General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould child free people have to accommodate people with kids in the workplace?
Last edited Thu Sep 14, 2023, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)
We are in the grips of a full blown workplace drama over this. Since we have hired a number of new workers without kids who aren't willing to give up their time off or take on extra work to give flex time to workers with kids, things have really come to a head, even to the point of some yelling and there is a lot of tension. I'm lucky, I'm old and grumpy so no one bothers me. My boss tends to side with the people who have families but it was never a problem before. Should child free workers be expected to cover for those with families? If so how far should this extend? I might wind up being in the wildly inappropriate position of peacemaker just to get them all to shut up.
Edit
I stepped away for a minute and wasn't expecting all this interest. I appreciate all the great responses, plenty of good opinions and thoughts.
There is never a problem with emergencies in those cases people are usually gone in 5 minutes.
I don't care what the solution is or if people are happy as long as they are quiet.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
underpants
(196,494 posts)Company policy should set what is the acceptable age that a person can work at home AND care for the child. Ours it set at 13 - snow day? Take time off you can’t do both. Get home from school? You can’t do both.
Now the policy could NOT set an age limit and if that’s the case so be it.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)No employer has the right to do anything like that.
tblue37
(68,436 posts)the accommodating, not co-workers.
enough
(13,759 posts)responsibility on employees, one more time.
TexasBushwhacker
(21,202 posts)It's the employer's responsibility to have contingency plans to cover work in emergencies. If the "plan" is to dump more work on child free employees, then those employees should be duly compensated. That means OT at time and a half (double for weekends and holidays). The child free worker should also have the right to say NO.
The working parents should only get as much PTO as they have accumulated. If "work from home" is an option for parents, it should be an option for everyone.
Fullduplexxx
(8,626 posts)They are already getting their " extra" ]pay in that they don't have to pay for their own kids but they will gladly take the benefits that come from others doing the sacrifice of having kids
ret5hd
(22,502 posts)from others not having kids.
Less pollution, fewer neglected kids due to unwilling parents, fewer children using school dollars, fewer minivans on the road, etc.
Just sayin’ there are benefits to others from both sides. Employers need to step up. Not coworkers.
TexasBushwhacker
(21,202 posts)The "extra pay" comes from the employer, not the employee with children.
Being single and childless, I have always paid a higher rate of income taxes because I don't have the deductions that come with having children. I'm fine with that. I went to public schools growing up and taxpayers other than my parents helped to pay for those schools. When I was disabled and living on $1150 a month, I wasn't eligible for SNAP because I didn't have children. When I eased back into working, I was not eligible for EITC because I didn't have children. Even though I would qualify income wise, I cannot get a subsidized mortgage because I don't have any dependents.
I'm okay with ALL OF THAT, but if I have to work OT for whatever reason, I expect to be paid for it
obamanut2012
(29,369 posts)lolololololol
The world has benefited more by me not having kids.
Come on, man. I cannot believe you actually believe this. lololol
treestar
(82,383 posts)need time for a social life to find partners so they can create more of their own beneficial people to add to the world?
msfiddlestix
(8,178 posts)
No thanks.
kcr
(15,522 posts)Then it shouldn't matter why they're taking the time off. If an employer is giving preference to parents with kids, then it's the employer in the wrong. Not the workers with parents. If a childfree worker is being targeted in this way, their beef is with their employer. Not workers with kids.
I've worked while having kids and before I had kids, and it is way easier without kids. That doesn't mean employers should give parents preference, but I just sense that a lot of the outrage is due to child free people thinking parents get all the breaks in life, when it is quite the opposite. Especially mothers.
NowISeetheLight
(4,002 posts)I always worked holidays years ago because I was single and had no kids. I didn't usually mind because they'd pay extra. Nowadays though even time and a half on holidays isn't a given.
we can do it
(13,024 posts)Response to we can do it (Reply #5)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Aristus
(72,187 posts)One the one hand, corporations have made it almost impossible for workers with families to be able to have a fulfilling life outside of the workplace, in which parents can spend more time with their children, playing, teaching, attending the requisite school and sports functions, etc. So an already stressful vocation, parenting, is made infinitely more stressful by greedy, soulless companies and employers.
On the other hand, when planning a family, prospective parents should take into account the hassles and inconveniences of both the workplace and of raising children, and arrange things accordingly.
A worker without children shouldn't have to give up their leisure time, to which they are just as entitled as workers with children.
Recycle_Guru
(2,973 posts)but that's just me. We live in a selfish "me-first" society. As an example, I personally HATE the commercials for cookies showing the mom hiding her private stash or the dad eating mcDonalds in the car before getting in the house so they can enjoy their selfish pleasures. It glorifies me-centered thinking.
Parents with children really only have those first 15 years with their kids filly spending time with them ---then quickly they are consumed with their social life, then college amd onto their own lives.
To quote the song "I believe the children are our future".
Happy Hoosier
(9,535 posts)kcr
(15,522 posts)Though I'll admit to occasionally some hiding treats. Otherwise, I wouldn't get any.
Recycle_Guru
(2,973 posts)but there's a reason it's called "guilty pleasure" 🤣
hlthe2b
(113,963 posts)ret5hd
(22,502 posts)The company needs to pick up the slack…thru more hiring, raising pay for extra duties, etc.
Recycle_Guru
(2,973 posts)through automation of more and more functions, companies are enjoying untold benefits of increased productivity which is shared up and down the supply chain. Add to that the movement of labor intensive jobs to cheaper overseas locations amd the ownership class is reaping all the economic benefits.
obnoxiousdrunk
(3,115 posts)
Johonny
(26,178 posts)Pretty much agree.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)
Bettie
(19,704 posts)it sounds as if no one should ever hire people with kids.
It's cool though, since I'm also hearing that people without kids never get sick or have emergencies that would require someone to cover for them.
hlthe2b
(113,963 posts)colleagues when you can, but that must be a two-way street. Those with children likewise need to accommodate when possible--especially in emergent situations or serious family needs.
stopdiggin
(15,463 posts)Not at all what is being said, here at least.
sarisataka
(22,695 posts)Everything for kids, parents, maternity leave and care-
until it comes to personally supporting it.
Before I had kids I willing took holiday shifts, we even donated PTO to a parent of a special needs child so they had more time available. Since becoming a parent I have always let coworkers (both childless and parents) who help me have special time with my kids how much I appreciate them. I return such consideration as often as I can.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)obamanut2012
(29,369 posts)
Maru Kitteh
(31,759 posts)head start on their big night out/date. I've never had to cover for a childless person who engaged in shenanigans like that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)by people with kids, who can also get sick or have non-kid emergencies.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Happy Hoosier
(9,535 posts)We need jobs to be more family friendly and to support work-life balance.
I am immensely greatful to my company and workmates for allowing me the time I needed when my daughter and wife needed me to take time off to support them.
This can be extended to other family issues.
Should people be required to accommodate coworkers who have deaths in the family? Should unmarried workers be required to accommodate a coworker with a sick spouse?
It's messy.
OTOH, Companies should make clear at hiring what is and is not expected in terms of accommodating personal issues of coworkers.
LeftInTX
(34,294 posts)The workplace in the OP, sounds like it's a bit of a mess. Something ain't right.
hlthe2b
(113,963 posts)thought if I needed help one day, I'd get it in return. Then my parents died three months apart and while I was able to get a colleague to relieve my ER shifts sufficient for the funerals, I was unable to take any extra days off afterward. In fact, I slept in scrubs at the hospital that my father was in for several weeks, going back and forth to my own for my shifts--stopping only to get clean clothes and a shower. Not one of these co-workers with kids offered to relieve me during that year of hell or so that I could meet in person with my father's team which by then included at least 8 different specialists who were poorly coordinating/communicating with each other. It was only those (without kids) who backed me up for the actual funerals and the day my dad cardiac-arrested for the third time.
I can't say I was not resentful over that. I always thought it was just the duty of those without kids to respond to at least the emergent needs of those with children and I was always considerate about Christmas holidays, but damn, not one of them thought to help me in reverse. Apparently, some think only kids count--not emergencies or the deaths of spouses or parents. 
Yeah, I'm a bit bitter--even decades later. I still try to help out, but I tell younger people who are single, not to put their own needs totally on the back burner. I don't deny that children are important and we as a community need to support them and their families. But, now I tell the single workers to help when they can but find some balance. Because of the thoughtlessness (and selfishness) of some with children in my time of need, I lost what I could never regain.
RobinA
(10,478 posts)that you accommodate at work if, and only if, you are doing it because you want to. My last straw was, diagnosed with breast cancer and with four months of accrued sick leave, I was told that for a two month absence I had to use up Family and Medical Leave time CONCURRENT WITH my rightfully earned sick leave or "we can post your job." The same employer told a colleague that she could only have one day off for the out of state death of her father. This was wrong, but the colleague never checked it out. I'm done.
Ms. Toad
(38,637 posts)Sick leave entitles you to pay when you need to be absent for medical reasons. Prior to FMLA, even if you had accumulated sick leave, you could be fired if taking all that leave inconveniences them.
FMLA protects your job (whether or not you have such leave and are entitled to be paid during your medical leave).
So yes, under the current law, they run simultaneously. If you happen to have sick leave, you get paid while you are out. And - for jobs where there is no sick leave, you still can't be fired for leaves covered by the FMLA.
And, even though it is a crappy business practice, FMLA does not force the employer to provide leave for funerals.
RobinA
(10,478 posts)how long we can have for funerals, so that much is written down, despite what my friend was wrongly told.
When they threatened to post my job when I was out sick unless I took concurrent FMLA and sick leave it struck me as an off-time grab, so I looked it up. It just didn't make sense to me to have to take two leaves, one that I had EARNED, at the same time. It seems that in the last minutes before passage of the FMLA, corps got together and asked Congress to add a provision that they were allowed to require people to take FMLA time concurrently with any accrued sick time. We all know what that was, it was an attempt to cut into the time people were entitled to take off when they needed it. And of course, Congress added it. Employers aren't required to do so, but when allowed to rip employees off to your advantage, why not do it? The blatant bad faith of a dick move like that combined with the fact that I had just been diagnosed with a possibly fatal disease, caused something to snap in my head. I actually felt something snap. Going forward they get nothing from me that I'm not contractually required to give. I've been working 43 years at various employers, all with the same death by a thousand cuts treatment of employees. Not.One.Thing.More.
Ms. Toad
(38,637 posts)One protects your right not to be fired, the other protects your right to be paid.
I'm sitting in the hospital room with my daughter, who receives zero paid time off. She will have to take FMLA -with only the right to retain her job, because she showed not get the added benefit you do - of being paid while she is hospitalized.
Jobs with better benefits shouldn't get double what my daughter gets: both job protection - and additional days share can take off as paid sick leave.
Personally, I think paid sick leave should be mandatory. But since it isn't, those who have better jobs should not complain because they merely get paid while they are ill, rather than getting paid AND getting extra time off.
(FWIW, I've taken FMLA three times - for both of my cancers, and for a double spiral fracture. All three times I used my sick leave so I was paid - and FMLA preserved my job for me.)
phylny
(8,818 posts)Ms. Toad
(38,637 posts)She has a rare chronic illness, coupled with a chronic one about which more is known. She has been relatively stable with the better known one for nearly 30 years, and seems to be having her first major incident ever, so it is a bit unsettling, largely because of how hospitals are structured these days (a hospitalist, who has almost certainly never heard of her rare illness, in charge of care - consulting with a specialist who has probably never treated her rare illness - and who is refusing to consult with my daughter's own specialist who has treated her for around a decade).
My daughter's specialist doesn't believe they have the right diagnosis, but can't do anything about it until she gets transferred to the campus where she practices.
the earned sick leave is job protection if I am sick. I'd be curious to see if any employer has ever successfully defended firing an employee who was using sick time for a doctor validated illness. But we obviously look at this very differently. The fact that Congress was asked by employers to insert the concurrency language says to me that the employers were aware of the opportunity for a grab back. They didn't want sick employees to "stack" time off in a way that benefitted the worker, so they requested Congressional support to "stack" time in a way that benefitted the employer. And they got their way, of course.
CTyankee
(68,201 posts)I'm wondering since this seems like something a union would fight...
Ms. Toad
(38,637 posts)And I assisted the author of a casebook in pulling and reviewing cases, as well as writing part is a casebook on disabilities, lgbtq, women's rights, and age discrimination.
Speaking generally -
In a situation in which there is an employment contract, the contract governs. That includes most union situations. So whether there are restrictions on how sick leave is used will be covered in the contract. If the contract prohibits termination for use of accumulated sick leave, the union would fight it.
The last employment contract I had required I work one full day after using any leave. So I could not have used sick leave, then resigned without coming back to work, or I would have had to pay back the leave.
If there is no employment contract, state law and/or FMLA will govern whether you can be terminated for excessive absences. As a general rule, most states are at will states, which means the employer can terminate you for any or all reasons - except being a member of a protected class or, now that FMLA exists, for absence due to personal or family illness. Even so, small employers can terminate for illness, newer employees can be terminated, and irreplaceable employees can be terminated. And, there is no legal guarantee you will be returned to the same job. It just has to be an equivalent one.
FMLA is a good thing - but it is limited to making sure that employees don't have to choose between family / self-care and their job. It isn't a way for employees who already have a solid benefit package to get additional time off, since it is intended to balance supporting health/family care with not interfering with running a business. For example - when you are out, sometime else has to do your job. The longer you are out, the harder it is to hold your job, without hiring a replacement - who may need to be terminated when you come back.
This is a management staffing issue that needs a management solution. We all work our expected hours. Some people may like to work extra, in which case, have at it. Personally, I do not ever, once I got to be old, agree to subsidize employer incompetence/cost cutting/basic mismanagement. I might agree if there is some unforeseen, once in a lifetime emergency, but otherwise, Get Off My Lawn!!!
stopdiggin
(15,463 posts)one might also say 'inconceivable' reference. (there's a degree of 'relate' there)
Here's my take - it's one thing if somebody needs time off to take a sick kid to the doctor - it's something else if Sally (or John) want every Thursday afternoon off because, soccer practice. And management is responsible for having enough backbone to say A, yes - and B, no. And, no - the solution is not to have the childless employees consistently 'covering' for people with different priorities. Here's another idea - if you're taking time off to see to the needs of your family - maybe you're the one that owes a little bit of extra time to the company, and should be stepping up to 'cover' for the next employee that's in a jam ... Think?
obamanut2012
(29,369 posts)Re: a coworker's kid's soccer games. And, she made 20K more than me, but I was doing five to ten hours a week of HER WORK.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)One of my jobs in Georgia had a wonderful policy...my kids ranged from five to middle school then. I could take time to go to school and read to my kids, be there for soccer, football, or cheerleading...and make up the time. He also was generous with personal days for those without kids. He didn't have kids himself either. I can't tell you how loyal we all were to this boss...once this nasty person tried to stage an office coup (get the boss fired) She was from headquarters and a real piece of work.
We all intended to walk out if she succeeded...get up and walk away. I would have done anything for this guy. I used to bring the kids to work during the weekends if we had an important deadline. Treat your employees well and you will be rewarded...making the parent feel like shit because sometimes accommodations are needed just sucks and honestly should not be behavior any Democrat engages in. Bosses and managers are responsible for making sure all employees are treated fairly...and blaming workers when they fail to do so is reprehensible
Polly Hennessey
(8,833 posts)
FSogol
(47,623 posts)with children, that's the fault of management.
ShazzieB
(22,590 posts)If people are constantly having to work extra hours to cover for others in order for things to be adequately staffed, that is very definitely a staffing issue that the employer needs to address.
Of course, most employers would rather have the minimum amount of staff they can get by with and not hire one single more person than they absolutely have to, because additional staff is an additional expense. Add fhat the fact that far too many employers seem to expect their employees to be grateful to have a job and therefore be willing to inconvenience themselves by working extra hours whenever it's convenient for the employer (regardless of how inconvenient it may be for the employees), and you end up with situations such as the op describes, where some employees are constantly being called on to cover for others. That's complete 🐂💩, and it (understandably) leads to resentment.
Whether people are parents or not is a side issue; there should be enough staff to allow for some flexibility for all staff without certain people constantly being pressured to cover for others, period, full stop.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)Is there a policy in place at your employment that states child free people are expected to accommodate those with kids? Or is this as I suspect, a whole lot of assuming? I'll need an example and some solid info that kids vs no kids is in fact in play. If one of my co-workers in my department is out, for whatever reason, kids or no kids, I will be the go to to cover them. If it' because one of them has sick kids I guess I should assume because my kids are grown I'm unfairly being expected to cover, which I would have to do no matter what the reason because well, I'm the one who CAN cover their function. But hey, the co-worker with small kids was the very one who just covered for me for 5 days when I came down with a quite nasty bacterial infection. So there's that.
ripcord
(5,553 posts)But if you can get someone to cover for you it is good, the people without kids that were here before were willing to help. the current child free employees don't feel they need to help but the people with families have become used to this and now feel entitled to take time off to see their kids pageants and games.
I told the boss today to make everyone work their full shift unless it is an emergency and to tell them all to shut up so they aren't bothering me.
leftstreet
(40,680 posts)smh
Hope22
(4,746 posts)…sooner or later aging parents will need help and employees with the parents will need to be accommodated for emergency caregiving. Can we get credits for dead parents?
Why can’t we be civilized people and look out for each other. At any moment a ‘childless’ may become parent and then what? Right..all bets are off.
ret5hd
(22,502 posts)for totally expected contingencies? Sick time, family time, vacation time, just f’n mental health time sometimes.
TexasBushwhacker
(21,202 posts)It's the employers responsibility. Remember when they passed the Family and Medical Leave Act back in 1993? It was such a RADICAL idea to require employers with 50 or more employees to NOT FIRE someone for taking up to 12 weeks UNPAID leave for medical reasons or to care for a family member. That was 30 years ago, so it's not like employers haven't had time to come up with contingency plans.
Hope22
(4,746 posts)If employers can’t do it we can go the route of Canada and have paid family maternity leave for both parents. That will get some motors running. But then again, they don’t pay through the nose for senior care either which solves another group of life problems. Imagine….. living in a society that supports the people.
Arthur_Frain
(2,355 posts)Someone’s desire to go home and spend time with their children is not higher priority than my desire to go home, drink beer and watch sports.
Anyone who chooses to have kids shoulders those responsibilities, not us childless folks. We already pay plenty to support the infrastructure that provides for children.
obamanut2012
(29,369 posts)I was almost fired for taking thsi stance about 15 years ago, but I didn't care. The people I was expected to cover for, and had been covering for, made over 20K more than me. I asked for a raise of 50%, and they said no. "But Debbie's daughter is in teh finals of her soccer league,a nd she has a right to go to the games." I was like, 1. no there is no right ton that,a nd 2. fine, but she can come in early or come back in after the game.
We went to HR and HR was appalled we had been todl that.
So, fuck no.
Scrivener7
(59,522 posts)a job and a half to accommodate pregnancy leaves. And I got no extra pay for those periods. I was in a female dominated industry (publishing) and one of my colleagues seemed to have a baby every year, the other every two or three years.
It is wildly unfair.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)Sure. Otherwise: nope, that’s the owner’s problem.
thatdemguy
(620 posts)At her work someone had a child, the father did not have any extra vacation to take off for the birth. The employees who agreed all gave up an hour of their vacation and the father got a few weeks off with pay.
A few months later someone got sick and the same request went out. It was fulfilled and the person got some extra time to recover.
My wife found out that only one employee that had children gave out any time from their pto. Half the company has kids and the other half was the only one to give up time, either time.
A year later another waiting father asked for the same thing, no one gave up any.
RobinA
(10,478 posts)at my work. There is a process by which an employee can request paid sick time off from fellow workers. It has to be approved and then a message goes out asking if you want to donate time to this person. You can only donate vacation time, not sick time. Of course, because you get any remaining vacation time paid in full when you retire. Sick time, no.
So some sick person has to go grovel for PTO from their colleagues. It's noted that they have "an approved medical condition" to receive this time. I have given time, but always to people I actually know and only because it benefits the person and not the organization.
ret5hd
(22,502 posts)1) Let’s call it a company because that’s what it is. If you are working to get paid rather than volunteering to save lives (doctors without borders, etc) it’s a company.
2) It benefits the company by not forcing (because obviously they won’t voluntarily) them to treat their employees like humans rather than mules.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)
meadowlander
(5,133 posts)That's why they aren't legally allowed to ask you at the job interview if you have kids or not.
Employers are responsible for having enough people to get the work done or to adjust the work programme to the number of people they have. The personal circumstances of those employees should be irrelevant to determining who gets what work.
As long as we're not talking about mandatory unpaid overtime, employees should have the option to take on a heavier workload or not, noting that the workers that are most reliable and most productive are also the most likely to be promoted and retained if there are cut backs.
Are the younger child-free people being offered flex time as well? If not, why not? You might find that if everyone was offered it, they might naturally have preferences that result in full coverage anyway. Or that, as grown adults that are being offered a benefit and are being allowed to negotiate on an equal footing, they might be able to work out a compromise where everyone gets a bit of what they want.
I don't have kids but I do have a disability that makes it extremely difficult for me to work long hours some days. Flexible by default working has been a godsend. It doesn't always totally work out. My boss has a toddler and isn't a morning person while I am definitely in by 8 out by 4 he starts around 9:30 and works into the evenings. He's also a bit disorganised and forgets to commission work until the end of the day when I'm already gone. So I tend to end work at 4 and then check my phone around 4:30 to 5 to see if he has something urgent and then call him back if needs be. It's a pain in my backside but I do get to work 95% of the hours I want to work and then take longer lunchs or bunk off early on Friday when I have had to go late on a particular day. What would suck is my boss gets 100% of the hours he wants and I get 0% based on the fact that he has a child and I don't. That's straight up discrimination.
Also the only tool that should be in the employer's toolkit to get people to cover an unpopular shift should be to pay more for it, not to guilt trip people on the basis of their personal circumstances into doing something that other people don't want to.
I'm old enough to remember getting time and half and sometimes double time for working Thanksgiving and Christmas when I was a poor student living too far enough away from home to spend holidays with family anyway. That was fine because it was my choice and I was being offered a benefit, not being told I had to do something other people didn't want to because of who I was.
pinkstarburst
(2,020 posts)are receiving big pay bonuses every time they are ASKED not ordered to fill in for workers with kids taking time off, or them having to take on extra work.
All workers should be expected to carry the same workload. Period. Having kids does not mean you get special privileges. Or if you want to give those workers extra time off and require other workers to do more, you need to work that into the budget and PAY the workers to do so every single time they are asked to cover, do more on a project, work late, or cover any duties for a worker with kids (or any other worker.)
I'm guessing that would end the practice pretty quick.
Childfree workers are entitled to take all their days off if they so choose. They are entitled to not have to cover for workers with kids because workers with kids failed to arrange childcare. Workers with kids need to arrange childcare (perhaps coordinating with other people in the office?) rather than relying on childfree workers to give up their days off.
mike_c
(37,051 posts)Do people without children still support public schools? Do pacifists still pay taxes to the military? Why can't employees at the same company support one another's needs? Children place some demand on their parent's time and attention, that's true. I think it's terrible if workers refuse to support one anothers' broader needs. Turning workers against one another is one of management's oldest strategies. Has management proposed any solutions to this problem, or are they using this situation to further divide the employees?
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)How about the owners, the people getting rich off the labor of others, pay for this?
mike_c
(37,051 posts)I agree completely. Management is ultimately responsible for this mess, not least because any solution must accommodate the bosses.
But employees need to stand together, not fight with one another over problems that can only be solved by management. And if employees refuse to support one another, only management benefits.
Edit: my first thought, frankly, was that these folks need a union. But they'll need to find their solidarity first.
RobinA
(10,478 posts)that if the employees enable the employer to run half staffed they happily will. The employees can get together and support each other, but meanwhile it's the company that then has no real incentive to tighten up the ship. I used to be like this. Help out the coworker, I could be in their shoes. But then I realized that long term this doesn't help the coworker, because the problem never goes away. Most employers don't change employment practices unless they get bit in the ass. Stop protecting their asses.
haele
(15,399 posts)As the kidlet is living with us now because she can't afford rent on a GM's pay.
Laz hasn't been able to drive since he got Long COVID, so all the doctors appointments, take the kids to school, etc, falls on me, because their mom has a problem mentally dealing with balancing getting ready to work, coming off work, and working hours (unmedicated ADHD sucks).
I was one of those child-free singles once - up into my mid-40's when I finally got married to a man with a tweenager. Made lots of OT and switched holidays (parents lived out of state) when I was single.
Sooo, when before I was able to depend on Laz or the kidlet (before she got her 50/60 hour a week position) for emergency kid and doctor shuttle service, it's now just me. Sometimes I feel like a single mom with 4 kids.
So my option is to get up at 5am, commute the 15 ft. to my home office, work until 7am, drive the kids to school, come back around 8, work (lots of meetings!) until 2:45pm to pick up the kids and any curbside groceries I may have ordered, get home between 3:45 an 4:15, the work until 5/6 pm, to make up for lost time and deadlines. And I hope to hell that someone made dinner, because ordering dinner for 5 is f'ing expensive every night.
I make up for it. I know most work places live and die by the clock, but as a not-childfree grandma, I do the best I can not to be a burden to my co-workers.
Anyway, IME, the Employer's policies have more to do with burdening singles or families than the fact one employee has kids and another doesn't.
Haele
Recycle_Guru
(2,973 posts)
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)of other workers?
It's all part of being in the community.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)But as long as we are posing questions: why don't the owners pay for the additional staff needed to operate their business?
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)Married people get benefits, based on their spouses, whether they worked or not.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)A married couple, with or without children, get the same benefits based on their earnings. The 'with children' part is irrelevant.
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)If a married couple only has one worker with SS earnings, together they get 150% of the benefits that that worker would get if he were single.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)as any other couple with the same joint earnings. The number of children they have is irrelevant.
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)they each get an equal benefit. (Half of their total.)
However, if one of them makes 100K and the other makes zero,
then the wage earner gets a social security benefit based on the $100K income. In addition, the non-wage earner gets a benefit based on half of that.
The number of children isn't relevant to the above calculation. However, SS beneficiaries are being paid by the funds coming in from taxes on EVERYBODY's children -- even the SS beneficiaries who didn't have children.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)Not different. The same. The point is that their child status is irrelevant, contrary to the post of yours I responded to that appeared to claim otherwise.
Bettie
(19,704 posts)the half of the couple who didn't work took care of most of the kid things, thereby reducing the terrible strain on the single people in the office who fear they might be asked to pitch in to help someone else out.
Only having one parent work full time is a big hit to the budget, especially in this time when jobs don't really pay enough to raise a family on one income.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)have two full time earners is wrong. Lots of couples with children have two full time working parents.
This whole sub thread is just weird, starting from the assertion that childless people aren’t entitled to their ss benefits.
Bettie
(19,704 posts)and the other staying home is a big hit to the budget.
I said NOTHING about anyone else's SS benefits. I will get my tiny amount from the years I worked before we had kids.
But, my family inconvenienced no one except when I nearly died after my last child was born, because I took care of all the kid stuff.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)So this has nothing to do with the other argument.
Igel
(37,535 posts)Had a summer/winter job when I was an undergrad. Last final is Friday, I'm at work in my home state on Monday. It was low-tech assembly-line work and they needed somebody to cover for vacation time. I was glad for the work over winter break, they were glad that they weren't as short workers when people took off time for Xmas or New Year's. It didn't take great skill or training so as employees took off time I could slide into their "job" because they were all pretty much either pulling stuff from inventory, assembling kits, packing them into boxes or moving the packed boxes around.
Another job was at a restaurant. There were three cooks and a cook's assistant to cover the hours, 7 days a week. When a cook had to leave for an emergency or had vacation, one of the other two had to fill in. The dishwashers or waitresses couldn't do it, and we couldn't do the waitresses' jobs. One cook was a single mother of a 4-year-old girl. We covered for her a lot and often swapped hours at a moments notice or if she couldn't and would have her wages reduced even forget to update the time cards so we'd get paid and she wouldn't. (It's called "teamwork", but this was back in the '80s.)
Years later in the late '90s I worked at another place part time. I was the bookkeeper, did collections and took orders. There were 5 other employees. I suck at sales and couldn't travel because of school, I can't design clothes or sew and I didn't know the inventory system for shipping or Chinese for dealing with suppliers in the PRC. I'm not sure that a person could be hired if one of us needed to take off a day or two unplanned, and it would be hard to find one person to stay no staff just to fill in for any of us, so we all had to be flexible and try to cover for others without screwing up their job.
Midnight Writer
(25,410 posts)If it was a health issue or an emergency, it was cool. I was raised by a single mom (seven kids) who worked fulltime, so I was familiar (and sympathetic) with how an emergency could pop up at any time.
But I also worked every holiday, including Christmas, The Fourth, Thanksgiving, so the married folks could spend the holiday with their families. I was the "on call" guy for years because management figured I wasn't doing anything important. I worked when someone else's kids had a football game, had a school band recital, a school play, or a chess team match. I was held over on overtime so the folks with kids could pick up their kids at school. If I wanted a day off, management would ask, first thing, what I had going on that was so important I needed a day off. I worked every weekend one summer, in addition to my regular schedule, to cover a co-worker whose son was on a Little League baseball team and she had to be there for every game.
On the other hand, I collected so much in overtime and premium pay that I was making more money than my bosses (which upset them to no end).
It was almost worth it to see the reaction when I quit at the age of 50. I figured I had enough money set back to last me the rest of my life. They wanted to know if I had another job lined up. No. What was I going to do with my time? Whatever I want. You're going to be bored out of your mind. I'll risk it. You'll be back here in a few months wanting your job back. I don't think so.
It's been 25 years since I went to a job, since I worked a day for someone else. I've never been happier in my life.
RobinA
(10,478 posts)Beat them at their own game.
treestar
(82,383 posts)work related.
It's great to have kids, but those who do have to make accommodations about their care. How can it fall on anyone else?
Hekate
(100,133 posts)…if they were pregnant (again). And they couldn’t do anything one way or another about it except be as celibate as a nun (and pray they never got raped — I do know someone who got pregnant from rape).
And when women were told they were not going to be hired because they’d just get pregnant and quit.
And when women were fired as soon as it was known they were pregnant.
And when women (with or without children) were told they weren’t going to get a raise or promotion because Bob had a family to support.
And when it was clearly understood by all that some jobs were men’s jobs, so men would always be comfortable knowing there would be no competition from half the population.
Everything would just be hunky-dory if women just knew their places. As you said, “it was never a problem before.”
Back when a man wouldn't think of asking for time off to spend with his kids, but also when one could raise a family on one income.
I was home with my kids and it was hard, financially. We'd be in a lot better position now with regard to retirement savings than we are now.
senseandsensibility
(24,973 posts)there would be free childcare for workers. But of course we don't and there isn't, so the top one percent get the workers to fight among themselves. Same as it ever was.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)
ForgedCrank
(3,096 posts)we should be assisting each other.
Most people will want a family, it's what humans generally do. When you take on employment, you take on whatever tasks the company asks you do complete. Not much different than paying taxes to fund public school even after your kids are grown and have families of their own.
That being said, you can't accommodate someone showing up late 3 times a week because the insist on driving their precious to school instead of putting them on the dang bus. It is the unexpected and unplanned events that we try to accommodate. It has to be a give-and-take condition. Comp time, a little bonus, an extra PTO day, things that a good employer will do in recognition of someone who is a team member.
The real problem are the employees who take advantage. And those should be dealt with appropriately and not made someone elses job to take up the slack.
Sympthsical
(10,969 posts)It is not up to the workers to solve these kinds of problems amongst themselves. It is up to management to ensure they are adequately staffed to handle these kinds of very predictable instances of absence.
Rather than pit the workers against each other, pit the workers against the company.
Many companies will run with the bare minimum staffing they think they can get away with to save a buck. They'll keep doing it right up to the point when they realize they can't.
Reminds me of my local Costco. My nephew was hired as a seasonal worker about two or three years ago. The thing is, it's apparently a well-known tradition for them to let all the seasonal workers go and rehire new seasonal workers a few months later for summer. They held out the carrot of being able to potentially stay on and be fully hired after the season was over. Do they? Nope. They get rid of everyone. Like clockwork. They don't want people getting benefits.
You can always tell when they let the seasonals go, because the store immediately goes to shit for the next month, and you see managers running around doing stocking duties during store hours.
That's a management choice. Everyone suffers for it. They think they're saving money. One time, I went in and saw it looked like a bomb went off. I said fuck it and drove 25 mins to another Costco. It just pissed me off too much.
Staff. Your fucking. Company.
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)Nope. Just because someone chooses to have children doesn't make them or their family any more special or worthwhile than me and my family. Their time spent with their family holds no more significance or worth than the time I spend with my family.
They can ask me if I'm willing to switch shifts with them or cover for them or take this week off instead of that week. Asking is fine. They have no moral ground to demand or expect that I should give them what they want because they have children, and getting angry or shouting about it is just being a shitty, entitled person.
Getting angry about it and making demands is, in effect, saying that they are more important than others and deserve special treatment and privileges. I have no time for that nonsense.
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
milestogo
(23,082 posts)Kids get sick, and parents need to stay home.
Kids get sick, and parents come to work and spread the illness around.
Happens all the time. Everyone has to put up with it, like it or not.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Yes, things happen. Yes, people need to take time off. Yes, other people need to cover for them. No one is suggesting that childless employees should never cover for parents.
The problem that many childless workers encounter is that, whenever someone does call in sick, they are disproportionately asked to cover those hours because they are childless.
milestogo
(23,082 posts)I didn't suggest what you think I suggested.
Whatever.
edisdead
(3,396 posts)Sorry but people have kids. Those kids need to be parented, raised and cared for. Sometimes that means that they need time away from work. Someone will have to fill the absence. That isn’t changing until people with kids no longer have jobs.
Response to edisdead (Reply #81)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)hiring temps for parental leave etc. Democrats have always supported families in the workplace which mostly means women.
Bettie
(19,704 posts)floaters whose job it was to cover for various people who were absent. They were trained to do most functions in the office or take on some of the mundane work of the person who could cover for more complex tasks.
I had a friend who was a floater, she loved change and the lack of routine. It was the perfect place for her.
Now, those people are gone, because businesses refuse to staff adequately.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)are blaming the wrong people.
LeftInTX
(34,294 posts)
...but having said that, management should make an effort to treat everyone equally regardless. I once worked retail for about a year and a half and never got weekends off even during the summer because, as a single person, the attitude was that my coworkers had spouses and kids and I didn't, so why did I need weekends off? (I was a full-time college student at the time.)
At another job I had, it was next to impossible for anyone who didn't have kids to get any time off around the holidays, but that job was horrible overall, so there's that. The worst part was that PTO requests were decided based on seniority and all the people with kids had more than anyone else, so there was pretty much no chance they were going to be turned down. There was a lottery system in place (briefly) where you basically put your name in the hat and if your name got drawn you got the time. That was shut down after a couple of months because, you guessed it, the people with seniority complained and if they wanted their fourth Christmas off in a row how dare that be questioned?
LuckyCharms
(22,648 posts)several decades ago, it was illegal to ask about the applicant's parenthood status during an interview.
I'm assuming that still holds true.
Therefore, parenthood status did not determine fitness for the job.
There was also no formal requirement for childless employees to cover for those with children.
So "have to" accommodate...probably not.
Informally however, some employees would cover for people with children, and some would not.
A formal requirement to cover for those with children would be problematic, considering that everyone has their own responsibilities, even childless people.
Many are caretakers for their aging parents. Also, many desire a social life, and a work/life balance.
It would probably not be advisable for an employer to formally create a policy in which coverage for people with children is mandated. This could only open up a huge can of worms, both legally and with regard to employee morale.
That being said however, company culture may dictate that this coverage be expected, but wrongly so. If this is the case, managers can certainly make your life miserable if you refuse to cover for people with families. They can do it in ways that don't relate to this coverage in order to skirt formal requirements. It all depends on management's willingness to walk a razor's edge when it comes to the legalities surrounding this issue.
demmiblue
(39,719 posts)that some seem to harbor.
ret5hd
(22,502 posts)demand employees sacrifice their personal lives to support the company because the company is too cheap to manage their payroll in such a way that reflects the reality of their workforce?
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)want nurseries at the workplace and accommodations for working Moms and Dads...I got to say I wouldn't expect Democrats to think like this.
jmowreader
(53,194 posts)I have worked in several places that were open every day. The Army unit I served with in Berlin did continuous operations, and the newspaper I now work for prints every Monday through every Friday.
I work most of the big holidays - Christmas, New Year's, Thanksgiving - to cover for people who have children.
But we scheduled my parents' memorial service on a day I was going to have off anyway because the other person who does what I do has kids and refused to cover.
It's gotta be a two-way street. If you want me to cover for you so you can go to every single soccer game your kid is in, you should be willing to cover for me if I want to go see Joe Satriani.
leftyladyfrommo
(20,005 posts)bothered me was the parent spending a lot of time talking to them on the phone.
musette_sf
(10,486 posts)and I’m cool with providing support when needed on behalf of almost all the parenting co-workers I’ve known.
Here’s how I see it: I was told as a kid that I couldn’t have a career when I grew up because I would be a mommy. In my early full-time working years, asking female applicants about marital and parental status, and making hiring decisions with that criteria, was legal.
I always thought that was shit, and that’s why I support my colleagues who are parents. Someone’s gotta have the kids, and it does take a village. I love that the company I work for also provides comparable paternal and adoption benefits and leave, in addition to the maternity benefits and leave.
Oneironaut
(6,299 posts)As if it’s in limited quantities. This whole dilemma could be resolved if your organization had adequate and redundant staff. Instead, they’re following the current trend of employing a skeleton crew while whining about lack of coverage.
Maybe they could hire someone else (they won’t)?
Therefore, the answer is no. This wouldn’t even be an issue if we employed an adequate workforce.
roamer65
(37,953 posts)…and there should be extra compensation for the overtime.
HAB911
(10,440 posts)non-smokers be forced to pick up smoker's butts off the ground? no (mostly a military reference)
smokers get more breaks than non-smokers? no
anyone be forced to work Saturdays because a JW coworker won't? no
msfiddlestix
(8,178 posts)I feel like this is not a workable model.
I personally couldn't have imagined having my co-workers cover me when I was single parenting back in the day. My child is now in her 50's with teenage girls, and she's a teacher. So she's around kids all day.
Her workload is way too much, I can't imagine how much more difficult it would be if teachers young kids were hanging around the office or workplace while parents were on the job It's the noise factor among other problems.
MissMillie
(39,652 posts)Even if workers don't have kids, chances are that some day they'll have to deal with aging parents that require some flexibility in scheduling.
Crunchy Frog
(28,280 posts)Producing and raising new citizens for the country is a full time, unpaid, and critically important job, and we all depend on it, whether we ever have children of our own or not. Children are not simply a lifestyle choice or a private luxury item. They're the way society perpetuates itself. Even if you never have one, you were one once, and I'm sure that your existence also caused other people some inconveniences. Hopefully you've repaid them by making your own contributions to society.
Those children are the people who will eventually be providing you with your medical care, maintenance of infrastructure, basic public services, repairing your cars, fixing your plumbing, and serving you in restaurants. Just a few things that I can think of.
So if you intend to continue to live in a society that exists and functions (however flawed), you probably need to expect that you will be making some small sacrifices here or there.
Nobody's asking you to stay up all night with a sick child, or spend hours of your time helping them with homework, or any of the other myriad things that parents do. But you might experience an inconvenience here or there. Again, one of the costs of living in a society.
Just my thoughts, in case anyone is interested.
Jspur
(798 posts)strongly disagree with you on sacrifice. I'm not sacrificing my personal time due to somebody who needs to spend time with their kids. That is definitely a lifestyle choice and there is no way you are going to spin it to me. John's time with his daughter is not more valuable than my time to pursue leisure activities outside of work. I need my leisure time equally as John needs his family time to be mentally right and productive.
Like other childless people have stated in this thread I have already sacrificed by paying more in taxes to society due to not having deductions. I don't feel it's necessary for me to make any more sacrifices than the one I made with my wallet.
By being a good citizen in paying my taxes and not being a criminal, I have already helped out "kids" by making society safer for them to live in. I have done my job and don't expect to sacrifice nothing for them.
Crunchy Frog
(28,280 posts)which I have a right to, just as you have a right to yours.
Just remember that at some point in the future, somebody's kid will likely be changing your diapers.
Polybius
(21,900 posts)1) At a job I had, smokers got several short 3-5 minute breaks by the boss (who oddly enough, didn't smoke himself). when I got caught outside once, he yelled at me, stating that I'm not a smoker and to get inside. So I was punished for not smoking.
2) On religious holidays such as Christmas, he put on all the non-Christian workers that day, making sure every Christian who wanted off got it. He did the same on Jewish holidays, making sure that all of the Jews who wanted the day off were off. Same thing with Muslim holidays. Was this fair?
Scrivener7
(59,522 posts)which lasted for many months and in one case lasted a year.
In three years in one job, I covered for four maternity leaves, and always uncompensated. There was never a time in that job where I didn't have responsibility for my job and half another job. For one year span, I was working fully two jobs to cover for others. That is a big difference from a holiday here or there or a smoke break.
Companies should not be allowed to fob off work on colleagues and call it a maternity leave. The cost for the leave should be falling on the company's shoulders, not the colleagues'.
sakabatou
(46,146 posts)but I am NOT babysitter!
womanofthehills
(10,988 posts)Train this person in all the jobs.
Kids get sick. I missed some of my daughter's teacher conferences because I was working and she still remembers it till this day.
ripcord
(5,553 posts)But we had some employees that were willing to cover for parents to they could go to their kids events, now they are gone and no one wants to cover for them anymore but the parents have come to expect it.
LeftInTX
(34,294 posts)Kids events are a privilege, not a right. However, sounds like they still need to hire someone extra if they want to continue this accommodation.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Those of us who were single and lived on the ship had to put in extra work while those who had families and lived in on base housing got to leave and go to their homes at knock off
DiverDave
(5,245 posts)Another way for management to get people to fight among themselves.
When they should be fighting management for adequate staffing.
Join a union. That's the only power to fight for all of us.