A society should always prioritize its weaker members. Children are among these. The flexibility given to the parents is not a gift to the parents, but to the children.
Regrettably, this focused flexibility has an unintended side effect. It makes people with children less desirable in the job market. If it is a universal right, then it has the effect of pulling those with kids into parity with the non parents.
We have a lot of things an employer has to afford to parents in Germany. The only significant discrimination is against women who might have children in the future and that’s more to do with them not being able to work for a while.
This is why not only should fathers get the same amount of time off as mother’s, but they should be required to take it.
From each according to there ability, To each according to there need.
People with children need more from society, as long as those people are also contributing as much as they are able, they deserve to have that need me
Why not both? I chose not to have kids because I think this world is idiotic and don’t want more unnecessary suffering.
And it’s your choice, which is absolutely respectable. But refusing to support your society’s children because you’re childless is not better that being against DEI because you’re white.
When it’s possible to give the same flexibility to everybody, that should be done of course, but it’s not always the case.
It’s not “society’s children” they’re refusing to support, it’s their shitty employer under capitalism. If we lived in a utopian society, you’d have a point. It’s not the employee’s role to sacrifice for some other person the employer is accommodating at your expense.
Capitalism is not an excuse not to stand in solidarity within the working class. And capitalism doesn’t make society disappear, in spite of what they would want us to believe.
But we’re not talking about whether or not childcare would be subsidised (it should) or education and healthcare be free (they should). We’re talking about whether being flexible to work from home or have flex hours should be allowed. And they should. For everyone, regardless of parental status.
Yeah, anyone who has to take care of a sick family member should get to work from home that day, whether it’s a child or an elderly grandparent. That’s what the same flexibility means, not getting to work from home the same amount of days as a parent tit for tat.
It’s not always possible. When it is, of course it should be for everyone; but children should have their parents with them when they’re sick or when school is closed. And that often means that childless workers can’t be on holiday at the same time.
That’s exactly what this debate was about, you’re agreeing now.
The post says “flexibility”.
If the ability to shift hours or wfh is provided to those with children, it should be provided to everyone.
Sure, comment op chose to not have kids, but parents also chose to have kids (or chose to not practice safe sex).
When it’s possible to give the same flexibility to everybody, that should be done of course, but it’s not always the case.
That’s the crux of the argument, and one that I, as a father, side with the childless people.
Yes, they should get the same flexibility afforded to parents. 1000% But the problem comes in here: “When it’s possible…”
Ask yourself why that’s not always the case. The answer, of course, is that payroll is treated by virtually every business owner on the planet as pretty much a min/max game. Minimum wage possible for maximum productivity/profitability. It’s not even just limited to having proper staffing levels…I’ve worked at places that would fire people for not accepting a promotion due to being in their current position for “too long” and having accumulated annual raises to the point where they made a whole few dollars more per hour then their colleagues in the same position…it wasn’t even enough that they’d been there for years and were twice as productive, they needed to climb the ladder so they would be an underpaid supervisor instead of an “overpaid” worker. That’s all that mattered.
The question people should be asking is why something like a single coworker being out of the office unexpectedly has such a large impact to the rest of the group. Why they’re running so close to the bone so fucking always that all it takes is one or two people to get the flu and the whole fucking office is suddenly falling behind. The only reason that happens is because their employer lives in complete mortal terror each and every single day that they may be paying someone a full time wage and only getting 80% productivity in return. They would rather have all their people work at 100% all of the time, and then when someone gets sick or god forbid breeds, have the rest of their employees just work at 120% to keep up. Because that is cheaper for them then having an extra body around and the whole office working at 80% when someone isn’t out. They don’t care about burnout, they don’t care about work/life balance. They care about getting, at a minimum, 100% output from someone working 100% of the time…or rather, they will settle for 100%, but if you made it 110%, hey, here’s a pizza party a few times a year, aren’t I magnanimous?!
This is just one of the many methods the ownership class uses to divide us. They tell you that so and so went out on maternity leave and there’s just nothing they can do, they just need everyone else to work harder to make up for it, as if the possibility of hiring another person so that you can be down someone and still cruise along without everyone busting their ass like lunatics trying to stay afloat never existed in the first place.
Don’t be mad at the people with kids. Don’t be mad at the people without kids. Be mad at your employer who just refuses to have more than the barest minimum payroll at all times so that people can’t even get sick without feeling fucking guilty to their teammates as if it’s their fault that their boss won’t build in a buffer.
You’re right about the description of the work organization. And now? We’re fighting to change these things but in the meantime? Class solidarity is not just words: it’s accepting to make sacrifices for others who need something more than me.
And even in a perfect world where the employers would willing to hire more people, or if the firms were socially owned, things wouldn’t be perfect. Some jobs are in tension: not enough candidates. Some times a big part of the workforce, no just one coworker, want to leave at the same time. Epidemics will still occur. School holidays will still be at the same periods for everyone. Even in a socialist utopia, there would be schedule conflicts (far less than today, but still).
We should in this matter like in the others apply the old principle: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Parents will always have more needs than childless people, because they are themselves needed, and the mode of production will not change that.
(Of course, it also applies to people having a relative suffering from a chronic or debilitating illness.)
if you’re having kids, best account for the reality of them
your lack of planning isn’t my emergency
That’s the selfishness that will kill us ull.
totally not selfish to keep picking options that make others carry you, nope not at all, it’s their fault for proper planning
besides I believe in social safety nets, just not in childcare being uniquely special
The entirety of society is others carrying others.
let me quit my job, i’ll send you a bill for my expenses
You neglect to consider adopting parents.
That’s it! I’m taking “smoke breaks” every hour for my health…
Some people dont have children, but look after grandparents, or a chronically ill or handicapped person, or they take on a lot of responsibilities in the community.
Its very rare and not normal for people not to be involved in their community.
In my experience, people taking care of a family member are given equal flexibility at work. It’s not like Sandra gets to leave early cause her kid is sick, but Matt doesn’t get to leave early when his wife has chemo.
Its not that way in law and social circles in many places in the world. This is why I like the use of dependant in law.
Good thing our benevolent overlords grant us such gracious “gifts” 👌🏼🍆
Gift may not be the right word, you’re right; but English is not my mother tongue and I didn’t find a better one.
No problem. Your English is fine. It’s the concept in general, regardless of what words we use.
Your phrasing was an excellent change of perspective.
A better word might be “privileges”.
Many who don’t have children are among its “weaker” members. Flexibility and being treated well should be a cornerstone of society no matter if you have kids or not, especially now when the vast majority are having a hard enough time.
Removed by mod
do you wanna go pick up janes feverish toddler from daycare today? shes gonna scream and cry and you arnt getting sleep, also, be on alret because the fever may not break tonight and you may have to call out tomorrow too.
I mean yeah, if I can get time off work with no consequences in order to take care of a sick kid in need, of course I am choosing that over fattening some investors’ portfolios.
Idk what your job is, so maybe it is wildly taxing on the average afternoon, but taking care of a sick kid sucks. They’re miserable so you’re miserable and it also means you’re either already sick or about to be sick yourself. You can’t bring them to the park or the library or the store or out to eat because then you’re damning other parents to the week you’re having. If you’re a good parent it’s not just sitting the kid on the couch with the TV and some ginger ale. Maybe it gets to be that easy when your kid is like 10. I hope so.
I’d pick my old office job 10/10 times when they’re sick, but it’s also not zero consequences. It’s either you’re taking PTO hours or you’re calling in favors, or you’re taking an FMLA day which is unpaid (in my state at least) and it also makes your coworkers resent you, which is a very real consequence.
My six-year-old daughter has the flu today, and I was just saying I’d rather have the flu than take care of her. Not for any selfless reasons, but because trying to get her to take a single sip of water is more taxing than being sick myself would be.
I felt the same.
there is consequences is what im sayin
Same energy
Wouldn’t this be the workers asking for an equal number of cookies regardless of if they have children? Sounds to me like saying everyone should get more flexibility.
I read it more like immigrants being helped to integrate into the host country. Extra help is sometimes granted where it is necessary
This post is crying about parents getting extra flexibility instead of the actual issue of capitalists exploiting workers to the limit
“Employees without children deserve the exact same treatment and flexibility as those with children” sounds to me very much like its saying the flexibility should be for everyone.
And I think if childless people were saying my grandmother has a fever and her ALF won’t keep her today because of it, they’d be allowed the exact same remote allowances that a parent in their office is afforded. But if a childless person wants the same number of hours regardless of why, that’s not the same flexibility.
Thare are too many different forms of employment to list every possible situation, but a simple example is flexitime being available to everyone and not just parents.
Also if you don’t currently have benefits like that would you expect to get them when you have kids? Not having them might impact planning choices.
Ask for what you need instead of what I have.
Everyone benefits from more flexibility
Not everyone has the same needs.
Yes, but it’s important that the option is there for all. I want benefits for everyone even if I don’t specifically need all of them.
You will need parental benefits if you become a parent. And magically, you will also qualify for them.
If everyone has the same flexibility there will be conflucts and someone will have to sacrifice. Whos sacrifice is less affective those with kids or those without
People sometimes have to go without time off anyway, regardless of kids. If I book time off work to go away and its already approved, someone with kids doesn’t get to take that time instead of me.
Plus my partner is a teacher so we are even more restricted to school term times than the kids are. At least some kids just go on holiday during term time anyway.
This thread is so fucking sad to read. All of you are workers squabbling over the basic dignity to have paid leave from work. You all sound like slaves, justifying your lashes. What if, and I know this is radical, we enabled all workers to have as much flexibility as possible over how they are productive with their labour?
I’m not sure I understand your question: do you mean the flexibility to be proportional to productivity?
Nah. Over meaning greater than.
Flexibility in all things regarding work. Workers are worth more than just the work they can do. The will of any company or government should not be considered until the worker is satisfied.
Yes, fight among each other and leave us millionaire bosses alone 🤑
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.
Hot take, company executives should get as little flexibility as the employee at the company that’s awarded the least flexibility.
I find it so sad that your take shouldn’t be a hot take.
And non-smokers should be given as many breaks as the smokers!
what i have observed is that they don’t ask or simply don’t take as many breaks. but yeah, stepping outside for five minutes and taking deep breaths is a good idea for most, regardless of nicotine!
I once started sitting outside with the smokers whenever they took their collective break. I was told I had to stop doing that because I wasn’t a smoker…
I was like… “Do I need to start smoking? Cause I can start smoking…”
The boss didn’t like that…
You were a smoker though. A passive one.
I smoke a special brand of invisible, pink cigarettes. They have a unicorn pattern on the wrappers.
Should be “as many minutes” rather than “as many breaks”. If a smoker get five 10-minutes smoke breaks a day, I’d rather take two 25-minutes breaks and use them for long(ish) walks around the area to breath some fresh(ish) air.
True!
Hot take: as a non-smoker, I regularly took “smoke breaks” anyway. Often, i was hanging out on the loading dock with the smokers.
Same. I used to tell people I second hand smoked.
NO! Non-smokers should take up smoking while the smokers quit. Then the new smokers take the smoke breaks and the new non-smokers can catch up on the work they missed.
I love these wholesome debates. Let’s all hate on each other as we fight over scraps from the Master’s table.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
A lot of parents in the comments here. I do believe that there are some concessions that parents should receive, but there is a noticeable imbalance in the flexibility given to parents and non-parents.
I think that paid parental leave is something that parents should receive over non-parents without question. You are being given that time to recover and raise your infant. In my country, it is even paid by the government to the employer so that they can pay the employee.
The thing that irks me is when parents get priority for leave requests etc because of their kids. My wife and I have missed out on family holidays because our employers have told us that parents get priority for leave during school holidays. Ignoring the fact that our families are travelling in school holidays because there are children in our family.
I have been told by employers that I cannot start an hour early today (in a job that has no client facing role) in order to leave early for an appointment. Yet there are people sending the “out of office for an hour to pick up the kids” message every other day.
You should bring that up. This doesn’t sound right.
It doesn’t even need to be about flexibility for parents – the way they deal with someone having an appointment is not acceptable.
Best take in the thread. This is what people are missing. They’re focused on things like children being sick and that it’s no picnic. But if my coworker jets at 3 to ref his child’s soccer game which he volunteers to do because he likes and wants to, and others are not able to take time like that, is that the same flexibility?
The leaving to pick up kids, “don’t worry, I’ll be back online after”, and they vaporize…all too common as well. It’s a daily thing where I work.
Essentially, it is often abused.
It’s unfortunate when they make it zero sum. But before we talk about all the flexibility parents have, keep in mind the flexibility they don’t have. They can’t decide what time their kids’ school gets out or takes holidays. We’d love to have that, among other reasons so that we could accommodate your preferences.
I think it would be ideal if everyone could be afforded the flexibility they need in their own lives for whatever they might wish to do, but I don’t think this take is a very good one.
The reason parents are often given these benefits is because there is an understanding that there is a literal human being’s life on the line, and that this person cares incredibly strongly about that child.
I might care a lot about an event I want to go to, but when it comes down to it, any boss would probably pick making sure a parent can pick their kid up from school over me being able to go a concert or something.
If everyone had a kid tomorrow, you’d probably see a lot of these benefits not be offered as freely, considering how businesses would simply just be understaffed to handle that much demand for flexibility, skipping certain hours, schedule changes, etc.
All that said though, there is still room for benefits and additional flexibility to be afforded to workers… if corporations are willing to spend extra money on more staff, better accommodations like not requiring in-office work when the work only requires being on a computer all day, stuff like that.
On the one hand you are absolutely correct about these accommodations being for the benefit of the children
On the other hand, if your employer is denying your reasonable request for PTO, or denying accommodations in an emergency unrelated to children, then your company is already understaffed.
Any employer that can’t handle the sudden absence of an employee is failing at management and is not somewhere I would want to continue working. If your shift needs everyone to show up or things fall apart, run for the hills.
As a patent of a small child, without some benefits in the form of flexibility in hours (not in output) either I or my partner wouldn’t be able to work without external help.
Those who can’t afford the help sometimes have to “work for free” because some hours they work just go to somebody to be with their children.
The shitty part is that (anecdotically based on my experience) those who complaint about any benefit for patents are the same who consider selfish to not have children.
Good take. I have just three things to add:
- parents have all the needs of a childless person and their child’s needs
- childless people have this magical way of turning into parents
- even childless people benefit from parental benefits - when they are children
i’ve thought about this a few times since having a kid and it’s made me realise that the most important change is the confidence to say there is something that work must be flexible over.
for example, it is a dealbreaker to me that i must be able to drop and collect my child from school. so my manager and i have spoken about arrangements that allow that to happen.
but it’s that same kind of confidence that someone without kids could bring to the table and say that wednesday is guild night and they need to leave early for it. i mean it doesn’t sound “socially acceptable” but i think that if having kids or religious observances allows you to say “i need this flexibility” you should have the confidence to demand it.
and if your manager is someone who only respects religious or family demands id also condone saying it’s for religious observances and taking no further questions.
A 21 year old in my Art group has a hard line with her job that she doesnt work tuesday mornings because we have group.
and power to her for drawing her line.
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.
Controversial take: Pit the workers against each other while the boss takes even more time off.
