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.

wow... slavery? really? strawman much?

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.

But doing that doesn't get the same PR credit for fighting sexism, and it costs a whole lot more money, so "what's the point?"

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.

13 would be closer to the average ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That does seem like a good system.

> 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.

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.

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+.

Yet it's counter-productive.

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 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.

I did not specify that I had a cold to my employer. The entire time I said I did not feel well but did not provide details.

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.

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.

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.

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 all woman.

They don't have to take the day off then.

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.

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?"

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?

I feel that the workplace should attempt to accommodate any and all medical conditions.

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.

Reminds me of a company in a country I won't name that celebrated International Women's Day by giving each female employee a bouquet of flowers.

There may have been good intentions ...

Or allow flexible scheduling around periods.

> based on their gender

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