3 ms·

> “This stuff used to be taught in schools,” Neal said. “Now people have to be told not to bring their kids to work.” Odd. My schooling never taught me not to

> “This stuff used to be taught in schools,” Neal said. “Now people have to be told not to bring their kids to work.” Odd. My schooling never taught me not to bring kids to work. And, as a kid I remember my Dad bringing me to his work back in the 1980s. > instill a work ethic That's what the olds always say about the youngs. That's why my Gen X cohort were called slackers. Here's some relevant quote mining from a 2009 book written in the pre-pandemic era (around https://archive.org/details/moralunderground00dods/page/32/mode/2up?q=%22work+ethic%22 https://archive.org/details/moralunderground00dods/page/32/m... ): ] When turning to complex problems facing workers and their families, however, the discussion was about "character," work ethic, and values, not a by-product of eroded wages and family instability that follows. ... ] Some employers took this tack further. A Denver employer saw work problems as reflecting overall character deficits, particularly in working mothers. "Their work ethic doesn't seem to be that high. It's like they don't expect to have to do as much [or they are lazy]." A Denver print shop supervisor suggested the job turnover experienced by low- wage mothers was unrelated to the constantly changing hours of work and child care crises. No, it was self-induced: "They have a lack of work ethic. So they make sure that they don't work out [on the job]." ... ] The lack-of- work-ethic cliche was widespread and provided a comfortable refrain for those employers who blamed workers, not wages, for problems associated with poverty. ... Bringing up work ethics seemed to shift the conversation into one where the details of pay and cost of living could be ignored because it became all about character. ] A retail store employer in Denver agreed. "I would say about them [entry-level employees] they don't have any discipline. . . . They don't follow up, they're not responsible." A Milwaukee cleaning service owner discussed the lack of "punctuality" that he saw as a reflection of low- wage parents' lack of a desire to work, as indicated by the fact that they were "jumping from job to job . . . they have fear of working and don't really want to work." Now that I'm quote mining, the complaint "The shortcomings run the gamut from general knowledge, including how to make change at a register" is also not new. From 1996, https://archive.org/details/observer1996nort_14/page/10/mode/2up?q=%22don%27t+know+how+to+make+change%22 https://archive.org/details/observer1996nort_14/page/10/mode... : ] “Some aspects of education are not as good as they were 40 or 50 years ago. Students know all about computers today, but don’t know how to make change for a dollar.” From The 1970s, https://archive.org/details/ERIC_ED121988/page/n33/mode/2up?q=%22don%27t+know+how+to+make+change%22 https://archive.org/details/ERIC_ED121988/page/n33/mode/2up?... ] It was very surprising to discover how many students really don't know how to make change

bluefirebrand 3y ago
> Odd. My schooling never taught me not to bring kids to work. I think they are basically just saying "school used to teach people things they needed to do a job, but now employers have to teach people things that should be common sense (like don't bring your children to work)" Of course some workplaces are child friendly, but many workplaces would be pretty inappropriate to bring a child, not to mention disruptive to the goal of getting work done which is what you are paid to do...
- eesmith 3y ago
  My observation is the complaints haven't changed over the decades, suggesting the stated reason - two years of at-home teaching - likely isn't the actual cause. I hardly think people need to be taught that bringing a child to work is something schools have to teach. Instead, if parents had enough money to afford a sitter, then they wouldn't need to bring their children to work. If the US had good quality government-funded preschool starting at age 1, and 15 months of combined government-funded parental leave, then people would have less reason to bring their children to work. Placing the blame solely on the employee means implicitly skipping these alternative remedies.
- joe5150 3y ago
  It seems misguided to assume people bringing their children to work is because they don't know any better and haven't been educated properly rather than because they have no other choice.

bluefirebrand 3y ago

> Odd. My schooling never taught me not to bring kids to work. I think they are basically just saying "school used to teach people things they needed to do a job, but now employers have to teach people things that should be common sense (like don't bring your children to work)" Of course some workplaces are child friendly, but many workplaces would be pretty inappropriate to bring a child, not to mention disruptive to the goal of getting work done which is what you are paid to do...

eesmith 3y ago
My observation is the complaints haven't changed over the decades, suggesting the stated reason - two years of at-home teaching - likely isn't the actual cause. I hardly think people need to be taught that bringing a child to work is something schools have to teach. Instead, if parents had enough money to afford a sitter, then they wouldn't need to bring their children to work. If the US had good quality government-funded preschool starting at age 1, and 15 months of combined government-funded parental leave, then people would have less reason to bring their children to work. Placing the blame solely on the employee means implicitly skipping these alternative remedies.
joe5150 3y ago
It seems misguided to assume people bringing their children to work is because they don't know any better and haven't been educated properly rather than because they have no other choice.