Many politicians, business leaders, and scholars discount the role of public policy and emphasize the role Line of the labor market when explaining (5) employers’ maternity-leave policies, arguing that prior to the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993, employers were already providing maternity leave in (10) response to the increase in the number of women workers.
***politician/scholar/business leader的观点:产假是资方注意到女工增加,对此作出的一个公司福利。
Employers did create maternity-leave programs in the 1970’s and 1980’s, but not as a purely voluntary response in the (15) absence of any government mandate. In 1972, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that employers who allowed leaves for disabling medical conditions must (20) also allow them for maternity and that failure to do so would constitute sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As early as 1973, a survey found that 58 percent of large (25) employers had responded with new maternity-leave policies.
***作者认为产假不是资方自愿出台的,而是EEOC的规定迫使资方作出相应的产假规定。
Because the 1972 EEOC ruling was contested in court, the ruling won press attention that popularized maternity-leave (30) policies. Yet perhaps because the Supreme Court later struck down the ruling, politicians and scholars have failed to recognize its effects, assuming that employers adopted (35) maternity-leave policies in response to the growing feminization of the workforce.
***对最高法院否定EEOC规定,politician/sholar忽略EEOC ruling的作用,反而认为这是资方看到女工增加而作出产假规定。
作者和politician/sholar/buniness leader 都agree with的这一点我觉得应该没有争议,如同D所述;文章的结构显示了产假的出台的成因:一方认为是资方自愿的,我的动机(我为什么这么做?)是我看到女工多了,另一方否认这一点,认为是EEOC红头文件规定造成的。
===支持选D P.S.我做这篇文章时,头糊成一片,仔细读下来划了这个结构,老天,我的阅读速度再快点...NN给点提高速度的意见...
[此贴子已经被作者于2006-11-6 23:49:51编辑过] |