Single Fathers getting the short end of the stick

[villa]

This isn't a rant about child support payment. I come down firmly on the pro-child/custodial parent side of that debate (in most circumstances). It is about attitudes at work.

I'm a divorced, non-custodial parent. My son lives about 140 miles away from me, and I get on very well with my ex, his mother, fortunately. What pisses me off is the attitude I sometimes see at work. Female associates of mine are able to take time off for family obligations - its a law firm, a very progressive one, and the basic attitude is that as long as your work is done, you get to work whenever you feel like it, within reason.

The same rules, essentially, apply to me. However, if it comes down to a piece of work that has to be done, and I have time planned with my son, and the female colleague has time planned with her family, I am the one who is expected to lose out.

I appreciate in the work place there are many advantages of being male. I also appreciate this is an product of a sexist presumption that women are primarily responsible for child care. But it gets me pissed when it happens repeatedly. And explaining to an 8 year old that Dad has to cancel plans at the last minute because of work is not easy at all.

[tdn]

It's bad for us single, childless people as well. The assumption is that we don't have lives. I've had to cover for a number of people in the past. I never whine about it, but I hate that it is assumed that whatever plans I might have are "unimportant."

[Jaglavak]

Next time this comes up, you might consider making a point of mentioning that you'll take this one, but that gets you one in the bank for future conflicts. Then document it and insist on it. If they still keep screwing you, hey it's a law firm they ought to know when they're on thin ice.

[villa]

It's not a matter of banking it, unfortunately. Such is the life of an associate. All the partner cares about is that the work is done. My complaint is more about my colleagues, I guess, who don't accept a fair share of such situations...

And yes, tdn, I know it is bad for the single people too. I lose those dates or other plans as well.

[dmatsch]

You want a very short stick with excrement on the tip, try going for full custody.

What a joke that was.

[TroubleAgain]

I'd be happy to rant about single fathers and child-support--from the point of view of a boss who has watched their employee fighting the courts forever to get his non-custodial ex to pay her child support that was mandated by the courts. If she were the custodial parent and he was $20K+ in arrears, I don't think the courts would be so lenient. Grrrrr!

[Acid Lamp]

You want a very short stick with excrement on the tip, try going for full custody.

What a joke that was.

Speaking of excrement, what prompted you to dump that load all over this thread?

[Acid Lamp]

Wait, perhaps I interpreted that wrong. :smack:

Move along...nothing to see here.

[Bridget Burke]

Speaking of excrement, what prompted you to dump that load all over this thread?

Gosh, wonder why he wasn't judged worthy of full custody?

[Turek]

Gosh, wonder why he wasn't judged worthy of full custody?

I think his point was, "If you think guys with partial custody are screwed over by the employers in favor of women with families, you should see how men with FULL custody are screwed over."

[villa]

I'd be happy to rant about single fathers and child-support--from the point of view of a boss who has watched their employee fighting the courts forever to get his non-custodial ex to pay her child support that was mandated by the courts. If she were the custodial parent and he was $20K+ in arrears, I don't think the courts would be so lenient. Grrrrr!

Please don't do it here though. I really want to avoid that whole side of it. This is about the way in which people are treated at work regarding family obligations.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

It's bad for us single, childless people as well. The assumption is that we don't have lives. I've had to cover for a number of people in the past. I never whine about it, but I hate that it is assumed that whatever plans I might have are "unimportant."Meh, I am single and childless and in most circumstances my plans are unimportant when it comes to the needs of a child.

boss: Somebody's got to come in on Saturday
All: Oh maaaannn...
Monkey: "I was going to take my girlfriend to the oyster festival downtown."
Coworker: "It's my weekend with my sons who I haven't even seen in two weeks"
Monkey: "Shit, you win. I guess I'll just meet her there late"
Coworker: "Thanks, I'll make it up to you "

My point being to keep it in perspective. In the scheme of things, kids spending time with their non-custodial parent is more important than you or me getting drunk and eating oysters.

[villa]

My point being to keep it in perspective. In the scheme of things, kids spending time with their non-custodial parent is more important than you or me getting drunk and eating oysters.

And that I definitely try to do. Those colleagues who have fallen on grenades so I can keep weekends with my son, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I know you have plans that are very important to you, and I do my best to make it up to you. Including covering for you this Thanksgiving and Christmas Day.

To the colleagues who are married, and who constantly claim that they can't work over the weekend because they have to do X or Y with their children, I sometimes wonder whether your husband is available to do anything with the kids at all. But more I wonder why that trumps my time with my son.

[Campion]

If you think it sucks being a single father, try being a childless associate in a law firm. I've had to cancel tons of family obligations (mother's day, birthdays, etc.), missed concerts with friends, cancelled vacations, etc., over the years, because the assumption is that because I haven't spawned, nothing in my life could be as important as my job. Which, then, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy...

To the colleagues who are married, and who constantly claim that they can't work over the weekend because they have to do X or Y with their children, I sometimes wonder whether your husband is available to do anything with the kids at all. But more I wonder why that trumps my time with my son.Well, in my experience, it's that the women tend to draw a harder line, and once you've drawn that line a few times, it gets easier to draw. But of course there are repercussions; if someone tells me that they can't work late or come in on a weekend, I'm done with them. I won't staff them on my cases. (Exceptions are made, particularly for "I can't find childcare" but that statement damn well better be followed by "so I'll have to work at home and may have to take some breaks, but I'll be available." And you better not pull that crap frequently.)

But yeah, I hear you. There is more of an assumption that if you're male, there's some woman with primary responsibility for the children, so you can make arrangements to be available. Because, remember, the issue from the partners' perspective isn't "he needs time with his son" but is instead "he needs to make childcare arrangements, because he ought to be committed to client needs."

[A Monkey With a Gun]

If you think it sucks being a single father, try being a childless associate in a law firm.Oh, fuck off.

You're single and childless. So am I. But, Oh, wait ...... you're in a LAW FIRM.

Whoopdie fuckin' Doo. Suck it up man. There are people that have more shit that they absolutely have to fucking do. I can see it, why can't you? The kid is the ultimate trump card in any situation. That's just human decency. I don't care what your job is, I just hate the whining about how we single guys have it so tough.

"How come nobody respects the single guys?", you say. They do respect us. They think we have more time to kill. You know what? They're right.

Word to the wise: Because we aren't tied down we have the time to go above and beyond the call of duty, which is always rewarded.

Unless your bosses are assholes and won't give any holidays off, in which case I recommend sending out resumes.

[Campion]

Oh, Jesus fucking Christ. Way to miss the point, Monkeyboy.

First, why are you sniping at me? I am not The Man (in any way, shape or form). The fuckers are the partners in the firm, who tell stirring tales of "how I billed 3000 hours the year my Johnny was diagnosed with leukemia" and "when my children draw pictures of the family, I'm not included." And they tell these stories with pride. So don't give me shit and act as if I'm somehow the problem.

Second, the reason it pisses me off that the ones with kids get a pass is because the expectation for them is lower than it is for me, but we're all paid the same amount, and the job expectations are the same. We don't work a 9 to 5 job, and that's reflected in our pay. If you want to work a 9 to 5 job, go somewhere else.

[anu-la1979]

Well, it could be worse. The single and unmarried are entirely exempted from the luxuries of taking some time off for the family. My other single/childless co-worker and I have covered the office before/after Thanksgiving for the last 3.5 years I've been working. The breeders are usually out for the whole week. Before I came on board he did it himself. Now we split it. This year I took Thanksgiving so I'm going home for Christmas.

[Lizard]

I'd be happy to rant about single fathers and child-support--from the point of view of a boss who has watched their employee fighting the courts forever to get his non-custodial ex to pay her child support that was mandated by the courts. If she were the custodial parent and he was $20K+ in arrears, I don't think the courts would be so lenient. Grrrrr!

Don't be so sure. Enforcement of these laws varies quite a bit from location to location, even from county to county. I have a female friend whose ex-husband didn't pay for two years before they gave him community service. She had to go to court four times.

All of this is just another reason for me to file away to avoid having children. I'm not convinced yet, but MAN . . .

[jsgoddess]

Don't be so sure. Enforcement of these laws varies quite a bit from location to location, even from county to county. I have a female friend whose ex-husband didn't pay for two years before they gave him community service. She had to go to court four times.

A coworker's wife was due something like $20000 from her ex for her son. The son is now 23, I think, and someone came to the coworker's door asking if anyone there knew where the ex could be found. They finally want him to pay his child support.

[Quartz]

The same rules, essentially, apply to me. However, if it comes down to a piece of work that has to be done, and I have time planned with my son, and the female colleague has time planned with her family, I am the one who is expected to lose out.

You've got all this documented, right? So you can stand your ground and say, "On 8 of the 9 previous occasions this has occurred, preference has gone to (female colleague). I'm sorry, but this time, it's my turn."

Or, more simply, "I'm sorry boss, but I have other arrangements this weekend."

[TwistofFate]

So don't give me shit and act as if I'm somehow the problem.

But of course there are repercussions; if someone tells me that they can't work late or come in on a weekend, I'm done with them. I won't staff them on my cases. (Exceptions are made, particularly for "I can't find childcare" but that statement damn well better be followed by "so I'll have to work at home and may have to take some breaks, but I'll be available." And you better not pull that crap frequently.)

sing along with me:
One of these things are not like the other.

[Jayn_Newell]

The same rules, essentially, apply to me. However, if it comes down to a piece of work that has to be done, and I have time planned with my son, and the female colleague has time planned with her family, I am the one who is expected to lose out.This would actually make more sense to me if you did have custody. It would still suck, but hey at least you would get to see your son without someone having to drive 140 miles. If you don't have custody, it seems to me like you should have priority, since seeing your kid is a special thing for you.

[villa]

If you think it sucks being a single father, try being a childless associate in a law firm. I've had to cancel tons of family obligations (mother's day, birthdays, etc.), missed concerts with friends, cancelled vacations, etc., over the years, because the assumption is that because I haven't spawned, nothing in my life could be as important as my job. Which, then, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy...

Well, I am a "childless associate in a law firm" for all the time I don't have my son down here with me. I think I get that same stuff as well. I do remember a fun conversation with my boss that entailed the words "I can't cancel, she used to be a freaking model" coming out of my mouth, as if I somehow expected him to be in sufficient awe of my manliness to do the work himself...

Well, in my experience, it's that the women tend to draw a harder line, and once you've drawn that line a few times, it gets easier to draw. But of course there are repercussions; if someone tells me that they can't work late or come in on a weekend, I'm done with them. I won't staff them on my cases. (Exceptions are made, particularly for "I can't find childcare" but that statement damn well better be followed by "so I'll have to work at home and may have to take some breaks, but I'll be available." And you better not pull that crap frequently.)

But yeah, I hear you. There is more of an assumption that if you're male, there's some woman with primary responsibility for the children, so you can make arrangements to be available. Because, remember, the issue from the partners' perspective isn't "he needs time with his son" but is instead "he needs to make childcare arrangements, because he ought to be committed to client needs."

I totally understand what you are saying. And it is, to a degree, my own fault. I choose to make myself available. But the way we tend to staff cases allows for a lot of flexibility between associates. I guess my rant is more at people at my level who think their own situations are more worthy than mine. It's a piss poor rant generally, I just was feeling cranky when I wrote it.

And yes, Jayn_Newell, I agree - it would make more sense that way. But the world doesn't seem to make sense all the time. Or very often. Or ever.

[Carol the Impaler]

Have you talked to the other associates about it? Perhaps they think - well, they hope - that you actually are more flexible because you appear more flexible? (Not to knock you, but I wonder if all the associates are that callous, or perhaps they just don't know you have your kid that weekend, or they're hoping that you really are ok with it because they feel guilty.)

[Shakes]

Ya' know the judge in my divorce ordered my paycheck to be garnished automatically with out even giving me a chance to pay child support myself. Turns out it more convenient, but still, it's the point of the matter. I own two homes and have excellent credit.(I'm not trying to be pretentious here) It felt like a slap in the face for the judge to automatically assume that I'm a dead beat Dad.

But really, aren't all of us guys dead beat Dads? :rolleyes:

[mhendo]

Meh, I am single and childless and in most circumstances my plans are unimportant when it comes to the needs of a child.

boss: Somebody's got to come in on Saturday
All: Oh maaaannn...
Monkey: "I was going to take my girlfriend to the oyster festival downtown."
Coworker: "It's my weekend with my sons who I haven't even seen in two weeks"
Monkey: "Shit, you win. I guess I'll just meet her there late"
Coworker: "Thanks, I'll make it up to you "

My point being to keep it in perspective. In the scheme of things, kids spending time with their non-custodial parent is more important than you or me getting drunk and eating oysters.Fuck. That. Shit.

I choose not to have children precisely because spending my free time in certain ways is important to me. You can call it laziness or selfishness or whatever you want, but the fact is that my choice not to have kids was made largely because i understand how much time and effort they involve, and i didn't want to do that. I shouldn't have to give up on the free time i've purposely set aside in my life simply because you've made a different choice.

Now, because my time is more flexible than a parent's time, i would be willing, in certain particular instances, to accommodate a parent who can only see his or her kids at a certain time. But the total amount of time off that we get should be the same. If i make an accommodation today because my time is more flexible, the parent needs to make an accommodation at a later date so that i'm not continually doing more than my share of work.

[catsix]

Yeah, those without kids are truly shit on in the corporate world. People should not get preference because they have kids, or because the kids live with them, or because somehow the mom is more entitled than the dad to have time off.

It took me a long time, but I have finally found employement where I can solidly claim my weekends as 'my time' and nobody dares to infringe upon it. At my last company, I was expected to work 14 hours a day, every day, so that the 'people who have families can be home with their families', and it sucked.

You gotta make that line man, and be willing to find another job if your employer refuses to respect that you are an employee not an indentured servant.

Campion said:
if someone tells me that they can't work late or come in on a weekend, I'm done with them. I won't staff them on my cases

This is exactly the kind of shit that led me to my current position. Do you spell out in the offer letter how many hours a week, and how many weekends a month, are going to be expected as 'work time', or do you just give people shit when they agree to a standard full-time 40 hour offer and then get angry with you for treating them like a 24x7 slave?

[mhendo]

This is exactly the kind of shit that led me to my current position. Do you spell out in the offer letter how many hours a week, and how many weekends a month, are going to be expected as 'work time', or do you just give people shit when they agree to a standard full-time 40 hour offer and then get angry with you for treating them like a 24x7 slave?I understand your frustration with this type of situation, but in Campion's defense, i'm not sure that the "standard full-time 40 hour" work week even exists in law firms, at least not among the lawyers themselves. The secretaries or assistant might get to work regular hours, but i think it's pretty much SOP that associates in private law firms have to grind out 80-hour weeks to stay in a job. It's sort of a rite of passage, like doctors who work 80+ hours a week during their residency.

Not saying it's a good or a healthy or even a logical thing, but that seems to be how those professions are.

[Agent Foxtrot]

My point being to keep it in perspective. In the scheme of things, kids spending time with their non-custodial parent is more important than you or me getting drunk and eating oysters.Sez you.

[Critical1]

person with kids "I cant work this weekend cause I have a bday party for my 8th spawn"
boss "looks like its you again this weekend childless one"
Childless one "in the interest of not remaining childless forever I am going on a date with a lovely lady this weekend and wont be able to work, and since I have covered for pwk about 50 times already this year its his turn"

actually had a conversation like this once. fuckers actually expected me to cancel weekend plans out of town at a bed and breakfast with this hottie I had been dating for awhile.

[BrightNShiny]

When I was an associate at a law firm, I was told I had to work that weekend. Which of course, I did. And I showed up at 8 AM on Saturday to start my work. A few hours later, the paralegal for our department showed up, with her kid in tow. The head attorney for our department had told her that morning to come into work. She couldn't find a sitter on such short notice, but our boss told her she had to show up anyway. I was completely appalled. That was the day I decided to leave the firm. That's not the only reason I left, but I was sick to death of the asshole, unprofessional partners I had to deal with, so I guess that was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I don't know what the point of this story is. Maybe law firms are stupid? Okay. That sounds right.

[Hilarity N. Suze]

Law firms are crazed. I wrote a story years ago which started out to be on how women are still paid less than men for the same work, and ended up being about how women (mostly, but some men, too) trade other things for the salary, such as flexibility. For instance one couple, both lawyers, agreed that one of them would pursue the career while the other would hold back a bit and deal with children and household, and in their case it was him. As a result of this he was special counsel and was paid much less--about half as much, after only a couple of years. But usually it's the woman who makes this kind of tradeoff.

Another woman I interviewed was working "part time" for the local branch of a large national firm. "Part-time" meant 40 hours. Paralegals at her firm made more than she did because they got paid for OT and she didn't.

Another woman at a big firm said she'd be willing to work half the hours for half the pay, but she didn't see that as a possibility. So she was sitting at her kid's soccer game reviewing pleadings. (She later quit to become a professor.)

I looked at four professions--lawyer, financial consultant, doctor, veterinarian. The lawyers, doctors, and financial consultants all said you had to put in the hours, at the expense of whatever, there was no shortcut, if you expected to reap the rewards when you were in your 40s you had to put in the hours when you were in your 20s and 30s. One financial analyst said she never got married because she didn't have time to have a relationship, and by the time she was established enough she was too old to have kids. She was in her 40s and was willing to sabotage the career of any woman who entered the profession after having raised children because they hadn't had to give up their life for it.

Ten years after I wrote the story I was trying to revisit the people I'd interviewed. The guy who was special counsel was divorced, with custody of his kids. The woman who wanted to work half the hours was divorced, shared custody. The woman who worked "part time" had gone to full-time and was a partner and her husband, who had retired, took charge of most of the child care. The financial consultant had still never married. Overall it seemed like there were an awful lot of divorces in the legal profession.

[Turek]

I looked at four professions--lawyer, financial consultant, doctor, veterinarian. The lawyers, doctors, and financial consultants all said you had to put in the hours, at the expense of whatever, there was no shortcut, if you expected to reap the rewards when you were in your 40s you had to put in the hours when you were in your 20s and 30s. One financial analyst said she never got married because she didn't have time to have a relationship, and by the time she was established enough she was too old to have kids. She was in her 40s and was willing to sabotage the career of any woman who entered the profession after having raised children because they hadn't had to give up their life for it. Emphasis added.

While I think what some legal firms require in time commitment is ridiculous, I don't have a LOT of sympathy for folks who make conscious decisions to forgo relationships, children and family in favor of high-paying jobs, then bitch about it later because they don't have any of the things they eschewed. Nobody forced them into those professions, and they got rewarded for their choice with large salaries. For others, the reward isn't great enough so they made the choice of more limited careers/professions with better home lives.

But they can't complain that they put in absurd hours, for which they got paid a handsome sum of money, but they have no life.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Yeah, those without kids are truly shit on in the corporate world. People should not get preference because they have kids
The parents aren't getting the preference: the kids are. If you don't like it, find another society to join. Your individual choice not to have kids has no impact on the fact that existant kids need care, and most adults in our society agree that this is true, and our society is structured to ensure that kids get that care. You can't opt out of that system and remain in our society.

Daniel

[A Monkey With a Gun]

The parents aren't getting the preference: the kids are. If you don't like it, find another society to join. Thank You.

[Clothahump]

But it gets me pissed when it happens repeatedly. And explaining to an 8 year old that Dad has to cancel plans at the last minute because of work is not easy at all.

Simple - don't do it. Just tell them that you have a prior family commitment and don't go into details.

I've had to do that in the past. It doesn't take more than once, maybe twice, for them to learn that you mean what you say.

[Hilarity N. Suze]

Emphasis added.

While I think what some legal firms require in time commitment is ridiculous, I don't have a LOT of sympathy for folks who make conscious decisions to forgo relationships, children and family in favor of high-paying jobs, then bitch about it later because they don't have any of the things they eschewed. Nobody forced them into those professions, and they got rewarded for their choice with large salaries. For others, the reward isn't great enough so they made the choice of more limited careers/professions with better home lives.

But they can't complain that they put in absurd hours, for which they got paid a handsome sum of money, but they have no life.

It's a funny thing. I had a coworker who one day in the elevator announced that she'd just paid off her house. Yes; burned the mortgage. Boy was I envious.

But she said it was easy enough, since she was working all the time and didn't have children or, usually, a love interest, so nothing else to spend her money on--and she sort of wished she could trade it for a good man and some kids.

I did the other thing. Took myself out of the job market entirely for whole blocks of time, worked part-time, then I worked full-time and my husband did the part-time thing. The result of this is that we will NEVER be able to retire. We will never be able to catch up. But we are confident that our kids will support us in our old age (the older ones are doing quite well, at least so far).

[Malthus]

The parents aren't getting the preference: the kids are. If you don't like it, find another society to join. Your individual choice not to have kids has no impact on the fact that existant kids need care, and most adults in our society agree that this is true, and our society is structured to ensure that kids get that care. You can't opt out of that system and remain in our society.

Daniel

Well said.

[DianaG]

However, if it comes down to a piece of work that has to be done, and I have time planned with my son, and the female colleague has time planned with her family, I am the one who is expected to lose out.

I appreciate in the work place there are many advantages of being male. I also appreciate this is an product of a sexist presumption that women are primarily responsible for child care. But it gets me pissed when it happens repeatedly. And explaining to an 8 year old that Dad has to cancel plans at the last minute because of work is not easy at all.
villa, I sympathize, I'm not doubting your experience, but mine is exactly the opposite.

My experience is that a man who takes the afternoon off to attend his kid's soccer game is a freakin' hero to be such a devoted dad, but a woman who does the same (let alone leaves early to say, pick up a sick kid at daycare) is a dilletante who needs to give some serious thought to her commitment to this job.

And that's just among the married people. Divorced dads were given all kinds of special consideration, because their time with their kids is so limited, poor bastards. And single dads with full custody? Again, treated like heroes. Can you imagine? A man, raising a child alone? The awe, it overwhelms me. :rolleyes:

Single moms, on the other hand, tend to get "Oh, there's a gas leak at the daycare and you have to leave? Okay, but you know, we're going to have to talk about the problems you have balancing your work and your personal life."

Because apparently raising children is a Very Important Job (in addition to being a Huge Personal Sacrifice) if you're a man, and a part of Your Personal Life if you're a woman.

[ParentalAdvisory]

The parents aren't getting the preference: the kids are. If you don't like it, find another society to join. Your individual choice not to have kids has no impact on the fact that existant kids need care, and most adults in our society agree that this is true, and our society is structured to ensure that kids get that care. You can't opt out of that system and remain in our society.

Daniel

This reads to me that single and childless people should suck it up and "do their part for someone elses kids".

Danny boy, while you've been praised a couple times for this comment, kindly go fuck yourself with that attitude. It is a given that kids need care. There is absolutely NO doubt about this. However, it is NOT a given that I or anyone else be responsible for it. If anything, I pay more in taxes as a single childless person, so I feel I've done my share for your kids to enjoy that special deduction you oh so crave every year. Your welcome.

I'm sorry, but I DO NOT EVER RECALL joining the society that says single and/or childless people should pick up the slack left by absent workers due to children and "family issues".

Don't get me wrong, I've helped parents out for their cause more then a few times, as a favor. But it should never be expected because you're a parent.

Your individual choice to have kids has no impact on the fact that you are the one responsible for them. Not your coworkers.

[KarlGrenze]

Um, this may vary by state/culture, but... erm... what about bringing the kids to work? Is it not that hard to bring the kid, some snacks, some toys, books, etc., or set up an unused computer, and let the kid enjoy while the parent works? I know it may be hard in some circumstances, but we're talkin about a law firm/office jobs here, people...

I spent maaaaany weekends (and weekdays over the school breaks, and afternoons after school and after school activities) at my mom's (and sometimes dad's) office. They brought my schoolwork, and if I had projects I did them, and I read a lot, and they gave me a pen and markers and a notepad. Woohoo! Also, at my mom's office she had a small dollhouse in one of the corners, and I played with toys she brought for me.

And like villa said, I wonder about the married person's partner... why can't he/she take care of kids, at least once in a while? I know many times mom was the one who stayed behind in the weekends with me while dad worked... and a few times, vicerversa, dad stayed with me when it wasn't his turn to work.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

This reads to me that single and childless people should suck it up and "do their part for someone elses kids".
Not should. Do.
Danny boy, while you've been praised a couple times for this comment, kindly go fuck yourself with that attitude.Fuck society! you mean. I ain't telling you how it is; I'm telling you to suck it up, Gertrude, because that's how it is.
It is a given that kids need care. There is absolutely NO doubt about this. However, it is NOT a given that I or anyone else be responsible for it.
It sure is. Paid any school taxes lately? How about when you were a kid: did someone pay your school's taxes for you?
If anything, I pay more in taxes as a single childless person, so I feel I've done my share for your kids to enjoy that special deduction you oh so crave every year. Your welcome.
First, I don't have kids (though I'll have one soon--woohoo!). Second, your feelings are immaterial. If you don't like it, get society to change its attitude, and good luck with that.

I'm sorry, but I DO NOT EVER RECALL joining the society that says single and/or childless people should pick up the slack left by absent workers due to children and "family issues".
Wow, first it's fuck society, now it's the equivalent of "I never asked to be born!" Yeah, you didn't join a society that allows free speech; you didn't join a society that requires you not to be drunk in public; and you didn't join a soceity that says everyone is responsible for raising the next generation collectively in many ways.
Your individual choice to have kids has no impact on the fact that you are the one responsible for them. Not your coworkers.Except you're wrong. Again: our society considers the raising of the next generation to be, in many ways, the responsibility of ALL adults, just as we were raised by all the adults of the previous generation. If you don't like it, start your own society, or try changing the rules of this one. But pouting like a teenager about it (Fuck society! I didn't ask to join this one!) ain't gonna do that much good, I'm afraid.

Daniel

[Klaatu]

Sweet fucking Og! As a person without kids, my responsibility for "raising the next generation" would, aside from taxes and such, only be something like saving your kid from being hit by a bus.

Other than a situational safety issue like that, I have no goddam responsibility whatsoever for any person's kids.

And it is complete bullshit to expect a childless coworker to continually get screwed at work because the baybee has a birthday.

That's not helping society raise the next generation, it's being taken advantage of by rude, self-entitled parents.

[Mahna Mahna]

Sorry, but the fact is, childless folks DO get the short end of the stick.

I missed my best friend's wedding, for crying out loud... and why? Because it just so happened that they could only afford to have one employee off that day, and two of us asked to book it. Given that the other employee had a kid, guess who got told they'd just have to suck it up and come into work?

Yes, sometimes there are really special can't-miss moments in your child's life... but that doesn't make them any more or less important than the can't-miss moments in my adult life.

[Klaatu]

villa, I do apologize for continuing the hijack from the single father to childless thing.

[catsix]

Parental Advisory said:
This reads to me that single and childless people should suck it up and "do their part for someone elses kids".


Of course it does. Daniel over there is one of the most sanctimonious twats around here, and he wants to be an elementary school teacher, so naturally he thinks everyone should bow to those who have reproduced.

Danny boy, while you've been praised a couple times for this comment, kindly go fuck yourself with that attitude.

His attitude toward the childfree is one of the many reasons he should go fuck himself. He'll make a great elementary school teacher, given that he worships kids and the people who have them to such extremes that everyone who didn't breed or devote their life in some other way to the raising of sprogs is an asshole if they don't actively support those who did by working longer hours and paying more in taxes.

Karl Grenze said:
Um, this may vary by state/culture, but... erm... what about bringing the kids to work?

They don't belong in the office. The people who are there working are there to do just that -- work. Not to be functioning as a day care center while they attempt to do the job they actually get paid for.

Left Hand of Dorkness said:
I ain't telling you how it is; I'm telling you to suck it up, Gertrude, because that's how it is.

Well this childfree person is standing up for her right to her personal time, so shut the fuck up if you can't take a day off for junior because I already had plans.

you didn't join a soceity that says everyone is responsible for raising the next generation collectively in many ways.

I'm not responsible for 'raising the next generation collectively', you nutless wonder. It's not any part of my job to deal with your kids, ever. All I have to do is not actively harm them, and I've fulfilled my social obligation. Of course, knowing you, your kids are going to be insufferable twats just like their daddy, so that'll take a miracle.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Other than a situational safety issue like that, I have no goddam responsibility whatsoever for any person's kids.
If that's how it works at your workplace, awesome for you. But if it's not, then it's not, and getting really steamed about it won't change that.

Look: it ain't illegal for workplaces to prioritize time off for people who will devote that time off to raising the next generation, and to deprioritize it for people who won't devote it to raising the next generation. It ain't frowned on in our society overall. If you want a workplace that gives equal priority to everyone's time away from the workplace, it's up to you to look for that in a workplace, or to make your own workplace with that system. It's not up to the rest of society to change everything to match your whims.

Or do you think such measures should be illegal?

catsix, I'll no more get in a slap-fight with you than I would with Rain Man, for much the same reason.

Daniel

[MissGypsy]

Of course it does. Daniel over there is one of the most sanctimonious twats around here, and he wants to be an elementary school teacher, so naturally he thinks everyone should bow to those who have reproduced.



His attitude toward the childfree is one of the many reasons he should go fuck himself. He'll make a great elementary school teacher, given that he worships kids and the people who have them to such extremes that everyone who didn't breed or devote their life in some other way to the raising of sprogs is an asshole if they don't actively support those who did by working longer hours and paying more in taxes.



They don't belong in the office. The people who are there working are there to do just that -- work. Not to be functioning as a day care center while they attempt to do the job they actually get paid for.



Well this childfree person is standing up for her right to her personal time, so shut the fuck up if you can't take a day off for junior because I already had plans.



I'm not responsible for 'raising the next generation collectively', you nutless wonder. It's not any part of my job to deal with your kids, ever. All I have to do is not actively harm them, and I've fulfilled my social obligation. Of course, knowing you, your kids are going to be insufferable twats just like their daddy, so that'll take a miracle.

I don't know you, nor the poster at whom your loathing is directed, but I just have to say Wow, you have a lot of vitriolic hatred! I'm amazed at how much you seem to hate children, because I'm quite certain that you were a child once. I wonder if you hated yourself that much, when you were young.

Calm down! Nobody is asking you to adopt an orphan, but you might try to act like a member of civilized society, and treat other members of society with some modicum of civility.

[anu-la1979]

Not should. Do.
Fuck society! you mean. I ain't telling you how it is; I'm telling you to suck it up, Gertrude, because that's how it is.

It sure is. Paid any school taxes lately? How about when you were a kid: did someone pay your school's taxes for you?

First, I don't have kids (though I'll have one soon--woohoo!). Second, your feelings are immaterial. If you don't like it, get society to change its attitude, and good luck with that.


Wow, first it's fuck society, now it's the equivalent of "I never asked to be born!" Yeah, you didn't join a society that allows free speech; you didn't join a society that requires you not to be drunk in public; and you didn't join a soceity that says everyone is responsible for raising the next generation collectively in many ways.
Except you're wrong. Again: our society considers the raising of the next generation to be, in many ways, the responsibility of ALL adults, just as we were raised by all the adults of the previous generation. If you don't like it, start your own society, or try changing the rules of this one. But pouting like a teenager about it (Fuck society! I didn't ask to join this one!) ain't gonna do that much good, I'm afraid.

Daniel


Oh shut up, sanctimony. People without children are not morally obligated to do more work for the same pay and be continually put upon because they've committed the grand sin of not meeting someone on an accelerated timeline or decided against children or may be unable to have them. No one (other than maybe catsix) is saying we don't want to help you out within reasonable limits. It's the repeated assertions that we are expected to put our personal lives/plans behind your sainted plans Christmas after Thanksgiving after Weekend after Date that Could be the One Where We Meet the One neverending. If you are anything other than a leech and/or complete slacker you'd agree that maybe you have the obligation to repay the favour by occasionally helping out your single/childless co-workers when they need the time for something really special. See, the whole point of getting help is not to lecture the people helping you about how you are entitled to it-it's a symbiotic relationship. And people aren't going to keep doing you favours (because that's exactly what it is) for long if you don't give anything back. Even chimpanzees know as much.

I know not all parents are like this but these posts make you sound like one of the lamprey-esque ones. FTR, I eventually plan to have kids but I damn well do not expect other people to raise them or put their lives on hold time after time for me to be able to be there for my kid. That is MY responsibility, not theirs.

[kambuckta]

It's funny y'know. Apart from ONE woman w/kids, the vast majority of people at my who take time off/sickies are the single folk wanting a long weekend or needing to recover from said long weekend. Can't provide a cite, but at least in Australia, it's been found that parents and particularly single parents are far more conscientious about fulfilling workplace obligations than single childless people.

And of course we have the usual chorus singing the praises of childlessness and how put upon they are by those of us who chose/chose to breed. Fancy seeing you here catsix. :D

So, you don't want kids and don't want to pay for them? Bully for you. Where are all of these youthful trained workers of the future going to come from then, if you don't help support them now.

I do hope that when you're a snivelling, incontinent blob of mushed vegetable in a nursing-home bed that they put a sign on the head saying 'Nil Consideration'. Hey, that'd be karma.

:D

[Crocodiles And Boulevards]

If that's how it works at your workplace, awesome for you. But if it's not, then it's not, and getting really steamed about it won't change that.

Look: it ain't illegal for workplaces to prioritize time off for people who will devote that time off to raising the next generation, and to deprioritize it for people who won't devote it to raising the next generation. It ain't frowned on in our society overall. If you want a workplace that gives equal priority to everyone's time away from the workplace, it's up to you to look for that in a workplace, or to make your own workplace with that system. It's not up to the rest of society to change everything to match your whims.

Or do you think such measures should be illegal?

catsix, I'll no more get in a slap-fight with you than I would with Rain Man, for much the same reason.

Daniel


Hasn't the responsibility of the parent been shifted in your argument? If it can be said that it's fair for childless workers to take on more hours for the same salary, might that not simply point out the inefficiency and irresponsibility of a parent working at an hours-intensive job? Having the kid was no one's choice but the parents. At what point does responsibility in choosing a workplace with reasonable hours shift to the childless co-workers?

[catsix]

MissGypsy said:
I don't know you, nor the poster at whom your loathing is directed, but I just have to say Wow, you have a lot of vitriolic hatred! I'm amazed at how much you seem to hate children, because I'm quite certain that you were a child once.

Actually, I despise Daniel a lot more than I dislike kids.

I wonder if you hated yourself that much, when you were young.

It wasn't my favorite part of life.

Nobody is asking you to adopt an orphan, but you might try to act like a member of civilized society, and treat other members of society with some modicum of civility.

I'm rather polite when I refuse to work late or on the weekend so that someone can take junior to tee ball.

anu-la1979 said:
No one (other than maybe catsix) is saying we don't want to help you out within reasonable limits.

I don't object to cutting someone a break if I know they're going to return the favor later. I object to cutting someone a break purely because they are a parent and feel they are entitled to it.

Crocodiles And Boulevarts said:
At what point does responsibility in choosing a workplace with reasonable hours shift to the childless co-workers?

That would be whenever Daniel over there finds it more convenient.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Oh shut up, sanctimony. People without children are not morally obligated to do more work for the same pay
...
If you are anything other than a leech and/or complete slacker you'd agree that maybe you have the obligation to repay the favour by occasionally helping out your single/childless co-workers when they need the time for something really special.
Look, YOU are the one talking about moral obligations, not me. I'm not saying you're morally obligated to do shit. I'm saying you're obligated by the society you live in and by (apparently) your employer. I'm saying society is not morally obligated to change itself to match your idea that the responsibility of raising children shouldn't be shared by those who aren't parents, nor is your employer.

I'm not the sanctimonious one, frankly; I'm not saying what's right. That's what you're doing, and it's tremendously ironic that the folks demanding society change to conform to become more convenient for them are calling other folks sanctimonious.
I know not all parents are like this but these posts make you sound like one of the lamprey-esque ones.

I AM NOT A PARENT. I will be soon, but what the fuck? I can't possibly be lamprey-esque: my experience with this issue is wholly from the other end, wholly from the side of picking up slack for parents who need to go off to raise their kids.

Now, I'll point ouit that there are two different ideas around here. One is that parents who take time off for raising kids (and who get prioritized over anyone who takes time off to do something recreational) are abusing the system; that's bullshit. The system deliberately allows for that kind of behavior, and if you don't like it, form your own damn business or start your own utopian society.

The other idea is that parents who take time off to do something recreational with their kids (and who are prioritized over anyone else who takes time off to do something recreational) are abusing the system; I have much more sympathy for that position. Please don't conflate the two.

Daniel

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Hasn't the responsibility of the parent been shifted in your argument? If it can be said that it's fair for childless workers to take on more hours for the same salary, might that not simply point out the inefficiency and irresponsibility of a parent working at an hours-intensive job? Having the kid was no one's choice but the parents. At what point does responsibility in choosing a workplace with reasonable hours shift to the childless co-workers?I'm not clear on your first sentence, and I really am not seeing why the second part of the second sentence logically follows from the first part. Maybe I need coffee.

The third sentence is irrelevant. Again, society doesn't do this to help the adult: society does this to help the child. It's sort of the reverse of social security (where you take care of the current old folks on the assumption that when you're old you'll be taken care of): here, we collectively take care of the current young folks because when we were young we were collectively taken care of. Who chose for the child to be born is irrelevant.

As for your last sentence, everyone is responsible for choosing a workplace with hours they consider reasonable. This includes parents and childless people alike. If you're a parent and you're unhappy with the fact that taking care of junior is treated as a time-off request equal to going fishing, look for a new employer. If you're childless and you're unhappy wtih the fact that taking care of junior is prioritized as a time-off request above going fishing, look for a new employer.

Or, y'know, complain about it on a messageboard. Whichever you think will be more effective.

Daniel

[KarlGrenze]

They don't belong in the office. The people who are there working are there to do just that -- work. Not to be functioning as a day care center while they attempt to do the job they actually get paid for.

I was referring mostly to the weekends and other times that, you know, you were complaining about not getting off because the people with children had to be with the kids (since nobody else would take care of them). So... erm... the workplace would be in most cases empty or almost empty compared to a normal work there. You would not even be there because it would be your time off (the person with kids is working and has brought the kid with him/her while she works). The person who should look out for the kid is the parent, no one else. And I don't know how you were like as a kid, but I and other parents' kids didn't need constant supervision past 5 or 6 or so. Give us a toy, a book, a pen or something easy and we will spend the time in a corner not bothering anyone (especially when the place is mostly unoccupied). Just like many kids are at home (I cannot imagine a kid needing constant attention at that age at home, either).

And saying no to that option seems like a catch-22 to me. Parents cannot constantly get priority for time off raising/looking after the kids (just staying home with the kids, not going fishing with the kids), but if they decide to come to work and bring junior (who will probably just be playing with its PSP/Gameboy/toys/etc most if not all the time), then they can't either. Huh?

[DianaG]

I've brought my daughter into the office plenty, on a weekend or even a snow day. When she was little, she was content to color or read or play on one of the spare computers. When she got older, I put her to work. A ten year old can file or do rudimentary internet research.

That said, my daughter has always been able to amuse herself, quiet, and extraordinarily well-mannered. If your children are NOT these things, your coworkers will not thank you for bringing them in. Please be honest with yourself about this.

At my last job, I was always happy to see my boss's kids, as well as any number of my coworkers' kids. They were pleasant company, and occasionally even helpful. But there were definitely a few people whose kids were a loud, hyperactive nightmare, and those people should have stayed home with them, because not only were the parents not getting their work done, other peoples' work was affected as well.

[anu-la1979]

Look, YOU are the one talking about moral obligations, not me. I'm not saying you're morally obligated to do shit. I'm saying you're obligated by the society you live in and by (apparently) your employer. I'm saying society is not morally obligated to change itself to match your idea that the responsibility of raising children shouldn't be shared by those who aren't parents, nor is your employer.

I'm not the sanctimonious one, frankly; I'm not saying what's right. That's what you're doing, and it's tremendously ironic that the folks demanding society change to conform to become more convenient for them are calling other folks sanctimonious.


I AM NOT A PARENT. I will be soon, but what the fuck? I can't possibly be lamprey-esque: my experience with this issue is wholly from the other end, wholly from the side of picking up slack for parents who need to go off to raise their kids.

Now, I'll point ouit that there are two different ideas around here. One is that parents who take time off for raising kids (and who get prioritized over anyone who takes time off to do something recreational) are abusing the system; that's bullshit. The system deliberately allows for that kind of behavior, and if you don't like it, form your own damn business or start your own utopian society.

The other idea is that parents who take time off to do something recreational with their kids (and who are prioritized over anyone else who takes time off to do something recreational) are abusing the system; I have much more sympathy for that position. Please don't conflate the two.

Daniel

Oh please, you're the one who started with the whole "it takes a village to raise my child because I'm a lazy entitled ass" meme. And since you're so up on the free market thesis of taking my employment talent elsewhere, I'm sure you're perfectly comfortable being fucked over by 99% of employers as a dad, right? As in limited paternity leave and statements that your wife can take care of it but you're expected to be at work? Because after all SOCIETY has dictated that women have the lionshare of childbearing responsiblity which means that if you SOCIETY can dictate that you miss your kid's birthday if your wife manages to make it. I mean, after all, if you want to establish some pansy utopia where you take a hand in childrearing you can go do that!

Anyway, everyone is ignoring the obvious tradeoff here, and it's the one I'm reasonably comfortable with-which is that the slacker parents who don't put in the time as the singletons should not a) get the same bonus and b) should not be promoted as fast. This is what actually happens in most workplaces as is fair and right (unless the lamprey parent wants to argue that NO, he deserves the UTOPIC conditions of accelerated promotions and the same salary as the villagers raising his PRESHUSH BAYBEE) unless someone is majorly fucking up playing the game. If this weren't the case there would be a major talent flight at organizations. Plus, it's interesting that people like Daniel would cop the entitlement attitude because my experience has been that the first thing the bitter childless people do when they get into power (faster than the slacker parents) is start maneuvering to get the ones who pissed them off/took the most most advantage of the flexibility fired for laziness and lack of drive. Of course, I'm sure Daniel would get his panties in a twist about both these situations.

As I said, most canny people (and every chimpanzee) understand that this is a system of tradeoffs and favors. The people that don't are usually the first to be stabbed in the back as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

[InLucemEdita]

...idea that the responsibility of raising children [should] be shared by those who aren't parents

Does "society" really expect me to help raise other peoples kids?
And it does so by enforcing unwritten rules that say I have to work extra hours so the kids can be with their parents?

Do I have to wipe their snotty noses in the mall, too?
What other rules are there for my role in raising other people's kids?

This is a ridiculous idea. If "society" wants to enforce that requirement then set up a tax that EVERYONE has to pay to cover the costs of extra child care, or temp workers or whatever will allow junior to be raised properly. Make it like property taxes that EVERYONE who owns property has to pay to educate the populace. Or just like social security taxes that EVERYONE who works has to pay to guarantee a minimum level of comfort in retirement. Every other societal good from public transport to defense is paid for by taxes. I'm not opposed to the idea of societal mandates.

But I don't believe there is a societal mandate to help raise other people's children. And if there were it certainly shouldn't be exacted by individuals (the parents) on other individuals (the screwed over single people or whoever has to repeatedly cover for them).

Sometimes you can't have everything. You want to spawn, that will cost you at your job. You want a job, you'll miss some time with the brats. It's the parents who should suck it up, not the ones covering for them.

[Jayn_Newell]

I think the thing here is, not that the kids aren't important, but that they're treated as the MOST important. They're not, and part of living in a society with others involves a give and take between what you want and what others want. Some of the examples in this thread are pretty crazy--being asked to miss a friend's wedding? That's something that (hopefully) only happens once in a person's lifetime. The idea that people with children ALWAYS have priority in these situations is stupid--some things are more important than others, and the presence of kids do not determine which is which.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Does "society" really expect me to help raise other peoples kids?
Apparently.
And it does so by enforcing unwritten rules that say I have to work extra hours so the kids can be with their parents?
Sounds as though some folks have to. Do you?
Do I have to wipe their snotty noses in the mall, too?
Apparently not.
What other rules are there for my role in raising other people's kids?[/.quote]
Plenty.
[quote]This is a ridiculous idea. If "society" wants to enforce that requirement then set up a tax that EVERYONE has to pay to cover the costs of extra child care, or temp workers or whatever will allow junior to be raised properly. Make it like property taxes that EVERYONE who owns property has to pay to educate the populace. Or just like social security taxes that EVERYONE who works has to pay to guarantee a minimum level of comfort in retirement. Every other societal good from public transport to defense is paid for by taxes. I'm not opposed to the idea of societal mandates.
If that's what you want, go for it--propose that legislation! But that's not how the system currently works. That's not how most people want the system to work.

But I don't believe there is a societal mandate to help raise other people's children.
Awesome. Don't budge an inch when someone needs ot take time off work to take care of their kid. Maybe your employer is cool with that. I have no beef with that.

anu-la, are you really that dumb, or is REALLY BIG FONT invisible to you?

Daniel

[InLucemEdita]

Apparently.
Plenty.
Apparently you're a cocksucker. And you suck Plenty.

But that's not how the system currently works.
Oh, there's a system is there? Apparently...right?
No it's not fucking apparent. The only thing that is apparent is that some people are inconsiderate assholes who impose their personal choices on others and hide behind an imagined societal mandate when called on it.

That's not how most people want the system to work.
So, you believe that most people want childless workers to cover for parents at work, to work extra hours, and in "plenty" of other ways sacrifice individually - without compensation - as our contribution to society in general via our individual coworkers? Is that right?

That's horseshit. Most people want to pull their own weight and not impose on others. Most people who find themselves in the position where they have to impose on their coworkers are mortified at the thought and do everything they can to minimize the frequency with which it happens. Most people want to repay any kindness - yes, kindness...not society-mandated service - provided to them by their coworkers. Only a very few people -- generally termed self-absorbed assholes -- would want what you believe is "the system".

are you really that dumb

Yeah, we're all so fucking stupid -- APPARENTLY -- that we need you to teach us our societal responsibilities. Since I've never heard of the PLENTY of rules that I'm supposed to follow in raising other people's kids, why don't you share a few? You fuck.

[Dublin11]

The third sentence is irrelevant. Again, society doesn't do this to help the adult: society does this to help the child. It's sort of the reverse of social security (where you take care of the current old folks on the assumption that when you're old you'll be taken care of): here, we collectively take care of the current young folks because when we were young we were collectively taken care of. Who chose for the child to be born is irrelevant.


Would this be the same society that sees paedophiles lurking round every corner? Or the same society which takes a fit of the screaming abdabs if a single man with no children is ever found within ten feet of a child in a public space, because he MUST be have an ulterior and perverted motive?

In that sort of a society, people with no kids have already done their bit by paying their taxes all their working lives. Because, lets face it, no one trusts them to have anything at all to do with the actual children that they're expected to cover shifts for.

[ParentalAdvisory]

Not should. Do.
Fuck society! you mean. I ain't telling you how it is; I'm telling you to suck it up, Gertrude, because that's how it is.

It sure is. Paid any school taxes lately? How about when you were a kid: did someone pay your school's taxes for you?

First, I don't have kids (though I'll have one soon--woohoo!). Second, your feelings are immaterial. If you don't like it, get society to change its attitude, and good luck with that.


Wow, first it's fuck society, now it's the equivalent of "I never asked to be born!" Yeah, you didn't join a society that allows free speech; you didn't join a society that requires you not to be drunk in public; and you didn't join a soceity that says everyone is responsible for raising the next generation collectively in many ways.
Except you're wrong. Again: our society considers the raising of the next generation to be, in many ways, the responsibility of ALL adults, just as we were raised by all the adults of the previous generation. If you don't like it, start your own society, or try changing the rules of this one. But pouting like a teenager about it (Fuck society! I didn't ask to join this one!) ain't gonna do that much good, I'm afraid.

Daniel

Daniel, You keep saying that about society. So.... since you're so convinced of this notion that adults in this society are responsible ('and that that is the way it is'), I'm calling for a cite, a law, or anything that backs that claim up. Please hurry, need answer fast. Because so far, you're the only one advocating this claim. Did society have a press conference on this issue? You seem to have some inside information that we all seem to lack on child responsilbity in relation to all other unrelated adults.

And the taxes thing, I don't have an issue with that. All I said was that I pay more than my fair share which allows parents child deductions. So if anything, I am doing my part already (forcibly, but is fine on the whole I suppose). But I do take issue with you telling me that society has deemed it necessary for single/childless people to fill in days for parents with children/family issues. You may have not said that directly, but your "society" tripe indicates it very much so.


I don't know you, nor the poster at whom your loathing is directed, but I just have to say Wow, you have a lot of vitriolic hatred! I'm amazed at how much you seem to hate children, because I'm quite certain that you were a child once. I wonder if you hated yourself that much, when you were young.

I don't know the views of catsix on children directly, but please don't make the assumption that I, or anyone else hates or dislikes children because we openly stated that we're not responsible for others kids, or that we're unhappy when it's assumed that we should fill in for parents with "needs".

[anu-la1979]

LHOD: Dude, I get it-your bun is not yet out of the oven and you're speaking as an oh-so-concerned childless who has been selflessly picking up the slack for parents, willingly, for years. The fact is that almost every organization has a shmuck such as yourself, a pony-tailed bleeding heart who believes in the greater good blahblahblah. The fact is that you likely have neither the ambition nor the brains to take your talent somewhere you aren't being taken advantage of, so you've chosen to stay, pacified your ego with all this muckitymuck about society and you're now chomping at the bit to take advantage of another shmuck and lecturing us all about how it's our societally obligated duty to do your work. Because you've joined the leech club.

As I said-in most organizations the tradeoff to putting in less time & productivity is that you don't get promoted as fast and you don't get as much money. With my organization the tradeoff is that my single co-worker and I handle the plummier program areas that make us more marketable in the private sector. This is largely because we're expected to be available every Christmas, Thanksgiving and "family oriented" holiday to pick up the slack. We're also more available to be able to handle the crises that pop up in our areas so our chief counsel staffs us on the big goldman sachs bond transactions. The new parents get stiffed with shitty projects. End of story.

This doesn't mean that I don't occasionally feel like bitching about how I have to choose between Thanksgiving & Christmas each year because believe it or not, being single does not necessarily mean being orphaned. I have a family too. But know that at least the fact that I got promoted faster helps keep the irritation down. You really needn't lecture me about finding another job-for every Christmas I am disappointed about not getting to see my parents but having to sit around and work, I have the pleasure of seeing other people get jealous about the fact that I get to work on better deals.

There really is no world, LHOD, where parents are going to get to do less work because they're "raising the future" etc. without some sort of consequence or where I pick up after people like you without some form of incentive. See Campion's post above about how she treats the slackers. Having kids is an essentially selfish act-you're really not doing me any favours. When I work harder than my co-workers I am doing THEM a favour which is why they keep their mouth shut about the manner in which I (and the other singleton) are being incentivised to put up with it.

I have no idea what you do but it really does seem like you're the type of passive aggressive guy who has been "sucking it up" for years and is now eager to buy into the entitlement.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Daniel, You keep saying that about society. So.... since you're so convinced of this notion that adults in this society are responsible ('and that that is the way it is'), I'm calling for a cite, a law, or anything that backs that claim up.

Other people's posts are my cite, coupled with some basic stuff:
1) People exist in a society.
2) Societies display how they work by working that way.

If people are being told that their time off plays second fiddle to the time off of someone who uses it to raise a kid--and people in this thread seem to be saying that--then, coupled with points 1 and 2, Bob's your uncle.

Daniel

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I have no idea what you do but it really does seem like you're the type of passive aggressive guy who has been "sucking it up" for years and is now eager to buy into the entitlement.

Blah blah blah.
Daniel

[villa]

Well I am just back from a very pleasant weekend with my son, that only included one email from my boss resulting in a 5 minute phone call, and a 20 minute phone call to a more junior associate who was doing some research he needed help on...

I knew what to expect when I joined a big law firm. I actually love my job, and think I am pretty good at it. I knew there would be weekends and evenings involved, and I knew there would be canceled dates and outings. My complaint isn't against my boss at all. In fact, today he was incredibly apologetic when he emailed, and flipped out when I suggested I dropped into the office to solve the situation. It was against co-workers more, and their unwillingness to fairly bear the load. And yes, a lot of it is my own fault, that I should be more assertive in that situation...

I didn't expect the whole sidetrack into the childless having it worse. I thought the off topic posts would be regarding people whining about child support. But I do understand the view of people who don't have children. And I do provide cover for those people (and those with kids) because I am (a) British and (b) alone on most holidays, so I don't mind being on call over Thanksgiving, for example. Admittedly, that is a great one because the boss is off too, so there is rarely anything to actually do, and you get all the brownie points from volunteering.

But a non-custodial father gets pretty much the same short end as the childless in this situation I am describing.

[ParentalAdvisory]

Other people's posts are my cite, coupled with some basic stuff:
1) People exist in a society.
2) Societies display how they work by working that way.

If people are being told that their time off plays second fiddle to the time off of someone who uses it to raise a kid--and people in this thread seem to be saying that--then, coupled with points 1 and 2, Bob's your uncle.

Daniel

Oh, in that case then.

1. People post racist remarks too (on other sites)
2. People exist in a society
3. Slavery was once common.

Couple that together and racism is acceptable, by your standard.

Just because people experience something, doesn't mean "that's how x works", or that's "how x should work".

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Oh, in that case then.

1. People post racist remarks too (on other sites)
2. People exist in a society
3. Slavery was once common.

Couple that together and racism is acceptable, by your standard.

Just because people experience something, doesn't mean "that's how x works", or that's "how x should work".Except I haven't said that it's acceptable. I've said it's the way it is. I've made that clear over and over and over again.

It so happens that I have no problem with it, because as others have pointed out, some jobs give preferential treatment toward the people willing to work longer hours, and that's fine, too. I think folks need to find the job that suits them best. For folks who get all pissy about bosses who prioritize time-off for folks who will spend that time caring for children, another employer is superior.

And yes, the fact that someone experiences something does mean that's how it works.

Your analogy to racism is terribly flawed, but I'm not going to bother explaining the flaw to you unless you'll explain in your own words first why racism in an employer-employee relationship isn't a copacetic byproduct of a free market.

Edit: y'know, actually, I probably don't belong in the pit. I'm gonna bow out.

Daniel

[Malthus]

This reads to me that single and childless people should suck it up and "do their part for someone elses kids".

Danny boy, while you've been praised a couple times for this comment, kindly go fuck yourself with that attitude. It is a given that kids need care. There is absolutely NO doubt about this. However, it is NOT a given that I or anyone else be responsible for it. If anything, I pay more in taxes as a single childless person, so I feel I've done my share for your kids to enjoy that special deduction you oh so crave every year. Your welcome.

I'm sorry, but I DO NOT EVER RECALL joining the society that says single and/or childless people should pick up the slack left by absent workers due to children and "family issues".

Don't get me wrong, I've helped parents out for their cause more then a few times, as a favor. But it should never be expected because you're a parent.

Your individual choice to have kids has no impact on the fact that you are the one responsible for them. Not your coworkers.

You may not recall having joined such a society - but you did nonetheless, by being born.

Many people in this thread are lamenting single, childless folk "getting the short end of the stick". That is society's norms speaking.

This thread hijack exists because of that. People are lamenting this fact. One can argue that it is "unfair", but one cannot reasonably argue that the norm does not exist - otherwise, what are all these people complaining about?

To my mind it is not unfair, as you (and indeed everyone who was born and not hatched out of some adult's forehead fully formed like Athena) was a beneficiary of society's child-favouring norms at one point. If you don't like it, go back in time and repay everyone put out by your parents, taking you to the doctor with childhood diseases and the like.

[InLucemEdita]

...but one cannot reasonably argue that the norm does not exist - otherwise, what are all these people complaining about?

It is my impression from the posts here and from my own experience, that people are complaining when the norm of fair treatment is violated. Many people experience the unfairness but only infrequently or for short periods of time. It is because it is far from the norm that causes the complaints.

More specifically, this doesn't happen every weekend, or even every month. For some it may happen a few times a year. For others, like me, it only happened enough to notice at one job several years ago. And yeah, I bitched about it at the time. And I bitched because I was accustomed to a fair workplace. Then all of a sudden one person repeatedly wanted special treatment due to her child's needs, and acted like it was her right to have that special treatment at no personal cost to herself, and at the cost of others.

Fairness is the norm.
Special treatment and unfair workloads are the exception and are unpleasant enough to generate pit threads and posts.

[kaylasdad99]

I missed my best friend's wedding, for crying out loud... and why? Because it just so happened that they could only afford to have one employee off that day, and two of us asked to book it. Given that the other employee had a kid, guess who got told they'd just have to suck it up and come into work?They couldn't reschedule the wedding?

Sheesh. Some "best" friend.
































Disclaimer: the above is a joke. It's pretty hilarious, but if you happen to disagree with that assessment, I'll just fall back on the old "reasonable people can disagree" excuse. In any event, I want it understood that I do not believe Mahna Mahna's best friend should have rescheduled the wedding, or that it reflects poorly on the quality of the friendship that this was not done.

"Some 'best' friend." I kill me.

[Malthus]

It is my impression from the posts here and from my own experience, that people are complaining when the norm of fair treatment is violated. Many people experience the unfairness but only infrequently or for short periods of time. It is because it is far from the norm that causes the complaints.

More specifically, this doesn't happen every weekend, or even every month. For some it may happen a few times a year. For others, like me, it only happened enough to notice at one job several years ago. And yeah, I bitched about it at the time. And I bitched because I was accustomed to a fair workplace. Then all of a sudden one person repeatedly wanted special treatment due to her child's needs, and acted like it was her right to have that special treatment at no personal cost to herself, and at the cost of others.

Fairness is the norm.
Special treatment and unfair workloads are the exception and are unpleasant enough to generate pit threads and posts.

I disagree with your characterization. What people here are bitching about is the fact that they perceive their treatment as unfair, but everyone around them in the business world accepts as "normal" that people with childcare responsibilities on occasion get preferential treatment.

Examples:

Originally Posted by tdn
It's bad for us single, childless people as well. The assumption is that we don't have lives. I've had to cover for a number of people in the past. I never whine about it, but I hate that it is assumed that whatever plans I might have are "unimportant."

and

Yeah, those without kids are truly shit on in the corporate world.

To my mind it is a no-brainer - society certainly prefers child-care responsibilities over a singles' mixer or whatever. I also think that this isn't unfair. The reason: every single person in the world was, once, a child him or herself, and a recipient of that "unfairness".

And the fact is that, unlike adults, young children must be minded at all times; they cannot take themselves to the doctor or the like. It very often is not a matter of "choice" at all; and every person's parents did the same for them. You cannot go back in time and repay all of those 'inconvenienced' by your parents taking time out of their busy schedules to cater to your childhood needs; all you can do is show a reasonable degree of accomodation to the norms of society, which very obviously judge it "fair" that such accomodation be made in the present.

That being said, I do not think that childcare responsibilities should always and without fail trump. It depends on circumstances. Certainly there will be responsibilities the child-free have that should trump - like taking care of one's parents when infirm, for example. But as a general rule, it is not "unfair" that childcare responsibilities are generally judged to be of greater weight and worth - they are.

[catsix]

Malthus said:
That being said, I do not think that childcare responsibilities should always and without fail trump. It depends on circumstances. Certainly there will be responsibilities the child-free have that should trump - like taking care of one's parents when infirm, for example.

I think it's exactly the opposite. I have to work a certain number of hours as agreed to when my employer and I settled upon the terms of my employment. I owe them this number of hours per week, let's call it 40.

Since there are 168 hours in a week, that means the remaining 128 hours are mine to do with as I will. Some of those hours are spent sleeping, let's say 49 hours. That leaves me with 79 hours in the week that are not spent asleep or at work. I would estimate that meals account for 3 hours per day between cooking, eating and cleaning up. That's 21 hours, with 68 hours remaining. Since 'the three S's' take up approximately 2 hours per day, I am now at 54 hours per week (including the weekend) that are not otherwise occupied already. This is the time in which I have to clean the house, do the laundry, wash the car, visit the family, enjoy a movie, or whatever it is I choose to do with my time.

It is not 'time that is available for me to fill in' when someone with a kid has to leave early and decides to hand me their work. That time is mine, and if anyone wants me to give it up, they better have a damn good reason, not just claiming that my free time activities are less important than theirs. What I mean by this is that I have absolutely no need to justify, or get into a contest regarding the value of, the things that I do with the 54 hours per week that belong to me. There is no 'trump' because it truly does not matter what I do with my time. It's no one's business what I do with that time. I could spend it staring at a blank wall if I wanted. I'm still not giving it up.

[KarlGrenze]

It is not 'time that is available for me to fill in' when someone with a kid has to leave early and decides to hand me their work. That time is mine, and if anyone wants me to give it up, they better have a damn good reason, not just claiming that my free time activities are less important than theirs.

I think they (and much of society) believe that it is a damn good reason for them to leave work early to tend to the kid and that yes, for the benefit of society as a whole, raising the next generation is more important than your free time activities (as a general rule).

Look, I offered you an alternative to "parents who always want to take weekends" and "parents who have to leave early". I said that if they were allowed to bring their kids (provided they are quiet and well-behaved), then that would free up your time, allowing you to neither have to take over time nor come on the weekends.

And you reply with a blanket "kids are not allowed at the workplace". Then how can that do anything but be bad for you too? Day cares are not open after certain hours nor on weekends, and kids need some adult supervision (even though they can entertain by themselves for hours without disturbing peace).

You're setting up a catch-22 there. The parent is condemned for either leaving early or refusing weekends, but if they'd agree to it as long as they can bring their offspring, you'll be condemning them too!

[Roulette]

For 4 years, I worked every single Christmas eve and Christmas day. It was a 24x7 rotating shift, and without fail, my boss scheduled me to work it. The third time, I asked him why and he told me that the other people all had little kids.

Now, I like my co-workers and I want them to have time with their kids. The holidays are a special time. But I shouldn't be punished because of it. I have every right to stay home with the wife and sip egg nog. Or get on a plane and visit my parents.

But I lose that right because my wife and I have thus far decided not to procreate. No, that's bullcrap. When the 4th time showed up on the schedule, I put out my resume. I quit 2 weeks after Christmas. I might not have saved that Christmas, but at least I had a better shot at the following one.

[catsix]

KarlGrenze said:
I think they (and much of society) believe that it is a damn good reason for them to leave work early to tend to the kid and that yes, for the benefit of society as a whole, raising the next generation is more important than your free time activities (as a general rule).

It's not up to you to decide the value of my time, and whether or not it's less valuable than yours. I don't even have to provide a list of things that I do with my time so that you can judge the importance. It is not incumbent upon me to cancel my plans or to give up my free time because you need something. If I do so it will be at my discretion, and there will be repayment terms attached.

I said that if they were allowed to bring their kids (provided they are quiet and well-behaved), then that would free up your time, allowing you to neither have to take over time nor come on the weekends.

If you want your kid in the office after hours or on a weekend when no one else is there being disturbed by them, fine. Just keep them the hell away from my desk because there are many things on and in it that don't need to be pawed through.

And you reply with a blanket "kids are not allowed at the workplace".

Children do not belong in the office during business hours, particularly if the reason they can't be in day care is that they are sick. You want them with you after hours or on the weekend, fine. Just make sure they stay confined to your work area and aren't off playing with the interesting things they found on someone else's desk.

[Jayn_Newell]

Now, I like my co-workers and I want them to have time with their kids. The holidays are a special time. But I shouldn't be punished because of it. I have every right to stay home with the wife and sip egg nog. Or get on a plane and visit my parents. A very good point. There's 'Junior is sick and I can't find a sitter,' and then there's 'I've planned to take Junior to the zoo this weekend.' The first one there's no helping, the second one is much less important. Yes, time with your family is important, but ALL of us have families. I don't have kids--my household includes my husband and me. But my time with him is no less important than someone else's time with their kids. And if someone wanted me to give up plans with my parents or in-laws (His family is a couple hours away, mine's in another country) there had better be a damned good reason or there will be hell to pay.

[villa]

I think it's exactly the opposite. I have to work a certain number of hours as agreed to when my employer and I settled upon the terms of my employment. I owe them this number of hours per week, let's call it 40.


To participate in the hijack of my own thread...

There is no way in a million years I would hire you. You might be very good at what you do, but this attitude alone would make you utterly unemployable to me. I don't make hiring decisions regarding my support staff, but I do have some choices as to with whom I work. Someone who is counting the minutes does me no good at all.

It doesn't always go in the way of working more than you "agreed to" hours either. If there is nothing to do on a Friday afternoon and the person I am working with wants to beat the traffic - good luck to him or her. But the first time someone walks out the door when their "agreed to hours" for whatever time period are finished, leaving a task unfinished, without a good reason, I won't be putting any more work their way, and it will be reflected in their review. So yes, I would be deciding the value of your time, I guess.

[Roulette]

But the first time someone walks out the door when their "agreed to hours" for whatever time period are finished, leaving a task unfinished, without a good reason, I won't be putting any more work their way, and it will be reflected in their review. So yes, I would be deciding the value of your time, I guess.


So, when the parent comes to you and says little Johnny is sick so I won't be able to finish my work on time, that will be reflected in the review as well, correct? If they're not getting the job done, they're not getting it done. If they force others to finish the work for them, it should reflect poorly.

But parents with kids seem to get a free pass. And others, like yourself, hold the rest of us up to a different standard. Interestingly enough, it's employers with that attitude that I'm more likely to become a '40 and done' type of guy. They clearly don't respect me or my time, but expect me to respect them. It's a two way street.

My time with my wife is every bit as precious to me as someone else's time with their kid. If I wasn't married, that still doesn't mean that a someone having a kid or wife gets to trump my free time. It's my life, not yours. I don't expect any employer to tell me that anyone's free time is more valuable than mine. Because it's NOT. Free time is of equal value to everyone.

I'm a fairly well meaning guy. If my co-worker asked me to cover for them from time to time so they could see their kid, I'd be willing to do it usually. I'd expect some similar favors in return if I needed. But for an employer to demand it on the basis of their valuation of my free time? Nope. I have a real issue with that.

[catsix]

villa said:
There is no way in a million years I would hire you.

I guess the fact that I never asked you for a job is irrelevant.

You might be very good at what you do,

That I am.

but this attitude alone would make you utterly unemployable to me.

The attitude that I am not an indentured servant who can be pressed into service at any hour of day or night because the master has called? So sorry that you find it disagreeable.

I don't make hiring decisions regarding my support staff,

So you aren't in a position to hire anyone, then? I guess that makes your 'I will never hire you!' threat all the more empty, doesn't it?

but I do have some choices as to with whom I work. Someone who is counting the minutes does me no good at all.

So you're annoyed by people who, at the end of the day, say something like 'Well, I have plans, so I'll pick this up in the morning'?

But the first time someone walks out the door when their "agreed to hours" for whatever time period are finished, leaving a task unfinished, without a good reason, I won't be putting any more work their way, and it will be reflected in their review.

I never give a reason beyond 'I have plans' when asked why I'm leaving. Also, I don't accept arbitrary and unreasonable deadlines set by other people for the completion of my work. I don't have to. Since I set my own deadlines, I don't ever miss them. If I say it will be done by Tuesday, it's done by Tuesday, because that is what I agreed to. Deadlines set by others who have not in any way consulted me are considered to be suggestions, not requirements, and I have no problem telling someone that I will not kill myself working all day and night to meet such a deadline. And then I request to be moved from their project to someone else's. I'm in high enough demand that I can do that.

So yes, I would be deciding the value of your time, I guess.

Not really, considering that I am not looking to you for employment that you are not authorized to offer. Where I do work, project managers don't do the performance reviews. They get to make comments which will either be included in the review, or not, at the descretion of my actual manager, and not all of them will be asked for their comments (who I ask to comment at review time is up to me). If you tried to raise a stink about me being unwilling to work evenings and weekends to meet deadlines I never agreed to, I'm quite sure that my boss would laugh heartily at you.

Jayn_Newell said:
There's 'Junior is sick and I can't find a sitter,'

And that's what unscheduled time off is for. It's when you say 'I need to take the rest of today off, and I will finish my work tomorrow' not 'Hey, you don't have kids.. how bout you stay late and finish this cause I've got to pick up Junior?'

[Malthus]

For 4 years, I worked every single Christmas eve and Christmas day. It was a 24x7 rotating shift, and without fail, my boss scheduled me to work it. The third time, I asked him why and he told me that the other people all had little kids.

Now, I like my co-workers and I want them to have time with their kids. The holidays are a special time. But I shouldn't be punished because of it. I have every right to stay home with the wife and sip egg nog. Or get on a plane and visit my parents.

But I lose that right because my wife and I have thus far decided not to procreate. No, that's bullcrap. When the 4th time showed up on the schedule, I put out my resume. I quit 2 weeks after Christmas. I might not have saved that Christmas, but at least I had a better shot at the following one.

To my mind, Xmas is the kiddie holiday, and New Years is the adult version. If I had my way, I'd give those with kids Xmas off, and those without New Years'.

Presents and Santa Claus is more for the kids, and staying up late and drinking is more for the adults.

[Roulette]

It may be a 'kiddie' holiday to some. But that's a decision you're making based on your own estimation of the value of my free time. What if I was devoutly religious and normally spent Christmas in Church with my family? What if my wife and I wanted to spend our first Christmas together at home alone. Not having kids doesn't devalue my holiday experience.

The point I'm making is this: employers shouldn't automatically assume things about their workers schedules and the value of each person's free time. Any time preferential treatment is given to a person because they have a child, you're infringing on everyone else in the company who doesn't. This is especially true in any position where the offloaded work has to be picked up and completed by someone else.

[Malthus]

So, when the parent comes to you and says little Johnny is sick so I won't be able to finish my work on time, that will be reflected in the review as well, correct? If they're not getting the job done, they're not getting it done. If they force others to finish the work for them, it should reflect poorly.

But parents with kids seem to get a free pass. And others, like yourself, hold the rest of us up to a different standard. Interestingly enough, it's employers with that attitude that I'm more likely to become a '40 and done' type of guy. They clearly don't respect me or my time, but expect me to respect them. It's a two way street.

My time with my wife is every bit as precious to me as someone else's time with their kid. If I wasn't married, that still doesn't mean that a someone having a kid or wife gets to trump my free time. It's my life, not yours. I don't expect any employer to tell me that anyone's free time is more valuable than mine. Because it's NOT. Free time is of equal value to everyone.

I'm a fairly well meaning guy. If my co-worker asked me to cover for them from time to time so they could see their kid, I'd be willing to do it usually. I'd expect some similar favors in return if I needed. But for an employer to demand it on the basis of their valuation of my free time? Nope. I have a real issue with that.

It is certainly a matter of reciprocity.

If you came and said "my dad had a stroke, I'll have to take him to doctor visits", I'd expect the same level of consideration extended - and yes, given a choice, taking stroke-dad to the doctor trumps someone wanting to attend a singles' mixer - it's not a judgment on free time, but of the relative importance of, and inflexibilty of, life events, and making reasonable accomodation for them.

[Malthus]

It may be a 'kiddie' holiday to some. But that's a decision you're making based on your own estimation of the value of my free time. What if I was devoutly religious and normally spent Christmas in Church with my family? What if my wife and I wanted to spend our first Christmas together at home alone. Not having kids doesn't devalue my holiday experience.

The point I'm making is this: employers shouldn't automatically assume things about their workers schedules and the value of each person's free time. Any time preferential treatment is given to a person because they have a child, you're infringing on everyone else in the company who doesn't. This is especially true in any position where the offloaded work has to be picked up and completed by someone else.

So, you would not be willing to make a reasonable trade-off? Xmas for New Years'?

Actually, way I see it, extending "preferential treatment" for children is quite legitimate -- after all, it is a reasonable "automatic assumption" that every living human has been a child and has received such bounty themselves in the past.

[Carol the Impaler]

Thoughts: Children are more resilient than we give them credit for. If you clearly don't care about your kids and never show up to anything, never take them anywhere, etc. that's a problem. Occassionally having to miss a school event or game because you have work commitments is not the end of the world for your kid if you are otherwise a participatory, loving parent who's children know they can count on you.

When you have children you are making a commitment, and when you choose a profession or a particular employer, you are agreeing to the nature and terms of that job. No one makes you have kids and no one makes you work at a particular firm or in a particular profession. Accept the limitations and benefits of both.

In addition to being in a society that values children - as it should - there is also a social contract between adults. It's a matter of degree and a matter of taking advantage. As adults we should be able to negotiate together and come to a workable compromise. It does not matter if you have children or do not, are a single parent or in a relationship, full-custody or only visitation. Adults have the responsibility to act like adults and realize that few of us ever get exactly what we want everytime. We expect children to understand this - if we're good parents! - why does it go by the wayside when we grow up?

Any employer who encourages, abets, or allows childless employees to be taken advantage of consistently by employees with children is a shit employer.

The end.

[Malthus]

Thoughts: Children are more resilient than we give them credit for. If you clearly don't care about your kids and never show up to anything, never take them anywhere, etc. that's a problem. Occassionally having to miss a school event or game because you have work commitments is not the end of the world for your kid if you are otherwise a participatory, loving parent who's children know they can count on you.

When you have children you are making a commitment, and when you choose a profession or a particular employer, you are agreeing to the nature and terms of that job. No one makes you have kids and no one makes you work at a particular firm or in a particular profession. Accept the limitations and benefits of both.

In addition to being in a society that values children - as it should - there is also a social contract between adults. It's a matter of degree and a matter of taking advantage. As adults we should be able to negotiate together and come to a workable compromise. It does not matter if you have children or do not, are a single parent or in a relationship, full-custody or only visitation. Adults have the responsibility to act like adults and realize that few of us ever get exactly what we want everytime. We expect children to understand this - if we're good parents! - why does it go by the wayside when we grow up?

Any employer who encourages, abets, or allows childless employees to be taken advantage of consistently by employees with children is a shit employer.

The end.

Children may be understanding about missing events, but government social services are generally not understanding about parents leaving young children alone, not picking them up at daycare on time, etc.

The point being that a young child's life is full of time-inflexible events.

I disagree with the attitude of "no-one made you have children". The obvious retort is that no-one made you be born. You took advantage of the wonderfully bountiful attitude of society towards kids (heh) when you were an infant; now you want to change the rules when you aren't? Now, that is unfair.

I totally agree that one should not presume on preferential treatment for a baseball game or the like. But what about making perfectly reasonable trades - like Xmas for New Years?

[Roulette]

Would I be willing to trade holidays? If I was asked, I would consider it. Decent chance that I would say yes, or at least work out some deal. If I'm told that my employer has made the decision for me, I'm going to be upset. By doing so, he's placed the value of a coworkers time as higher than the value of mine.

As for the second situation, where there is a medical illness. I think both people have the same value on time. If my dad is ill, I'll take sick time and vacation time to take care of him. That is, time given to me by my employer for exactly such situations. I would expect a parent to use the same sort of time for children with illnesses.

I don't expect my employer to tell me that I have to work 15 extra hours this week because Bob's kid caught the sniffles. The employer has to factor in the usage of sick time when they create project schedules or work rotations. Failure to plan accordingly for situations like that shouldn't mean the remaining employees automatically have to give up free time. That's a failure of management, not of the workers.

[InLucemEdita]

...they perceive their treatment as unfair, but everyone around them in the business world accepts as "normal" that people with childcare responsibilities on occasion get preferential treatment.

Actually, everyone around them does not feel this way. Many people feel that employees ought to arrange child care in a way that does not interfere with their work responsibilities, and they certainly don't think they should impose their needs on others. Moreover, if they think they have a right to impose on their co-workers they may soon find themselves out on their ass.

...society certainly prefers child-care responsibilities over a singles' mixer or whatever.

Unfortunately, society doesn't understand that I'm not going to a singles' mixer, I'm delivering food for my local food bank. Or I'm volunteering for my local election. And while a desperate child may take precedence over those things, a responsible parent would not put all of us in a position where we had to decide between one or the other. They would take their own PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY seriously so that society didn't suffer for their lack of foresight, or inability to realize that they can't "have it all".

I also think that this isn't unfair. The reason: every single person in the world was, once, a child him or herself, and a recipient of that "unfairness".

That is untrue. Those of us who grew up with a full-time caregiver in the home did not participate in situations where the working adult had to impose on co-workers. The adults planned a situation where the children could be cared for properly...that is raised...BY THE PARENTS.

Of course some people don't have two adults in the home. That means that they need to take extra care to ensure that their children are seen to. And that's a bitch, but as LHOD says, "Suck it up, Gertrude.". That does not mean that individually their coworkers need to raise their children for them. It means they need to enlist the help of a grandparent, or pay some more of their salary for dependable backup childcare, or arrange a backup/swap system with another parent in a similar situation. In short, they need to plan ahead to take care of their PERSONAL problems, so that they do not become a burden on society.

You cannot go back in time and repay all of those 'inconvenienced' by your parents taking time out of their busy schedules to cater to your childhood needs;

Most parents don't inconvenience others. I've worked with hundreds of parents. Only one or two display the arrogance that their children are the DIRECT responsibility of the rest of us.

...all you can do is show a reasonable degree of accomodation to the norms of society, which very obviously judge it "fair" that such accomodation be made in the present.

The norm of society is that you take care of your own shit. In extreme circumstances we all need to pull together, but Little Timmy's ear infection is not an extreme circumstance. And if we have to cover for your daily fucking mini-drama-emergencies, you had better be appreciative, find a way to pay us back, sure as hell not give us the attitude that it is our responsibility because your precious little germ factory needs you.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Become a partner. Problem solved.

[villa]

I guess the fact that I never asked you for a job is irrelevant.

The fact that you are incapable of recognizing I wasn't talking about an existing job offer again weighs rather heavily on your hypothetical employability.



That I am.

I have no doubt. Fortunately it seems to be a position that requires little to no human interaction.

The attitude that I am not an indentured servant who can be pressed into service at any hour of day or night because the master has called? So sorry that you find it disagreeable.

Yes, that is exactly what I said. The fact I don't want someone I am working with counting down the seconds to bolt out of the door at 5 pm means I expect them to be "pressed into service at any hour of the day or night."

So you aren't in a position to hire anyone, then? I guess that makes your 'I will never hire you!' threat all the more empty, doesn't it?

Well try reading what else I said - the part you quoted later... "but I do have some choices as to with whom I work." In other words, if a particular paralegal is asssigned to the matter on which I am working, I can go to the supervisor and say "I can't work with that person." It hasn't had to happen. But then again no one has ever exhibited the attitude you are putting out there.


So you're annoyed by people who, at the end of the day, say something like 'Well, I have plans, so I'll pick this up in the morning'?

Yes I am. Because tomorrow doesn't help me if I have a midnight deadline with a federal judge. And nice little bit of goal post shifting there. I made clear that if the person had a good reason to leave, I had no problem with that. I was complaining about your clockwatching, "I am contracted for 40 hours, and I won't go a moment over that" attitude.



I never give a reason beyond 'I have plans' when asked why I'm leaving. Also, I don't accept arbitrary and unreasonable deadlines set by other people for the completion of my work. I don't have to. Since I set my own deadlines, I don't ever miss them. If I say it will be done by Tuesday, it's done by Tuesday, because that is what I agreed to. Deadlines set by others who have not in any way consulted me are considered to be suggestions, not requirements, and I have no problem telling someone that I will not kill myself working all day and night to meet such a deadline. And then I request to be moved from their project to someone else's. I'm in high enough demand that I can do that.

I am glad that works for you, and that I don't have to work with you. I am glad you are in high enough demand. But I work in a field where I don't set my own deadlines, and the point, which I think you probably new, was not that I was looking for a cantankerous, antisocial ass to fill a particular position, but instead that you would be utterly unable with that attitude to work in this field. You probably don't want to work in this field either, as I am sure you are about to tell me, but that doesn't alter the argument. It also makes me utterly relieved that I don't have to run into you in my office ever.

Not really, considering that I am not looking to you for employment that you are not authorized to offer. Where I do work, project managers don't do the performance reviews. They get to make comments which will either be included in the review, or not, at the descretion of my actual manager, and not all of them will be asked for their comments (who I ask to comment at review time is up to me). If you tried to raise a stink about me being unwilling to work evenings and weekends to meet deadlines I never agreed to, I'm quite sure that my boss would laugh heartily at you.

Again, if you really thought I talking about a specific job offer, you have the comprehension capabilities of a mentally subnormal chipmunk. You are clearly in a position that suits your personality, though I have little doubt that in any field such an attitude is a detriment to progress. And note again, I never once talked about working nights and evenings - while that is required in my job, I didn't talk about it. The person who is scheduled to leave at 5, but won't stay until 5.10 to finish up some assignment is of no use to me whatsoever. Just as in the same way if the person comes to me at 4.30 on Friday, and hands in the finished work, and asks me if I have anything else for him to do or can he bail early, I would be a total ass for handing him stuff that he could just as easily do on Monday, and requiring he stayed the extra 30 minutes that he had contracted to provide.

You seem to want to work in a situation where everyone is an asshole to one another. I don't know if that is because you are incapable of pleasant interaction, but some of us like a workplace with give or take between the employees.

[Carol the Impaler]

Malthus: I never even alluded to the things you have retorted with. We're talking about parents needing time off to do unusual things with their children, are we not? I'm not talking day care. I'm talking birthday parties, games, etc. No reasonable childless employee is going to not understand the needs of parenting. Still, the responsibility for dealing with the realities of choices we make rests on us all, no matter what choices we make.

Read again the part about accepting limitations and benefits. I'm not changing any rules. When I was a child, no one - particularly dads - took time off for kids events during the work day. My mother's employer - a law firm, natch - did NOT care about the fact she was a defacto single mother raising six children. It was her responsibility to find us carpools, but she never drove ever because of her work schedule. She relied on other parents who could drive her kids to school. I'm only 40, but I clearly recall the transition in my working life from work comes first to work/life balance. So don't talk to me about changing rules and what advantage I took of anything. Because in the 70's and 80's in my town and with my parents the environment we have today did not exist.

I'm not being a hardass, no matter how much you may want to interpret my post that way. I'm saying we all have to make compromises, choices, and manage schedules and commitments. That's just reality. But no one is responsible - responsible, that's the key word - for easing your balance for you. Your not responsible for making my life easier, and I'm not responsible for yours. But since we're grown ups and assumedly at least the minimum of polite and respectful as we should be, we should be able to work out a solution with some modicum of equity.

[mhendo]

villa, it seems to me that you and catsix are sort of talking past one one another, and that you're extrapolating from the requirements of the law profession in order to draw conclusions about the way other businesses work.

I acknowledged early in the thread that lawyers and their employees are often meant to work long and unusual hours, and that this seems to be a well-known and accepted part of working in the profession. I'm not sure whether lawyers, law clerks, law secretaries etc., have employment contracts, but if they do, it also wouldn't surprise me if those contracts made no mention of limits on hours.

But the fact is that many industries don't have the sort of time-sensitive labor requirements that the legal profession has. For workers like catsix, there is no federal judge with a midnight deadline waiting on their work, so leaving things until the morning is a perfectly reasonable option.

Also, as a lawyer, you are surely aware of what can be spelled out in contracts, and what sort of obligations contracts place on both parties. If catsix has a contract that stipulates 40 hours a week, and she and the employer both agree to that contract, why does it somehow reflect poorly on her if she wants to abide by the terms of the contract? I mean, presumably if she habitually arrived at work a bit late or left a bit early, her employer would get annoyed that she was violating her work agreement, so why should she be expected to give more than was agreed at the time of her hiring?

Your allegations of clock-watching were clearly intended to suggest that this made catsix a poor employee, and it seems clear to me that you were implying that her habit of watching the clock probably also meant that she wasn't a very good worker. But isn't it possible that she's a very good worker for the 40 hours per week that she is contracted to work, and that she simply isn't interested in being steamrolled into doing more than she is being paid for?

I know that the labor market is tight, and that jobs aren't easy to come by, but when employers hire someone to work a specific number of hours per week, that should not be license to simply keep employees at work for as long as the employer feels like. If, as an employer, you wnt someone to be available to work 70 hours a week, or to stay behind 4 nights a week, then at least have the guts to spell that out in the work agreement, rather than agreeing to 40 hours and then hoping the employee will understand that 40 really means 70.

[DianaG]

villa, it seems to me that you and catsix are sort of talking past one one another, and that you're extrapolating from the requirements of the law profession in order to draw conclusions about the way other businesses work.

<snip>

But the fact is that many industries don't have the sort of time-sensitive labor requirements that the legal profession has. For workers like catsix, there is no federal judge with a midnight deadline waiting on their work, so leaving things until the morning is a perfectly reasonable option.

<snip>

If, as an employer, you wnt someone to be available to work 70 hours a week, or to stay behind 4 nights a week, then at least have the guts to spell that out in the work agreement, rather than agreeing to 40 hours and then hoping the employee will understand that 40 really means 70.
Agree with all of the above. It's like neither villa nor catsix can conceive of any situation other than theirs. (I only notice because it's one of those little things that MAKE ME INSANE! ;))

I've worked in law office, and I understand what that means. Anyone who signs up to work in a law office SHOULD understand what that means.

It's why I'll never work in a law office again.

But most industries simply don't have those kind of deadlines. Now, I'm an excellent employee, but I'm also a salaried employee. I don't get paid for more than forty hours a week. So I don't have to justify leaving at 5:00. You'd better be able to justify asking me to stay.

[villa]

It is absolutely possible that someone is a good employee for 40 hours, mhendo. And there are without a doubt some jobs where emergencies never occur. However, someone who expresses a willingness to walk out the door at 5 pm regardless of the work situation is not someone I am wanting to work with in any job I have held, not just the legal profession.

I said she may well be good at her job, and she says that is the case, so I have no reason to doubt it. I am certain I don't want to find out if it is true or not, because I don't want to work with someone with that kind of attitude.

A lot of the difference goes back to things I have been saying throughout this - it isn't so much the attitude towards management I am talking about, but the attitude towards one's coworkers. And if that means working 10 minutes longer here, and skipping out 20 minutes early there, and fielding a phone call from home later in the week, then to me, that makes for a much better workplace all round than a bunker mentality that suggests that a person has an impenetrable wall between work time, which is 9 to 5, Monday to Friday, or whatever hours are set.

Take Thanksgiving, for example. We were closed the day after. My boss emails me needing something done - not a problem for me, as I had already said I would be happy to cover, as the other associate was travelling to her family in the Carolinas. But it required access to database to which I had not expected to be required to log on, so my password and user ID were in the office. The adminstrator also had that information, and from past experience I knew he had it on his Blackberry. So I emailed him to send me my log on details. He could have determined he was on vacation, and not spent the 2 minutes it took for forward me my details. I would then have had to get dressed, drive to the office, park, retrieve the information, and either work from the office or drive home with it. But he didn't. He worked when he did not have to, for a couple of minutes, and as such my life was made easier, my boss got the information he needed faster, and the client was better served. I think not responding to that email would have been kind of a dickish move.

[villa]

Agree with all of the above. It's like neither villa nor catsix can conceive of any situation other than theirs. (I only notice because it's one of those little things that MAKE ME INSANE! ;))

I've worked in law office, and I understand what that means. Anyone who signs up to work in a law office SHOULD understand what that means.

It's why I'll never work in a law office again.

But most industries simply don't have those kind of deadlines. Now, I'm an excellent employee, but I'm also a salaried employee. I don't get paid for more than forty hours a week. So I don't have to justify leaving at 5:00. You'd better be able to justify asking me to stay.

I totally understand it, and it is a mentality that pisses me off in all other jobs I have had.

When I was a bartender, I started at 6. If the Miller Lite kicked the first pint I was pulling at 6.01, and Marie from the day shift was getting ready to walk out the door, I would hope she would cover for me for the 2 minutes it would take me to change the barrell. In the same way that if I was there at 5.45, and she asked if she could run out the door to get ready for a date, I would have no issues starting 15 minutes early.

If she consistently asked me to start at 5.45 I would be annoyed, just as she would be annoyed were I consistently walking in at 6.15. But a little bit of give and take between employees is a thing that makes work a lot more tolerable.

The attitude I am criticizing is the "I finish at 5 and I am leaving at 5 and I don't give a fuck who is negatively impacted by that." I see that attitude in someone, I do not want to work with them. I don't think that is such a radical attitude to have, and I don't think it is applicable only to the legal profession.

On the other hand, my secretary leaves at 4.30 every day, as contracted, because that is when her bus runs. I would not dream of asking her to stay beyond that unless there was a stupendously important reason, which there almost could never be, as there are other people who can do what she could do.

[catsix]

villa said:
The fact that you are incapable of recognizing I wasn't talking about an existing job offer again weighs rather heavily on your hypothetical employability.

You're not too good with anything but the absolute literal are you?

Sometimes people say things in a very straight-faced manner in order to taket he piss out of you. You actually thought that I was referring to a real job offer and not that I was being sarcastic?

Yes I am. Because tomorrow doesn't help me if I have a midnight deadline with a federal judge. And nice little bit of goal post shifting there. I made clear that if the person had a good reason to leave, I had no problem with that. I was complaining about your clockwatching, "I am contracted for 40 hours, and I won't go a moment over that" attitude.


Well, I suppose that would be because you gripped on that 40 hours like it's a down to the second measurement of the exact amount of time that I spend working in a week, which given the stick that seems to be firmly implanted in your ass is no surprise. Do you think I also spend exactly 2 hours every day doing the shit, shave and shower? Or that I sleep for exactly 7 hours per night, and not a minute more or less?

I didn't think so. There are weeks I work more than 40, and weeks I work less. For the purposes of illustrating how much 'free time' someone with a full time job generally has, 40 is a reasonable number to put for 'hours of work'. Please, try to keep up.

You probably don't want to work in this field either, as I am sure you are about to tell me, but that doesn't alter the argument. It also makes me utterly relieved that I don't have to run into you in my office ever.


No, I think that if I had wanted to be a lawyer I'd have gone to law school and taken the bar exam. There I go again, yanking your chain. I bet you took that as an indication that you were right in your prediction and that I'm an idiot. I have to learn not to joke with lawyers.

I think my lawyer is probably also glad to know that I won't be firing him for a humorless, superliteral turd.

You are clearly in a position that suits your personality, though I have little doubt that in any field such an attitude is a detriment to progress.

And yet I have found that my progress up the ladder has not in any way been impeded. Why, it's almost like not being a door mat is considered a good thing!

Just as in the same way if the person comes to me at 4.30 on Friday, and hands in the finished work, and asks me if I have anything else for him to do or can he bail early, I would be a total ass for handing him stuff that he could just as easily do on Monday, and requiring he stayed the extra 30 minutes that he had contracted to provide.

I don't have to ask to leave early, and I don't have specific hours of work either. When I'm at my own office (which is now in my house), I tend to take a nice chunk of time at mid-day for a long break because that's what I like doing. If I'm on-site with a company that I'm doing work for, I generally arrive there mid-day on Monday, start work really early on Tuesday through Thursday, and go home Thursday afternoon. Friday tends to be pretty light as far as working goes. I never really have to ask anyone to leave early, and I'm not too closely supervised as far as deliverables. They go to QA and that's that.

mhendo said:
If catsix has a contract that stipulates 40 hours a week, and she and the employer both agree to that contract, why does it somehow reflect poorly on her if she wants to abide by the terms of the contract?

My work is all contract, although it's not usually spelled out as 40 hours per week. It's done by the project, and I'm pretty heavily involved in how many hours are allotted. The thing is, it's up to me to avoid the kind of scope creep and other shit that would push me over hours. If i refuse to work 50 hours this week it's because I know that means I will run out of hours that the customer will pay for before the deadline.

But isn't it possible that she's a very good worker for the 40 hours per week that she is contracted to work, and that she simply isn't interested in being steamrolled into doing more than she is being paid for?


Not only that, but I can actually catch shit for working more hours than I (read: my company) get paid for, particularly if those extra hours are the result of someone else's failure to do their own job, or scope creep.

The only exception to this is if I've given a good estimate, I'm expected to live with it. If I say something will be delivered on Dec 23, and I fuck off for the whole first week of December doing nothing, no one will cut me any breaks or cry for me if I have to work 60 straight hours to make the deadline. People with poor time management do not do well in my job. :)

DianaG said:
But most industries simply don't have those kind of deadlines. Now, I'm an excellent employee, but I'm also a salaried employee. I don't get paid for more than forty hours a week. So I don't have to justify leaving at 5:00. You'd better be able to justify asking me to stay.

That's all I'm saying. I don't have to justify using my off-time as I see fit. I need to be given a reason to give it up. Not that there never is one, just that I'm the judge of whether or not it's a good reason.

[villa]

You are right catsix. I was being totally humorless in the face of your tongue in cheek jolity. I wasn't responding to you in the tone you were using for any purpose at all, it was because I have a stick up my ass.

It also isn't the case that you shift goalposts at all. You really aren't now talking about a flexible schedule whereas before you obviously weren't creating the impression you saw these things as writ in stone.

Just like all along I was expecting people to work until 3 am every day and not visit their dying mothers' bedsides. I never suggested that the attitude that bugged me was a refusal to stay a little late to finish an assignment that was important for a bigger project that had a deadline. After all, that would be pretty reasonable on my part, and as a humorless, stick up the ass person I cannot be reasonable.

The attitude you put forward, and have put forward throughout this thread, is of a person who would be hellish to work with. I never suggested you become a lawyer - after all we have a bad enough reputation as it is. I suggested you could not work in this industry. Strangely enough this industry hires many people who aren't lawyers. Some of them even like it. Others, such as DianaG didn't. But I have never worked in an industry where I would have wanted to be along side someone with your attitude towards coworkers.

[Malthus]

Actually, everyone around them does not feel this way. Many people feel that employees ought to arrange child care in a way that does not interfere with their work responsibilities, and they certainly don't think they should impose their needs on others. Moreover, if they think they have a right to impose on their co-workers they may soon find themselves out on their ass.

If they feel that way, there isn't really a problem for you people to argue about, is there?

Last I checked, people in this thread were saying (to paraphrase) 'I hate the fact that the business world makes this assumption that people with kids should get the breaks'. No-one so far has posted 'I assumed that people with kids should get the breaks, now I'm out on my ass'.

Unfortunately, society doesn't understand that I'm not going to a singles' mixer, I'm delivering food for my local food bank. Or I'm volunteering for my local election. And while a desperate child may take precedence over those things, a responsible parent would not put all of us in a position where we had to decide between one or the other. They would take their own PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY seriously so that society didn't suffer for their lack of foresight, or inability to realize that they can't "have it all".

What, can't have "it all" - as in a job and a kid? Then, unless you can think of some other way to reproduce, you soon won't have any "society" at all.

You may well be a saint in your personal life - I'll not dispute it - but there is a very good reason society judges children of higher value: no children, no society.

That is untrue. Those of us who grew up with a full-time caregiver in the home did not participate in situations where the working adult had to impose on co-workers. The adults planned a situation where the children could be cared for properly...that is raised...BY THE PARENTS.

So, your solution to this overwhelming "problem" of having to accomodate parents at work is - to go back to a form of society in which one parent (presumably mom, as it was generally the case in the '70s) should have no job and stay at home?

That's one hell of a turning back of the clock, with all sorts of unitended negative consequences.

Of course some people don't have two adults in the home. That means that they need to take extra care to ensure that their children are seen to. And that's a bitch, but as LHOD says, "Suck it up, Gertrude.".

Actually, the weight of society is here against you - it is those who think as you do who are being forced to "suck it up". To the minor extent of having parents take the benefit of the doubt.

You are arguing that others should have to "suck it up", but fortunately out in the real world, such is not the case.

That does not mean that individually their coworkers need to raise their children for them. It means they need to enlist the help of a grandparent, or pay some more of their salary for dependable backup childcare, or arrange a backup/swap system with another parent in a similar situation. In short, they need to plan ahead to take care of their PERSONAL problems, so that they do not become a burden on society.

Fortunately, most of society accepts that making a reasonable accomodation for parents is not a "burden".

Most parents don't inconvenience others. I've worked with hundreds of parents. Only one or two display the arrogance that their children are the DIRECT responsibility of the rest of us.

Certainly, only a small minority actually abuse the reasonable accomodation regularly offered. Those aren't whom we are arguing about - everyone would agree that abusing such accomodation is an abuse.

The norm of society is that you take care of your own shit. In extreme circumstances we all need to pull together, but Little Timmy's ear infection is not an extreme circumstance. And if we have to cover for your daily fucking mini-drama-emergencies, you had better be appreciative, find a way to pay us back, sure as hell not give us the attitude that it is our responsibility because your precious little germ factory needs you.

Sorry, in this you are quite wrong. Little Timmy's ear infection is an "extreme circumstance", since left untreated an ear infection can lead to permanent deafness.

Cite: http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/disorders/causes.htm

Fortunately, your opinion on the matter is the minority (aside from the Dope), for which I'm quite glad, though I do not myself benefit - in my occupation, there is no-one to "cover" for me.

Though I would say that if I was in a position to cover for someone who needed a doctor's appointment to avoid permanent deafness, I would cover for them -- without asking that they grovel for the privilege.

[Malthus]

Malthus: I never even alluded to the things you have retorted with. We're talking about parents needing time off to do unusual things with their children, are we not? I'm not talking day care. I'm talking birthday parties, games, etc. No reasonable childless employee is going to not understand the needs of parenting. Still, the responsibility for dealing with the realities of choices we make rests on us all, no matter what choices we make.

I got no argument about birthday parties and games. I do have an argument about "Little Timmay's ear infection": see InLucemEdita above. What do you think of his/her argument?

Read again the part about accepting limitations and benefits. I'm not changing any rules. When I was a child, no one - particularly dads - took time off for kids events during the work day. My mother's employer - a law firm, natch - did NOT care about the fact she was a defacto single mother raising six children. It was her responsibility to find us carpools, but she never drove ever because of her work schedule. She relied on other parents who could drive her kids to school. I'm only 40, but I clearly recall the transition in my working life from work comes first to work/life balance. So don't talk to me about changing rules and what advantage I took of anything. Because in the 70's and 80's in my town and with my parents the environment we have today did not exist.

In the 70s I was too busy walking uphill both ways to school through the snow to notice. :D

Seriously, though, society *has* changed - from one in which very often only one parent worked, to one in which BOTH parents are expected to work. That was why "dads did not take time off" - the de facto position was that dads had moms at home to do that stuff.

Without either at home, raising kids is simply impossible without a certain degree of accomodation.

I'm not being a hardass, no matter how much you may want to interpret my post that way. I'm saying we all have to make compromises, choices, and manage schedules and commitments. That's just reality. But no one is responsible - responsible, that's the key word - for easing your balance for you. Your not responsible for making my life easier, and I'm not responsible for yours. But since we're grown ups and assumedly at least the minimum of polite and respectful as we should be, we should be able to work out a solution with some modicum of equity.

Reasonable accomodation is nothing more.

[Roulette]

Reasonable accommodation is all well and good. My coworker and I can work that sort of thing out without much effort. But when a boss dictates solutions to me that consistently favor people with children over people without, that's not equable. The time away from work is equally valuable to both parent and non parent alike. They should be treated that way.

[TroubleAgain]

Please don't do it here though. I really want to avoid that whole side of it. This is about the way in which people are treated at work regarding family obligations.

I apologize. Of course, as others have said, THAT part of it isn't any fun for childless people either.

[KarlGrenze]

If you want your kid in the office after hours or on a weekend when no one else is there being disturbed by them, fine. Just keep them the hell away from my desk because there are many things on and in it that don't need to be pawed through.



Children do not belong in the office during business hours, particularly if the reason they can't be in day care is that they are sick. You want them with you after hours or on the weekend, fine. Just make sure they stay confined to your work area and aren't off playing with the interesting things they found on someone else's desk.

Well, at least we agree on that. Which was my original post in this thread. I did not talk about bringing kids to work during business hours, I was talking about parents bringing their kids during off hours. That way, they can take some of weekend/overtime work (and not take any of your precious free time) without having to neglect the kids. When I made that suggestion, which is in part how I was raised, you snapped back with

They don't belong in the office. The people who are there working are there to do just that -- work. Not to be functioning as a day care center while they attempt to do the job they actually get paid for.

[InLucemEdita]

If they feel that way, there isn't really a problem for you people to argue about, is there?

You're a fucking stooge.

Last I checked, people in this thread were saying (to paraphrase) 'I hate the fact that the business world makes this assumption that people with kids should get the breaks'.

Check again, shit-for-brains.
The OP is about preferential treatment. In his case, preferential treatment of females over males in terms of time off to spend with kids.

No one except you and LHOD have said that "the business world" or "the system" or "society" makes an assumption that people with kids should get the breaks. And you and he say it with no evidence other than pointing to the posts in this thread.

Even a cursory reading of those posts for comprehension (if you're able) would demonstrate that instead, people are complaining when preferential treatment is given, which is outside the norm of fairness. The business world does not systematically give preference to people with kids at the expense of those without. Occasionally, a few asshole employees will insist on the entitlement you believe exists, and occasionally employers will abuse their single employees but there is no evidence of a societal mandate for singles to support parents by working more without compensation.

What, can't have "it all" - as in a job and a kid?

Yeah, you can have a job and a kid...and you don't have to be married or in a committed relationship with another adult. But then you'll have to spend more of YOUR money to cover the babysitter, and the backup babysitter, and whatever else you need to meet YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. And so you won't be able to take as many vacations or buy that new car, because, you know...you can't have it all.

Then, unless you can think of some other way to reproduce, you soon won't have any "society" at all.

Oh, yeah, I'm real worried about running out of people. Who was Thomas Malthus again?

You may well be a saint in your personal life - I'll not dispute it - but there is a very good reason society judges children of higher value: no children, no society.

Oh my god!!! Do you really think we could run out of children?!? Maybe they'll all get ear infections, go deaf, and get hit by buses since they can't hear them coming!! I can't believe this is happening....THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

So, your solution to this overwhelming "problem" of having to accomodate parents at work is - to go back to a form of society in which one parent (presumably mom, as it was generally the case in the '70s) should have no job and stay at home?

No, my solution to the problem of some workers with an overinflated sense of entitlement, and an grossly overblown sense of the value of their own children, is to not allow them to abuse their coworkers. This could be done by reprimanding them when they do, and eventually firing them if they continue.

Actually, the weight of society is here against you - it is those who think as you do who are being forced to "suck it up". To the minor extent of having parents take the benefit of the doubt.

Can you please point to one documented societal mandate that shows that the big society is against me? You know, something like social security, or property taxes or income taxes, that suggests that singles need to cover for parents without compensation. Just one please.

Fortunately, most of society accepts that making a reasonable accomodation for parents is not a "burden".

Yap...still waiting for that documentation from you and the society.

Sorry, in this you are quite wrong. Little Timmy's ear infection is an "extreme circumstance", since left untreated an ear infection can lead to permanent deafness.

Cite: http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/disorders/causes.htm

Hey, LinkTard!! Here's one for you:

Ear infections are one of the most common childhood illnesses. Although there are no statistics on how many babies get them, the American Academy of Pediatrics expects that most children will have gotten at least one ear infection by the time they turn 3. (http://www.babycenter.com/0_ear-infections_83.bc)

Every fucking child gets one by age 3, and many get multiple. Do you see the student body at Gallaudet exploding? Of course not, because ear infections are not emergencies, they are fucking routine.

[catsix]

Malthus said:
I got no argument about birthday parties and games. I do have an argument about "Little Timmay's ear infection": see InLucemEdita above. What do you think of his/her argument?

Hypothetically, let's say Timmy gets the ear ache today at school. School calls you and says Timmy has an ear ache. You're probably going to have to determine whether or not to pick Timmy up right now or not, and at any rate will likely not be making a determination whether to take Timmy to the doctor until after you've seen Timmy personally, at which point you'll need to make an appointment which may be tomorrow or the next day.

It's doubtful that Timmy's headed for the emergency room this minute, so is it unreasonable to say you might delay picking Timmy up for an hour so you can wrap up what you're doing, take the work home, or arrange to trade tasks with someone?

If, say, Timmy got a compound fracture on the playground, you're probably going to exit immediately. That's an emergency, which by nature is not going to be something that happens frequently, which makes it less of a pain in the ass if you do the 'I need to go' thing the one time it does happen.

Without either at home, raising kids is simply impossible without a certain degree of accomodation.


For a lot of things, it's going to take planning ahead. If you want to be at the middle of the day chorus concert, plan ahead. Manage your own time around it.

At the same time, I plan ahead for things also. If I want to go somewhere on a certain date, I schedule ahead of time to leave work early, and that means I still accomplish the tasks I need to during that week.

KarlGrenze said:
Well, at least we agree on that. Which was my original post in this thread. I did not talk about bringing kids to work during business hours, I was talking about parents bringing their kids during off hours. That way, they can take some of weekend/overtime work (and not take any of your precious free time) without having to neglect the kids. When I made that suggestion, which is in part how I was raised, you snapped back with

Then that was a misunderstanding, because I thought you meant during normal business hours. It doesn't hurt me any if someone takes their kid to the office on Saturday, as long as they make sure the kid is not messing with things on other worker's desks, like playing 'feed the spec to the paper shredder'. My company wouldn't care if you hooked up their Wii to the conference room projector as long as they are not needed for business purposes at that moment and they don't break anything.

[InLucemEdita]

Little Timmy's ear infection is an "extreme circumstance"...

Cite: http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/disorders/causes.htm

You know I can't find "extreme circumstance" anywhere in the page you linked...where are you quoting that from? Or are you just pulling it out of your ass?

What is, in fact, available in that link are the following quotes:

"Fluctuating conductive hearing loss nearly always occurs with all types of otitis media [ear infection]."
"Otitis media is the most frequently diagnosed disease in infants and young children (1). Seventy-five percent of children experience at least one episode of otitis media by their third birthday. Almost one-half of these children will have three or more ear infections during their first 3 years of life."

"At the other extreme are repeated bouts with infection, thick "glue-like" fluid and possible complications such as permanent hearing loss."

Oh, there's the word extreme, though...except it is saying that permanent hearing loss is EXTREMELY rare.

Malthus, I hereby label you -- Disingenuous.

[Carol the Impaler]

I got no argument about birthday parties and games. I do have an argument about "Little Timmay's ear infection": see InLucemEdita above. What do you think of his/her argument?


Neither do I. That's why I was confused when you responded to my posting talking about childcare and the government.

Occassionally having to miss a school event or game because you have work commitments is not the end of the world for your kid if you are otherwise a participatory, loving parent who's children know they can count on you.


Seriously, though, society *has* changed - from one in which very often only one parent worked, to one in which BOTH parents are expected to work. That was why "dads did not take time off" - the de facto position was that dads had moms at home to do that stuff.

Doesn't have anything to do with you accusing me of sucking off the teat of society and now arguing to deny it to employed parents, does it? So, you agree with me that portion of your retort, as it applies to me, is a non sequitor? Frankly, it's a non-sequitor period, but whatever.

Without either at home, raising kids is simply impossible without a certain degree of accomodation. Reasonable accomodation is nothing more.

So, you agree with me, then.

Inre InLucemEdita, from my post, I'm certain a reasonable person can ascertain what my opinion might be, if one would only read it without seeing things that aren't there.

Oh, and villa? I'm glad you got to spend some time with your son. It is unfair how you get treated, and I encourage you again to broach the subject with at least one offender to see if you can work out a better compromise going forward. I hope you're pleasantly surprised. ::crosses fingers::

[Malthus]

Neither do I. That's why I was confused when you responded to my posting talking about childcare and the government.

I was reacting to this:

No one makes you have kids and no one makes you work at a particular firm or in a particular profession. Accept the limitations and benefits of both.

If it now turns out we agree more than we disagree, I apologize for reacting to that. I did not know you were limiting your commentary to children's parties and the like.

Doesn't have anything to do with you accusing me of sucking off the teat of society and now arguing to deny it to employed parents, does it? So, you agree with me that portion of your retort, as it applies to me, is a non sequitor? Frankly, it's a non-sequitor period, but whatever.

I'm reacting to the notion that one owes no reasonable accomodation to others. Given that people were, generally, children themselves at one point ... I do think that a certain amount of fellow-feeling is, if not mandatory, at least laudable.



So, you agree with me, then.



It would seem so, yes.

[Malthus]

You're a fucking stooge.


Heh. Now *there*'s a convincing argument! :D

Thanks for letting me know I need not waste my time.

[Malthus]

Hypothetically, let's say Timmy gets the ear ache today at school. School calls you and says Timmy has an ear ache. You're probably going to have to determine whether or not to pick Timmy up right now or not, and at any rate will likely not be making a determination whether to take Timmy to the doctor until after you've seen Timmy personally, at which point you'll need to make an appointment which may be tomorrow or the next day.

It's doubtful that Timmy's headed for the emergency room this minute, so is it unreasonable to say you might delay picking Timmy up for an hour so you can wrap up what you're doing, take the work home, or arrange to trade tasks with someone?

If, say, Timmy got a compound fracture on the playground, you're probably going to exit immediately. That's an emergency, which by nature is not going to be something that happens frequently, which makes it less of a pain in the ass if you do the 'I need to go' thing the one time it does happen.

For a lot of things, it's going to take planning ahead. If you want to be at the middle of the day chorus concert, plan ahead. Manage your own time around it.

At the same time, I plan ahead for things also. If I want to go somewhere on a certain date, I schedule ahead of time to leave work early, and that means I still accomplish the tasks I need to during that week.


I would certainly agree it isn't an emergency in the degree that a compound fracture is an emergency.

The point is that it isn't something you can just leave to fester - you must deal with it. Which means obtaining a doctor appointment.

Pediatricians being as busy as they are, chances are that this appointment will not be at a convenient time in terms of one's work schedule. Which means a certain degree of inconvenience to everyone - inconvenience which can certainly be worked around to a degree, but which cannot be ignored.

[Carol the Impaler]

I was reacting to this:

[quote=me]No one makes you have kids and no one makes you work at a particular firm or in a particular profession. Accept the limitations and benefits of both.

IOW, everyone needs to take responsibility for their own choices. I stand by that statement. You don't get to have kids and then expect special accomodation beyond what's reasonable solely because you have children. Better to accept there will be trade-offs and that you own the consequences of your choices, good and bad. (Seriously, is this a difficult concept?)

I took the bus to work for two years. I didn't get to assume someone from the office was going to give me a ride home because I couldn't afford a car. I got myself in that position, I made choices that got me there. It's mine to deal with. Now, if I really needed someone to help me, I would ask, but if they turned me down that was 100% their right to do so.

I'm reacting to the notion that one owes no reasonable accomodation to others. Given that people were, generally, children themselves at one point ... I do think that a certain amount of fellow-feeling is, if not mandatory, at least laudable.

Which it seems, now, you realize I was not arguing and never said. In fact, I am arguing that people who can't make reasonable accomodations need to go back to kindergarten to re-learn the concept of sharing.

And may I add, it doesn't seem like anyone in this thread is anti-kid, but most are anti-being taken advantage of and anti-unreasonable accomodation. And pro adults take responsibility for adult choices.

[InLucemEdita]

Heh. Now *there*'s a convincing argument! :D

Thanks for letting me know I need not waste my time.

...a stooge...and my bitch.

[Malthus]

[QUOTE=Malthus;10606675]I was reacting to this:



IOW, everyone needs to take responsibility for their own choices. I stand by that statement. You don't get to have kids and then expect special accomodation beyond what's reasonable solely because you have children. Better to accept there will be trade-offs and that you own the consequences of your choices, good and bad. (Seriously, is this a difficult concept?)

I'm not arguing for special accomodation "...beyond what is reasonable".

I do argue for special accomodation "...solely because you have children".

As others have remarked the "accomodation" is not for the benefit of the parent - it is for the benefit of the child.

I took the bus to work for two years. I didn't get to assume someone from the office was going to give me a ride home because I couldn't afford a car. I got myself in that position, I made choices that got me there. It's mine to deal with. Now, if I really needed someone to help me, I would ask, but if they turned me down that was 100% their right to do so.

Agreed, but I do not think the situations are analogous.

A child is not simply an extention of the parent's own wants and desires, like a choice in transportation. He or she has irreducable needs that the parent cannot, however much they may wish, ignore.

Which it seems, now, you realize I was not arguing and never said. In fact, I am arguing that people who can't make reasonable accomodations need to go back to kindergarten to re-learn the concept of sharing.

And on that at least we are agreed ...

And may I add, it doesn't seem like anyone in this thread is anti-kid, but most are anti-being taken advantage of and anti-unreasonable accomodation. And pro adults take responsibility for adult choices.

I do not say anyone is "anti-kid".

I think that many arguing in this thread are simply unaware of the necessity for reasonable accomodation in this situation, and are equally unaware of how much they, personally, have benefited such accomodation themselves.

[ParentalAdvisory]

I do argue for special accomodation "...solely because you have children".

Scenario: Two workers on a shift, say for the whole year. Worker A has children, and Worker B has none. On holidays, it is required that one of the workers be staffed. Are you saying that for every holiday, that Worker A should get every holiday off because he has children, and only that reason?

[ParentalAdvisory]

Your analogy to racism is terribly flawed, but I'm not going to bother explaining the flaw to you unless you'll explain in your own words first why racism in an employer-employee relationship isn't a copacetic byproduct of a free market.

No, actually I'm not going to explain. Why? Because I know my anology was flawed from the start. But only in response to your flawed analogy that a few posters responses are an indication that that is how society works. It does work for those that have children however.