Controversial take: Pit the workers against each other while the boss takes even more time off.
I think we all should get more guaranteed time off to just enjoy our one finite life.
I think if someone needs to come in late/leave early/go home unexpectedly we shouldn’t have to justify it because we are adults (so long as we get our assigned tasks done WHO CARES). If we can’t meet work goals I think we should (as again - fucking adults) have a conversation with our team/manager to handle it.
I think if we are sick we should be given time and space to recover. It’s not our employer’s business how, what, or why (that includes not requiring an employee to see a doctor or get a FUCKING DOCTORS NOTE). When it comes to sick time I don’t care if someone is taking care of themselves, their sick child, their elderly parents, or their chihuahua with a broken leg, they shouldn’t have to explain it, they shouldn’t have to justify it, and it should be given identical time and grace.
I don’t think that unmarried or childfree people should have to cover all the holidays because ThEY dON’t HaVE fAMilY. That’s cruel and untrue and heteronomative. And if you have ever said this to someone, stood by while someone else said this, or benefited from someone using this logic to make the same person/people work EVERY holiday please know I think you are a trash person.
I think management/the owners/corporate will give us all as little time as they can get away with and LOVES it when we segment ourselves into in- and out-groups that fight over off-time like it’s a resource the workers control. We don’t. Don’t let them convince you we aren’t all in this together and that we don’t ALL deserve more free time.
I think this question pits parents and others against each other, when it shouldn’t. Parental leave is necessary to raise a child. But at the same time, workers in general need leave for mental health among other things.
I also think this is more of a problem for places like America where leave is really, really unfairly distributed and there’s basically no worker protections. There should be plenty of medical and annual leave, as well as government support in case medical leave isn’t enough to get better.
I have kids, worked full time as a parent for 25 years and no problem with this. Set the baseline flexibility and treatment good enough to accommodate parents. You don’t need to take it from childless people to give it to parents. Not a zero sum game here.
What I do have a problem with is hostility towards parents, and hostility towards non-parents. We are all in this together, and it’s not frivolous to raise the next generation, someone did that for you. Nor is it selfish to just live your own life - work should not demand our whole lives.
Now that my kids are grown, I still work at a flexible employer, and use that flexibility for doctors appointments, errands to places only open during working hours, and concerts & shows. Would I defer to someone with a child or aged parent with an emergency? Yes. Would I defer to someone with no kids whose partner was having an emergency? Yes.
I love these wholesome debates. Let’s all hate on each other as we fight over scraps from the Master’s table.
ITT: people thinking that offering everybody the same flexibility means taking that flexibility from parents
smfh
I mean with money time and resources being a zero-sum game it kind of is is it not?
Of course these corporations have more than enough resources, but do you think they’re going to use them for the benefit of us hell no.
It absolutely does. If you have 2 employees and 1 works from home due to kids. All of a sudden the other guy gets butt hurt cuz he wants to work from home now you have to accommodate the asshole that wants to work from home so he can sleep in.
Can you explain why the childless employee is an asshole in this scenario?
Because breeders feel entitled, and they resent anyone who has a better life than them because they didn’t reproduce
But that’s not taking anything from the one that has kids. They still get to work from home
why can’t they both work from home if they both have the same position?
how does the other guy working from home nagatively affect the parent?
if your answer is “because then the parent has to go in”, then they don’t have the same position
either the position allows for wfh, or it doesn’t.
That’s exactly what I’m telling you. You are under the impression that work is fair in the US. That is not the case. The position isn’t relevant.
you are under the impression everyone here is from the US
Can you explain how allowing both employees to work remotely “means taking that flexibility from parents”? Also, why do you characterize people who want to work remotely as assholes? This reads like you have some kind of personal animosity you’re expressing here rather than a considered opinion based in something legitimate.
How do you know the worthless parents aren’t sleeping in? What’s this assumption that suddenly they’re responsible adults because they popped out a kid? That’s not guaranteed, I’ll tell you that.
I’d argue they’re less responsible if they’re popping kids out left and right without being prepared for it financially or thinking of the childrens’ well-being. But, as it is.
Funny. I was thinking about how I’d like a dog but I know it would strain my finances and I don’t have the space for it so I have employed this radical strategy called “not spending money I don’t have.”
If more humans put that thought in before making other humans willy nilly, we would be in a utopia.
We shouldn’t be bringing unwanted people into the world.
I have 6 figures available to spend on credit cards right now, but that money isn’t mine and I’d have to pay to borrow it which is COMPLETELY unsustainable as an ongoing cost to maintain a pet. 10 years ago, that would’ve been pretty dangerous. Now I’ve got much more self control and foresight to understand what will happen if I carry balances.
Yes. But blame the bosses, don’t blame parents.
Not quite the same formulation, but I’ve read the argument that paternal leave should be equal to maternal leave, and that both should be mandatory, because otherwise it creates an incentive for companies to hire men rather than women who might make use of maternity leave. I can see a similar argument for all workers, so that there isn’t an incentive to hire people who will never have children over those who will.
Of course, all of these scenarios presume that any companies would willingly provide any leave whatsoever, which is already a fantasy. A company will only provide as many benefits as it is forced to, and a functioning regulatory state is the only entity that could force such compliance.
And everyone should have a stable home, healthcare, good paying job, etc.
No because they have different needs. Society should focus on providing people based on their needs, not how much they produce. Only a slave bases his worth on his productivity.
Check out the crabs in the bucket.
Mostly I agree. I have no kids and won’t (vasectomy), and I’m a bit on the antinatalist side. Not so far in that I think people should never have kids. But reproducing at the rate we do is unsustainable and thus unethical. So there’s a bias there.
I do think maternity and paternity leave should be given. And some grace should be allowed for small things. Like having to come in a little late or leave a little early for having to pick up/drop off kids, that kind of thing. To a point. If it’s causing more than a minor burden to coworkers, then that’s a problem.
But getting preference in scheduling, time off, etc? I don’t agree with that. I shouldn’t get the short end of the stick because they have a kid.
Edit: In reading some of the other comments, I saw a common sentiment which I’ll sum up as “don’t blame the parent, blame the system” which I can agree with.
I also had a “chose to breed” line in my last paragraph. I softened the language there, because it’s not always a choice.
Of course childless people have needs too and deserve workplace flexibility. This post smacks of looking into your neighbor’s bowl though. If you don’t have all the additional obligations that come with parenting, don’t claim to be the same as those who do. Whatever life concerns you also have: your own health, aging parents, mental wellness, pets, etc etc etc parents ALSO have on top of kids. So get the workplace flexibility you need without crying about what parents get. If you know, you know. And if you don’t know, you really don’t know (but your mother does).
I’m so fucking sick of being looked at like a prodigal slob for being a parent. SMfH. Here we are taking swipes at each other instead of focusing on the employers. Good job playing right into their hands. Fuck.
Seriously - the employers could end all of this nitpicking about who gets what by simply offering the same level of time off and flexibility to everyone.
Parents aren’t the enemy here and never have been.
If everyone had the flexibility for everything they need in life, people would still complain if parents get more because they need more.
If childless people aren’t getting the minimum they need for health and wellness and family care or whatever might be named, then go agitate for that. Leave parents out of it.
I don’t need the same accommodations as a worker in a wheelchair. I’m not running around saying everyone should get them.
Raising kids is literally essential work to support human civilization. People gripe about parental benefits but somehow still want children raised well to do all the jobs and create this world we live in.
The people complaining can suck it.
Employers should still offer enough flexibility for everyone to have a good work/life balance. Period. Does that mean some people like parents and caregivers may need more at times? Yes and so be it.
I still believe everyone should be able to take time as they need it and in the manner in which they need to take it.
Agree completely. Even better, that’s what my employer offers. Take time off when you need it. As long as your work is done there is no cap. Any job can be remote. All teams are distributed and international so there is really no set hours.
My work place is similar - everyone can take time off as they need it. We all support one another. Get the work done. Go home and enjoy your life.
Nobody has anything against parents getting these benefits or is saying that they don’t need them. What’s the problem is that everyone should be getting them, parents or not.
I can agree with that as far as it goes. In some workplaces there can be zero sum cases where someone has to be on duty. If it comes to that someone who has a sick kid to look after should get the flexibility over the person who doesn’t. And hey if the parent’s kid is not sick, and the childless person’s grandmother is, then THEY should get the flexibility.
Just stop saying that you need all the same flexibility as parents. You don’t.
Yes. If you can’t take care of your kids and have to rely on strangers (coworkers) to sacrifice their life, don’t have kids.
I beg to differ - there are definitely people in here that are against parents getting these benefits.
What’s shocking to me is that people are blaming parents more than the system/employers that overburdens the workers without kids.
Yeah I just tune those people out. Advocating for a child free existence is all well and good, and believe me, there isnt a parent on this planet that hasn’t had a split second thought about how much easier it was before they had kids at some point or another.
But when it crosses the line to militancy, sorry but people are gonna breed, and whether they think thats appropriate or not frankly isnt their concern and their opinion on that carries precisely as much weight with me as my opinion to have children likely has on them…literal none.
But whatever they do, dont call having kids some kind of path to fuckin easy street. If they think that is the case, I invite them to come over and take care of my kids for a couple days and see how much fun it is.
But whatever they do, dont call having kids some kind of path to fuckin easy street. If they think that is the case, I invite them to come over and take care of my kids for a couple days and see how much fun it is.
Yeah this idea that parents get all these concessions and rewards and tax deductions that make their lives demonstrably easier than anyone else’s is laughable. Even the paper napkin math on that doesn’t work out in the slightest.
Yeah, the system over burdens everyone. Parents need to take their share of the burden. It’s not fair to hand it off on their childless coworkers just because those people don’t have kids to deal with. We chose to not have kids because we knew it would be a problem with the way things are. You fucked up. Deal with it yourself. We didn’t forgo kids so we’d have more time to do your work.
Childless coworkers being given more work than they are paid for is not the fault of parents - it’s the fault of the employer for understaffing.
You are simply never going to have a world without children in it. Deal with it like a fucking adult who lives in a society.
You don’t like having to cover your coworkers stuff when they have other priorities than being a wage slave? Take it up with your employer.
Everyone should have the freedom to take care of their lives when they need to.
This includes being paid a salary that doesn’t keep you on the edge of poverty and ruin.
This should be the lowest bar legally. The fact that minimum wage isn’t tied to inflation was inconvenient decades ago, now it is actively harming everyone in the US.
There are more labor protections that we need (see: EU countries with functioning democracies) but pay and leave minimums are the most impactful to the most people’s quality of life.
I’m all for it, but at the end of the day, humanity needs to reproduce. So if there was only room for flexibility for the parents then that’s what makes sense to put first.
