4 ms·

Having to meet with a lawyer, accountant, etc isnt a "vacation", but I'm expected to use vacation not sick days for those appointments. Arguably, those are all

Having to meet with a lawyer, accountant, etc isnt a "vacation", but I'm expected to use vacation not sick days for those appointments. Arguably, those are all more essential to life than having children, which is optional. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't incentivize having children by making extra allowances for that, but let's not pretend it's anything but unfair. But if we're talking fair, why should they get a day to take care of their child but I don't get one to take care of necessary legal paperwork?

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>those are all more essential to life than having children, which is optional. // If as a species we don't raise children how will we continue to have life? It's not optional if we wish to continue the species; ergo it's "essential to life".
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  Essential to species continuation, not your life. It's like you and the sibling comment decided to ignore my second paragraph entirely. It's unfair, not a bad idea or illegal. Sometimes, we want options not to be fair because we're trying to incentivize behavior. Incentivizing the continuation of the species is generally regarded as a good idea, so we make extra allowances for people who do that, even though it isn't fair.
dvtv75 10y ago
> Having to meet with a lawyer, accountant, etc isnt a "vacation", but I'm expected to use vacation not > sick days for those appointments. You think you've made a point, but you really haven't. You don't have to take vacation time for that, you can always take unpaid leave - at least, everywhere I've ever worked. If you dispute using sick days for looking after children, perhaps you should examine your employment contract and perhaps consult an employment lawyer? There will be plenty of legal reasons why it's this way. Feel free to apply to take a sick day while consulting the lawyer, too.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  And those reasons are unfair. They're fundamentally about incentivizing a behavior via the legal system. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's ridiculous to say it's fair when at a fundamental level, the exact point is that it's not.
mst 10y ago
> But if we're talking fair, why should they get a day to take care of their child but I don't get one to take care of necessary legal paperwork? Compassion.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  Please read my second paragraph. Compassion isn't fairness. Fairness isn't the only criterion we should make decisions on. However, I was responding to the comment about it being fair, which to be honest, none of the replies have addressed and instead gone on tangents about why it might be a good idea for other reasons. But also, what, compassion for their child being sick but not me having to defend myself against, eg, an unfair ticket? Seems a very narrow kind of compassion. Why doesn't compassion apply to the legal case?
  - mst 10y ago
    As a salaried worker, I've been allowed to take a half day to deal with something ridiculous like that too, on the basis the hours get made up. "Defending yourself against an unfair ticket" is a very different case than "I need to see my accountant" though - had you used that example in the first place I suspect you might've got a different set of responses.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago

>those are all more essential to life than having children, which is optional. // If as a species we don't raise children how will we continue to have life? It's not optional if we wish to continue the species; ergo it's "essential to life".

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
Essential to species continuation, not your life. It's like you and the sibling comment decided to ignore my second paragraph entirely. It's unfair, not a bad idea or illegal. Sometimes, we want options not to be fair because we're trying to incentivize behavior. Incentivizing the continuation of the species is generally regarded as a good idea, so we make extra allowances for people who do that, even though it isn't fair.

dvtv75 10y ago

> Having to meet with a lawyer, accountant, etc isnt a "vacation", but I'm expected to use vacation not > sick days for those appointments. You think you've made a point, but you really haven't. You don't have to take vacation time for that, you can always take unpaid leave - at least, everywhere I've ever worked. If you dispute using sick days for looking after children, perhaps you should examine your employment contract and perhaps consult an employment lawyer? There will be plenty of legal reasons why it's this way. Feel free to apply to take a sick day while consulting the lawyer, too.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
And those reasons are unfair. They're fundamentally about incentivizing a behavior via the legal system. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's ridiculous to say it's fair when at a fundamental level, the exact point is that it's not.

mst 10y ago

> But if we're talking fair, why should they get a day to take care of their child but I don't get one to take care of necessary legal paperwork? Compassion.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
Please read my second paragraph. Compassion isn't fairness. Fairness isn't the only criterion we should make decisions on. However, I was responding to the comment about it being fair, which to be honest, none of the replies have addressed and instead gone on tangents about why it might be a good idea for other reasons. But also, what, compassion for their child being sick but not me having to defend myself against, eg, an unfair ticket? Seems a very narrow kind of compassion. Why doesn't compassion apply to the legal case?
- mst 10y ago
  As a salaried worker, I've been allowed to take a half day to deal with something ridiculous like that too, on the basis the hours get made up. "Defending yourself against an unfair ticket" is a very different case than "I need to see my accountant" though - had you used that example in the first place I suspect you might've got a different set of responses.