Matt Gurney says we should quit our jobs

Yesterday, a federal court ruled that employers have to accommodate parent child care requests. This mostly affects shift workers who may have a hard time finding child care on weekends and evenings, and I know there are a lot of you out there. One of my best friends, a brand new mom, is facing this challenge in the United States, where she will have to occasionally find care for a 12-week old baby on weekends. Don't even get me started on the horrible parental leave situation in the States!

Matt Gurney, from the National Post, says that parents who don't want to work shifts as assigned by their employers, should quit their jobs rather than raising a fuss about it. New parents, who suddenly have a lot more responsibility in their lives, should just up and quit their jobs that provide health care benefits and, I'm assuming, things like pension funds.

He says that becoming a parent is a lifestyle choice (which I agree, it is, but one that is necessary for at least some people to make) and that employers should not be expected to accommodate parent needs because they are part of that lifestyle choice and not a legitimate need, like religion.

I think this is a terrible piece of advice from Matt Gurney, who is apparently also a new parent and should know better. Here's a few reasons why a new parent might not want to, or be able to, quit their job.

• Tranferability of skills. In this case, the person who filed the case worked for the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). I imagine that some of her skills are transferable but it seems to me that there is pretty specific training for that industry and I'm willing to bet that most employers who could also make use of those skills are also based on shift work.
• Benefits and pension funds. There are a lot of incentives for staying with an employer long-term, especially ones like CSBA and those benefits are geared towards people with families who value stability and long-term planning.
• Requirement to remain with the employer. When I took maternity leave I was offered a top-up package, a very generous boost to my income for seven months of the year I was on Employment Insurance (EI). In return, I have an obligation to work for my employer for at least six months. Fair enough.
• Income. Anyone who has been on EI for maternity leave knows that even at the maximum level, it's not much. After a year of that income (assuming you don't have a top-up), you're probably scraping the bottom of the savings barrel, or living with some debt. The most irresponsible thing you can do is quit your job because your employer isn't willing to be flexible.

Employers are (mostly) obligated to hold a job for an employee on maternity leave, why shouldn't they also have the same obligation to not make life so difficult for an employee with children that they are forced to quit? After all, the years that the employee will need this arrangement are not long in the scope of a career and would probably build a lot of loyalty.

Ideally, this would be something the employer and employee should be able to work out together, without having to go to court. But if an employer has the ability to be flexible for employees because of religion or disability, they should be willing and able to be flexible for employees with children.

UPDATE: Last night, Matt Gurney and I hashed it out a bit on Twitter, with a few others jumping in, and Keith and I hashed it out a bit at home. This is the beauty of writers posting controversial views, it gets people talking. I appreciate that Matt took the time to read this blog, offer me constructive criticism, and to discuss viewpoints, especially since he also has a young family.

Following the discussions, I have to say that I still feel that employers who are able and willing to offer reasonable requests for accommodation to people for human rights reason, should also be willing and able to offer the same accommodation to parents. In this case, I don't think it was unreasonable for the complainant to ask for regular and predictable hours so that she could schedule child care when it was available. However, I'm conflicted about whether or not this is something that should be brought to the courts, which was Matt's point from the beginning.

I personally wouldn't take this issue to court. In fact, when I returned to work, it was made known that easing back in with part-time hours simply wasn't an option for my position and I accepted that without question, even though another woman down the hall was able to return with an 80% commitment. I know that if I want to change my work hours, I'm going to have to quit my job. At least I have the  luxury of regular work hours that coincide with daycare hours.

However, I still don't think quitting work is a reasonable or even viable alternative for a lot of parents out there, as discussed above. And I think we can all agree that the world would simply be a nicer place if employers just played nice, within reason, and made things a little easier for everyone out there who needs a little extra flexibility sometimes. I appreciate the discussions I had last night and thanks again to Matt for stirring things up a little.