Today, we celebrate Labor Day. It’s a day set aside to, among others, honor our nation’s workforce, although to many workers, Labor Day has degenerated simply as another item in the list of holidays. This day must be important — the President chose to maintain May 1 on a Thursday, even on the face of the clear provision of the law that Labor Day must be scheduled on a Monday nearest May 1.
Now, even if today is Labor Day, let’s assume for a moment that you’re the owner or manager of a certain business and that at least half of your total workforce consists of women, say 50 woman employees. Let’s also assume that at least 5 (which could be a modest estimate) of these woman employees get pregnant and give birth — all normal deliveries — within the same year. Let’s assume, further, that the work performed by these 5 women employees are crucial and indispensable to the day-to-day operation of your business.
Under the existing law, each of these 5 workers is entitled to a maternity leave, with pay, for a period of sixty (60) calendar days. That’s a total of 300 days, or almost a year. During that time, you’ll have to devise a way to cover the work ordinarily performed by these 5 employees. You add to the load of other employees or hire contractual employees for the duration of the maternity leave. You spend more to pay for the contractual employee, while at the same time paying the salary of the 5 employees (subject to reimbursement by the SSS). You also lose the level of competence and efficiency of these 5 employees with respect to the tasks they’re respectively handling.
Imagine the 60-day maternity leave being extended to 120 days. Right now, House Bill 3973, which is an “act increasing maternity leave benefits from 60 days to 120 days or four months,” is pending in Congress.
If you’re an employer, you’d most probably oppose this bill. On the other hand, if you put yourself in the shoes of those 5 woman employees, you’ll most likely support the bill.
Now, let’s assume that you’re a member of Congress. What’s your vote? And why?
Related posts:
by batang buotan
01 May 2008 at 08:08
My vote will be NO.
I have nothing against women. My mother and sisters are career women and will greatly benefited with that 120 days maternity leave. However, in tough times, I also need to consider the plight of employers. Most of working women employed in the country are categorized as SME’s. Thus, the proposal will certainly affect their operations. In effect, these companies will no longer be interested to hire married women. I think the 60 days maternity leave is already enough. Okay, 90 days will be fine but 120 days is too much. The domino effect of that proposal must also be considered.
Again, I highly regard women and have been supportive to their plight but I insist that I am reasonable for NOT supporting this bill. Not this time.
by goimon
01 May 2008 at 09:21
lets give everything what women want…. or else we will not hear the end of it
by chay
02 May 2008 at 14:37
the constitution upholds the rights of women. it gives privileges to women workers especially to pregnant women being considered special class of workers, with regard to their capacity to work compared to men.
the bill would he heplful to women, but i think extending the period is not that neccesary. i believe women who raise a family, especially single moms need not longer vacation after the delivery.
i suggest an amendment to the bill. instead of extending maternity periods, why not afford them the privilege to hire nannies or yayas with the aid of the government/ company where the mother is working, in paying the wages of the nannies.
i think it is a win-win situation. when working moms will be aided with nannies, they will able to attend their jobs 60 days after, thus no impediment on company or work operations. it will also be an answer to the increasing unemployment rate of the country.
in terms of nannies’ salary, the government or the company will include it in the benifits afforded to their women workers who had served the gov’t or the company for considerable years. lawmakers with the help of medical experts will determine the duration of the service of the nanny for salary budgetting purposes.
with working women back to work after 60 days, more tasks will be done and accomplished. the company will surely gain a lot, or the government would have lesser paperworks to take care. plus, it will create slot for unemployed filipinos.
i know this suggestion is somehow new and undetailed. but for me, this one would better help women as well as their respective bosses. i am open for any argument or discussion on this matter. i have more ideas on the case at bar, but i don’t know how to lay them down. indeed, this is my first time to suggest such an amendment.
thank you guys for stimulating my brains to work today…
by enneagram
02 May 2008 at 15:39
My vote as a mom and as an HR practitioner is a YES. The existing 60 day maternity leave is without pay considering that the SSS will reimburse the employer a daily cash benefit or income in case of normal delivery and 78 days in case of caesarian delivery.
I cannot imagine a mother who is breastfeeding a child during the 4 months critical period will opt to feed the child with breastmilk substitutes and to leave the child to a nanny or substitute parent because she has to return to work after 60 days.
Recovery from post-partum blues and bonding with a newborn baby takes time and i believe that 4 months or 120 days will be reasonable enough considering the difficulties of childbearing, childbirth and breastfeeding.
Education on “Shared Responsibilities” with the husband or partner is also critical in this stage. A person would not understand that mothers need mothering too unless experienced in real life.
by Atty. Fred
02 May 2008 at 16:10
@chay, you proposed that instead of the extended number of days, mothers should be given “the privilege to hire nannies or yayas with the aid of the government/ company where the mother is working, in paying the wages of the nannies.” Maybe this would defeat the purpose of the law (which is to give the mother and the baby more time to bond). Just a thought.
@enneagram, your points are well taken. These points could be the reason why maternity leave in other countries are longer than 60 days. On the other hand, as an HR practitioner, do you think this proposal will have a negative impact on the company (as discussed in the main article) and women in general (as discussed by Batang Buotan above)?
by pourus
02 May 2008 at 17:29
This bill may be more disadvantageous to women in the long run. Most likely, would be employers would more than ever likely prefer male applicants to female applicants. Even if this could be blatant discrimination and is of course prohibited by law, suing a case for such would be a tedious process and not everyone, in fact I think most of those discriminated against, won’t bother suing for such.
by orbil17
02 May 2008 at 22:04
I agree with pourus. If the bill will be enacted, it might cause a disadvantage to women as would-be employers would opt to hire men (who will only have the 7-day paternity leave) than women. For a smart and sensible business owner, he would find it more reasonable to hire men as the paternity leaves granted to them are very short, not like with women, of which, they do not only have long maternity leave periods, but they could even avail of this leave benefit for a maximum of four times. I’m pretty sure that such absences will not only financially constraint the business owner by paying the substitute, but it will greatly affect the production of his company as well. Thus, as I reiterate, they might just discriminate women.
by enneagram
03 May 2008 at 10:40
On the contrary, based on my experience as HR practitioner, employers tend to hire women because of time tested qualities such as being more responsible, more analytical and inclined to be more multi-tasking than male counterparts. Childbearing and childrearing should not be a hindrance to employers in hiring women, albeit these are important qualities that women have to prove that women are more capable of doing several tasks at the same time.
Employers should not be too discriminating and must provide equal opportunities to applicants, men or women, young or old, physically normal or physically challenged as long as qualified.
Without our mothers who took good care of us when we were helpless newborn babies, we will not be here actively participating and intelligently discussing in this forum.
I admit of being subjective on this matter, but as a soon-to-be mother, a daughter and an employee, I also understand the plight of women in this chauvinist world.
Peace!
Happy mothers day!!!
by kikay
04 May 2008 at 14:31
well as a woman i would vote for the passage of this bill, for after all, being a mother is one tedious task..so i gez extending the leave would both be beneficial to the mother and baby…in other countries the maternity leave are up to 1yr, if i’m not mistaken s norway yta gnun..so i salute d author of this bill for considering the welfare and health of the mom and baby..
by alexi
05 May 2008 at 15:26
Atty. Fred, thank you for posting this topic. Enneagram gave very convincing arguments and I tend to agree with her propositions, not only as a woman but as an individual who recognizes that the first months after giving birth are the most important times for a mom and a child to bond. On the other hand, I also understand the other point of view, that of the employer. Here in our office, where most of the new lawyers are women, and most of the secretaries are women, we do feel the full impact of maternity leaves in terms of office organization and efficiency. Given the competencies of these women, they are virtually irreplaceable in the workplace. That said, we make do with the situation and always manage to survive. I do note, however, that despite the big number of women in the office, they do not conceive and give birth at the same time.
I vote to pass the bill. Despite the possible backlash — in the form of hiring policies that would be anti-woman, I believe that the concerns of the employer should take a backseat to the welfare of the family. While the effects of a longer bonding time between mom and baby may not be felt immediately, I believe that in the long-run, the benefits of hands-on parenting would be felt. With more cared-for children, this could only mean better things for the Philippines. At bottom, this is not about workers’ rights. This is about the deteriorating care of our children, and the negative impact this brings to the welfare of the child. UNICEF reports that infant deaths have been steadily growing because of the increasing number of working women, and the consequent failure to breastfeed regularly and on time; the failure to detect otherwise curable sicknesses at an early stage; the failure to provide babies the needed vaccines; check-ups; and the like. This alarming situation would hopefully be mitigated by the passage of the bill.
by sensei
05 May 2008 at 17:21
I will vote in favor of the bill.
While there may be some economic compromises on the part of the employer as it will be required to adjust or plan its manpower requirement, I agree with Alexi and Enneagram that there are still intangible benefits that will accrue to the employer at the end of the day.
Pingback
by Extension of Maternity Leave Sought: What about Pinoy Dads? | PinoyDad.com
05 May 2008 at 18:23
[...] not really the reason why this post is written (but if you really want to argue, please go to this related post). We all know there are legitimate reasons why maternity leave is longer than paternity leave (yes, [...]
by Riza Tan-Bautista
07 May 2008 at 10:21
I am favored to extend the maternity leave,as i hv experiencing right now.I want to get bonded to my child with longer period of time cause i could not overcome my postpartum depression while my child is on other care eventhough my child left on my in-laws.I could not concentrate on my work and keep on thinking hows my child nursing of.
by goimon
07 May 2008 at 18:42
ive always said that laws in favor of women are both hypocritical and unconstitutional…. words… equal protection clause…. yes there exists substantial distinction between males and females.. but i believe that whatever benefits women could obtain from this distinction is effective waived by women when various equality laws took effect in favor of women…
kung e-extend yung maternity leave, paternity leave should be extened as well.. but for me such move is useless and reckless
by sigmundfreud
08 May 2008 at 00:58
Some lawyers are either psychologically fixated during early childhood or are really having identity crisis now… Laws that benefit women equally protect men when families and society are concerned. We need more lawyers to defend rights of women and advocate social justice rather than become traditional power- hungry members of the bar.
by Atty. Fred
08 May 2008 at 03:54
enneagram, women are indeed better in many aspects, which, unfortunately, also means that the impact of their extended leave would definitely be felt by the employer.
Alexi said “despite the big number of women in the office, they do not conceive and give birth at the same time.” This is a very interesting point. Perhaps the authors of the bill, with the facilities and powers of Congress, have the relevant statistics. I also wonder if they provided a proviso exempting small companies (like the existing provisions exempting those with less than 10 employees from certain benefits) or is this necessary? I understand the benefits of extending the time spent together by the mother and the baby, for I have a child. Still, we could not close our eyes and pretend that there’s no impact on the employers (killing the goose that lays the golden egg, as it were). It’s a fine balancing act and perhaps the authors would be gracious enough to give us the statistics for our enlightenment.
by alexi
08 May 2008 at 13:04
For our law office alone, Atty. Fred? Sadly, only a handful of our women lawyers marry and bear children. For non-legals who are of child-bearing age, there are about 100 of them, and only 1 or two give birth at any given time.
by kuma
16 May 2008 at 09:13
My answer is a yes. Mothers need time to be with the baby to build the bond, to breastfeed she needs to stay at home. I think employers have to promote better living standards and the better conditions offered in a contract is likely to get better quality emploees. Even thought the maternity leave might be long, but overall the company builds an image it cares. What about extending the maternity leave to dads too, but to a shorter duration than that to mom, that’s effective in helping to cope with new borns at home.
by Kara
19 May 2008 at 06:35
women should be given more paid days for maternity leave to bond with the baby and for herself to physically and mentally get back and get ready for the work place. Dads by no means should be excluded in this discussion.
by enneagram
15 Jun 2008 at 04:34
Happy fathers day to atty fred and atty sensei…to all the best dads in the world!
To all lawyer fathers… May the force be with u this day and all the days of ur lives…
by 031674
21 Jun 2008 at 14:09
in favor. in first world countries, maternity leave lasts as long as two years. I think the reason is obvious. a child needs his mother in the most critical period of his life.