Woman was fired because of her little kids

[tarheelmjfan]

Wonder what will be said when we all get the bill for unemployment benefits in a few months.

That's amusing but no, I do believe there is pay and power disparity, however, let's see what the census says in a few months.

Honestly, I don't understand your argument. You're worried about unemployment, which I understand, but that's what we're facing in this pandemic. What I don't understand is expecting a company to pay someone who isn't doing their job. If companies start doing that, they'll go out of business & more people will be unemployed. There are many people who are currently unemployed who would be thrilled to have that job. It's not like we currently have more jobs than people who are in need of work. It's better to give the job to someone who can do it as expected & let those who can't do the job for whatever reason be the ones that are drawing unemployment.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/drisana-rios-lawsuit-hub-international.html
and
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...-hassled-her-about-kids-interfering-with-workWe'll see

All that shows is that she filed a lawsuit.

Her going on to unemployment is not enough of a reason to keep her employed or for her to win this lawsuit. And actually reading the first article some of her "fight" actually works against her. Saying she knew at the interview that her supervisor had certain expectations regarding the kids, yet she accepted the job, means she knew those expectations from the start. It also sounds like two supervisors talked to her about the issues. We can agree to disagree, but everything in these articles still makes it sound like she is the problem.

 

[ronandannette]

All that shows is that she filed a lawsuit.

Her going on to unemployment is not enough of a reason to keep her employed or for her to win this lawsuit. And actually reading the first article some of her "fight" actually works against her. Saying she knew at the interview that her supervisor had certain expectations regarding the kids, yet she accepted the job, means she knew those expectations from the start. It also sounds like two supervisors talked to her about the issues. We can agree to disagree, but everything in these articles still makes it sound like she is the problem.

Given this second example and the OP's apparent attitude towards them, I wonder if she herself has ever held a job? For sure she has never owned a business or managed staff.

 

[mousefan73]

If she was a high performer and a valuable asset to the team most companies would allow her to bring her kids to the office if that meant keeping her.

I’m thinking there were many other issues to letting her go.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Why would you think that bosses will rehire right now with earnings in jeopardy especially for lower paying ones in customer service, or any other sort of cost center?

What makes you think they wont? There is work that needs to be done. Despite opportunities, she was not doing the work.

 

[sam_gordon]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/drisana-rios-lawsuit-hub-international.html
and
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...-hassled-her-about-kids-interfering-with-workWe'll see

From your first article...

Ms. Rios’s lawyer, Daphne Delvaux, said Ms. Rios had hired a nanny to help her balance her work and child care responsibilities. The nanny had signed on to help three days a week, from 7 to 11 a.m. However, “By the time the nanny started, Ms. Rios was already in the bad graces of her employer as she had reported discrimination to H.R.,” Ms. Delvaux said in a statement.

If the problem was taking care of the kids during lunch time, why bring help in just for the morning?

And you still haven't commented about Ms Rios' blog claims about taking the kids for 3 mile walks (one way) every day.

 

[mjkacmom]

Almost everyone I know who worked from home before all of this with young kids had childcare, either daycare or babysitter. She couldn’t find full time childcare in four months? Obviously she had it before the shutdown, so it was budgeted for.

 

[Prince John Robin Hood]

Daycares were shutdown where I am and having anyone (nanny) in your home was illegal until the end of May.
I'm fortunate that my employer is very understanding of the situation and has been incredibly flexible. I have two young kids and haven't had any clients complain about hearing my kids in the background. There have been instances where the kids have interrupted on Zoom calls but we do the best we can.
I find the aggressive criticism of this woman a bit much. People should be applauded for making their kids their #1 priority. I don't look down upon people like this woman, I look down on people who put their jobs before their kids.

 

[sam_gordon]

Daycares were shutdown where I am and having anyone (nanny) in your home was illegal until the end of May.
I'm fortunate that my employer is very understanding of the situation and has been incredibly flexible. I have two young kids and haven't had any clients complain about hearing my kids in the background. There have been instances where the kids have interrupted on Zoom calls but we do the best we can.
I find the aggressive criticism of this woman a bit much. People should be applauded for making their kids their #1 priority. I don't look down upon people like this woman, I look down on people who put their jobs before their kids.

I look down on people who think they should keep their jobs when they take 3 hour lunch breaks DAILY and post about it..

Honestly I think there's more to the story that the woman is not saying (understandable, she's going to present things in her best light). It's up to the public to use some critical thinking and realize we only have one side of the story.

The type of job also determines what hours you need to work/be available.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

Daycares were shutdown where I am and having anyone (nanny) in your home was illegal until the end of May.
I'm fortunate that my employer is very understanding of the situation and has been incredibly flexible. I have two young kids and haven't had any clients complain about hearing my kids in the background. There have been instances where the kids have interrupted on Zoom calls but we do the best we can.
I find the aggressive criticism of this woman a bit much. People should be applauded for making their kids their #1 priority. I don't look down upon people like this woman, I look down on people who put their jobs before their kids.

You have proven the point from most of us though. Those things weren’t allowed until May. Employers were understanding. It’s now almost the middle of July. That is 2 months to figure out a plan - and we could all see the writing on the wall that this is going to be a long term situation, so pretending it was magically going to get better is ignorant.

This woman was given ample warning by her supervisors that the situation wasn’t working. It is then on her to figure out how to make it work.

 

[Prince John Robin Hood]

I look down on people who think they should keep their jobs when they take 3 hour lunch breaks DAILY and post about it..

Honestly I think there's more to the story that the woman is not saying (understandable, she's going to present things in her best light). It's up to the public to use some critical thinking and realize we only have one side of the story.

The type of job also determines what hours you need to work/be available.

That's your right, people have different priorities in life.

 

[morgan98]

Daycares were shutdown where I am and having anyone (nanny) in your home was illegal until the end of May.
I'm fortunate that my employer is very understanding of the situation and has been incredibly flexible. I have two young kids and haven't had any clients complain about hearing my kids in the background. There have been instances where the kids have interrupted on Zoom calls but we do the best we can.
I find the aggressive criticism of this woman a bit much. People should be applauded for making their kids their #1 priority. I don't look down upon people like this woman, I look down on people who put their jobs before their kids.

Well, if you need a paycheck sometimes your priorities need to shift. Not saying the kids are not important but while you are doing your job, you need to focus on work and make it your #1 priority at least some of the time...lol!

 

[Prince John Robin Hood]

You have proven the point from most of us though. Those things weren’t allowed until May. Employers were understanding. It’s now almost the middle of July. That is 2 months to figure out a plan - and we could all see the writing on the wall that this is going to be a long term situation, so pretending it was magically going to get better is ignorant.

This woman was given ample warning by her supervisors that the situation wasn’t working. It is then on her to figure out how to make it work.

She was laid off on June 2, not July 2. If things were closed in her area in May she wasn't given an opportunity. Firing her because she wasn't coming up with a magical solution is wrong.

 

[Prince John Robin Hood]

Well, if you need a paycheck sometimes your priorities need to shift. Not saying the kids are not important but while you are doing your job, you need to focus on work and make it your #1 priority at least some of the time...lol!

I don't find making kids a #1 priority funny but I've worked in many countries and seen how some cultures value family more than others.

I've done very well in my career without compromising family time. Before I sold my last business I never asked or expected employees to compromise theirs either.

 

[mi*vida*loca]

You can put your kids first and still do your job well. I’ve been a working mom my entire life and my kids and family have always come first.

 

[sam_gordon]

That's your right, people have different priorities in life.

And that's fine. I'm a supervisor. My employees have kids in various age ranges. I have no problem with people making kids/family their priority. I want them to. I've let plenty of people leave early/come in late to take care of family commitments. The difference is they don't take advantage of my understanding. My company has set times that people need to work. For 95%+ of them they can't "work late" to do assignments, they have to be done at a certain time. If someone came to me and said "I need 'x' time off every day (for whatever reason)" and it fell during one of those times, the answer might mean they need to find another job.

It wouldn't be fair to shift someone long term from another shift without their permission. Sure, we can ask, but if someone is happy with their current shift and it works for their family, should I force them to move because the schedule no longer works for another employee?

 

[sam_gordon]

I will say, IMO, she is entitled to an hour lunch break each day. If she gets her kids activities done during that time, no problem. BUT, employees should know you don't always get the same lunch time each day. Did she ask the employer "hey, can I take my lunch early or late"? Why does the employer have to bend but not the employee?

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

Daycares were shutdown where I am and having anyone (nanny) in your home was illegal until the end of May.
I'm fortunate that my employer is very understanding of the situation and has been incredibly flexible. I have two young kids and haven't had any clients complain about hearing my kids in the background. There have been instances where the kids have interrupted on Zoom calls but we do the best we can.
I find the aggressive criticism of this woman a bit much. People should be applauded for making their kids their #1 priority. I don't look down upon people like this woman, I look down on people who put their jobs before their kids.

Some jobs have responsibilities that prevent the amount of flexibility requested. In the story it was quite clear that she had a lot of requests (set hours for calls was one that jumped out at me) so it is completely possible that her employer was flexible while still not being able to accommodate.

We only got her side of the story as well so I'm sure there is way more to the story.

 

[Prince John Robin Hood]

I will say, IMO, she is entitled to an hour lunch break each day. If she gets her kids activities done during that time, no problem. BUT, employees should know you don't always get the same lunch time each day. Did she ask the employer "hey, can I take my lunch early or late"? Why does the employer have to bend but not the employee?

She absolutely should be flexible. She claims they scheduled things during the lunch hour after she asked them for afternoons though. I remember when my kids napped and you do want to put them down at the same time every day. Who knows the truth behind what was happening there, she could be greatly exaggerating or her supervisor could have been out to get her. I've had colleagues openly talk to me (even brag) about how they are working on getting rid of an employee they didn't like.

 

[tink89]

I guess my question is how did she come up with creative things to blog during quarantine but can't figure out how to manage her time or manage to get creative with her kids schedules to be able to do her jobs. She was not the only parent that was at home with little kid during this quarantine. Many people had to make adjustments to their schedule and their kids schedules. Is she the only working mom or dad at her office? Did all the other parents also get fired? Or just her?