11 ms·

Personally, I struggle with these feelings as well. It seems nuts that someone working 50%+ less than someone else is going to keep all the same equity, vacati

Personally, I struggle with these feelings as well. It seems nuts that someone working 50%+ less than someone else is going to keep all the same equity, vacation, and salary. Then again it seems nuts that they don't. All employees who had children or family members to care for before or after COVID get none of the same support. I don't think backpay is coming for those who were forced to take leave or even quit their jobs when they had family they had to care for. It isn't "unfair" or something, parents with kids of certain ages have a much higher burden right now than most, and our society should support them. That support won't exist for anything exceptional, and for diseases like autism, alzheimer's or cancer, we've normalized the experience and force individuals to just handle it. It's hard to see how far some companies are willing to go for parents today, when I see how little we do for others.

orky56 6y ago
Outside of US, people expect the government to provide that safety net. In the US, we expect corporations to provide for health insurance, disposable income, and the tools/resources to focus on work. Meals, soda, and Slack work for early 20s fresh grads but not for parents/caregivers.
- staplers 6y ago
  To reinforce this idea: Work expenses are only tax-exempt if you are an employer.
jacquesm 6y ago
They are working as much or more. Just not on the same things. It's not as if being a parent somehow translates into more free time, in fact it translates into substantially less free time if any at all.
- codemac 6y ago
  Completely agreed. But in the US we don't pay stay at home mother's for their time either. These companies should help their employees, I'm saying that there is a much deeper problem in our society in how we handle individuals who are not profitable.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    Fair enough, but that's a problem that could be solved by adopting those 'socialist' measures that are normal in other first world countries. The individual parents are not in a position to make any changes there and their lives are as expensive - and probably more so - as the lives of singles. Resentment is a ridiculous response to a societal problem.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > They are working as much or more. Just not on the same things. The same can be said about anyone with a hobby though. They are working as much or more. Just not on the same things.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    Kids are a hobby?
    - luckylion 6y ago
      Your point -as I understood it- was that they do work the same amount, just not on work-stuff, ergo they should be treated as if they worked the same amount on work stuff. And you can absolutely work on hobbies just the same. Kids are a choice, first and foremost. And we are, as societies, helping quite a bit with the consequences of those choices, and yes, that's mostly funded by the single people.
      - throwaway5792 6y ago
        Kids are not a choice in aggregate. Kids are fundamental to the survival of our species, the only intelligent life we know if in our universe. How myopic.
      - mlboss 6y ago
        I would argue that having kids is the only reasonable goal you can have as a species. Everything else that humans do is optional.
        luckylion 6y ago
        I don't disagree. Yet individually, they are a choice. We're at a strange time in human history, where "(almost) everybody has children" no longer holds true. While children in total are necessary for a society, any individual person's children are not. We encourage having children by severely lightening the load that comes with having children, but we're not encouraging having children as a life-style choice where you get to cuddle with them and the state takes over any other duties. Yes, raising children is hard work. No, parents are not doing it for altruistic reasons. Yes, we should support them. No, we shouldn't just push more and more work on non-parents so parents can have an easier time.
- usrusr 6y ago
  By that measure, one could get the absurd idea to expect getting paid time off for that woodworking project. It even has "work" right in the name. Nobody does expect that though. Better arguments should be easy to find.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    Woodworking is a hobby. Raising kids is a full time job, no time off, no pay, no changing jobs.
    - nicbou 6y ago
      What if "woodworking" was replaced with "volunteer firefighting"?
      - garden_hermit 6y ago
        If the region is at threat from massive wildfires, yes! Just the same, if there is an national pandemic that has upended all traditional childcare options, then maybe give some slack to the parents
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        This has to be the all time prize winner in moving the goalposts.
        nicbou 6y ago
        I'm not trying to move goalposts. My point is that parents get a special privilege that people with similarly charitable obligations wouldn't. If I wanted to do something undeniably good for society that is NOT rearing children, my employer wouldn't let me off the hook without a pay cut.
        ethanwillis 6y ago
        Maybe instead of focusing on parents getting some flexibility that you don't you should drop that completely and only make the argument that everyone (parents included) should be given leeway by employers to have flexibility when it comes to contributing to the public versus a private organization.
olliej 6y ago
But once your children get to a certain age they can take over a large amount of the work that childless people need to do themselves. In America it seems children are also expected to support their parents in retirement, which would mean the employers should be providing more retirement support for childless employees.
- grovellogic 6y ago
  Maybe my perspective is skewed, but most of our parents in the US have many more retirement options than those of us working will. Our parents have been graced with Pension Plans, Social Security, and Medicare most of which will not exists or will be water down by the time we get to it. They have also benefited from a rise in home prices where they have been able to sell and downsize for a great profit. I don't know anyone from my age group taking care of there parents in anyway currently.
treeman79 6y ago
Have small elementary age kids. It’s rough. 8-10 interruptions the first couple hours of work. Then meltdown over being hungry. Then afternoon interruptions because they are bored. Lots of crappy reasons, but also because they want me to spend time with them. Also dealing with my own chronic illness. I was managing to cope/hide before Covid. Between it all is a sense of guilt of not getting enough done for work and not supporting kids enough. Other day I got a note under the door asking if I would draw a cat. Man talk about breaking heart.
- codemac 6y ago
  That sounds incredibly difficult. I hope you find ways to cope. I hope you get support from your company, or more than you are getting now.
  - treeman79 6y ago
    On Job #3 since being injured. Chronic conditions ebb and flow, sometimes I’m a great employee and sometimes I’m horrible. Hell sometimes I can’t even see the computer. Turns out people/companies get tired of it after awhile. So limiting meetings and working solo when I can on large tricky projects is how I’m rolling. I can solve stuff most can’t. I just need a lot of time to do it.
- eyesbear 6y ago
  Did your kid like the cat you drew?
  - treeman79 6y ago
    Very much
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      Thanks for sharing the cat sketch bit. It reminded me of some great times. I am a recent empty nester. I don't like it much.
gehsty 6y ago
Another way of thinking about it is that we are all likely to have children at some point, so is a phase that a lot of people go through in their careers, you may not feel like they are working as hard as you (and maybe they aren’t) but if you do end up having kids then they will likely be picking up your slack while you are raising your little ones.
- johnjj257 6y ago
  That seems silly to just ignore people who don't have kids because "most do". What do you say to the 50 year old with no children? Sucks to be them?
  - gehsty 6y ago
    Clearly it doesn't suck to be them, if the only inconvenience they have had is to support their colleagues during times they have needed it then they are not doing too badly. Also (unfortunately) people who do not have kids, particularly women, are more likely to progress in their career as they have not taken any career breaks, so I guess that could be seen as an upside, though in my opinion is very unfair. Overall I think companies should be there to support people when they need it, as a company you should plan your resources so people can take paternal / maternal leave, and also so that the other employees aren't overburdened because of it.
    - johnjj257 6y ago
      >Clearly it doesn't suck to be them, if the only inconvenience they have had is to support their colleagues during times they have needed it How does it not suck that they are getting the short end of the stick? They are the ones covering and picking up slack for others in this situation so I don't even get your point. You have no idea what the rest of their life is like they may in fact work far harder than any parents do, it's just your assumption they dont? Also if we're assuming peoples states of mind CONVERSELY clearly it doesn't suck to get bailed out for making a bad decision. For people to have children who lack the time and resources to do so, and in some situations put an unfair onus on people who chose not to or for whatever reason don't have kids.
x87678r 6y ago
> It seems nuts that someone working 50%+ less than someone else is going to keep all the same equity, vacation, and salary. Then again it seems nuts that they don't. Is that really true though? In my team parents are still online 40+ hours a week. Definitely if some single person (or parent) is producing double everyone else they should get bonuses or promotion over everyone else.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- boringg 6y ago
  Agree sounds like a straw man argument from the previous comment. I really don't think parents are down 50%.
markus_zhang 6y ago
That's the reason I'm all for socializing child-care. Certain companies have the budget to pull out certain form of "socialized" day-care by purchasing child care from suppliers but most companies can't do that. The state should do that.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
  What's the point if things getting closed is for social distancing? Maybe I don't follow but I don't even see how money can solve that besides parents not just working and taking care of their kids.
  - lmm 6y ago
    If we'd set an expectation that the government provided childcare, then it would be relatively easy to turn that into the government covering necessary time off for childcare etc.
Mirioron 6y ago
Don't forget that parents tend to have a higher life expectancy than people without children: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5484032/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5484032/
- semicolonandson 6y ago
  This study is for parents born in the 1910s to 1920s. The reasons for being childless then are vastly different to today, so I doubt the results carry.
WindyLakeReturn 6y ago
>It's hard to see how far some companies are willing to go for parents today, when I see how little we do for others. I think much of my own negative emotion about unequal treatment in many sectors of life, not just child care, stems from this. Almost everyone has special unique difficulties they have to deal with that makes their lives harder. By chance, my set are some that are mostly not recognized by others. It isn't that I want to tell others to grin and bear their problems in life because I don't care. It is instead that grinning and bearing has been the only option for me no matter my struggles that I begin to question why it wouldn't work for others as well.
Ar-Curunir 6y ago
I mean, don't blame normal people. Blame your company for being a shitty company.
boringg 6y ago
I disagree with you categorizing it at 50% - seems like an arbitrary number that is unrealistically high in addition how do you measure productivity? Time at the desk? As well a lot of non children workers are also equally not as productive so I think you have a straw man argument going on here. Finally, you miss the truth to the matter. If you are getting paid in equity you want the whole boat to float so short term mindsets such as working less for a couple months vs keeping the whole ship floating as a whole is more important. Imagine all the companies with parents just burned out right now - that's the difference.
victords 6y ago
I agree with you that society should support them. But not the companies. I think the companies should provide benefits uniformly for all its employees, but the government should provide the extra benefits for adverse situations, such as these for parents. I think Sweden has a similar model (?), where parents have sick days for their children where the government pays your salary when you take these days off to take care of them. I believe it's called VAB.

orky56 6y ago

Outside of US, people expect the government to provide that safety net. In the US, we expect corporations to provide for health insurance, disposable income, and the tools/resources to focus on work. Meals, soda, and Slack work for early 20s fresh grads but not for parents/caregivers.

staplers 6y ago
To reinforce this idea: Work expenses are only tax-exempt if you are an employer.

jacquesm 6y ago

They are working as much or more. Just not on the same things. It's not as if being a parent somehow translates into more free time, in fact it translates into substantially less free time if any at all.

codemac 6y ago
Completely agreed. But in the US we don't pay stay at home mother's for their time either. These companies should help their employees, I'm saying that there is a much deeper problem in our society in how we handle individuals who are not profitable.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Fair enough, but that's a problem that could be solved by adopting those 'socialist' measures that are normal in other first world countries. The individual parents are not in a position to make any changes there and their lives are as expensive - and probably more so - as the lives of singles. Resentment is a ridiculous response to a societal problem.
luckylion 6y ago
> They are working as much or more. Just not on the same things. The same can be said about anyone with a hobby though. They are working as much or more. Just not on the same things.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Kids are a hobby?
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Your point -as I understood it- was that they do work the same amount, just not on work-stuff, ergo they should be treated as if they worked the same amount on work stuff. And you can absolutely work on hobbies just the same. Kids are a choice, first and foremost. And we are, as societies, helping quite a bit with the consequences of those choices, and yes, that's mostly funded by the single people.
    - throwaway5792 6y ago
      Kids are not a choice in aggregate. Kids are fundamental to the survival of our species, the only intelligent life we know if in our universe. How myopic.
    - mlboss 6y ago
      I would argue that having kids is the only reasonable goal you can have as a species. Everything else that humans do is optional.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        I don't disagree. Yet individually, they are a choice. We're at a strange time in human history, where "(almost) everybody has children" no longer holds true. While children in total are necessary for a society, any individual person's children are not. We encourage having children by severely lightening the load that comes with having children, but we're not encouraging having children as a life-style choice where you get to cuddle with them and the state takes over any other duties. Yes, raising children is hard work. No, parents are not doing it for altruistic reasons. Yes, we should support them. No, we shouldn't just push more and more work on non-parents so parents can have an easier time.
usrusr 6y ago
By that measure, one could get the absurd idea to expect getting paid time off for that woodworking project. It even has "work" right in the name. Nobody does expect that though. Better arguments should be easy to find.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Woodworking is a hobby. Raising kids is a full time job, no time off, no pay, no changing jobs.
  - nicbou 6y ago
    What if "woodworking" was replaced with "volunteer firefighting"?
    - garden_hermit 6y ago
      If the region is at threat from massive wildfires, yes! Just the same, if there is an national pandemic that has upended all traditional childcare options, then maybe give some slack to the parents
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      This has to be the all time prize winner in moving the goalposts.
      - nicbou 6y ago
        I'm not trying to move goalposts. My point is that parents get a special privilege that people with similarly charitable obligations wouldn't. If I wanted to do something undeniably good for society that is NOT rearing children, my employer wouldn't let me off the hook without a pay cut.
        ethanwillis 6y ago
        Maybe instead of focusing on parents getting some flexibility that you don't you should drop that completely and only make the argument that everyone (parents included) should be given leeway by employers to have flexibility when it comes to contributing to the public versus a private organization.

olliej 6y ago

But once your children get to a certain age they can take over a large amount of the work that childless people need to do themselves. In America it seems children are also expected to support their parents in retirement, which would mean the employers should be providing more retirement support for childless employees.

grovellogic 6y ago
Maybe my perspective is skewed, but most of our parents in the US have many more retirement options than those of us working will. Our parents have been graced with Pension Plans, Social Security, and Medicare most of which will not exists or will be water down by the time we get to it. They have also benefited from a rise in home prices where they have been able to sell and downsize for a great profit. I don't know anyone from my age group taking care of there parents in anyway currently.

treeman79 6y ago

Have small elementary age kids. It’s rough. 8-10 interruptions the first couple hours of work. Then meltdown over being hungry. Then afternoon interruptions because they are bored. Lots of crappy reasons, but also because they want me to spend time with them. Also dealing with my own chronic illness. I was managing to cope/hide before Covid. Between it all is a sense of guilt of not getting enough done for work and not supporting kids enough. Other day I got a note under the door asking if I would draw a cat. Man talk about breaking heart.

codemac 6y ago
That sounds incredibly difficult. I hope you find ways to cope. I hope you get support from your company, or more than you are getting now.
- treeman79 6y ago
  On Job #3 since being injured. Chronic conditions ebb and flow, sometimes I’m a great employee and sometimes I’m horrible. Hell sometimes I can’t even see the computer. Turns out people/companies get tired of it after awhile. So limiting meetings and working solo when I can on large tricky projects is how I’m rolling. I can solve stuff most can’t. I just need a lot of time to do it.
eyesbear 6y ago
Did your kid like the cat you drew?
- treeman79 6y ago
  Very much
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    Thanks for sharing the cat sketch bit. It reminded me of some great times. I am a recent empty nester. I don't like it much.

gehsty 6y ago

Another way of thinking about it is that we are all likely to have children at some point, so is a phase that a lot of people go through in their careers, you may not feel like they are working as hard as you (and maybe they aren’t) but if you do end up having kids then they will likely be picking up your slack while you are raising your little ones.

johnjj257 6y ago
That seems silly to just ignore people who don't have kids because "most do". What do you say to the 50 year old with no children? Sucks to be them?
- gehsty 6y ago
  Clearly it doesn't suck to be them, if the only inconvenience they have had is to support their colleagues during times they have needed it then they are not doing too badly. Also (unfortunately) people who do not have kids, particularly women, are more likely to progress in their career as they have not taken any career breaks, so I guess that could be seen as an upside, though in my opinion is very unfair. Overall I think companies should be there to support people when they need it, as a company you should plan your resources so people can take paternal / maternal leave, and also so that the other employees aren't overburdened because of it.
  - johnjj257 6y ago
    >Clearly it doesn't suck to be them, if the only inconvenience they have had is to support their colleagues during times they have needed it How does it not suck that they are getting the short end of the stick? They are the ones covering and picking up slack for others in this situation so I don't even get your point. You have no idea what the rest of their life is like they may in fact work far harder than any parents do, it's just your assumption they dont? Also if we're assuming peoples states of mind CONVERSELY clearly it doesn't suck to get bailed out for making a bad decision. For people to have children who lack the time and resources to do so, and in some situations put an unfair onus on people who chose not to or for whatever reason don't have kids.

x87678r 6y ago

> It seems nuts that someone working 50%+ less than someone else is going to keep all the same equity, vacation, and salary. Then again it seems nuts that they don't. Is that really true though? In my team parents are still online 40+ hours a week. Definitely if some single person (or parent) is producing double everyone else they should get bonuses or promotion over everyone else.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
boringg 6y ago
Agree sounds like a straw man argument from the previous comment. I really don't think parents are down 50%.

markus_zhang 6y ago

That's the reason I'm all for socializing child-care. Certain companies have the budget to pull out certain form of "socialized" day-care by purchasing child care from suppliers but most companies can't do that. The state should do that.

9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
What's the point if things getting closed is for social distancing? Maybe I don't follow but I don't even see how money can solve that besides parents not just working and taking care of their kids.
- lmm 6y ago
  If we'd set an expectation that the government provided childcare, then it would be relatively easy to turn that into the government covering necessary time off for childcare etc.

Mirioron 6y ago

Don't forget that parents tend to have a higher life expectancy than people without children: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5484032/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5484032/

semicolonandson 6y ago
This study is for parents born in the 1910s to 1920s. The reasons for being childless then are vastly different to today, so I doubt the results carry.

WindyLakeReturn 6y ago

>It's hard to see how far some companies are willing to go for parents today, when I see how little we do for others. I think much of my own negative emotion about unequal treatment in many sectors of life, not just child care, stems from this. Almost everyone has special unique difficulties they have to deal with that makes their lives harder. By chance, my set are some that are mostly not recognized by others. It isn't that I want to tell others to grin and bear their problems in life because I don't care. It is instead that grinning and bearing has been the only option for me no matter my struggles that I begin to question why it wouldn't work for others as well.

Ar-Curunir 6y ago

I mean, don't blame normal people. Blame your company for being a shitty company.

boringg 6y ago

I disagree with you categorizing it at 50% - seems like an arbitrary number that is unrealistically high in addition how do you measure productivity? Time at the desk? As well a lot of non children workers are also equally not as productive so I think you have a straw man argument going on here. Finally, you miss the truth to the matter. If you are getting paid in equity you want the whole boat to float so short term mindsets such as working less for a couple months vs keeping the whole ship floating as a whole is more important. Imagine all the companies with parents just burned out right now - that's the difference.

victords 6y ago

I agree with you that society should support them. But not the companies. I think the companies should provide benefits uniformly for all its employees, but the government should provide the extra benefits for adverse situations, such as these for parents. I think Sweden has a similar model (?), where parents have sick days for their children where the government pays your salary when you take these days off to take care of them. I believe it's called VAB.