Weighing In on ''Working Moms''

Years before NanC Weiland started her career, I decided that my children ought to have a parent at home (''The new debate over working moms,'' Working Life, Sept. 18). I felt strongly enough to put, not my wife's, but my own career on the line. I tried consulting from home, a little day-trading, temporary assignments. Fortunately, a successful wife and a cooperative stock market have left us in great shape for retirement as our children leave for college.

Many a modern man would like to have the opportunity to spend more time with his family, as I have so fortunately enjoyed. Men also deserve to benefit from part-time jobs that offer proportional pay, benefits, and opportunities for advancement.

Daniel F. Kane Jr.
Berkeley, Calif.

Your article implies that women are incapable of making good decisions about how to live their lives. I am a 42-year-old working mom with two bright, active, small children. I am also blessed with a husband who delivers his 50%. I also made the decision to work for my own well-being and believe it is in the best interest of my children for me to feel contented by my career.

I have two words of advice to the women you interviewed--get therapy. Unhappy people cannot raise happy children, whether they stay at home or work. There is no relationship between the mental health of children and whether or not a mother works. There is, however, a direct relationship between the emotional well-being of parents and of the children they raise.

Valerie Malter
New York

As a new mother who recently returned to work on a reduced schedule, I'm troubled that so few women seem to find the right balance, becoming either isolated and unfulfilled as stay-at-home moms or frazzled, tired, and absent as working moms.

I am especially troubled, though, by the toll this may be taking on our children. While stay-at-home moms are held up as the ideal model for raising children, is this really the case? Don't children deserve mothers who are excited about their lives and the contributions they are making, beyond taking care of the home? Should isolation and depression be the price they pay to be proper mothers? On the flip side, what of the children whose care is being ''outsourced'' to nonparents? This can't be good for them. Yet I understand the impulse to use as many household services as possible to ease the burden.

It is high time women workers call U.S. corporations to task and demand work schedules that can better accommodate the demands of parenting. But it is also high time American women--working in the home or outside the home--demand that men take this problem as seriously as they do and commit to sharing the burdens of creating a home and raising children. Wouldn't this be the best thing for children? If men were to join us in this crusade, perhaps the corporations they control would, too.

Lisa B. Baird
Sherborn, Mass.

Each year more mothers are choosing to work. The percentage of mothers of young children in the workforce has increased virtually every year for the past 30 years and has now reached 62% (vs. 30% in 1970). This percentage has not fluctuated with changing economic times, but has steadily increased year to year. It is also interesting to note that the percentage of working mothers increases with education and income, indicating that women are choosing to work.

Your article assumes that the dad and the workplace are immutable; it's the mom who has to accommodate. Assuming that fathers shouldn't equally shoulder the responsibilities and joys of the home traps mothers and fathers into rigid roles. To be healthy, productive employees, mothers and fathers need jobs that allow them to also be devoted, effective parents. Employees are voting with their feet. More and more are actively seeking a workplace environment that supports dedication to family rather than prevents it.

Linda Mason
Chairman and Founder
Bright Horizons Family Solutions
Boston

Another Look at Ford's Finger-Pointing

''Ford: A crisis of confidence'' (News: Analysis & Commentary, Sept. 18) brought back the memory of the Firestone defect episode--the Firestone 500--in the 1970s. My father rented a 1974 General Motors Corp. motor home for our Christmas vacation from upstate Michigan to Florida. When he returned the vehicle two weeks later, not one of the original Firestone 500 tires remained. All six had to be replaced, many due to tread separations while traveling down Interstate 75. In contrast to several families' experiences with the Ford Explorer, no injuries or deaths occurred as a result. The RV did not flip over or go out of control when one of the Firestone 500s let loose.

While the public is justifiably pointing the finger at Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. for producing a defective product, shouldn't the second question be why Ford Explorers have experienced loss of control and serious rollovers from a simple tire blowout? Aren't modern vehicles supposed to be engineered to survive a sudden loss of tire pressure resulting from hitting road debris--or, in this case, a defective tire? The public and press should look beyond the Firestone bashing and Ford's public relations campaign of blaming the entire problem on one of its vendors.

Nate Asplund
Amelia Island, Fla.

Giving Good Corporate Citizenship Its Due

''Too much corporate power?'' (Cover Story, Sept. 11) quotes me accurately but incompletely. Some firms sometimes behave in a rather brusque public manner. But the majority of companies are outstanding corporate citizens. America's manufacturing firms are the source of high-paying jobs (manufacturers pay their employees 17% above the private sector average overall) and are the wellspring of economic growth. Industries of all types are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to safeguard the environment, train employees, and invest in the future.

Simply put, Corporate America need not tip its hat to anyone. In the words of the late Democratic Senator Paul Tsongas, ''You cannot redistribute wealth you never created. You can't be pro-jobs and anti-business at the same time. You cannot love employees and hate employers.'' Wise words for corporation-bashers in this election year.

Jerry J. Jasinowski
President
National Assn. of Manufacturers
Washington

Your article exposes a growing awareness and anger among consumers that is real and probably even legitimate. But it fails to address what some forward-thinking corporations are doing to reach out to workers and communities. Whether pushed by criticism, encouraged by tax incentives, or pulled by research that indicates that corporate citizenship programs can actually be good for the bottom line, many companies have established their own foundations or launched employee volunteer programs and community outreach initiatives. In this era when corporations cannot compete on quality or service alone, such programs can make the difference in the bottom line. Shareholders benefit when stakeholders benefit.

Straightforward donations no longer cut it. Today, consumers want to see corporations genuinely engage with social and environmental problems. Bridges are being built to the nonprofit agencies working in communities where corporations manufacture and market their products. Effective programs link the company's product, service, or mission with a high-impact program: the dot-com that puts computer skills in the hands of underprivileged youth; the clothing manufacturer that provides health care and higher-education opportunities to seamstresses in a Third-World factory; the mortgage company that works with the homeless.

Companies that have the winning edge may well be those who most credibly reach out.

Laurie Zivetz
President
Corporate Community Outreach
Silver Spring, Md.

Old Gas Wells: A Missed Opportunity

The untold part of ''There is not enough gas around'' (Industrial Management, Sept. 18) concerns existing wells. Under the Natural Gas Act, natural gas wells were categorized into tiers, including ''old gas'' and ''new gas.'' In our area, all wells with gas purchase contracts signed prior to Jan. 1, 1972, were classified as ''old gas.'' Today, old gas from our wells is priced at $1.47 per Mcf (thousand cubic feet) at the wellhead as the highest lawful price, while ''new gas'' enjoys a wellhead price of $4.40-$4.60 per Mcf.

There are thousands of old gas wells in this country. In spite of age and depletion, many are able to produce gas but with little economic benefit. Old gas wells are not blessed with lower tax rates, cheaper labor, or discounted prices on equipment replacement or repairs.

At some point, cash flow from the sale of gas at the old-gas-wellhead price will not cover the cost of producing the gas. When that happens, wells get turned off, even in a time of shortage. Whatever reserves may be left in the ground that could be produced at a higher wellhead price are lost forever.

Weston C. Vogel
President
Canfield Oil & Gas Co.
Allentown, Pa.

Update the Tax Code for the Two-Earner Family

''How to eliminate the marriage tax penalty fairly and simply'' (Economic Viewpoint, Sept. 18) was refreshing in that it actually defined the real issues. I prepare tax returns professionally, and the recent political pontifications have been far from a real understanding of the problem.

States' rights were the beginning of the joint-return issues. Before 1949, one-earner couples in community property states were filing ''married but single'' returns for each spouse, splitting the community income equally between the two and saving taxes. In noncommunity-property states, couples could not do this, and the tax on a one-earner family would be more than in a community-property state. So Congress created the joint-income-splitting return.

I agree with Gary Becker's solution, though it would end the equal tax treatment of one-earner and two-earner couples. But I am concerned that the states' rights issue would get us back to where we were. Income taxes and social security benefits need to be reformed to recognize the two-earner family. Both are based on social patterns from long ago.

Betsy LaNoue
Davis, Calif.

''This baby-infection test is ready for long pants'' (Developments to Watch, Sept. 18, 2000)

''This baby-infection test is ready for long pants'' (Developments to Watch, Sept. 18) should have said that CompuCyte Corp. plans to market a new test, not a drug.