The White House: "Family-Friendly" for a Few?

I read Liza’s summary of Mimi Swarz’s take on mature women in the most powerful workplace in the world with some interest. After all, I’d previously written on the preponderance of single women in the Obama White House, lamenting the fact that a bold-face name like Melody Barnes put off marriage for years, in order to run policy in an administration poised to overhaul health care, energy action, and the economy. And it is perhaps telling that I thought of these women—Susan Sher, Valerie Jarrett, and Desiree Rogers included—as single women rather than empty-nesters. Of course, not all the women with grown kids are unmarried (see Hillary Clinton), but the empty nesting bit means that, “like their male counterparts of all ages, they don’t even have to think about the babysitter.” When you put it that way, it sounds kind of great.

Rachel Swarns parsed some of this for a recent story in the Times about how family life remains difficult for those members of Obama’s staff who have children still at home. The 60-70 hour weeks sound even rougher when the job is to save the planet, or the economy—and the pain seemed to know no gender:

Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget chief who is a divorced father of two, works so many weekends that he often imports his parents to help care for his 9-year-old daughter and 7-year-old son. “We’re still sort of groping here,” Mr. Orszag said.

As for Mr. Emanuel, he recently squeezed in a swim with his two daughters, 9 and 11, at 5 a.m. “No matter how much the president tries—and he and Michelle try, they do—the White House is brutal on family life,” said Mr. Emanuel, who has struggled to make time for his wife and three children since they moved here from Chicago.

After being tipped off by a XX-sympathetic friend at 1600 Pennsylvania, I found that the White House is even less pro-family than you’d think. For all Michelle Obama's paeans to work-life balance, maternity and paternity leave has never been guaranteed to federal employees—including those working for Obama. It wasn't until June of this year that the House of Representatives passed a bill correcting this marked divergence with the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act—a vote still likely to be torpedoed in the Senate, thanks to its $938 million pricetag. According to one critic:

"These are tough times, regardless of what industry you're in," said Rep. Christopher Lee, R-N.Y. "Think about the retail workers who are being forced to do more with less. Think about that, when Washington turns around and offers more generous fringe benefits to public sector employees."

Ouch. I hadn't thought of caring for a newborn as a "fringe benefit"—but apparently only 53 percent of private companies offer similar time off. And their duties do not, presumably, include running the free world.

As Liza writes, this doesn't affect the women on top. To get to the level of expertise needed in the White House War Room, you’re most likely at least 40. But if you’re somewhere just under there, it seems you’re no longer allowed to procreate—because when the baby comes, you’d be Compromising National Security by Leaving to Raise Your Child. The horror!

It would be nice to see the "pro-family" president lean on Congress to get this bill to his desk.

Photograph of White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and his son Ethan by Aude Guerrucci/AFP/Getty Images.

Comments

doesn't mean anti-family

By: lightening | Wed, 07/08/2009 - 12:14

I feel like the author of this blog is painting a picture of the While House and being anti-family (as opposed to pro-family). While they may not be able to offer maternity and paternity leave, I don't think that means they are anti-family. PLus, while most of the staff would like to spend more time with their families, I have to assume that they knew the rigors of the job when they signed on. If they wanted to job where they could spend more time with their families, perhaps they should not have chosen national politics. Likewise, maybe we should entertain the idea that some of these people don't want to take time off. They might be driven, ambitious men and women who would rather not take 12 weeks off to tend to a newborn. That said, I honestly would not mind if my tax dollars were spent on ma or pa leave for familes with new babies.

Where did this strawman come from?

By: Fitzpatrick | Wed, 07/08/2009 - 09:39

"But if you’re somewhere just under there, it seems you’re no longer allowed to procreate—because when the baby comes, you’d be Compromising National Security by Leaving to Raise Your Child. The horror!"

Why would this compromise national security? A staffer who quits to raise a child gets replaced, and the new staffer wants to keep their job. It's not a terrible thing to quit your job, but either the work will go undone, or the replacement will lose the job when you decide to come back. How friendly is that?

This kind of hyperbole doesn't help inform the debate.

Entitlement mentality

By: Fitzpatrick | Wed, 07/08/2009 - 09:22

'Ouch. I hadn't thought of caring for a newborn as a "fringe benefit"'

No, caring for your own infant is not a fringe benefit, but having your employer hold your job for you while you're not working, and especially getting paid for that time off, is a fringe benefit by any definition.

Sure, it's nice to get these benefits, but obviously they cost employers money. Employers offer them either because they are required to by law, or because they expect to attract and keep better employees, not because taking a vacation or caring for an infant are of any direct interest to the company or the government.

It's also "family friendly" to pay people more money, so they can spend it on their families. Another option would be to hire more staff so that everyone can have Friday afternoons off. Finally, the administration could just decide to get less done. All good, family-friendly options.

Exceptions and a clarification

By: Tricia | Wed, 07/08/2009 - 09:14

Our tax dollars actually wouldn't be paying for parental leave. This law would just make government employees eligible for the same unpaid 12 weeks to care for a new child or sick family member (or to convalesce, themselves) that employees in private companies with more than 50 employees currently get.

I absolutely think that is only right and fair -- the very minimum of what we need to do. But... yes, there's something different about being the White House chief of Staff or budget chief or cabinet member. There are a handful of jobs that need to be 24/7, all four (or eight) years.

hmmm...

By: alp37 | Tue, 07/07/2009 - 20:33

i think there's room for debate on this issue. i'm all for maternity leave in theory, but these white house jobs are unique in several regards. first, they have a time limit: 4 year (or 8 years max). that's 4-8 years to learn the ropes of running a country and effect changes that affect millions. so even 6 months away from the job is a significant portion of the total time available to complete these tasks. secondly, salaries are paid for by our tax dollars. i'm not opposed to paying for someone's maternity leave, but i think most Americans would agree that they want their dollars spent most efficiently. and i'm unsure whether paying someone a salary to take care of her (or his) child is the most efficient use of our tax dollars.

that said, we want the most effective leaders in these jobs. and, to me, that means men and women who are not only talented but also real people who are personally fulfilled and in touch with everyday concerns.