http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/12/17/your-letters-cutting-against-grain.html
The idea of cutting working hours for
women shorter than their male counterparts seems a rash thoughtless idea. To
think that the reason behind the careless statement by VP Jusuf Kalla is to
offer an opportunity for women to care more for their children and family as
their traditional role is even irksome. Noble it might be, yet it amplifies the
mainstream idea that the duty to look after the kids and family is reserved
only for mothers and fathers as a happy go lucky party. It’s like watching “The
Stepford Wives” movie in which the men take the role of traditional wife very
seriously. Men need to realize women are not something they can mold into their
perfect housewife.
As
a woman myself, I beg to disagree with the idea. The policy might be seen as a
strategy to increase women’ productivity as employers often cite child-care
issues as causing more problems than any other family-related issue in
workplace which increases in absenteeism and tardiness. Accordingly, it seems logical
to provide women a way to allocate more time with their family. However, I do
not think such policy can address the problem properly; instead it might
escalate the problem. Worse, it will be burdensome for women instead. My
opinion stems from three basic reasons.
First, we live unfortunately in a society
where both parents have no choice but to work full time in order to make ends
meet. If the responsibility to raise a child properly lies in both parents, a
father and a mother, then the question is why men are not entitled the same
right to care for their kid? In view of this, it is rational only to provide
both parents as much rights and privilege related to family affairs. A father
also needs to spend quality time with his family as much as a mother. Both
parents share this responsibility. Cutting work hours for women will be therefore
deemed discriminatory against sexes. Already, companies provide menstrual and
maternity leave for their female workers. Other than that, men and women are
equal at work; they have the same rights and responsibility.
Second, if implemented it is likely
companies might be reluctant to hire women since they are conditioned to think
that women are less productive than men. While women are increasingly aware to
demand equal treatment with their male co workers in terms of promotion, salary
and other benefits, on the other of side argument this policy offers 'a special treatment' to women which
make the whole affair seem to contradict each other. It is also worthy to note
that job transfer or rotation to other region for married women face many
difficulties which might suggest why companies hire less and less women
eventually.
The ratio of male to female employees can
be used as evidence to capture the magnitude and scope of gender-based
disparities that shows most companies still tend to hire males over females. For
example, in the company I work in, its H & R recruitment policy tend to
maintain a male to-female ratio of 60-40. Out of this figure, 95 percent of its
leaders are males. The male-female figures are remarkably similar in big
companies globally such as Apple, Google, Twitter and Yahoo. Apple’s workforce
consists of 70 percent men and 30 percent females similar with Google. Twitter
reports that 72 percent of its leaders are male and Yahoo says that 77 percent
of its leaders are male.
Third, this effort to protect women will
also have a convenient effect of reducing their overall earnings and providing
another justification for occupational sex segregation by excluding women from
some of the better paying jobs or defining their job differently and as less
valuable within the same factory walls. Already Indonesia experienced a rapid
development of export industries since the 1970s which has significantly
increased women’s participation in the industrial work force, concentrated in
manufacturing, agriculture, trades and service and make up 70-80% of textile
and garment industry. Sadly, most are paid less and experience poor working
conditions despite the Law that guarantee their welfare. Consequently, if this
policy is ever implemented, employers will find ways to put more pressures on
their female workers by cutting their income as every hour means every penny
for them.
Having said so, I personally think
resorting to cutting work hour for women to increase productivity and family
happiness is not the best option. There are many alternatives to choose to
create a work life balance for employees be it for male or female.
In this respect, to guarantee that parents
can care for their kids, the government has an important role to play in
creating the right policy framework for improving women’s access and opportunities
as well as promote work life balance. It is also imperative for companies to
create workplace where the best talent can flourish, male or female, and work
life balance can be achieved. Together they should be able to support policies
which guarantee that various lifestyle support systems are in place for
employees to promote better balance between their work and private lives.
Companies should be encouraged to have
onsite child care facilities to enable parents to stay close to their kids
while they are at work. It reduces the cost and psychological constraints by
commuting miles away from their kids in a city where the nightmarish traffic
jam is the bane of motorists such as Jakarta. Flexitime policy could also be
adopted to provide an alternative for parents to realign their time in
balancing their child care affairs and work without sacrificing their work
hours. Child care and flexitime benefit
the employers who sponsor it by improving employee morale, reducing turnover
and absenteeism, and increasing productivity
In addition, companies should also support
a healthy work-life balance programs such as setting times to turn off all
lighting at the head office when the work hours end, setting overtime work
reduction targets, promoting 5 minute-early leave times and programs for employees
to finish their work early, including leaving office on time. Now that there is
a slowly growing corporate understanding that employees respond better to
greater control over when they clock in and out and what matters is the
outcome, not the hours a task takes. That, plus a combination of
technology and the growth of the knowledge economy, is initiating even greater
change. Microsoft, for instance, under the slogan "Any time any
where", allows working from home while Unilever advocates "agile working".
All these policies aim to create a work life balance that guarantees not only
personal welfare but also happiness.
Obviously, there are many alternative ways
to increase workers productivity and happiness, instead of putting in a place
another discriminatory policy. Countries and companies can
be competitive only if they develop, attract and retain the best talent, both
male and female Let’s
start with happier and more productive employees, and not with creating perfect
beautiful caring housewives as in Stepford Wives.
No comments:
Post a Comment