Working women: Would you join a Lean In Circle?

[The Captain]

 I don’t have an issuewith working parents of either gender who accept the fact that if they make itclear the family is the first priority (and let’s face it, it’s usually themom) then they will be “mommy tracked”<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

However prior posts alluded to supposedly support that equal outputs=inputs, and no gender difs, thenthat is fair.  Another poster came on andspoke of taking a promotion knowing they planned to try to get pregnant again(after a miscarriage) right away.   Aftergetting the promotion they had a kid within a year and put the employer in theposition of having to hire a temp.  <o:p></o:p>

If I promoted/hired someone, spent time training them, thenhad them tell me they planned to go on a religious trip to mecca for 6-12 weeksin less than a year after giving them the job I’d be steamed.  If they were upfront about their plans itwould be different, but you’re trying to fill an open position only to havethem leave it deliberately open less than a year later?  Really? And we think employers are supposed to be ok with this?<o:p></o:p>

We complain of bias, but refuse to acknowledge that ouractions in some cases contribute to that bias. I provided a prior example in an earlier post and simply providedadditional examples in my last post.<o:p></o:p>

I don’t have an issue with working mothers, I have an issuewith women who want to play in the big sandbox but don’t think they have toplay by the same rules.  Then cry bias ordiscrimination when THEY can’t hack it on the same terms as the men.

<o:p></o:p>

[midjd]

If I promoted/hired someone, spent time training them, thenhad them tell me they planned to go on a religious trip to mecca for 6-12 weeksin less than a year after giving them the job I’d be steamed.  If they were upfront about their plans itwould be different, but you’re trying to fill an open position only to havethem leave it deliberately open less than a year later?  Really? And we think employers are supposed to be ok with this?<o:p></o:p>

I don't think even intentionally trying for a kid is comparable to a voluntary vacation.  Nothing is certain, and who knows if it's going to happen or how long it will take (especially if you've had a miscarriage).

DH is going to need a knee replacement at some point. We don't know when. If he changes jobs, knowing this, and his doctor then tells him he needs one within the year, should DH be fired? Should he have mentioned his knee problems (otherwise irrelevant to the job) during the interview? Where does the line end?

I don't think women with medical conditions requiring an extensive recovery period should be given any more rights than men with medical conditions requiring an extensive recovery period, but they certainly shouldn't be given any fewer.

[Phoenix84]

I can see where thecaptain is coming from.  I haven't seen any women of these boards advocating for better maternity leave policies though.

If a woman comes gets hired, gets pregnant in three months, and then goes on FMLA or whatever for a year, I can see how the employer wouldn't appreceiate that. 

Basically, I have no problems with both the company and the employee looking out for themselves.  If it's in the employees best interest to quit or take FMLA then they should do so.  On the other hand, the employer should be able to do what's within their best interests, in the confines of the law of course.

I'm all for people doing what they feel they have to, AS LONG AS THEY ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES.  So, in the case of a newly hired employee going on maternity leave, i'm fine if she does that, but I'm not fine if she then complains about getting passed over for promotion in favor of someone more reliable and that it's "discrimination."  That I would have a problem with.  The same idea goes with "mommy tracking."  If someone has kids and "mommy tracks" themselves then that should be their choice, but then don't complain when you don't get the bonuses, raises, and promotions.  

If an employer wants to get rid of an employee, then they can do so as long as it doesn't violate the law.  It's their company, but they may lose out on potentially good employees for not being flexible. 

All in all, I agree with midwestJD, that I think pregnancy should be lumped into the same policy that covers both male and female employees regarding extended medical leave.  I think companies and the law should look at things like heart problems, knee replacements, accidents, pregnancy ect as all one big policy and not play favorites.  You got a medical issue, you either take sick leave if you have it or take FMLA, period end of story.     

[Angel!]

Feb 26, 2013 18:43:01 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

where she is accusing others of applauding mom's that act like that & accusing others of drinking the kool aid?

Wasn't that the point of the article?  That the FMLA doesn't go far enough, because if you haven't been there a year, or if you work for a small company, you aren't guaranteed the protection?  

And how does that lead into applauding women who take their FMLA leave, string their employer along, and quite after leave ends?

Plus, I didn't really notice many here in huge support of extending FMLA protection.

[Angel!]

Feb 26, 2013 19:15:40 GMT -5 The Captain said:

 However prior posts alluded to supposedly support that equal outputs=inputs, and no gender difs, thenthat is fair.  Another poster came on andspoke of taking a promotion knowing they planned to try to get pregnant again(after a miscarriage) right away.   Aftergetting the promotion they had a kid within a year and put the employer in theposition of having to hire a temp.  <o:p></o:p>

If I promoted/hired someone, spent time training them, thenhad them tell me they planned to go on a religious trip to mecca for 6-12 weeksin less than a year after giving them the job I’d be steamed.  If they were upfront about their plans itwould be different, but you’re trying to fill an open position only to havethem leave it deliberately open less than a year later?  Really? And we think employers are supposed to be ok with this?<o:p></o:p>

They aren't protected less than a year after hire.  So if anyone decided to take 6-12 weeks off for any reason at that point, you could get rid of them.

You also put to much of your experience into judging others choices.  Just because at your job a promotion & then quickly leaving for FMLA means you wasted time training & need a temp, doesn't make that universally true.  At my company a promotion is basically a new billing rate.  There is no sudden responsibility shift.  And we don't hire temps if someone is out.  So here it wouldn't be a huge deal & my employer wouldn't care. 

I honestly don't see them being upset at someone taking 12 weeks at the 1 year mark.  FMLA doesn't guarantee pay, so it wouldn't be a huge cost.  Just means that we juggle responsibilities for a bit during that time.  My company really values great employees & some are very hard to replace, so they treat us as valuable & that means making allowances for having a family.  It sounds like at companies like your employees are kind of a dime a dozen & even a temp can fill in.  I could see why it would be a bigger problem at a company like yours. 

[bean29]

Captain, I actually can't remember but I am quite sure I did not apply for the promotion, they just offered it to me, meaning they thought I was the best qualified in the department for the job.  I was in the dept already for 2-3 years at that point.  Yes I planned to have another child but it was a large commission incentivized dept.  Everyone worked hard even our secretaries.  They could have had other employees cover for me but the temp was not the only temp the dept was using at the time.  They kept her for long after I returned too.  We only had one person take maternity leave and not return...she did not make the decision to not return until she had her 2nd child.  She was the only person I have ever worked with that took unpaid family leave.  Employer did not feel strung along.  She was a hard worker and they wanted her back.  My department was eventually eliminated and I left the company for 4 years but I was rehired again.  I think the idea of leaning in is valid.  If my brother had not encouraged me to take that job I probably would have turned it down and it would have been the wrong decision.

I am intrigued by the idea of leaning in.  I do feel I have done it in the past, but maybe I have been coasting the last few years.  I am considering reading this book even though I am well into my 40's. 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

And we don't hire temps if someone is out.  So here it wouldn't be a huge deal & my employer wouldn't care. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

Neither did mine.  We shut down the lab while I was gone.  My boss and a summer student finished up one project and then the main one I was working on was put on hold till I got back.

My PIs and I worked together as a team to get things as close to finished as I could before maternity leave or at least get them to a point where I could stop and it wouldn’t be a big deal.

My one PI had it so well planned out that I was pretty much twiddling my thumbs by week 35 because he decided to play it safe and assume that that would be around the time I’d exit rather than assuming I’d make it the full 40 or beyond.

I am not much of a group joiner but I could see how this would be beneficial.   I am looking to change courses and take the next step in my career but get hung up sometimes about the fact that I am a “working mother”.  Especially after reading threads like this and others on YM.

 I could use some encouragement to push me to take more risks.  It’d also be nice to learn strategy from women who have done it before me.

I also agree with everyone who says it’s everyone for themselves.   Ideally what I want and what my company wants are in sync but since I’ve learned the hard way that no one cares about me as much as I do, if things conflict what is best for me and my family comes first.

I’m not going to burn bridges but I also understand the moment there is no grant money coming in my butt is out the door, UNMC won’t owe me anything so I only give so much of myself to my workplace and won’t hesitate to jump ship if need be.

[The Captain]

Feb 27, 2013 8:23:45 GMT -5 @tbird said:

thoughtful post phoenix - appreciate the input.  Just a few counterpoints to your points:

FMLA - it is unpaid so the impact is dif on ee and comp.  And men are just as eligible as women, and it's not just for infants or even children, but spouses and I think parents too.  So again -> this is not a gender/mother&baby issue, but and overall family issue.  I can't imagine who is taking a year off without pay for a healthy infant under FMLA (and can you?  I'm no expert on it) -> but it's a large world out there, so maybe happens?

Certainly - the job recompense and opportunities should match the inputs of the employee.  If someone prioritizes family/home time over the job, whilst others are working harder or longer hours or producing more tangibles for the company, then it is a no brainier who gets the goodies.

How far do you take this?  If someone prioritizes, or has to devote time to family to the extent they are not able to produce the same minimum required amount of output as everyone else should they be penalized?

Again - my only concern is perceptions.  Suzy and Johnny both start the same day.  During the first 18 months of employment, Suzy takes 6 weeks of maternity leave and Johnny takes a tumble on a ski vacay and need ACL surgical repair.    Suzy leaves early comes in late a few times, while Johnny is out for physical therapy here and there after returning from his STD leave.  If they are out an equal number of days, and equal number of off hours - and they produce the same amount and quality of work - and they being judged comparably?  If they are - fantastic.  If Suzy is not considered for a promotion but johnny is, then that is not fantastic.

Agreed as long as both were in the same situation.  What I have a problem with is when people use the hypothetical "what if".  Such as - "I'll take this new job knowing I'm trying to get pregnant - after all it's possible that if a man took it he could have a heart attack and need the same amount of time off..."  That's not really comparable because you KNOW a pregnancy will result in a medical leave of some duration.  You do know know if you will injur yourself skiing or have a heart attack. 

When a woman gets pregnant it is a planned event over which she had control in a majority of the cases.   You speak of perceptions but don't address my comment in having a child during the first year of employment - A woman plans an extended leave with less than 12 months on the job - what kind of perceptions do you think that will create?  

More thoughts on loyalty and ees:

As stated, it's a two way street.  In thinking about my past (illustrious?) career which has spanned 3 decades and covered a gamut of different positions, I thought about loyalty issues on the job.

In general, my loyalty was with my boss or my coworkers - and not with a faceless company.  In many cases, a good boss will inspire loyalty and a bad one will have the employee making more self-serving decisions.

I had some fairly miserable jobs - one in which we all worked 60+ hours each and every week.  I would have never left abruptly because of the impact on my coworkers, and I also liked my boss quite a bit.  But it wasn't to the pres and vp - who left every day at 5pm I might add.

Another perspective is women's communication styles, which tend to be less confrontational on average. 

"it's not you, it's me"

vs

"take this job and shove it"

Maybe some women use personal situations such as pregnancy to distance themselves from a job they hate?  or use it as an easy way to quit without having to state interpersonal issues with the boss or coworkers which the average woman might find distressing?  Or even counter-productive if they have already decided to leave, and are just biding their time for a an opportune exit?

So by using pregnancy to mask the symptoms are they helping or hurting our cause?

In exit interviews over the years, I've had 2 styles approaching this: 1- where I cared about my coworkers I might try to make a few statements that might induce mgmt to make the environment a better place for them or 2- where I didn't give a damn about anybody, and just smiled and talked about "new opportunities" and everything was peachy there.  I wasn't vested in helping them.

inputs and outputs.  That also is a 2 way street.  If a company or manager is continuously getting low levels of employee loyalty - and if it is most particularly from a defined segment of the population.  They may well be 'doing it wrong' or in self-fulfilling prophecy mode.

At least in professional positions, people need to safeguard their reputation in the field, and build up a network and references.  If a lot are willing to burn bridges - that's probably indicative of issues at the company.

In any case - the ee who leaves and burns their bridges and the company who makes employees shut down and phone it in, each will have to live with the consequences or overcome the difficulty.

See my comments in bold.

[midjd]

Agreed as long as both were in the same situation. What I have a problem with is when people use the hypothetical "what if". Such as - "I'll take this new job knowing I'm trying to get pregnant - after all it's possible that if a man took it he could have a heart attack and need the same amount of time off..." That's not really comparable because you KNOW a pregnancy will result in a medical leave of some duration. You do know know if you will injur yourself skiing or have a heart attack. 

But even if trying, you don't KNOW whether or when you will become pregnant. One of my best friends tried for 3 years before her son was conceived. I've been BC-free for several months and am not pregnant. It's never a sure thing.

[The Captain]

Feb 26, 2013 19:24:32 GMT -5 midjd said:

If I promoted/hired someone, spent time training them, thenhad them tell me they planned to go on a religious trip to mecca for 6-12 weeksin less than a year after giving them the job I’d be steamed.  If they were upfront about their plans itwould be different, but you’re trying to fill an open position only to havethem leave it deliberately open less than a year later?  Really? And we think employers are supposed to be ok with this?<o:p></o:p>

I don't think even intentionally trying for a kid is comparable to a voluntary vacation.  Nothing is certain, and who knows if it's going to happen or how long it will take (especially if you've had a miscarriage).

DH is going to need a knee replacement at some point. We don't know when. If he changes jobs, knowing this, and his doctor then tells him he needs one within the year, should DH be fired? Should he have mentioned his knee problems (otherwise irrelevant to the job) during the interview? Where does the line end?

I don't think women with medical conditions requiring an extensive recovery period should be given any more rights than men with medical conditions requiring an extensive recovery period, but they certainly shouldn't be given any fewer.

Going to mecca is not a voluntary vacation - it is a religious requirement that everyone of that faith has to do at least once in their lifetime.  You control the timing of it just as you can control the timing of when you get pregnant.  If you start a new job you can delay this requirement just like you can delay getting pregnant.

As far as the knee replacement, if his doctor tells him he WILL need one within a year, and he chooses to change jobs, then my answer would be the same - not really fair (in my opinoin) to the new employer.  I know from my Grandmother's and Dad's experience that (at least in their cases) it was something that could be delayed.  Maybe there are cases where the doctor orders an emergency joint replacement...

I know everyone states it is every man (or woman) for themselves.  However, in my opinion it is not realistic to expect that certain behaviours by a certain demographic will not create bias against the entire demographic.

[Angel!]

Feb 27, 2013 13:20:02 GMT -5 The Captain said:

[How far do you take this?  If someone prioritizes, or has to devote time to family to the extent they are not able to produce the same minimum required amount of output as everyone else should they be penalized?

Obviously if you can't meet the minimum expectation, then you need to be cut loose. Sounds like your company needs to do some of this, maybe then you would be a little less bitter.

Maybe you need to find a better job where slackers don't get the same compensation for those that have to work extra overtime to cover them.

[The Captain]

Feb 27, 2013 13:23:12 GMT -5 midjd said:

Agreed as long as both were in the same situation. What I have a problem with is when people use the hypothetical "what if". Such as - "I'll take this new job knowing I'm trying to get pregnant - after all it's possible that if a man took it he could have a heart attack and need the same amount of time off..." That's not really comparable because you KNOW a pregnancy will result in a medical leave of some duration. You do know know if you will injur yourself skiing or have a heart attack. 

But even if trying, you don't KNOW whether or when you will become pregnant. One of my best friends tried for 3 years before her son was conceived. I've been BC-free for several months and am not pregnant. It's never a sure thing.

Taking a long time to conceive is very different from preventing a conception during the first year of employement.  No, it is not a sure thing, but delaying it is.

[The Captain]

Feb 27, 2013 13:51:13 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Feb 27, 2013 13:20:02 GMT -5 The Captain said:

[How far do you take this?  If someone prioritizes, or has to devote time to family to the extent they are not able to produce the same minimum required amount of output as everyone else should they be penalized?

Obviously if you can't meet the minimum expectation, then you need to be cut loose. Sounds like your company needs to do some of this, maybe then you would be a little less bitter.

Maybe you need to find a better job where slackers don't get the same compensation for those that have to work extra overtime to cover them.

I'm not bitter about how employers treat their employees.  I do have an issue when people say they want one thing but claim discrimination or bias when they can't perform to the same standards as everything else.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

One of my best friends tried for 3 years before her son was conceived. I've been BC-free for several months and am not pregnant. It's never a sure thing<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

You better have been professional and let your boss know the moment you took the last pill because you owe it to them. 

I committed the ultimate YM sin and I got pregnant about three months before I had been at this job for a year.  I bought into the OB’s assurances it takes on average six months. I didn’t expect it to happen exactly 30 days after I went off the pill.

 And I didn’t tell them until I had it confirmed by my OB at 12 weeks.

Miraculously I still have a job.

I’ve had a good experience here being pregnant and then being a working mom, but threads like this make me really nervous about jumping ship even though I know that’s what eventually I’ll have to do to move my career forward.

Maybe I should look for a lean in group.

[thyme4change]

I have birth during my 13th or 14th month at a company.  Man I hated that job.  

[Deleted]

oops, I never answered the OP. No, I don't want to sit around with a bunch of other chicks telling me to strap on some balls and get out of the kitchen.

I was at my current job for a little over 2 years when I got pregnant.  I took 3 weeks before and 12 weeks after the birth.  Lo and behold, I returned to my job.... AND I got promoted this summer!!!!  It's a miracle I tells ya!!!

[formerroomate99]

Personally, I wouldn't have chosen to get pregnant for the first time at the same time as taking a new job, not as much because I feel some loyalty to the new company, but because I would have no way of knowing how pregnancy would effect me, and I wouldn't want to bring on all the stress of being pregnant the first time with all the stress of a more demanding new job.  It just isn't worth the risk, to me, to the baby, to my career or to my finances. 

There are some jobs where you can settle in and be comfortable within a couple of months, while with others, it could take a year to get settled in.  Just as someone who has never been pregnant won't know how pregnancy will affect them, you often can't tell how the new job will be or how long it will take before you're up to speed or how stressful the new job will be.  There is something to be said for not setting yourself up for failure. 

[midjd]

Feb 27, 2013 14:17:55 GMT -5 @tbird said:

Feb 27, 2013 14:05:47 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

One of my best friends tried for 3 years before her son was conceived. I've been BC-free for several months and am not pregnant. It's never a sure thing<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

You better have been professional and let your boss know the moment you took the last pill because you owe it to them. 

No - you have to come into the office and rush to your boss' desk and sit down breathless and flushed....


"we did it again last night.....could. have. happened.   mark the calendar - just in case!"

Hahahaha, right!? I'm sure that would go over well.

I still don't understand the idea that a possible/potential pregnancy is so much different from a possible heart attack, skiing accident, knee replacement, whatever.

Take two people starting a new job on the same day. Both are trying for kids. One gets pregnant within the year. The other does not. I'm guessing that if both were Captain's coworkers, the pregnant one would be viewed in a very negative light, and the non-pregnant one would be promotable. But both engaged in exactly the same behavior.

Or if it's not about the result, but about taking the risk of becoming pregnant - what about men who are involved in physically dangerous activities during their leisure time? Suppose someone is really into hang gliding or base jumping on the weekends? Is that person not engaging in the same calculated risk as someone who is trying to conceive?

[bean29]

Feb 27, 2013 12:35:06 GMT -5 @tbird said:

Feb 27, 2013 10:42:44 GMT -5 bean29 said:

intrigued by the idea of leaning in.  I do feel I have done it in the past, but maybe I have been coasting the last few years.  I am considering reading this book even though I am well into my 40's. 

Welp - leaning in is for the the younguns, so we'll have to start our own movement/network.

40, farty, and flailing?


lol - ripping off the 13 going on 30 movie.....

I did want to add too that I now work for such a small company that I am forced to network and bounce things off of my Male Co-workers.  I do think there are a lot of men around who don't think the only value we have is at home barefoot and PG.  Our mentors don't necessarily have to be women and for people like Rukh and I the men we work with probably have some of the same professional and parenting regrets and concerns we do.

[Angel!]

Feb 27, 2013 14:00:06 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Feb 27, 2013 13:51:13 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Obviously if you can't meet the minimum expectation, then you need to be cut loose. Sounds like your company needs to do some of this, maybe then you would be a little less bitter.

Maybe you need to find a better job where slackers don't get the same compensation for those that have to work extra overtime to cover them.

I'm not bitter about how employers treat their employees.  I do have an issue when people say they want one thing but claim discrimination or bias when they can't perform to the same standards as everything else.

Well, maybe you should be instead of being angry at every women that has a baby outside of your approval.  You have this opinion of mothers apparental because you work with a bunch of slackers.  If your employer stopped allowing them to be slackers, then you wouldn't have this problem.  You need to stop this bias against all mothers simply because you have a bunch of crappy coworkers & evidentally choose to pick up the slack for all of them. 

Seriously, if they are a good long-term employee, then a few months off a few times in their career doesn't negate that.  Honestly it is probably a lot easier on the company if they take those months off really early in their career.  It is easier to find someone to fill in for a low-level person than a really high-level person.

[muttleynfelix]

Kind of funny - part of how my company was going to cover my responsibilties during my maternity leave was having a tech that is part time, work full time (or at least closer to it).  He got sick and when I stopped by the office when DD was 2 weeks old, he had not been in the office those 2 weeks at all! 

I wouldn't worry about it at all, most jobs are somewhat family friendly, and getting more so as time goes on. Because they're nice? No way - it makes good business sense, and their bottom line is taken care of.

My job is not covered under FMLA because we only have 6 employees. Do you think my boss held my job just because he is a nice guy (which he is)?  Nope. Do you think he gave me an extra week of PTO just because?  Nope.  I bring value to the company. I bring a LOT of value to the company. I also give him a lot of flexibility, including the ability to leave the country and still keep our clients happy.

Taking a long time to conceive is very different from preventing a conception during the first year of employement. No, it is not a sure thing, but delaying it is.

My DH and I contemplated putting taking a month off from try to conceive DD because the due date would be New Year's eve.  We'd been trying a couple months, had a chemical pregnancy, and the thought of just not trying for a month seemed wrong. DS was conceived immediately after being on the pill, and that contributed to me feeling a little anxious about not getting pregnant right away.

I've been with my company for 6.5 years. I've been on maternity leave twice.  About 6 weeks each time, but I keep my foot in the door and keep in contact with my employer, answer emails, and do a little work from home. Also, I stop by the office once a week after being on maternity leave a couple weeks.  So, I've taken 12 weeks of leave over 6.5 years. I plan on staying here at least a few more years maybe another couple decades. But apparently 6 weeks is a long time to be gone... in a month it will feel like I was never off at all for everyone in my company and our clients.

[formerroomate99]

Rukh, didn't you start a thread a while back condemning women who don't do their jobs when they are pregnant?  So why are you so upset when someone else brings up the subject?   

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that it's pretty rare to be able to 'phone it in' when you're starting a new job, and that a woman who has never been pregnant isn't going to have any idea how well she tolerates pregnancy. 

[Angel!]

Feb 27, 2013 16:37:28 GMT -5 muttleynfelix said:

My job is not covered under FMLA because we only have 6 employees. Do you think my boss held my job just because he is a nice guy (which he is)?  Nope. Do you think he gave me an extra week of PTO just because?  Nope.  I bring value to the company. I bring a LOT of value to the company. I also give him a lot of flexibility, including the ability to leave the country and still keep our clients happy.

I have a feeling (based on captain's posts) that engineering is very different than accounting. I too feel valued & they definitely go out of their way to make sure I feel that way because they want to keep me.

I am guessing accounting is more of a plug-n-play type profession - once you learn the skills you can take over any job at any point. At least that is what I think if you can bring in temps to replace people. It would be virtually impossible to replace me with a temp because they wouldn't have the same skill set. Plus I don't think there are many engineering temps out there, which makes sense given how many different specialities are present in the profession.

[muttleynfelix]

I have a feeling (based on captain's posts) that engineering is very different than accounting. I too feel valued & they definitely go out of their way to make sure I feel that way because they want to keep me. I am guessing accounting is more of a plug-n-play type profession - once you learn the skills you can take over any job at any point. At least that is what I think if you can bring in temps to replace people. It would be virtually impossible to replace me with a temp because they wouldn't have the same skill set. Plus I don't think there are many engineering temps out there, which makes sense given how many different specialities are present in the profession.

True. That was part of the reason I worked on my maternity leave, it was easier for me to make some changes to a project than bring my boss up to speed on why I did something and have him calculate the changes.

My sister was an accountant, but she is one of those that captain complains about because she 1. ended up pregnant after she had accepted the job but had not started yet  (they were not trying and they were actively preventing) 2. ended up quitting because her son was born with a congenital heart defect that was undiagnosed until several hours after birth.  Not only that she was going to be on maternity leave during an accountant's busy season. None of that was her plan, but shit happens and somehow her employer survived.

[midjd]

Rukh, didn't you start a thread a while back condemning women who don't do their jobs when they are pregnant? So why are you so upset when someone else brings up the subject?  

It seems the current subject is not "women who don't do their jobs when they are pregnant," but "women who are pregnant," period, or perhaps "women who are or plan to become pregnant within one year of starting a job." 

Women who don't do their jobs - have at em! But lumping all pregnant women (or women who might possibly become pregnant - so, most women) into that group is a little unfair, to say the least.

[bean29]

LOL, now that I think about it that job where I got promoted then had a baby?  I was hired as a temp.  I was told the job was temporary 6 most to 1.5 years.  I started in August...had my 1st child the following Oct.  Came back from maternity leave.  I worked my "temp" job 7 years.  Then I left and came back had a total of 10 years service with that company.  Yes, I am an Accountant...with a smattering of programming trouble shooting and management/HR background.  I have employees I work with I think should be able to lean in or step up handle some additonal duties, but no go.  Hence we do not all bring the same value to a company.  





When I was earning my Associate Degree the school I was at had internships at GE.  I wanted to work there in the worst way.  I begged the co-op office for an interview every day the first year I was there.  I got the job.  ~Thirty years later it remains the worst place I have ever worked.  While I was there a Permanent co-worker in Accounting told me there was no mistake you could make in accounting that could not be fixed.  She had been a nurse and made a mistake that resulted in a patient death.  An employee going out on maternity leave is an inconvieniece nothing more.

ETA:  A PG employee not pulling their weight, probably was slacking off before they got PG.  that company that treated me so well...great management.  Great track record hiring minories.  No tokens.  If you worked in my department you pulled your weight.  If you didn't you would be gone.  Originally we were hired as "temps" but hired as FT employees with benes.  Then b/c of the quotas in the gov't contract they started using a minority owned temp service so then we did have "temp" employees.  But our temps were in our incentive plan and worked just as hard are the rest of us.

[shanendoah]

So much to respond to here. I am going try my best to put my thoughts down in a logical manner, if not order.

Would I join a Lean in Circle? No, despite the fact that I am certainly in the target demographic ambition and career wise, if barely still in it age wise (being a whole 37 years old). Why? Because I, and pretty much every woman in the demographic "Lean In" is targeted at, don't need one. We are middle to upper class educated women who want to move forward in our careers. We already know what choices are available to us. And while networking is good, I don't need an event that only allows me to network with other women. I would be much better off joining a professional society of some sort and networking with men and women in my field. If I want the chance to network with people outside my field, then I can join a group like Toastmasters, Kiwannis, Lions, etc.

Do I really need more mentors? No. The Women's Leadership Forum at my company (which I am involved in) had a symposium last November where we brought in a speaker who is an expert on networking within companies. She made a great point- having a mentor is nice. It's great to be able to talk to someone with more professional experience if you're having difficulties handling an issue. Their advice can certainly help you do a better job. But a mentor will NOT get you a better job. Men don't ever talk about needing or wanting mentors, when women seem to constantly believe that is what they need to get ahead. Not true, what men usually develop in their working relationships, and what women need, are sponsors. I don't need someone to give me advice about how to do my job. I need someone who will be my advocate, who will speak up for my abilities and give me opportunities to succeed beyond the scope of my current job. When someone says "we need a person to manage Y project" I need (we all need) a person who is willing to put my name forward.

Do I think we need better government policies surrounding parental leave? Yes. I will admit a bias here in that I am in the process of adopting. As a new parent, I will qualify for protected leave via FMLA (just as any new parent does). That leave is protected but unpaid. As a country, we currently let our disability policies cover maternity leave. Not only do I find that ineffective, it also discriminates against anyone who does not physically give birth- adoptive moms and ALL fathers. In some cases, companies may choose to give paid maternity leave or something similar (my company does give every new parent 2 weeks paid child bonding leave), otherwise, it depends on their state's disability policies and the women who most need the support of those policies often don't have jobs that have to follow them.
I don't think we necessarily need to be the Scandinavian countries where both mothers and fathers get one year paid leave, to be taken any time in the child's first five years, to have a better and more comprehensive parental leave system.
And yes, that system will benefit women more than men. Until we figure out how to transplant pregnancies to men, that is just a biological fact. But since, as a society, we are greatly benefited by having children, I have no issues with society paying for parental leave.

How does FMLA work? This is something the Slate article got wrong, and I see a lot of misconceptions about FMLA in general, so as a semi-expert on it, let me try to clear some things up. If I were to change jobs today and need FMLA tomorrow, I would qualify, as long as my new employer met the size requirements for having to offer FMLA. You do not need to be working for a new employer for a full year for a new employer in order to qualify for FMLA, as long as you had FMLA coverage at your previous position.
The Slate writer was almost certainly a freelancer before taking a paycheck position. She did need to work for a full year to qualify for FMLA protections, but those of us who are simply switching from one large employer to another do not have to be at a job for one year in order to qualify.
I will also reiterate that FMLA does NOT pay anyone. It simply protects their job. Their employer is required to either hold their position for them OR bring them back in a comparable position. It does NOT require the employer to pay anything.
FMLA requires that the employer protect an employee's position for up to 12 weeks in a rolling year. If I take all 12 weeks to welcome a new child, my employer is not required to protect my position if I fall and break my leg and need to be out for 2 weeks 11 months later.
FMLA covers not only child bonding leave, but also medical leave for yourself or if you need to care for a spouse, dependent child, parent or parent in law for a medical event. FMLA can be for a set period of time where you are out of work, or it can be continuous- if you get migraines, any time you call into work with a migraine or leave early with one, it gets coded as FMLA.
FMLA does not cover taking time to care for a sibling (even if you are each other's only living family) nor will it cover taking time to deal with a mental health issue. If your kid needs to see a counselor, FMLA will not protect time you take off to shuttle your kid to and fro. (State laws might, though.) It will cover time off needed to take your kid who fell off the monkey bars and broke his arm to and fro from the doctor's office, though.

Will I follow some of the "Lean In" advice? Yes, though I was doing it before I had ever heard of Lean In. As most of you know, C and I are in the process of adopting. We should have our foster license in 3-6 weeks. After we get it, we could be matched with a child in 2 days or 2+ years.
As some of you may also know, due to the re-org at work in December, I am becoming increasingly unhappy with my job and I am actively looking for a new position. I am NOT willing to put my career or my happiness on hold indefinitely just because we are going through the adoption process. If that means I start a new job and a couple of months later take 4-6 weeks off for child bonding leave, so be it. That is exactly what FMLA is for.
Will I tell people during interviews that I am in the process of adopting? No. They have no right to know that information, and in fact, keeping that information protects them as well. If I were to tell them of my family plans and they chose not to hire me, they would open themselves up to a discrimination suit.
I will, if hired, discuss the situation with my new boss right away and make sure we have a plan in place for coverage for when a placement is made. Since I will not have just undergone a major medical event, this will quite likely include a willingness on my part to do some work from home while on leave.

Do I think there is still a "glass ceiling" or bias against women in the workplace? Yes. It is not as bad as it had been in previous years, but I don't believe in settling for "good enough" and know very few people who are. Just because something is "better" does not mean that we're done. It was huge news this year that all the top elected officials in New Hampshire are women. This year, there are a RECORD 20 women in the Senate. That's right, it's a new record to have 20% of our Senators be female, despite the fact that we make up roughly half the population.
On a smaller scale, I look at my own company. I work in healthcare, a field that is often considered not just female friendly but female dominated. And yet, if I look at the top tier of my company, I will note that only 20% of our executive leadership team is female (2 out of 10 executive positions are held by women).
I know that a lot of people want to make the argument that women have self-selected out of the top tiers of organizations by mommy-tracking themselves and not being willing to work the hours needed to make it to the top. And yet, if I go down just one level, to the second tier of leadership in my company, I find that out of 37 positions, 25 are held by women. That's right, at tier II, over 66% of the positions are held by women. These women are VPs, and obviously not people who have held themselves back or been unwilling to put in the work. And yet, their chances of being promoted look pretty grim. If the numbers hold, only 2 of those 25 women will be able to advance in this company, whereas of their 12 male colleagues, 8 of them have the opportunity to be promoted.

Do I think my company's leadership is especially sexist? No. And that's the sad part. I think my company is actually pretty good at promoting women and bringing in new female leaders. We recently replaced 2 male VPs with 2 female VPs. And yet, the numbers don't lie. There is still some sort of glass ceiling, some reason why women aren't serving in the highest level of a company at the same ratio at which they are serving just one step down.

Am I a "women's lib type"? Absolutely. Flaming feminist here, but that's because I believe in equal rights all around. I'm against institutionalized discrimination in all of it's forms.


I feel like there was one other issue brought up in this thread that I wanted to respond to, but I did not take notes and now can't remember it. If I do, you'll see more from me.

[muttleynfelix]

Muttley! And you come here and own the relation? Insupportable! Shun her......shun her.....

  No way. She is a way cooler sister as a SAHM than she was an accountant.  
BTW her son is now 15 and got his driver's permit last week!!! 

[Angel!]

Feb 27, 2013 17:44:46 GMT -5 shanendoah said:

How does FMLA work? This is something the Slate article got wrong, and I see a lot of misconceptions about FMLA in general, so as a semi-expert on it, let me try to clear some things up. If I were to change jobs today and need FMLA tomorrow, I would qualify, as long as my new employer met the size requirements for having to offer FMLA. You do not need to be working for a new employer for a full year for a new employer in order to qualify for FMLA, as long as you had FMLA coverage at your previous position.

I don't think this is true.  Maybe it varies by state?  Some states may expand on the FMLA law.  Everything I have read says you need to be at that employer for 12 months.  Even the DOL website uses that phrase:

have worked for that employer for at least 12 months

www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/1421.htm

[shanendoah]

I took my walk and remembered what else I wanted to say.


The Bitch/Asshole problem. Let's start with the fact that just like men, ambitious, career oriented women absolutely do NOT care of people lower on the corporate ladder than them think they are a bitch. They just don't. And besides, what people lower on the corporate ladder than you (with the exception of executive assistants and the receptionist who guards the C-level suites) has no real bearing on whether or not you get the promotion. The problem is with people higher up on the corporate ladder than you.
Sure, it's possible that the VP will will the "asshole" guy and think he's an asshole, at which point, he's not likely to get promoted. But it's more likely he'll look at the up and coming guy - the one who is aggressive, doesn't take no for an answer, real leadership material - and see someone who reminds him of himself. Well, obviously, someone who is like him deserves to be promoted.
However, that same VP will see a female who is aggressive and doesn't take no for an answer and see not leadership potential but an attitude problem. He will label her a bitch. And he will say- there's no way I could work with that woman, she obviously shouldn't be promoted.
And the sad part is, on one level, he is absolutely right. But it has zero, nada, zilch, nothing to do with her or her ability to perform the job. It does have everything to do with him and his inability to work with anyone who does not meet his preconceived notions of how they should behave.
Of course, it does not matter that the problem is his and not hers. She is still labeled a bitch, and "not a team player" and she stands no chance of getting the promotion.