I usually like Carey Roberts' stuff.  He's a good writer, funny and often makes trenchant points that need to be made.  But in his piece Ladies, want job security? Just scream 'abuse!' (RenewAmerica.com, 2/4/09) he blows it.

His column is about a bill that's before Congress sponsored by Lucille Roybal-Allard of California and Texas Republican Ted Poe.  The short title of the proposed act is the Security and Financial Empowerment (SAFE ) Act.

To put the bill in a nutshell, it (a) gives victims of domestic violence the right to take 30 days unpaid leave from work in any 12-month period to deal with whatever problems arise from the DV, (b) prohibits discrimination in employment or health insurance coverage against people who are victims of DV or who avail themselves of benefits under the act and (c) provides that anyone who can't work because of DV is entitled to unemployment compensation.

That's what the bill does.  You can agree with it or disagree with it, but much of what Roberts writes about it is flat wrong.

For example: "Most of all you [a victim of DV] have lifelong job security - because the bill prohibits the employer from ever firing you."  Nope, that's not what it does.  What the bill does is prohibit the employer from firing you because you're a victim of DV or availed yourself of the 30-day leave benefit.  The employer can still fire you for all the usual reasons, like not showing up on time, insubordination, etc.

This section is similar to sections in countless laws, state and federal.  It's nothing more than an attempt to give teeth to the law by keeping employers from firing people who utilize its provisions.  Workers compensation laws usually have similar safeguards.  As far as I know every employment discrimination law has a similar section.

Another example: "Section 303 says: 'An employer shall not discharge the individual [who is] a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking.'"  Again, that is emphatically not what the bill would do.  By inserting the parenthetical "[who is]", Roberts completely changes the meaning of the bill.  As above, what the bill prohibits is discharging an employee because he/she was a victim of DV.  Again, an employer can still discharge an employee for all the standard reasons, but it cannot discharge him/her because of DV.

And again: "That part of the bill prohibits the insurance company from cancelling the health insurance for any victim of abuse."  And again, no, it doesn't.  Roberts says this bill would guarantee health insurance to any victim of DV or anyone who might ever become one.  That's again flat wrong.  What the bill actually would do is prohibit cancellation or refusal to issue a policy of health insurance because a person has been a victim of DV.

As in the employment situation, the insurance company can still cancel or refuse to issue a policy for all the usual reasons such as lying on the application, pre-existing condition, etc.  The only thing this bill prohibits is refusal to issue or cancellation of insurance because of DV.

Again, like this bill or dislike it, but don't misrepresent its terms.  One of feminism's worst qualities was and is its misrepresentations.  Men's and fathers' rights activists need to do better.

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 26th, 2009 at 8:32 pm and is filed under Domestic Violence/DV System, Men's Movement, Bills/Initiatives, Elections, Politics, Court Cases. You can trackback from your own site.