Of course, you could argue that women in the United States are not nearly as privileged when it comes to family-friendly work benefits as they are in other nations. But, for the most part, balancing work and life continues to be a perk for the relatively well-off.
Some of this benefit imbalance might be logistics. If you're a fast-food worker or a health care worker, for instance, it's probably harder for you to telecommute than if you work in a tech field (though even in these jobs, employers are experimenting with new ideas, like McDonald's drive-through remote call centers).
But some of the lack of work/life balance options is simply a class issue. If you are higher up in the chain of command, you're a lot more likely to have flexible work options than someone lower on the totem pole.
In some nations, they have stricter workplace laws to protect workers with families. But even then, it doesn't mean things are perfect.
I believe that flexible work schedules and other family-friendly benefits shouldn't be a privilege reserved for those who peer down on the commoners from the lofty high management perch. After all, most people would choose a job with flexibility over one that doesn't offer it. Family time should not be a luxury that only the rich can afford.
Aren't lower-income people the ones who need time with families the most? If parents have more time for their children, what would happen to the scholastic performance of those kids? How would their health improve? How much would investing in their parents save on costs to the employer and to society down the road?
Passing laws is one way to promote fairness, but is it the only solution? How can we help employers to do the right thing?