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.”
Fuck no, if anything you should be punished for bringing children into this world. (The kids shouldn’t be, but damned if they aren’t going to be already anyway)
Some stupid ideas should just be kept to yourself.
I wish your parents hadn’t had children.
What u trying to say here?
Which part tripped you up? There’s too many people. The world sucks. Mostly because there’s too many people.
Are you suggesting the people in countries with heigher birth rates should be punished for having more children?
I got the stats on that. So whats ur idea here? Stop the Africans from having children cos they are the biggest impact? Seems kinda racist to me ngl.
Calm down there hitler, I’m suggesting that ALL people should stop having children.
So u want the human speicies to die out?
Now you’re getting it.
Wow. I see an obvious way u can help that happen a little quicker.
I applaud you for doing your best to back up your arguments
Thank you random person. Your support is everything to me.
I mean we should all be able to leave our desk to go pick up a prescription for ourselves or a family member. That’s the problem, not that parents are the only ones with the privilege.
The discrimination in regards to parents is real. In an interview I was asked if I would be able to keep up with a demanding schedule because I have kids. In my experience, women with children get the opposite end of that consideration than with men being considered bread winners. This is messed up any way you slice it.
I think your complaint is similar to that of non smokers when smoke breaks were normal. What you see as preferential treatment is just how everyone should be treated.
Also, In my 20 or so years in the legitimate workforce, I have seen parents cut slack and parents get run off because the boss doesn’t like people having other priorities. In my direct experience it’s been a lot more boss dependent than anything else.I’ve worked at a lot of different places and in my experience it varies a lot.
Some bosses cut everybody slack. Some bosses are jerks and cut nobody any slack. I would say most of them play favorites with their employees (some are blatant about it, some are more subtle). Some bosses cut the workers with kids more slack. Some bosses cut the workers with kids less slack.
Anecdotal evidence is like that. It’s emotionally compelling, but doesn’t really tell us what’s going on in the bigger picture.
I would assume cos as humans with empathy for our children hard wired into us to the point that we will kill to protect them (insert some quote about natural selection here). As humans with empathy we can empathise with how that feeling is for others (a feeling a non parent can never understand). As social pack animals we are programmed to ensure the future of the tribe thus the collective protect the young even if the young dont nessasarilly have ur genes. Thus these feeling hardwired into us by evolution may manifest in the behaviour u have witnessed.
Ie. Without well adjusted and cared for children our society is fucked. And most people realise that.
Without well adjusted and cared for children our society is fucked.
Sadly I’d say that most of those who have children today don’t have a clue about how to raise such kids, because they’re neither well adjusted nor cared for. Some self-centered societies are much worst than others in that respect.
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
I think in general people should be understanding of each others’ situations and make things easier on them where possible.
Speaking as a parent, I can pretty much guarantee that you are living a less stressful life than your coworkers with kids. Not sure it means much but hey
I can pretty much guarantee that you have no fucking clue what any other person is dealing with.
you scold people like this irl too?
First part: 100% agree. The problem is that the empathy and compassion isn’t directed at everybody, not that parents get something extra. Everyone should get that extra empathy, and as long as you get your work done, who cares what responsibilities you have at home?
Second part: Hard disagree. There’s simply no way you can know what’s really going on in your coworkers’ lives. People also experience stress very differently, it’s quite relative. I think it’s universal statements like this that are part of the issue. Everybody deserves empathy, compassion, and the flexibility to live a full life while having a job. Parents don’t deserve that more than non-parents.
I don’t have kids, but I have more than one serious health condition which requires tons of medications and doctor’s appointments. My life is usually more stressful than those of my friends and family with kids. Also, their stress is at least moderately predictable and brings them joy in addition to the stress.
Second paragraph is an easy one on my bingo card. Parents are so predictable always thinking they are more tired or more stressed than any non-parent. It doesn’t work like that.
Parents do have a lot of reasons to be tired or stressed but it is self elected. Non-parents (and Parents!) Can also have self elected things that are stressful or tiring. Worse even is when someone has a non- elected thing that is stressful or tiring-- parent or not.
Being a parent is just a low level way to group people, but it doesn’t mean anything other than they just decided to procreate. I certainly have empathy when my coworkers are telling me about how they are tired because of a kid. But empathy should go both ways. Listening to conversations thinking that you have the trump card on stress is a shitty way to approach conversations.
Obviously I’m aware that people face all kinds of challenges and stressors, it’s the entire fucking point of my first paragraph. I wasn’t trying to start a “who’s more stressed” contest here, it was a throwaway half-joke attempt to make OP feel better.
Seriously, internet, can you chill? Do I have to speak with absolute precision and clarity at all times?
in a different team
Maybe this all comes down to the boss of the other team not being a dick? Life and work are not separate things. A good manager knows this. If your manager is making you work through lunch , not take breaks, not go to the doctor, etc. then you have a manager problem and this has absolutely nothing to do with who does/doesn’t have children.
Also depending on where they live making them work through lunch / breaks is illegal without extra pay. Look up your local labor laws.
I don’t think so but tbh it sounds like you’re just in a bit of a shitty team. My coworkers with kids do the same thing but so do I with no kids. I can just disappear for a bit as long as I’m getting my work done
Yeah, I was a little late the other day for my daughter’s appointment, but my coworker needed to duck out early another day because they had a maintenance guy going to their place.
Exactly. I disappear quite often, just like my colleagues with kids do. We all trust each other to get our work done, so nobody cares what we actually do all day. More widespread work from home has helped normalize this a bit (it’s an amazing privilege that I enjoy, that not everyone can, to be fair), but just don’t be late for meetings, meet your deadlines, and otherwise enjoy your life however you choose, kids or not.
As someone without children:
They should, yes. Children are extremely important for our future so especially people who earn well and can provide their children with a good life (likely leading to a successful carrier later on) should be encouraged to have them.
Additionally this kind of culture is needed if we want women to have same chances as men (since childcare still is majorly done by women, and likely always will be (progressive families split it evenly, conservative families don’t or at least don’t split it evenly, for every families where the father does more there’s at least one where the mother does more))
As someone with kids: they should not. This kind of basic flexibility should be the bar for all employees, regardless of family status.
So they should get this kind of treatment, it just shouldn’t be special.
This is a well thought out reply that made me change my original stance. Well done and thank you.
We are approaching 10 billion people on this Earth.
At some point people should realize that the important thing for our future is having less children, not more.
Population is shrinking in developed countries, looks like that issue will erase itself as more and more countries are developed.
Population is rising in developed countries.
You may want to say that new borns by native population are shrinking.
But the growth in inmigration greatly overcomes that fact.
Check population charts of the US, the UK, France, Germany, Sweden… Not one points down, all point up.
Problem is not solving by itself.
I meant it’s shrinking without immigration, yes. As more and more countries are developed, less and less countries have population growth, so there’s also no population growth through immigration anymore (when one time the people from the few countries that still have population growth are distributed among so many countries without population growth).
It is solving itself if we keep working on helping countries to become developed.
Idk, there’s a point of view over this that seams very reasonable, and it’s being proven (imho).
People who emigrate tend to be the “best”, aka: the educate youth, the working class, people running from other people causing trouble. This means that the country of origin gets a way harder time developing, sometimes even become worse the most people go away.
I think there’s an example of this on a great part of Latin America. 10 years ago it used to be a better place to be. But as more and more people run away from those troubles to USA and Spain the people causing troubles are the ones left back there. And in most Latin American countries it can be said that the developing process has not only halted, but in some places have even start regressing.
I’m a little pessimistic on this regard. I don’t believe that the whole world will develop on this country. Quite the contrary, I think we’ll began seeing more and more countries becoming worse over time. Other instance of this is the Arab World, many countries that started developing on the last century have fallen nowadays in islamic fundamentalism and basically a middle ages revival.
You concatenate this issues with climate change and I think humanity are in for a very bad time over the next centuries. Many people (more than ten billions in the next century) living in poorer and poorer conditions.
