The scenario most working mothers fear happens when they least expect it.

You’ve managed to transform your home into a well-oiled machine — the nanny or sitter arrives in time for you to head out to the office, deal with rush hour traffic, grab a cappuccino and be at your desk milliseconds before your boss walks by your door. 

You made it!  You beat him or her your desk in your continuing attempts to say:

“I am in complete control of my work and family schedule, thank you very much!”

Then “that” morning arrives. 

The nanny is late because of her own personal emergency.  And you’re faced with a dilemma — do you ‘fess up and tell your boss the real reason you’re going to be late or do you lie?  Is it better to come up with a story about getting stuck in the world’s worst traffic jam or that you overslept rather than explain the real reason for your tardiness?

One recent study says that many women would rather come up with a little white lie about why they’re late or have to leave the office early instead of telling the truth if it’s because of a childcare snafu, even if they are entitled to take the time away from their desks.  Why?  Because they believe that in the eyes of their employers, it’s better to be seen as someone who accidentally hit the snooze button one time too many times than a mother whose family obligations infringe on the bottom line.  

If you’re late because the traffic was backed up on I-270 or on the 405, hey — you couldn’t help that!  Even the head honcho gets caught in the mother of all back-ups sometimes.

But a surprising number of women fear that their opportunities for promotions or challenging work will be compromised if they let on that they have to have time away from the office occasionally during working hours to tend to their children.  Probably because they’ve seen it happen to others.

Even if employers have “official” flex-time policies, the women polled for this study, that was reported in the U.K’s Times Online, reported that bosses and colleagues alike tended to be less understanding if the reason for taking time out of the office was related to childcare or family obligations, and that they worried about what impact that would have on their careers in the long run.

So what do you do?  If your son or daughter has to get picked up at school for a doctor’s appointment or the sitter has to leave early, are your honest about your reason for heading out before closing time or do you fudge the truth?  And is it time for the government to step in to make sure no parent gets penalized for caring for their family?

This weekend I discovered the answer to all of our problems!

OK, not ALL of our problems, but maybe a few.  Banding together instead of lamenting alone in the privacy of our computer rooms is the way to get some real political change happening in this country.

I attended the BlogHer Conference in Chicago this past weekend and spent hours upon hours not only in the seminars about blogging, but also networking and meeting with a good segment of the 800+ women who attended.  You heard me — over 800 women (and a few brave men!) who wanted to meet and learn more about harnessing the power of their blogs.

So I started thinking — there must be tens of thousands of women with blogs, probably more.  How powerful would it be if we could tap into that to transform the discussion of issues for the 2008 Presidential election? 

Face it — we’re a powerful demographic, or at least we should be.  If the presence of major advertisers at the conference is any indication, I’d say the presidential hopefuls should be beating a path to our doors to see what we’re thinking about the issues.  After all, in the last two elections, women were over half of the voters who turned out.  That means we’re in the majority ladies!  How can we make our majority status a voice to be heard?

Having said all that, I was disappointed that the political track discussions were not very well attended at the conference.  Out of 800, only about two dozen showed up to hear NOW President Kim Gandy talk about getting our voices heard in 2008.  Why is that?  I know that for many, politics with a capital “P” isn’t “their bag, baby.”

Even if politics isn’t everyone’s bag, if we could convince a few more to make it a little pouch, maybe our voices would be a little louder than that of a Who at election time.

I came across a New York Times article (it’s behind the TimesSelect firewall) a while back that reported that men apparently would rather be unemployed and let their wives support them than take a job for which they felt underqualified and for which they would be underpaid.

I wasn’t sure whether to laugh or cry or punch the wall! 

Excuse me, but isn’t that what a large percentage of women do when they take on the responsibilities of motherhood?

Some of the guys interviewed for the piece would rather let their wives work to support them, for years, if necessary, until they find something “suitable,” dip into the 401(k) or borrow against their home so they can while away the hours on diversions because their free time is worth a lot to them!

To these men, I think we should say shout a collective, “GET A GRIP!”

I don’t mean to sound old-fashioned here, but remember that little thing called the Depression? When people took whatever jobs they could find just to make money? Get off your duffs and start flipping burgers, for goodness sakes. Or, God forbid, how about taking a job in the child care industry or just be Mr. Mom for a while? Then you’ll really appreciate that job you think you’re more qualified for if it comes along.

By the way, here’s a little job hunting tip maybe we can pass along to any guys we know who are feeling this way – potential employers like to see some initiative, and that includes taking some job to be able to pay the bills instead of studying the Weather Channel or trying to write the Great American Novel. Can you say “entrepreneurial?” By the way, I wonder whether these men are the same people complaining about immigrants coming to the United States and taking all our jobs?

 As for free time, when was the last time you had any? I relish that fantasy.  Along with this one!

“In … the last decade, full-time work outside the home has lost some of its appeal to mothers.”

That’s the opening line of a study released just days ago that supposedly provides support for the so-called working mother “opt-out” revolution.

If those conducting the study had done a little more work, I’m betting the more accurate headline would be this one:

“In the last decade, having mothers in the workplace has lost its appeal to some employers.”

While the study from the Pew Research Center certainly appears to have the statistics on the number of mothers cutting back on their hours to juggle their caregiving responsibilities (and I would dare say to maintain some semblance of sanity), here’s my gripe with this report — it didn’t get into the ‘why.’ 

Why would mothers prefer to cut back?  Why aren’t employers doing more to create flexible work hours to keep experienced women in the workplace?

The report claims we gals have a “lack of enthusiasm” for being in the workplace full-time.

Say what?  I’ve interviewed a lot of women over the last few years, most of them lawyers, on the issue of how to manage to demands of high-pressure jobs, and the hours that come with them, and their parenting responsibilities.  Many of them have worked out some sort of part-time arrangement, but that wasn’t their first choice.  And, they’re not really working part-time — they’re working full-time hours with part-time pay.  They work when the kids are in bed.  They work early in the morning.  They try to stay on top of E-mails and phone calls while at soccer games.

Many women may not physically be in their offices “full-time,” but there’s not doubt they are working in excess of 40 to 50 hours a week, and getting paid less than their male counterparts who aren’t burdened with making pediatrician runs and soccer pick-ups.

When can the Pew Research people get started on a survey of employers about why they won’t bend just a little to accommodate today’s changed family and workplace realities?  That would shed some real truth on these numbers.

But maybe they don’t want the real truth out there.  Because then too many employers would be under the microscope about why working mothers who are really working the same hours as men are getting paid substantially less.

And they wouldn’t want that, now, would they?

On the issue of wage discrimination against women, the Supreme Court gave us a major setback.  And it got loads of publicity.

But the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has given us a little baby step forward, even if it was more on the QT.  The EEOC, after a recent public meeting where it heard comments on work/family balance and the discrimination faced by caregivers, mostly mothers, issued guidelines about how the current laws could be applied if employers discriminate against working parents.

You could have knocked me over with the proverbial feather when I came across this one.  According to the fact sheet issued about why this was on the government’s radar:

“Changing workplace demographics, including women’s increased participation in the labor force, have created the potential for greater discrimination against working parents and others with caregiving responsibilities.”

Some scenarios that could prompt an EEOC claim?

 Treating fathers differently than mothers, changing a new mother’s job duties on the assumption she will be less committed to her work because of her motherhood status, or assuming that a new mother will not want to work overtime hours, to name a few.

Any of these examples sound familiar?

I don’t harbor any illusions that the courts, especially as conservative as they are today, will make a mad dash to issue opinions in pending cases that are going to turn our workplaces on their ears.

But it’s nice to know there are at least some government officials willing to acknowledge that this whole discussion about women “opting out” isn’t just about us.  Some of the responsibility is on other shoulders, as well.