Controversial take: Pit the workers against each other while the boss takes even more time off.
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 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.
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.
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.
Option C, watch the comments degenerate into warfare while eating popcorn.
Yes. But blame the bosses, don’t blame parents.
What kind of a stupid fucking question is this
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.
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.
I love these wholesome debates. Let’s all hate on each other as we fight over scraps from the Master’s table.
Check out the crabs in the bucket.
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
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.
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…
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.
A better word might be “privileges”.
Your phrasing was an excellent change of perspective.
No problem. Your English is fine. It’s the concept in general, regardless of what words we use.
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
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.
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
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
But that’s not taking anything from the one that has kids. They still get to work from home
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.
