I think employers should be able to make the decision. Mostly because I don't think the government needs any more power. However I recently left my job and encountered some really unfair practices there regarding family. I was the only person in the company who had children and if i ever needed off for Drs appointments (I'm currently pregnant) or for my daughter's activities/emergency or whatever I was punished. However other coworkers could leave more frequently for their dry appointments or family issues. People were just so put out that my reasoning was my children. They actually took more time off than me but because their issues were not their offspring it was acceptable. I decided the companies "culture" and I didn't mesh.

When I consider workplace policy, I use as my standard a theoretical Mexican landscaping company.
If you don't show up, and you don't work, you do not get paid. Period.

By that standard, an awful lot of American jobs are just cherry.

Less committed workers are less valuable.

Rad is right.

The key is to make yourself invaluable -- and if you are not invaluable, you should not feel that you are entitled to your job. That's how it works for me. If papers or magazines or book companies do not feel I provide value, they aren't going to run my column or other writing or give me a book deal. I don't have guaranteed employment, no matter how hacky I let myself get; why should anyone else?

This is all about the push to make businesses accomodate single moms. I did not work for a portion of time that my kids were growing up. I had some heath issues, and my husband had a very demanding job with lots of travel.

I got a good job when my son was in high school but then found that the military culture had reversed itself when I was away.

I was expected to pick up the slack for the military people in our office so that they could have a lot of flexible time off and family time. I dont mind doing that on an occasional basis, but when I was in the military, it was understood, that the military was there to work the unpleasant hours, and last minute taskings so that the civilians could keep regular hours.

I finally got into a situation where I was the one that needed some flexibility as to when I was in the office, because of taking an extremely ill elderly parent for medical treatment, and when I was forced to use all of my own sick leave, and regular leave to do that, as opposed to working a flex schedule, I examined the double whammy we were taking from the IRS and decided that not working again, was in everyones best interest.

Businesses should not be picking favorites based on who they think needs the greatest flexibility in their work schedule. It creates all kinds of resentments and also a culture where some activities unrelated to work are seen as intrinsically more valuable than other choices. This really makes employees angry, and potentially causes lots of turnover. It sure did, where I worked.

The whole point of this is to redefine work, right?

All they see is an unproductive worker instead of a new mom or dad who needs workplace flexibility.

See, I think her wording is wrong. A lot of jobs*, as long as the work is done, it doesn't necessarily matter at what time it is done. Mom needs to "take Cody to soccer" at 4pm, fine, as long as she's working again from 7-10pm to make up for that lost time, and getting any reports/projects done on time.
But that isn't what Susan Rohwer actually means. What she actually means is that mommy should be able to work 36 hours a week and get paid the same as everyone else who works 46-50 hours per week.

Companies that allow flex time, shouldn't change policy based solely on the reason, but if they don't allow flex time, then they don't allow flex time for anyone, and if you work less, you should be compensated accordingly, or let go for not meeting requirements.

*Some jobs don't work that way. You can't just leave early from your call center job, and make up the difference later, because the office is closed later.

"We can start by mandating better laws that hold employers accountable for unreasonable attitudes and policies."

And just who decides what is "unreasonable"?

I've almost always consider those asking for "there aught to be a law" type in this kind of situation to be slackers; they want the government to force someone else to take care of things they, themselves, don't, can't or won't take care.

See, they cannot compete with those who do go the extra mile at work and, yet, they want the same rewards without the extra work. So, it is easier to "outlaw" the extra work than it is to do the extra work themselves.

A lot of places in Europe have done this. Since it was unfair for some employees to get paid extra for doing overtime, now it is nearly impossible for anyone to do overtime.

And guess what? a lot of those jobs are now outsource to countries which allow overtime - hello India!

P.S. I'm commenting without reading the whole article since the link doesn't work for me. I did manage to find some of her other articles and, man, is she a dingbat who seems to know nothing about running a business.

This should be left up to the employer, but it needs to be fair for everyone, regardless of why they want to skip out of work early. Either everyone gets to, or no one gets to. That, or the ones that leave all the time for whatever reason need to understand that they do NOT deserve the same wages and promotions as the people who STAYED AND DID THE WORK.

I seem to hear an awful lot of bitching by mothers who "have to take Cody to soccer" yet think they should get the same rewards as the person who stayed at work to cover for them. Um, no. You might be able to have it all, but you can't have it all at the same time. Whatever your choice, be it to have kids or care for an elderly parent, there will be consequences elsewhere in your life. That's just reality.