The Wall Street Journal front-paged a story today about the
barriers women face in attempting to return to the workforce after having
taken time off to be with their kids.
Horror stories abound: A woman who last was a prosecutor
with the Manhattan DA’s office sent out hundreds of resumes and at last
in desperation applied for a job as an executive assistant. She
was asked to take a typing test and did not get the job.
Now let’s debate the proposition:
"Women who opt out of the career
path for child-rearing—particularly in a period of rapid technological
change—will and should expect to be at a disadvantage compared
to women (and men) who juggled children and career straight through."
Pro: The economics of the proposition are self-evident. Employees
with a steady work history, who have maintained their skills and their
professional networks, are clearly more valuable (read: more deserving
of a position to begin with, or a promotion, or a raise) than are other
individuals who chose for reasons of their own to stop working and whose
skills are, ceteris paribus, rusty. Moreover, it’s only
fair that people who consciously chose a personal over a career priority
should anticipate that choice will have consequences.
Con: The economics of the proposition are not self-evident. Putting
nearly-insurmountable obstacles in the way of perfectly talented, highly
educated, willing workers-in-waiting is not only an affront to their
humanity but is an unjustifiable waste of a productive asset. To
be sure, the "returnees" may need to be realistic about picking up at
a more junior level than that at which they left off, but closing the
door entirely is simply irrational; they will be highly motivated to
learn the new skills they need to learn and their hunger to work will
make them unusually reliable and conscientious.
My view? That’s for me to know and you to find out.
Seriously, I believe the one-size-fits-all career track has been obsolete
for some time (just ask a "non-equity" partner). These
women—the article is about women—do not deserve
to be treated as disposable, inferior goods.
