posted
I'm childless by choice, but I've never felt that I was used/abused because of that. Maybe I'm just lucky.
-------------------- Leashes?! We don't need no stinking leashes!! Posts: 4771 | From: The Berkeley of the East Coast: Montgomery County MD | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hubert Cumberdale: [QUOTE]I've never actually considered maternity leave a vacation that I envied (I doubt many women just spend that time hanging around having fun) but I think it's unfair to the fathers. It's not fair that the fathers can't get as much time off as the mothers. Although, having a baby is an elective event and the time off, while not a vacation, is self centered, even if it is spent caring for the baby, it's for a baby you chose to have. When I got a puppy earlier this year I would have loved to take a week or two off to help him adjust to his new home but I didn't want to take vacation time and there's no "puppy leave" where I work. I'm not comparing babies to puppies, just that both cases are things people choose to do, they're not forced on anyone.
My ex DID take paternity leave - of course during that time he sat on his a** and expected me to wait on both him and the baby while doing the "caesarean shuffle", but that's a whole different rant.
Where are these employers(in the U.S.) that offer maternity leave but not paternity leave, and that pay for maternity leave above and beyond earned sick leave?
Those who are reading this thread: what kind of benefits does your employer offer in this regard? I've worked for a number of employers but generally it has been much more evenhanded than some people are indicating here.
My current employer offers no benefits. If someone is pregnant they can take as much time off as they want but they don't get paid.
Because we are a child advocacy center we are pretty militant about parents having the time they need for their children, so nobody minds filling in during that time.
Edited to fix QUOTE. Edited again because I meant quote, not link.
-------------------- "But I'm adding this to my reasons why I never really liked really good looking men much. Sheesh, what good is good looking if you have to stuff a sock in his mouth." - Sara at home NFBSK, IIRC and other mysterious Snopester language Posts: 851 | From: Indiana | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wanderwoman: Where are these employers(in the U.S.) that offer maternity leave but not paternity leave, and that pay for maternity leave above and beyond earned sick leave?
All of my employers and my wife's employers (totally 6 of them between us) have provided atleast 3 weeks paid maternity leave and 6 weeks Short term disability to mothers after that. Fathers get 3 days. It's the same with all my friends (more or less). Some employers allow fathers to take 3 weeks paternity leave, but they don't qualify for Short Term Disability, of course.
I thought that was pretty much the standard in the US. Which employers are you referring to wanderwoman?
-------------------- Nico Sasha In between my father's fields;And the citadels of the rule; Lies a no-man's land which I must cross; To find my stolen jewel. Posts: 4912 | From: VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mad Jay, are you not covered under FMLA by your employer?
And yeah, no disability pay for guys.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
FMLA only requires unpaid leave. So employers can give paid maternity but not paid paternity. As long as they allow unpaid leave, FMLA isn't violated.
pinqy
-------------------- Don't Forget! Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming! Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, pinqy, I understand that. I read MadJay's post to say that fathers only get three days' leave period. Which is why I asked the question.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Llewtrah: Why should those of us who are child-free constantly be discriminated against? We cover the planned and unplanned absences of our child-encumbered colleagues. We take up the slack for when they need time off or shorter hours. Maybe we should be rewarded with some sort of loyalty bonus.
Oh you are, with more frequent and larger pay increases. Those who chose to have kids are often discriminated against BECAUSE they might go off and have a kid (or DID go off and have a kid).
That's rot and rubbish. In the UK, we are not rewarded by more frequent and larger pay increases for remaining childfree. Discrimination in that fashion is not permitted. My pay rises are no more frequent than those of the child-encumbered women in the company. The magnitude of the rise is not related to needing/not needing maternity leave. Industrial tribunals make bosses scared to dismiss a pregnant woman - she could be fiddling the books, but she'll just claim she was dismissed due to being pregnant.
My mother, and her mother before her (and dad's mother) worked until they had kids. Then they cared for the kids for a number of years instead of farming them out to a creche at the age of a few months. Nowadays I see the mothers shucking babies like peas then they're back in work when the babies are a few months old. Some babies are in daycare aged only a few weeks. If the women can't afford to stay home being mothers for at least a few years and develop a maternal bond then they obviously can't afford to keep having kids (or if she's main breadwinner, the father should take on the parental duties for the first several years). Instead they want to have their cake and eat it - have babies, but not interrupt their careers with the inconvenience of infants.
For many years I covered other people's shifts and child-related days off (I worked in a small dept). I had to arrange my holidays around theirs because when requesting hols at certain times, preference was given to those with children who had to take their hols during the school breaks. I got no extra pay for being inconvenienced (and it was inconvenient as my ex wanted to visit his extended family during school hols). It's okay up to a point, but after that people are taking to p*ss by assuming the childfree will always be accommodating.
posted
Yup, what pinqy said. FMLA doesn't guarantee paid leave. Wanderwoman was referring to "pay for maternity leave above and beyond earned sick leave" Most companies that me and my wife have worked with go above and beyond what FMLA asks for and provide paid maternity leave and disability. I thought that was the standard in the US.
ETA:
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdr: Yes, pinqy, I understand that. I read MadJay's post to say that fathers only get three days' leave period. Which is why I asked the question.
Ahh!! I see what you are saying. I should have said 3 days paid leave. I can take more unpaid leave or use up my Paid Time Off.
-------------------- Nico Sasha In between my father's fields;And the citadels of the rule; Lies a no-man's land which I must cross; To find my stolen jewel. Posts: 4912 | From: VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BeachLife: How do child free people feel about getting old and living in a world run by those same children that some of them seem to hold so much contempt for?
I plan to live in a world run by adults, not children.
Me too. But where do the adults come from -- test tubes?
The following is a general comment, not directed specifically at Cervus or anyone else:
I get that some people just don't like kids, and that's their business, and I don't expect to change them. But some perspective doesn't seem too much to ask.
Children are young humans. They are the source of the next crop of adults. Don't like 'em? Fine. Don't have any, and don't spend time with them. But the fact is, the way they are treated as children may someday affect society at large, including you, when those children become adults.
Thank you for making my point much better than I could.
If nobody had any kids we would all be screwed in are old age, if not long before that. Like it or not, having kids is necesary for for the community, even for the childless out there. With that in mind, as a society it's not too much to ask to let a parent take a little time off for the birth.
I agree, in principle. But I also see nothing wrong with someone taking time off to pursue education either. Somehow doing the latter is seen as "selfish" even though society is likely to benefit from a more educated workforce.
I am a childless person, by choice. Having said that, I like children.
I do find it a little harder to take, however, as with the case of the last Memorial Day weekend. My air conditioner had broken and I needed to fix it. I asked for the Thursday and Friday before off. Another person asked for those two days and had taken Tuesday off to care for a sick child. I ended up having 1/2 a day off because "someone needed to be here". I'm sorry. I'm a single woman who needs more time to figure out how to do these things, as this was the "domain" of my exH. I do not have the money to pay someone else to do them. I do not see how a cow-orkers promise to her kids, made before she asked for time off, was more important than me being able to get a good night's sleep at night.
On paper, we get the same amount of vacation. In fact, I am losing vacation (and thus compensation) because parental requests take priority. This does piss me off from time to time.
-------------------- There are people who drive really nice cars who feel that [those] cars won't be as special if other people drive them too. Where I come from, we call those people "selfish self-satisfied gits." -Chloe Posts: 6995 | From: New Mexico | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
TGirl, I don't think the situation you're describing is fair either. Personally, I don't make promises to DD until I know I can keep them.
quote:Originally posted by Llewtrah: It's okay up to a point, but after that people are taking to p*ss by assuming the childfree will always be accommodating.
I agree that's wrong. I don't agree, however, that all parents do that.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mad Jay: Most companies that me and my wife have worked with go above and beyond what FMLA asks for and provide paid maternity leave and disability. I thought that was the standard in the US.
Jay, when I had the Kitten I was given a maximum of eight weeks unpaid leave. Had I not returned to work on the 41st business day, I'd have been fired immediately.
This was post-FMLA, and the company I worked for was large enough to be covered (it doesn't apply to businesses with fewer than 50 employees), but you have to have been with the employer for at least a year for FMLA to apply, and I was shy 24 days. Not that I could have afforded to stay out another four weeks without pay anyway.
The trickiest part for me was that my health insurance premiums were deducted from my paychecks -- no paychecks meant no premiums. My employer required that I pay those eight weeks of premiums, in cash, in advance.
Not atypical, from what I understand. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, almost 30% of women receive no pay whatsoever during maternity leave:
quote:Because paid maternity leave is not readily available from most employers, women usually use a combination of short-term disability, sick leave, vacation, and personal days in order to have some portion of their maternity leave paid. However, among women who reported taking maternity leave for their last pregnancy, 29.7 percent did not have any portion of their maternity leave paid.
30 percent of women take no maternity leave at all. cite
Because I hadn't been at my job long enough, I had very little accumulated sick leave. What few days I did have were doled out a few hours at a time to cover my pre-natal doctor appointments.
Four Kitties
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
TG, I agree with you in that I do not believe an employer should set priorities as you've described. I think the only priority should be a clear first come, first served policy. Beyond that nobody should be in a place to decide what is a 'better' reason for taking time off.
As a manager myself, I would rather not know why my people are taking time off. It's none of my business and not relevent to whether it will be or approved or not.
Beach...not that I can ever remember turning someone down...Life!
quote:Originally posted by Mad Jay: Most companies that me and my wife have worked with go above and beyond what FMLA asks for and provide paid maternity leave and disability. I thought that was the standard in the US.
Jay, when I had the Kitten I was given a maximum of eight weeks unpaid leave. Had I not returned to work on the 41st business day, I'd have been fired immediately.
Those bastards!! My previous employer was Eastman kodak, and one of my co-workers had taken time off after she had a kid. They held her position for a year. A whole year!! She wasn't getting paid but she could come back to the job if she wanted to.
quote:
This was post-FMLA, and the company I worked for was large enough to be covered (it doesn't apply to businesses with fewer than 50 employees), but you have to have been with the employer for at least a year for FMLA to apply, and I was shy 24 days. Not that I could have afforded to stay out another four weeks without pay anyway.
The trickiest part for me was that my health insurance premiums were deducted from my paychecks -- no paychecks meant no premiums. My employer required that I pay those eight weeks of premiums, in cash, in advance.
Not atypical, from what I understand. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, almost 30% of women receive no pay whatsoever during maternity leave:
quote:Because paid maternity leave is not readily available from most employers, women usually use a combination of short-term disability, sick leave, vacation, and personal days in order to have some portion of their maternity leave paid. However, among women who reported taking maternity leave for their last pregnancy, 29.7 percent did not have any portion of their maternity leave paid.
30 percent of women take no maternity leave at all. cite
I should have said that most of the employers that I know about have more than 50 employees, and generally speaking, the larger the company the bigger the benifits. Even the smaller companies provide similar benifits, but all those smaller companies are in software, where it is hard to find good talent, and employers try to retain as many people as possible, or maybe it's the DC area.
-------------------- Nico Sasha In between my father's fields;And the citadels of the rule; Lies a no-man's land which I must cross; To find my stolen jewel. Posts: 4912 | From: VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mad Jay: I should have said that most of the employers that I know about have more than 50 employees, and generally speaking, the larger the company the bigger the benifits. Even the smaller companies provide similar benifits, but all those smaller companies are in software, where it is hard to find good talent, and employers try to retain as many people as possible, or maybe it's the DC area.
Let's see: since graduating from college, I've worked for a medical group, a national bank, a local municipality, a big-box home improvement store, a national pizza chain, a software company, and a large architectural firm. That's a pretty wide variation in industries, nu? All but the software company had well over 50 employees, and none had paid maternity leave.
ETA: Short-term disability insurance could usually be purchased through my employers: it typically paid 60% of regular salary and didn't kick in for 90 days, which made it useless for maternity leave.
Count yourself lucky.
Four Kitties
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wanderwoman: Where are these employers(in the U.S.) that offer maternity leave but not paternity leave, and that pay for maternity leave above and beyond earned sick leave?
All of my employers and my wife's employers (totally 6 of them between us) have provided atleast 3 weeks paid maternity leave and 6 weeks Short term disability to mothers after that. Fathers get 3 days. It's the same with all my friends (more or less). Some employers allow fathers to take 3 weeks paternity leave, but they don't qualify for Short Term Disability, of course.
I thought that was pretty much the standard in the US. Which employers are you referring to wanderwoman?
I have usually worked for small organizations or businesses, and there was no leave other than what everyone accumulated as sick leave or vacation time. Maybe it's the standard in bigger corporations - I don't have any experience with those so I don't know.
The place I worked when I had my younger son gave a certain amount of leave time with each paycheck. The place was shut down for a week in the summer and a week at Christmas, and there was enough leave granted to cover those two weeks plus additional vacation time. The place didn't pay much but was generous with paid leave, maybe because the work was with people with developmental disabilities and they knew it was important to avoid burnout.
Aside from the two set weeks, leave could be taken for any reason - it was not necessary to personally be sick to take sick leave.
-------------------- "But I'm adding this to my reasons why I never really liked really good looking men much. Sheesh, what good is good looking if you have to stuff a sock in his mouth." - Sara at home NFBSK, IIRC and other mysterious Snopester language Posts: 851 | From: Indiana | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christie: The parent of a newborn gets a few months paid maternity leave (if they are lucky) and this is vastly unfair to childless people now?...
Are the childless also crying into their beer at the costs parents with children have to shoulder that they do not? Are they moaning to their friends about how they will never have to pay for someone else's university education? Braces? Food to feed an army (when they only have one teenage son)?
Ah yes the deliberately childless among us truly suffer through life when you compare, financially, that they didn't get 3 months of maternity leave once or twice in their lives, with the real cost of raising children. How do they manage to carry on under such a crushing burden of unfairness?
I hope you're addressing Llwetrah or the child-free people quoted in the article. They certainly don't speak for all of us. I have no complaints about my lifestyle, I have no problem covering other people's shifts occasionally, and I am quite grateful that I will never have responsibilities towards a kid. It's something I could never do.
It makes no difference to me if someone takes maternity or paternity leave. It makes no difference to me if someone with a family gets a few more "benefits" than I do. If I'm available I often volunteer to cover someone's shift; it's more money in my pocket. (If I were a salaried employee my attitude might be different though.)
The only time I'd complain is if a coworker brought his/her kids into work and expected us to look after them. I'll do any number of jobs, but I'm not a babysitter.
Oh absolutely Cervus! I never got paid maternity leave with either of my children but I certainly don't begrudge it to those that were able to have that option.
Actually with the exception of a very few moaning Minnies (and they almost always seem to be Minnies for some reason) I've never really met any childless person who begrudged maternity/paternity leave -- met more than one who begrudged (and rightfully so) those with children who seem to think that just because they have children the whole office has to revolve around their schedules -- but that's not quite the same thing.
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm childless and I don't begrudge parents their leave or the tax benefits they get. That said, if childless people at a particular workplace are having to take up the slack or make sacrifices* for the parents, I don't think it would be discriminatory for them to receive additional compensation for that when appropriate. I say "when appropriate" because someone has pointed out that hourly employees do get compensated -- if they work more to cover for a parent, they get paid more. Salaried people don't.
* Something I've seen a number of times is that childless single people are often expected to give up "choice" vacation time so parents can spend some holiday or another with their kids. The assumption seems to be that, since I'm childless and single, I won't mind being the one who has to to come in the day after Thanskgiving (or whatever) so Bob the parent can have a long weekend with the kids.
Posts: 716 | From: San Antonio, TX | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, parents- especially women- tend to be "mommy tracked" by companies, forced to choose between working long hours, traveling out of town and such, or being home* and tending to their children and staying at lower levels at their jobs. Single, child free women tend to get paid more and get better promotions than do women with children.
*ETA- instead of "being home" I should have said "working fewer hours, traveling less, etc".
Posts: 1596 | From: Illinois | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MaxKaladin: * Something I've seen a number of times is that childless single people are often expected to give up "choice" vacation time so parents can spend some holiday or another with their kids. The assumption seems to be that, since I'm childless and single, I won't mind being the one who has to to come in the day after Thanskgiving (or whatever) so Bob the parent can have a long weekend with the kids.
On the other hand one of the perks of being childless (or having kids who are grown like me) is that your vacations aren't ruled by the school calendar. I really enjoy being able to take advantage of cheaper fares and cheaper accomodations by taking holidays off-peak rather than squeezing two weeks into the height of the summer to that I had to pay for two less weeks of summer camp.
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here in Canada things are different, with government-sponsored parental leave which can be split between father and mother, for up to 12 months. During this time, your job is protected, and you are paid through unemployment benefits.
One of my best friends (male), and one of my co-workers (also male) have taken advantage of this, getting about half of the parental leave.
At least here, with it being government-sponsored, it is a statement that society as a whole views the development of all children as an important thing. Rather like mandatory public education, vaccinations, social assistance, and so on. I don't have a problem with it, but some people do.
The biggest problem with the "child-free" vs. "parent" situations are not formal policies like this, but rather, the informal ones that TGirl describes. It is not exclusive to women - I work in a company with 17 employees, one of them female, and a grandmother at that. At least three of my male co-workers (with school-aged children) arrive late and/or leave early to facilitate taking their kids to school, pick them up, watch their sporting competitions, etc. I am not talking about your exceptional "emergency", but just the mundane stuff. One guy is late *every day* because his kids are slow getting ready in the morning, and he has to drive them to school.
Being single and childless, I don't have that handy excuse. Or at least my excuse doesn't appear to have the same validity. If I leave work early because I have the furnace repairman coming, it is selfish. If I leave to pick my kids up from school, I am selfless. However, both are obligations and should be treated equally.
-------------------- "The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Llewtrah: Industrial tribunals make bosses scared to dismiss a pregnant woman - she could be fiddling the books, but she'll just claim she was dismissed due to being pregnant.
That really must have changed in the 6 years since I was a Unison shop steward. One of the parts of the company I worked for sacked 2 staff members, 1 male and 1 female for fiddling the time clocks for themselves and select friends.
Come the IT they call discrimination. She claims she's pregnant, he claims due to being Asian.
The company has sufficient proof that the dismissal was due to unprofessional practices, wriiten warnings , the actual paper trail etc that both claims were thrown out.
Oh and not all of us who place the children into day care do it to persue their own self satisfaction. My children HAVE to go to a French school. I cannot teach them . It would be almost akin to abuse to place them into the school system unable to communicate.
-------------------- Focus On The Family- An opinion group who think more about Gay Sex than gay people do- Rick Mercer Posts: 590 | From: Rawdon, Quebec | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christie: On the other hand one of the perks of being childless (or having kids who are grown like me) is that your vacations aren't ruled by the school calendar. I really enjoy being able to take advantage of cheaper fares and cheaper accomodations by taking holidays off-peak rather than squeezing two weeks into the height of the summer to that I had to pay for two less weeks of summer camp.
Well, that assumes that the thing you want vacation for can be done any time. Perhaps I want to take that time at Thanksgiving to go spend the holidays with my family. Perhaps I want to do something else that's seasonal. That said, it is true that a lot of the time being single and childless means we can do things "off peak" with all the advantages thereof.
Posts: 716 | From: San Antonio, TX | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm most dissapointed. Nobodies said "Won't somebody pleeease think of the children?!?!"
My view on family friendly governments? Pisses me off frankly.
Every single budget under Gordon Brown has increased the cost of living to singles whilst giving more hand outs (child bonds being the most irritating example to me) to families.
Just because I don't plan to have kids doesn't make less of a person. Having children is a choice that's increasingly easy with legistlation now. People get huge amount of joy from their kids.
As a bitter and twisted single, I get lots of misery from kids when I'm out and about, particulary in fast food and the cinema. However one of the things that has really pissed me off was when I went about claiming jobseekers. After spending a lot longer than I was expecting getting that key first job at an office, my money ran out and I had to claim jobseekers.
First Question in regards to jobseekers: do you have children? If you answer no and aren't disabled. You get no benefits, tax break, council tax reductions other than standard jobseekers. No wonder there so many people who live on their own and lose their jobs are forced to live on the streets if they're made to live on less than £50 a month...
Posts: 824 | From: England | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me just say this: I am childless, plan to stay that way and adore and spoil my friends children absolutely rotten and love it.
That being said, I have had some absolutely lousy experiences with bad parents at work. Lucky for me, I'm a real hardass who doesn't care how much you whine. I took the last spot for the day after Thanksgiving off and now you can't spend it with your kid? Oh well, should have thought about that earlier. I got the day shift with Saturdays off that you wanted and you think you "deserve" because you decided to breed. Tough lucky, honey, I got seniority. You want to send the supervisor my way to "talk to me about negotiating a compromise" on any of the above. I don't care. Here's a simple rule for you: Your children are not my concern, they are yours. I am not rearranging my life to make it easier on you.
Maybe this rather cynical view (and I know it's not all, or even the majority of parents that act like this) comes from the fact that my job seems to be 99% full of single ghetto-fab women with four or five kids from four or five different daddies. It's like a Maury Povich wonderland.
-------------------- Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference. "Divorce is not caused because 50% of marriages end in gayness." - Jon Stewart my space on myspace--now showing "80's Video Of The Week" Posts: 278 | From: Bel Air, MD | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sue Bee: Single, child free women tend to get paid more and get better promotions than do women with children.
I would disagree with this; I think it depends on your field and your employer.
I also realize that the jobs I've worked have been comprised mainly of young, single people. At my last job, the number of college students with school schedules that needed to be accomodated was far greater than the number of employees with children. Students got a fixed schedule and everyone else's shifts had to be scheduled around theirs. Only a few people complained, but they were the type of personalities that complained about everything.
-------------------- "There is no constitutional right to sleep with endangered reptiles." -- Carl Hiaasen Won't somebody please think of the adults! Posts: 8254 | From: Florida | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The kind of people who use their kids to be manipulative at work will also usually be the kind of people who will use *anything* to try to get the upper hand. Right now it's their kids, eventually it will be their health or the health of an SO or it will be repair crises with their house or unexpected company dropping in, deaths in the extended family and so on and so on. They don't act this way because they are parents, they act this way because they are selfish people with entitlement issues.
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually don't see any discrimination as far as FMLA is concerned. It guarantees up to 12 weeks leave to covered employees for the birth or adoption of a child, or to care for an immediate family member who is ill, or for the worker's own illness.
I see the birth/adoption piece as just a special case of caring for an immediate family member part.
All covered workers have the same right.
As far as employers who give paid leave, I'd be curious how they handle the comparable circumstances -- leave for persons with non-pregnancy-related short term disability or illness, and leave to care for other relatives.
posted
Its interesting that there's often reference to the employers obligations under relevant national legislation in this thread but very little to good management.
It seems to me that a lot of the issues that those who are childless have with family friendly leave policies is in the implementation of those policies which leaves them carrying extra loads or being expected to take leave at particular times. This is a managerial issue. An effective manager works with their team to negotiate this.
When I was a manager I had a responsibility to ensure that people on leave were covered by backfill appropriately and, if backfill wasn't available, to ensure that work was prioritised in a way so as not to overload the staff remaining on duty and to ensure that work gets done. Surely this is a manager's job?
It's actually quite a good racket for managers. If I let the childless and childfull battle it out and get angry at each other in regard to the consequences of different leave I don't have to do anything about it myself.
I would also add that I have heard colleagues whinge about having to cover other staff members maternity leave, paternity leave,annual leave, sick leave, study leave, armed forces reserve leave, flextime, lunchtime, start times, finish times and bereavement leave. Generally they are the same staff members who are the first to claim their rights for the same leave when they want it.
Dropbear
-------------------- " The villagers had said justice had been done, and she'd lost patience and told them to go home, then, and pray to whatever gods they believed in that it was never done to them. -- (Terry Pratchett) Posts: 823 | From: Hobart, Tasmania | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've covered for folks who were out for other reasons: back surgery, hernia surgery, cancer treatment, gone to settle deceased parent's estate, etc. I covered them, they covered me for maternity leave. It all works out.
At my last job, employees could apply for a flex-time schedule. Some (like me) applied in order to accommodate child care schedules; others applied because of long commutes.
It's as Christie said -- people who are over-entitled will find reasons to be jerks, be it children or something else.
Four Kitties
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Four Kitties: At my last job, employees could apply for a flex-time schedule. Some (like me) applied in order to accommodate child care schedules; others applied because of long commutes.
It's as Christie said -- people who are over-entitled will find reasons to be jerks, be it children or something else.
Four Kitties
My last job I worked at both before and after I had DD1 The staff worked flex time. As long as we were clocked in for 36 hours you could attend within a certain time frame.
Start time was 07.00-10.00 . Lunch was 12.00-14.30 min of 30 mins in that time. Finish time was 16.00-18.30.
Before DD was born I had no schedule. I worked as I needed to finish what I was doing. Normally in the set 36 hr/week range which were our scheduled hours. After DD was born , I arranged to come in early(DH dropped DD off at day care) I was in at 07.00 most days and left at 16.00 taking 30 mins lunch.I picked DD up after work.
Some of my colleges never managed to keep their set hours/week. A couple of them (male and female alike) had truoble on Monday mornings due to ill-health. Ocansionally on BH weekends Friday was a day to suffer food posioning as standard.
Every single time I had to take off for DD, except for the maternity benefits I was entitled to as per company policy, was as leave.
I always felt I delt fairly to my employer. However i felt thet I was still treated by the single members of staff differently as my male collegue who had a 16 yr old daughter. He was allowed to take time off in school holidays as he had a child at school . My day care needs were undermined as I was employing some-one other than my spouce to care for DD.
-------------------- Focus On The Family- An opinion group who think more about Gay Sex than gay people do- Rick Mercer Posts: 590 | From: Rawdon, Quebec | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TurquoiseGirl: I agree, in principle. But I also see nothing wrong with someone taking time off to pursue education either. Somehow doing the latter is seen as "selfish" even though society is likely to benefit from a more educated workforce.
I don't see anything "wrong" or "selfish" about taking time off to pursue education either (and don't know anyone that does)- but the issue is time off (paid or unpaid). If an employer gives time off for educational pursuits (either through a leave of absence or just working around a class schedule - and these benefits are probably rare but not unheard of) - great! More power to 'em and their employees.
quote:I do find it a little harder to take, however, as with the case of the last Memorial Day weekend. My air conditioner had broken and I needed to fix it. I asked for the Thursday and Friday before off. Another person asked for those two days and had taken Tuesday off to care for a sick child. I ended up having 1/2 a day off because "someone needed to be here". I'm sorry. I'm a single woman who needs more time to figure out how to do these things, as this was the "domain" of my exH. I do not have the money to pay someone else to do them. I do not see how a cow-orkers promise to her kids, made before she asked for time off, was more important than me being able to get a good night's sleep at night.
On paper, we get the same amount of vacation. In fact, I am losing vacation (and thus compensation) because parental requests take priority. This does piss me off from time to time.
That is frustrating (and I've been on both sides of it). However, my employer gives the same number of vacation days, sick days, personal days, and major medical leave to everyone. If more than one person in a department wants to take time off at the same time, and it can't be worked out any other way, seniority wins.
Posts: 482 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
At our place, vacations/days off/etc are handled on a first-come, first-served basis, and depending on how things worked out the previous year. For example, I hate hate hate working Christmas week. So I ask for it as one of my vacations. Last year I got it, so this year I don't. If something comes up that has to be dealt with, like TGirl's air conditioner, my supervisors work very hard to accommodate the person. One co-worker (who is childless but very religious) never works Sunday, while some folks with children do.
It's a fairly large company which might make a difference. But in that respect I feel pretty lucky. We have three days for bereavement leave, but I got the whole week with no hassles at all when Dad died in June.
-------------------- "No Biblical hell could ever be worse than the state of perpetual inconsequence." Beatrice in Dangerous Beauty Posts: 1816 | From: Cayuga County, NY | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christie: The kind of people who use their kids to be manipulative at work will also usually be the kind of people who will use *anything* to try to get the upper hand. Right now it's their kids, eventually it will be their health or the health of an SO or it will be repair crises with their house or unexpected company dropping in, deaths in the extended family and so on and so on. They don't act this way because they are parents, they act this way because they are selfish people with entitlement issues.
Right on Christie! This is exactly the same thing.
One of my co-workers is constantly having a crisis with his rental property. It's a legal triplex and he lives in one of the units. If it isn't the furnace, it's the appliances, or the wireless internet he provides "free" for his tenants.
He's also 26, single, childless, and up until six months ago, he lived with his parents. This guy thinks nothing of leaving in the middle of the day because of his sense of responsibility to his tenants.
He'll eventually be cured of this - I refuse to take him as my "assistant" on any field work, and he not only misses out on experience, but overtime pay. It's no surprise to anyone here what our responsibilities are, and since a labourer is worthy of his hire, they also have obligations.
I'm amazed I forgot about young, stupid co-worker. I can only imagine how bad he would be if he had kids.
-------------------- "The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cervus nippon: I hope you're addressing Llwetrah or the child-free people quoted in the article. They certainly don't speak for all of us. I have no complaints about my lifestyle, I have no problem covering other people's shifts occasionally, and I am quite grateful that I will never have responsibilities towards a kid. It's something I could never do.
It makes no difference to me if someone takes maternity or paternity leave. It makes no difference to me if someone with a family gets a few more "benefits" than I do. If I'm available I often volunteer to cover someone's shift; it's more money in my pocket. (If I were a salaried employee my attitude might be different though.)
The only time I'd complain is if a coworker brought his/her kids into work and expected us to look after them. I'll do any number of jobs, but I'm not a babysitter.
I was really surprised at the maturity and decency in your post, considering that it was about children. However, throwing in the part about not being a babysitter was unnecessary and just another nod toward your contempt for children- of which we all are quite aware.
quote:Originally posted by Llewtrah: In days past, there was a choice - breed or work. Nowadays the kids are shcked like peas, dispatched to day-care and the mother back at work. It devalues children and is unfair on employers.
Calling it "breeding" is nothing but derogatory and it seriously pisses people off. I think it has been discussed before many times on this board how people feel about that. As for you observation about children being "shucked like peas"- get a grip and take a look at the real world- it simply is not true.
quote:Originally posted by Bored and Dangerous: See, I have a problem with this attitude. Children are important, and they should be valued and cared for, but they shouldn't be your whole damned life... I hate it how it has to be an all-or-nothing thing with mothers now.
It is pretty much like any other choice in life, people have the right to make that decision themselves. My kids are my life, and I am not suffering any because of it.
-------------------- "My Very Educated Mother Just Said Uh-oh! No...Pluto..."~ Steven Colbert Posts: 3256 | From: Somewhere in Ohio | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Llewtrah: I don't like children, but maybe if they were valued more (not just shunted off to daycare like an inconvenience so mom can get on with her career) and seen as a privilege and not a right, there would be fewer of them and better behaved (and my antipathy would be less).
Because of your country's below-replacment birth rate, there won't be enough working age people to fund your government benefits in your old ago. Single people from Western Europe should be fanatical for pro-natalist policies, shunting or no shunting (and, hey, my kids spent time in day care too). At least the people with kids can hope to have them care for them in their old age. You are from the class of persons who really will benefit from more childbearing.
Llewtrah, your views are, like, sooo 20th century
-------------------- "Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?" Julius Lester Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
