Reassessing HR leave policies through the lens of reproductive labour

It’s a sunny afternoon, and I’m going about my business at my work station. My phone rings, and the father of my children informs me that the domestic manager has left without notice. It’s about 3pm, a time when my daughter gets dropped from school. I rush to the HR office to fill out a leave form. First, the intention is to get home as quickly as possible. Second, to start making calls to source a new house help.

Molara Ogundipe, in her book Re-creating Ourselves: African women & critical transformations, casts a spotlight on the importance of listening to the voices of African women. She argues that for true transformation of the African woman, we must look for their voices in spaces and modes. Molara says women’s cry for help can be found in kitchens, watering holes, gatherings, as well as commercial spaces.  She notes that women speak in silence and in words.  

I would like to shift Ogundipe’s critical observation and call to the voice of women in the formal sector as far as annual leave days is concerned. In this article, I will examine the disconnect between the human resource policy on annual leave and the often unrecognized and unpaid reproductive labor. I will also tie this with the need for gender analysis of specific provisions in policies to establish whether they are gender blind, neutral or sensitive to the needs of employed men and women.

As an employed mother of two, on numerous occasions, I have found myself abruptly applying for leave whenever a house help leaves without notice. Besides, in the event that one of the children falls ill during working hours, I am forced to leave work and attend to the child. If the illness persists, I am forced to take leave to attend to the child. I do not recall the father of my children ‘sacrificing’ his time, or dropping everything at work to stay home as we look for a new housekeeper.

My story mirrors those of other female colleagues who mostly spend half of their leave days attending to reproductive labor such as child care.

Over the years, women have made meaningful strides in the formal sector employment. Nonetheless, they still shoulder the burden of reproductive labor.

Caroline Moser explains reproductive labor as that which constitutes care work, childbearing and domestic activities. These roles may include washing, cooking, cleaning, tending to children, and the elderly. Since these tasks are rarely waged, they are not viewed as “real work”. As such, they are never considered valuable to the overall household economic equation.

While more women continue to enter the workforce, the reproductive role still squarely falls on women.

Section E 3 (1) of the Human Resource Policy states that every employee has a right to an annual paid leave of 30 days and excludes weekends and public holidays. The purpose is to allow an employee to rest and improve efficiency.

Professor of political thought Nivedita Menon posits that women shoulder nearly all the housework. The default expectation of a heteronormative relationship is that the woman of the house must cater for the day-to-day activities of the house. In the event that she is unable to, as in the case of working mothers, she must employ someone to do it.  Having an extension of a house help goes to show that reproductive labor is still deemed as a woman’s core responsibility, whilst still undertaking productive work outside the home.

There is nothing natural regarding the justification of the gendered division of labor. Largely based on biology and nature, only pregnancy is natural. Therefore, all other household chores can be done by men and should not be considered women’s inherent or pre-ordained role. We would then pause the question: “Why don’t men take leave of absence in the event that a house help leaves on short notice?” Is it an unspoken or unwritten rule? Why is the HR policy not alive to it?

Walk into any workplace and ask the women how often their partners step in whenever there is a house help crisis. Why is it that I am the one whose world literary comes to a standstill whenever the house help leaves? I find that half of my leave days are utilized to find a new house help.

The justification of the gendered division of labor pinned on biological determinism doesn’t hold water.

Based on these observations and stories of women, this article seeks to ignite debate around the possible amendment of “harmful” or gender-blind policies that are not aware of the fact that the 30-day annual leave does not reflect the true nature of gendered division of labor within households. Working women do not take leave days as intended in the HR policy, that is, to re-energize, recuperate, and enhance efficiency. In truth, it is the opposite.

A conflicting dilemma in the possible addition of leave days for women further cements the idea that care work is indeed a woman's thing. Nonetheless, we still have a long way to go, unlearn and relearn the gendered division of labor.

Care work, while to some extent can be pegged on biology, such as breastfeeding, children nonetheless require care post breastfeeding.

Another strategic need would be gender responsive budgeting that would see to it that day care and lactating centres are built within workplaces to help working mothers. Gender inclusive programs suitable to women’s demanding reproductive labor needs ensure the ease of burden of their responsibilities in the household.

The stories of women serve as a critical point with which we can interrogate the degree to which the gendered division of labor continues to disenfranchise women. It also serves as a critical point where there needs to be a serious bottom-up approach towards policy formulation, where, the needs of women are taken into consideration when drafting policies. Furthermore, it begs the question of why there is a need to have a nuanced approach to male engagement in reshaping public policies.