Posted by: Karyn McCormack on October 30
This item was written by Savita Iyer-Ahrestani. She is a freelance financial journalist who guest blogs for Working Parents.
This is my family's first Halloween in suburban USA (we moved here after four years living in Europe and Asia, prior to which we were in New York) and the one question everyone has for us is: "Did you celebrate Halloween in the other countries you lived in?"
"Yes," I say, "we did," because Halloween has been a big deal every place we have lived in or been to, including the small Spanish town of Salobrena, where we happened to be at this time last year, and where during the sacred siesta hour, the only store open was the one selling Halloween costumes.
I first celebrated Halloween 35 years ago as a second grader at the International School of Geneva, Switzerland. I remember quite clearly a class party organized by an enterprising American mother, and a rather itchy black skirt and turtleneck top my mother put on me for a witch’s costume. We bobbed for apples and I tasted candy corn for the very first time.
Continue reading "The Internationalization of Halloween"
Posted by: Cathy Arnst on October 30
Parents and pregnant women around the country are rightfully disturbed about the shortage of vaccine for H1N1. The nightly news is filled with stories about people lining up to get the few supplies they can find, and panicky parents are scouring their regions for the vaccine, fearful that their child might end up hooked up to a ventilator otherwise.
Nevertheless, these fears about swine flu, or even garden-variety seasonal flu, have not kept many parents from refusing to subject themselves or their child to any vaccine containing the preservative thimerosal. This despite zero evidence that there is any danger at all from the additive. Instead, there is extensive safety data that shows that the vaccine is far safer than the flu itself, and thimerosal makes it even safer:
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says the only danger is "a myth that has been propagated." Fauci says the real danger is not using the preservative. Thimerosal actually protects the vial that is stuck several times with a needle.
Thimerosal fear is clearly widespread. A recent CBS News poll found that 51% of Americans say they are not very likely to get the swine flu vaccine, and more than a third of parents are not likely to vaccinate their children--even though three out of four respondents viewed the H1N1 virus as a serious problem. New York State recently dropped a requirement that all health workers get the H1N1 vaccine after outcries from some who feared it might be unsafe--and these are supposedly educated health care consumers.
These unfounded fears could make a bad situation much worse. The U.S. is already suffering from a refusal to use adjuvants that could double the potency of the H1N1 vaccine, thus stretching available supplies. Adjuvants are chemical compounds, usually oil and water emulsions, that boost the human body's immune response to the vaccine's active ingredient so more doses can be made. There is 12 years of safety data behind them, and they are widely used in Europe, where there is no vaccine shortage as a result. But the fear in the U.S. of vaccine additives, and even vaccines themselves, has kept the FDA from approving any adjuvant-laced flu vaccine, because it might make the populace even more reluctant to get the shots.
Before refusing a vaccine containing thimerosal, parents should keep in mind that 36,000 people die in the U.S. every year from seasonal flu. Since April, about 1,000 people have died from swine flu, including 96 children. Deaths from the swine flu vaccine: 0. If you're worried about the vaccine, or H1N1, take the time to educate yourself about the flu, the vaccine, and the risk factors for both.
Here's some links, and excerpts:
From the surgeon general's official www.flu.gov site, dispelling myths about thimerosal:
Thimerosal is a very effective preservative that has been used since the 1930s to prevent contamination in some multi-dose vials of vaccines. There is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. The 2009-H1N1 influenza vaccines that FDA has licensed will be manufactured in several formulations, including pre-filled, single-dose syringes and nasal sprayers along with multi-dose vials. Only multi-dose vials of seasonal influenza vaccine will contain thimerosal to prevent potential contamination after the vial is opened.
From the CDC's H1N1 information site:
Thimerosal is an important preservative that protects vaccines against potential microbial contamination, which may occur in opened multi-dose vials of vaccine. Such contamination could cause serious illness or death. Since seasonal influenza vaccine is produced in large quantities for annual immunization campaigns, some of the vaccine is produced in multi-dose vials, and contains thimerosal to safeguard against possible contamination of the vial once it is opened.
Three leading federal agencies (CDC, FDA, and NIH) have reviewed the published research on thimerosal and found it to be a safe product to use in vaccines. Three independent organizations [The National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)] reviewed the published research and also found thimerosal to be a safe product to use in vaccines. The scientific community supports the use of thimerosal in influenza vaccines.
I admit to being on a bit of a crusade against the anti-vaccine forces. Here's a link to an earlier post (some might say rant) of mine on the issue.For a well-researched article dissecting the anti-vaccine hysteria, read Wired's lastest cover story, "An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All" (better, yet, buy the magazine, the whole package is very good).If you want some really detailed insight into the safety and effectiveness of flu vaccines from someone with the credentials to know, head over to the excellent blog Science-Based Medicine and read Flu Vaccine Efficacy by Dr. Mark Crislip, an infectious disease specialist in Portland, Oregon.
Posted by: Lauren Young on October 28
No wonder they call it the boob tube.
Children spend more than an entire day in front of the television each week. According to research from media tracking firm Nielsen, television viewing among children is now at an eight-year high.
Kids aged 2-5 now spend more than 32 hours a week on average in front of a TV screen. The older segment of that group (ages 6-11) spend a little less time, about 28 hours per week watching TV, due in part that they are more likely to be attending school for longer hours.
Mea culpa. As a working parent, I can attest that I have used the television as a babysitter when I need to get work done. In fact, right before I read about this study, I actually made mental note to tape (a.k.a. Tivo) a show my son has been bugging me to watch because I have an evening conference call next week. Incidentally, Nielsen says kids are watching taped shows more often.
I know I'm not alone. Many of my friends and coworkers admit that they use TV to keep their kids entertained—and, most important—quiet while they try to answer emails, talk to their customers and colleagues, write reports, and whatever else needs to be done when they are out of the office.
But I do worry about my son's consumption of television, especially when he starts humming the theme song from Jeopardy, or suggesting vacation locations. "Call your travel agent," he has told me several times. (Thankfully, he hasn't recommended Viagra yet.)
Do you use the television as a babysitter to help you get the work done? Do you feel guilty about it? Also, if anyone has good ideas to keep kids engaged and quiet that do not involve a DVD when work calls, please let me know.
Posted by: Cathy Arnst on October 25
A bit of a brouhaha erupted recently over basketball games at the White House. Seems President Barack Obama likes to unwind over a friendly game of basketball, and invites a rotating squad of high-level Washington power brokers to join him on the White House court. All of them, of course, are men, a growing point of contention in the feminist blogosphere.
I can already hear the groans from many readers, who likely think this is just a bunch of angry women getting their knickers in a twist over some minor male/female difference. I might have thought the same, except for an image that stopped me short while reading a front page story in the New York Times about the controversy, headlined "Man's World At White House? No Harm, No Foul, Aides Say."
First of all, that headline is a tad misleading. It is the president's male aides who see "no harm, no foul." Five women who work in the White House, all of whom asked for anonymity because of concerns of appearing "publicly critical" (i.e., not good girls?) responded with eye rolls and complaints when asked about the sports-heavy atmosphere in the White House. But what I found most disturbing was the mention of an off-the-record meeting that White House communications director Anita Dunn recently hosted for women reporters--over chocolate chip and oatmeal cookies!!!
Well isn't that sweet? The gals got together over cookies--homemade, I hope, by one of the attendees--while the guys solved the world's problems on the playing field.
I'm particularly sensitive to this issue because I have no interest in professional sports. This failure on my part has often left me looking on with a weak smile while the editors I've worked for throughout my career (virtually all men) talked about last night's game. I despise football (the remnants of growing up in a football-mad small town), I couldn't care less about March Madness, and though I do pay slight attention to the Red Sox, I am not all that interested in the World Series when they aren't in it. Nor do I know the first thing about tennis or golf. Has that hurt my career? Who knows? I'm guessing that there are plenty of work environments where it would.
I realize that women have come a long, long way over the last 50 years, as well-documented in the excellent new book When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 To the Present, by New York Times columnist Gail Collins. From her publisher:
The interviews with women who have lived through these transformative years include an advertising executive in the 60s who was not allowed to attend board meetings that took place in the all-male dining room; and an airline stewardess who remembered being required to bend over to light her passengers' cigars on the men-only 'Executive Flight' from New York to Chicago. We, too, may have forgotten the enormous strides made by women since 1960--and the rare setbacks. "Hell yes, we have a quota [7%]" said a medical school dean in 1961. "We do keep women out, when we can." At a pre-graduation party at Barnard College, "they handed corsages to the girls who were engaged and lemons to those who weren't." In 1960, two-thirds of women 18-60 surveyed by Gallup didn't approve of the idea of a female president. Until 1972, no woman ran in the Boston Marathon, the year when Title IX passed, requiring parity for boys and girls in school athletic programs (and also the year after Nixon vetoed the childcare legislation passed by congress).
All of that sounds like ancient history now. It's hard to believe that just a few decades ago women weren't allowed to have a credit card or mortgage in their own name, much less hold an executive position or run for president. But it's not all that ancient. Women still earn 78 cents for every dollar earned by men in similar jobs, with similar levels of education and experience. In business, politics, journalism and law women occupy only 20% of leadership positions (and much lower in Fortune 500 firms), despite making up 48% of the workforce. I don't know if playing basketball with the residents of the executive suite would change any of that. But it might be nice to be invited. Or have the men join us for cookies.
I'd love to hear from women, and men, out there in the working world: Is facility with a ball, or knowledge of last night's scores, an important career booster in your office?
Posted by: Lauren Young on October 23
We all know times are tough. What, if anything, is Corporate America doing to support its overworked and underpaid workers—especially Working Parents—these days? I asked Donna Klein, executive chair and president at Corporate Voices for Working Families, for her thoughts.
You say that the U.S. has failed working families because public and corporate policies do not mirror their needs. What countries do a good job of promoting work and family issues?
This is a complicated question. Doing a “good job” with work and family policies is a function of the demographics, culture, traditions and forms of government in a particular country. That being said, there is some consensus around the Scandinavian countries as role models for good working family practices. Scandinavian countries encourage both men and women to pursue careers by providing programs and policies (family leave, dependent care support, and some financial support) that help families balance both jobs and parenting.
Also, some European countries have progressive programs. France, Germany, Belgium have “father friendly” programs and policies that encourage and support men to engage in careers while maintaining full engagement with their roles and responsibilities as fathers.
Unfortunately, the Untied States is far, far behind these nations.
Which companies in Corporate America today set the "gold” standard for programs to promote work and families?
Indeed, there are many U.S. corporations that are progressive in their support of working families. Many of the Corporate Voices for Working Families partner companies are among this elite group. Companies like Accenture (ACN), PNC (PNC), Merck (MRK), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Baxter (BAX), JPMorgan (JPM), Ernst & Young and Allstate (ALL) are among the best of them.
Working Mother magazine annually highlights the 100 Best Companies for Working Mothers. And now to level the playing field between professional employee support and hourly employee support, Working Mother, in partnership with Corporate Voices, is shining the light on those companies who employ predominately hourly workers, with the same opportunity to brand their workforce supports for hourly working families.
The first edition of Best Companies for Hourly Workers will be published in Working Mother magazine in the spring 2010. The strategy is to use the competitive mentality of corporations to brand and encourage advancement of these supports for hourly workers who have been somewhat overlooked in the past.
Can you talk about any innovative/unusual/successful programs?
There are many examples of these “best-practice” programs occurring in the field of work and family balance. Flexibility continues to lead the way. Available for many years for professional employees only, flexible work opportunities are now being offered by many progressive companies to their hourly employees.
Companies like Marriott (MAR) and PNC are experimenting with flexibility for hourly employees and realizing returns on investment equal to those evidenced by flexibility offerings to their professional staffs.
Companies are even piloting workplace lactation support for hourly employees. Female labor now represents 50% of the American workforce and that represents permanent and fundamental change. We are dependent on female labor in the 21st century workplace and that will drive even greater innovation in coming years.
Corporate Voices, by the way, would be most interested in feedback from companies about their innovative, unusual and successful programs. We know from experience that these best-practice models are drivers of change involving public and corporate policy. And we would welcome the opportunity to engage those companies in concert with our current corporate partners that really are leaders in designing and implementing programs aimed at work and family balance and improving the lives of working families.
Why is the conversation about workplace flexibility focused on professional workers?
Flexibility has been focused primarily on professional/management employees to date, because of two primary reasons. First, U.S. labor law (FLSA) does not apply to professional employees, so tracking hours worked is not required. Employers can ask professionals to work as few or as many hours as they deem necessary, as well as whatever work schedule they feel appropriate.
Secondly, the cost of professional turnover, which resulted from rigid, inflexible scheduling of hours, began to increase dramatically as productivity gains began to be associated with longer hours rather than more efficient processes. Companies who demanded long hours with no flexibility began to lose their best talent.
The cost of that turnover, including recruiting, training, and on-boarding new hires, was time consuming, which means costly. In many industries, the cost of replacing a fully functioning employee was estimated to be as much as 2-6 times that employee’s annual salary. Keeping talent became a key management objective. Offering flexibility, a fairly cost neutral solution, kept professionals loyal, on the job and actually increased engagement scores.
By contrast, why aren’t there more flexible work options for hourly workers?
As I mentioned previously, labor laws require tracking and recording hours worked. A company had to employ some mechanized system to do that, like clock cards, or they verified hours worked by observation. And unfortunately, to many managers, seeing is believing. It has been perceived to be too difficult to implement flexibility for hourly employees.
Additionally, in an economy that had an overabundance of qualified workers, the replacement of an hourly worker was perceived to be easy. Hourly workers were perceived to be pretty much undifferentiated – the old industrial model.
But in today’s world, with the skills gap widening and employers in all industries agreeing that there is a shortage of qualified workers, both hourly and professional, I think we are poised to see the rapid decline of those antiquated management beliefs. Business is now more knowledgeable about what constitutes a productive employee.
Do you think the Motherhood Penalty exists in Corporate America? Why or why not?
Unfortunately, I do think the motherhood penalty exists. One popular Sunday night drama recently and dramatically brought the discussion into the forefront when one of the “desperate housewives” denied her pregnancy to retain a promotion she had been granted. But we don’t need to see evidence in the popular media to know it exists.
Many aspects of career track jobs penalize motherhood – not intentionally but because of traditional thinking about what it takes to succeed (based on the prevalence of male models in the past). Today, in the best of cases if you are lucky enough to have paid maternity leave, it is still only a few companies that will hold “your” job open until you return.
FMLA requires that “a” job be available when you return. The time it takes to develop credentials in a new position inadvertently delays the advancement of women. And there are many less obvious reasons why mothers are penalized. Perceptions of loyalty, ability to travel, reliability on the job, while not policy driven, remain unspoken and many times unrecognized barriers.
The recession is having a huge impact on the physical, mental and fiscal health of American workers. How are employers helping workers weather the storm? Can you share some best practices?
The economy has indeed taken a toll. Employees who have retained their jobs are extremely insecure and job stress is becoming unmanageable. Many times that stress is a function of work overload accompanied by guilt at being retained when close co-workers have been dismissed. Companies that recognize and solve for this aftereffect are indeed among the best places to work.
But as recently reported by the Families and Work Institute, we can point to 80% retention of flexible work practices by those firms that have them, and a 18% increase in the companies that are offering them. Additionally we are seeing more workforce support for those retained, and outplacement services for those being dismissed including career counseling, retaining in job search skills and of course EAP services which are being proactively offered to workers and their family members.
