Should Women Be Entitled To Menstrual Leaves?

Menstrual leave is not a nascent concept. The discourse surrounding it spans over a hundred years, with nations like Indonesia and the former USSR advocating the leave for female members of their workforce. It makes for a curious case, then, that the debate did not garner popular attention in India until very recently. The revamped interest in the dialogue has been attributed to the initiatives of politicians, organizations and media outlets, and has opened up channels for discussion on various platforms. I contend that menstrual leave is an expendable concept and the following article asserts the same.

Though there is very little data to establish whether menstrual leave helps women or not, an evaluation of the facts and circumstances so far can be useful in developing a perspective. The biggest question that women’s entitlement to menstrual leaves has posed to policy makers across the world is whether it is an economic welfare issue or a labor issue. And though the course of action is bound to deviate on either fronts, I assert that menstrual leave is a woeful concept on both grounds.

If one were to consider menstrual leave from an economic welfare perspective, one would safely assume that the most conducive infrastructure, for the concept to function in, would be a socialist welfare state. It is thus self-serving to my argument that menstrual leave came out as a redundant concept in the same socialist state that promoted it over a hundred years ago, back in the 1920s. In former USSR, the concept was not just introduced on the demands of women groups but subsequently revoked on the demands of women groups as well. Such a discourse is not surprising because even without capitalist motivations, menstrual leave is a proposal that does not fit in with principal labor structures. Soviet women who availed these leaves were deemed to be less productive in output contribution. They were not only held back on promotions but were also subject to employers’ reluctance in hiring them.

One might argue that this may just be a reflection of a conservative society and not a flaw inherent in the concept of menstrual leaves. In that case, I make it a point that most of the scientifically advanced, liberal and capitalist democracies of the world have not accepted the concept at large as well. Nations like the United Kingdom and the United States, with 58 percent and 56 percent female workforce participation respectively, have refused to legislate on the matter at all. This approach is not faulty either, because the concept of menstrual leave does not hold a place in free capitalist economies. An evaluation of its efficacy in the nations that have adopted it provides reasonable grounds to back the assertion.

Japan, for instance, has provided for menstrual leave to female employees since 1947. Ironically, the percentage of female employees who availed these leaves went from 26% in 1965 to 0.9% in 2017. In South Korea, the usage dropped from 23.6% in 2013 to 19.7% in 2017. This is because women, who already face gender pay gaps in the Oceania, are now considered even more expensive by employers in comparison to their male counterparts. This leads them to cut back on their leaves in order to present themselves as worthy factors.

The situation is the same in Italy which is soon to come up with legal provisions for menstrual leave. Participation of female workforce in Italy is among the lowest in the European Union at 61% and the consequences of a menstrual leave legislation are foreseeable. According to Economist Daniela Piazzaley of the Research Institute, FBK IRVAR, “The proposed menstrual leave will lead to a decrease in demand for female employees and lead to women being penalized in terms of salary and career advancements.”

This is not unreasonable to believe when one considers the implications of maternity leave in the country. Around 25% of female employees are fired either during or after their pregnancy in Italy, despite legal restrictions on the practice. Provision of menstrual leave will not create deviant consequences either.

Another perspective would be to look at menstrual leave as a labor issue. That it is a retrograde concept, even then, can be asserted through Andrea Ichino and Enrico Moretti’s study on absenteeism and earning gaps which, having been published in the American Economic Journal, highlights that absence of women below the age of 45, from the workplace, follows a 28 day cycle while those of above the age of 45 does not. They conclude that this absenteeism is responsible for at least 14% of gender earning differential.

It is important to note that this differential arises out of absenteeism and not productivity or lack thereof. Thus, even if menstrual leave does not impact productivity, it is no ground to believe that it does not impact women negatively in missing out on workdays. Forcing employers rather than women to bear the monetary burden associated with menstruation is counterproductive to the employment of women because it shifts the wage subsidy from women to men, hence resulting in higher wage gaps and making women costlier employees.

Hence, while unpaid menstrual leaves defy the purpose behind them, as in the case of Japan, paid menstrual leaves make women costlier factors in comparison to their male counterparts. No employer can be blamed for choosing men over women as more economic alternatives then. The key here, is that, most employers cannot directly observe individual productivity. They thus use observable characteristics, including absenteeism, to predict productivity and set wages. This has been manifested in the maternity leave paradox and poses ground for menstrual leave as well. In a world where women are battling for workforce representation and pay parity, menstrual leave is the way down the hill.  

But the most important question remains. Why do we need menstrual leave in the first place? Femaleness is not illness. That a small percentage of women suffer from conditions like endometriosis or dysmenorrhea, is no ground for a structural change that only does more harm to women than good. Leave for such conditions may as well be availed under the provisions for sick leave under acts such as the Apprentice Act, Plantation Labor Act, Sales Promotion Employees Act and the Journalists Act among others.

The argument that women need more leaves besides other paid leaves is not well founded on. Women don’t need to be kept at home because it neither alleviates the discomfort nor does it ensure inclusivity. We need inclusive workspaces. We need policies to make sanitary goods like menstrual pads and tampons free at workspaces, we need disposal facilities like incinerators in public restrooms, we need a comforting environment in addition to the four thousand other things that are the need of the hour. Menstrual leave, however, is not one of them. It is not the solution. It is the way down the hill.

The article has been penned by Aditi Parihar. She is a first year student at the Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University.