Rorschach Test on the Mommy Track

The Wall Street Journal front-paged a story today about the barriers women face in attempting to return to the workforce after having taken time off to be with their kids.

Horror stories abound:  A woman who last was a prosecutor with the Manhattan DA's office sent out hundreds of resumes and at last in desperation applied for a job as an executive assistant.  She was asked to take a typing test and did not get the job.

Now let's debate the proposition: 

"Women who opt out of the career path for child-rearing—particularly in a period of rapid technological change—will and should expect to be at a disadvantage compared to women (and men) who juggled children and career straight through."

Pro:  The economics of the proposition are self-evident.  Employees with a steady work history, who have maintained their skills and their professional networks, are clearly more valuable (read:  more deserving of a position to begin with, or a promotion, or a raise) than are other individuals who chose for reasons of their own to stop working and whose skills are, ceteris paribus, rusty.  Moreover, it's only fair that people who consciously chose a personal over a career priority should anticipate that choice will have consequences.

Con:  The economics of the proposition are not self-evident.  Putting nearly-insurmountable obstacles in the way of perfectly talented, highly educated, willing workers-in-waiting is not only an affront to their humanity but is an unjustifiable waste of a productive asset.  To be sure, the "returnees" may need to be realistic about picking up at a more junior level than that at which they left off, but closing the door entirely is simply irrational; they will be highly motivated to learn the new skills they need to learn and their hunger to work will make them unusually reliable and conscientious.

My view?  That's for me to know and you to find out. 

Seriously, I believe the one-size-fits-all career track has been obsolete for some time (just ask a "non-equity" partner).  These women—the article is about women—do not deserve to be treated as disposable, inferior goods.