Stop the Press Spree Against Working Moms

[Sinergy 3]

"I agree as well! Speaking as a past regional manager of a nail salon chain...the owner was more lenient with women who had children. Speaking from a business standpoint, it's hell to have to reschedule someone's whole book for the day because she can't come in cos the kid is sick.

In a perfect world yeah flextime and all that...but since when did the employer have to bend around the employee? You either can take the job and work it as reqd or not. You shouldn't get 'special' time off for your kids cos it IS biased against those of us who don't have them."

there is no biase against people who dont have kids. i know i used to be manager in different places and if YOUR sick and you dont have kids, you can take time off just as you can if your kid is sick. people who do have kids take off for their kids, and take off for themselves if need be. in both, your taking off time from work. no one says "if you dont have kids, you cant call in sick" there is no policy of this, and never will be. and if you dont have kids, and you call in sick, guess what, the manager still would have to reschedual things around to fit the day.

Edited November 29, 2006 by Ionescu

[Fandango 1,439]

But why has it become necessary for both parents to work all of a sudden? Because not many regular guys can provide for their families alone anymore. I'm not going back to work because I love it so much, I'm going back because bills need to be paid. I'm going back because I want my kids to be able to read after they finish school, guess what, that means private school! These things don't come cheap anymore!

You know why? Cos the feminist movement brought women out into the workforce which forced a lot of men out of jobs. It's also a known fact that for many years women were paid less for the same jobs. So as an employer...who would you hire?

This is just my theory and believe you me, I am all for equality....but at the same time, since kids are 'the future' and so important, well then the mothers should be able to keep to that commitment and be a stay at home mom. Sadly though, the trickle effect from all the women entering the workforce is still happening, which has req'd now a two-income family to survive.

"I agree as well! Speaking as a past regional manager of a nail salon chain...the owner was more lenient with women who had children. Speaking from a business standpoint, it's hell to have to reschedule someone's whole book for the day because she can't come in cos the kid is sick.

In a perfect world yeah flextime and all that...but since when did the employer have to bend around the employee? You either can take the job and work it as reqd or not. You shouldn't get 'special' time off for your kids cos it IS biased against those of us who don't have them."

there is no biase against people who dont have kids. i know i used to be manager in different places and if YOUR sick and you dont have kids, you can take time off just as you can if your kid is sick. people who do have kids take off for their kids, and take off for themselves if need be. in both, your taking off time from work. no one says "if you dont have kids, you cant call in sick" there is no policy of this, and never will be. and if you dont have kids, and you call in sick, guess what, the manager still would have to reschedual things around to fit the day.

I didn't say you couldn't call in sick....what I did say was that the owner was more lenient to people with children.

Calling in sick when you have 20 people having an appt and nowhere to put them to is not an easy problem to fix. Especially when ppl sometimes are so set in their ways, that if you cancel on them they take the huff and never return. So in short, in the beauty profession...it's quite frowned upon.

If a childless person did it multiple times a year, she'd be either formally warned or fired. But if a mother did it, 'oh well'

I even caught one of my girls AT THE MALL when her kid was supposedly sick with the flu...

[Sinergy 3]

But why has it become necessary for both parents to work all of a sudden? Because not many regular guys can provide for their families alone anymore. I'm not going back to work because I love it so much, I'm going back because bills need to be paid. I'm going back because I want my kids to be able to read after they finish school, guess what, that means private school! These things don't come cheap anymore!

You know why? Cos the feminist movement brought women out into the workforce which forced a lot of men out of jobs. It's also a known fact that for many years women were paid less for the same jobs. So as an employer...who would you hire?

This is just my theory and believe you me, I am all for equality....but at the same time, since kids are 'the future' and so important, well then the mothers should be able to keep to that commitment and be a stay at home mom. Sadly though, the trickle effect from all the women entering the workforce is still happening, which has req'd now a two-income family to survive.

It would be nice to stay home and take care of my kids. i would LOVE that!!! more than anything. but guess what Lisa, it takes TWO incomes now to raise a family and to live. therefore myself and my husband have to work. We are not millionaires and we dont run our own busniess's therefore we both have to work. so until my husband starts making enough money for me to stay home and raise our kids, i have to come to work, and when they get sick i have to call in or my husband has to call in!

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

What are we doing wrong? Look at Norway! (# of hours worked annually)

So they are lazy bastards, like most Europeans. If you're a lazy bum, Europe is the right place for you.

Norway is one of the richest countries in the world -- they don't have to work hard

GDP per hour worked in those countries is also higher -- proof that simply working more hours doesn't make a country more productive:

http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____136140.asp

Edited November 29, 2006 by robinklake

[Sinergy 3]

But why has it become necessary for both parents to work all of a sudden? Because not many regular guys can provide for their families alone anymore. I'm not going back to work because I love it so much, I'm going back because bills need to be paid. I'm going back because I want my kids to be able to read after they finish school, guess what, that means private school! These things don't come cheap anymore!

You know why? Cos the feminist movement brought women out into the workforce which forced a lot of men out of jobs. It's also a known fact that for many years women were paid less for the same jobs. So as an employer...who would you hire?

This is just my theory and believe you me, I am all for equality....but at the same time, since kids are 'the future' and so important, well then the mothers should be able to keep to that commitment and be a stay at home mom. Sadly though, the trickle effect from all the women entering the workforce is still happening, which has req'd now a two-income family to survive.

"I agree as well! Speaking as a past regional manager of a nail salon chain...the owner was more lenient with women who had children. Speaking from a business standpoint, it's hell to have to reschedule someone's whole book for the day because she can't come in cos the kid is sick.

In a perfect world yeah flextime and all that...but since when did the employer have to bend around the employee? You either can take the job and work it as reqd or not. You shouldn't get 'special' time off for your kids cos it IS biased against those of us who don't have them."

there is no biase against people who dont have kids. i know i used to be manager in different places and if YOUR sick and you dont have kids, you can take time off just as you can if your kid is sick. people who do have kids take off for their kids, and take off for themselves if need be. in both, your taking off time from work. no one says "if you dont have kids, you cant call in sick" there is no policy of this, and never will be. and if you dont have kids, and you call in sick, guess what, the manager still would have to reschedual things around to fit the day.

I didn't say you couldn't call in sick....what I did say was that the owner was more lenient to people with children.

Calling in sick when you have 20 people having an appt and nowhere to put them to is not an easy problem to fix. Especially when ppl sometimes are so set in their ways, that if you cancel on them they take the huff and never return. So in short, in the beauty profession...it's quite frowned upon.

If a childless person did it multiple times a year, she'd be either formally warned or fired. But if a mother did it, 'oh well'

I even caught one of my girls AT THE MALL when her kid was supposedly sick with the flu...

i dunno where that is, but i know every company i ever worked for, children or not, you dont show up or if you make it a habit to ALWAYS call in, its the same penalty as with childrenless people. "termination"

therefore, it is the owners choice to be that easy on mothers, and less on ppl with no kids, not being a policy.

[Irisheyes 0]

But why has it become necessary for both parents to work all of a sudden? Because not many regular guys can provide for their families alone anymore. I'm not going back to work because I love it so much, I'm going back because bills need to be paid. I'm going back because I want my kids to be able to read after they finish school, guess what, that means private school! These things don't come cheap anymore!

You know why? Cos the feminist movement brought women out into the workforce which forced a lot of men out of jobs. It's also a known fact that for many years women were paid less for the same jobs. So as an employer...who would you hire?

This is just my theory and believe you me, I am all for equality....but at the same time, since kids are 'the future' and so important, well then the mothers should be able to keep to that commitment and be a stay at home mom. Sadly though, the trickle effect from all the women entering the workforce is still happening, which has req'd now a two-income family to survive.

"I agree as well! Speaking as a past regional manager of a nail salon chain...the owner was more lenient with women who had children. Speaking from a business standpoint, it's hell to have to reschedule someone's whole book for the day because she can't come in cos the kid is sick.

In a perfect world yeah flextime and all that...but since when did the employer have to bend around the employee? You either can take the job and work it as reqd or not. You shouldn't get 'special' time off for your kids cos it IS biased against those of us who don't have them."

there is no biase against people who dont have kids. i know i used to be manager in different places and if YOUR sick and you dont have kids, you can take time off just as you can if your kid is sick. people who do have kids take off for their kids, and take off for themselves if need be. in both, your taking off time from work. no one says "if you dont have kids, you cant call in sick" there is no policy of this, and never will be. and if you dont have kids, and you call in sick, guess what, the manager still would have to reschedual things around to fit the day.

I didn't say you couldn't call in sick....what I did say was that the owner was more lenient to people with children.

Calling in sick when you have 20 people having an appt and nowhere to put them to is not an easy problem to fix. Especially when ppl sometimes are so set in their ways, that if you cancel on them they take the huff and never return. So in short, in the beauty profession...it's quite frowned upon.

If a childless person did it multiple times a year, she'd be either formally warned or fired. But if a mother did it, 'oh well'

I even caught one of my girls AT THE MALL when her kid was supposedly sick with the flu...

Oh, the feminist movement has a lot to answer for, they did more harm than good for the women of this county.....they fought so hard for "equality" that the men in power said "ok, you want equality, you got it....no maternity leave for you." Well done ladies!

I also take issue with the opinion that if Mom can't afford to stay home, then that couple shouldn't have kids. It's ok though for me to keep up my job to pay for all the lazy Medicaid b!tches who can't keep their legs together for 5 mins or figure out how to use a damn condom!

[Fandango 1,439]

It would be nice to stay home and take care of my kids. i would LOVE that!!! more than anything. but guess what Lisa, it takes TWO incomes now to raise a family and to live. therefore myself and my husband have to work. We are not millionaires and we dont run our own busniess's therefore we both have to work. so until my husband starts making enough money for me to stay home and raise our kids, i have to come to work, and when they get sick i have to call in or my husband has to call in!

I did acknowledge that, Ionescu. And of course there will be things that come up where one has to call into work...I'm not saying that it shouldn't be allowed to happen. But what I am commenting on is the fact that childless people's time is not less valuable than parents.

_________

I have not had a child yet because it has not been the right time for me. FOR ME, there's going to be enough money in the bank so that I can take several years off to raise my family. That was our objective many years ago. And while there's a trade off, we feel perfectly fine with our choice. However, the career I have now is actually my own business...so I can control my own hours and even work from home. So now, I just may keep my job and work it around our lives. It's not for an employer to bend around me...I can either do the job or I can't...and if time is a problem for many parents...well then I feel the solution is finding a job which meets your schedule, not the other way around.

My time is just as valuable as anyone else's....and if being a parent is so vital that it's THE FUTURE OF OUR SOCIETY! well then perhaps a bit of pre-planning would have helped the situation so that parents can give their children the attention they deserve

i dunno where that is, but i know every company i ever worked for, children or not, you dont show up or if you make it a habit to ALWAYS call in, its the same penalty as with childrenless people. "termination"

therefore, it is the owners choice to be that easy on mothers, and less on ppl with no kids, not being a policy.

Well I'm not talking about where you worked, I'm talking about where *I* worked.

It was the owner's choice to be lenient....but I think it's discriminatory.

Oh, the feminist movement has a lot to answer for, they did more harm than good for the women of this county.....they fought so hard for "equality" that the men in power said "ok, you want equality, you got it....no maternity leave for you." Well done ladies!

I also take issue with the opinion that if Mom can't afford to stay home, then that couple shouldn't have kids. It's ok though for me to keep up my job to pay for all the lazy Medicaid b!tches who can't keep their legs together for 5 mins or figure out how to use a damn condom!

I agree with your first paragraph completely....and really what the fem movement did was say 'oh I can raise our family AND work a 40 hour week' cos let's face it....we didn't really give up doing anything....we just added more. I think it sucks. I do happen to think that raising your kids is priority #1. I believe in equality, however you can be equal and have separate roles in a marriage.

Your second paragraph raises some very valid points, but I don't know what the answers are.

[Sinergy 3]

It would be nice to stay home and take care of my kids. i would LOVE that!!! more than anything. but guess what Lisa, it takes TWO incomes now to raise a family and to live. therefore myself and my husband have to work. We are not millionaires and we dont run our own busniess's therefore we both have to work. so until my husband starts making enough money for me to stay home and raise our kids, i have to come to work, and when they get sick i have to call in or my husband has to call in!

I did acknowledge that, Ionescu. And of course there will be things that come up where one has to call into work...I'm not saying that it shouldn't be allowed to happen. But what I am commenting on is the fact that childless people's time is not less valuable than parents.

_________

I have not had a child yet because it has not been the right time for me. FOR ME, there's going to be enough money in the bank so that I can take several years off to raise my family. That was our objective many years ago. And while there's a trade off, we feel perfectly fine with our choice. However, the career I have now is actually my own business...so I can control my own hours and even work from home. So now, I just may keep my job and work it around our lives. It's not for an employer to bend around me...I can either do the job or I can't...and if time is a problem for many parents...well then I feel the solution is finding a job which meets your schedule, not the other way around.

My time is just as valuable as anyone else's....and if being a parent is so vital that it's THE FUTURE OF OUR SOCIETY! well then perhaps a bit of pre-planning would have helped the situation so that parents can give their children the attention they deserve

i dunno where that is, but i know every company i ever worked for, children or not, you dont show up or if you make it a habit to ALWAYS call in, its the same penalty as with childrenless people. "termination"

therefore, it is the owners choice to be that easy on mothers, and less on ppl with no kids, not being a policy.

Well I'm not talking about where you worked, I'm talking about where *I* worked.

It was the owner's choice to be lenient....but I think it's discriminatory.

I too had enough money to stay home for 5 yrs with my daughter (now 11) when she was first born. it was great. When we planned Joshua we were living in romania and we have a good amount of money saved. but moving back here and thanks to USCIS and their charges and airfare we lost our nestegg, so that sucks.

[Jenn! 918]

What are we doing wrong? Look at Norway! (# of hours worked annually)

So they are lazy bastards, like most Europeans. If you're a lazy bum, Europe is the right place for you.

Norway is one of the richest countries in the world -- they don't have to work hard

GDP per hour worked in those countries is also higher -- proof that simply working more hours doesn't make a country more productive:

http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____136140.asp

Thank you for getting my point. It seems happy, efficient workers are being misteken for lazy ones.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I think lost in this debate will be the fact that a lot of people spend a lot of hours at work (both parents and the childfree) and accomplish nothing and some people come in and do their 9-5 and accomplish a lot.

One of my former employees used to take time off for his kids -- leaving early for PTA conferences/dance recitals/sports events, taking time off when they were ill......but when he was in the office he really delivered.

Another woman (childless) came in from 9-8, was a complete martyr about working late, but could always be found during those hours on the internet planning her next vacation/making personal phone calls/sending instant messages -- her work was often late and sloppy, but apparently this was okay because she put 10 hours of face time.

Now when both these employeers need the same day off for whatever reason, who should get it?

[PlatyPius 5]

It would be nice to stay home and take care of my kids. i would LOVE that!!! more than anything. but guess what Lisa, it takes TWO incomes now to raise a family and to live. therefore myself and my husband have to work. We are not millionaires and we dont run our own busniess's therefore we both have to work. so until my husband starts making enough money for me to stay home and raise our kids, i have to come to work, and when they get sick i have to call in or my husband has to call in!

I did acknowledge that, Ionescu. And of course there will be things that come up where one has to call into work...I'm not saying that it shouldn't be allowed to happen. But what I am commenting on is the fact that childless people's time is not less valuable than parents.

_________

I have not had a child yet because it has not been the right time for me. FOR ME, there's going to be enough money in the bank so that I can take several years off to raise my family. That was our objective many years ago. And while there's a trade off, we feel perfectly fine with our choice. However, the career I have now is actually my own business...so I can control my own hours and even work from home. So now, I just may keep my job and work it around our lives. It's not for an employer to bend around me...I can either do the job or I can't...and if time is a problem for many parents...well then I feel the solution is finding a job which meets your schedule, not the other way around.

My time is just as valuable as anyone else's....and if being a parent is so vital that it's THE FUTURE OF OUR SOCIETY! well then perhaps a bit of pre-planning would have helped the situation so that parents can give their children the attention they deserve

i dunno where that is, but i know every company i ever worked for, children or not, you dont show up or if you make it a habit to ALWAYS call in, its the same penalty as with childrenless people. "termination"

therefore, it is the owners choice to be that easy on mothers, and less on ppl with no kids, not being a policy.

Well I'm not talking about where you worked, I'm talking about where *I* worked.

It was the owner's choice to be lenient....but I think it's discriminatory.

Oh, the feminist movement has a lot to answer for, they did more harm than good for the women of this county.....they fought so hard for "equality" that the men in power said "ok, you want equality, you got it....no maternity leave for you." Well done ladies!

I also take issue with the opinion that if Mom can't afford to stay home, then that couple shouldn't have kids. It's ok though for me to keep up my job to pay for all the lazy Medicaid b!tches who can't keep their legs together for 5 mins or figure out how to use a damn condom!

I agree with your first paragraph completely....and really what the fem movement did was say 'oh I can raise our family AND work a 40 hour week' cos let's face it....we didn't really give up doing anything....we just added more. I think it sucks. I do happen to think that raising your kids is priority #1. I believe in equality, however you can be equal and have separate roles in a marriage.

Your second paragraph raises some very valid points, but I don't know what the answers are.

I agree with everything you've said, of course.

If the US were like the UK, in that women get months of maternity leave, it would be less of an issue. They are gone long enough there that it warrants hiring a temp worker to cover for them.

In the US, they are only out for a week or two (typically), so it's left to the other workers to cover for them.

As for the "sick days"..... Most places I have worked have allowed parents to leave work (unpaid) to attend to their kids bumps, bruises, viral infections, colds, sniffles, and bad gas. If *I* get sick, I have to use one of my 5 yearly sick days. In every case, the parents abused the "free days off" to the point of it becoming really annoying to the rest of us. Add to that the fact that kids are little germ factories, and the parents always manage to bring in some nasty that infects the entire office.....

In my opinion, you shouldn't have kids until you are able to take care of them completely. Raising Kids-By-Proxy really gets on my nerves. One of you should stay the hell home or work a part time job. Kids should know more about you than about their "Daycare Provider".

Again, that's my opinion. If you don't like it, you're free to rant like a loon if you want.

[mawilson 2,133]

Thank you for getting my point. It seems happy, efficient workers are being misteken for lazy ones.

They are f*ing lazy. Go to Europe and see for yourself.

[Irisheyes 0]

It would be nice to stay home and take care of my kids. i would LOVE that!!! more than anything. but guess what Lisa, it takes TWO incomes now to raise a family and to live. therefore myself and my husband have to work. We are not millionaires and we dont run our own busniess's therefore we both have to work. so until my husband starts making enough money for me to stay home and raise our kids, i have to come to work, and when they get sick i have to call in or my husband has to call in!

I did acknowledge that, Ionescu. And of course there will be things that come up where one has to call into work...I'm not saying that it shouldn't be allowed to happen. But what I am commenting on is the fact that childless people's time is not less valuable than parents.

_________

I have not had a child yet because it has not been the right time for me. FOR ME, there's going to be enough money in the bank so that I can take several years off to raise my family. That was our objective many years ago. And while there's a trade off, we feel perfectly fine with our choice. However, the career I have now is actually my own business...so I can control my own hours and even work from home. So now, I just may keep my job and work it around our lives. It's not for an employer to bend around me...I can either do the job or I can't...and if time is a problem for many parents...well then I feel the solution is finding a job which meets your schedule, not the other way around.

My time is just as valuable as anyone else's....and if being a parent is so vital that it's THE FUTURE OF OUR SOCIETY! well then perhaps a bit of pre-planning would have helped the situation so that parents can give their children the attention they deserve

i dunno where that is, but i know every company i ever worked for, children or not, you dont show up or if you make it a habit to ALWAYS call in, its the same penalty as with childrenless people. "termination"

therefore, it is the owners choice to be that easy on mothers, and less on ppl with no kids, not being a policy.

Well I'm not talking about where you worked, I'm talking about where *I* worked.

It was the owner's choice to be lenient....but I think it's discriminatory.

Oh, the feminist movement has a lot to answer for, they did more harm than good for the women of this county.....they fought so hard for "equality" that the men in power said "ok, you want equality, you got it....no maternity leave for you." Well done ladies!

I also take issue with the opinion that if Mom can't afford to stay home, then that couple shouldn't have kids. It's ok though for me to keep up my job to pay for all the lazy Medicaid b!tches who can't keep their legs together for 5 mins or figure out how to use a damn condom!

I agree with your first paragraph completely....and really what the fem movement did was say 'oh I can raise our family AND work a 40 hour week' cos let's face it....we didn't really give up doing anything....we just added more. I think it sucks. I do happen to think that raising your kids is priority #1. I believe in equality, however you can be equal and have separate roles in a marriage.

Your second paragraph raises some very valid points, but I don't know what the answers are.

I agree with everything you've said, of course.

If the US were like the UK, in that women get months of maternity leave, it would be less of an issue. They are gone long enough there that it warrants hiring a temp worker to cover for them.

In the US, they are only out for a week or two (typically), so it's left to the other workers to cover for them.

As for the "sick days"..... Most places I have worked have allowed parents to leave work (unpaid) to attend to their kids bumps, bruises, viral infections, colds, sniffles, and bad gas. If *I* get sick, I have to use one of my 5 yearly sick days. In every case, the parents abused the "free days off" to the point of it becoming really annoying to the rest of us. Add to that the fact that kids are little germ factories, and the parents always manage to bring in some nasty that infects the entire office.....

In my opinion, you shouldn't have kids until you are able to take care of them completely. Raising Kids-By-Proxy really gets on my nerves. One of you should stay the hell home or work a part time job. Kids should know more about you than about their "Daycare Provider".

Again, that's my opinion. If you don't like it, you're free to rant like a loon if you want.

So what if you have a family member in an accident or taken suddenly ill to hospital. You don't think you should be allowed unpaid time off at the last minute for that? Same scenario, different family member. If you work for an employer who says it's ok for the mom with the sick kid but not you with the family member in hospital, then you need to look for a new job. Go union or something, they could always use people like you!

[Peikko 1,575]

It is a total mistake to equate a lazy worker with a working mother.

Some people have a poor work ethic, they take advantage at the work place, some people don't, period.

I have witnessed men who turn up at work and do virtually nothing all day long, by contrast I have seen working mother who manage to complete the work of nearly two people in shorter working day.

In my experience, working mothers have a very high work ethic. Could that be because once they return to the home, they often take on their 'second' job which is to completely run the home, provide meals/care/clean for their families? In my experience They rarely feel sorry for themselves and dislike having to ask for sick leave to take care of their kids. They will often work very hard to ensure that they make up for any time they do take off.

Are all working mothers/parents like that? Of course not, but in my experience, the responsibility of parenthood lead to people taking better responsibilty in all areas of their life.

Should women work at all? I am sure not many men would like it if they stopped work, or are we just talking about the work women get paid for?

Women do have a lot to contribute in the work place and to say that if women didn't work for pay then there would be greater work opportunities for men is...well let's just say this is about the most niave comment I have seen in a long time.

Accomodating families (not just women) when they are raising young children should not be percieved as a perk for the those who choose to be parents paid for by the childless. People have to cover for their collegues for a multitude of reasons and caring for a sick child (unless the child has a chronic illness) is no more or less likely than any of the other reasons that it has to be done.

Oh, and what about those single parents out there, what should they do? Live on social security until their children are too old to get sick? Or is that yet another thing that 'shouldn't be allowed' in modern society?

As for the first post, good luck to her, if she was demoted for having a child, this should be addressed, it's ridiculous!

Oh, and the feminist movement didn't bring women into the industrial work place, world war 2 managed that.

[pedroh 21]

Thank you for getting my point. It seems happy, efficient workers are being misteken for lazy ones.

They are f*ing lazy. Go to Europe and see for yourself.

LMAO!!

well, I lived there.. no 24h places, no open on sundays.. some works take 'holy monday' and don't open on monday either... yea they're kkinda lazy.. oh yeah, and U can't buy ice bags in holland!! ####### is that