The Roberts article gave a history of Black women’s relationship to the welfare system. Since welfare is now more in the hands of the states, restrictive laws (such as family caps) were able to be put into place. Roberts believes that welfare laws impact Black women the most because of their position at the bottom of the economic ladder, and she thinks that many Americans don’t support welfare because it primarily helps Black families. Contrary to popular belief, she thinks that welfare doesn’t encourage reckless reproduction, state aid doesn’t cause dependence, and marriage does not end children’s poverty.
I was shocked that certain states actually have family caps. It seems very invasive and authoritarian. I don’t think welfare encourages women to have more children, so they shouldn’t be punished if they accidentally (or even plan) to get pregnant. Since the American government considers welfare a gift, not a right, once you become dependent on the state, you forfeit privacy and certain personal liberties. You essentially become a ward of the state, which is probably supposed to discourage use of social services.
Sharon Hays discussed both the positives and negatives of welfare reform. Despite the fact that the principle idea behind welfare (taking care of your fellow citizens), the American social service system is “distorted” by cultural prejudices and trends. As a result, it both punishes and misguidedly rehabilitates recipients. Hays also gave a history of welfare is the U.S., with its constant theme of “deserving” versus “undeserving” poor.
Hays said that laws reflect a nation’s values. However, I don’t know if that is 100% true. In a democracy like ours, it represent the majority of voters. However, the majority might not actually be that big, and we know that many people do not vote. Also, we vote in representatives that make the decisions, and usually don’t vote directly on issues like welfare reform. Therefore, I disagree with her statement. I bet a lot of people would support welfare reform, and a lot probably don’t care either way.
The Glass article described a study done to see how use of family-related policies by working women impacted their wage growth over a period of a few years. She determined that use of the policies does not enhance wage-growth, and in some cases may make women’s wages stagnate. Managerial workers experience the most stagnation, though low-wage workers are also affected by it. The conclusion is that family-friendly policies do not in fact help women make it past the “glass ceiling”.
Naomi Gerstel examined how unions deal with members’ work-family needs by interviewing workers and union leaders about their positions. While some unions push for flex-time, there are drawbacks to that arrangement. Also, while some push for on-site childcare, many workers don’t see the point because they can’t afford it. FMLA is almost universally supported. The reason unions don’t get more done in this sphere is because they are not that strong right now and they don’t have many women in leadership.
“Unequal work for unequal pay” profiled some family-friendly companies, like the Neuville hosiery factory. However, the author made the point that childless workers at these companies may feel bitter about all the benefits that parent employees get. They may resent having to pick up the slack for coworkers with children, or not being able to take off as much time since the FMLA or company policy might not cover them.
These last two articles demonstrate that no law or policy will ever make everyone happy. There will always be detractors. However, a family-friendly policy is not hurting anyone (which I doubt many of them do), people should be okay with it. Just because it doesn’t apply to them doesn’t mean it’s not important. After all, family friendly policies will impact the well-being of the nation’s children, who are the future of the nation. In a way, even childless people will likely be taken care of by today’s children when they are older, so should be concerned with their well-being. I guess a way to keep everyone happy is for individual employers to provide comparable benefits for parents and childless employees.