Creating sick leave for incapacitating periods, for example in the case of endometriosis: this is what the environmentalist deputy for Dordogne Sébastien Peytavie is proposing, co-author, with his colleague Marie-Charlotte Garin, elected in the Rhône, of a bill presented this Wednesday March 27 in committee at the Assembly, before its debate in session on April 4.
To attract attention, the two deputies had several colleagues, from all political stripes, try a period pain simulator.
Everyone is unanimous: it's difficult to imagine working with such symptoms.
How, then, can we deny women a little flexibility?, asks Sébastien Peytavie.
Interview.
Madame Figaro. - What concrete measures do you propose?
Sébastien Peytavie. -
The text relates, in the broad sense, to menstrual and gynecological health at work.
Its four articles aim to arrange the workstation, with clean toilets, a private sink and a rest room, for example, but also to make teleworking possible if necessary.
We have seen, with the Covid-19 pandemic, how teleworking has found its place.
For women suffering from incapacitating periods, it may be more comfortable to work at home, lying down and in comfortable clothing, with a hot water bottle within reach.
But some women, particularly the most precarious, such as cashiers or nurses, do not have access to it.
For them, the menstrual cessation that we defend takes on its full meaning.
What would its characteristics be?
We offer 13 days per year, one per cycle, 100% reimbursed by Social Security with no waiting days, which everyone could take as they wish - two days in February, three in March, none in April... The idea is not to make anything automatic, but to be flexible to adapt to needs.
To avoid women having to see their doctor every month, these 13 days would be open to them on the basis of sick leave valid for one year, which would attest to incapacitating symptoms.
This judgment would be issued by general practitioners, specialists, midwives and occupational medicine.
It seemed essential to us to involve him in these questions.
Many voices fear an attack on medical confidentiality and more discrimination against women...
We are indeed hearing warnings, particularly from feminist associations.
But today, in the private sector, a quarter of women with endometriosis are leaving paid employment, because they cannot guarantee their presence.
Another part works part-time, while some take sick leave during their periods, but therefore suffer a financial penalty.
In the public service, communities that offer women time off use special leave authorization, the ASA.
This involves notifying your employer, which does not guarantee medical confidentiality.
Hence the idea of sick leave, which better protects workers.
Of course, a manager or HR can always make assumptions by noting absences every 28 days, but these will only be assumptions.
Also read: When do we work too much?
Your text talks about “devirilizing the world of work”. That's to say ?
It was built by and for men, and rather for healthy young men.
Hence a perception of performance as something linear and constant.
Seniors, people with disabilities, women for a few days a month, like all those who cannot achieve this level of performance, find themselves excluded.
Employees are asked to adapt to the world of work, but never the other way around.
However, it is necessary.
Let's look at how the menstrual cycle works: it causes a peak in energy before the period, a drop during, and an increase afterwards... Just like during a pregnancy.
We can clearly see that performance fluctuates.
But it can add a lot to the work dynamic!
The system we are defending introduces flexibility and asks the company to approach menstrual and gynecological health differently.
And
ultimately
, to question the idea we have of performance.
Companies that already offer such a system, such as L'Oréal or Carrefour, say it: it does not lead to any reduction in productivity.
Also read: Lætitia Vitaud: “Today, we even count the number of hours of sleep or sport we need to “be efficient””
A similar text defended by socialist senators was rejected last February. Why would yours be more likely to be adopted?
First, because we do not wear it in the same room, then because its broader spectrum embraces gynecological and menstrual health.
The idea of a simple shutdown is controversial and raises interesting equality questions.
Should we have perfect equality of treatment?
The same system common to all?
Does stopping for painful periods not compensate for de facto, natural inequalities?
We have never really addressed these questions.
But the debate only makes sense if we allow all people who work in companies to change their outlook.
What the text debated in the Senate did not allow.
Finally, after the inclusion of abortion in the Constitution at Versailles, the adoption of our text would send a strong message.