Families That Work - Essay Example

? Families That Work Families That Work Summary The aim of Gornick &Meyers text is to develop solutions to apprehensions faced byparents when it comes to balancing between family demands and their occupational demands. In this text, Gornick &Meyers argue that even though problems facing working families are multifaceted, current US policies on parenthood and employment are a failure, especially to children (2005). They observe that the main contributing factor is that, existing consumer based and employee driven policies do not allow working couples to engage with their families while concurrently engaging in job responsibilities. Using empirical evidences from Scandinavian, European nations, UK, and Canada Gornick &Meyers observe that US has the least generous working-family employment benefits, which then places the greatest time-squeeze on both parents (2005). The policy failures are attributed to a false dichotomy in terms of minimal public commitment and participation in care giving. Notably, US working families policies are based on privately based and market driven labour market demands, instead of citizen-based social policy frameworks. This has then made US to have the highest wage-gap between working males and females, in addition to having the highest family poverty levels compared to European nations and other English-speaking countries families. Overall, Gornick &Meyers argues that US has a rather pathetic parental and maternal employment structures coupled with a relatively restricted cash allotment to families (2005). Consequently, this has made American working parents especially mothers to face competing responsibilities, which not only leaves them reprimanded in their workplaces but also overburdened and drained at home. Gornick & Meyers also take issue of how childcare in US is mostly privately driven and left entirely to women, which is something that makes US to have a smaller portion of working mothers operating part-time and with high working hours (2005). Although the US has elevated maternal employment levels compared to Scandinavian nations, Canada and some continental European nations, there is minimal policy to shore up mothers in their labor-market commitment. Gornick &Meyers observes that even existing legal frameworks such as Pregnancy Discrimination Act or the Temporary Disability Insurance Act does not enforce provisions such as maternal or parental paid-leave (2005). There is low level and even lack of policy frameworks, which can enable mothers to take a couple of days off from their work after birth without sacrificing their job security or paycheques. Consequently, working mothers are faced with job interruptions, forgone earnings, and reduced career opportunities. Moreover, families experience extremely high out of pocket child-care expenditures, parents spending extensive hours at work, in addition to experiencing stressful adjustments to job schedules. Even though the US has progressive policies on work gender equality such as fathers being given leave rights, Gornick &Meyers observe that the nation has no provision that allows fathers to spend a considerable amount of time with the mother and child during the first year of the child birth without having to sacrifice their wages (2005). There are no provisions, which will ensure that both new working mother and father are allowed to work part-time without shifting employers or even losing their health benefits until the child goes to elementary school. Gornick &Meyers also tackle the fact that the US lacks provisions that will ensure that childcare expenses are offered to working parents at a much lower cost (2005). They observe that working family’s earnings do not balance the requirement of care, especially in meeting the needs of modern families. This is attributed to the failure of the traditional American employment-forcing outcomes identified by the lack of options for employees in deciding labor-market wages, granting of health insurance only via employment, and a labor structure, which emphasizes stringently on full-time employment. Gornick & Meyers also attributes the policy failures to the long-established American political-cultural dynamic that focuses so much on free market participation and contribution (2005). They argue that such a move squeezes the time of employed couples such that it forces them to work over 80 hours each week compared to other industrialized nations like U.K., whereby employed couples spend an average of 37 hours weekly in their jobs with more considerable time to care for their kids. Notably, Gornick & Meyers concludes that the US should move from its universal-breadwinner framework to the dual-earner and part-time carer model, whereby there is the balancing of earnings and child welfare needs in terms of division of labour, employment practices and social policies. Specifically, other people paid by the parents and government will be responsible for childcare so that both parents can work fulltime. Comparison Using empirical evidences from Scandinavian nations comprising Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, Gornick & Meyers observe that these nations have the most comprehensive initiatives for helping working families (2005). These countries have well-regulated welfare-programs that have enhanced and generous paid leave that helps in tackling both family needs and maternity requirements. They also have far more liberal working-time policies for working parents, with limits being enforced on the number of hours parents should work, and provision of superior public childcare services. They also have provisions that allow working couples to get paid vacation periods, including provisions that offer working couples better part-time jobs and restrictions on non-standard jobs they can do. In some continental European nations comprising France, Netherlands and Belgium, most parents and individual employers are able to benefit from public funded policies that distribute the expenses of childcare across society. In such welfare based state obligation, childcare costs are public based rather than private such that employers accommodate the working parent’s caregiving responsibilities. In what is referred to as dual-earner and part-time carer model, both parents work part-time and at reduced hours in order to take care of their children (Gornick & Meyers, 2005). In order to ease burdens on individual employers, these nations apply a combination of subsidized reimbursements, which reflects the state of the parent’s occupation and existing market allocations. For instance, women are rewarded for their intense partaking in childcare through programs, which allow them to work for pay while spending time at home, caring for their kids. Furthermore, both parents are able to work part-time and at reduced hours in order to have a joint caring responsibility for their children and not to be left entirely on the mothers. Notably, the normal working weeks are less than the 80 hours per week as normally applied in US, with most of the working parents operating not more than 37 hours per week (Gornick & Meyers, 2005). Parents also have the privilege to undertake unanticipated family needs during sporadic day- offs but with pay. All these measures are public-funded through generous social initiatives but with regulations that seek to guarantee high quality and early child-care programs for working parents instead of just relying on privately based childcare measures. Benefits are attached to citizenship instead of just closely defined needs with emphasis being placed on the role of community in providing additional supports to family functions (Gornick & Meyers, 2005). Recommendations Gornick and Meyers proposes an enlarged but modified welfare state arrangement to shore up family earnings, issue publicly funded and regulated paid leaves, standardized working-period, in addition to extension of public funded early education and child-care programs to working families (2005). However, the US needs a change in labour-market policy so that partial specialization should facilitate both men and women to engage in both paid work and care giving duties in a symmetrical manner. Such a symmetrical care-giving framework makes parenting to be a shared responsibility and even both parents employers are able to contribute so that women can attain both social and economic benefits as men within the labour market (Gornick & Meyers, 2005). Working couples should also be offered some time off but with compensation during short term and unanticipated needs, which comes about in their children lives. Normal working week for working couples should be adjusted to between 35-37 hours, with parents having the privilege to undertake unanticipated family issues in intermittent day- offs but with pay. To achieve this, the US can apply a welfare state obligation but with social policy being closely linked to pay and occupation. The provisions of public family care should mirror market-defined distributional effects, whereby employment structures concurrently permit time for care giving and working. Through the dual-earner-dual-carer framework, family leave arrangements should ensure both parents are compensated during their days off as part of their care-giving package. For instance, school scheduling measures and early childhood program can be attuned made inclusive with both parents working schedules, when the cost is shared by the government and individual families. The compensation should be based on joint public-private participation rather than current employer based and consumer driven work-family support. Hence, more support should come from government so that it reduces the employer’s burden. Reference Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. K. (2005). Families that work: Policies for reconciling parenthood and employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. . Read More