Governor Schwarzenegger Vetoes Families

Last year, at the California Governor's Conference on Women, Maria Shriver sat on stage chatting with the Dalai Lama. As she talked, he paused, squinted, then pulled a baseball cap out from his robes and placed it squarely on his head. The stage lights were in his eyes.

Governor Schwarzenegger might want to borrow that cap to keep a low profile at this year's conference Tuesday, October 23. He may want to avoid speaking to 11,000 fired-up women after he vetoed a collection of family-related bills last weekend.

Maybe he won't show up. Maybe he'll send along a note with his wife Maria that...there's been a death in the family.

Oops, that won't work. He vetoed a bill that would have finally guaranteed unpaid bereavement leave for California employees.

Maybe he'll avoid coming by saying he needs to care for his mother-in-law.

Nope, that won't work. He vetoed bills to expand California's unpaid leave and employee-funded paid leave programs so that employees could take leave to care for in-laws, siblings, grandchildren and grandparents, or adult children with serious illnesses.

I know, maybe he'll send his regrets saying that while Maria is running the conference, he needs to care for their four children.

Sorry, that won't work either. He vetoed a bill that would have prohibited discrimination based on familial status. So his boss (I guess that would be us) can tell him, "Sure, I know other people take days off for lots of reasons, but caring for the kids? That's your wife's job. We need you at work."

Governor Schwarzenegger may not understand how pervasive this type of discrimination is. Mothers are far less likely to be hired than fathers or men and women without children. Mothers' starting salary offers are thousands of dollars less. Members of our national organization, Mothers & More, tell us about hiring managers that question their ability to commit to both their jobs and their children. They tell us stories about being passed over for promotions because the manager presumed - without asking - that they wouldn't want to travel or relocate.

Our members also tell us stories about their husbands. Fathers are told, directly or indirectly, that taking leave for a new baby is really just for mothers. They tell us about fathers who know that while others knock off early to go golfing, they will get dinged on their evaluation if they leave early to pick up the kids.

This isn't a "business is the bad guy" thing. The stereotypes that lead to this type of discrimination are usually subconscious. Our collective beliefs about mothers and fathers are so deep; people don't even realize they are acting on them.

That's precisely why this anti-discrimination bill would have been good for business. Businesses are getting sideswiped with lawsuits. In an attempt to clarify things, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently issued guidelines. They said federal laws don't prohibit discrimination based on family caregiving responsibilities. However, some employment actions against caregivers are illegal, some of the time, under several different federal laws. A clear state statute would tell employers exactly what they are responsible for and make them aware of a problem that operates on a subconscious level among managers.

Even with the EEOC guidelines, employees need this bill because not everything is covered. Derek Tisinger, a firefighter in Bakersfield, California who is a single parent with custody of his three children, was passed over for a promotion. His boss told him "he didn't want to hear this garbage" about having to pick up his kids after school and wrote a memo directing him to "make arrangements for other persons to take your children different places."

Derek sued for discrimination. The final appeals court said a jury could easily conclude that Derek had been discriminated against based on his need to care for his family. But since that wasn't illegal, Derek lost.

Nothing in this bill required employers to give special treatment to parents or other caregivers. Nothing in this bill required employers to change their job requirements. All it would have done is make clear to employers and employees that it's not okay to steer mothers into lower paid jobs because people assume mothers aren't as committed. It's not okay to pass a mother over for a promotion because you presume she won't want to travel.

And this bill would have said it's not okay to tell a father that taking care of the kids is his wife's job so he can't take a day off look after his four children.

So Governor Schwarzenegger, as your boss, we'll be glad to let you use a day of leave to take care of your kids while Maria runs this conference. As long as you make sure the rest of us can do the same.

Comments

[Alessan]

Most of the time there needs to be two paychecks for a family in order to make ends meet, because housing, utilities, food and clothing is so expensive. But even that hasn't helped people who took out the subprime loans because the prices of homes are simply just overpriced. Problem is two paychecks are not necessary for the investment bankers, they need only one paycheck per family, because the pay is usually six figures. So obviously Arnold doesn't live in the real world and thinks every man is a millionaire and his wife can and stay home and take of the kiddies. Also, single women shouldn't have children, wake up he's a neo-con, and the people of California only have themselves to blame, electing a republican governor, who doesn't care about people.

[joebaggadonuts]

The issue is who can run against him and win. Focus.

[lthuedk]

A candidate whose father fought the Nazis would be a good start. A candidate who would never allow a Christian mercenary army to grow and flourish in the state of California would be another.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I'm split on this, I think your employer should
be willing to be somewhat flexible, but anything
that results in chronic absenteeism and
still results in a paycheck deserves closer
scrutiny and evaluation for merit.

You go to work to do stuff for your manager/
employer which will ostensibly make money
for the institution which employs you,
private or public or otherwise. Anyway,
you sign on to work someplace, basically
promising, 'Ill be there 40 hours a week
until or unless something comes up, that's
your half of the bargain, and twice a month
your employer says 'you did a good job of
that, come back next week', in the form
of a paycheck. That's the Basic Deal.
When you start getting into 450 pages
of labor contract per person, this and that
special exception, condition, whatnot and
so forth, you're nailing down both parties
and taking away their flexibility. If one
of your close relatives dies, I'd say that'd
be a good time to say 'fuck the job', and
go hang out with the 'fam and be there for
them. When all that is over with, then
go apply/re-apply and get the work thing
happening again. Some things are life-altering
events, some aren't, and there's a lot of
people out there Looking For A Good Excuse.
Especially if it's a taxpayer-funded excuse,
it fully deserves to be challenged and discussed
and only approved on a case-by-case basis.
I don't want a job with a lot of perks, I want
a job that pays 3k/month so I can take care
of my OWN perks, thanks, that'll also let
me drop my 2 weeks' notice if/when I feel
like it and not have to have the Paris Peace
Talks to get out the door, there. I think the
so-called 'at-will' arrangements are some of
the best. 2 weeks is diplomatic, though, on
both sides of the labor/management table...

[Libsrule]

I read the bills and they were fairly simple and straightforward. The governor simply went along with big business that is working overtime to get rid of every single law that helps families in their eternal quest for more and more and more and more money.

Having an employee with a family is the single most hated thing by employees. They want someone they can run into the ground and discard the second that employee gets married or has a family that needs him/her.

This is about pure greed and profit and nothing else.

Arnold is just another rightwing whacko who sees money over everything else.

The root of all evil is the love of money and American corporations simply cannot get enough money to make them happy and they never will. More and more of our national economy is falling into fewer and few hands because of bills like this and the bigger ones out of D.C.that give and give and give to corporations and piss on the worker.

This is the sort of thing that causes revolutions.

You DO understand Flossie what Marie meant when she said "let them eat cake"?

When told that the citizens were so poor they had no bread to eat anymore, she laughed and said there is no problem, just tell them to eat cake instead"

She lost her life over that and while I do not advocate killing anyone in corporate America, one can understand the compulsion to make these son of a bitches pay and pay and pay someday.

But as long as they control the government and the government controls the police it will take a while to get that power back.

[sandhi]

Libs,
Being an avid reader of Antonia Fraser, I knew that M. Antoinette never said "let them eat cake," I found the following excerpt for you:

-Say what you will about her, Marie Antoinette never uttered the words "Let them eat cake." We have it on the authority of biographer Lady Antonia Fraser, who spoke on the subject at the 2002 Edinburgh Book Fair.

Though historians have known better all along, it is still popularly believed that Marie, wife of Louis XVI and queen of France on the eve of the French Revolution, uttered the insensitive remark upon hearing peasants' complaints that there wasn't enough bread to go around. It is simply not true. "It was said 100 years before her by Marie-Therese, the wife of Louis XIV," Fraser explains. "It was a callous and ignorant statement and she [Marie Antoinette] was neither."-

[Fairfloss]

There is that old line, "You can please all of the people, all of the time," but when you can't please a far left liberal "all of the time," there is a price to pay. A full on personal attack.

Threaten the governor with hordes of woman, poor working woman, is known to scare the ba-geesh out of most men.

How closely have you read this bill he vetoed? Why did he veto it? Did you do some "honest" research? Or are you just throwing a tantrum because you didn't get your own way?

Thinking you are entitled, no matter what, seems to be the thought da jour.

Thinking you can jump on the feminine power wagon at every turn is sadly, only going to set woman back.

Pick your battles carefully ladies. It could be a long war.

[BlackJAC]

He said as he demanded that all forms of birth control be outlawed. Talk about wanting it both ways. "Help Wanted: No Parents Need Apply," huh?

[avergejoe]

Hey, he signed the school gay anti-discrimination bill.
That's all we care about.