yes, what is wrong with Sue, mark, antonio, marla and jessica? Dont they know they should just push out some kids already?
Seriously though, it does seem like discrimination basedonfamily status. What if Marla has a husband , or Mark just adopted a new dog from a shelter (im being serious here, when you adopt a dog from a shelter they emphasize you should be there for the dog in the beginning to help bonding and reduce their anxiety)
anyone who works that shift knows to arrange child, husband , dogcare up til 9. Im an understanding person, if there is a situation that is specific, such as her kid has the flu, or some other temporary specific reason she shouod be given a little extra time to go early, but not just a standing permanent excuse to get off early every time while other more hard working employees whove been there longer have to suck it up. Im all for workplaces working with a employees family or other situation if somethng comes up, lets say an employee is wanting to be there for an infirm older parent, etc. BUT in Marys case, it seems to be just a standing excuse, that she birthed kids, so should get off early every time.
Sounds like Mary’s an ass, so my response doesn’t apply directly to her situation, but:
Should people with kids get special treatment? Yes.
Should people with kids abuse special treatment? No.
Arguing otherwise would be akin to arguing:
Doug got a sick day, so I should get a day off too. It’s not my fault he got sick.
As an example:
My employer offers added days of leave per year that can be used to stay home and look after a sick kid - something an employee with kids will never do. It takes a village to raise a child, and as such, we all take up the slack when someone has to tend to a child.
Back @1990 the company I worked for decided that they would give special treatment and “more flexibility” to working parents. That experiment ended after only a few months due to the confluence of massive abuse of the system by the working parents and a near revolt by the single employees who were left holding the bag.
Of course, since then I’ve seen things like “Most of you will get smaller raises this year because Joe and his wife just had a child and I thought he deserved a larger raise than the rest of you because of that”.
Since mary already knows closing shift means til 9, ( but if everything gets done early by eight), she has already arranged childcare until 9…so there is not any rationalization for her getting to skip out ahead of everyone. It would be different if she was only scheduled til 8 and the manager told her she would have to stay later unexpectedly. But since she knows that cosing equals nine, and getting off at eight if your lucky, but she has to schedule childcare (i think hers might be a boyfriend or relative) until 9.
Then perhaps they should point that out, though I expect those arguments will carry less weight for most people. But you’re right, they are categorically equivalent.
I actually don’t understand why my family means any less than anyone else’s family. I want to go home to mine, too. I don’t have kids; how am I less important? How do I consistently rank lower than someone who chose to have children?
No, people with kids should not get any special treatment automatically. I actually have no problem if I see someone working hard all day every day but they NEED to leave at X time…for whatever reason. Not working hard and still expect priviledges? Suck it up, princess.
Now your manager is like a reed; bends in the wind. She needs to be a little tougher. You will probably not make her tougher. But this whole situation is not exactly good for morale, which probably isn’t great in this sort of situation.
You mean so as not to inconvenience Mary, don’t you? After all, she’ll never have to stay past 9, and it doesn’t lessen the chance that others will have to stay past 9.
anaamika,
agree, 100%. Not all families look the same, some employees may not have minors at home, but they might be a. newlywed, or have a disabled parent at home, or have a best friend who is their family. Their families are just as important. The fact though tnat mary is actually not rushing home to be with her mids many times, but instead going to hang out on ner own, or go hook up etc ., well, she would deny that to thema ager of course, but it makes it more obnoxious.
the fact she has a kid doesnt make her more important than others families, whatever type of family they have. Or, a sngle lerson with no family is not less important than a woman who nas kids. The single employees there are way better harder workers, call in ,ess , smile amd friendlier to customers etc.
oh yes, i suppose your right…they could say they have kids (even if that kid is really a shelter dog or husband or homework who needs their time and attention and not nave to have a pesky epidural
If Mary were using her kids regularly as an excuse to leave early, that would be of course a problem. But that’s not what the OP described. It sounds to me like when she’s needed until 9, she works until 9. But when the manager offers to let someone go home early, she volunteers, citing her children as a reason. What’s wrong with that? As has been said, it’s up to the manager to decide who to send; all she’s doing is making her case as to why it should be her. Anyone else is welcome to do the same thing. It sounds to me like the OP is just pissed that the manager is choosing her out of the pool of volunteers too often, in which case, as has been said, the problem is that you have a shitty manager. Or else you just don’t have as good an excuse to leave. Either way, what you say about Mary also applies to you: if you’re expected to be there until 9, you don’t really have a leg to stand on when you don’t get to leave early.
not quite that. What happens is manager will ask who wants to leave early…of course mary isnt the only one who would appreciate or could bemefit from getting off an hour early. When the manager asks, other employees will imdicate they would like to aong with mary, but the mamager seems swayed to feel like pretty much just mary shouod prevail in that. Also in one of my posts i stated an example of once the manager already asked antonio if he wanted to get off early and he accepted. But when mary heard, she jumped amd insisted SHE should get to imstead of antonio, and the boss actually retracted the offer already made to antonio to leave early and allowed mary to go in his place
The way I was able to get my mind around unequal treatment at work, was to accept that every employee has the opportunity to try to work out whatever deal/scam they think is best for them. Rather than getting upset about a certain employee obtaining preferential/different treatment, I chose to focus on what specific benefits/accommodations were important to me.
If I wanted the opportunity to leave at 8 instead of 9, then I’d definitely do whatever I could to be treated at least equally as Mary. Of course, I would acknowledge that doing so might affect how my cow-orkers and bosses thought of me - to whatever extent you consider that important.
I actually tend to think of the highest maintenance and lowest producing as my favorite fellow employees. Over the long run, the majority of managers appreciate me being a lower-maintenance employee. And the low producers make me look better in comparison so long as I am minimally adequate.
Everybody should get reasonable accomodations for the restrictions required by their personal life. Everybody should make a living wage, and get reasonably priced medical care and retirement income. Everybody should get pie.
the thing about it too, is that since other employee bumped into her several times after ten hanging out with no kids in tow, calls her excuse into question. Sure, she ‘has’ kids…but clearly is not rushing home to be with them. my hunch is that if we were to let the manager know she really doesnt actually rush home to be with her kids, but instead goes out, mary would deny it and play the poor mom card, and the manager would feel even more sorry for her. I guess to her credit, she technically is not lying, she tells the manager she should be the one to leave early because she ‘has kids’…and that part is true, she has kids. the manager assumes she means she has to get home to be with them, though, not that she simply has some kids somewnere and wants to get off early to go to a pub :rolleyes:
accommodating people’s individual situations is OK if it can be done. things should be fair; if someone gets accommodations for kids then those without kids should get some other accommodation. if a place is small then people might be more informal or might be willing to make more accommodations.