How Did This Problem Started, Who's Responsible?
-
Pregnant mums who lose jobs a real problem
Jul 10, 2006
The Straits Times
I REFER to the letters by Ms Lau Li Nah ('Can MOM help sacked pregnant worker?'; ST, June 27) and Ms Ngian Hui Chyi ('Woman on maternity leave replaced by temp'; ST, July 1) and the article 'Pregnant and facing the sack: More seek help' (ST, July 3).
The Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) first noticed in July 2004 an increase in the number of women calling our Helpline with issues surrounding pregnancy while employed.
In June last year, there were letters in the Forum pages from women who had been dismissed while pregnant.
And now, this month, the issue has surfaced again in the Forum pages and as a news article.
In total, Aware has received close to 40 calls or e-mail messages from women or their relatives.
This issue is not going away, and no amount of reassurance by the Ministry of Manpower will change that.
Planning for, having and caring for a baby in today's frenetic society is stressful enough without having to worry about one's source of income being terminated.
For most modern women, pregnancy itself already carries a certain amount of inherent risk.
When a woman is subjected to sudden and extreme stress and emotional upset, as happens when one is summarily dismissed, we can only imagine what further complications may affect the pregnancy and subsequent birth.
Add to that non-existent paternity leave, and a paltry two days child-care leave per year, the husband and father will be back at work long before the new mother is ready to be left on her own to face post-natal depression aggravated by depression caused by the sudden loss of her job.
Last year, Aware convened a focus group discussion on the topic attended by six women and three men.
Two of the women who had lost their jobs due to their pregnancy said they would not want a second child because the experience had been too traumatic.
The sad thing is that although this issue has been raised many times in the past, there does not seem to be sufficient political will to address it adequately.
A case in point is Aware's submission to a government-related agency to obtain funding to conduct a study on Managing Pregnancy And Employment.
After ongoing discussions and negotiations lasting one year, the final response was negative even though Aware had initially been given encouraging signals.
At the very least, a study should first be made to examine the extent of the problem.
Once the issues are understood more clearly, the correct solutions can then be proposed and implemented.
Aware is still going ahead with a scaled-down version of its planned research to achieve this end.
Call 6779-7137 or e-mail [email protected] to participate in the study.
It would be very much in the Government's interest to take concrete steps to address this issue before it affects many more women and their families.
We should not let such discriminatory practices by employers undermine our society's efforts to encourage more women to have more babies.
Tan Joo Hymn (Ms)
President
Association of Women for Action and Research -
Looking from a business point of view, saving costs is important. Employers will have to pay the mothers maternity leave, which amount to 2 months' pay. Whether or not these mothers work from home, they still have to be paid. And what employers are not happy is this issue. If they don't work, why should I pay?
During pregnancy, they have to go for regular checkups, which disrupts work and reduce productivity. All these add up to additional costs of which they can be saved by hiring temporary staff.
The problem started because businesses aren't willing to compromise, seeing this as loss of productivity and additional costs. Although they can hire temporary staff or even foreigners to save costs, this is not a long term solution. As more and more socieities open up, more women are able to work. By practising this, they are drastically reducing their own productivity in time to come, as there are lesser people to handle more work.
PAP did offer some solutions, but how long can they last? Bringing up a baby is lifelong, and it's not cheap, considering everything is on a rise here except pay. -
I think it really means whether a company takes this issue on a macro or micro level and if they view it long term or short term. Of course not many companies have the economic ability to view it on a macro, long term issue.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Looking from a business point of view, saving costs is important. .
Money may be the point of focus when it comes to a company, and for privatised SMEs especially, this is the crux of the entire operation. On this level, it does seem to make little economical sense to pay for a woman's pregnancy period and etc.
The impact of women in the workforce is global. The fact that women can work, contributed hugely to productivity rates as compared to previous eras. Not only that, with women as consumers with independent spending power, they probably work the economics far more than men.
Pregnancy is a natural process for women. It is something that they were born with the ability to do. And seriously, not that many women would utilise this benefit more than 3 times in the course of their entire life. I think this is far fewer than, say, the number of times a man goes for reservice combined together.
It seems strange that the government can subsidise the cost of reservice but can't do enough to subsidise the pregnancy period of women. Without the next generation, there isn't going to be anyone to defend eventually you know? -
hey that is a good observation... why ah? why everything is on a rise here except pay?Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:considering everything is on a rise here except pay. -
Don't give us problems, give us solutions.
-
I feel that it was the additional Time-Out given to women during pregnancy that broke the camel's back.
Before this, we don't really have such issues.
Employers CANNOT help it, because running costs keeps going up!
Why it keeps going up? They say Globalization, oil prices, blah blah...
If costs keeps increasing, implmenting a policy that allows pregnant women more time out from work only add on to overall running costs.
I say bring things back to before, and it would be better for both employers & women employees!
They can't keep trying to meet their objectives at the costs of businesses and people in society! -
There are other more pro family life ways to solve these problems, returning to the past need not necessary be the only and best solution.
We SHOULD move towards family=friendly work environment.
- Creating flexi work hours,
- allowing work@home on a certain number of days
- allowing 'temporary' part time work
- Eradicating the concept that overtime workers are good workers.
these allow both parents to distribute the responsibility of looking after children and doesn't need to compromise the company's productivity. -
Globalization? Foreign talent? I don't know, lots of reasons. Businesses could probably name you more, giving even better reasons.Originally posted by casino_king:hey that is a good observation... why ah? why everything is on a rise here except pay? -
Changing things back may not work. What applies last time may not apply now.
What employers can do is to offer flexible working hours. Women can look after their kids and health and at the same time, work. This doesn't compromise productivity if everything is planned well.
With families getting smaller in this modern world, it's easier to look after the family. Parents from both sides can help to look after as well.
Proper planning from both sides will help in the long term. -
On-site child care centers.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Changing things back may not work. What applies last time may not apply now.
What employers can do is to offer flexible working hours. Women can look after their kids and health and at the same time, work. This doesn't compromise productivity if everything is planned well.
With families getting smaller in this modern world, it's easier to look after the family. Parents from both sides can help to look after as well.
Proper planning from both sides will help in the long term.
I feel it is the whole economic system that we are in, that is making it hard for us to reform it in the first place. -
Yes you're right about it.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Changing things back may not work. What applies last time may not apply now.
What employers can do is to offer flexible working hours. Women can look after their kids and health and at the same time, work. This doesn't compromise productivity if everything is planned well.
With families getting smaller in this modern world, it's easier to look after the family. Parents from both sides can help to look after as well.
Proper planning from both sides will help in the long term.
But, apparently this ideal of being small and easier to manage if well planned, is rarely seen in practice.
Now a days, all that I see are young families with maids. They moved out to live in condos away from parents. Increasingly, more are finding it hard to cope on their own, and if either one loses their job, hot soup is served. -
i think that's becos of environmental changes.
Previously, you can work and leave ur kids in the kampung dont even need to worry. The older kids would look after the younger kids.
Now, the environment is no longer as safe for young kids - both physical and psychological dangers around. The demands to provide more by society can be very pressing - more for education, more books, more games, more enrichment courses - makes it hard for single parent income (unless tt parent earns DAMN a lot). Parents end up feeling they can't provide as much for the child. etc etc. -
Major changes definitely are not easy to implement. Small, minor changes made by businesses are possible. The only thing is whether they want it or not.Originally posted by LazerLordz:On-site child care centers.
I feel it is the whole economic system that we are in, that is making it hard for us to reform it in the first place.