You're the ones who CHOSE to have children

[StarvingButStrong]

So why am *I* supposed to assume extra burdens because of it? HMMM?

Situation: there are five women in my particular department. All of us are married, the other four have children, I do not. (By my and hubby's choice -- this is not bitterness because I'm bereft of children.)

At least once a week one or another of the mothers has to leave work early for some child-related cause -- picking up a sick child, attending a class performance, ferrying a child to a medical appointment, things like that. This week it has happened THREE TIMES.

Miraculously enough, the amount of work doesn't lessen just because HER little darling is dancing as third buttercup from the left in the recital orHER delinquent son has punched out a class mate leading to emergency consultation with the principal. The work is time critical so the rest of us have to do that of the missing woman's as well as our own. Generally we *don't* get everything done by normal ending time -- meaning we have to stay late. Or, rather, *I* have to stay late. Because all the others, you see, have to pick up children from day care/get children to hockey practices/get starving children let into the house and fed.

Clearly as a non-mother *MY* time has no value. Since no child is waiting on me, nothing *I* have planned can be at all important. Your photography class is tonight? You are having friends over and need to get dinner cooking? You have plans to meet hubby in town before that play? Too bad. You don't have children, therefore you must stay.

Grrrrrr.

Let's not even get into the fact that I have had to work *every* *single* *holiday* for the last five years, while the others get to be off in rotation. Mommas HAVE to be with their children all day on Christmas and Thanksgiving and so forth, you know. It's the law I guess. So what if you have a husband, sisters, brothers, parents and so forth you'd occasionally like to be able to share a holiday meal with? Too bad. You didn't breed so your role is to serve as obligatory relief slave for First Class Citizens, aka parents.


Grrrrr.

[porcupine]

It sounds like your beef is really with the management of your company, not with the people who have kids. You're entitled to have holidays off just as much as they are.

I've worked places where my personal time was considered less important because I was single as compared to my married coworkers, so I understand. I contend that since I had to to all of the household chores (all the grocery shopping, all the trips to the dry cleaners, all the trips to the drug store, all the trips to the pet food store, etc.), my personal time was actually at more of a premium than someone who was married.

[CrazyCatLady]

Yeah, that's crap, all right. Unfortunately, it's all to common crap.

I used to work with a woman who pulled that bullshit all the fucking time. She had to leave an hour early every single day, so that she could pick up her kid at daycare, or sit and watch his T-ball practices. Because, of course, only having Grandma and Mom's boyfriend at practice every day might make him feel unloved. She also had to leave during the day to pick him up on a regular basis because his head hurt. Never mind that we're in the middle of a surgery and have appointments coming in in five minutes. Never mind that we have a ward full of animals to be fed, walked, medicated, and cleaned in that last hour, or that there's still a post-operative animal with tube still in that needs constant watching, or that we still have to clean, do laundry, and check out the cash drawer before the rest of us can go home. Never mind, we're all honored to be servants of the cult of the child.

I didn't care that she got first choice of vacation times, even though her kid's school breaks coincided with times I really wanted to go home and see my family. I didn't care that I was the only tech left in the building the last hour and a half on Halloween because everyone else was taking their kids trick-or-treating. I wouldn't have cared about doing the kennels and such by myself once in a while. Every single fucking day, however, was another matter.

[Triss]

You're the ones who CHOSE to have children
So why am *I* supposed to assume extra burdens because of it? HMMM?

<tongue-in-cheek>

Because you have chosen not to breed, and therefore are not contributing to society in the following ways:

-NOT doing your share to keep doctors/hospitals in the black (ha!) by having a pregnancy. Think of all the pre-natal appointments for which you will never be charged! And those poor hospitals that will never be able to charge you $25.00 per Tylenol™ whilst ignoring you in your agony.

-NOT doing your share for rampant consumerism. How the hell will society get by if people aren't buying baby clothes, toys, health insurance, mini-vans, RESP's, paying for college, etc? What about all the people YOU will be putting out of work through not buying their products? Huh? Huh?

-NOT creating more little consumers/taxpayers for the taxbase. Now, because of your selfish choice not to reproduce, it's MY children's tax dollars who will be paying your old age pension. Thanks. :rolleyes:

</tongue-in-cheek>


Actually, your situation sucks hard. Have you tried talking to management? Go to them with a list of the positives which you contribute to their business. Then politely let them know that you can no longer be responsible for continually covering for other absent employees, regardless of their reasons. The situation you describe is grossly unfair. Unfortunately, you may be sort of enabling it if you're not speaking up.

I'd give it a try, at least. If you don't get anywhere, and you can't live with it, then your only option might be alternative employment.

Good luck. :)

[Green Bean]

So, who's telling these women that they can leave? Who's telling you that you have to stay?

I think you have a legitimate beef, but you're blaming the wrong parties.

If they're consistently working only 35 hours a week to your 40 (or whatever), or their working 35 means that you have to work 45, then that is a problem that should be addressed with your management. Possible solutions would include a pay adjustment, or an arrangement where you get compensated for your extra hours with commensurate time off.

[Casey1505]

Holy shit, lady! Have some cheese. It'll go great with that whine.

It really must have sucked the way your parents missed things that were important to you (or seemed that way, anyway) when you were growing up, because they, like you, realized that work comes before all else in this world. I can only imagine tha pain you felt when mom and dad missed you in the school play when you were 8, because they knew it wasn't fair to work through their lunch so they can leave an hour early, even with management permission.

You need to stop playing the martyr, stand up for yourself, and take some time for yourself once in a while. So what if you don't have kids? They aren't the only excuse to cut out of work early. Suppose you know it's going to turn out to be a beautiful day? "Come down with something" right after lunch, and go play a round of golf, work in your garden, get an early start of your weekend. Beat the parents to the punch. They're only working the system, and you're just pissed that you're not. They're using their kids as an excuse to play hookey for a few hours at a time.

If you take off early, they'll have to make other arrangements. You get to go sit by the pool, while they arrange to get a sitter for little Suzie. Oh well. Not your problem at that point.

I'm sorry, but this line
Clearly as a non-mother *MY* time has no value. Since no child is waiting on me, nothing *I* have planned can be at all important.
completely drained any sympathy I may have had for your rant.

Next time a mother has to leave early for something, put up a fuss, bitch to your manager/boss, or just tell the co-worker to get bent. Stop acting like it is a personal affront to you just because you don't have kids.

[lorinada]

I am a single parent, but I at least had the foresight to choose a career that was not time-sensitive. If I had to leave early, no one had to do my work for me, I was able to go in on a Saturday or stay late the next day, etc. I have always, ALWAYS felt like if I am in someone's employ, MY WORK comes first as long as I am on their time. I have also always had adequate arrangements to get him to school, home from school, to his sports practices, etc. without having to make special arramgements with my boss. We have always lived close to his school and he was only allowed to participate in sports if I could arrange rides with another parent (if you will take him to every practice, I will pick yours up from every practice, etc.). I have always had the opnion that since I chose to have this child even though I was single, I was determined not to make anyone else bear my burden for me.

The sad thing is, in my experience anyway, the working mothers that are MOST LIKELY to take advantage of their coworkers and bosses and burden their mothers, neighbors, etc with their obligations, are the ones that are least required to work. They CHOOSE to work, either because they find a new SUV every two years to be more impressive than a used Honda every seven years, or becuase they are trying to get away from the very brats they are cowtowing and catering to.

And the bosses are afraid if they make these women perform their obligations they will be sued for not being "family friendly", whatever the hell that is.

[Hamadryad]

Come on...how long until someone bring in the "you knew what you were getting into when you decided to have kids" chestnut? It's totally false, by the way...no one know what they're getting into when they decide to have kids.

Take it up with your bosses and leave the parents alone. You can't know what it's like to have to drop everything for a sick kid, just like they can't know what it's like to be able to drop everything and go to the pool for the afternoon.

[Hanna]

Originally posted by porcupine
It sounds like your beef is really with the management of your company, not with the people who have kids. You're entitled to have holidays off just as much as they are.


Gotta agree. The last place I worked I was one of the few who didn't have kids, but they gladly let me leave early for vet appointments and such. When my cat Boo died, they let me have time off, when Abby was hurt, they let me take a long lunch every other day to take her in to get her bandages changed. Sure, the parents seemed to take more time off and got to leave early more often, but when I needed time off, they were very accommodating.

[DAVEW0071]

That's inconvenient, and seems unfair on the face of it, yes.

But if your husband had a gall bladder attack, or you had to tend to a sick parent, you'd get to leave, wouldn't you?

The fact that you haven't had your own family emergencies is fortunate for you. But the day may come when you DO have to leave early, or take a personal day or something.

[magog]

I'm looking at it from the other side of the fence. My boss has said (paraphrasing), "Go home; you're married, and your co-worker is single." It makes me feel awkward, because, well, getting married doesn't give me carte blanche to do whatever I want.

At the same time, I've put in a lot of extra time at work, so it all balances out. It sounds like the management isn't taking that into account.

[ganglian]

Originally posted by lorinada
I


And the bosses are afraid if they make these women perform their obligations they will be sued for not being "family friendly", whatever the hell that is.


It's a buzz word, just like "politically correct", and also an oxymoron. It's just another example of one whiney group taking advantage of "the system".

[CrazyCatLady]

Dave, that's true enough, but a lot of the time we're not talking emergency status here. We're talking about people who refuse to miss even a single game the whole season, creating extra work for the rest every single week. We're talking about a situation where everyone else gets holidays off, but not you. Where everyone else gets to go home on time (or early), but not you.

Do you really think that if SBS had a medical emergency the parents in her office would have to stay late to get things done? Maybe so, but in my experience that's just not the case. It's far more likely that she'd have to come in early the next day to get everything done.

[Smeghead]

Quit covering for them. Go home when you're supposed to. If crap hits the fan and someone wants to know why the work didn't get done, tell them.

[Cat Whisperer]

I support your rant 100%, StarvingButStrong. And thanks for bringing up a growing inequality being caused by the cult of the child mentality we are all living with. From this kind of bullshit going on every day at work to reserving special parking spots for people with children, I am getting the message loud and clear that I am a second-class citizen, behind all the people who managed to do something that is completely, entirely, 100% un-special. Yes, you read that right - having a child does not make you special. Your children are not special. Having a child/being a child is one of the most un-special things you can do - it has been done billions of billions of times before.

I am also getting tired of the martyr complex I hear from so many people with children. Somehow they manage to convey the impression that they are the busiest, hardest-working people in the world, and I'm somehow lucky that I don't have to do all the stuff that they have to do. Uh, luck wasn't a factor; deciding not to have kids and taking appropriate birth control, THOSE were the deciding factors. You have your life, and I have mine. I don't have all the benefits of having kids that you have, and you don't have all the benefits of NOT having kids that I have. Get the hell over it.

Whew, glad I could finally get that off my chest. I know that criticizing parents/parenting is one of the sacred cows here on the Dope, but this is how I feel.

[Evil Captor]

As a parent I can tell you that your situation is unfair. But it's management that's making it unfair, not your cow-orkers with kids. You shouldn't always have to work to make up for others, whoever those others might be.

That said, all childless people are in effect dependents of those of us who have children. Because what do you suppose would happen if everyone behaved as you do and elected not to have children, about 30-40 years down the road. Un-hunh. Thought so. Next generation has to come from somewhere, doesn't it?

[CrazyCatLady]

So there aren't any young people anymore; we'll just import some. I understand there's quite a surplus in most Third World countries, so they ought to be pretty cheap. Perhaps we could even stockpile them in silos in case of a shortage.

Yes, my tongue is firmly in my cheek, but I'm also serious. Show me how having a next generation is an inherently good thing.

[monica]

Casey1505: So what? Now you're telling her that she has to lie to get some time off? Or she's supposed to act like a bitch to all the mothers who leave early and/or her boss? Oh yeah, that'll make the working environment really friendly.

[Hamadryad]

It's the fault of the people who run the business. You feel like there's inequity? Instead of bitching that parents get the perks, wah, poor you, complain to your fucking bosses.

Maybe it's time for me to bitch about how nightclubs aren't child-friendly. :rolleyes: It's not faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaair! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!

[StarvingButStrong]

Thanks for the replies so far.

I think the majority opinion is right: even though it is the parents cutting out that is causing the immediate problem, it's really the management that is letting it happen, or at least failing to fix it in some way other than dumping the extra work on me. And you're right, I have been serving as an enabler. It's not like they've locked the door or held a gun to my head.

As far as getting comp time off, that's to laugh. They've been cutting the staff at this job, over and over -- basically, our department has gone from 8 people years ago to the current five, with no matching reduction in how much work needs to be done. Which is no doubt a major aggravating factor behind my getting 'stuck' doing so much unwanted overtime. Right now everything gets done ONLY when all of us are putting in full time -- there's no slack. If we had a couple more people, the work from those lost hours would be spread over more people, and likely staying late wouldn't be needed.

But the chances of getting more people hired...zero.

And, momentarily tempting though the idea is, 'working the system' myself isn't the answer. I was brought up with a really puritan work ethic: if I've agreed to work certain hours, then I do. I wouldn't be able to enjoy any time playing hooky.

So... I think I'm going to stop 'enabling.' When my assigned hours are over, I'm leaving. Well, UNLESS it was a genuine emergency, not just some 'planned to leave early for some reason' thing.

This is going to create major problems for all of us, and the company overall, as complications arise from undone tasks, and hell will be to pay. I also suspect I'll be the major target for blame, since I'll be the one refusing to prevent the problems from happening for 'no good reason.' Lack of team spirit, or something like that, they'll call it. So much for any future at this place.

Guess I'll start looking for a new job. I'll hate it, since I really like this job for many aspects, but feeling taken advantage of continually is sucky.

Hey, there's a good thing about my situation: I've got less financial pressure over me than if we had a brood to keep fed, etc.

[kambuckta]

I think your company must be one of the more enlightened ones around, and I commend them for allowing the parents to be given time to cope with family issues as well as holding a job. For many parents in the workforce it is not so easy: kids do get sick and they do sometimes need attention during business hours but 'Child Friendly' workplaces are few and far between. So women take 'sickies' or they cut into their annual leave and all in all it tends to marginalise them in the labour market, often relegating them to part-time/casual and other poorly paid niches.

Y'see, not all women have grandma's or other extended family/friends available to look after the kid/s while you're at work. Sick kids can't be sent to daycare, and there are not always 'Holiday Program' facilities and/or vacancies when you need them. What do you suggest? Leaving a 7 yr old kid with a fever to fend for themself? Parents I know are loathe to take time off unless really necessary and are acutely aware that 'time-off' is not an infinite resource. Thus it is saved for real emergencies....but there are some weeks when the emergencies come one after another. Shit just happens sometimes.

In your particular case Starving, the women must be considered valuable employees by management. You mention staff-cuts etc, so I imagine they would have been the first to go if their performance (as you imply) had been notoriously poor. That they CAN manage to combine family committments and maintaining a decent job is perhaps a reflection of their hard work as much as of management leniency.

Oh, and is it a new rule that because we've chosen to have kids that we're not allowed to complain about some of the trials and tribulations? Does that mean that people who 'choose' to buy a house are not allowed to complain about rising interest rates, or that people who 'choose' to drive cars musn't whinge about traffic jams?



:rolleyes:

[Dangerosa]

If your boss and/or company isn't fair (and if they are going to blame you for not working overtime and no one else - they aren't), this isn't a kid thing - its a popularity contest (which may be decided by having kids).

I worked for a company out of college where about five of us did similar jobs. We were all young, fresh out of college, and single.

Debbie could take a two hour lunch. Molly could show up hung over an hour late. Kim could spend an hour on the phone planning her wedding every day. Laura spent her time gossiping (and sleeping with the boss). I got in trouble for not pulling overtime to make sure all the work got done.

When Christmas came along, Kim had to go visit relatives out of state, Debbie and her boyfriend had tickets to Hawaii, Laura was sure as hell not going to work it - and no one wanted Molly to cover anyway - so guess who was told they "couldn't" take vacation?

I eventually quit, and started down the path of un-doormatness.

[hansel]

I think you're missing the point of everyone's advice, Starving: don't suddenly become a hardass. Go talk to your boss. Tell her/him that you're unhappy about the burden placed on you, and you want it redressed. Maybe you'll get more money, maybe your boss will make some compensatory time off for you. Unless your manager is a complete asshole, they'll recognize that you're being treated unfairly and try to redress it. Negotiate a bit, and try to find a solution before dropping the bomb.

And if they don't redress it, drop the bomb. But at least give your boss a chance, first.

[SouthernStyle]

I'm glad to see so much support for the OP's opinion. I support the position quite strongly, and believe that it should go far beyond just the commitment of one's time.

I live in Florida -- retiree capital of the world. (I'm not one of them yet and won't be for quite a few years yet.) Our voters have recently changed the state constitution to enact what amounts to "citizen laws".

One of the recent "mandates" is a limit to the number of students in every class. Another is that all schools have to offer a "voluntary" pre-Kindergarten. All paid for a tax-payer expense, of course.

Just as the OP suffers by having to cover for co-workers that their needs are more important than hers, Florida's taxpayers (AKA, me) have been mandating with paying for a year's free daycare and other goodies.

sigh.....

[StarvingButStrong]

Kambuckta, as the other posters have pointed out, my problem really isn't with the fact that the other workers are failing to work their full hours due to family demands. It's that *I*'ve been leaned on to do the overtime to finish the work that isn't getting done, and that I've been told the others can't be expected to pitch in with doing the overtime *because* they have children.

Basically, it takes 40 'woman-hours' to do the work in our department, and they have scheduled workers for just those 40 hours. If 2-3 of those women-hours (at a minimum) vanish every week due to people leaving early, the solution cannot be to require just one of those workers (me, to be specific) to work overtime to finish off.

I don't want the overtime work, not on a every single week basis. I have other interests to pursue in life, hobbies to enjoy, education to pursue, other relationships to nurture and enjoy. I want to be able to make plans for my 'after work' hours and be allowed to carry them out.

There is indeed more to life than work. *Even* for those of us who don't have children.

[Cat Whisperer]

A "child-friendly" workplace sounds great in theory, but it shouldn't come at the expense of the childless people. This is similar to a workplace where smokers take a five minute smoke-break every hour, but non-smokers just sit there and grunt away. One worker shouldn't have a tougher job because of other co-worker's life choices.

(kambukta, there's a difference between people complaining about the trials of raising children, and people complaining about how hard it is and looking at me with jealousy in their eyes and saying spiteful things about how easy my life is, how lucky I am, etc. These are the kind of people I find hard to take.)

[whiterabbit]

My mom worked off and on during my childhood. She's worked at home in the interim times between offices, so this wasn't as much of an issue then. She made every effort to do two things: take care of her kids when necessary, and do her job well without dumping masses of work on somebody else when a kid-related issue came up. (This extends to her dealing with me as an adult moving back home very suddenly; she's working at home now and had to send some work back to the companies to assign to another transcriber when the shit hit the fan with my ex-fiance, but she virtually never does that, so they didn't argue.)

I'd say management is right in letting them take care of their kids but wrong in letting them take advantage of YOU at the same time.

[Manda JO]

I think the thing to do is to talk to somebody: possibly your boss, possibly the women you work with, but only if you have a good raport with them. Either way, remember this:

Don't blame the other women. Don't say "because of them and their kids . . ." This will breed defensiveness and divisivness and create an "us vs. you" envioroment.

Do blame the economy. It's an equal opportunity target, a scapegoat that allows everyone to keep their dignity and deal with the issue instead of focusing on blame, or fault, or fair.

The way you get from blaming the economy to your work hours is by pointing a finger at the staff cuts. Again, don't blame the boss for making the cuts! Blame the economy!

Do keep records. It transforms brainless bitching into a legitimate complaint. Everytime you have to stay after and are the last one to leave because someone had to leave early, put check on your calender. Do it retroactivly for the last couple of weeks if you can remember.

Don't even mention the kids. It's a whole can of worms that you want to avoid opening if at all possible. The problem isn't that they have kids, it that you are having to work overtime every week. By dragging the kids into the issue, you make it infinitly more complicated.

Go to the women you work with or your boss (who ever you think would be more willing to work with you), red-checked callender in hand and say something like: "I hate to complain, but as you can see, last month I stayed late to finish up almost half the days we were open. I have no life. I had to drop that photography class because I was always late, I don't remember what the inside of the grocery store looks like, and my mother is complaining she dosen't remember the sound of my voice. I know the economy sucks right now ,and I know that the staffing cuts have made everyone's life harder, but we need to work out something so that I am not always the last one here."

Then try real hard to shut up and let them come up with a solution you can live with. Just let them talk. If they start with 'yeah, but we all have kids . . . .", just look at them and hold your tounge for three beats. There is a good chance they will realize how foolish that is once they hear themselves say it.. If they don't, say something mild like "I know, but I just can't stay late three nights a week, not every week." Do NOT get dragged into an arguement about fair.

If they come up with a solution, they will be much more likely to embrace it cheerfully. If you try this and it just doesn't work--they shrug their shoulders and say "Just deal.", THEN you can go to the lmore radical plans.

[Cat Whisperer]

Ah, Manda JO, there you go, being all sensible and realistic and fair and stuff again.

[CanvasShoes]

Originally posted by porcupine
It sounds like your beef is really with the management of your company, not with the people who have kids. You're entitled to have holidays off just as much as they are.


I have to agree. What kind of company do you work at which, when one person is gone (for whatEVER reason) do the other workers have to suddenly start doing his/her work as well as their own?

Don't you and your coworkers have specific assignments, share of work, etc? Or is it just all one big work "pool" where more gets divvied (is that a word?) out amongst however many people happen to be there?

I can see where it would be annoying though, but I have to agree with porcupine, that your anger/aggravation is targeted to the wrong people.

Are there other singles/childless at your place of business?

Also, are there other people that take time off that doesn't have to do with children, but yet still foists more of the workload onto the remaining workers?

Would it be possible to form a group of employees and address management regarding this problem?

[CanvasShoes]

Originally posted by SouthernStyle
One of the recent "mandates" is a limit to the number of students in every class. Another is that all schools have to offer a "voluntary" pre-Kindergarten. All paid for a tax-payer expense, of course.

Just as the OP suffers by having to cover for co-workers that their needs are more important than hers, Florida's taxpayers (AKA, me) have been mandating with paying for a year's free daycare and other goodies.

sigh.....

Hijack.

Don't sigh so mightily over your tax dollars being used for something at least somewhat societally useful like daycare Southern.

Maybe this will make you feel a teensy bit less resentful.

Our good ole government uses up $75,000 dollars a year to fly the flag over the capital to the tune of "Old Glory" and send it said flag, FREE of charge to whomever requests it.

$150,000 dollars a year of OUR tax money to send out free pens, safety etc etc type coloring books (like the fire safety ones) to citizens FREE of charge. (well those two figures I read way back in the 80s, in Time magazine, it's probably more now, and those are only two of the hundreds of freebie programs our gov't runs).

My all time favorite was the grant given to a group of scientists down in the midwest somewhere (drat my memory, this WAS the 1980s) to study a pile of petrified sloth manure that was carbon dated to be something like a billion years old (being smart alecky, don't remember the exact age) that was located in some cave.

Somehow the stupid stuff caught on fire and of course they, the scientists who'd been given the grant, couldn't just pour water on it, that would ruin the intrinsically historic value (that's the words from the article, not mine), so they sealed off the cave and lots of other methods before finally extinguishing it.

The final cost to the US Taxpayers to save a pile of ancient petrified sloth shit? $1.5 million. And this was back in the 80s.

The point being, we're forced to pay taxes by our good ole gov't, and we usually don't have much of a choice as to where those tax dollars go.

I think I'd rather fund daycare with my tax dollars thank you!

[Dread Pirate Jimbo]

Manda JO: Very interesting tactics. However, I suspect that you already predicted the way it would go:

SBS: I'm working too many overtime hours and here's proof.
Office: Yeah, but we all have kids. You have to take up the slack because you're childless.
SBS: I know I'm not a mom, but I just can't stay three nights a week, not every week.
Office: Why not? You don't have any commitments. Not without children.
SBS: What about my husband? My night classes? My hobbies?
Office: Oh, heavens, they don't count! If they don't involve kids, they're not real commitments, silly.

I have seen that sort of attitude in some of my jobs as well. At my last job, one junior estimator was allowed to leave whenever he wanted, no questions asked, because he had to pick up his kids from school or come in late when he had to drop them off. As the childless adult in the office, my hours were carefully monitored, especially toward the end of the day, in spite of the fact that I never left urgent tasks unfinished. In fact, my early days were due to going off to coach kids, but that held no weight, because the kids weren't mine. And I was expected to catch that time up, be it by staying late or coming in on the weekend.

In my experience, management is all for creating "family-friendly" circumstances, but those circumstances are always at the expense of the workers who don't have "families." The cult of the child requires special consideration for those who are parents, but generally punishes those who are childless for the sin of not reproducing.

[Manda JO]

Well, yes, Dread Pirate Jimbo, there's a chance that the path of reason and oderation will fail to work, but it's hard to see how it could hurt to try. I have found that often casual ideas like "oh, she dosen't have any kids so she won't mind." sometimes crumble when the person holding them is forced to admit them out loud. However, if you back them into a corner, they get defensive and those attitudes get soldified forever. She can always put her foot down or quit later.

[FairyChatMom]

Originally posted by CanvasShoes
Our good ole government uses up $75,000 dollars a year to fly the flag over the capital to the tune of "Old Glory" and send it said flag, FREE of charge to whomever requests it. No, this is incorrect. (http://usgovinfo.miningco.com/library/howto/htflag.htm)

[SouthernStyle]

Originally posted by CanvasShoes
I think I'd rather fund daycare with my tax dollars thank you!


I'm not begrudging a few tax dollars to pay for some necessities, or even a few more dollars to pay for flags, pens, and extinguishinghing burning shit (well, maybe I will begrduge that last one).

My semi-hijack-semi-rant is in sympathy with the OP that complained that she (and other singles) has no choice but to give up a disproportionate part her life to make up for the split priorities of people with replicates.

Same things with my day-care gripe. This "day care" is voluntary pre-K school. Voluntary. My tax dollars are going to building more schools and pay more teachers (and fund more unions) via one of the most ineffective methods of "investing" money (the government) simply because someone voted my money away from me and chose to LET those is a particular "class" have it.

It aint right.

Voting to take money from the childless to pay for luxuries for the child-burdened is no different than voting to take money away from a racial or religious minority.

[croaker67]

Children. No way. I can take out my own trash, shovel my own walk, and mow my own lawn. The Mrs. and I have other things to accomplish.

[kambuckta]

Jesus SouthernStyle, there is no person alive who gains FULL benefit from every tax-dollar they pay. It mostly evens out though, and what we lose on the round-about, we make up for on the ferris-wheel (or however that old saying goes).

And since when is 'education' a 'luxury for the child-burdened'? A well educated community is an asset for EVERYBODY. Maybe one of those pre-schoolers might grow up to find a cure for cancer or an effective way to deal with poverty and famine in the poorer regions of the world. Communities pay for education because the community benefits, NOT just the individual.

:rolleyes:

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

SBS has a valid gripe. Her company is treating her unfairly.

After reading some of the replies here, I would like to state for the goddamn record that not all parents work the system. Not all "family-friendly" policies are due to "whiners" forcing employers to cave in to their litigious demands.

Okay, now that I've got the snarkiness out of my system, I'd like to address a few other points.

We live in a society that works on the principle that some things that seem to benefit a few in the short run actually benefit us all in the long run. Similarly, some things are worth supporting, even if we do so with an inequitable burden.

You might disagree with spending money on highways you don't drive on, state parks you won't visit, firemen that will never have to put out a fire at your house, buses that help people get around even though you have a car, libraries that carry some books you may never read, prisons that hold wifebeaters that would never hit you personally. These things are in the same category as the schools and daycare and leave you mention. Yet it's parents that get your ire for "breeding" and "taking handouts" in the form of family leave and publicly funded schools. For driving up healthcare costs with their brat's runny noses and asthma and those stupid epidurals moms get in childbirth. You see parents as being on the giving end of a huge entitlement system while you are just fucked, fucked, fucked.

I find this an odd target. You cannot accept that children are one of those many areas that many people believe are worth directing resources towards? You think it is all about parents fucking you over and gleefully taking taking taking? I'm not saying you have to LIKE spending money on ANY of that shit. I'm just saying I'm confused about why you feel *this* is the thing that is most unfair to you. Why is parenting such a target?

Yes, there are inconsiderate parents out there. And it's not just you who suffers for their actions. Their fellow parents do, too.

[FisherQueen]

I think the word you're looking for is "discrimination." It may still be legal to discriminate based on parental status, but it isn't ethical, and I'll bet it wouldn't hold up in court, either.

I'd keep a record for a month of all the times you had to do the extra work for parents, while making the same amount of money, and politely ask the management if it is their policy to discriminate against the single. I'd use the word, too.

Then I'd ask them how they intend to change their policies to ensure that everyone is treated fairly in regard to hours and duties.

If I didn't care too much about the job, I'd ask to be compensated in my paycheck for doing the work of others, based on the extra hours your records show you worked. I'm a teacher- if I have to cover for the person down the hall during my planning period, I get paid extra for that time. You should, too. I doubt they'll give it to you, but it would certainly make the point if you had a dollar amount for the work you've been required to do for 'free.'

I'm sorry, but being a parent means you have occasional, real emergencies. Single people have occasional, real emergencies, too. But on an ordinary day, everyone, parent or no, does what they're paid to do. I really can't believe it's that hard, and if the parents really can't work a full-time job while caring for their children... then maybe they shouldn't have a full-time job.

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by CrazyCatLady
So there aren't any young people anymore; we'll just import some. I understand there's quite a surplus in most Third World countries, so they ought to be pretty cheap.

I don't recall saying "everybody in the U.S." I said "everybody." I meant "everybody." I was talking mega-uber stuff.

[Casey1505]

Originally posted by monica
Casey1505: So what? Now you're telling her that she has to lie to get some time off? Or she's supposed to act like a bitch to all the mothers who leave early and/or her boss? Oh yeah, that'll make the working environment really friendly.
If that's what it appears that I'm saying, then so be it. Looks like she's getting the shit end of the stick at work, so why not sling some back?

What I'm trying to say is that it does not appear that she has taken any initiative whatsoever to stand up for what she feels is fair. She would rather get taken advantage of at work and whine about it in a message board than take a stand in defense of fairness to herself and go to management with valid concerns.

If the situation is truly as bad as she makes it out to be, then perhaps finding another job is an option.

[Shirley Ujest]

Where in the heck are the dad's in the this picture? Are they covering for Dr.'s appointments and losing work time for a recital.


You need to go to your bosses.

If that doesn't help, you can always take any work that is left piled on your desk courtesy of the guilty mom, and pile it back on hers. ( I've done this) and tell her, nicely ( if you can) since you don't get overtime and you never can have her do a favor for you of working late at a future date, that she needs to figure out how to budget her time better.

YMMV, but it solved my problems.

[StarvingButStrong]

Manda JO, you make an awful lot of sense -- I'll give the calm, reasoned approach a try in a week or two, when I've amassed enough data.

But...in the meantime, the job hunt starts tomorrow, because I really don't hold out much hope. Human nature being what it is, no one likes to give up anything good that they've gotten used to having, even if it's pointed out that they really aren't entitled to it.

Casey1505, in my own defense, it was sort of like that old wife's take about gradually boiling a frog -- if you raise the temperature slowly, the frog accustoms to it instead of leaping out at once. Back when there were 8 women in the department, there were only three with children, two married w/o children, and three single. Having the mothers slip off to tend to crises wasn't as big a deal: it didn't happen as often AND there were many more childless workers to cover as needed.

All along the women with children haven't been expected to put in extra hours. It's been done that way long enough it seemed 'right', you know? Even to the non-mothers. That's just the way things were. Because, honestly, I *do* understand that parenthood makes enormous demands on your time and energy. When it was a matter of having to put in a few hours, once or twice a month...well, no problem. Fine.

But, step by step, things changed. Personnel changes, additional births (and three children have three times as many activities/crises as one), layoffs....now it's 4 mothers and 1 non and the water is bubbling up around me. :(

So. As I said, I *will* speak with my boss and see if the situation can be fixed, but my optimism is easily contained.

[DoctorJ]

Like my wife, the lovely CrazyCatLady above, I never plan to have any kids. Up until now, particularly in my chosen profession, parents have been the exception among my colleagues. Now that I'm on the backside of twenty and gainfully employed, it's more of a concern. That's why I purposefully steered away from residency programs that stumbled over themselves to proclaim their "family-friendliness", and I took note of the happiness levels of the parents vs. non-parents.

Truth be told, though, this isn't tolerated very much in the world of medical residency, and probably not in the private world, either. We have a set amount of work to do, and just about every man-hour accounted for (with the occasional intern slinking away while the unit's quiet to post on a message board). We cut each other some slack when we can--just last week someone spotted me for a couple of hours so I could go see Tori Amos--but we know better than to take more than we give.

I know of one resident in my med school's OB department whose daughter had a fairly serious illness that spent a lot of time taking her around to various doctors to treat. The other residents (four of them) finally banded together and told the program director that they felt bad for her, but they just couldn't keep taking up all her slack. The program offered her two choices--start pulling your weight, or take a year off. She was indignant for a while--she was kind of a bitch anyway--but she eventually relented and got some help with her daughter at home.

Not many people get into medicine without understanding that you're going to have to miss a lot of those ball games, and you won't be there every Christmas morning. It's the way it is. It may become an unfortunate side effect of the trend toward splitting up hours among doctors and sharing responsibilities--those of us with "less noble" ways to spend our free time may get the shaft. I'll be on the lookout, though.

Dr. J

[Dread Pirate Jimbo]

Allow me to clarify my position, Manda JO. I think your suggestion is the smartest, most tactically advantageous one on this thread (and I'm glad to see SBS is planning to try it). But human nature being what it is, and the average person being as self-centred and selfish as s/he is, I just don't see much hope for success from my cynical perspective.

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by Casey1505
What I'm trying to say is that it does not appear that she has taken any initiative whatsoever to stand up for what she feels is fair. She would rather get taken advantage of at work and whine about it in a message board than take a stand in defense of fairness to herself and go to management with valid concerns.

I have to take exception to this language. All the evidence indicates that the OP was writtne to garner additional info and opinions before acting, something I do myself sometimes when I am dealing with a tough problem. This is constructive activity, not "whining."

I generally find the use of the term "whining" to be a crappy excuse for debate or discussion as well. The person of discussion boards is discussion, and a considerable portion of that discussion will be about stuff people are unhappy about, almost all of which can be, and often will be interpreted as "whining" by someone. Hence, saying someone is 'whining' is a very nearly meaningless comment.

[TVeblen]

IMO, where's the ambiguity?

No employer worth spit would be caught dead giving out free passes based on the private lives of employees. Trading off time? Sure, go for it. Figure it out among yourselves. Cutting some slack in emergencies, with time to be made up later? Rock on, as work load and fairness permit.

Work is a commitment, and work sure as hell doesn't just conveniently go away because individual needs draw people aside. Pisser, but true. Can't pull the full load? Then don't don't sign on. Flexibility works in all directions and meets work needs without crying favorites.

The alternative is Oprah territory: sick child, aging parent, SO in crisis, late taxes, chance at true love, in-law arrested, beloved pet dies, whatever. Employees are people, all of 'em, with people stuff constantly goin' on. Everybody has a private lif outside of work. Granting lighter work loads and preferential leave time based on personal circumstances is just plain wrong, IMO, not to mention crashingly stupid.

And IME those--of any category--who treat cow-orkers with respect tend to get it back.

Veb

[kambuckta]

Originally posted by TVeblen
IMO, where's the ambiguity?



Actually, in your post Veb. Maybe because the weekend is drawing to a close, maybe because the damn noise of the Grand Prix has been assaulting me all day, maybe because I'm just dense sometimes, but for whatever reason I couldn't quite get your point in your post.

Can you enlighten me here?

:)

[Primaflora]

Maybe I'm a bit thick but I don't understand how those parents can possibly have *that* many emergencies. Performances you'd know about ahead of time and sporting events likewise.

I'm a SAHM because there isn't an employer on the planet who would tolerate the amount of time off I need with my pair of kids. It sucks but I can't work outside the home and I can't even count on being able to work freelance as I know at any time things could turn to custard and I will be shuffling stuff at speed to make things work.

Eh I'm not sure of the point of my post. I'd be pissed off to at being asked to cover so much so often. One day I will get out of the saltmines which are my daily lot and get to play with the big kids again and no quarter will be given I tellya!

[Casey1505]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
I have to take exception to this language. All the evidence indicates that the OP was writtne to garner additional info and opinions before acting, something I do myself sometimes when I am dealing with a tough problem. This is constructive activity, not "whining."

I generally find the use of the term "whining" to be a crappy excuse for debate or discussion as well. The person of discussion boards is discussion, and a considerable portion of that discussion will be about stuff people are unhappy about, almost all of which can be, and often will be interpreted as "whining" by someone. Hence, saying someone is 'whining' is a very nearly meaningless comment.

I agree with you to an extent. I've used the boards to gain advice before doing anything, as well. It is a useful tool.

However, portraying the work atmosphere as one in which mothers get all the time off and she gets none is likely a gross exaggeration, and lines like "...*MY* time has no value..." and "...nothing *I* have planned can be at all important..." are exaggerations as well as childish.

It is entirely possible to vent about the situation at work without making broad generalizations such as these. It is possible to vent about your job (or spouse, or childres, or neighbor, etc.) without coming across as being whiney:

"Here's the situation at ABC Company. It seems that parents get to leave early while I (not a parent) have to stay and cover in most every instance. Parents seem to get prefrential treatment as far as scheduling time off for holidays. I have addressed these concerns with management, but they don't seem to be taking my concerns seriously. Are there other options that I could take?"

Making sarcastic coments such as "Mommas HAVE to be with their children all day on Christmas and Thanksgiving and so forth, you know. It's the law I guess. " are not valid argument points, and undermine the OP.

[Dangerosa]

IANAL, but some of this is codified into law.

There is the Family Medical Leave act - you can take 12 weeks unpaid to care for a sick child.

In Minnesota, I believe, a parent is allowed to use their own sick time to care for a sick child. In a company like mine - where salaried employees don't have formal sick time and salaried employees are permitted to take time for doctors and dentist appointments as part of that informal sick time - this means that I can just leave in the middle of the day for my kids doctors appointments (I try to schedule them late in the day or first thing in the morning).

(Now, sick time doesn't cover Little League games - the parents I work with - male and female - who need to do this have been able to adjust their schedules to fit - one of my coworkers works 5am -2pm so he is home about the same time his kids get home from school).

I take the kids to almost all their appointments - my husband takes the very seldom. In our family, this is due to the difference in our jobs. I have a job that I can do in 35 hours a week. I can do some of it from home. I seldom have days full of meetings. My husband has a job that he doesn't get done in 50 hours a week. (He was at work yesterday- Saturday - and just went in again this morning). He is almost always completely booked from 9am to 5pm with meetings. He also makes about 30% more money than I do. I don't know what SBSs coworkers situtation is - it could be like mine, or it could be the simply sexist assumption that mom does these things, even if Dad is sitting on the couch collecting unemployment checks.

There is the matter of priority for the parents as well. Once again, I don't know about SBS's coworkers, but my boss is perfectly aware that I want and need flexibility in my job due to my kids and has been happy to give it to me. If I don't get the flexibility I need, I have the luxury of being able to live quite comfortably off hubby's paycheck and become a SAHM. If the flexibility I require is too much of a burden, he can let me know and I can make the decision on whether I'll leave or stay with new rules.

All my coworkers have kids as well, and all take advantage of this on occation (as your kids get older - less and less - and more if the kids are little and both parents work). A single person coming into the team might feel that they are being taken advantage of - but we've been working this way for the three years I've been there just fine.

[Hamadryad]

Here's one point to be made: the parents aren't taking time for THEMSELVES. They're taking it for their KIDS. If a kid throws up at school, WHAM, that kid needs to go home. He can't just suck it up and go back to "work" and hope he feels better, like a grown-up at a job can. In my high school, if you threw up you had to go home, period, paragraph, end of story. My dad was a consultant, so he pretty much made his own hours, but he still had to leave a client in the lurch to come pick me up - from an hour away - on at least two occasions.

He didn't leave because he had something better to do. He didn't leave because he wanted to go to the pool. He didn't leave because he wanted to take advantage of his client's "family-friendly" heart. He left because he HAD to. Then he spent the evening making phone calls and working on the computer and frantically trying to minimize the fallout.

My husband isn't allowed to take his vacation around Christmas this year, he has already been informed. He's disappointed, but he'll be all right. I'm disappointed, but I'll be able to deal. I get to field the questions. "Why isn't Daddy home? Why does Daddy have to work while we're on vacation?" Last year during Christmas vacation when he had to go in for a day, one of my kids was incredibly sad because there was nothing he could do to "make Daddy home sooner."

Most parents aren't selfishly taking time off to make their job easier or to make your job harder. They're taking it to be decent parents to their kids. You've got people screaming on one side, "What's wrong with kids these days?!?!?!?" and on the other, "Parents get too much time off because of their kids!!!!" You can't solve the first problem while bitching about the second, sorry.

I think one of the "problem(s) with kids these days" is that the 80s were a time of workworkwork and FUCK the family...and those are today's wild, unruly, disrespectful teens and young adults who think all adults are untrustworthy and unreliable. Hrm. Wonder how THAT happened.

[Eva Luna]

Sounds like your employer is unfair, but to what extent has this been brought to their attention? I mean, the thing about the people with kids getting holidays off when you don't; that's patently ridiculous.

About the unscheduled overtime, though; my thought would be to discuss with your employer a variety of ways to distribute work more fairly. If the child-related obligations that will have your co-workers out of the office are predictable, then what's to stop them from coming earlier or working through lunch to make sure they will have the time to pull their weight? Is the work you do something that can be done from home to any extent?

Obviously, a kid vomiting at school is an emergency; a softball practice is not. If you know your kid has softball practice, I respect your desire to attend, but then you should come in earlier that day or stay later the next day so that the same person isn't screwed all the time.

BTW, do the co-workers with kids all leave at 5:00 on the dot every day? Or do some of them manage to juggle obligations some of the time so that they're helping with the overflow at least some of the time? Sounds like you guys need a better coverage plan. Providing they aren't all single mothers of preschoolers, why can't the daddies cover some of the childcare slack?

[CrazyCatLady]

Hama, you usually seem pretty sensible, but I think you're getting a little (well, a lot, really) melodramatic on this one.

Your dad tried to cause as little disruption as possible, and he wouldn't be the sort of parent we're bitching about. He would count as one of the good cow-orkers.

As for your Christmas example, there's a huge streak of me that wants to say, "Well, waaaaahhh." Lots of companies don't allow vacations at the holidays. Hell, lots of people don't even get the holidays themselves off. This Christmas I'm already scheduled for a 9-hour shift, as are most of the other emergency/icu techs. Last Christmas Dr.J was at the hospital from 7am-10:30pm. When I was a kid, we were tickled that Dad got Christmas Eve and Christmas off, much less having our whole break off.

Oh, and somehow my parents (and those of my husband and friends) managed to make it through the workworkwork and screw the family 80's as damn fine parents, even while working 60 hours a week or more. Personally, I think what's wrong with kids today (and I mean kids, not young adults) is that a shocking number of parents kowtow to them rather than parenting them.

[Hamadryad]

a shocking number of parents kowtow to them rather than parenting them.I might venture to guess that a lot of them spoil the kids because they're guilty about not being there to parent them.Hama, you usually seem pretty sensible, but I think you're getting a little (well, a lot, really) melodramatic on this one.Not really, considering what I've been given to work with.This Christmas I'm already scheduled for a 9-hour shift, as are most of the other emergency/icu techs.I'd imagine that when you go into a medical field, you take into account that you're not going to have much free time, or malleable free time. Lots of companies don't allow vacations at the holidays. Hell, lots of people don't even get the holidays themselves off.To which MissBungle might reply, "And SOME PEOPLE are battling CANCER!!" It's all relative. When I was a kid, we were tickled that Dad got Christmas Eve and Christmas off, much less having our whole break off.And when I was a kid, my Dad was in education so he had the whole vacation off...but I couldn't have cared less if he hadn't. Again: it's all relative.

I'm pleased that you and your husband and all of your friends are so well-adjusted, CrazyCatLady. I and most of my friends are not. *shrug* I guess differing points of view come from different circumstances. WHO'D A' THUNK IT???

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally posted by Hamadryad
Here's one point to be made: the parents aren't taking time for THEMSELVES. They're taking it for their KIDS. <snip>
I have to question this. You seem to be saying that if the reason people aren't doing their jobs is because of their children, that somehow makes it okay. You don't really want to go there, do you?

[FaerieBeth]

Without a doubt, there will always be people who take advantage of others and of a situation if they can. I do not think leaving work early to watch softball practice is reasonable. I do think leaving work to pick up your vomitting child is.

As an educator, I have the advantage of having most of the same holidays as my children. My husband works at a local university, so he, too, has those same holidays. In the event that I have had to leave for a sick child, dentist, doctor appointment, parent-teacher conference or once a year play/presentation, I am required to take my sick or personal time and arrange for a substitute to cover my classroom. I find it difficult to fathom that similar guidelines are not enforced in any work place. If you have to leave at lunch? Hey, that's half a sick day. As far as leaving 'early', well, I can honestly say I don't ever have that option. There is no such thing as leaving a few minutes early if you're a teacher, but my husband does on occasion. He leaves early on Tuesdays and Wednesdays for his Master's classes, he also can take off early to pick up a kid or transfer them to their play practice, etc. On the days when he knows he'll be cutting out early, he skips lunch and works straight through. He also spends lots of weekends and nights at work supervising one event or another.

Most parents are like this, and I think it would be unfair to judge the world of 'breeders' on a few opportunistic folks who seem to be working the system. Instead of raging at people with children, it seems to me that you should discuss this issue with the management. People will do whatever they can as long as they can get away with it. It's almost a law of nature, and it applies to everyone, not just parents.

[SouthernStyle]

Originally posted by kambuckta
Jesus SouthernStyle, there is no person alive who gains FULL benefit from every tax-dollar they pay. It mostly evens out though, and what we lose on the round-about, we make up for on the ferris-wheel (or however that old saying goes).

And since when is 'education' a 'luxury for the child-burdened'? A well educated community is an asset for EVERYBODY. Maybe one of those pre-schoolers might grow up to find a cure for cancer or an effective way to deal with poverty and famine in the poorer regions of the world. Communities pay for education because the community benefits, NOT just the individual.

:rolleyes:


I don't understand your point that, "no person alive gains FULL benefit form every tax-dollar they pay. It mostly evens out though".

But obviously you didn't get mine either.

Elementary school has been extended from K-6 to PK-6. Instead of 7 years, it is now 8. Except that the first year (pre-K) is VOLUNTARY. Meaning that the voters DIDN'T decide to make public education one year longer. They voted to use the entire DOE infrastructure to administer a VOLUNTARY day care.

This has nothing to do with education. If it did, the year of pre-K "schooling" would have been mandatory.

The cost of education in this country is about $6,000/student/year. That means that this state-run day-care is going to cost an additional $6,000 for every student that is enrolled. The school year contains only 180 student-days, but the calendar year contains about 250 week-days. This day-care will only babysit these kids about 70% of the time.

So Mommy "you have to help pay for the children I decided to bear" now receives "free" child-care in the form of everybody else paying twice the market rate.

:mad:

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Originally posted by SouthernStyle
Elementary school has been extended from K-6 to PK-6. Instead of 7 years, it is now 8. Except that the first year (pre-K) is VOLUNTARY. Meaning that the voters DIDN'T decide to make public education one year longer. They voted to use the entire DOE infrastructure to administer a VOLUNTARY day care.

This has nothing to do with education. If it did, the year of pre-K "schooling" would have been mandatory.

So Mommy "you have to help pay for the children I decided to bear" now receives "free" child-care in the form of everybody else paying twice the market rate.

:mad:

Where dd that come from? Besides left field?

They didn't extend school to pre-K in order to hand parents another freebie. It's based on the belief that kids do better with a head start. It's for the children. Not the parents. It's still voluntary in the U.S., yes. Parents can choose other options or keep their kids are home.

As for your "mommy" comment, hasn't that sort of sniping comment been well-addressed throughout this thread? Surprise, Daddy is part of the picture too. And newsflash, parents don't have kids to get handouts. And public funds don't go towards childcare and schooling because parents want taxpayers to help pay for their children. You say you understand that, and then you throw this comment in again.

Since this end of the discussion is going nowhere, let's discuss remedies. What do you folk think the right way to do this is?

[kambuckta]

Originally posted by SouthernStyle
I don't understand your point that, "no person alive gains FULL benefit form every tax-dollar they pay. It mostly evens out though".


What bit didn't you understand? Let's say I pay $100 tax. Some of that money goes to the health system (from which I benefit), some goes to infrastructure (from which I benefit) some goes to paying for overseas jaunts by pollies (from which I'm supposed to benefit :D) and some goes to subsidising middle-high income earners to enable them to claim extra tax-deductability when they buy an investment property. I can't really understand how I am meant to benefit from this but, maybe they don't utilise the health system as much as I do. THIS is how it all evens out.

You SouthernStyle might be able to gain benefits from the tax system that others might point the finger at and say, "Hey, not fair". Mostly though, apart from some blatant inconsistencies like some of the very wealthy minimising their tax burden to virtually zilch, and the very poor shouldering a disproportionate responsibility, the tax system at least tries to allocate funds equitably. And I have no gripe whatever with investing in our childrens education. I just don't understand why YOU'RE so disgruntled.

[Tee]

Originally posted by SouthernStyle
The cost of education in this country is about $6,000/student/year. That means that this state-run day-care is going to cost an additional $6,000 for every student that is enrolled.

I so doubt it. They simply take the whole of the education costs and divide by the number of students to get that figure. But many education costs are fixed and won't jump incrementally...i.e. my two kids being enrolled at the corner elementary will not automatically cause the school's operating costs to increase by $12,000.

continued
The school year contains only 180 student-days, but the calendar year contains about 250 week-days. This day-care will only babysit these kids about 70% of the time.

Not even close. Local Pre-K here is 2.5 hours a day, same as Kindergarten. It's great, if you work 10 hours a week with no commute...

[Hamadryad]

Originally posted by featherlou
I have to question this. You seem to be saying that if the reason people aren't doing their jobs is because of their children, that somehow makes it okay. You don't really want to go there, do you? That's not what I'm saying at all.From the OP:
Clearly as a non-mother *MY* time has no value. Since no child is waiting on me, nothing *I* have planned can be at all important. Your photography class is tonight? You are having friends over and need to get dinner cooking? You have plans to meet hubby in town before that play? Too bad. You don't have children, therefore you must stay.The implication is, "You get to go do shit for your kids; I should get to do shit for my friends and hubby."

I'm saying a lot of the time parents don't GET to do shit WITH their kids...they HAVE to do shit FOR their kids. You don't schedule strep. You don't schedule vomiting. You don't schedule ear infections. For things like this, the parent doesn't exactly have the option of saying, "Oh, I can stay for a couple more hours before I do that." They can't say, "Well damn...I'll call Suzie and tell her I'll be a little bit later than I thought picking her up from the school clinic."

As a note: I don't think anyone in this entire thread has said - EVEN ONCE - that parents should get to leave early for voluntary activities. I can't recall having seen anyone argue for the parent's right to get out of work for recitals, practices, or any of that. So...that is not remotely what I'm talking about.

When I said "for the children," I didn't mean "vaguely not-really-justified hyperbole for the purpose of strengthening gun control/TV programming laws/public decency statutes." I meant "for the kid Mary in Accounting has puking all over the clinic's only sink, and damn, either get your kid or send an exorcist, but she can't stay here."

[Evil Captor]

Good point about the non-voluntary nature of a lot of parental leave. And kids do get sick a lot more often than adults do, as a general rule.

Overall, parents of whatever color, income or national income, perform a community service by raising the next generation of citizens. They may not be doing it for that reason, but there's no doubt that it is good to have a next generation around to carry things on. This is the basis of some of the benefits that accrue to parents.

The real problem is that nowadays, with both spouses working in most families, daytime child care is hard to come by. I've yet to hear a proposed solution to this problme that made much in the way of sense.

[eenerms]

What about the second spouse working to PAY for the day care?

[curly chick]

Originally posted by Evil Captor

That said, all childless people are in effect dependents of those of us who have children. Because what do you suppose would happen if everyone behaved as you do and elected not to have children, about 30-40 years down the road. Un-hunh. Thought so. Next generation has to come from somewhere, doesn't it?

Such guff.

I have never ever, ever, ever met anyone who decided to reproduce so that the human race would not become extinct.
Which parent here, apart from Evil Captor, is so philanthropic and altruistic and selfless as to have decided to become a parent for the future of mankind?

And by the way, StarvingButStrong, I agree with what has been said here, you are being taken for a ride. If you don't like it; complain, rip the bosses off too, or leave the company.

[Winnie]

Originally posted by CrazyCatLady
Oh, and somehow my parents (and those of my husband and friends) managed to make it through the workworkwork and screw the family 80's as damn fine parents, even while working 60 hours a week or more. Personally, I think what's wrong with kids today (and I mean kids, not young adults) is that a shocking number of parents kowtow to them rather than parenting them.


HUGE standing ovation for CrazyCatLady!!!

I couldn't agree more... if my mother had shown up at a tee-ball practice or band practice I would have wondered what the hell she was doing there... as in "can I have ONE hour of time when you're not watching over me!" It certainly wouldn't have made me think she was a better parent than all the others for doing that.

And if my dad had had to work on or around a holiday, sure I would have been sad, but I would have understood in the sense that I was very aware that dad worked very hard to keep the roof over my head and the food on my plate. It definitely wouldn't have been the super-traumatic life-scarring event that some parents believe it would be. Kids are much more resiliant than we give them credit for, especially these days when it seems parents just subtract "have a life of my own" from their existance so they can hang out at tee-ball practice and be heroes to their 3 1/2 year old.

[CrazyCatLady]

Originally posted by Hamadryad
You don't schedule strep. You don't schedule vomiting. You don't schedule ear infections. For things like this, the parent doesn't exactly have the option of saying, "Oh, I can stay for a couple more hours before I do that." They can't say, "Well damn...I'll call Suzie and tell her I'll be a little bit later than I thought picking her up from the school clinic."

oh, for heaven's sake. For the last time, NOBODY IN THIS THREAD IS SAYING YOU SHOULDN'T LEAVE FOR EMERGENCIES. Vomiting is an emergency, in the sense that you have to go pick the kid up right then. Nobody's going to begrudge you the time to pick up a puking kid unless your kid pukes twice a week and you never make the time up. Strep and ear infections, however, should be seen by a doctor the next day but aren't gotta-get-em-right-now situations (unless your ped. can work you in that afternoon.) Generally, you have at least a couple of hour's notice before a doctor's appointment, during which time you can start making arrangements to make that time up.

The situation the OP is talking about, however, doesn't just include unexpected stuff like barfing at school or doctor's appointments. She's also talking about leaving for recitals and plays and never scheduling make-up time. And that is just horseshit. Leave for anything you want, if you can swing it, but make sure you find a better way to make sure your work is done without dumping on everyone else with no reciprocation.

[Janie Jones]

I think SBS should get a Little Brother or a Little Sister. Or a dog.

Then she could engage in a little payback:

"I've got to leave work early because Skippy has a vet appointment."

"My Little Bro/Sis is having a piano recital this afternoon, so I'll be out of the office from 2-4. If it runs late, which it probably will, I won't be back into the office until tomorrow."

Or better yet ... just pretend to get a Little Bro/Sis or dog ... then skip out and go to the pool one afternoon a week or so!

Let me know how this works out ... :D

[Hamadryad]

Originally posted by CrazyCatLady
The situation the OP is talking about, however, doesn't just include unexpected stuff like barfing at school or doctor's appointments. She's also talking about leaving for recitals and plays and never scheduling make-up time. And that is just horseshit. Leave for anything you want, if you can swing it, but make sure you find a better way to make sure your work is done without dumping on everyone else with no reciprocation. It's that "just." As I said - if you'll go back and read - I don't think anyone in this entire thread is arguing that parents leaving for recitals and practices and shit is a Good or Proper Idea. The OP did not just mention non-urgent work absences. The OP also mentioned:"... picking up a sick child...ferrying a child to a medical appointment... delinquent son has punched out a class mate..."THOSE are the points in the OP with which I - and every other voice of dissent in this thread - are taking issue.

I mean fuck, if you read more carefully, I think you might find that you and I are in agreement on several points. However, I think the people who are advising the OP to get a pet or lie for the purpose of spending an afternoon at the pool or the movies to "get back" at the parents who are leaving to take care of a sick child are in dire need of some lessons in compassion. Stunningly, no one's calling them on it. Well, until now, I guess.

(As a side note, there are obviously far larger problems at work if you have to deal with a kid who has punched out another kid; notwithstanding, though, the school should not be expected to babysit the violent little schmuck for the rest of the day and then put him on the friggin' bus.)

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Originally posted by CrazyCatLady
Strep and ear infections, however, should be seen by a doctor the next day but aren't gotta-get-em-right-now situations (unless your ped. can work you in that afternoon.) Generally, you have at least a couple of hour's notice before a doctor's appointment, during which time you can start making arrangements to make that time up.

Leave for anything you want, if you can swing it, but make sure you find a better way to make sure your work is done without dumping on everyone else with no reciprocation.

I don't think parents, or anyone who has to leave work for a good reason, should have to "make the time up." That's the point of "leave." They should get their work done, definitely. Who doesn't do that? When I'm sick, I get sick leave, but I still find a way to complete my reports and pull my weight. I don't do an hour-for-hour makeup session. The point of sick leave is that I can be trusted to do that without having to schedule additional hours in the office to make up for the time out. No one I know in a salaried position with paid leave makes time up for their paid vacation or sick leave.

As for sickness generally, the Harvard School of Public Health found that kids with both acute and minor illnesses get better faster when their parents are with them to them. You might think that parents should only stay home for vomiting, but research says otherwise. They also found that working parents who are allowed paid sick leave for child illness are 5 times more likely to stay home with their children. The best way to keep kids healthy is to (a) let their parents tend to them when ill and (b) make sure workplaces facilitate that practice for working parents.

Parents and management can and should work together to make sure that other employees don't get fucked in the process. I wholeheartedly support that. But I don't think we should let the disgruntlement of workers who think parental leave is "unfair" determine what leave policies should be. Good sense and informed decision-making should do that.

[CrazyCatLady]

I'm not talking about taking sick days off, I'm talking about leaving to pick someone up. A kid pukes, the school tells you to come get them. No ifs, ands, or buts. Strep or ear infections, however, aren't like that. The kid won't feel all that great, but they probably didn't feel all that great when they were bundled off to school that morning. Unless they're spiking a dangerously high fever, an ear infection is not an emergency.

I'm also not talking about hour-for-hour make-up time. I'm talking about pulling your own weight. If you bloody well know that Katie has an appointment on Tuesday, you should already be planning to do some extra work at another time. If you can get that same amount of work done in less time, more power to you. Same thing for unexpected stuff. Go do what you need to do, but don't leave everybody else in the lurch.

I'm also amenable to people using up their own sick time to stay home with their kids. It's your sick time, do whatever you want with it. Stay home with a kid, play hooky, save it up and cash it in, whatever. But paid leave is a benefit, not a God-given right, and it's unfair to give parents increased benefits for the same job, just because they're parents. That's why people get so pissed about this subject.

[kambuckta]

Well, in my situation (as a casual employee) if I take time-off for sick kids I DON'T GET PAID. I suspect that the numbers of people able to access paid leave is far outnumbered by those who bear the financial burden themselves.

Is anybody able to direct me to a source that can breakdown the numbers of parents who are able to get unlimited PAID leave?

[Helen's Eidolon]

Originally posted by CrazyCatLady
Strep and ear infections, however, should be seen by a doctor the next day but aren't gotta-get-em-right-now situations (unless your ped. can work you in that afternoon.) I'm not sure about getting involved in the meat of this thread, I don't know where to start. But I have to comment on this, hijack though it may be.

I respect that you work in the medical profession and therefore probably have wider experience in this than I. But. Speaking as someone who has gotten ear infections (and strep throat, for that matter) in the past couple of years, I have no clue how you expect a kid to stick it out for a day. I, at 20, could not stick it out for more than two hours without antibiotics when my ear infection got in full swing.

[Dangerosa]

Originally posted by CrazyCatLady
Strep and ear infections, however, should be seen by a doctor the next day but aren't gotta-get-em-right-now situations (unless your ped. can work you in that afternoon.)

Au contraire. My daycare will have you pick up your child up immediately, and they can't come back until they've been on antibiotics for 24 hours. They cannot be in daycare running a fever (both strep and ear infections usually include a fever).

[Sauron]

I realize my viewpoint is coming at this situation from a different angle, but where I work the childless people have a much easier time than I do.

We don't have a specified sick-leave policy; if you're sick, you take time off. If it gets to be excessive, you'll be asked for doctor's notes and stuff like that.

I rarely get sick. However, our 11-month-old has had a succession of ear infections for six months now. Each time, he begins to run a slight fever. The daycare won't keep him if he has a fever (as has been noted earlier in the thread), so I have to go get him. I've had him in my office, sleeping in his carrier; I've taken him to the doctor; I've taken vacation time to be with him.

My boss, who in the previous three years I've been here didn't say one word about my practice of arriving early and occasionally staying late to get work done, now feels the need to point out every single time I'm not in the office. "Decide to come to work for a little while today?" "Oh, are you here today?" "I haven't seen you in so long, I've forgotten what you look like."

Well, hell. I guess making sure all my work is done isn't enough. I guess arriving early and/or staying late isn't enough. I guess being out of the office briefly one day in a month is excessive. No, if I have to leave the office for an hour to go get my child, I'm somehow bringing Western civilization to its knees.

I have no vacation time left until June. I am afraid to take sick time when I am actually sick, for fear that I will be reprimanded. I have come to the office with a fever of 102 degrees rather than call in sick.

The kicker is that others in my office who don't have children (or don't have children who aren't grown) are out sick more often than I, even factoring in my trips to get my child. A couple of people have been sick for nine work days straight. Now, I'm not faulting them for that -- there has been a particularly nasty strain of the flu going around. But nothing negative is said to them. "Hey, Workerbee, good to have you back. We really missed you around here. Hope you're feeling better." It angers me.

Having said all that, the OP is clearly being taken advantage of. Voluntary parent-type activities should require the use of vacation time or personal leave or whatever. I would recommend talking with management about this.

[Dangerosa]

Sauron,

Tubes. My daughter was the same way. 6 ear infections in six months. We put tubes in her ears and - I can't say she never had another ear infection, but it was much better (2 in the next year, then the tubes fell out, but she'd outgrown the constant ear infection).

Ear infections affect balance and hearing. Since at eleven months walking and talking tend to be big priorities for kids, we felt it was best for her, as well as our jobs.

[Sauron]

Yeah, I've pushed tubes since October. The doctor, though, keeps saying that the little one isn't a strong candidate for tubes -- his ears clear up with the administration of antibiotics. He just tends to get colds a lot, and the drainage causes ear infections.

[SpazCat]

Parents who play the system make me sick. They can take off to take/pick up little Suzy to/from the after-school activity du jour, to watch their precious darling's attempts to play a musical instrument*, or hover over their every breath because the widdle um has a widdle headache. Yet when I was in the hospital with a serious blood problem, my dad couldn't take time off. He was able to take me to the hospital probably about six times over eight years because he had to work. It's a good thing my mom became a SAHM because otherwise my treatments would have been more of a burden than they already were. Of course, this was coming out of the Horrible Overworked 80s, so he must have been a horrible parent (except he wasn't). The pendulum, she is swinging too far in the other direction.

*Don't jump all over me, I used to be one of those kids.

[CanvasShoes]

Originally posted by FairyChatMom
No, this is incorrect. (http://usgovinfo.miningco.com/library/howto/htflag.htm)

That's nice to know FCM, thanks for the update, I HAD read this back in the late 80s and wasn't sure if it was still up to date.

And to southern, sorry if I wasn't clear, my post was mainly a semi silly attempt to make you feel a wee bit better about daycare tax.

[CanvasShoes]

SBS, I have a question. Do you get paid salary? The same amount no matter how many hours you work? And is it the same for the parents who get time off?

Even if you get paid overtime, if you are being "forced" into it due to unfair work practices, you may have recourse through your state labor dept.

If you can't get some satisfaction from your bosses, you may want to check into your state labor laws. You might have some support there.

[DoctorJ]

At the risk of sleeping on the couch tonight, I'll side against my wife on at least one issue--kids with suspected strep should be seen by a doctor before returning to school, and should be on anitbiotics for 24h before returning. Ear infections are a tougher call--I don't think there's a lot of danger of passing them around, but the kid does feel like ass.

I think we're confusing a few issues here. I don't fault parents for using their sick time to take care of their sick kids. That's part of what sick time is for. I do think that parents of small children should make sure they work somewhere where it won't be a huge burden if they have to duck out from time to time for reasons like that--if they can't, they should find another job.

The problem is at the other extreme, when some parents feel entitled to take off whenever they like for whatever reason they like so long as it involves their kids. Some people do feel this way, and some employers let them get by with it without any attempt to balance the workload back out.

It's often even less blatant. In a lot of workplaces, people who ask for time off or to leave early or whatever to do something with their kids are far more likely to get it than someone asking for time off to do something else.

To understand CrazyCatLady's ire on this subject, you would have to have known the particular parent she is talking about. This person would leave work anytime she felt like it to do anything with her kid. Her son also had all sorts of emotional problems and feigned illness at school all the time, and she would always come pick him up. They also figured out later that many of the times she claimed her son was sick and she had to go get him, she was actually going off to do something else. This is a very, very extreme situation, but it is a very extreme example of a problem that does exist.

Dr. J

[CanvasShoes]

Originally posted by Eva Luna
Sounds like your employer is unfair, but to what extent has this been brought to their attention? I mean, the thing about the people with kids getting holidays off when you don't; that's patently ridiculous.
Sorry, slight hijack.

SBS, what kind of company do you work for that isn't closed on holidays?

[CanvasShoes]

Originally posted by LaurAnge
I'm not sure about getting involved in the meat of this thread, I don't know where to start. But I have to comment on this, hijack though it may be.

I respect that you work in the medical profession and therefore probably have wider experience in this than I. But. Speaking as someone who has gotten ear infections (and strep throat, for that matter) in the past couple of years, I have no clue how you expect a kid to stick it out for a day. I, at 20, could not stick it out for more than two hours without antibiotics when my ear infection got in full swing.
I so agree, I'm 40something, and had one only a few years ago.
Excrutiating agony!!!! I was home for two days until the antibiotics starting abating the infection (and subsequent pain) somewhat.

I also had another question for the OP, where on earth do you live that the schools, and/or after schools programs schedule all these parent/child activities during "normal" work hours?

(sorry, ignorant Alaskan here again), But in our neck of the woods the coaches all have to work too, so most of our sports etc don't get started until late afternoon or evening.

Same with plays/recitals etc.

So where are all these schools and activities taking place? And can't the parents complain to the schools and/or activities coordinators?

[StarvingButStrong]

To clarify: I *do* get paid for the overtime work, that isn't the problem. It's not being able to count on my scheduled 'after work' hours being in fact after work that is the problem. There are other things I want to accomplish and enjoy, that I really can't do now that 'emergencies' that require me staying extra hours are cropping up so often.

One example: last fall hubby and I joined a local theater group. This was to be a fun activity for us to share in, and a way to make new friends and spend time with them. I had to miss three of the first five weeks, so we dropped out. It just wasn't fair to the rest of the group not to be able to depend on our presence for rehearsals.

(I work for a psychiatric hospital, btw, which explains why we don't run 9-5 hours or shut down for holidays . If anything, holidays are our busiest times.)

[CanvasShoes]

Originally posted by StarvingButStrong
To clarify: I *do* get paid for the overtime work, that isn't the problem. It's not being able to count on my scheduled 'after work' hours being in fact after work that is the problem. There are other things I want to accomplish and enjoy, that I really can't do now that 'emergencies' that require me staying extra hours are cropping up so often.

One example: last fall hubby and I joined a local theater group. This was to be a fun activity for us to share in, and a way to make new friends and spend time with them. I had to miss three of the first five weeks, so we dropped out. It just wasn't fair to the rest of the group not to be able to depend on our presence for rehearsals.

(I work for a psychiatric hospital, btw, which explains why we don't run 9-5 hours or shut down for holidays . If anything, holidays are our busiest times.)

:smack: Duh! Medical (sorry I was trying to think what kind of business wouldn't shut down on a holiday, and/or required people to do other people's work, I'm not with it today).

Well, at any rate, in view of what you've said and in addition to Manda Jo's excellent advice, a trip to your local labor department might be in your best interest. I am not up to date on "lower 48" rules and regs, but I know that that sort of thing wouldn't be allowed in most decent sized businesses.

Good Luck.

From a single mommy who didn't "play the system" and whose then 4 year old daughter once asked (when she went with me to pick up my paycheck) "Mommy? Is this where you live"?

(It was a job in a flight kitchen back before I had skills, education and training and the summer hours were heinous. My little girl occasionally (when grandma couldn't pick her up) even slept on the girls locker room couch after the day care closed down at midnight because of the 16 hour days we often put in). FTR, she's a lovely well-adjusted 23 year old now, so it doesn't appear that my hard work ethic harmed her any.

For the parents where you work, my feeling is, if we (those of us who don't make our co-workers suffer) can do it. So, can they. They need to either change shifts, make the other parent step up to the plate, or find another job if they can't do that one and do the things they want to do (like plays and little league) as parents too.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Here some excerpts from a book on family leave that gives some statistics on who gets paid sick leave to care for parents, children, etc. However, it's broken down by poor/non-poor.

I am grateful for my job's leave policies. We also have a program where a home nurse will come stay with your child if you must be at work but your child can't go to school/daycare. Parents pay for part of it, but it's subsidized by the University.

http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/woman/Article_Detail.asp?Article_ID=1550

[SouthernStyle]

Oh man, oh man, oh man.... where to start?

Originally posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan

They didn't extend school to pre-K in order to hand parents another freebie. It's based on the belief that kids do better with a head start. It's for the children. Not the parents. It's still voluntary in the U.S., yes. Parents can choose other options or keep their kids are home.



Taking this one sentence at a time:

1) Yes. They did. That is precisely what they did. Parents have ALWAYS had the option to put their 4-year old in day care, private pre-school or anything else. Now they have the option to do the same thing, but at someone else's expense and at substantially increased rates than current market price.

2) I share the belief. But it's irrelevent to the discussion. The vote simply says who will pay for these services for the parents that choose to utilize them.

3) It's not for the children, it's for the parents. If it was for the children it wouldn't be voluntary. Once again -- it was decided who would be required to pay for "general" and "voluntary" services that are already available in other forms.

4) See 3.

5) The U.S. has nothing to do with this. It's STATE law.

6) They've always had this option.


Cranky, we've been on the same side of quite a few issues, but clearly we don't see this one the same way. Maybe I'm just not presenting a very good case.


kanbuckta

I read your comment as a reference to a "zero-sum game". "No one gets full benefit, but it evens out" seems to be your message. And is in concert with my claims.


Originally posted by Tee

I so doubt it. They simply take the whole of the education costs and divide by the number of students to get that figure. But many education costs are fixed and won't jump incrementally...i.e. my two kids being enrolled at the corner elementary will not automatically cause the school's operating costs to increase by $12,000.



You're quite right that enrolling your two children won't increase the school's operating cost by $12,000. It's more like $180,000 for the first one and nearly nothing for the second one.

The cost calculation is as you suggest. Divide the cost by the number of students and you get the per-capita cost. And you're right that adding one student doesn't increase the overall expenditure by the per-capita cost.

But this is a new program. It will require new facilities, new teachers / babysitters, new infrastructure, etc. To provide this service for the first child in a school district costs about $180,000. Each additional student is nearly free, until the class fills up. Then another $180,000 is required to provide the second classroom followed by 30 more "almost nothings".

Most schools in this state (and country) are full. Many are over-full. Implementing this policy will require new facilities and a new classroom costs the same whether it will be occupied by 4 year olds or 14 year olds.

My county is currently negotiating the contruction of a new elementary school. They recently completed a new high school at a cost of $160,000,000. Yep -- 160 million dollars to house 2000 students. $80,000 upfront cost per student and not the first teacher has been employed yet, no light bill has been paid, no facilities repairs have been billed, etc.

You're right. Adding your children to the program won't cost anyone $12,000. If one of them is the FIRST child in the program it will be a whole lot more....


There's probably an economics class starting soon at your local community college. They will support the basic cost model that I've described.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Sorry SouthernStyle, that my comments were worded in a confusing way. My fault. By saying "it's voluntary" and "in the U.S." in meant that unlike other countries, this is not mandatory and it's not nationwide, in contrast to what I think might go on in some other countries. I was too fucking lazy to go look it up so I could be more specific with contrasting examples. Of course kids could always be put into such programs by parents, but the economics of that kind of care may prevent some parents from doing it. The question is, if it's so damn good for kids, why isn't it codified, sort of like school is? I dunno.

You are probably right that many of these programs/laws came about because voting parents pushed for them, but I believe they have the support they do because they make good sense from the standpoint of "What's good for children."

I know that some of the HSPH researchers have specifically mentioned leave policies in their "what to do with this research" follow-ups. This is trying to inform policy with facts. Maybe the HSPH researchers are parents and have a real self-interest, but I'm not so cynical as to believe that's their only motivation for calling legislative attention to their findings.

[doreen]

originally posted by SouthernStyle
3) It's not for the children, it's for the parents. If it was for the children it wouldn't be voluntary. Once again -- it was decided who would be required to pay for "general" and "voluntary" services that are already available in other forms

Just because pre-k is voluntary doesn't mean that it's daycare or for the parents. Around here , kindergarten is voluntary for kids with birthdays between July and December (they can just start first grade the year they turn six) and my last year of high school was voluntary (I turned 17 before it started). I don't think you'd call those two years day care or say they're for the parents simply because they aren't mandatory.

And as far as the cost goes, two things. The average cost per student is not the same as the cost per average student. It includes the higher expenses for special ed students, who may be entitled to those services feom the age of two or three years old whether the public schools have pre k or not. It also doesn't account for the fact that since pre-k classes are usually a half day or less, the same classroom and teacher can be used for two sessions.

[doreen]

I have almost the opposite situation from the OP. My job involves presenting cases to an administrative law judge twice a week. Only on those two days would anyone have to cover for me, and only then if I have cases scheduled. If my kid has a play on one of my court days, either I arrange to have no cases scheduled or I don't go to the play. If I have to make a doctor's appointment during working hours, I make it on a day no one will have to cover for me. The people we generally end up having to cover for are those without actual children ( their sons and daughter are grown), who seem to have an amazing number of plumbing, car and oil burner problems, and whose elderly parents can't see their doctor on any other day. I don't think the OP's coworkers are acting that way because they're parents. Parenthood just gives them additional excuses. If they didn't have kids or their kids were grown, they'd likely be just like my coworkers

[auntie em]

I've actually applied for a job at a company where one of the perqs for working parents is a take-home dinner.

If I get this job, can I borrow one of your kids? ;)

[CrazyCatLady]

Umm, does everyone get a take-home dinner, or just those with kids? (Is giving it to just parents even legal? It sounds like a lawsuit in the making to me.)

If it helps, we have some pets with human names that I collectively call "the girls." You could just sort of imply that they're kids, if you wanted.

[SouthernStyle]

Originally posted by auntie em
I've actually applied for a job at a company where one of the perqs for working parents is a take-home dinner.

If I get this job, can I borrow one of your kids? ;)


I think that's cool. :cool: Companies are more and more including lots of benefits, at varying costs, that mean a lot to their employees.

Whether or not you get the job, how about posting the company's name once the dust has settled. These guys deserve an "attaboy".


SS

[auntie em]

Originally posted by CrazyCatLady
If it helps, we have some pets with human names that I collectively call "the girls." You could just sort of imply that they're kids, if you wanted.
Hah! I have "The Girls", too! Mine are a labbish mutt and a huskyish mutt. What are yours?

And to be fair, I'm not 100% sure how the take-home dinner thing works. I didn't get the info from the company's website, I ran across it on one of those websites that gives you the lowdown on various companies, while I was trying to do some salary research. On this website's list of the company's perqs was "a take home dinner package for working parents", but no other detail was given, so perhaps it's at a small cost to the parents or something, who knows . . .?

At any rate, I wonder if I could convince them that my SO counts as a kid. I mean, hell, if I should get home late one evening, he might burn the house down trying to make a grilled cheese sandwich! :p

[auntie em]

Originally posted by SouthernStyle
I think that's cool. :cool: Companies are more and more including lots of benefits, at varying costs, that mean a lot to their employees.

Whether or not you get the job, how about posting the company's name once the dust has settled. These guys deserve an "attaboy".

At the rate the application process is going, it could be a long, long time, but sure. And if I DO wind up with the job, hell--I'll let you know what's included in the dinner package! ;)

[Sassafras]

I am the ONLY single and childless person in a medical office with 15 female employees. I must say, the women I work with never take advantage of the "child" situations , but I think this is due to the fact that their hubbies pitch in a lot.
An addtional comment-- I worked in a daycare-preschool for 8 years, and parents were always asking staff members to call them at work and tell the person who answered the phone that they needed to speak to the parent "right away" and that they were calling from the daycare. Get it? Then they would tell their bosses their child was ill, and go shopping or whatever. Happened ALL the time.

[CrazyCatLady]

Damn, that's low. I'm not the least bit surprised, sadly enough, but...damn!

Actually, we caught my aforementioned former cow-orker in a similar stunt. On 9/11, of course, her kid's after-school stuff was cancelled and she had to go get him. It was a damn bad time to be down a tech (we'd been doing ortho surgeries since 8:30 and weren't nearly done cutting yet, much less cleaned up and autoclaved out), but no one begrudged her the time. After she'd been gone a while, she called saying that LilDumplin' was just so upset about the attacks, he wasn't stable. Could she just take the rest of the afternoon off and take him home?

That didn't fly, so she brought him back to work with her. The kid can be a real pain in the ass, but nobody really minded under the circumstances. LilDumplin', oddly enough didn't seem all that upset. LilDumplin' was, in fact, dancing around and singing and keeping up his normal barrage of questions and smart-ass comments. Part of LilDumpin's homework was to write about something interesting he'd done, and Mom suggested he write about coming to the clinic. So he did. Started with them leaving school and getting almost to her boyfriend's house before calling and having to come back. Then he handed it to me and our other tech to proof read. I don't think I've ever seen a woman's face that pruned up before or since.

[SouthernStyle]

Originally posted by auntie em
At the rate the application process is going, it could be a long, long time, but sure. And if I DO wind up with the job, hell--I'll let you know what's included in the dinner package! ;)

Especially if involves dinner AND friends. :D

SS

[auntie em]

Originally posted by SouthernStyle
Especially if involves dinner AND friends. :D

SS
Well, goodness, I didn't think THAT was what they meant by "package". :eek: :D

[porcupine]

Originally posted by auntie em
Hah! I have "The Girls", too! Mine are a labbish mutt and a huskyish mutt. What are yours?


I sometimes refer to my breasts as "the girls." I'm not sure if I can somehow turn this into a way to leave work early, though.

"The girls haven't been getting enough attention lately. I'd like to leave a little early on Friday."

[auntie em]

Originally posted by porcupine
I sometimes refer to my breasts as "the girls." I'm not sure if I can somehow turn this into a way to leave work early, though.

"The girls haven't been getting enough attention lately. I'd like to leave a little early on Friday."
Hee! Actually, I do that, too--but I only have one set of "Girls" that'll react if I yell, "Do the girls wanna cookie???" out the back door. :D