. You know that if you stay home, you’ll lose pay – or maybe even your job.
Women’s Equality Day is today, August 26, the day that marks the 90th anniversary of women’s right to vote, and it’s troubling that so many of the workers who live in the second world are women. According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, more than 22 million women workers lack paid sick days. And though women still bear the brunt of care-giving duties in most American families, we are also the least likely to have a paid sick day available to care for a sick child. Fifty-three percent of working mothers, as compared to 48 percent of working fathers, lack a paid sick day they can use to care for a child.
The U.S. is one of only four industrialized nations that do not offer a national standard of paid sick days. It just isn’t right. I wonder what the suffragettes, who worked so hard and so long to win women’s right to vote, would say about the lack of this basic workplace standard.
Let me tell you about Tahirah.
She and her young daughter live in a world without paid sick days. Twenty-something Tahirah had achieved a milestone in life: she finally had her dream job -- crew leader in a Denver airport restaurant with a clear path to the management track. There was just one problem: her daughter suffers with asthma and Tahirah had no paid sick days.
She managed to make it work for a while. Then, one day, her daughter had a brutal asthmatic episode. Her daycare provider called to inform Tahirah that she should meet her at the hospital emergency room. But her supervisor withheld the information -- until the lunch rush was done and he didn’t need Tahirah at work anymore.
The incident forced her to quit that job.
Seventy-eight percent of workers employed in hospitality and food service, and 69 percent of workers employed in administration and office work, lack paid sick days. This is a serious concern because, like Tahirah, they are the workers who have the most intimate contact with the public. The lack of paid sick days isn’t just an issue for family care-givers, it’s an issue of public health, as we saw during last year’s H1N1 flu epidemic. We all are at risk when workers lack the opportunity to stay home and get better without the possibility of spreading contagions to the rest of us.
There’s something else, too: Economic justice.
In these tough times, with families struggling mightily to hang on, to keep a roof overhead and food on the table, it seems particularly punitive that a worker could lose income or even lose a job simply for getting sick or for having a sick child. What would Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and Sojourner Truth have to say about how the lack of paid sick days disenfranchises women and their families?
Hundreds of 9to5 members and activists think those courageous women would deeply identify with the paid sick days movement. That’s why we’ve chosen Women’s Equality Day for 9to5’s National Day of Action -- Healthy Workplaces: Paid Sick Days Now!
On August 26, we will organize events around the country, from Sacramento to Washington, D.C., and call for Congress to pass the Healthy Families Act, federal legislation proposed by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, that would guarantee up to seven paid sick days a year.
It’s time that the U.S. joined other industrialized countries around the globe and made this one America; one where no worker has to choose between the family she loves and the job she needs.
I wonder what the suffragettes, who worked so hard and so long to win women’s right to vote, would say about the lack of this basic workplace standard.
Of course, some of them, like Susan B. Anthony also decried abortion. In the words of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "When you consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Of course, feminism has "progressed" since then, to the point that it has become a one-word misnomer that simply rejects all things feminine.
http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/commonw.htm
Of course, some of them, like Susan B. Anthony also decried abortion. In the words of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "When you consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Of course, feminism has "progressed" since then, to the point that it has become a one-word misnomer that simply rejects all things feminine.
Look, it's another anti-choicer who has no understanding of the reasons why the early feminists didn't like abortion! And he's even brought along the strawwoman-feminist!
That column is based on pure conjecture. Those who want to recognize the true feelings of the early suffragettes about abortion just need to quote them.
Why are we even talking about abortion on a post about, among other things, making it easier to be a parent?
That column is based on pure conjecture. Those who want to recognize the true feelings of the early suffragettes about abortion just need to quote them.
And ignore the context in which they made those quotes, natch.
And ignore the context in which they made those quotes
The writer attempts to suggest that Susan B. Anthony would have felt differently in the current day and age because of "advances" like "the Pill" and Roe v. Wade, yet offers no reason why she wouldn't have opposed such things in the first place.
Susan B. Anthony and the other early feminists didn't just oppose abortion, they opposed artificial contraception as well. To suggest that in a world with more "reliable" and available contraception they would have felt differently is as silly as supposing that those vehemently opposed to the death penalty would become enthusiastic supporters of it if only better methods of execution were available.
Early feminists sought to improve the lot of women by gaining increased respect for their traditional roles. This strategy made it difficult for them to endorse contraception.
"In the late 19th century, many suffrage leaders frowned on birth control because that meant condoms: which they saw as linked to the brothel, to giving men free reign to cheat on their wives, and to a negative effect on the family," Tone says. "They felt it was important for women to gain political and social power by defending their roles as mothers and protectors of virtue."
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51170
Working class women were expected to work until they had children. These women tended to have more children than upper and middle class wives. In the middle of the 19th century, the average married woman gave birth to six children. Over 35% of all married women had eight or more children.
The Church was totally opposed to the use of contraception to control family size. Several people, including Richard Carlile had been sent to prison for publishing books on the subject. In 1877 Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh decided to publish The Fruits of Philosophy, written by Charles Knowlton, a book that advocated birth control. Besant and Bradlaugh were charged with publishing material that was "likely to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to immoral influences". In court they argued that "we think it more moral to prevent conception of children than, after they are born, to murder them by want of food, air and clothing." Besant and Bradlaugh were both found guilty of publishing an "obscene libel" and sentenced to six months in prison. At the Court of Appeal the sentence was quashed.
After the court-case Annie Besant wrote and published her own book advocating birth control entitled The Laws of Population. The idea of a woman advocating birth-control received wide-publicity. Newspapers like The Times accused Besant of writing "an indecent, lewd, filthy, bawdy and obscene book".
In 1918 Marie Stopes wrote a concise guide to contraception called Wise Parenthood. Marie Stopes' book upset the leaders of the Church of England who believed it was wrong to advocate the use of birth control. Roman Catholics were especially angry, as the Pope had made it clear that he condemned all forms of contraception. Despite this opposition, Marie continued her campaign and in 1921 founded the Society for Constructive Birth Control. With financial help from her rich second husband, Humphrey Roe, Marie also opened the first of her birth-control clinics in Holloway on 17th March 1921.
You really need to get more credible sources, Kevin. FFL is sincere but clueless.
Why does wanting to have control over one's life automatically equal rejecting femininity? I do 'masculine' things and 'feminine' things. The only reason I do anything from either group is that I want to and enjoy doing them. If I don't want to do something that isn't necessary, don't force me to, that's all I ask.
I note with interest that Kevin thinks everything to do with children is inherently "feminine", and having an abortion or supporting the right to abortion, is rejecting that feminine, coupled with a gross misunderstanding of early feminism.
It's almost like Kevin thinks that woman not meeting his exacting requirements about what constitutes proper female behavior - gestating and birthing - makes you less human and invalidates all other political issues that may effect you, because what women are supposed to be concerned with is gestating children - everything else is invalid.
This is a common theme among anti-choicers: center on the contents of the uterus or the behavior of the uterus-owner to erase every other point. A reminder that female people are not important, only men and fetuses - who have a chance of being male - are important.
A reminder that female people are not important, only men and fetuses - who have a chance of being male - are important.
They are not only important, they are people, rather than just something to be used by a man for his own satisfaction where his sins can be easily swept under the rug by expecting her to "take care of it."
They are not only important, they are people, rather than just something to be used by a man for his own satisfaction where his sins can be easily swept under the rug by expecting her to "take care of it."
Good thing that abortion is something the women freely chooses to do, rather than having the choice made for her, yes?
There is not a historian worth his or her salt who would somehow assert that the early feminists would be pro-choice today, because it is a ridiculous assertion based on, well, wishful thinking. Somehow, I do not believe child murder nor infanticide is situation dependent nor do I really believe that the early feminists would work to overturn laws they themselves helped to pass (complete bans on abortion for all of you who are wondering) nor do I really believe that when, one feminist in particular stated that no free woman would ever consider murdering a child before it is born, she did not really mean all women. I could go on and on and on, but you get the point. It seems to be the people who run around telling everyone else that they do not understand early feminism do not understand early feminism themselves. But such is the way it usually works.
The best thing about the internet is that you can easily look things up at the click of a button (almost), and as a result you can find are sorts of facts, tidbits, quotes, articles, books, etc. that somehow makes one scratch their head in amazement when someone claims that the early feminists would support abortion today.
(No, really. Go to Google and type in the phrase early feminists abortion and meander through the first twenty page of results and see what comes up.)
There is not a historian worth his or her salt who would somehow assert that the early feminists would be pro-choice today ...
Yes, since that's not what historians do, is it?
I just find it funny that the same people who claim that today's feminists are angry, hairly-legged bra-burners who reject everything that is feminine are supposed to be such big fans of and experts on the womens' rights activists of the 19th century.
If you do not have an informed opinion or a constructive comment on this issue, please refrain from posting.
And it might also help when you do have something to say that you base your assertions on factual data and research more substantive than urging people to "google it."
The goals outlined by this column are at least partially based on a continuation of the efforts of the women of whom I speak. I thought this was rather ironic because many of the writers presented on this site would have had significant issues with the positions taken by those same women on artificial contraceptives and abortion.
I'm not the first commenter to route the discussion down an alternate path. Someone else steered the discussion on the following column about condoms and "safe" sex to their use in preventing pregnancy within marriage, which had no relation to anything written in the column. No one criticized them for doing so.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/08/23/stoking-fire-urban-outfitt...
of early feminist thinking and politics is not only deeply flawed, it is uninformed by nuances well articulated by scholars of these women and the political periods in which they lived. If you have a comment arguing about paid sick days--make it. I realize that ensuring the rights and health of born, living, breathing people is not a priority of the anti-choice movement.
As for the evolution of discussions on the site:
1. access to and availability of condoms is completely germane to their use within marriage.
2. I am objecting to the fact that the first comments out of the box by two anti-choice antagonists immediately turn the debate away from the issue at hand, not as part of an evolution of discussion but, as far as I am concerned, a narrow-minded and ill-informed hijacking of said topic.
I realize that ensuring the rights and health of born, living, breathing people is not a priority of the anti-choice movement.
About half the time I spend volunteering and the vast majority of financial contributions I make go toward causes and charities that benefit the born rather than the unborn.
Yeah, back to the topic, guys.
I realize that ensuring the rights and health of born, living, breathing people is not a priority of the anti-choice movement.
So born and Kevin, do you support a national standard for guaranteed sick days or not?
I'm a Distributist, which means that I favor policies that encourage the widest possible distribution and ownership of productive property. When people own the property that provides their livelihood, they reap more of the profits from it and are in greater control of their working conditions, reducing the need for government regulation of such things.
I'm a Distributist, which means that I favor policies that encourage the widest possible distribution and ownership of productive property.
Back in the old days, we just called it "Communism."
In Communism, productive property is all owned by the state. In Distributism, it's all owned by private citizens. That's a pretty distinct difference.
Mr. Rahe,
This site is devoted to reproductive and sexual justice, including but not limited to an active and appropriate role of government in promoting justice, accountability of the market to people's human rights, freedom of religion and freedom from coercion, and a complete devotion to freedom of choice for women and girls.
I would suggest there is not much here to be gained here for you, from what I have seen so far of your comments, your intrusions, and your lack of interest in these principles.
In Communism, productive property is all owned by the state. In Distributism, it's all owned by private citizens. That's a pretty distinct difference.
No, in Communism, property is communally owned, which is certainly "the widest possible distribution and ownership of productive property."
I don't think I've ever met a Communist anti-choicer before. Welcome to our bourgeois reproductive-health site, comrade! Too bad you would rather be red, than dead.
It doesn't mean much to say that someone "owns" property when in fact they don't also control it.
It doesn't mean much to say that someone "owns" property when in fact they don't also control it.
What are you talking about? In Communism, the workers own the means of production, and the MoP are controlled by the workers' production cooperative associations directly.
After all, it's not like just one proletariat owner-worker can decide to shut down the whole factory, yes?
Just think about it a bit. I'm sure it'll all make sense to you once you sober up from the vodka.
In Communism, the workers own the means of production, and the MoP are controlled by the workers' production cooperative associations directly.
You mean the managers and workers in a factory that produces, say, potato chips, reap the profits from the business and are able to make decisions about how to operate it without any direction or permission from the government?
If you are a big fan of Distributism, though, what I find most interesting is how you are in complete agreement with several Catholic Popes when it comes to economic justice: http://distributist.blogspot.com/2007/01/distributism-defined.html
And lest you think you're really a fan of Communism, just look at what it has done to women: http://distributist.blogspot.com/2007/02/communism-and-women.html
You mean the managers and workers in a factory that produces, say, potato chips, reap the profits from the business and are able to make decisions about how to operate it without any direction or permission from the government?
What government? You are aware that Communism is supposed to be a stateless society, right? You can churn out those Frito-Lays until the cows come home.
If you are a big fan of Distributism, though, what I find most interesting is how you are in complete agreement with several Catholic Popes when it comes to economic justice: http://distributist.blogspot.com/2007/01/distributism-defined.html
Umm... Catholic Popes are not a particularly good standard if you're trying to ascribe morality to something.
And lest you think you're really a fan of Communism, just look at what it has done to women: http://distributist.blogspot.com/2007/02/communism-and-women.html
Yes, it actually goes quite well with the whole misogynist mindset. No wonder you're such a fan of it.
If you see no difference between economic systems, then I guess it doesn't matter to you which one we adopt. I'll continue to advocate Distributism, then. Thank you.
I'll continue to advocate Distributism, then. Thank you.
Please don't do so here.
Actually, just for those observing, the ideal of Distributism is that the ownership of productive property be so widely distributed that each person or family owns some - also known as private property - which they then use to provide for themselves. (For example, fields, plows, computers and sewing machines.) Communism and most forms of socialism do not support the idea of private property.
speaking as an observer I would really appreciate it if you would shut up and stop hijacking threads.
This thread began when someone challenged me get "back to the topic," which I did. It was PCF who then took off on another tangent.
I can't help but think that the 'productive property' you're actually referring is: women.
I can't help but think that the 'productive property' you're actually referring is: women.
Me being an adherent of the Christian tradition, nothing could be further from the truth. You need to read this:
http://distributist.blogspot.com/2007/02/communism-and-women.html
Just like livestock.
"Three acres and a cow"
I was really excited to read this post, and then I nearly blew a gasket when I read the first comment (Kevin's speculations on the Founding Mothers' position on abortion in modern days).
Are you kidding me?
This post is not just musings on what Susan B. Anthony might think about this or that. Yeah, she'd probably be pretty freaked out by airplanes and nuclear physics, too, but that is completely beside the point of the post.
...And yet it makes the point of the post so eloquently. We will never have paid sick leave (or subsidized daycare, or universal healthcare) as long as abortion gets to be the red herring taking us off the path to true family values as a nation. We will never have a truly supportive environment for women (both in and out of the workplace) and children if people can't get over their obsession with controlling what happens in other people's bedrooms and uteri for just long enough to digest the meaning of a blog post.
I've always believed that I have a lot of shared goals with people who oppose abortion, and that we can work together to better families' lives despite our ideological differences. Kevin's comment and the destructive effect it had on the thread on a post about such an important topic really makes me question the sincerity of [some] people's calls for common ground.
