Women At Work

In the world of the last few decades, work and family patterns have undergone dramatic upheaval. Among many other changes our society hasn't yet come to grips with is the major influx of women into the job market. According to Newsweek magazine, approximately 65 percent of women of child-bearing age are now in the U.S. work force, and 90 percent of them have had or will have children during their working lives.

Such statistics have made issues regarding women and their roles in society among the hottest and most volatile topics in the political arena. Feminist organizations are reigniting the battle for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, while conservative forces, under the rhetoric of "pro-family," are marshaling allies in their effort to keep women at home.

Into the fray came two mid-January Supreme Court decisions regarding pregnant women in the work force. On January 13 the high court upheld state laws requiring employers to give female workers up to four months of unpaid pregnancy disability leave, guaranteeing reinstatement of their jobs on their return. The case, California Federal Savings and Loan v. Guerra, ruled in favor of Lillian Garland, a receptionist at the Los Angeles-based bank who lost her job after three months' pregnancy leave.

Eight days later, in a decision that had ramifications for the vast majority of working women who reside in states without job protection laws such as California's, the court ruled that federal law does not require states to pay unemployment compensation to women who leave work to have babies and consequently lose their jobs. The loser in this case, Wimberly v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission of Missouri, was Linda Wimberly, a cashier at a J.C. Penney Co. store in Kansas City, Missouri. Wimberly took a leave of absence in 1980 to have a baby and was told there were no jobs when she asked to return to work a few months later.

At stake in the decisions are the rights of pregnant workers, as well as hotly contested interpretations of equality and discrimination under the law. Most feminists hail the first decision as a landmark victory for working mothers, although the celebration is tempered by voices that foresee messy potentialities.

California Federal Savings and Loan, supported in its argument by the Chamber of Commerce and the Reagan administration, borrowed "anti-discrimination" language typically used by the other side. It asserted that the California law which the decision upheld discriminates against men by mandating special benefits available only to women. Although the argument didn't hold sway with the court, it rubbed an old "preferential treatment" wound.

For years women have fought stereotypes that label pregnancy a disease or disability and pregnant workers incapacitated. Some feminists fear that the January 13 victory might backfire.

One major concern is the possibility that, forced to accommodate for pregnant workers, employers may simply refuse to hire women. In an interview on National Public Radio, a representative of the California Chamber of Commerce asserted that such may be the response of his organization to the ruling. When the interviewer pointed out that a refusal to hire women would be illegal, he countered, "Try to prove it."

Despite an array of opinions about the decision, feminists agree on one thing: The January 13 ruling is only a very small step toward a society that would safeguard the rights of women. Only eight other states have laws such as California's guaranteeing pregnancy leave to women workers. Most women face situations similar to Linda Wimberly's, with no guarantee of financial security if they choose to have children. In the official court opinion itself, Justice Thurgood Marshall acknowledged that the January 13 decision established only a "floor beneath which pregnancy disability benefits may not drop."

THE UNITED STATES IS the only "advanced" industrialized nation without a national maternity leave policy, according to Newsweek. The Christian Science Monitor reported that 117 nations guarantee not only job security but paid maternity leave. The experience of those countries - as well as recent studies in the United States concluding that the cost of recruiting, hiring, and training replacement employees far outweighs the cost of offering maternity leave - could be used as the basis for creating a comprehensive national policy.

But that would still be just a beginning. Broader issues of care for children and support for families, including parental leave for fathers - as well as a comprehensive and compassionate approach to disability leave - need to be examined. The National Organization for Women (NOW) offered one of the clearest and sanest responses to the January 13 decision, hailing it as a victory, but also proposing that the thorny "preferential treatment" problem be solved by mandating generous disability benefits to all workers, male and female.

Comprehensive legislation that begins to address these concerns was introduced into Congress in February. Sponsored by Reps. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) and William Clay (D-Mo.), the Family and Medical Leave Act would guarantee all workers up to 26 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for injury, illness, or pregnancy. It would allow both mothers and fathers up to 18 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave to care for a newborn or newly adopted child, or for a sick child or dependent parent. The legislation also calls for a study to determine the feasibility of bringing the United States into parity with the other nations of the world by offering paid disability and family leave.

The bill deserves our full support. It would move the country toward a true "pro-family" position, in which the bearing and raising of children are given priority. The bill is one more step toward a society in which women are guaranteed equality, men can share in the raising of their children, and no one has to choose between a job and a family.

We need to pursue a vision and find the ways to restructure our society so that equality is possible. On January 13 the floor of women's rights was raised an inch or two. In the words of Boston columnist Ellen Goodman, "Now it's time to raise the roof."

Joyce Hollyday was associate editor of Sojourners when this article appeared.