Do Childless Workers Resent Parental Perks?

I resent the fucks who go out for a handful of smokes a day.

Six months later: everyone with a baby is working from home one day a week. Think they're taking that as vacation time? I FUCKING DOUBT IT. But the bosses should have come out and said "look, you can work from home in exceptional cases or in emergency situations." instead, they've said nothing.

Begging off for child care, BTW, works even after the child moves out. My mother wanted an afternoon off last month, so she said I was in the hospital with appendicitis or something. I found out a week later.

-- andy -- (and...), April 20th, 2005.

Um, dude, no offense, but this is the ultimate in capitalist boorishness, or at least extremely petty. Whatever "perks" a person gets from having kids are vastly overwhelmed by the fact that they HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF KIDS. THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE THE PERKS. BECAUSE WE WANT TO LIVE IN A FUCKING HUMAN SOCIETY. But obviously if someone is abusing the privelege, that's another matter. Plenty of people abuse sick time or other things as well.

(before anyone takes offense, I'm only saying that in the context of being offended by workers taking time off. I don't care who gets out of work in the first place,)

Oh remember that children are a public good and their taxes will support you in your lonely dotage and infirmity. No "your kid will be a no good anchor on society/psycho kitten killer" comments, please. Really, NEXT!

Also I think that stating that taxes off of the current generation of adults, much less future generations, is going to be enough to support social security is a possible fallacy.

So, um, NEXT!

xpost.

i think the key is when people take advantage of leave time.... that is certainly not limited to parental leave though, is it? not at my workplace in any case.

i'm pretty happy for anyone who makes their life better by utilising the gains in conditions unions/the women's movement/whatever etc have made for us (and when i find myself gritting my teeth i remind myself that spending my life feeling resentful would'nt be healthy)

Additionally: Everybody should be allowed to work from home. The technology fucking exists, and it costs hell of less than commercial office space per month.

So, um, NEXT!

-- Allyzay Subservient 50s-Type

Actually, the fallacy, perpetrated by the anti-"entitlement" Bush administration is that there's no way to support social security for future generations. There is, but it might involve (GASP) raising taxes on the rich instead of cutting them.

I so envy my friends who are able always to have one partner at home with their kid(s). Since the economy is now dependent on dual earnings by a large proportion of the married population, it would be nice if we elected a government that would put the proper amount of resources into helping families have better child care arrangements.

I was joking about the "public good" thing though I've heard that argument advanced in order to support further governement spending on the type of programs I wish for above.

What I've read that I find credible supports Hurting's position on SS. It is weird that so many people almost unquestioningly believe the dire predictions of a group of people dedicated to a program's destruction, but I don't think many of those people realize that the destruction of the program has been the goal all along.

It pisses me off to no end when people who have chosen to have children get to take more paid vacation. Regardless of whehter children are a community resource or not, parents get enough perks already (tax credits etc) that are at least ostensibly handed to them by "society". It is not the place of private corporations (IMO) to subsidize this sort of thing.

does this happen in america??

-- Michael Stuchbery (mikeybidnes...), April 21st, 2005.

Seriously. It hasn't been very long that we've even had the possibility of choosing NOT to have children (assuming people can't generally go without sex).

There's nothing I can do about it since she's my client, technically.

Oh well. I'm single and childless so I have nothing better to do.

Personally, I'd prefer that breeders went home to deal with their kids as opposed to bringing them to the office. Cute only lasts minutes in the office.

I mean I think examples of people I know who were very fair about this, a single woman I used to work with whose daughter had a lot of health problems, she was always very upfront about it, everyone knew from when she was hired that she didn't work later than 5, she would sometimes have to leave early and if they felt the need to dock her if she didn't get her work done that's fine, etc. And another woman, a wife of a friend, who came to an agreement with her workplace to only work 3-4 days per week and get paid accordingly, instead of salary like everyone else.

Basically I think that with anything, regardless of whether you leave to take 40 cigarette breaks a day or you leave 2 hours early to get your kid or whatever, I think as long as you do your work properly and get it all done, it's fine--if that means you have to come in earlier the next day or whatever to do it, then you do what you have to.

But I don't think it is fair for people to pretend to prioritize both, when it is convenient, because people abusing this system will cause significant distress for those who have to work with them.

Does this make any sense? I'm trying to word it as best as possible because I really don't have a problem with people leaving if they have kid emergencies.

i would also point out that i definitely hear a lot more bitching about people leaving an hour early to go pick their child up from day care, than about people going downstairs 8 times a day for a ciggie, or taking sick leave every second monday as they've had a huge weekend... that seems a little unfair on the parents to me. abuse of leave is annoying to people who don't abuse it, full stop... doesn't matter what sort of leave it is.

Yeah, but it's a personal choice and not one made by a committee of your coworkers who can be affected by it. That said, Ally's right about the work getting done properly being at the root of this problem.

And another woman, a wife of a friend, who came to an agreement with her workplace to only work 3-4 days per week and get paid accordingly, instead of salary like everyone else.

This is close to what my mom does, she works five days a week but mornings only so she can take care of my brothers. It's pretty lucky that she could swing that, because it's fairly flexible. (But SHE complains about how she works half as long as her co-workers and gets more done because she never spends any time on personal stuff at work. Everyone can find something annoying.)

do you think it's fair for people in the same dept of a company who have the same salary to have different work loads? wouldn't it irk you if you were the one having to work more?

xxpost

re parental perks: it seems churlish for me to begrudge parents such things, so i don't.

-- Allyzay do not obtain to make download of yours MP3 (allyza...), April 21st, 2005.

I mean no offense dude but if you can't do your job, don't keep your job. It's not fair to pay people equally for "a-little-less-work".

-- Allyzay do not obtain to make download of yours MP3 (allyza...), April 21st, 2005.

Um, no offense taken, but it wouldn't really be "fair" to have a world in which no one with kids could take a job, because then no one would be able to afford to have kids, or at least, people would have to leave their kids completely unsupervised.

I say: NOTHING special should be given to slack-jawed breeders that couldn't keep it in their pants!

-- andy -- (and...), April 20th, 2005.

If it was just about abuse of leave time, well, there'd be nothing to discuss.

I mean no offense dude but if you can't do your job, don't keep your job. It's not fair to pay people equally for "a-little-less-work".

-- Allyzay do not obtain to make download of yours MP3 (allyza...), April 21st, 2005.

Um, no offense taken, but it wouldn't really be "fair" to have a world in which no one with kids could take a job, because then no one would be able to afford to have kids, or at least, people would have to leave their kids completely unsupervised.

-- Hurting (Hurtingchie...), April 21st, 2005.

Well, yes, in fact, I do think it's fair to get paid for "a little less work." The same principle applies in medical leave too now, doesn't it? Maybe people shouldn't go and get cancer and then expect other people to pick up the slack, eh?

Besides, there's a huge difference between a long period where, like oops says, someone can be properly brought to take up the slack and someone leaving early twice a week for a little league game.

Going to bed as well. G'night.

But if the norm is that parents get special treatment and they can take time off to care for their kids (while everyone else has to stay at work) then "Do you have children" should be an allowable criterion when hiring.

As far as whether the company gives time off to people for having kids, well that's their perogative, isn't it. They don't have to do that, but they probably do it to attract/keep employees.

That's exactly what it is, though!

2. Many children are either a) not planned for, or b) abandoned, or c) end up with divorced parents. The third category especially accounts for a very large number of children, and I'd guess that all three of these combined accounts for more than half of all children.

I overhear a lot of conversations in the various offices where I work, and I'm always surprised by how many people are single parents and/or have children with some kind of special need (which they obviously didn't "choose".)

As far as the whole children of single-parents thing, I just think that counters the idea that children are nothing but a lifestyle-choice. Like most parents don't choose to be the only one raising and supporting their kid.

Also, I think my frustration with parents getting more time off just circles back to my frustrations with nobody, my boss, my co-workers, taking me seriously. And most of this has to do with me being under 30, single, and childless.

Also: I am in fact not crazy over parents getting tax credits for creating things that DRAIN RESOURCES. Where's my tax credit? I haven't taken up three slots in the local school system!

My question -- all the people in the office who are constantly having to run out for kids and such, they are all women. How come the dads aren't sharing the burden?

Or do I just work in a heavily Mom-infested office?

-- quincie (quinci...), April 21st, 2005.

Most people are breeders or future breeders. Welcome to humanity.

Or do I just work in a heavily Mom-infested office?

-- jill schoelen is the queen of my dreams! (mandeewrigh...), April 21st, 2005.

I agree with you there -- though at my last job my editor was a very involved dad (who is now a stay-at-home-dad). He often spent time on the phone with his kids, and occasionally took time off to be with them (by no means abusing the privelege). I never begrudged him for it.

Note: I do not have a horse.

xxposts

It is too a choice. I have made (or not made, however you want to look at it) not to have children. And there are plenty of children in the world. I wish fewer people would decide to have children just because "there's no choice - that's what society wants us to do."

-- quincie (quinci...), April 21st, 2005.

I take issue with this line of reasoning as well. Are you a libertarian? It's an inherent part of having a tax system that you don't always pay in exact proportion to the services you use. It's supposed to be for some sort of "greater good" if anyone still actually believes in that. Maybe we ought to put higher taxes on the poor, because they're the ones using all those resources for public housing and welfare.

YOUR ASSUMPTION IS NOT ENTIRELY OFF BASE.

This thread is like the equivalent of the time I freaked out in the middle of a huge rush at the old restaurant and yelled at all the smokers taking a smoke break and they just looked at me like "dude, you can take a break too if you want".

How can I work this into my active vocabulary? This phrase is awesome.

Maybe anti-parent is more accurate, though it comes to the same thing.

Xpost

Diedre, that is a very good question!

Diedre: "Go forth and multiply."

I just wanted to say I briefly touched upon this, upthread--I don't think it's a matter of not sharing the burden, I think it's a matter of it being a lot less "acceptable" for males to behave in this manner than females. Societal norms change slowly, etc. So it's not so much a matter of like the males not wishing to do this, it's more of a general employer/government attitude of "DON'T YOU HAVE A WIFE?"

x-post

Excellent choice!

Personally, I focus all my resentment on Princesss Stephanie of Monaco.

"Hi, I am having a baby and will thus be out for the rest of the afternoon as well as Thursday. I will be working from home Friday and possibly the beginning of next week; however, do not hesitate to call my cell phone if there is a matter that needs my attention."

I'm not sure why I'm telling this story.

xpost

i feel ya, but as a breeder, a lot of us take leave without pay, or work on the weekends, etc.

while the argument that "you didn't have to have kids" is fairly sound, at some point you have to wonder, "doesn't someone out there have to have kids in order to, ya know, keep the species going?"

those of you who will never have kids will have loads more free time, way less stress, way more money (i'm sorry, but no puny tax break remotely comes close to the cost of my kids), etc etc etc etc.

if you get all those things, can you not pluck a tiny, little chunk of understanding for the rest of us considering that our progeny will keep our species going?

is that worth anything to you? or is it basically, "after i'm dead, fuck humanity!" ?

imagine society without toy stores, without cartoons, without kids saying silly crap, etc etc... imagine a society that can't laugh and takes itself too seriously...

to the people that really have a hard time with this, i suggest perhaps... i dunno... getting in a food fight. have a water balloon war out on the street with just random person. go ride a bike to nowhere for a little while.

fuck around a little bit and stop writing names on the board.

i sympathize. i really do. it's no fun when everybody else seems to not play by the rules we do and they get just as much a reward. no fun at all. and i'd wager that if you are doing that much more, the workplace will reward you. i'm sorry, but once you get high up, taking time off for your kids is less and less allowed. you don't get away with that shit. we'll pay. trust me.

hang in there. in the meantime, leave early and fuck around. how about this, go get something nice to eat at nice restaurant, see a movie, and fuck your SO's brains out all evening. cause i really don't get to do that sort of thing anymore at all, now that i'm Married With Children TM.

http://www.mortystv.com/showcards/married_with_children.jpg

stay at home dads is the new trend. i know a few. i work from home and would be the stay and home dad, but my wife has a social work degree. the income is just not there. you don't get paid for helping people. not those kind of people at least.
m.

OTM. This caused comedy yucks when our daughter was born and I just refused to accept the "DON'T YOU HAVE A WIFE?" bullshit -- I was a lowly clock-punching pasteup slave and my wife was the managing editor of the third-largest newspaper in the state, and it just made sense for me to take off most of the times the kiddo was sick and couldn't go to daycare. My job just wasn't as important as my wife's job, and there was no rationalization my boss could offer that would change that. It didn't help that my boss was a horrible chainsmoking little old lady who'd never been able to have kids -- she gave me the hairy eyeball just about every time I opened my mouth there.

right. i appreciate that. frees up time to spend with the kids.
m.

I'm sorry, but I find the exact opposite to be true, actually. Especially vis a vis the fathers issue.

for example, i can't go back to school right now. that's gonna affect my career. in fact, it's probably going to mean thinking up a whole new concept of a career.

but hey, that's where i'm at.
m.

m.

Dealing humanely w/people's real-world issues: okay. Unilateral baby-worship: maybe not so much.

I think that it is that scenario being not uncommon that leads to resentment towards people who are viewed as "abusing" the leniency towards children-related absences.

OTOH quite often I've noticed that the abuses--without quotes, I'm just speaking from my real life experience now, and I'm not strictly talking about "parental abuses" here--are very often perpetrated by people who are, well, "teacher's pets" for lack of a better word so I think that might be more of the problem, the perception that Jane gets by working a 30 hour week because she's buddies with so and so but Emily gets shit for taking all of her vacation days off, sort of situation.

it's also humbling because i hate an entitlement mentality and i hate to be called out for how entitled i really am. life is rough and i don't want to be coddled. but hell, we got to skip the security line at the airport and with southwest, we always board first after wheelchair folks. so there you go, two more fuck yous to the childless.

i guess maybe i wish i could explain to you how grateful we are to you people for shit like the flying perks.

there should be like a national not a parent day. or something. i mean, i get father's day, why not a not a father's day? and vice versa for the ladies... maybe that's never gonna be enough. i dunno.
m.

i was fuming then, but it's pretty hilarious that he did that now.
m.