Abstract:In industrial societies, women increasingly postpone motherhood. While men do not fear a loss of fertility with age, women face the biological boundary of menopause. The freezing of unfertilized eggs can overcome this biological barrier. Due to technical improvements in vitrification, so-called "social freezing" (SF) for healthy women is likely to develop into clinical routine. Controversial ethical debates focus on the risks of the technique for mother and child, the scope of reproductive autonomy, and the medicalization of reproduction. Some criticize the use of the technique in healthy women in general, while others support a legally defined maximum age for women at the time of an embryo transfer after oocyte cryopreservation. Since this represents a serious encroachment on the reproductive autonomy of the affected women, the reasons for and against must be carefully examined. We analyze arguments for and against SF from a gendered ethical perspective. We show that the risk of the cryopreservation of oocytes for mother and future child is minimal and that the autonomy of the women involved is not compromised. The negative ethical evaluation of postponed motherhood is partly due to a biased approach highlighting only the medical risks for the female body without recognizing the potential positive effects for the women involved. In critical accounts, age is associated in an undifferentiated way with morbidity and psychological instability and is thus used in a discriminatory way. We come to the conclusion that age as a predictor of risk in the debate about SF is, from an ethical point of view, an empty concept based on gender stereotypes and discriminatory connotations of aging. A ban on postponing motherhood via SF is not justified. OPEN ACCESSLaws 2014, 3 283

Increasingly, work schedules in retail sales are generated by software that takes into account variations in predicted sales. The resulting variable and unpredictable schedules require employees to be available, unpaid, over extended periods. At the request of a union, we studied schedule preferences in a retail chain in Québec using observations, interviews, and questionnaires. Shift start times had varied on average by four hours over the previous week; 83 percent had worked at least one day the previous weekend. Difficulties with work/life balance were associated with schedules and, among women, with family responsibilities. Most workers wanted: more advance notice; early shifts; regular schedules; two days off in sequence; and weekends off. Choices varied, so software could be adapted to take preferences into account. Also, employers could give better advance notice and establish systems for shift exchanges. Governments could limit store hours and schedule variability while prolonging the minimum sequential duration of leave per week.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: This paper looks at the role of legislated norms of general application in shaping "family-friendly" workplaces and their interaction with collectively-bargained standards in the retail service sector and more specifically, in a single unionized retail sector in Quebec, Canada. Methods: The methodology used is traditional legal research methodology: analysis of laws, collective agreements and case law. The principal norms examined concern parental and family leave, working time and disparities between different employment statuses.Results: A series of legislative provisions have been adopted in Quebec over the last 30 years whose objectives are the improvement of family-related leave and the reduction of working time. Unions have also negotiated provisions in collective agreements with these same goals. In the low-wage retail sector studied, the working time standards negotiated between the unions and the employers reflect the characteristics of the sector, most notably extended opening hours, seven days a week. Predictability of hours also varies according to employment status. Such issues as family-unfriendly working time arrangements (last-minute scheduling, asocial hours, etc.) and the need for flexibility in family-related leave are insufficiently taken into account by the legislated and bargained provisions. Conclusions: A fine analysis and comprehension of existing formal regulation, be it legislated or collectively-bargained, is required to fully understand workers' experiences with work-family balance and to identify the gaps between formal norms and the needs expressed by workers with respect to work-family balance.