What used to be the nuclear family is now, typically, the single mother
or double income parents(also see single parent
dads). However, the changes in family structure
and patterns have not yet been fully acknowledged as a priority in this
country. Basic needs such as child care are not being met (see
crisis).
Compared to most other industrialized countries, the US falls short on its
policies regarding family issues. For example, in Sweden (like many other
European countries), the government provides day care for children too you
for school. And parental leave following childbirth and is paid at 90% of
the wages of one parent for nine months, with benefits for three more months
(NY Times, August 20, 1995; Scar et al., 1989). Swedish parents may also
take an unpaid, but job-protected, leave until their child is 18 month old
and may work a six-hour day unitl theirchild is eight years old (Scar et
al., 1989). The point is that the US has the means to provide more options
for parents and child care, just as Sweden and other industrialized countries
have. (New Jersey is one exception in that some money for child care is
provided, but it is still not enough (NY Times, August 20, 1995.)
The policy that the US has on this issue is that of Parental Leave (read
as 95% maternal), but it does not relieve any economic burdens associated
with child care because any leave taken from work is unpaid. Parental Leave
fails to take into account certain social and physical aspects of this issue.
For example, physical and psychological needs of mother and newborn are
not met, because a mother is expected to return to work right after childbirth;
rest, breastfeeding routines, etc. are necessary after birth (Scar et al.,
1989). The time for parental leave is also inadequate.
Staying home with children is an option for two kinds of families: those
with enough money to skip a second income, and those with practically no
money and therefore no choice--in other words, welfare mothers (see better
care impacts). Since care must be found for children of parents that cannot
stay home, what are the choices?
Child care facilities cater mostly to middle- and upper-class incomes. There
is a direct corellation between cost and quality, of course (see better
care impacts). High quality care constitutes a low child-caregiver ratio,
a smaller group environment, and trained caregivers (Scar et al., 1989).
It is difficult for some parents to feel assured of the level of care, even
if it is high quality, because they cannot leave work to experience the
facility (see better care impacts). But a lot of
parents rely on home and "underground"/unregistered child care:
relatives, friends, nannies, and au pairs. The quality of care in homes
varies, obviously, since these caregivers are untrained (most, anyway).
Some settings offer positive developmental and emotional support, while
others are negligent and abusive. This puts an added strain on parents concerned
about their child's well-being (and I'd guess most are).
Aside from making sure a child is in "proper" care, is the task
of finding care in the first place. Parents are mostly on their own to hunt
for, choose, and pay for a baby-sitter, nanny, or small nursery in a home
or a bigger center. This process can last for weeks and months for some.
Instinct is indispensible. Word-of-mouth seems to be the way to go for a
lot of parents. There are organizations, profit and non-profit, which dispense
lists of caregivers as well. The government gives lists of nannies and their
agencies. There are nanny networks that can inform parents about the nannies
and then assign the "most-suited" nanny to a family (NY Times,
August 20, 1995). (An interesting aside: "Eighty percent of all nannies
in this country are illegals or au pairs", said Bob Mark, president
of a placement agency called America's Nannies in Paramus (IBID). The highest
number of nannies are from the Carribbean, Ireland, and Poland, according
to Ms. Grimes and a number of parents (IBID).) Whatever their homeland,
foreigner nannies generally tend to accept less pay than would homelander
nannies. But it should be said that for any caregiver in the US, wages for
caregiving are considerably low and offer little in the way of "advancement"
(see care as enterprise). There are also co-ops that
provide daycare, but generally only with part-time working parents; days
of work alternate with days of giving care to the children in the co-op
"house". This kind of collaborative care can be a great source
of social and economic development for communities that really need it;
costs can be lower, wages higher, quality better, and alienation less (see
care as enterprise; day care).
How are companies responding to these issues, aside from complying the the
parental leave law (see better care impacts)? (Unions
are also addressing this issue (see unions adressing
care). Some are offering flextime and on-site daycare. Time needed
to tend to children or family may be taken off. Working hours can be arranged
to fit the schedules of parents. On-site facilities provide child care during
working hours; parents can spend time with their child during lunch, for
example, because they're closer. As long as the job gets done, companies
which provide these services to their workers are happy.
However, there are workers who do not have children that are unhappy. "More
than 20% of workers polled by Hewitt & Associates, an employee benefits
consulting firm, said they are made to assume more responsibilties and work
longer hours to cover for parents taking time off with their children"
(Rocky Mtn. News, June 17, 1994). Some childless workers feel companies
are sympathetic to workers with children more than they are with those that
are childless (IBID). Workers who don't have kids have to compensate for
the work and hours that parent workers left behind; and for those who don't
need or want the extra hours, this is not a good thing. In other words,
there is more value put on children than there is on personal needs in general
(IBID). Childless workers feel companies should consider their needs just
as much as parent worker's needs. The Childfree Network, an organization
for non-parents which claims 2500 members in 33 states, was created in response
to this issue (IBID). A few companies are trying to address this: Corning,
Inc. grants leaves of absence for personal projects such as volunteer work,
and the Kodak Co. grants leaves for "a compelling personal need or
education" or "a unique personal experience" (IBID). Implementing
programs to accommodate childless employees' need for personal time should
be better for parents, too. If all the personal time off is extended to
parents, many employers will practice subtle discrimination against prospective
employees with children (IBID). No family ties makes for more work time.
In sum, child care must be made a priority in this country. Most working
parents cannot afford private care and must make do with whatever resources
are available to them. Many are pushing for subsidized child care (see subsidizing
care), since wages, costs, quality, and availability of care are so
inconsistent and burdonsome. Those able to afford private care or collaborative
care could continue to do so, while those not able could take advantage
of subsidized care. Either way, working families need choices.