One thing really annoying that I’ve noticed working in the white collar industry is that some people get a free pass all the time on important things, just because they have kids. For example, in a different team who often has to step away during business hours and becomes unreachable, simply because they have kids. There’s always some sort of excuse with them. Have to go pick him up from the bus stop, have to go pick him up from school because they got in trouble, dance recital during the middle of the day, always something. But when it comes to ordinary normal people who don’t have kids, it feels like there’s a lot more scrutiny. Why do you need a doctor’s appointment in the middle of the day? Why do you need to go pick up a prescription at lunch time, like why can’t you work through lunch?
But also, when it comes to employment, it feels like there’s a lot of preferential treatment for people with children. Oh that person has kids / children! They need the job a lot more. They have a little girl! Clearly they need it more than the the person who has a disabled spouse, because kids are way more important than an adult dependent! We can’t fire this person, they have kids! Let’s choose someone who doesn’t have a family. Like, stuff like this. Why is there so much preferential treatment to people who have children? Is this some sort of utilitarian thing? The least number of people affected?
In a way, yes. Good healthy families are a core of a functioning society. However some examples you gave:
Why do you need a doctor’s appointment in the middle of the day?
Unless you’re in a society where doctors are available in the evening, this is a silly question
Why do you need to go pick up a prescription at lunch time
Again, depends on the pharmacist’s opening hours
like why can’t you work through lunch?
This is just stupid completely
They need the job a lot more. They have a little girl!
This makes sense, as again, someone with a child needs to provide for a family
Clearly they need it more than the the person who has a disabled spouse, because kids are way more important than an adult dependent!
This is stupid and a disabled spouse or any dependent should also be taken into consideration
We can’t fire this person, they have kids! Let’s choose someone who doesn’t have a family.
This makes sense. Some people need more money than others. That’s a basic fact. You or I would find more value in £1000 than a billionaire would.
Society flourishes when there are more middle class families flourishing. (By “more” middle class, I mean raising people to the middle class and maintaining those who are as well.) It is natural order that we should make society an easier environment to have a family in, rather than harder. Lest you end up like Japan or China with a declining population
Society was wrong when it started to hate women who had more kids and lived off of child benefits (and maybe a husband’s wage helping as well). If they’re actually doing a decent job at parenting, let them.
By the same logic a disabled spouse doesn’t mean you get any additional consideration right?
“I nutted in a girl once, I’m better than you”
No. Everyone should get the same treatment, as if they had children.
Exactly this. If you need to step away, take care of something, or just need a break, that ought to be entirely acceptable.
The reason it seems like parents “get away with it” is because they push limits, because they have a priority higher than anything else related to employment. I have to go get those kids. Is that report urgent? Cool, I’ll get to it as soon as the literal humans whose lives are depending on me for basic survival are safe at home. Are you going to fire me for parenting? Because that doesn’t change my priorities.
My opinion on this, it fully depends.
I fully agree that people should be empathetic to people with kids because there are events that are outside of their control. This being said I don’t think they should be sympathetic to it. At the end of the day it isn’t that person’s problem that someone else has a kid, so therefore they shouldn’t be affected by it. Being said the world isn’t a perfect place and if you straight out don’t show any sympathy period you’re going to make enemies Having a kid should not be a get out of jail free card for any type of commitment, no if ands or buts.
Since you mentioned the professional World I’ll keep it more leaning towards that, a worker with a kid should not be getting preferable treatment to someone without a kid unless it is something that is directly out of that person’s control. A kid being sick is one thing, leaving early due to a doctor’s appointment is a whole different thing. They make sick days and they make vacation days for that, if the company is willing to work around your appointments that’s great, but that should be a treatment that they are given to everyone regardless of if you have a kid or not.
As for the lunch example that you gave, without getting too far off topic I firmly believe that that shouldn’t be happening. Regardless of if you have a kid or not. Depending on your contract you’re entitled to a lunch, and in most companies that lunch is unpaid. If I’m not being paid my company is not going to dictate what I’m doing. Lunch period Is very often the period that I use to be able to do the things like what you mentioned such as going to the store or going to the bank, that’s none of my employers buisness what I’m doing during that time.
in the professional World shit happens, managers will give preferable treatment to people they like and to the more efficient workers. Some managers also struggle to see the difference between empathy and sympathy and go a little too far in worker preference, this doesn’t mean that it’s right. This is a human trait, it’s against our nature to go against it. However as cold-hearted as it sounds employees life outside of the job should not be a problem of the employer. I’m not saying they should be the first one on The Chopping block, but I am saying that if that worker is less efficient, or ends up working less than higher other workers, the fact that they have a kid at home should not be taken into account.
Please note that this post is not including if your country has laws prohibiting certain actions. Such as in the US FMLA states that once the worker has been with the company for a year they can be entitled to up to 6 months of job protected unpaid leave as long as it’s being used by one of their eligible statuses, and one of these is if I remember my paperwork is caretaking of a dependant or immediate family
“A kid being sick is one thing”
You just wrecked your whole argument and put the flaw to OP and all the kid-free people here.
If your opinion is that “a kid being sick is one thing” then all we’re talking about here is degree of consideration, not whether to consider or not.
OP and others here are acting like having a kid is some get out of work card. “This one weird trick drives bosses insane!!”
It very well may be the case that parents get a little more grace, but chances are that the boss has kids too. Because it starts with “a kid being sick is one thing.”
Depends on the situation. If the parent(s) look absolutely done with life because their crotch goblins are draining the very life from them, I’d do shit like let them go ahead of me in line even if they have hella shit and I just have 1 thing. Let them get on their way and get some rest.
Like, I’m thinking more about the parents than the kids unless the parents are being Karens.
Working class trying to strip other working class of rights and privileges. Yes parents of children should get considerations according to their need.
Fuck no
Up until the last few years I’d hear the same argument about smokers taking breaks. Think the solution is to just keep heading ceos till things improve.
Smokers are actively detrimental to their health, though, while families benefit society
Pretty much agree with the last statement.
Disagree with the first statement. Given that the survival of our species is one reliant on us not only having children but also raising them in a way that improves our world and doesn’t make it worse.
The later of course is the Crux of the problem. A society that doesn’t encourage parents to be good parents and just shits on them instead is not a society that wants to survive.
I’m a parent, and I don’t want special treatment. Some consideration would be nice, but honestly I just want every employee to be treated like adults.
The only co-worker I have on my team has two kids. She’s an absolute pleasure to work with and is a champ when it comes to getting shit done.
As a result, I go out of my way to ensure that she’s covered when she needs to do things for/with her kids. Mainly because I really don’t wanna lose her but also because she pulls her weight and doesn’t ever take advantage of the situation.
I don’t have kids, don’t want 'em, and don’t really care if anyone else does, but if you’re a good teammate and I can see you’re a great parent too, I’ll support you as much as I can.
I don’t have kids myself, but I understand that it’s the employers fault they don’t extend the same privileges to me, not the parents fault for receiving the privilege.
Exactly. This whole argument is just allowing corporate greed and manufactured resource scarcity to win.
Working class trying to remove rights and privileges from the working class because the ruling class creates a situation that encourages it.
You’re looking at it all wrong.
You’re letting yourself get pushed around. The parents have their priorities figured out. They know work isn’t their life. You should stop trying to narc on other people and stand up for your own self.
Having kids you have absolutely unbreakable obligations. Work shit can wait. You’ll learn that eventually.
Everything here is great until you got to the sanctimonious “you’ll learn that eventually” shit.
So you’re telling on yourself that you haven’t figured out that “work can wait”?
You’ll learn that eventually.
I’m disabled, so there’s no more work anyway. But yeah, go ahead and be condescending and incorrect.
Sorry for treating you like I do everyone else. I’ll do better.
Aren’t you delightful.
Because my boss knows if he tries to make me pick between my job and my baby girl… He WILL lose. There wont be a discussion or an argument, he will lose, I might get fired but so be it.
Once people have kids they have more to lose, but running head to head with them instead of making minor concessions is the dumb move. Theres always another job and guaranteed they will start looking immediately if they dont quit outright if you pick that fight. As a supervisor at my job people with kids are also more inclined to bust arse to make sure people arent carrying their load when they do need a bit of special treatment because they still need to provide and have a solid income.
Parents just might quit over work interference in kid stuff. There a legal repercussions for not doing some kid things.
You can also get fired for it. At least in the US. A parent is less likely to get fired for taking an hour or three off here and there to deal with kids than someone is for taking the same time off to deal with other life stuff.
Why are you telling them why you’re taking off? Most employers have a set amount of vacation/sick time as part of their compensation package. You own that time. They don’t need to know why you’re using it.
Is that the fault of the parents, or shitty to inexistent worker rights?
Feels like there is more than just 1 answer…
There’s always some sort of excuse with them. Have to go pick him up from the bus stop, have to go pick him up from school
First part of my answer: when they have to, then they have to. Raising kids isn’t just always fun, it is hard work too. No need to make it even harder. If nobody has kids, humans dy out.
Why do you need to go pick up a prescription at lunch time, like why can’t you work through lunch?
The other part of the answer is just an asshole boss (can’t say it with nice words, sorry, not sorry). As soon as you find a better one, give this one a greeting from me with your shoe print on his backside.
It can be frustrating to see, but remember, parents almost never get any actual time off. Go home at the end of the day? Kids to deal with, and perhaps shuttle around. Weekend? Kids. Holidays? Kids. Parents have enormous, constant responsibility, so cutting them some slack is just basic compassion.
Besides, any decent parent would choose their kids over their job anyway, so being accommodating only makes good business sense.
OP specifically compared having a child dependent versus an adult dependent. An adult dependent also means not having time off. Or, if you have significant health issues of your own, you might not really ever have time off, either.
It’s all about that work-life balance. For example, I fuck off to the bar all the time
Daydrinking isn’t a hobby, it’s a necessity
