Posted by Andrea Fulle on 2 November 2015
Link: http://www.fastcompany.com/3052674/second-shift/would-you-sue-your-company-for-better-paternity-leave-this-guy-didand-won?partner=rss
This article caught my eye initially because of the title: “Would You Sue Your Company For Better Paternity Leave? This Guy Did . . . And Won”. This, of course, is eye catching but the article touches on some extremely interesting ideas.
Firstly, I’d like to note that this was under the subcategory “Second Shift” which is a phrase I have never heard used to refer to men’s home lives. The article seems to operate on the assumption that its audience is informed about the growing desire for paternity leave among men and perhaps even assumes members of its audience feel the same way. By this I mean that the author, Fatherly, made no attempt to persuade the readers that paternity leave is lacking, nonsensical, or even non-existent in companies across the U.S. I read the article as somewhat of a call-to-arms for those who work in companies with unequal or nonexistent paid paternity leave policies. Whereas other articles introduce paid leave policies as a new, complex concept and detail the positive and negative “effects” for parents of each gender, the family unit, the economy, and American society as a whole; this article assumes its readers know that paid leave is beneficial for all the aforementioned institutions and that it is indeed worth fighting for.
With a third baby on the way for him and his wife, Josh Levs, “fatherhood columnist for CNN and resident dad on the HLN show Raising America” sued this employer after discovering that CNN’s policy allowed “10 weeks paid for any parent except the biological father, who only got two”.
Levs details the subsequent law-suit in his book “All In: How Our Work-First Culture Fails Dads, Families, and Businesses—and How We Can Fix It Together”. The article provides steps to achieve similar results in an audience member’s workplace, including becoming informed before engaging in litigation or making a fool of oneself to one’s superiors.
What makes this article different from others I have encountered in my research is its references to America’s “work-first culture”. In his aforementioned book, Levs reveals that “the decision-makers he was lobbying were the least likely to empathize with him, precisely because they’re most likely to have sacrificed work-life balance to get where they are”.
I believe that this disconnect probably will prove to be an obstacle for achieving any substantial, wide-spread paid leave changes in the U.S. As we discussed in class, the issue of paid leave hardly needs to be gendered given that its already so subject to class restraints. When news breaks of generous policy improvements, it’s almost exclusively among salary-paid employees. Yet, one could argue that the hourly employees are the one’s who need it more considering their comparative lack of flexibility and resources.
Finally, the articles emphasis on the “court of public opinion” implies that social change can be achieved or at least furthered by social solidarity about an issue. Fighting a legal battle in the media is not always the best of choices but Levs took to Tumbler to announce the case upon filing and of the reaction said “It was like I had unleashed the floodgates of love. All the support that night—it was wild.” The article reports that “His case was eventually picked up by ABC, The New York Times, Yahoo, Gawker, and more, because the story was irresistible: By calling them out publicly, Levs put Time Warner in the impossible position of having to defend a clearly hypocritical policy.” *(Time Warner is the parent company to CNN).
Once again we see the theme of social solidarity furthering both cohesion of the movement as well as policy change. Whats-more, this change is being catalyzed largely through the Internet and social media. I think more articles like this will pop up around various internet sites and that we will see a growing demand for more paid leave for both men and women and that this demand will grow among the middle and lower classes.