Putting my money where my mouth is...

Well, now that I've vented my spleen about what I think is wrong with the current marketplace, let's get down to some solutions. Hey, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, right?

To recap, the family is so disrespected in the workplace that parents have trouble finding jobs, especially if they demand flexibility. Parents, mostly women at the moment, who choose to stay at home with their children pay the price in their careers, even if they choose to go back to work within a few years of leaving their jobs. Unless the string of employment is unbroken, it is difficult to break back in, more difficult than it was trying to find that first job after college or grad school. What is the solution to this?

Well, I have a couple of ideas. One has to do with anyone going back to work, the other refers to women specifically.

Health benefits for all
First of all, every family faces pressure to maintain at least one full-time career. Why? Benefits! How many part-time jobs offer full family benefits, or even individual benefits, at a level that will cover the basics without breaking the bank? At the same time, unless one pulls back from full time to part time without taking any time in between, it is impossible to find a part time job that uses one's skills; any professional job posting I've seen demands full time work. Part time jobs abound, but they are generally limited, at least in my area, to secretarial, clerical or health care.

These two problems go hand in hand, but they pose a chicken-egg problem: separating health benefits from employment would allow workers to explore job sharing and part time work as long as they could afford it, and a growing pool of qualified workers would allow employers to expand their part time job offerings without paying a price in quality of work. Imagine the possibilities! My husband and I (our fields overlap somewhat) could, in theory, share a job, or, failing that, work two part time jobs, making sure that our family's needs are met and the work gets done well. We would each have the intellectual stimulation and peer interaction we need, and we would each have roughly equal family time, leading to less resentment and more equality at home and at work.

Do you see where I'm going here? Universal health care fits like the last piece in the family values jigsaw puzzle. This promotes the family, helps the next generation see that both parents can have careers and still be available for them, and even helps to make the sexes more equal. What's not to like?

Equal pay for equal work
I promised you two potential solutions. It used to be that women were paid less, no matter what their jobs were, and no bones were made about it. Well, it's still true, but no one talks about it anymore; it's old news. It's gone underground. Women are still paid only about $.76 for each dollar a man earns, and access to management positions, which pay more, is still limited. Now, though, I think it is less due to the perception that women are incapable of doing the same work as well as men, and more to the assumption that every woman will, eventually, leave to have a baby. If she returns at all after that, it is further assumed that her commitment to her job will be compromised -- once again we see how parents, mothers especially, are penalized just for other people's assumptions. Men are still seen as breadwinners, while women's income is thought to be optional.

Then the demands of the family, whether children are involved or not, become burdensome. The sandwich generation can easily find itself between a rock and a hard place, and someone just has to stop working for money and deal with life. When a family has to make such a decision, which partner do you think is going to quit? Most highly-educated people partner up with other highly-educated people -- not universally, but more often than not -- so it's likely, everything else being equal, to be the woman who quits. (Yes, I know, there are plenty of exceptions, but I'm generalizing here. My mom always made more than my dad, so I hear you. Bear with me.)

Linda Hirshman's thesis in her American Prospect article is that this trend begins at home, that the inequality is due to imbalance in the housework. I argue the opposite: conditions in the workplace lead to a need for someone to be home to handle life while the worker puts in his/her 80-hour week. Because we can't afford to quit and lose our health benefits and 401(k)s (because, don't forget, companies don't offer pensions anymore -- we're on our own), women are more likely to leave their careers because they earn less, even if their jobs are similar to their partners'.

The solution? Universal health care unrelated to employment. Everything else will follow.