You also seem to be assuming that these childless people just want time off to sit around and watch tv.
Maybe they have an elderly parent to take care of. Maybe they have a second job. Maybe they’re a student. Maybe they’re disabled or have some medical condition that only allows them to work a certain amount of time a week.
And so does taking little Susie to see the latest Disney bomb trump taking Grandma to dialysis? (since we’re going for the ridiculous scenarios here)
I’m laughing in a surprised way here. You start off all AR about how “won’t someone think of the children” and how people who don’t have children have a duty to work for those who do. And after all that heartfelt and frantic posturing and calls to duty for nonparents to “save our future” now you declare you “prefer the company of otters”?
Sure, I’ll play. I kind of anticipated this issue would come up. I’ve been confining my arguments to the care of children because, even before the hijack, that was ultimately what this thread was about. You know, breastfeeding infants?
When I say “care”, I don’t mean Little Bobby’s tae kwon do class, or Sally’s Little League game. These are recreational activities. When I say care, I mean the basics of food, clothing, and shelter, and keeping a child safe from harm, which, in the case of infants and small children, requires the presence of an adult, preferably a parent. So if my employer needs someone to pull a weekend shift, or is deciding who to schedule which days off, and knows that La Tonya has an eight-month-old and will not be able to find someone to care for the baby on weekends, and my at home responsibilities consist of feeding my two cats, who will be in no danger of harm if there’s not a human at home on Saturday afternoon then obviously the safety of La Tonya’s baby trumps my desire to dangle a catnip mouse in front of Conan and Schrodinger.
Susie seeing the latest Disney bomb is a recreational activity. Taking Grandma to dialysis is a responsibility to care for an ailing family member. I would say that the care of an ailing relative (or, hell, the next door neighbor if they have no family to take care of them) is a responsibility on the order of the care of a child.
Second jobs and getting an education are responsibilities, not recreational activities. So, my Shiatsu class trumps the kindergarten circus, but little Suzie’s 104º fever trumps my Shiatsu class. I can get the class notes from another student. But since the kindergarten circus is in the evening, and my Shiatsu class is in the morning, sure, I’ll cover the shift, no prob.
And, when you’re talking about a handicapped worker, that falls into the category of someone I’d be willing to take up some slack for if they were physically unable to work more than a certain number of hours.
I think what irks me most about catsix’s argument in particular is that she equates a mother needing to be home on weekend days because she is unable to find someone to care for her child with a “desire to play with little Duddums”. I mean, really, little Duddums is eight months old. Is La Tonya supposed to leave him home unattended because catsix has been working at Hell Mart six months longer and therefore has priority to pick her days off?
Yes,she often couches things in extremely sarcastic and exaggerated ways. But in this case I agree with her regarding whether the working mom has more rights than the alleged" unencumbered employee. Basically what you’re doing, is placing a value on each employees off time. With yourself as the grand arbitrator of which is which. La Tonya has chosen this responsibility, and whether her problem is that the baby is sick, or that she can’t work weekends, this is HER responsibility to deal with. You act as if the ONLY solution is for the “unencumbered” employees to work the shifts she can’t.
If this this were truly the only option for La Tonya, and others like her, and if it were legal for companies to do this to their nonparent employees, you’d hear QUITE an outcry from the public and rightfully so.
Luckily it is NOT legal, nor necessary. Most parents manage to work and parent without such melodramatic needs such as you describe.
If it’s a question of being an extra caring coworker if that particular weekend the person who has what you generously deem “a responsibilty” cannot for some reason work, then it’s reasonable to hope that employees will trade, or work it out in some way.
If it’s A weekend, and if the trades are reciprocated in some way. However, in fairness, why should one person be permanently penalized for being healthy and unencumbered with your authorized list of “responsiblities” while others are blessed and given special treatment because of those very same allowable "responsiblities?
What you’re suggesting is stinking suspiciously of socialism.
Further, if a person has an obstacle, such as not being able to work weekends because of childcare/elderly parent care. This is STILL their responsiblity to solve, even if it sucks and is not something “fun” but something required of them. There are caregivers/geriatric nurses who work weekends.
If you’re going to college, you take jobs which allow you to attned classes. Perhaps at the college itself where they have flexible jobs designed with student’s schedules im mind.
See, this is still a free country, and because someone else’s “I can’t get to work” is due to something not fun, and a real responsiblity to boot, still doesn’t give them the right to have special treatment. It is up to THEM to make their situation work.
Don’t have daycare on weekends? Take on a job which is a M-F 9-5 job. Or, take in baby sitting yourself. Or AFDC if you’re a single parent with not enough education in which to make a living wage AND have daycare. Elderly parent? There are a lot of resources and aide for that as well. Student? Same thing.
This is life. It isn’t meant to be easy. It’s not the job of strangers (regardless of what Blanche DuBois thought) to make your life work, it’s your OWN job. Yes, we fellow humans can help, and imho, most people will do the best they can TO help others. But they, the unemcumbered by any responsibility and only get to pursue fun things (as if there is such a person), have as much a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, AND a fair shift and workload at work, as do moms, caretakers of the elderly parent and college students.
Seeing as this has thread has completely got off track (and, for the record: no milk, underfed baby, chose to bottle feed in the interests of sanity, completely agree with mothers being allowed to breast feed their babies anywhere they like), I have to ask, did The Asbestos Mango state anywhere that she thought it should be a law that all childless people subjugate their will to the whims of parents?
It seems to me that she is sympathetic to the problems parents have with childcare, and that is wholly commendable, and I agree with her. Of course it is my responsibility to care for my child, my choice and my problem, but I would hope co-workers would cut me a little slack if I have no alternative arrangements. My child is now old enough to be home alone, and that means I am able to help out colleagues with small children/sick relatives etc. when necessary. Which means I might be perfectly willing to help out even if the parent IS only picking up little Susie from ballet, if I know they can’t make other arrangements to have her picked up. I had it tough - why the hell should anyone else suffer if they don’t have to?
And way back when I worked a shift type job at a place that was open on weekends, we had schedules that often changed. Sometimes I’d be scheduled for a Saturday, and sometimes not. If a coworker called and asked me to trade a shift with them, I would generally do so as long as that coworker was someone who’d return the favor sometime. Someone took one of my shifts on extremely short notice (8 hours) the day my grandfather died. I repaid him by taking a really cruddy Friday night shift when he lucked into some concert tickets.
That wasn’t a big deal.
Someone whining and crying that they could never, ever work a Saturday because they’d have to get a babysitter and that the ‘people without kids’ should take those Saturday evening shifts because it’s not like they had ‘anything important’ to do were the big deal. Those who made it out to be my obligation and not a favor to trade shifts always got a firm ‘No. I already have something on my calendar for Saturday.’
The employer should not be considering, at all, what the employee would otherwise do with that day. The employer should create the schedule in a non-discriminatory manner. If I found out I was repeatedly being scheduled for Saturday because La Tonya would have difficulty finding someone to watch Duddums, I would file a grievance for unfair scheduling practices. Furthermore, I’m likely to quit if the situation isn’t rectified, and work for someone who isn’t a complete asswad.
It’s up to La Tonya to find care for La Tonya’s kid. It’s not up to me to always work every weekend so that La Tonya doesn’t have to.
Exactly why I worked the midnight to 8 am shift in for the campus computing services and went to class tired all the time. Each person must balance his or her own responsibilities.
I think my real question is why should I suffer when I’m not the one who chose to take on the responsibility of having a kid? Why should my employer automatically think that my weekends or evenings are less important than a parent’s?
There are some really insensitive assholes out there who parrot the line ‘It’s not like you have kids to go home to. You won’t mind staying so I can pick up Duddums, right?’ The Asbestos Mango appears to be one of them.
I thought we had determined AGES AND AGES AGO that:
Parents who EXPECT childless people to take up their slack are assholes
Managers who EXPECT childless people to take up parents’ slack are assholes.
Company policies which give PREFERENTIAL treatment to parents are assholish.
Now, I personally add that a co-worker who won’t help out a parent with an emergency is an asshole. BUT…a co-worker who won’t help out a CO-WORKER with an emergency is an asshole already, right? So I don’t think it’s the “not helping a parent” thing, really. Just the “not willing to help a co-worker.”
I think if you’re willing to switch with/help out/pick up slack for a co-worker who has to get her mother to dialysis but you’re not willing to do the same for a co-worker who has to get Little Susie to the dentist, then you’re an asshole.
And if you’re willing to switch with a co-worker who wants to catch the matinee, but not with someone who wants to catch her kid’s play, you’re an asshole.
And…if you’re a parent who’s ABLE to switch but not WILLING to switch/pick up slack/feed the turkeys for someone who needs to run their dog to the vet STAT, then you’re an asshole.
And if you’re willing to switch with a co-worker who wants to stay home and play video games, but not with the one whose kid has a temperature of 104F…then you’re just a fucking waste of skin. But I’m not going to tell you that you CAN’T be a waste of skin.
And can I please add, for catsix’s benefit, that I said “IF YOU’RE WILLING” on all of those outlined above. I’m not saying anyone HAS to do anything, because as I said, I think we already agreed that that was horseshit.
Yup. Like someone who has nothing going on but won’t trade a shift cause Grandpa died or because catsix got in a car accident and has a moderate concussion (which by the way is the kind of concussion that happens to someone else) or because say, Emily’s mother is in the hospital or Brenda’s daughter is horking all over the house and has a 103F fever.
I agree with what you said. Mango, however, seems to be on the ‘Since it’s harder to find daycare on Saturday night, all the people without kids will work every Saturday night so the mommies and daddies can stay home.’
WalMart has two employees, the aforementioned La Tonya and Meg.
La Tonya has a small child at home and took the job with the understanding she could only work 8-5 weekdays. She wants as many hours as possible.
Meg wants as many hours as possible, but can work anytime. She would rather work 8-5 weekdays.
WalMart is busiest on weekends, when almost everyone works.
Meg, because of her flexibility, works MF days and Wednesday evenings and SS. La Tonya works T W Th. She’d like more hours, but it would mean cutting Meg’s weekday hours. Both are hardworkers the manager would like to keep, but the manager suspects that Meg will leave if she only gets scheduled evenings and weekends or if her hours get cut. Why should Meg lose hours to La Tonya? And why should the manager give preference to the less flexible employee - when I’m a retail manager, one of the things I value is flexibility - Meg who can work pretty much anytime and can cover on a moments notice is much more valuable than La Tonya who can’t, so I’m more likely to make sure Meg keeps the hours she needs than work with La Tonya’s schedule. I care about La Tonya’s childcare situation, but I have to keep the interests of Wal Mart at heart - which means keeping the more flexible employee happy.
If I get lucky as a manager, I end up with LaTonya who only wants days, Brenda who goes to school in the days and wants late afternoons eveings, Sarah who wants only weekends and Meg who can fill in all the time - but then Brendas school schedule shifts and she takes an evening class, Sarah decides to take several weekend trips over the summer and can’t work every weekend.
Does this make WalMart an evil corporation, well, leaving WalMarts evilness for other reasons aside - no, this is the way retail works. Its the way retail needs to work.
FWIW, as an employer in California (with 50+ employees), I have to abide by these laws (and maybe some/all states may do too)…
FMLA - Family Medical Leave Act - Federal Law (all states) - Includes time off (upto 12 weeks) for baby-bonding, adoption, or foster care with job retention rights.
California Pregnancy Disability Leave (PDL) - upto 88 work days may be taken off (medically approved leave - does not have to be taken all at once) with job retention rights. Accomodations like modified schedules, facilities (pumping breast milk in a private setting), etc. must be done.
CFRA - California Family Rights Act - almost the same as FMLA, but doesn’t run concurrently with PDL, this leave can be upto 12 weeks long…employee’s decision with job retention rights.
Time off for any meetings regarding the school suspension of child. Must be allowed with job retention rights.
Participation in school activities with a child, upto 8 hours a calendar month, 40 hours a calendar year. Must be allowed with job retention rights.
So, like it or not, some companies follow these policies and must keep the job available for the possible return of the parent employee. Subsequently, the employer has a choice… they can schedule other employees to fill in for them, let the rest of the crew pick up the slack, or hire temp help…take a guess at what the easiest solution is? I can tell you from personal experience that hiring a new employee is the costliest of these choices.
So what I’m trying to point out is that childless employees are already being discriminated against with the support of these state/fed laws…at least in California. Some of you may call managers/owners assholes because of what they do when this happens, but in my view, it’s better to be called an asshole by following the law, than being fined by the feds/states plus any compensatory penalties and not being called an asshole. I do try my best to make things work for everyone, but it doesn’t always work out and someone has to take up the slack.
As a side note…if an employee is in the military reserve and the employer is required by law to allow him/her time off for military training (usually on weekends), the employer is going to schedule someone to fill in for those days too. Would the outcry be the same as someone with a kid because the employee made the choice to be in the military similar to making the choice of being a parent? Or an employee deciding to be a juror on the Scott/Kobe/OJ case and gets sequestered?
I find all those laws reasonable. Few of them are different than laws protecting people who are ill or handicapped. What I’m not finding reasonable is that you would be required to keep employed and schedule around an employees child care needs. i.e. if you hire Becky to work days, then Becky has a baby and her mother watches her, but only in the evenings, you would have to give Becky evening hours. Even if that means that Mark, who you hired to work evenings, has to switch to the day shift.
FMLA requires that you give an employee a job back. It doesn’t require that you give them a job back that meets their parenting requirements.
(In Minnesota you are also required to let an employee use their own sick time to take care of an ill dependant, and give them time off (unpaid) to attend school events - like conferences, etc. However, you are not required to let an employee use their own sick time if their daycare arrangments fall though. Reliable daycare is like a reliable car.)
Well, it seems that California does seem to make more laws recently regarding the welfare of children, regardless what non-parents think - but I haven’t seen any protests by non-parent employees demanding equal rights as a response to California’s employment laws. Neither have I seen more people leaving California than entering it. There are more businesses leaving the state though. What an assholish state we are.
I don’t rely solely on my non-parent employees to cover for parent employees caring for their kids in need, but I expect everyone to pick up the slack instead. The chronic abusers of calling off (both parent and non-parent) are corrected by me, but are also recipients of peer pressure (from everyone else). That includes the single employee calling off on Monday from a weekend bender, FWIW. Dangerosa - The CFRA does contain provisions for a “modified schedule” (vague term, isn’t it?) which might include only working certain hours and certain days. Nobody wants to be sued to find out what “modified schedule” means, so accomodation usually takes place if the issue is forced by a parent attorney. Thankfully, I never get that far when I deal with my employees.
Here, reliable daycare and a reliable car are two different topics and handled completely different from hiring to firing, including unemployment benefits.
I don’t find that reasonable , either. But I also don’t find it reasonable to expect Becky, who was available to work 9-5 Monday to Friday, and was hired to work those hours, to fill in for Mark’s evenings when he’s out sick for two weeks, when Meg is available to work whatever hours are needed. And it doesn’t matter to me if Becky’s limited availability is because she’s a parent who who only has child care for those hours, because she’s going to school at night , because she races dirt-bikes on weekends or because she has a second job. If someone is hired with the understanding that they are available to work certain hours, then they shouldn’t be expected to work other hours. And if they are hired with the understanding that they will have to work some nights and weekends, well , then they will have to work some nights and weekends. Maybe not this particular night or weekend, if a trade off can be arranged, but some. If you are never able to work nights and weekends , you shouldn’t take a job that requires it. And if an employer can’t deal with employees with limited availabilty, for whatever reason, they shouldn’t hire them. Just tell everyone right from the beginning, “You might have to work any hours between 7 am and 11 pm 7 days a week. The schedule will change from week to week, and it might be changed on short notice” Might be difficult to find enough people (parents or nonparents) willing to work under those conditions, though. I’m getting the impression (and I could be wrong) that some people don’t believe that parents should be able to limit their availabilty at all, even at the point of hiring.
I used to work those sorts of jobs, and the question of who was going to work Saturday evenings really wasn’t a big deal. It was very simple. There was a group of people who worked during the day- 7am to 3 or 4 pm Mon- Fri. Those people never worked Sat or Sunday. There was another group that worked from 3 or 4-midnight Mon- Fri . They also never worked Sat or Sun. Then there was a third group which worked Sat, Sun and a day or two between 3-midnight Mon- Fri. If someone needed a particular day or evening off, they spoke to the manager before the schedule for the week was made. If the manager was hiring for a weekend/evening slot, he didn’t hire someone who was only available M-F days.
I know we’ve gone past this and the discussion has changed - and I know that for the most part, we were talking about lower-income jobs. But it’s still unfair to say “that would mean that for a woman to breastfeed regularly and for a long time, she would probably not be able to easily work a full-time job.” I’m sure it’s not possible for some moms, but certainly not for all moms. It’s very possible. Perhaps I’m an exception, but I don’t think so. Every full-time job I’ve ever had allowed for a lunch hour as well as two short breaks. My current job (I’m a librarian) is similar. I’ve been back at work for two months now and have easily worked my full-time job. Me and my trusty Pump-in-Style go into an empty conference room during each break and for part of my lunch hour. It’s not much fun, and it’s sometimes a huge hassle -but it’s not been difficult.
So, I know that full time work and breastfeeding may be near impossible for some moms, but it’s not fair to say that breastfeeding means you can’t work full time or that it’s only an option for the rich (which I only wish I were) or the women who don’t have to work.
Meg shouldn’t have to lose hours to La Tonya - La Tonya shouldn’t be penalized either, if those were the criteria under which she was hired. If Walmart CHOSE to hire La Tonya knowing that those were the hours she was available then it seems it’s WalMart at fault here and not Meg OR La Tonya and both their schedules should be accomodated. At that point it doesn’t matter who has or hasn’t got children and who is/isn’t the more flexible employee. If, when she was hired, La Tonya was available for any hours and that’s changed - then I would agree that perhaps it’s the more flexible employee who you’d want to keep.
So you pumped at work and bottlefed with breast milk? Did you also breastfeed too?
From all the stuff I have read in breastfeeding threads here, many women 1) have trouble keeping up their flow with breast pumps or don’t get enough milk with pumps and 2) their babies either won’t accept the bottle after becoming used to the breast or won’t accept the breast after becoming used to the bottle, or they will only do one and won’t switch back and forth between both.
Those were the reasons I said it might be difficult to work full time and keep up breastfeeding. Sounds like you were lucky and everything worked well for you. But from other comments here on the board about breastfeeding, it sounds like it’s been pretty hard for a lot of women.
I imagine it would be a lot easier if the mother started offering bottles of expressed milk early on, well before she returned to work, to get the baby used to the idea.
