Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 23, 1998)
C0MTACHH6 8? NEWSROOM: ADDRESS: (541)546-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald E-MAIL: P.O.BOX 3159 ode@oregon uoregon edu Eugene. Oregon 97403 ONLINE EDITION: ww uoregon edu/-ode Perspectives EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Sarah Kickler EDITORIAL EDITOR Mike Schmierbach NIGHT EDITOR Laura Cadiz U.S. fails to care for mothers A recent report indicates the United States fails to mandate adequate maternity leave or to protect the rights of pregnant women <s> he United States has usu ally prided itself on being different from the other nations of the world. Even in this age of increasing glob alization, the U.S. government insists on calling itself the world's last super power. Unfortunately, when it comes to social services and employment benefits, the United States is different. Unlike most in dustrialized nations, the United States consistently imposes policies that place life’s burdens solely upon the workers. This trend is exemplified by our treat ment of working mothers, as shown in a recently released report by the Interna tional Labour Organization. The report examined maternity benefits in more than 150 nations. Of those, over 120 mandate paid mater nity leave, including most industrialized nations, according to the report. Left off the list — none other than the United States. U.S. law requires employers at compa nies with more than 50 workers to pro vide at least 12 weeks of unpaid leave. While admirable for being gender neutral, this mandate is far short of being an effec tive childcare provision. The problems with current legislation are numerous. Most signifi cant, of course, is the unpaid nature of the leave. Many women cannot af ford to take 12 weeks off work without pay; the re port indicated that all women who opt not to take leave do so because of the cost. Some individual com panies and states do provide paid leave. Until this is universally mandated, how ever, many of those who can least afford the lost pay will be the most likely to suffer under the current law. After all, it is usually lower-paying jobs, such as those in the service industry, that are unwilling to provide paid leave and other employment benefits. Women who work in these jobs usually don’t have sufficient savings to take time off or to pay for alternate childcare. There are other problems with materni ty benefits in the United States and worldwide as well. Among the difficul ties cited in the report is a lack of job se curity. According to The Associated Press, women who take time off to have chil dren are not guaranteed they won’t lose their job, be placed in a lower position or sacrifice the opportunity for promotion. In addition, women who continue to work while pregnant are often subject to discrimination when they are passed up for advancement or are moved away from publicly visible positions. Although U.S. law does provide some protection, provisions should be added that guarantee women will not suffer job discrimination of any kind because of pregnancy. Such laws exist in almost 30 nations, according to the ILO report. Another problem many women face is an inability to find childcare when they do return to work. Even if women are al lowed to take paid time off and keep their current positions, they are often unable to return to work because they cannot afford care for their infant. President Clinton has made some pro posals that would improve this situation, but until these are approved and more steps are taken, lack of childcare will re main a form of workplace discrimination against parents in general and mothers in particular. Finally, a lack of health care protection specifically tailored to pregnant women and families with young children is trou blesome. Universal health care that in cludes prenatal care would come close to solving this, but such a proposal is a long way off. For now, clear regulations requiring businesses to protect the health of moth ers while on the job, as well as childcare facilities that include both prenatal and infant care, would serve to allow women to continue working without risking their health or the health of their children. Overall, the United States needs to in troduce a range of federal mandates that would improve maternity benefits and function to dramatically reduce discrimi nation against pregnant women. Doing so would make us stick out at the interna tional level not because we mistreat our workers, but because we protect them. That is the sort of international leadership role we ought to be fdling. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial Ixtard. Responses may be sent to ode@oregon. uoregon edit LETTERS TO THE EDITOR OSPIRG budget large After being mildly harassed by an OSPIRG volunteer today, I was glad to see this dinosaur of student orga nizations — second only to the ASUO Executive in funding — is fi nally doing something with their gargantuan $147,000 allocation of student incidental fees. Their “pesti cides kill" campaign (etymological ly redundant, no less) is virtuous, and I greatly respect their efforts, but do agendas like these really cost such a heaping wad of cash? Their Streamwalk initiative is one I fully support as well, but can some thing of this nature cost that much more to organize? I thought these were volunteer organizations; how much could their stipends possibly pay? And do posters and sidewalk handouts really cost that much to print? I can’t imagine they do ... Like I mentioned, out of all stu dent groups, only the ASUO Execu tive gets more money. OSPIRG gets more in student fees than the Emer ald, the Women’s Center, Student Legal Services, the Oregon Marching Band and numerous other programs that are much more visible and use ful to the campus community. How does a volunteer organiza tion such as OSPIRG justify such an enormous budget? I agree with many of OSPIRG’s objectives; I just don’t see how $150,000 per year in stu dent money helps it to do them any better. Andy Combs Political science Evaluations informative As a freshman, I have been explor ing possible fields of study and look ing for good professors and courses. I found choosing classes for fall and winter term to be a matter of sched uling by class times, not according to instructor or class quality. Asking other students about their previous course experiences generated the most helpful feedback, although I couldn't always find someone who had taken the classes I was interest ed in. With the help of the “Professor/Course Evaluations” book, I can find out what other stu dents thought about every class on campus as well as the quality of the professors teaching them. Hopefully, this information will also help other students in deciding which courses to take for spring term. Helen Stockl in-Enright Intern, ASUO legislative team Thumbs TO U S. DISTRICT i JUDGE THOMAS j HOGAN: In a decision that j makes perfect legal j sense to us, Hogan j declared the line- I item veto unconsti- j tutional. The veto j allows the presi- j dent to slice so- j called “pork," or j district-specific | spending, from any j bill. President Clin- j ton exercised it against a few pro- ! posals passed by ! Congress last year, and the groups who were affected brought suit. Now Clinton can appeal to the Supreme Court; we hope it finds the same way Hogan did and continues to main tain the separation of powers called for in the Constitu tion. TO VOTERS IN MAINE: In a recent special election, voters ap proved a Christian Coalition-backed proposal to repeal the state’s protec tion of the rights of homosexuals. We have always ar gued that provi sions that ensure gays and lesbians receive equal treat ment are not only fair but also neces sary in a discrimi natory society. This represents a disappointing vic tory for the forces of fear and igno rance. TO MARK ANDERSON: The Arizona state legislator had the gall to suggest that a woman who sought state help in caring for her children should in stead consider finding a new hus band for the finan cial benefits such a move might incur. Clearly, this man is both ignorant and offensive.
