Work Life Balance: It’s the Law!
August 29, 2008 by Cherie Burbach
Filed under Parenting
Here’s something I never thought I’d see. Some new legislation in Australia is being geared towards the balance of career and kids. According to The Age online:
“Employers will have to ensure that they do not “unreasonably refuse” to adjust their working arrangements to accommodate the family or carer’s responsibilities of staff, whether this occurs by allowing them to work from home or job-share or work irregular or part-time hours.”
If employers don’t do this they can be brought up on charges of discrimination.
I’m not sure how I feel about this, actually. While I highly support employers offering their workers ways to deal with family and career, I don’t exactly think legislation is the way to go about it.
My viewpoint, of course, comes from someone that was single for a very long time. While I didn’t have kids to pick up at day care I did have family I took care of. None of my employers let me leave right at five because of that. None of them cared because in their eyes I wasn’t really dealing with family issues just because I had to go home and make dinner from my grandparents or mothers. I was single, and that’s how they viewed me.
I didn’t try and compare myself to the folks with kids, because I know how hard it is. But in looking at my previous work experience, I can’t help thinking that my situation would have been even worse under this legislation. I worked long hours in the past in part because I was single. There’s no doubt in my mind about it. And while I don’t argue that folks with families have a devil of a time juggling, I can’t help wondering how employers will begin to look at singles in the workplace with this kind of legislation. What exactly constitutes “family responsibilities that need assistance” in the form of working from home or advanced equipment?
In an ideal world, I suppose an employer uses common sense to help workers deal with family and career. But, as my husband loves to say, common sense isn’t all that common. In the absence of common sense, do we then need to put forth legislation? What’s the best way to get companies to be more realistic about the demands of their worker’s personal lives?
I’d love to hear your opinions on this one.
Unfortunately, just from the article, you don’t get to see what is actually spelled out in the law as to what constitutes “family.”
Unfortunately, I do not agree with you. Unfortunately, in that I believe what you say is right and that in an ideal world, there would be no reason to have legislation such as this. However, sadly this is not the case.
We, as employees are (usually) not viewed as anything more than “expenses.” We are no longer people, we are a number on a page, and our jobs are based solely on a cost benefit ratio. Now, I am in no way saying a corporation doesn’t have the right to make money, of course they do, but there was a time that employees were viewed as assets. Something that helped a company run. You did what you had to do to keep a good employee. Now? Loyalty lasts only until the next 10K statement hits and whether or not some board members stock options are valuable enough to exercise, otherwise… boom!
So, yes I do think that these things need to codified into law, voluntary measures are meaningless most of the time.
Thanks for your thoughts. My fear is that by legislating what constitutes mandatory family time and extra benefits, it puts undue stress on other people who either don’t fall into the “spelled out definition of a family” or are single. I don’t think anyone should be punished at work just because they don’t have a family, or have different obligations that don’t fall under the protection of legislation.