Possible Debate inspired by Desperate Housewives.

[palmtreegirl]

Just a quick question. Anyone posting now - at work. That's taking away from your job. It's not leaving the office but you aren't working. Is that fair to the person sitting next to you that is working?

That used to annoy me - workers who were there but didn't work - I guess that is a whole new thread.

Definitely a valid question. Say "Jane" is a mom who needs to leave work early to go watch her kids soccer game but while she's at work she takes minimal breaks with no distractions. On the flip side you have "Mary" who is child free but spends 1/2 her work day posting on the Dis. Is there a difference?

 

[Maleficent13]

There is a difference to me because if I am physically here, I can handle anything that may come up. If I am physically not here, then there is nothing I can do about anything.

 

[jrydberg]

Definitely a valid question. Say "Jane" is a mom who needs to leave work early to go watch her kids soccer game but while she's at work she takes minimal breaks with no distractions. On the flip side you have "Mary" who is child free but spends 1/2 her work day posting on the Dis. Is there a difference?

Huge difference, IMO. As long as "Mary" is getting her work done, who cares? But "Jane" is taking time off work (or should be considered doing so) and completely unavailable to work.

 

[Jennifer S]

Huge difference, IMO. As long as "Mary" is getting her work done, who cares? But "Jane" is taking time off work (or should be considered doing so) and completely unavailable to work.

I don't see it as a "huge" difference. They are both not working, and Jane is not gone all day - just maybe a half hour to an hour to see her child's first day of school. Now to dis half the day away is a huge waste of an employers time. I'd much rather have a "Jane" than a "Mary" as an employee.

 

[AllyandJack]

Definitely a valid question. Say "Jane" is a mom who needs to leave work early to go watch her kids soccer game but while she's at work she takes minimal breaks with no distractions. On the flip side you have "Mary" who is child free but spends 1/2 her work day posting on the Dis. Is there a difference?

Personally, I don't care who does what while there at work or when they leave, so long as they've done their work and it doesn't get handed off to someone else to finish by a certain deadline. If a deadline is looming, both Mary and Jane have to sacrifice to finish their work so nobody else has to take it.

 

[jrydberg]

I don't see it as a "huge" difference. They are both not working, and Jane is not gone all day - just maybe a half hour to an hour to see her child's first day of school. Now to dis half the day away is a huge waste of an employers time. I'd much rather have a "Jane" than a "Mary" as an employee.

Even if "Mary" is completing all her work and "Jane" is not?

 

[Daxx]

Ummm ... correct me if I'm wrong ... but isn't this what you use personal time for?!

With that said, I don't know why Lynette didn't just say she had a dentist appt. or something like that. I'm sure they would have given her time off for that.

I am a working mom ... I'm a teacher. I wasn't teaching when he started Kdg., so I got to take him for that. However, I could NEVER ask for that time off on the first day of school in order to take my child for his first day of the new school year. Who would be there to greet my new students?! Would I like to take my child for his first day of 4th grade next year? Yeah, sure I would ... but I won't be able to. Thankfully, DS has Dad to take him ... and he's at the point where he doesn't care.

And, I think a lot of people use their personal time for haircuts, etc. BTW -- why couldn't Lynette's boss get her hair cut on the weekend?! You'd think the salon is closed on Sat.! Please!

I think that employees should be treated, across the boards, the same way as far as time off for personal matters go ... and I thought that is why companies had "Personal Days" to go along w/sick time and vaca. time.

 

[Jennifer S]

Even if "Mary" is completing all her work and "Jane" is not?

I was under the assumption that both had completed their work. If Jane comes in late then yes she should finish her work before she goes home.

If they are finished their work and still have time to dis they should cut that employees hours back or find them something to do.

 

[palmtreegirl]

Even if "Mary" is completing all her work and "Jane" is not?

In my hypothetical they were both completing all their work, sorry I wasn't more clear. "Jane" by working without distractions for the time she is there & "Mary" by staying the full day. I don't really see a difference, as long as the work gets done.

 

[Maleficent13]

I don't see it as a "huge" difference. They are both not working, and Jane is not gone all day - just maybe a half hour to an hour to see her child's first day of school. Now to dis half the day away is a huge waste of an employers time. I'd much rather have a "Jane" than a "Mary" as an employee.

An example specific to the point: a few weeks ago one of the supevisors left an hour early. 15 minutes after she left, we had a situation occur that only she could handle. Because she was not here, the situation had to be postponed until the next day, and the client was VERY upset.

If she'd been here, and Dis'ing, she could have stopped and handled the situation. And then we'd have had a happy client instead of an angry one.

 

[jrydberg]

The difference is Jane is taking time off. Mary is still on company time and able to handle any work related tasks that may come along.

I've never understood the obsession with keeping busy. If Mary can finish a job in 6 hours and take a few breaks during the day, why is that worse than someone staying busy all day and taking 8 hours to complete it?

My point is, you're not comparing equivalent situations. As long as Jane is taking some sort of approved leave, there's no problem there. And as long as Mary is getting her work done, there's no problem there. But they are completely different in their circumstances.

 

[MrsNick]

Well, situations can come up with vendors or clients whether you leave 30 minutes early, or call in sick, or take an approved day off.

I happen to work with a very nice group, and we cover for each other if we need to be out (for whatever reason).

But, if I called in sick, and there was something pressing, my co-workers can (and have) called me at home.

When I managed an office, and there was a situation my direct reports could not handle when I was not there (if it was my day off, or not my shift), they had no problem paging me or calling me at home to get guidance on how they should handle it.

If I needed to leave work early because of a personal obligation that could not wait (i.e. a sick family member), I would make sure that anyone covering for me could reach me if they had questions on how to handle something.

This doesn't just apply to parents, but to anyone. There will be that day when you need don't have a choice but to leave early. I think it's about consideration, and reciprocation: don't wear out your welcome (that is, take advantage of others who help you), and also be nice when someone else needs a favor from you.

It's already such a cold world. I really believe "if we don't hang together, we will certainly all hang apart." We shouldn't begrudge each other the occasional personal obligation or emergency.

 

[Jennifer S]

An example specific to the point: a few weeks ago one of the supevisors left an hour early. 15 minutes after she left, we had a situation occur that only she could handle. Because she was not here, the situation had to be postponed until the next day, and the client was VERY upset.

If she'd been here, and Dis'ing, she could have stopped and handled the situation. And then we'd have had a happy client instead of an angry one.

I see what you are saying and yes in that case it is better to be there BUT I can't understand ANY company having a situation were only one person could handle it. What if that same person was sick, or quit or even died. You should always have more than one person be able to fix a problem. If I was the client I'd be more mad at that then the empolyee left an hour early.

 

[Maleficent13]

Not to hijack the thread, but this particular client refuses to deal with anyone but the TOP person...so there was no one else who would do for her. I truly shudder to think what would happen when this supervisor goes on vacation...it's going to be a nightmare.

But, to be less specific...I am a supervisor. I have to be here to supervise my employees. I can DIS and supervise at the same time. It's called multitasking. I can't multitask if I'm not here, and I certainly can't supervise at a distance.

 

[Jennifer S]

Not to hijack the thread, but this particular client refuses to deal with anyone but the TOP person...so there was no one else who would do for her. I truly shudder to think what would happen when this supervisor goes on vacation...it's going to be a nightmare.

Oh well then it's the clients own fault. You can't possibly have one particular person at work at every open hour all the time. Good luck when she goes on vacation.

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

I work for a women who has no children. She chose this so she could devote her time to advancing her career. Bottom line , MONEY. Thats what the priority in this world today is. The more we have the more we want. Two incomes are now manditory. Bigger homes, more vacations and more material items are what comes first. Children become an inconvience. The corporate world has no room for kids. The most important thing is, the bonus. This is a sad reality. Thats why we have sooooo many people taking prosac and other drugs. We are raising a generation of disfuctional people. Kids are being raised by video games,tv, day care centers,ect. Why, because kids are the lowest prioroty on societies list. So getting back to the question about working mothers. You bet more concessions should be given. I also think when you work for a women with no children it's worse than a man. They have to always prove themselves.

 

[septbride2002]

I work for a women who has no children. She chose this so she could devote her time to advancing her career. Bottom line , MONEY. Thats what the priority in this world today is. The more we have the more we want. Two incomes are now manditory. Bigger homes, more vacations and more material items are what comes first. Children become an inconvience. The corporate world has no room for kids. The most important thing is, the bonus. This is a sad reality. Thats why we have sooooo many people taking prosac and other drugs. We are raising a generation of disfuctional people. Kids are being raised by video games,tv, day care centers,ect. Why, because kids are the lowest prioroty on societies list. So getting back to the question about working mothers. You bet more concessions should be given. I also think when you work for a women with no children it's worse than a man. They have to always prove themselves.

Okay we've gone several pages w/o it getting rowdy and I would prefer to see it that way. I think thus far we've had a great exchange of ideas.

I would also like to state that whether working for a man or woman I've never noticed a difference in whether they were better or worse to work for. Currently my manager is a guy and he is extremely understanding to all employees needs for personal time.

~Amanda

 

[lecach]

At my job I am the only Mom with a child under the age of 15. I dont get treated any differently than anyone else. But I worry every time that I have to leave early to get DS from daycare, or take him to the Dr., or stay home because he's sick. My DH travels and is not always available. And while I dont expect any special treatment I feel uncomfortable everytime one of these situations comes up. Basically if its only an hour or two we just make up the time. And I do that. But knowing that most of these people dont have kids and dont understand and have to do a little extra work when I am out (I am the receptionist and when I dont answer the phone it rolls over to our helpdesk - plus our door is a keyed entry and if I am not out here to let someone in then help desk has to deal with door -knockers) makes me feel incredibly guilty and uncomfortable. They have the same right as I do to take a little time and make it up. But it is so very noticeable when I am out. I do not like being in this position. On Thursday I had to take DS to the Dr. So I left work 1 hr and 15 minutes early. I made up this time by working thru lunch. But I KNOW that others were wondering why I had to take DS to the Dr. for a rash. It was a yeast rash and really nasty - he needed a Dr.s attention. But they dont understand what thats like.

I dont think its fair for those with kids to get things that those without dont (I have been on the other side and it sucks). I also dont agree with some getting smoke breaks and others not. But I also know that being a Mom creates its own set of job worries and issues. There are many of us that dont take advantage and we still end up feeling bad.

 

[Wishing on a star]

About the question of Mom who takes time off - VS - Employee who Dis's....

This is really not a fair question... It is apples and oranges...

It completely depends on what the job is, and what the job requirements are.

Some jobs are definately hourly. It may be slower at times, etc... But, the objective and job requirements involve a warm body manning a post for the duration. (An over the top example would be a night security job....) While some jobs make it a necessity that a person not be absent, without there position being covered. Either by bringing in a replacement, or by very much inconviencing others.... Some jobs, the requirement is a set production quota... If the person can keep up, and still occasionally leave early... then, that is not a big problem.

Complete Apples and Oranges!!!!

Also, I agree that it is the CLIENTS fault, not the employees fault... There could be any number of very valid reasons why this one employee was not available at the exact moment that client called that afternoon. They client made their choice. It is not fair to hold this against the other employee, unless they are regularly breaking company leave policy.

 

[Wishing on a star]

I work for a women who has no children. She chose this so she could devote her time to advancing her career. Bottom line , MONEY. Thats what the priority in this world today is. The more we have the more we want. Two incomes are now manditory. Bigger homes, more vacations and more material items are what comes first. Children become an inconvience. The corporate world has no room for kids. The most important thing is, the bonus. This is a sad reality. Thats why we have sooooo many people taking prosac and other drugs. We are raising a generation of disfuctional people. Kids are being raised by video games,tv, day care centers,ect. Why, because kids are the lowest prioroty on societies list. So getting back to the question about working mothers. You bet more concessions should be given. I also think when you work for a women with no children it's worse than a man. They have to always prove themselves.

ITA with a lot of your comments!!!!

Just a little HOWEVER...
You have to be very careful about the slippery-slope here! An employer is PAYING their employee for their time and their services. It is NOT an employers obligation to pay somebody 'to be a mom'. If a mom can not meet the obligations of the job due to her responsibilities as a mother... then, unfortunately, that is just too bad. I do not think that a business should be mandatorily obligated to oblige working mothers... That is the whole point of this thread. If the mother can not meet both obligations with the leave policies of the particular position, then, she should not be in that position. And repeated absences should be just reason for dismissal.

It all comes down to the big CHOICE. Hey women... Like it or not... we can NOT be two places at the same time. We are not all super-women.

Personally, for me, I kind of resent the fact that this is what is expected of us in todays society.

That is why I agree with the post above.... What have we gotten ourselves into...