Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-20-2018, 07:14 AM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,030
Why babies on the Senate floor?

There has been a bit of press lately about the US Senate rules having been changed to allow Sen Tammy Duckworth to bring her 10-day old baby onto the Senate floor.

I'm all for employers having childcare facilities available, accommodating nursing (and all) mothers, and such. But I don't understand why it is a good thing to allow workers to bring their children (infants or otherwise) with them to their workspace (other than on an occasional basis such as to show off a newborn, bring your child to work day, etc.).

I don't feel terribly strongly about this, but would appreciate someone pointing out what I am missing.
  #2  
Old 04-20-2018, 07:23 AM
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 7,251
It's fine as nobody tries putting it in a corner.
  #3  
Old 04-20-2018, 07:25 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 27,997
Is she planning on bringing the babby for more than an occasional basis to show off? If so I can see how it could be disruptive if it turns out to be a fussy baby. If it isn't a constant annoyance then I don't see the big deal on the Senate floor per se: it's not like any real work gets done there (as opposed to committees and back rooms.)
  #4  
Old 04-20-2018, 07:26 AM
running coach running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 34,432
Orrin Hatch complained and wanted to know what would happen if there were 10 babies on the Senate floor. CNN's Kate Bolduan pointed out that there are sometimes 10 times 10 babies on the Senate floor.
Just pissing off Orrin Hatch is good enough reason.
  #5  
Old 04-20-2018, 07:26 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 23,212
The general idea is that senators' work schedules often do not conform to a typical 8 hour work day, meaning that putting a young kid in day care doesn't help for times when votes are scheduled after typical business hours. Further, it is not legal to ask or direct a government employee to watch one's kid while they go onto the floor to vote, leaving a senator with a young child in a sort of catch-22.

I've seen many people in my workplace occasionally get stuck in a bind where child care just doesn't work out for some reason or another on a particular day. Maybe the kid has an illness and isn't allowed in school, but the parent can't take the day off of work for a pressing deadline. Nobody around here really cares about these sorts of occasional emergencies.

Note that the rule only applies to bringing infants on the Senate floor. I'm not sure what happens to a toddler, whose parent/senator may occasionally have the same emergency (need to vote on the Senate floor, but nobody available to take care of the kid).
  #6  
Old 04-20-2018, 07:34 AM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,046
As Ravenman points out this particular case it's a more efficient answer for the Senate than setting up a whole after-hours infant care infrastructure around one or maybe two Senators at a time.

I suppose idea is also that after a year goes by the parents will have figured out a strategy for dealing with the toddler and it will be easier to do so than for a newborn.
  #7  
Old 04-20-2018, 07:47 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 36,363
The only argument I can think of in favor of the change is "why not?"

If crying and pooping become disruptive, they can ask the Senator to leave. Unless it's Chuck Schumer.

Regards,
Shodan
  #8  
Old 04-20-2018, 08:05 AM
Iggy Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,026
My colleague recently brought her newborn daughter with her when she stopped by the workplace (a 9-1-1 center). She had some business to take care of but took the opportunity to show off her baby. And those of us working were thrilled to get a chance to visit. And since it didn't create a problem for us doing our work I see no reason to bar such visits.

So long as it occasional and does not unduly interfere with business then such brief visits by children or families is welcome. And even occupants of the lofty halls of Congress would be wise to remember that we are all people with families and loved ones.
  #9  
Old 04-20-2018, 08:16 AM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 24,869
The Senate floor is probably dirty. She should at least lay down a blanket or something.
  #10  
Old 04-20-2018, 08:21 AM
ftg ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 16,522
What if a nursing mother is doing an old school filibuster? Should she forfeit her right to do this just because she needs to feed her kid?

I have no problem with this. Even if ten women do it.
  #11  
Old 04-20-2018, 08:39 AM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
As Ravenman points out this particular case it's a more efficient answer for the Senate than setting up a whole after-hours infant care infrastructure around one or maybe two Senators at a time.
...
Like I said, I don't feel terribly strongly about this. Other than that I can see a young child as a potential distraction - both to the parent and others. I guess I'm thinking of the fiction that people are expected to be attentive and productive the majority of time they are at work - which probably does not apply to Senators.

I thought I read that she did not intend to breastfeed on the floor. Which seems to me to sorta go against what many people suggest as a reason to HAVE the kid there.

And - a lot would depend on the baby. I've known babies who would sleep the day away in their bassinet, and others who would spur anyone in the same room to consider the merits of infanticide.

It seems as though Congress has sufficient facilities, funds, and staff to handle all manner of "unimportant" things. It would seem to me that kitting out a daycare center (wondering - don't they already have one?) with provisions to hire contract nannies on an as-needed basis on the occasions that the Senate failed to get their work done during normal working hours - would be a perfectly workable - and possibly preferable - approach.
  #12  
Old 04-20-2018, 08:49 AM
USCDiver USCDiver is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NC
Posts: 4,958
Am I the only one to notice that some news agencies have stopped using the term “sitting Senator” when referring to Sen. Duckworth?
  #13  
Old 04-20-2018, 08:55 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 36,363
Or we could wait for it to be a problem before we fix it. This isn't her first baby, so why not let her and her husband figure it out like we do with every other working family?

Maybe my POV is skewed, but my first reaction to a baby of my colleagues' is "Can I hold it?" If it becomes disruptive to the work environment, you say something to the mother. That hasn't happened yet, and I suspect it won't.

For heaven's sake, it's a baby, not a time bomb.

Regards,
Shodan
  #14  
Old 04-20-2018, 08:57 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 36,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by USCDiver View Post
Am I the only one to notice that some news agencies have stopped using the term “sitting Senator” when referring to Sen. Duckworth?
Maybe the epidural has worn off.

Regards,
Shodan
  #15  
Old 04-20-2018, 09:12 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,142
Senators don’t spend a very large portion of their time on the floor. This is not comparable someone bringing a baby to work every day in a normal office.

Senators don’t have work hours. They’re pretty much always working and can be called on to attend to business at any time. So it’s much more complicated for a senator with a newborn to draw strict lines and still properly care for a newborn. An accommodation like this is perfectly reasonable to avoid the discriminatory result of hindering a senator with a newborn from doing her job.

Votes aren’t predictable. They happen when they happen. A bar on bringing babies to floor essentially means that a senator with a newborn has to miss votes.

Allowing this is far more efficient than requiring someone like Duckworth to have a permanent solution for a problem that is only sporadic. That’s inefficient. And it would be discriminatory to make Duckworth bear this burden on her own.

The whole notion that the occasional appearance newborn babies spoil a working environment is pretty much part of the structural sexism of our society and it’s good to see part of that being dismantled. The bigger sign of progress will be when you see a man senator take advantage of this change.

Last edited by Acsenray; 04-20-2018 at 09:13 AM.
  #16  
Old 04-20-2018, 09:18 AM
BlueOhio BlueOhio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dayton OH USA
Posts: 233
This is so predictable for every show when the ratings start to wane; bring in a cute baby or small child. I hope the kid doesn't Cousin Oliver Congress.
  #17  
Old 04-20-2018, 09:20 AM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 17,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
As Ravenman points out this particular case it's a more efficient answer for the Senate than setting up a whole after-hours infant care infrastructure around one or maybe two Senators at a time.
There are thousands of staffers and other personnel who support the Senate, and even more in the nearny House of Representitives. The GSA provides child care services for government workers but the legislature is notorious for being a somewhat unfriendly environment for family support (and also apparently stacked with creepy letchers).

This is probably more about the optics of gender equality in the workplace than strict necessity as I’m sure Duckworth will have a child care area set up in her offices, but senators often work strange hours during the legislative session and need to be on the Senate floor during debates and voting in order to execute their responsibilities, which would make mother-child bonding problematic. The Senate rules previously disallowed having small children on the floor during working periods, so this is a notional change in rules to accommodate a novel situation (for the Senate). It makes for a nice story that isn’t focused on whatever random nonsense Trump tweetstormed out while taking a dump or watching Mitch McConnell ass-fuck another norm of Congressional tradition, but it isn’t as if this has broken a new glass ceiling; women executives have been bringing infants and toddlers into the workplace for a while now, and the Senate is just special because it is an issue they haven’t had to deal with previously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueOhio View Post
This is so predictable for every show when the ratings start to wane; bring in a cute baby or small child. I hope the kid doesn't Cousin Oliver Congress.
It would be neither the worst nor most absurd development in the last few years of this sitcom.

Stranger

Last edited by Stranger On A Train; 04-20-2018 at 09:21 AM.
  #18  
Old 04-20-2018, 09:26 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
It would seem to me that kitting out a daycare center (wondering - don't they already have one?) with provisions to hire contract nannies on an as-needed basis on the occasions that the Senate failed to get their work done during normal working hours - would be a perfectly workable - and possibly preferable - approach.
Or just let the lady hold her damn baby. 99% of what happens on the Senate floor is people talking to empty seats. There's really no reason to keep the kid out.
  #19  
Old 04-20-2018, 09:56 AM
Quercus Quercus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: temperate forest
Posts: 6,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by USCDiver View Post
Am I the only one to notice that some news agencies have stopped using the term “sitting Senator” when referring to Sen. Duckworth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Maybe the epidural has worn off.

Regards,
Shodan
Psst. dude, it's not about the epidural.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_...litary_service
  #20  
Old 04-20-2018, 10:12 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 76,498
Duckworth was elected by her constituents to serve in the Senate. So she has a right to be present on the Senate floor. The Senate should go as far as possible in order to accommodate any Senator doing their job.
  #21  
Old 04-20-2018, 10:26 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 35,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Duckworth was elected by her constituents to serve in the Senate. So she has a right to be present on the Senate floor. The Senate should go as far as possible in order to accommodate any Senator doing their job.
This. And flipping that around, her constituents, the people of Illinois, are entitled to her representation. If she's able to show up, given that she's recently given birth and is carrying a newborn around with her, there shouldn't be an arbitrary barrier placed in her way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Or just let the lady hold her damn baby. 99% of what happens on the Senate floor is people talking to empty seats. There's really no reason to keep the kid out.
And this.

As Atrios said yesterday, "The world's greatest deliberative body does not actually ever deliberate. Someone should tell them." Their time on the Senate floor nowadays is largely spent (a) voting, (b) being there for the procedural crap leading up to voting, or (c) speechifying to empty seats.

Sen. Duckworth doesn't have to stick around for (c), and her bringing her newborn onto the Senate floor with her during (a) and (b) isn't likely to be a problem - and to the extent that it's a problem, it won't be a problem for very much of any other Senator's day, because (a) and (b) rarely involve much of their days.
  #22  
Old 04-20-2018, 10:42 AM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
...An accommodation like this is perfectly reasonable to avoid the discriminatory result of hindering a senator with a newborn from doing her job.

Votes aren’t predictable. They happen when they happen. A bar on bringing babies to floor essentially means that a senator with a newborn has to miss votes.

...
As I understand workplace accommodations, the general idea is that the person affected does not get to choose what accommodation they wish.

I tend to agree with Stranger - setting up some childcare system would be at least as easy. This is being done for the optics and - I suspect - to influence other aspects of society.

Having to vote does not mean "must be present to win." I forget the specific rules, but you are required to get to the floor to vote within a certain period of time. So a Congresscritter can be in their office and make it to the floor when something comes up for a vote - but they cannot make it back from their home district in time.

I understand - and disfavor - historical sexism in so many aspects of the workplace. I don't know that a slippery slope is likely in this instance, but establishing the precedence makes it more likely. I haven't seen the rules. Do they say only mothers can bring children? Are there age limits?

I presume there are always provisions where "disturbances" of any kind can be addressed. And I imagine senators are more sensitive than other employees about the prospect of having their kid running amok broadcast on C-SPAN. But if this is intended to have infants/children more accepted in other workplaces, I'm not sanguine that all other parents will be so circumspect.

When changes were made to generally allow service animals in most places (a good idea), who anticipated an emotional support peacock?
  #23  
Old 04-20-2018, 10:55 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 23,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
Having to vote does not mean "must be present to win." I forget the specific rules, but you are required to get to the floor to vote within a certain period of time. So a Congresscritter can be in their office and make it to the floor when something comes up for a vote - but they cannot make it back from their home district in time.
I don't understand what you mean by "does not mean 'must be present to win.'"

Senators must be present to cast their vote. If a senator has their child at work, it is not legal to leave the child in the office with a staffer watching them while the senator goes to vote; just like it is not legal for a senator to direct his staff to buy their groceries or perform various tasks like repairing one's boat.

If a staffer had a child care issue, subject to the permission of their employer, I'd bet that they could take their kid into the workplace, so long as the kid is not disruptive. But the Senate Rules prohibited a senator from taking her kid into certain parts of her workplace.

ETA: not to mention that even if after hours child care was available, I would not find it surprising at all if Senator Duckworth would have to pay upwards of $900 a week in childcare costs, given a reasonable assumption that she may work 50+ hour weeks. Or she could take a very small child to the floor of the Senate a couple times a week. It frankly seems absurd and punitive to have someone pay thousands of dollars more per month for child care, rather than relax a rule that probably only makes a difference in maybe spending a couple hours per month, tops, on the floor of the Senate.

Last edited by Ravenman; 04-20-2018 at 11:00 AM.
  #24  
Old 04-20-2018, 11:17 AM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I don't understand what you mean by "does not mean 'must be present to win.'"
I only meant you do not need to be physically on the floor the moment a vote is called. You have time to make arrangements and get to the floor.

I don't know Duckworth's financial position. My impression is that most Senators are financially able to afford childcare. I don't see, however, why each senator would have to pay the full freight of a "capital hill childcare system." And it sucks as a society that the lion's share of childcare is done by women. IMO, a portion of that blame lies with the parents themselves in deciding that childcare is "women's work". And I'm a strong advocate for breastfeeding.

Obviously I have different opinion than most others as to what is most reasonable. And my fallback position is generally that you deal with your own shit in a way that is least likely to inconvenience others.

That's fine. Like I said, I really don't care strongly as this applies to Senators. If it gets to the point where my co-workers are bringing their kids to work on a regular basis, I'll re-consider whether or not I care.

Last edited by Dinsdale; 04-20-2018 at 11:18 AM.
  #25  
Old 04-20-2018, 11:28 AM
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 26,431
Let's see... we can allow an infant onto the floor of the Senate for brief periods of time which costs the taxpayers nothing or.... we could put into place an elaborate infrastructure that will cost thousands.

Really, I don't know why this is even a question.

IF the situation arises that there are so many babies so frequently on the Senate floor it becomes disruptive THEN we can revisit the Senate daycare question. Meanwhile, allowing a kid an occasional presences seems the more frugal and prudent solution to this problem.
  #26  
Old 04-20-2018, 11:37 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 23,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
I don't know Duckworth's financial position. My impression is that most Senators are financially able to afford childcare.
Her net worth is around about $500k (cite), which is roughly in the 80th percentile in the United States. I think it's fair to say that if she had to pay for child care and after-hours child care, we would be talking about an expense that is getting close to paying tuition at some private universities, only without financial aid.
Quote:
I don't see, however, why each senator would have to pay the full freight of a "capital hill childcare system."
Members of Congress haven't had a cost of living adjustment since 2009. If you think that the public would be happy setting up a child care system with after-hours benefits that only the very, very richest of Americans would be able to afford on their own, then you and I have very different opinions of how the public views fringe benefits for politicians.

Quote:
That's fine. Like I said, I really don't care strongly as this applies to Senators. If it gets to the point where my co-workers are bringing their kids to work on a regular basis, I'll re-consider whether or not I care.
You asked earlier what the rule says, and I found it:

Quote:
Notwithstanding rule XXIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a Senator who has a son or daughter (as defined in section 101 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2611)) under 1 year of age may bring the son or daughter onto the floor of the Senate during votes.
Senator Duckworth wouldn't be able to bring her kid on the floor to make a speech.
  #27  
Old 04-20-2018, 11:49 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,076
Don't Senators have staff to take care of these kinds of things? I mean, what's a staff for if not to change diapers?

Last edited by John Mace; 04-20-2018 at 11:50 AM.
  #28  
Old 04-20-2018, 11:53 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quercus View Post
Psst. dude, it's not about the epidural.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_...litary_service
Whoosh.
  #29  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:16 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 12,368
I'd say the main reason is that proxy voting isn't allowed in the US Senate. Also, it is currently divided 49-51, but one Senator is critically ill so it is even more closely divided. Votes can happen at any time. Also, Sen, Duckworth may wish to quickly respond to a point that is raised on the Senate floor. It's not the job of her staff to care for a baby, and even if they're able to, that takes away from their time doing the job they were hired to do.
  #30  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:18 PM
Sailboat Sailboat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quercus View Post
Psst. dude, it's not about the epidural.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_...litary_service
Epic.
__________________
Sailboat
  #31  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:20 PM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
The Senate floor is probably dirty.
Well, sure. All that sausage gunk.
  #32  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:20 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Don't Senators have staff to take care of these kinds of things? I mean, what's a staff for if not to change diapers?
My understanding is that the staff works for the office, not the office holder, and that it would be specifically against the rules for her to use taxpayer funded staff for personal use like babysitting and diaper changing.
  #33  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:45 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
As I understand workplace accommodations, the general idea is that the person affected does not get to choose what accommodation they wish.
The law of workplace accommodations isn’t relevant. Duckworth and her Senate colleagues are collectively their own boss. They are faced with a very different set of circumstances than an ordinary workplace.

You can bet that a CEO in a private company gets all kinds of accommodations not required by law.

Overall what’s way more important is the idea of removing limitations on what kind of person can effectively serve the public in a high office and whether there are any unnecessary constraints on effective representation by a person chosen by the public.


Quote:
I tend to agree with Stranger - setting up some childcare system would be at least as easy.
No, that would represent a gigantic unnecessary expenditure of public money and effort. Total overkill, at least to accommodate what Duckworth is actually asking for.

Quote:
This is being done for the optics and - I suspect - to influence other aspects of society.
Would you like to elaborate?

From my point of view, there is a message being sent, and it’s one I welcome. What’s the message you object to?

Quote:
I forget the specific rules, but you are required to get to the floor to vote within a certain period of time. So a Congresscritter can be in their office and make it to the floor when something comes up for a vote - but they cannot make it back from their home district in time.
And she is to use that time to do what? Hire a babysitter for 15 minutes? Set up a new Capitol Hill childcare infrastructure that isn’t needed for what Duckworth wants?

Maybe in the future some significant percent of elected officials will be men and women who need this accommodation such that such an infrastructure is necessary. That doesn’t mean that Duckworth should be denied today to do the small things she wants to do.


Quote:

When changes were made to generally allow service animals in most places (a good idea), who anticipated an emotional support peacock?
Has the peacock become an insurmountable problem? Theoretical and hypothetical unreasonability shouldn’t be a limitation on reasonable accommodations.

Last edited by Acsenray; 04-20-2018 at 12:46 PM.
  #34  
Old 04-20-2018, 02:01 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 17,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
No, that would represent a gigantic unnecessary expenditure of public money and effort. Total overkill, at least to accommodate what Duckworth is actually asking for.
Agreed , and Duckworth while not wealthy, will probably have full time personal child care and not require the staff to be responsible for supervising her children while she goes through the business of being a working senator. However, while the Senate does have an “Employee Child Care Center”, it is notoriously underfunded and has a large waitlist (the same is true for the House), and so Congressional staffers often have to place children in outside care programs which is a problem that needs to be addressed. And of course, such programs do not care for infants or toddlers below the age limit. This concession is just a convenience for Duckworth to be able to attend meetings, debates, and votes on the Senate floor while tending to her daughter, and again, is a pretty common accomodation for new mothers in executive level positions in the corporate world where they cannot (or do not wish to) take off for several weeks of maternity leave.

That it is a novelty in the Senate is an indication of how unrepresentative the body is of the body politic, and Orrin Hatch’s whinging aside, may be the only time the entire Senate votes in unanimous agreement for anything other than to adjourn in this session. From a standpoint of getting Duckworth front and center in the national lens it was a brilliant political move, and plus it gave us all a fluffy positive news story instead of the usual tirade of depressing shit. I just hope Duckworth sticks a dirty diaper on Mitch McConnell’s seat while he isn’t looking just to fuck with him.

Stranger

Last edited by Stranger On A Train; 04-20-2018 at 02:02 PM.
  #35  
Old 04-20-2018, 02:19 PM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
...
You can bet that a CEO in a private company gets all kinds of accommodations not required by law.
...
I remember when Marissa Mayer was returning to work at Yahoo, there were a bunch of articles about it. IIRC, they were building out offices for her personal daycare center, staffed by nannies - more than your assembly line Jane Schmo might expect!
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #36  
Old 04-20-2018, 02:22 PM
kenobi 65 kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 11,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
I just hope Duckworth sticks a dirty diaper on Mitch McConnell’s seat while he isn’t looking just to fuck with him.
Diaper pranking may have its place in the House, but the Senate is a more august chamber, and that sort of thing is simply not done.

(What *is* acceptable, however, is to hide a fully-loaded Diaper Genie underneath McConnell's desk when the Senate adjourns for summer recess. )
  #37  
Old 04-20-2018, 02:30 PM
nightshadea nightshadea is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 3,046
well if anything it might remind the old bastards whos gonna actually be affected by their bs .......
  #38  
Old 04-20-2018, 02:33 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 17,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
I remember when Marissa Mayer was returning to work at Yahoo, there were a bunch of articles about it. IIRC, they were building out offices for her personal daycare center, staffed by nannies - more than your assembly line Jane Schmo might expect!
The thinking behind that is that while a coder or line manager can take off several weeks for maternity leave and hand over her work to someone else, a C-level executive is indefensible to the daily operations of a company and that more than a few days away is unworkable. In retrospect, I’m not sure Marissa Mayer was the best icon for that, and with one of her first actions being to cut telecommuting and flexible hours for employees she didn’t garner much support from below.

Duckworth, on the other hand, has been pretty effective in several major metrics as a freshman senator, and this accommodation makes sense not only for her personally but for ensuring that her constituants are getting the best possible representation.

Stranger
  #39  
Old 04-20-2018, 03:08 PM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 24,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
while a coder or line manager can take off several weeks for maternity leave and hand over her work to someone else, a C-level executive is indefensible to the daily operations of a company


Or did you mean "indispensable"?
  #40  
Old 04-20-2018, 04:51 PM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65 View Post
Diaper pranking may have its place in the House, but the Senate is a more august chamber, and that sort of thing is simply not done.

(What *is* acceptable, however, is to hide a fully-loaded Diaper Genie underneath McConnell's desk when the Senate adjourns for summer recess. )
Ha! Joke's on you— Mitch already has one.
  #41  
Old 04-20-2018, 05:27 PM
Hari Seldon Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 11,615
Note that the rules have been changed to allow infants under 1 year old only. And it seems like a reasonable accommodation to the random nature of senate votes. They also had to change the rules so that the baby was not required to wear shoes or shirt and tie (or blouse and skirt), or wear a senate pin--whatever that is.
  #42  
Old 04-20-2018, 05:38 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,142
The senate pin identifies senators. It’s basically the pass card for senator-only locations
  #43  
Old 04-20-2018, 05:40 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 9,894
This will probably last as long as she's breastfeeding, which I'm assuming she is and that's why she wanted permission to take Maile onto the floor. After that, she can leave the baby with her husband or another child care provider.
  #44  
Old 04-20-2018, 05:59 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 76,473
Even if we grant that the benefits of this are minor, what's the drawback? Why did we ever disallow infants on the Senate floor in the first place? If a kid's being disruptive, they can be asked to leave, but then, that's true for an adult, too.
  #45  
Old 04-20-2018, 06:18 PM
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 26,431
Infants were probably never singled out, it was probably more like "no one under the age of X" being allowed on the floor, which just happens to include infants.
  #46  
Old 04-20-2018, 06:42 PM
kenobi 65 kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 11,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Infants were probably never singled out, it was probably more like "no one under the age of X" being allowed on the floor, which just happens to include infants.
That'd be my guess, as well (I'm failing to find the actual rules with a quick search). And, this circumstance hasn't ever come up before -- Duckworth is the first Senator to give birth while in office.
  #47  
Old 04-20-2018, 08:19 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 76,473
OK, "no one under the age of X", then. But I can still imagine a visitor to the Senate bringing their kid in, to show them Democracy in Action and to engage them in Civics and Patriotism, and all that. Sure, the kid would probably be bored, but it's a noble goal.
  #48  
Old 04-20-2018, 08:23 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
OK, "no one under the age of X", then. But I can still imagine a visitor to the Senate bringing their kid in, to show them Democracy in Action and to engage them in Civics and Patriotism, and all that. Sure, the kid would probably be bored, but it's a noble goal.
Members of the public aren’t allowed on the Senate floor anyway, for the most part.

The public has access to the gallery, and I believe there are often young folks there, especially in school groups.
  #49  
Old 04-20-2018, 09:04 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 13,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
I remember when Marissa Mayer was returning to work at Yahoo, there were a bunch of articles about it. IIRC, they were building out offices for her personal daycare center, staffed by nannies - more than your assembly line Jane Schmo might expect!
Yep. Very few women can expect their employer to construct a soundproof nursery suite adjacent to their office and staff it with nannies. That's not gonna happen at all in the public sector (well, maybe when we have a POTUS give birth in office).
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
  #50  
Old 04-20-2018, 11:59 PM
Melbourne Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
That's fine. Like I said, I really don't care strongly as this applies to Senators. If it gets to the point where my co-workers are bringing their kids to work on a regular basis, I'll re-consider whether or not I care.
Gore Vidal was on the floor of the senate on a regular basis as a kid (shirtless and shoeless in that simpler time).

By his description, DC was a sleepy country town then. I wonder when and why the rule now being changed was introduced?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017