3 ms·

The funny thing is that everyone agrees that it explicitly is a problem - it's impacting everyone else at the business negatively - the definition of a problem.

by vdqtp3 4y ago

The funny thing is that everyone agrees that it explicitly is a problem - it's impacting everyone else at the business negatively - the definition of a problem. It's also explicitly unfair in that there's no corresponding benefit for someone that is either unable to or chooses not to have a child. But we're all going to pretend that it's 100% OK.

jasonlotito 4y ago
So don't work at companies that offer these benefits. Because you do benefit from those benefits even if you choose not to have a child. The people working there would most likely not work there if these benefits didn't exist. > it's impacting everyone else at the business negatively Clearly it's not. The companies offering this clearly prefer the type of people that benefit from this. And you do as well, as the people taking advantage of this are clearly important to your job satisfaction.
- djohnston 4y ago
  > And you do as well, as the people taking advantage of this are clearly important to your job satisfaction. Isn't his point that the asymmetric benefit is unfair for non-parents and thus contributing to a lack of job satisfaction for everyone left picking up the slack?
  - bogeholm 4y ago
    > asymmetric benefit is unfair for non-parents and thus contributing to a lack of job satisfaction Solution: work somewhere else, where another benefit structure is offered
    - djohnston 4y ago
      Agreed, I'm only pointing out the discrepancy between what he's saying and the idea that he somehow has job satisfaction because of it.
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    His (and you can sure it’s a him) point is that he’s a busy navel gazing in contemplation of problems he doesn’t have.
  - ecnahc515 4y ago
    It's not a requirement for "everyone else to pick up the slack". That's just the businesses choice. At the end they could choose to let the team be less productive. Business should already assume that they may lose an employee at anytime, or roadblocks may come up, so if they're assuming the teams are always going to be at 100%, that's probably not realistic. The business could also: hire another manager, or promote someone whose been looking for an opportunity to learn to manage. If they do want to shift the load to other existing employees, ideally the business is structured so that other managers aren't at 100% capacity and can help fill-in temporarily. That's still a form of "picking up the slack", but if it's planned for, it's usually less an issue.
mattkrause 4y ago
Arguably, the problem is that there's not enough "slack" in the system to tolerate someone being out. You'd have the same issue if the person on leave got hit by a bus instead---or just quit! Plus, benefits are often "unfair" in that they help some employees more than others. A sickly coworker gets more out of the health plan than someone who is as fit as a fiddle. Not needing glasses, I get literally nothing out of half of the "vision and dental" package. The tuition benefit does nothing if you're unable or choose not to take a course.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Spooky23 4y ago
Good point. You know, I have a colleague who took two weeks off this August to spend time in the outer banks. It impacted the business having him be absent for two weeks - I was forced to attend two meetings on his behalf and had to answer a bunch of email. He could have chosen to man up and not take a vacation, or could have taken his laptop and attend meetings remotely and answered email. What a jerk.

by vdqtp3 4y ago

jasonlotito 4y ago

So don't work at companies that offer these benefits. Because you do benefit from those benefits even if you choose not to have a child. The people working there would most likely not work there if these benefits didn't exist. > it's impacting everyone else at the business negatively Clearly it's not. The companies offering this clearly prefer the type of people that benefit from this. And you do as well, as the people taking advantage of this are clearly important to your job satisfaction.

djohnston 4y ago
> And you do as well, as the people taking advantage of this are clearly important to your job satisfaction. Isn't his point that the asymmetric benefit is unfair for non-parents and thus contributing to a lack of job satisfaction for everyone left picking up the slack?
- bogeholm 4y ago
  > asymmetric benefit is unfair for non-parents and thus contributing to a lack of job satisfaction Solution: work somewhere else, where another benefit structure is offered
  - djohnston 4y ago
    Agreed, I'm only pointing out the discrepancy between what he's saying and the idea that he somehow has job satisfaction because of it.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  His (and you can sure it’s a him) point is that he’s a busy navel gazing in contemplation of problems he doesn’t have.
- ecnahc515 4y ago
  It's not a requirement for "everyone else to pick up the slack". That's just the businesses choice. At the end they could choose to let the team be less productive. Business should already assume that they may lose an employee at anytime, or roadblocks may come up, so if they're assuming the teams are always going to be at 100%, that's probably not realistic. The business could also: hire another manager, or promote someone whose been looking for an opportunity to learn to manage. If they do want to shift the load to other existing employees, ideally the business is structured so that other managers aren't at 100% capacity and can help fill-in temporarily. That's still a form of "picking up the slack", but if it's planned for, it's usually less an issue.

mattkrause 4y ago

Arguably, the problem is that there's not enough "slack" in the system to tolerate someone being out. You'd have the same issue if the person on leave got hit by a bus instead---or just quit! Plus, benefits are often "unfair" in that they help some employees more than others. A sickly coworker gets more out of the health plan than someone who is as fit as a fiddle. Not needing glasses, I get literally nothing out of half of the "vision and dental" package. The tuition benefit does nothing if you're unable or choose not to take a course.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Spooky23 4y ago

Good point. You know, I have a colleague who took two weeks off this August to spend time in the outer banks. It impacted the business having him be absent for two weeks - I was forced to attend two meetings on his behalf and had to answer a bunch of email. He could have chosen to man up and not take a vacation, or could have taken his laptop and attend meetings remotely and answered email. What a jerk.