Stuff like this, while done with good intentions, can threaten to entrench discrimination by having different sets of rules and expectations for people based on their gender. A better solution would be to give 12 extra holiday days per year to everyone, but make it known that it's acceptable to take them under those circumstances.
More people needs to understand that fighting sexism isn't to give females a "better"deal or consideration. It's to ensure there's no discernable difference in treatment. It could be taken to far with unisex toilets, but i don't affirmative action is going to help fight sexism at all.
Men don't get a day of pain and cramps each month so I don't see why we should get the day off. Periods aren't fun, and I don't think men deserve a day at the golf course in exchange.
The point is that they can still. Whatever the standard for taking time off work for illness it should apply equally to both genders so there should never be any need for a separate rule/law.
It's a tricky one, but on the whole I'm against 'positive' discrimination. It's still discrimination, it can still create contempt and undermine hard work (they're only in that job because they're [a], a smarter [b] probably didn't get the job, etc.)
It applies to maternity/paternity leave too. Until maternity and paternity leave are required to be equal by law, there will be a bias against hiring women, due to the simple mathematics. If the 'risk' is equal for a man or a woman, the bias is eliminated.
Even if men and women are given the same amount of leave, there are still two problems. First, social norms lead to men and women not using it equally. Second, single individuals don't have equal access given that society has a significant gender disparity in single parents, that men can't get pregnant, and that even if the leave is equal for adoption, there is still discrimination in adoption.
Neither do women who are done menstruating. So employers should hand out a questionnaire to all the women asking who still gets their period? I mean, that's a pretty normal question to ask your coworkers, I'm sure HR would be cool with it.
This is way, way easier to just implement as one extra sick day per person per month.
But there are number of health conditions that either gender can get that are rare and lead to many days of significant pain. Some even can result in bleeding similar to periods. Do we given these issues their own days off for those unlucky enough to have them? Or is it only counted in sick leave?
Which tends to be accounted for in either general leave or more specialized sick leave. The idea of giving people more beyond this because of biological processes they cannot control raises the question of how we decide which biological processes deserve extra leave.
Because if you don't, it gives companies a reason to not hire women.
Employer: "Hmm... we have two candidates for the job, both equally qualified, but we'll have to give 12 extra days off a year to one of them but not the other. Which one do we hire?"
> Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs.
> Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.
May as well link some script from the Life of Brian to demonstrate that you can identify (gender) as a woman if you are a male but where's the foetus going to gestate (sex).
But you're right. A number of people I've spoken to about parental leave (not all of whom have been men) are skeptical of paternity leave because they largely see maternity leave as an opportunity to recover from the physical and medical hardships of child birth, with emotional bonding merely an ancillary benefit. Even if that's true, creating gender independent norms avoids giving ammunition to the quietly sexist eye-rollers who use maternity leave to devalue female coworkers. While it would be better to just make a quantum leap to the ideal world where no one holds those opinions in the first place, existing cultural norms and beliefs naturally constrain policy on a pragmatic level and we have to work within those constraints as best we can.
It's funny to see these fumbling efforts toward those goals by companies from a different culture than my own, though. I can't imagine even the most politically naive and insensitive American manager suggesting this idea, outside of a Michael Scott from the Office type parody. Is it because we tackled basic issues with women in the workplace earlier than India because we modernized faster? Like is this the sort of idea bumbling Dilbert-esque middle managers in corporate America proposed during the mid-70s? Or is there some underlying difference in cultural taboos about discussing periods? I have to confess that India is one country where I am not very well informed about the culture on the ground as I haven't spent any time there.
Throwaway because no one wants to hear about periods. I am a woman and one time my body decided to have an extremely heavy and painful flow for about a week straight. I had been sick with a cold immediately before that, so I had already let my employer know that I was not feeling well and would be taking some days off, and I did not feel the need to tell my employer every little detail about what was going on. Every morning I would text something along the lines of, "I'm still not feeling well."
After about the third day of being out my boss texted me with a suggestion that I go see a doctor. When I finally got back to the office he wanted to see a doctor's note. I did not go to the doctor, because more extreme bleeding is something that is expected after having an IUD inserted.
I was at home in extreme pain, changing out adult diapers about 3 times a day that were completely soaked with blood. I think this 100% is a good enough reason to not come into work, and it's sort of bull that my boss was asking about my personal business when we are already a company that combines sick days with vacation days as PTO.
I actually did fill my boss in on all the gory details since he wouldn't let up on the doctor's note, but this is absolutely something that I should NEVER have to disclose to someone to be able to keep my job.
I don't really have a good solution here. I want the 12 extra holiday days for everyone solution to work, but there will always be people abusing their limited amount of power to unnecessarily investigate what we are using our PTO for.
It's perfectly reasonable for a manager to request a doctor's note if you say "I have a cold and will not be in for a few days" and then you are out for 6+.
According to [1], people are contagious for about one week, starting from one day before they feel any symptoms. It is actually more productive to send the sick people home (or let them work at least part-time from home) to prevent others from getting sick and also having to take time off.
I've been fortunate enough to work in environments where this was acknowledged and practiced, but I'm always dismayed when hearing from friends/relatives who are required to put in their "time of presence" and get half of their coworkers sick.
[Edit] Last point: for the common cold (virus), there's no need for a doctor visit, yet you still need rest and symptom control with OTC meds.
I'm not saying people should work when they're sick. I've sent folks on my team home against their will because they were obviously coming down with something. And the flu is very different from a cold.
I'm just saying that when there is an extended absence from work, it's reasonable that your employer request a note. Now maybe 6 or 7 work days doesn't meet the definition of extended for some people, but for me it does.
And as stated elsewhere, this is not about a nosy manager getting their employee's health information. This is about a manager exercising their right to know that the employee is not at work for a legitimate reason. I've had these types of notes before, and they typically just have a date range of when you should not be in the office.
If your vacation days and sick days are combined into a limited pool which you can use up I completely agree with you, but I think that concept is the real problem.
In Sweden for example, vacation days and sick days are separate, and up to a week, the employer is required to pay you during sick leave, and after that social security (equivalent) kicks in. This obviously doesn't use up your vacation days (where employers have no business in knowing what you're up to), but as for sick days it's not unreasonable to (have the option to) ask for validation for your absence.
I agree that employers (should) have no authority to know anything that's between you and your doctor, but I think it's also reasonable to have some verification (a note from doctor not specifying what the ailment is?) that you weren't just taking time off on the employers dime.
Having a period does not require a visit to the doctor. Should I have brought in the bloody adult diapers as documentation?
Ideally I would have used "vacation days" for this if they were separate at my workplace, but they often require requesting the time off ahead of time, which is not really possible when you have an unexpected period from hell and you have no idea how long it will last.
> Having a period does not require a visit to the doctor. Should I have brought in the bloody adult diapers as documentation?
I know, neither does being out cold with the flu for a week, but the person footing the bill is still reasonably entitled to some form of verification (regardless if this is the right approach in terms of good will or not) that you were unable to work (at least on location). Don't you agree?
I don't think your doctor would need verification for that note, diapers or otherwise. I assume it could be handled by phone.
In Germany at least you get three instances of a sick note:
- One for your health insurance, which lists the diagnosis, duration, etc.
- One for your employer which only gives the days you are unable to work
- One for yourself with all the info as well
This neatly solves the problem that you have to tell your employer anything that only concerns your doctor (they're not allowed to ask either).
And my work contract states that I can take leave for any personal reason if needed for up to two days, but after that a doctor's note is required. So in the instance of a period from hell that would make me unable to work, yes, a visit to the doctor is needed, if only for bureaucratic reasons.
> And my work contract states that I can take leave for any personal reason if needed for up to two days, but after that a doctor's note is required.
That might be the case in Sweden as well, I don't remember. Since I started contracting I've only been my own employer, and I'm the best boss I've ever had, so it hasn't been a problem.
Your employer is not entitled to your health information, but they are entitled to proof that something legit is happening. A doctor's note would say something like "dontflamemebro will require medical leave for 4-8 days. Love, Doc Brown"
I was in so much pain that I could not move. Over the counter pain medicine did not touch it. Getting out of the house to go to an unnecessary doctor's visit was out of the question.
Obviously too little too late but a phone call to the OB would have had the note prepared for you, possibly even sent to your employer after the fact. My wife received one when she had her IUD removed that was for the day of the procedure and 1-3 days after (obviously they could have extended the dates if she was in a great deal of pain).
Here's a couple more details that were omitted from the story. My boss at the time was an extreme evangelical christian and my OB is Planned Parenthood. I am an atheist and I was not open about that at work because I was afraid that telling the truth would hurt my chances of promotion. Bringing in a note from Planned Parenthood to my extremely traditional boss would not have gone over well. Even though Planned Parenthood offers so many more services, a lot of people only see it as an abortion clinic.
I totally get your point, and from a capitalist perspective the solution of the media company in the article dis-incentivises hiring women as a dollar per hour of work metric instantly makes hiring a woman less cost effective.
I've seen comments like men don't have the day of pain, so don't "need the holiday" but these people obviously don't own a business or pay other peoples wages. When you are a small business you ensure that you hire people based on the maximum return on investment based on skillset and deliverables. If you have 2 identically skilled and equally hard working employees but one works 12 days less per year and gets the same money, you would hire the one who delivers 12 extra days. If you ignore the sex of the applicants and it was down to a purely financial decision (as it always should be in business, especially publicly traded businesses) then you would be neglecting your responsibilities if you hire someone who costs more and delivers less.
The solution may be simply allow flexi-time. Each member of staff must fulfil X number of hours per week, month, year or whatever slice you decide, and when its performed is up to them. This wouldn't work with List-X or restricted sites, where work must be performed on site, but for something like a media company I'm sure you could work from many suitable locations.
The problem with this logic is that you would never hire a woman, for fear that they could get pregnant and become "unreliable" for 9 months, and completely unavailable for the duration of their maternity leave (while having to keep their job position unfilled).
It's far better to apply some humanity to the equation and just give everyone those extra 12 days off (and (mat|pat)ernity leave), so you're not tempted to discriminate off the "productivity loss".
Im not saying its humane, or just, or right. Its business.
The reason you point out is exactly what has happened in the past. In fact my mum used to work for a company that straight up fired any female staff in the secretary pool which got married to protect themselves from exactly the losses you speak of.
Luckily we don't live in that world anymore (40 years ago). And we are working to reduce the dis-incentives of hiring women over men. Im living in the UK where recently paternity and maternity leave are inter-changable and can be split between parents. entitling men to equal leave to women to reduce the incentives of hiring men over women.
There are all kinds of times when people become less productive. Im never advocating never hiring a woman, only that whatever benefits you apply to one act as a hiring dis-incentive unless applied by law to both.
Its economics, not ethics.
> Im not saying its humane, or just, or right. Its business.
I'm sure the same was said about slavery too.
Society had some tolerance for unethical behaviour, but you'd want to hope that it improves overtime. One such way is when a business does the uneconomical thing, but gains good will and recognition.
There is a HUGE difference between forcing someone to work for no money, and expecting an equality of pay and sick leave based on a persons sex.
My whole argument was that in small business where the financial bottom line is tight and every saving makes the difference between success and failure, by introducing discrimination such as this initiative, it actually dis-incentivises the hiring of women. HENCE, in order to establish a balanced workplace it is in your best interests to NOT introduce factors which make hiring men more cost effective. If you believe in equality, then the only solution is "whats good for one is good for all". otherwise you create a situation where you end up incentivising the opposite objective to what you were trying to achieve.
Slavery isn't, to be fair, such a huge leap when the comment being responded to disregards fairness and morals in favor of "Its business".
Many things are done in the name of business which have no place in a moral society - some forms of slavery included. How many people are in a form of indentured servitude these days? Or in so much debt from the cost of living as to make no real difference?
Oh, sorry to double reply, but I just thought of something devious. What if any of the following apply to the female employee:
Is on birth control to supress having a period.
Has an IUD and is one of the 1 in 5 for whom this stops
Having periods for a year.
Has had a hysterectomy.
Has gone through menopause.
Has another condition which causes them to not have periods.
do they have their 12 days ripped from them unceremoniously?
It seems like there are a lot of edge cases here which may provide additional areas to cry "sexism" because for the cases listed above they wont require the 12 extra days, yet without having intimate medical knowledge of your staff, you cannot differentite between one type of non-period having staff member and another (in the "other" case a male).
in any case I'm glad they've done it as a case study on what happens next.
Question for the women ou there: Do you perceive this as a magnificent idea or as implying women have a periodic weakness that impacts their performance every month?
Do you think this sort of policy feeds into wage gap stuff, or fights against it?
As a reasonably feminist guy, I can't decide how to feel about this. It seems like it's implying women can't work one day of every month, and also seems like a great idea because dealing with office folk while in pain is not fun.
Do you think a policy like this works better (only?) in a predominantly female company?
hey, personally I do feel really bad in the first day and when I need to go to work I always think "I wish I could stay at home and work from there", so it really impacts my performance and from one side it is indeed a great idea, but it is sexism towards men - they also feel bad from time to time, so why not unify this practice for all and just give more paid day-offs / sick leaves, as was already mentioned in the comment above. Also, I am not very comfortable letting everyone in the company know when the period starts and gossip about that (yes, this is also a topic for gossip).
Not sure how to feel about this; but I also don't consider myself a women who suffers heavily under period symptoms.
If I feel bad enough that I can't do my work properly, I would simply leave, periods or not. (Normal paid sick leave - this is relatively easy in my country.) It has only happened once since I started working full time five years ago, that I was in so much pain from periods that I had to leave work. (And that was after taking two painkillers and even those didn't help.)
I certainly think a policy like this would feed into wage gap issues - it would definitely be unfair to pay the same amount of money to two employees, when one of them potentially works 12 days more in a year.
It sounds plausible that it would work better in a female dominated company -- I would rather suck up the pain than deal with stupid remarks of my male colleagues because they know I'm on my periods...
In general, I think women grow up with having to deal with their periods and the symptoms since childhood/teenage years, so it's just a normal part of life for us. Sure, some women have it way worse that others, but I'd say 90% can cope with it without problems and don't need extra holidays.
Though I do like the idea of giving those women in bad pain the opportunity to work from home! It doesn't necessarily help with the symptoms, but at least one can sit somewhere comfortable in PJs with a warm water bottle, which makes it a lot more bearable IMO.
As a woman whose period symptoms are not currently severe, but were for several years...
I used to have one morning per month when I could barely move from the pain and the naproxen I took to make it bearable would prevent me from concentrating on anything more complicated than children's cartoons. But I stumbled into work and faked productivity anyway because I only got 10 days of PTO - vacation and sick days combined - every year. If I'd taken time off to deal with menstrual pain, I would never have had a vacation at all.
And I'm a lucky one. My menstrual symptoms were only moderately severe, and they usually eased by mid-afternoon. Given flexibility, I would probably have worked remotely, taken a couple hours off in the morning (only answering urgent communications), and worked a couple hours later in the evening to make up for it (instead of bolting out of the office at 5pm sharp because being there sucks even harder when you're bleeding like a stuck pig and your intestines are revolting against your OTC meds and you generally feel like you've been hit by a bus).
Probably 25-30% of women (even without additional medical conditions like PCOS) have more severe symptoms than I did. I do think it's valuable to take menstrual problems into account and I would appreciate a workplace that is sympathetic to women who suffer severe menstrual symptoms.
But I hate that this particular proposal creates gender differences in the workplace. Yes, it feeds into the wage gap and into reluctance to hire women. It also creates weird medical privacy issues as several other posters have pointed out.
The right solution probably involves some combination of schedule flexibility; remote work; more sick days for everyone, not just women who happen to menstruate; and separating sick days from vacation days.
Now I'm wondering if you consider it sexist against men, who are denied this benefit. Or against women, who are (once again) stereotyped as weak and unreliable?
I guess the answer is "both". But I can't shake the feeling that this is actually much worse for women than it is for men.
In principle, I don't even have a problem with some groups getting a few more days off, or other special arrangements. Some countries have rules for minority religions, for example, allowing them to celebrate their respective holidays. But I can't really imagine any women thinking that this would be a good idea.
It's sexist as it gives people an advantage based on their sex. This is unfair for:
* women who are in pain more than one day a month because of their periods
* men who have prostate troubles or other illnesses exclusive to men
And it gives an unfair advantage to:
* women who aren't in pain during their periods
* women who have their period less than once a months (for example because of the Pill)
The criterion to get the day off shouldn't be "are you women?" but "are you in pain?". They probably chose the former because they think it correlates that much.
interesting. If this ever became law, it would incentivize hiring men over women because you'll get 5% less value out of hiring a woman employee.
the math: lets assume that there are 260 working days in a year. women get 12 extra holidays per year for their periods, which means they only work 248 out of the 260 days. 248/260 = 95.4%.
Maternity leave in theory has the same disadvantage, as generally women take this more than paternity leave (though I think that's changing) - it can be combatted by public denigration of companies that consider men to be preferable hires on the basis of lower risk of disruption and lower costs.
>it can be combatted by public denigration of companies that consider men to be preferable hires on the basis of lower risk of disruption and lower costs.
Was this said in sarcasm? I feel like it was, but I'm not a good judge of when sarcasm is used.
Sick leave? As far as I know that's exactly what it's for. It also has the benefit of not discriminating whether it's period cramps, migraines, a broken leg, food poisoning, or depression.
EDIT: I'm German. Sick leave is completely separate from vacation days here and not limited (although you get less money after six weeks because your health insurance takes over from your employer). Generally I find that one of the only acceptable solution to the problem at hand. Giving half your employees extra days off is a bad idea, conflating vacation and sick leave is a bad idea, and forcing employees to come to work when they're unable to is a bad idea.
Speaking for myself (as a standard US employee with a "progressive" HR, I mean Human Asset Management dept), I get 0 sick days. I get three weeks (15 days) which is supposed to be for both vacation and sickness. Someone who can't work two days a month would either be fired or be taking leave without pay, and never able to take paid vacation.
I feel very sorry for you and others in your position to hear that.
the UK has some very forgiving policies on sick leave (https://www.gov.uk/taking-sick-leave). in fact you don't even have to provide a doctors note if you take just a couple of days off.
Yes, but taking sick leaves with such regularity is frowned upon. I know I would frown upon if I were a boss. On the other hand I recognize that women simply have more parts within the body - more things to break and hurt - and 2 hours of inspired work are worth much more than 2 days of just showing up in pain.
This viewpoint is amazing. It's so brilliantly obvious that it's an American saying this statement due to the horrible laws that are so far in favour of the business it's not funny.
In Australia (for example) where I am, annually we have 20 days of leave and 10 sick days by law. Those sick days are available for use for any personal issue be it period pain or mental health. I understand in Europe the leave schedules are event more in favour of the worker we're by no means progressive with the levels of leave we provide.
My suggestion, while obviously extreme (flexible scheduling as mentioned elsewhere in this thread would be a much more reasonable 'solution') wouldn't fly in the USA as nobody takes their holiday days anyway!
American here. This approach is not common in the US, but it's not totally unknown either. It also addresses issues where people may prefer to take different holidays off based on religious preferences. One person might take Hannukah and another might take Christmas, etc.
I don't know where this idea that Americans don't take their vacation time came from, but it is 100% wrong in my opinion. I have coworkers that have had negative PTO balances for months. Whether with PTO or holidays, I try to get at least one 3-4 day weekend each month. I take least one 2-week vacation every year. Everyone I've worked with over the past decade, with rare exception, is the same.
A friend of mine is a (non-computer) engineering executive and has a particularly generous PTO package of 200 hours a year with a 400 hour rollover cap. He keeps a bank of about 250 hours in case he needs them, but other than that he's using it as fast as he gets it. This in addition to the 12-14 holidays he already gets.
Most professional employees in the US get a total of 26.5 or more days off a year, including holidays and sick leave.[0] Obviously the number goes up as tenure at the same firm increases. Blue collar workers are also well above 5 days a year total. The rub is probably in what types of businesses are excluded from this table (almost nobody in the restaurant business gets any PTO, for example).
But implying that the average yearly leave is 0-5 days including sick time is just flat out wrong.
Europe by and large doesn't know the concept of "sick days". When you get sick, you stay home. If you get cancer, you stay off work for a year if necessary.
In my country, there's a system to reimburse companies for their costs after a certain number of sick days–3 weeks I believe. That protects smaller companies, who might otherwise get into serious trouble if, say, one of three employees can no longer work but still gets a salary.
Of course there are trade-offs involved. It does cost some money, and it does add a bit of bureaucracy. Some abuse may also happen, although by and large it's rather low–there are some 'social' control mechanisms, and the data pretty clearly shows that absenteeism is directly linked to employee satisfaction.
Why not give women 12 extra days of work from home (when applicable) for a year and see how it goes rather than setting up different rules for different genders? Or am I missing something here?
There is no shame in that, given that it is well defined. For instance. In almost all sports you have a male and a female devision. Just based on pure strength or something.
Call it what you want. There ARE differences in various humans. Some are male, some are female, some have kids, some don't, some have two legs, some don't, etc.
Want to give them all equal chances? Listen to what they can and experience and get them to listen to each other for mutual respect.
I'm not saying this isn't a reason to try your proposal, but you may not be aware that for a significant minority of women, period symptoms can be severe enough to make work difficult or impossible, even from home.
Severe headaches. Cramps so severe you can't think or sit upright unless on enough painkillers to make your brain nothing but fuzz. (Even OTC painkillers like naproxen that are commonly taken for cramps can affect concentration, not to mention having extremely unpleasant effects on digestion.)
Yes, when you're changing tampons every hour, it's less anxiety-inducing to be in the comfort of your own home. But most of the reasons women tend to take sick days during menstruation aren't solved by working remotely.
I get what you're saying. Without being overly pedantic, the following are my concerns:
1) Assuming there are 265 working days in a year, extra 12 days of leave would reduce the work value done by 4.5%. Would this somehow lead to discrimination?
2) Can you really quantify the amount of distress a person is in during their periods? Some women might be in quite the pain and some might be pretty much ok. Again, this differs from person to person. Under this assumption, is it ok to give all the women a day off?
3) How would you know that the person utilizing this is actually physically capable of menstruating? Eg: People who went through Hysterectomy or Oophorectomy and or any other medical reasons.
2 and 3 are why adding more days of sick leave for everyone is a better solution than "period days".
1 is a reason why remote work as needed should be offered as an option (not just for women). I'm just pointing out that it doesn't fully solve the problem.
Nobody is going to take advantage of this because "Oh btw, I'm on the rag so I won't be in today" isn't exactly the message you want to broadcast to your coworkers.
Then there will be the people who take advantage of this on Mondays and Fridays leading into long weekends.
Then everyone will hate the policy.
Then they'll extend the extra 12-days to everyone because you can't take back something like this when you market it this way.
Then nothing will get done on Mondays and Fridays leading into long weekends.
Geez. Completely wrong direction (and probably just marketing) with underlying sexism.
Female here. Just want to state that it is not nearly as bad for most women most of the time. And effects vary quite a bit, quite a few even get an energy push around day one. (Disclaimer: Your or your friends' mileage may vary.)
In an ideal world where employer and employee trust each other it would be a great option for women who need it (not all women do) and a right thing to do. In the real world, where the level of trust is low, and sexism (both male and female) has become an extremely toxic topic, I don't see how this can work. Maybe only in small family-type companies.
92 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 175 ms ] threadIt applies to maternity/paternity leave too. Until maternity and paternity leave are required to be equal by law, there will be a bias against hiring women, due to the simple mathematics. If the 'risk' is equal for a man or a woman, the bias is eliminated.
This is way, way easier to just implement as one extra sick day per person per month.
Employer: "Hmm... we have two candidates for the job, both equally qualified, but we'll have to give 12 extra days off a year to one of them but not the other. Which one do we hire?"
Based on their sex.
http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html
> Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs.
> Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.
May as well link some script from the Life of Brian to demonstrate that you can identify (gender) as a woman if you are a male but where's the foetus going to gestate (sex).
http://montypython.50webs.com/scripts/Life_of_Brian/8.htm
But you're right. A number of people I've spoken to about parental leave (not all of whom have been men) are skeptical of paternity leave because they largely see maternity leave as an opportunity to recover from the physical and medical hardships of child birth, with emotional bonding merely an ancillary benefit. Even if that's true, creating gender independent norms avoids giving ammunition to the quietly sexist eye-rollers who use maternity leave to devalue female coworkers. While it would be better to just make a quantum leap to the ideal world where no one holds those opinions in the first place, existing cultural norms and beliefs naturally constrain policy on a pragmatic level and we have to work within those constraints as best we can.
It's funny to see these fumbling efforts toward those goals by companies from a different culture than my own, though. I can't imagine even the most politically naive and insensitive American manager suggesting this idea, outside of a Michael Scott from the Office type parody. Is it because we tackled basic issues with women in the workplace earlier than India because we modernized faster? Like is this the sort of idea bumbling Dilbert-esque middle managers in corporate America proposed during the mid-70s? Or is there some underlying difference in cultural taboos about discussing periods? I have to confess that India is one country where I am not very well informed about the culture on the ground as I haven't spent any time there.
After about the third day of being out my boss texted me with a suggestion that I go see a doctor. When I finally got back to the office he wanted to see a doctor's note. I did not go to the doctor, because more extreme bleeding is something that is expected after having an IUD inserted.
I was at home in extreme pain, changing out adult diapers about 3 times a day that were completely soaked with blood. I think this 100% is a good enough reason to not come into work, and it's sort of bull that my boss was asking about my personal business when we are already a company that combines sick days with vacation days as PTO.
I actually did fill my boss in on all the gory details since he wouldn't let up on the doctor's note, but this is absolutely something that I should NEVER have to disclose to someone to be able to keep my job.
I don't really have a good solution here. I want the 12 extra holiday days for everyone solution to work, but there will always be people abusing their limited amount of power to unnecessarily investigate what we are using our PTO for.
According to [1], people are contagious for about one week, starting from one day before they feel any symptoms. It is actually more productive to send the sick people home (or let them work at least part-time from home) to prevent others from getting sick and also having to take time off.
I've been fortunate enough to work in environments where this was acknowledged and practiced, but I'm always dismayed when hearing from friends/relatives who are required to put in their "time of presence" and get half of their coworkers sick.
[Edit] Last point: for the common cold (virus), there's no need for a doctor visit, yet you still need rest and symptom control with OTC meds.
[1] http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/how-long-flu-contagious
I'm just saying that when there is an extended absence from work, it's reasonable that your employer request a note. Now maybe 6 or 7 work days doesn't meet the definition of extended for some people, but for me it does.
And as stated elsewhere, this is not about a nosy manager getting their employee's health information. This is about a manager exercising their right to know that the employee is not at work for a legitimate reason. I've had these types of notes before, and they typically just have a date range of when you should not be in the office.
In Sweden for example, vacation days and sick days are separate, and up to a week, the employer is required to pay you during sick leave, and after that social security (equivalent) kicks in. This obviously doesn't use up your vacation days (where employers have no business in knowing what you're up to), but as for sick days it's not unreasonable to (have the option to) ask for validation for your absence.
I agree that employers (should) have no authority to know anything that's between you and your doctor, but I think it's also reasonable to have some verification (a note from doctor not specifying what the ailment is?) that you weren't just taking time off on the employers dime.
Ideally I would have used "vacation days" for this if they were separate at my workplace, but they often require requesting the time off ahead of time, which is not really possible when you have an unexpected period from hell and you have no idea how long it will last.
I know, neither does being out cold with the flu for a week, but the person footing the bill is still reasonably entitled to some form of verification (regardless if this is the right approach in terms of good will or not) that you were unable to work (at least on location). Don't you agree?
I don't think your doctor would need verification for that note, diapers or otherwise. I assume it could be handled by phone.
- One for your health insurance, which lists the diagnosis, duration, etc.
- One for your employer which only gives the days you are unable to work
- One for yourself with all the info as well
This neatly solves the problem that you have to tell your employer anything that only concerns your doctor (they're not allowed to ask either).
And my work contract states that I can take leave for any personal reason if needed for up to two days, but after that a doctor's note is required. So in the instance of a period from hell that would make me unable to work, yes, a visit to the doctor is needed, if only for bureaucratic reasons.
> And my work contract states that I can take leave for any personal reason if needed for up to two days, but after that a doctor's note is required.
That might be the case in Sweden as well, I don't remember. Since I started contracting I've only been my own employer, and I'm the best boss I've ever had, so it hasn't been a problem.
I've seen comments like men don't have the day of pain, so don't "need the holiday" but these people obviously don't own a business or pay other peoples wages. When you are a small business you ensure that you hire people based on the maximum return on investment based on skillset and deliverables. If you have 2 identically skilled and equally hard working employees but one works 12 days less per year and gets the same money, you would hire the one who delivers 12 extra days. If you ignore the sex of the applicants and it was down to a purely financial decision (as it always should be in business, especially publicly traded businesses) then you would be neglecting your responsibilities if you hire someone who costs more and delivers less.
The solution may be simply allow flexi-time. Each member of staff must fulfil X number of hours per week, month, year or whatever slice you decide, and when its performed is up to them. This wouldn't work with List-X or restricted sites, where work must be performed on site, but for something like a media company I'm sure you could work from many suitable locations.
It's far better to apply some humanity to the equation and just give everyone those extra 12 days off (and (mat|pat)ernity leave), so you're not tempted to discriminate off the "productivity loss".
Luckily we don't live in that world anymore (40 years ago). And we are working to reduce the dis-incentives of hiring women over men. Im living in the UK where recently paternity and maternity leave are inter-changable and can be split between parents. entitling men to equal leave to women to reduce the incentives of hiring men over women.
There are all kinds of times when people become less productive. Im never advocating never hiring a woman, only that whatever benefits you apply to one act as a hiring dis-incentive unless applied by law to both. Its economics, not ethics.
I'm sure the same was said about slavery too.
Society had some tolerance for unethical behaviour, but you'd want to hope that it improves overtime. One such way is when a business does the uneconomical thing, but gains good will and recognition.
There is a HUGE difference between forcing someone to work for no money, and expecting an equality of pay and sick leave based on a persons sex.
My whole argument was that in small business where the financial bottom line is tight and every saving makes the difference between success and failure, by introducing discrimination such as this initiative, it actually dis-incentivises the hiring of women. HENCE, in order to establish a balanced workplace it is in your best interests to NOT introduce factors which make hiring men more cost effective. If you believe in equality, then the only solution is "whats good for one is good for all". otherwise you create a situation where you end up incentivising the opposite objective to what you were trying to achieve.
Many things are done in the name of business which have no place in a moral society - some forms of slavery included. How many people are in a form of indentured servitude these days? Or in so much debt from the cost of living as to make no real difference?
Is on birth control to supress having a period.
Has an IUD and is one of the 1 in 5 for whom this stops Having periods for a year.
Has had a hysterectomy.
Has gone through menopause.
Has another condition which causes them to not have periods.
do they have their 12 days ripped from them unceremoniously?
It seems like there are a lot of edge cases here which may provide additional areas to cry "sexism" because for the cases listed above they wont require the 12 extra days, yet without having intimate medical knowledge of your staff, you cannot differentite between one type of non-period having staff member and another (in the "other" case a male).
in any case I'm glad they've done it as a case study on what happens next.
There may have been good intentions ...
Do you think this sort of policy feeds into wage gap stuff, or fights against it?
As a reasonably feminist guy, I can't decide how to feel about this. It seems like it's implying women can't work one day of every month, and also seems like a great idea because dealing with office folk while in pain is not fun.
Do you think a policy like this works better (only?) in a predominantly female company?
If I feel bad enough that I can't do my work properly, I would simply leave, periods or not. (Normal paid sick leave - this is relatively easy in my country.) It has only happened once since I started working full time five years ago, that I was in so much pain from periods that I had to leave work. (And that was after taking two painkillers and even those didn't help.)
I certainly think a policy like this would feed into wage gap issues - it would definitely be unfair to pay the same amount of money to two employees, when one of them potentially works 12 days more in a year.
It sounds plausible that it would work better in a female dominated company -- I would rather suck up the pain than deal with stupid remarks of my male colleagues because they know I'm on my periods...
In general, I think women grow up with having to deal with their periods and the symptoms since childhood/teenage years, so it's just a normal part of life for us. Sure, some women have it way worse that others, but I'd say 90% can cope with it without problems and don't need extra holidays.
Though I do like the idea of giving those women in bad pain the opportunity to work from home! It doesn't necessarily help with the symptoms, but at least one can sit somewhere comfortable in PJs with a warm water bottle, which makes it a lot more bearable IMO.
I used to have one morning per month when I could barely move from the pain and the naproxen I took to make it bearable would prevent me from concentrating on anything more complicated than children's cartoons. But I stumbled into work and faked productivity anyway because I only got 10 days of PTO - vacation and sick days combined - every year. If I'd taken time off to deal with menstrual pain, I would never have had a vacation at all.
And I'm a lucky one. My menstrual symptoms were only moderately severe, and they usually eased by mid-afternoon. Given flexibility, I would probably have worked remotely, taken a couple hours off in the morning (only answering urgent communications), and worked a couple hours later in the evening to make up for it (instead of bolting out of the office at 5pm sharp because being there sucks even harder when you're bleeding like a stuck pig and your intestines are revolting against your OTC meds and you generally feel like you've been hit by a bus).
Probably 25-30% of women (even without additional medical conditions like PCOS) have more severe symptoms than I did. I do think it's valuable to take menstrual problems into account and I would appreciate a workplace that is sympathetic to women who suffer severe menstrual symptoms.
But I hate that this particular proposal creates gender differences in the workplace. Yes, it feeds into the wage gap and into reluctance to hire women. It also creates weird medical privacy issues as several other posters have pointed out.
The right solution probably involves some combination of schedule flexibility; remote work; more sick days for everyone, not just women who happen to menstruate; and separating sick days from vacation days.
I guess the answer is "both". But I can't shake the feeling that this is actually much worse for women than it is for men.
In principle, I don't even have a problem with some groups getting a few more days off, or other special arrangements. Some countries have rules for minority religions, for example, allowing them to celebrate their respective holidays. But I can't really imagine any women thinking that this would be a good idea.
* women who are in pain more than one day a month because of their periods
* men who have prostate troubles or other illnesses exclusive to men
And it gives an unfair advantage to:
* women who aren't in pain during their periods
* women who have their period less than once a months (for example because of the Pill)
The criterion to get the day off shouldn't be "are you women?" but "are you in pain?". They probably chose the former because they think it correlates that much.
the math: lets assume that there are 260 working days in a year. women get 12 extra holidays per year for their periods, which means they only work 248 out of the 260 days. 248/260 = 95.4%.
very interesting indeed.
Thus I don't think it'd be a problem.
Was this said in sarcasm? I feel like it was, but I'm not a good judge of when sarcasm is used.
but manual labour might hedge towards male employment, that's true.
but giving them 2 extra days to take at their leisure isn't a bad idea imho.
but then that would lead to less pay in some instances.
EDIT: I'm German. Sick leave is completely separate from vacation days here and not limited (although you get less money after six weeks because your health insurance takes over from your employer). Generally I find that one of the only acceptable solution to the problem at hand. Giving half your employees extra days off is a bad idea, conflating vacation and sick leave is a bad idea, and forcing employees to come to work when they're unable to is a bad idea.
the UK has some very forgiving policies on sick leave (https://www.gov.uk/taking-sick-leave). in fact you don't even have to provide a doctors note if you take just a couple of days off.
In Australia (for example) where I am, annually we have 20 days of leave and 10 sick days by law. Those sick days are available for use for any personal issue be it period pain or mental health. I understand in Europe the leave schedules are event more in favour of the worker we're by no means progressive with the levels of leave we provide.
My suggestion, while obviously extreme (flexible scheduling as mentioned elsewhere in this thread would be a much more reasonable 'solution') wouldn't fly in the USA as nobody takes their holiday days anyway!
A friend of mine is a (non-computer) engineering executive and has a particularly generous PTO package of 200 hours a year with a 400 hour rollover cap. He keeps a bank of about 250 hours in case he needs them, but other than that he's using it as fast as he gets it. This in addition to the 12-14 holidays he already gets.
But implying that the average yearly leave is 0-5 days including sick time is just flat out wrong.
[0] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs.t05.htm
In my country, there's a system to reimburse companies for their costs after a certain number of sick days–3 weeks I believe. That protects smaller companies, who might otherwise get into serious trouble if, say, one of three employees can no longer work but still gets a salary.
Of course there are trade-offs involved. It does cost some money, and it does add a bit of bureaucracy. Some abuse may also happen, although by and large it's rather low–there are some 'social' control mechanisms, and the data pretty clearly shows that absenteeism is directly linked to employee satisfaction.
Call it what you want. There ARE differences in various humans. Some are male, some are female, some have kids, some don't, some have two legs, some don't, etc.
Want to give them all equal chances? Listen to what they can and experience and get them to listen to each other for mutual respect.
Severe headaches. Cramps so severe you can't think or sit upright unless on enough painkillers to make your brain nothing but fuzz. (Even OTC painkillers like naproxen that are commonly taken for cramps can affect concentration, not to mention having extremely unpleasant effects on digestion.)
Yes, when you're changing tampons every hour, it's less anxiety-inducing to be in the comfort of your own home. But most of the reasons women tend to take sick days during menstruation aren't solved by working remotely.
1) Assuming there are 265 working days in a year, extra 12 days of leave would reduce the work value done by 4.5%. Would this somehow lead to discrimination?
2) Can you really quantify the amount of distress a person is in during their periods? Some women might be in quite the pain and some might be pretty much ok. Again, this differs from person to person. Under this assumption, is it ok to give all the women a day off?
3) How would you know that the person utilizing this is actually physically capable of menstruating? Eg: People who went through Hysterectomy or Oophorectomy and or any other medical reasons.
1 is a reason why remote work as needed should be offered as an option (not just for women). I'm just pointing out that it doesn't fully solve the problem.
Then there will be the people who take advantage of this on Mondays and Fridays leading into long weekends.
Then everyone will hate the policy.
Then they'll extend the extra 12-days to everyone because you can't take back something like this when you market it this way.
Then nothing will get done on Mondays and Fridays leading into long weekends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_synchrony
Female here. Just want to state that it is not nearly as bad for most women most of the time. And effects vary quite a bit, quite a few even get an energy push around day one. (Disclaimer: Your or your friends' mileage may vary.)