> “What started as a reasonable endeavor—the healthy pursuit of equity in work and life—became distorted, morphing into a misguided entitlement to a workday nea

> “What started as a reasonable endeavor—the healthy pursuit of equity in work and life—became distorted, morphing into a misguided entitlement to a workday neatly bookended,” writes Gabrielle Peterson. Insisting on a personal life is not entitled. Insisting on work outside of the boundaries set during negotiations is entitled. > If we are at work and receive a phone call from our crying child, would we not take it? If we are in a meeting and discover there is a leak in our house, would we not rush out? I'm at a loss for words. The implied (false) equivalence between personal calls at work and work calls during off-time is incredibly misguided. Your personal surroundings are an extension of you. You are not in a business relationship with them. If they thrive, you thrive. If they suffer, you suffer. You can't just leave and get a new home, a new family, new children, new friends, etc. Unless you are a significant stakeholder in a company, the relationship is completely different. Companies (and apparently this article) always try to pretend they are family, or that their success is somehow linked to yours, to mooch off the benefits of such a relationship. The reality is, you aren't family, and your success isn't linked. If the company could be more successful without you, you're fired at the next opportunity. Vice versa, if you could be more successful without the company you will change jobs at the next opportunity.