Stop the Press Spree Against Working Moms

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I really don't understand beating up on parents for taking advantage time off their kids -- in my experience, single people in their 20s with no children are the ones who take the most liberties doing things like planning their social lives on company time, coming in late, wasting time on the internet, etc

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I really don't understand beating up on parents for taking advantage time off their kids -- in my experience, single people in their 20s with no children are the ones who take the most liberties doing things like planning their social lives on company time, coming in late, wasting time on the internet, etc

Exactly! It's just another misconceived notion. People here who've talked about their personal experiences where parents have seemed to be abusing their flexibility with work ought to bring it up with their employer. I don't think it is the intention of any company to give preferential treatment to some of it's employees based on having children. Another thing to keep in mind - insurance premiums are way higher for those who are married or having dependents. As a single father, I'm paying over $400 a month just for medical coverage and about another $100 for eye-care and dental.

Edited November 30, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

just found this...................

[ceriserose 1]

I really don't understand beating up on parents for taking advantage time off their kids -- in my experience, single people in their 20s with no children are the ones who take the most liberties doing things like planning their social lives on company time, coming in late, wasting time on the internet, etc

I think Michelle's comment about each person's experience being vastly different is really the most spot on. I've worked with hardworking parents and slacker parents. I've worked with hardworking singles or married/childless people and slacker singles or married/childless people. If someone is the "type" to work the system to their advantage, they will.

One can either blow the whistle or hope it's noticed by others (management); right now I'm picking up a ton of work from 2 project mangers...one of whom is so busy on the road he has days where he rarely sees his kids, and one who spends his day in the office playing online poker. Guess whose work my boss has directed me to make a priority?

I think that a lot of these comments sprung from a few pages back where it was outrageously indicated that if single/childless people didn't use their time to help parents that they were immoral or worse.

I also think that if a company offers paid or unpaid time for "personal reasons" that anyone can use it for their "personal reasons", whether that includes children or not.

I really don't understand beating up on parents for taking advantage time off their kids -- in my experience, single people in their 20s with no children are the ones who take the most liberties doing things like planning their social lives on company time, coming in late, wasting time on the internet, etc

Exactly! It's just another misconceived notion. People here who've talked about their personal experiences where parents have seemed to be abusing their flexibility with work ought to bring it up with their employer. I don't think it is the intention of any company to give preferential treatment to some of it's employees based on having children. Another thing to keep in mind - insurance premiums are way higher for those who are married or having dependents. As a single father, I'm paying over $400 a month just for medical coverage and about another $100 for eye-care and dental.

Again, though Steven, this is what you weigh when you have kids. Sure, *stuff* happens and we can't plan for everything, but you know when you have a child that you'll have added expenses for at least 18 years (usually more). Maybe it's hard hearted of me, but I'm not feeling overly sorry for you having to pay higher insurance premiums for your kids...we all make choices in life and having children is one of them (or rather, performing the action that causes children in the case of surprises). It is admirable though that you're one of those parents who steps up even though you're a single parent. There are lots who don't bother.

What about the single person who is supporting an aged parent in a care facility or with medical costs? I'm not sure how it works here but in Canada I couldn't put my parents on my extended health care plan when they were terminally ill (only dependents like children). I worked full time throughout both their illnesses, only taking vacation days or emergency personal leave when needed to manage their appointments. I was extremely fortunate to be in a unionized environment, in a country with basic medical care for all, and a direct manager who was supportive of flexible work time - and a company that acknowledged that "family illness" didn't always mean a sick child. What about the person who isn't?

Again, it comes back to companies and businesses that need to address these kinds of things in parity, regardless of 'reason'.

Edited November 30, 2006 by ceriserose

[Sinergy 3]

just found this...................

HAHAHAHAHA i need to get that just for the entertainment

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I might have a kid myself if he would keep the floors clean!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I really don't understand beating up on parents for taking advantage time off their kids -- in my experience, single people in their 20s with no children are the ones who take the most liberties doing things like planning their social lives on company time, coming in late, wasting time on the internet, etc

I think Michelle's comment about each person's experience being vastly different is really the most spot on. I've worked with hardworking parents and slacker parents. I've worked with hardworking singles or married/childless people and slacker singles or married/childless people. If someone is the "type" to work the system to their advantage, they will.

One can either blow the whistle or hope it's noticed by others (management); right now I'm picking up a ton of work from 2 project mangers...one of whom is so busy on the road he has days where he rarely sees his kids, and one who spends his day in the office playing online poker. Guess whose work my boss has directed me to make a priority?

I think that a lot of these comments sprung from a few pages back where it was outrageously indicated that if single/childless people didn't use their time to help parents that they were immoral or worse.

I also think that if a company offers paid or unpaid time for "personal reasons" that anyone can use it for their "personal reasons", whether that includes children or not.

I really don't understand beating up on parents for taking advantage time off their kids -- in my experience, single people in their 20s with no children are the ones who take the most liberties doing things like planning their social lives on company time, coming in late, wasting time on the internet, etc

Exactly! It's just another misconceived notion. People here who've talked about their personal experiences where parents have seemed to be abusing their flexibility with work ought to bring it up with their employer. I don't think it is the intention of any company to give preferential treatment to some of it's employees based on having children. Another thing to keep in mind - insurance premiums are way higher for those who are married or having dependents. As a single father, I'm paying over $400 a month just for medical coverage and about another $100 for eye-care and dental.

Again, though Steven, this is what you weigh when you have kids. Sure, *stuff* happens and we can't plan for everything, but you know when you have a child that you'll have added expenses for at least 18 years (usually more). Maybe it's hard hearted of me, but I'm not feeling overly sorry for you having to pay higher insurance premiums for your kids...we all make choices in life and having children is one of them (or rather, performing the action that causes children in the case of surprises). It is admirable though that you're one of those parents who steps up even though you're a single parent. There are lots who don't bother.

What about the single person who is supporting an aged parent in a care facility or with medical costs? I'm not sure how it works here but in Canada I couldn't put my parents on my extended health care plan when they were terminally ill (only dependents like children). I worked full time throughout both their illnesses, only taking vacation days or emergency personal leave when needed to manage their appointments. I was extremely fortunate to be in a unionized environment, in a country with basic medical care for all, and a direct manager who was supportive of flexible work time - and a company that acknowledged that "family illness" didn't always mean a sick child. What about the person who isn't?

Again, it comes back to companies and businesses that need to address these kinds of things in parity, regardless of 'reason'.

Yes. I don't think you'll find any parent here asking for preferential treatment because they have children. We're just asking that we be reasonable about it and understanding that having a family means our priorites are different from that of a single person. As for health insurance premiums - what is unfair is that because I have dependents, I'm paying nearly $6,000 per year, yet I know that smokers and people working who are obese are not paying higher premiums for their lifestyle choices. Let's spread fairness across the board - if having a family means higher premiums then raise the premiums on other lifestyle choices.

Edited November 30, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

Yes. I don't think you'll find any parent here asking for preferential treatment because they have children. We're just asking that we be reasonable about it and understanding that having a family means our priorites are different from that of a single person. As for health insurance premiums - what is unfair is that because I have dependents, I'm paying nearly $6,000 per year, yet I know that smokers and people working who are obese are not paying higher premiums for their lifestyle choices. Let's spread fairness across the board - if having a family means higher premiums then raise the premiums on other lifestyle choices.

steven, the company i work with - their rate for a single person is about $1200 a month. so count your blessings

[ceriserose 1]

I really don't understand beating up on parents for taking advantage time off their kids -- in my experience, single people in their 20s with no children are the ones who take the most liberties doing things like planning their social lives on company time, coming in late, wasting time on the internet, etc

I think Michelle's comment about each person's experience being vastly different is really the most spot on. I've worked with hardworking parents and slacker parents. I've worked with hardworking singles or married/childless people and slacker singles or married/childless people. If someone is the "type" to work the system to their advantage, they will.

One can either blow the whistle or hope it's noticed by others (management); right now I'm picking up a ton of work from 2 project mangers...one of whom is so busy on the road he has days where he rarely sees his kids, and one who spends his day in the office playing online poker. Guess whose work my boss has directed me to make a priority?

I think that a lot of these comments sprung from a few pages back where it was outrageously indicated that if single/childless people didn't use their time to help parents that they were immoral or worse.

I also think that if a company offers paid or unpaid time for "personal reasons" that anyone can use it for their "personal reasons", whether that includes children or not.

I really don't understand beating up on parents for taking advantage time off their kids -- in my experience, single people in their 20s with no children are the ones who take the most liberties doing things like planning their social lives on company time, coming in late, wasting time on the internet, etc

Exactly! It's just another misconceived notion. People here who've talked about their personal experiences where parents have seemed to be abusing their flexibility with work ought to bring it up with their employer. I don't think it is the intention of any company to give preferential treatment to some of it's employees based on having children. Another thing to keep in mind - insurance premiums are way higher for those who are married or having dependents. As a single father, I'm paying over $400 a month just for medical coverage and about another $100 for eye-care and dental.

Again, though Steven, this is what you weigh when you have kids. Sure, *stuff* happens and we can't plan for everything, but you know when you have a child that you'll have added expenses for at least 18 years (usually more). Maybe it's hard hearted of me, but I'm not feeling overly sorry for you having to pay higher insurance premiums for your kids...we all make choices in life and having children is one of them (or rather, performing the action that causes children in the case of surprises). It is admirable though that you're one of those parents who steps up even though you're a single parent. There are lots who don't bother.

What about the single person who is supporting an aged parent in a care facility or with medical costs? I'm not sure how it works here but in Canada I couldn't put my parents on my extended health care plan when they were terminally ill (only dependents like children). I worked full time throughout both their illnesses, only taking vacation days or emergency personal leave when needed to manage their appointments. I was extremely fortunate to be in a unionized environment, in a country with basic medical care for all, and a direct manager who was supportive of flexible work time - and a company that acknowledged that "family illness" didn't always mean a sick child. What about the person who isn't?

Again, it comes back to companies and businesses that need to address these kinds of things in parity, regardless of 'reason'.

Yes. I don't think you'll find any parent here asking for preferential treatment because they have children. We're just asking that we be reasonable about it and understanding that having a family means our priorites are different from that of a single person. As for health insurance premiums - what is unfair is that because I have dependents, I'm paying nearly $6,000 per year, yet I know that smokers and people working who are obese are not paying higher premiums for their lifestyle choices. Let's spread fairness across the board - if having a family means higher premiums then raise the premiums on other lifestyle choices.

Yes, but no one pays for premiums based on their lifestyle choices, right? I mean you could be an obese parent with obese children (as an example) paying the same premiums as "healthnut" parents with "healthnut" children.

As "unfair" as paying for your dependents is when you're making the comparison like that, you still pay on a sliding scale for family members...ie. 2 single people paying premiums is higher than a married couple, etc. I still maintain that it's part of the cost you calculate when you have children. I don't think any parent here would argue that kids come cheaply.

And of course having a family means different priorities than when you're single! And for the most part on this thread, that is acknowledged. However, when this discussion started, the comparison wasn't parental vs single priorities, it was parental married vs non-parental married priorities. I can tell you that as a married person after being a single person, my priorities and time commitments are vastly different than when I was single. I can also tell you that when we have children, I know that those priorities and time commitments will be vastly different again. But I also acknowledge that that will be *my* or *our* stuff to deal with as we need to, to achieve the goals we want as a family. (Kind of like how LisaD mentioned earlier that she's set up to work from home now rather than take a few years off...deciding what your priorities are and working everything else around that.)

The commitments I make to my employer now are different than the ones I made when I was single, mainly because my home priorities have changed. Again, that will change when we have children and if that means changing employers or re-working our household to do so, then again, that's my/our thing to deal with. I have no expectation of anyone else stepping in to deal with our stuff from our choices.

As for parents having to ask for preferential treatment, they don't - mainly because they don't really need to. Most employers are reasonable about children and their needs and the role of the parent in tending those needs. As CAPS mentioned, it's fairly enfranchised in our society that parents get time off for kid things - certainly a lot easier than I might if I had something less "vested" in by society that I wanted to pursue. I don't begrudge people their choices...just like with every action, figure it's up to each one to take accountability along with responsibility.

[mawilson 2,133]

And yet, Sweden does NOT pay a price in lower productivity as Sweden has higher GDP per hour worked than the USA. What does this tell you......?

Who cares about their productivity per hour when I want to go shopping

on a Sunday afternoon and all the stores are closed?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I really don't understand beating up on parents for taking advantage time off their kids -- in my experience, single people in their 20s with no children are the ones who take the most liberties doing things like planning their social lives on company time, coming in late, wasting time on the internet, etc

This year I had my first sick day in 10 years. I'm a nut when it comes to attendance. Most of that 10 years I was single and I partied like a rockstar (most of you have no idea). I see people with families will take off at least a day a month as a sick day.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

And yet, Sweden does NOT pay a price in lower productivity as Sweden has higher GDP per hour worked than the USA. What does this tell you......?

Who cares about their productivity per hour when I want to go shopping

on a Sunday afternoon and all the stores are closed?

Who cares that you can't go shopping when you want when productivity is high and the economy is doing well?

[mawilson 2,133]

And yet, Sweden does NOT pay a price in lower productivity as Sweden has higher GDP per hour worked than the USA. What does this tell you......?

Who cares about their productivity per hour when I want to go shopping

on a Sunday afternoon and all the stores are closed?

Who cares that you can't go shopping when you want when productivity is high and the economy is doing well?

I care. Which is why I say Europe sucks. My U.S. bank is open 7 days a week

(until 9pm on weekdays and 4pm on Sundays) and most holidays. Convenience.

You don't get that in Europe.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

No you don't -- but you also get a generous 5-6 week holiday in Europe so you have more time to actually enjoy your money

[mawilson 2,133]

No you don't -- but you also get a generous 5-6 week holiday in Europe so you have more time to actually enjoy your money

What money?