Woman was fired because of her little kids

[Hikergirl]

So all that is known for certain is she is female, kids are present without childcare and she was fired by a male boss - oh and she blogs about being a mom.

No-one knows her right, nor the boss, he could be an evil jerk but that's not even a remote consideration, it's all in her control and yet she is declared wrong by a majority. Sort of like she was asking for it

I just flat out don't agree & wonder how many parents will be penalized similarly.

According to her own words.
We know her boss set expectations that he didn't want to hear children on calls. (Not an unreasonable request, and one many parents who work from home manage every day).

We know that she felt she was harassed because her boss reprimanded her multiple times because she allowed her children to interrupt her calls ( That speaks volumes of what kind of person she is when she gets reprimanded for doing something wrong at her job she thinks its harassment).

We know that she set boundaries when she would answer calls but her boss continued to schedule them when her kids were hungry and impatient. (Who is she to set boundaries, she isn't actually the boss).

She spent countless dollars on things for her kids- to appease her boss. (So she didn't buy those things for her kids, she bought them because he boss made her?)

We know that her boss told her that they can't keep accommodating her work schedule. (The 'keep' can lead one to assume that they had been trying to accommodate her for some time).

We know her boss told her that no other account executive has those issues and she needs to figure it out,. That hurt her feelings and made her feel degraded as a mother. (If everyone else could figure it out then what was her issue. Her feelings are hers, if being expected to do her job makes her feel degraded as a mother then that is her issue and her boss isn't the source of that.)

She felt insulted for being enrolled in time management. (Clearly she has issues with constructive criticism and being able to recognize when she needs help).

She sounds like a entitled brat. IMO any parent acting like her should be penalized.

 

[ronandannette]

But why do you assume it's HER who is wrong? Move the hours a bit, the end. I believe the employers inflexibility is the root cause.

When I was young and working in NYC a coworker had leave for 2 kids, after the second she was told by our boss, "OK enough with the kids now." Was he right because work was disrupted?

I think you should start a company and try to run it the way you're suggesting. Let us know how it goes, and how you feel about paying people who expect you to prioritize their best-interest over the productivity of your business. That's a social agency, not a corporation.

Most workplaces, mine included, offer PTO for employees to use at their own discretion and try to be flexible when occasional urgent needs arise. As an on-going situation? Just no.

 

[LuvOrlando]

So flex hours in a national crisis (declared by our government) for people who have little kids is unreasonable, not sure there is any situation I would land there.

 

[loves to dive]

I'm a woman and when the company I work for was at full swing, I was also a boss. Oh, and yea I was a single mom. I was hired to do a job and when I was hired I was told the hours of the job and parameters of the job. I know times are different right now but I can tell you from a company standpoint if I am paying an employee to work x hours and to be available during those hours I'm going to expect them to handle their personal life themselves. I assume the client calls were scheduled calls so she should have been able to deal with the kids, there is a mute button on most phones now days.

 

[sam_gordon]

So flex hours in a national crisis (declared by our government) for people who have little kids is unreasonable, not sure there is any situation I would land there.

It's going to depend on what the job is. Flex hours don't really help if the things she needs to do need to be done during a certain time (in other words, if she worked 6a-11a then 4p-7p for example, if the clients aren't going to be there from 6a-8a or 5p-7p, how does that help the company?)

Maybe she could have gone part time. How about she offer a suggestion for an accommodation that works for both employee and employer. And no, that doesn't include taking a THREE HOUR lunch break. Would you be ok if your coworker was allowed three hour lunch breaks every day for months and you had to do all of their work?

 

[LuvOrlando]

The woman said there were no client complaints. I guess it will come out in court.

Actually, when my boss gave a former coworker trouble for being pregnant a second time I offered and did her job while she was out. I thought our boss was messed up, still do. Not all people throw others to the wolves, some take one for the team.

 

[sam_gordon]

The woman said there were no client complaints. I guess it will come out in court.

There probably weren't client complaints, thanks to those three hour lunches, she probably barely saw clients.

Actually, when my boss gave a former coworker trouble for being pregnant a second time I offered and did her job while she was out. I thought our boss was messed up.

People fill in for pregnant coworkers all the time. That's because the pregnant coworkers are on MEDICAL leave. I didn't ask about you filling in for someone during medical leave, I asked if you'd fill in for someone taking three hour lunch breaks every day for three months. You don't think coworkers start to resent that?

 

[disykat]

The problem with leniency about caring for kids during work hours (which most places are being pretty lenient about right now) is that some kids are more demanding that others and some employees are doing better at it than others. My guess is that four months with the employee not getting the situation under control was simply too much and my opinion is that that amount of time to make adjustments and figure out solutions was generous.

My DH's work put out word that they were suspending the "no supervising kids during work hours" rule, but that they still expected people to maintain their responsibilities and to find ways as soon as possible to fix the issues that were bound to arise.

 

[kaytieeldr]

But why do you assume it's HER who is wrong? Move the hours a bit, the end. I believe the employers inflexibility is the root cause.

When the bulk of your job requires being on the telephone with potential and current clients, when do you propose they move the hours to?

 

[Praying Colonel]

The woman said there were no client complaints. I guess it will come out in court.

Actually, when my boss gave a former coworker trouble for being pregnant a second time I offered and did her job while she was out. I thought our boss was messed up, still do. Not all people throw others to the wolves, some take one for the team.

No, it probably won't come out in court because there's no way she's going to see the inside of a courtroom with a case like this. Complaint gets dismissed way before that.

 

[HopperFan]

The woman said there were no client complaints.

She has no idea if there were client complaints. She only knows they didn't complain direct to her. My DH works from home, conference calling all day long. VERY often after a call drops a few will then get back on to conference to follow up with discussions. It is common for them to discuss the background disruptions to their meeting. If she is speaking with clients, and they constantly feel their meeting is not a priority for her (she says she is in finance so I imagine some important discussions for clients), they may very well have contacted her boss regarding her lack of focus due to the children.

When the bulk of your job requires being on the telephone with potential and current clients, when do you propose they move the hours to?

Yeah, my DH does lots of conferencing with Europe, India and other far off time zones. For years most his calls were with Japan. He got up very early, he skipped breakfast, he skips lunch and he gets on calls late at night. There is no moving any of these calls, you work around the clients. She needs to work with their schedule, not the other way around telling her boss she could only conference 1-4 pm.

It sounds like where she is at in life was not working with the type of business she was in .... I think the company reprimanding her, offering her time management training etc puts them on stronger ground than her lawsuit. He asked her over and over to resolve the situation, and all she seemed to do was get mad he would ask. They can show there were issues, they tried to allow her to rectify it and she didn't.

She is married and says her & husband both have corporate jobs. There are lots of folks out of work, in situations where childcare is becoming a big issue ... it isn't her bosses job to find her a solution. With schools opening and perhaps closing again, everyone who needs child care needs to be making plans now.

 

[PaulaSB12]

I don’t know what the day care rules are in USA but in the uk day care centres where only open to key workers

 

[mom2rtk]

School was out for tons of teenagers. Tons of teenagers lost their typical teen jobs. She needed to find someone to come in and babysit. She would have needed daycare before any of this, so the money for child care must be there in the budget.

No, it's not ideal having another person in your house. But lots about this isn't ideal. They gave her ample time to address the situation.

 

[mjkacmom]

Your husband's company sounds like it sucks.

Really? He was one working from home most of the time to begin with, so he was expected to be professional from the get go. His company has 17500 employees, most were sent home in mid March. They are a financial services company, lots of dealing with clients. Employees were expected to manage the transition from working in the office to working at home. Profits are down. My husband no longer works with clients, but if he has to give a presentation to 500 people, I’ll try my best to keep the dog from barking.

 

[mjkacmom]

School was out for tons of teenagers. Tons of teenagers lost their typical teen jobs. She needed to find someone to come in and babysit. She would have needed daycare before any of this, so the money for child care must be there in the budget.

No, it's not ideal having another person in your house. But lots about this isn't ideal. They gave her ample time to address the situation.

Dd17 has been babysitting, I held out for months, but she needs the money and the family with 2 working parents were desperate.

 

[mjkacmom]

So all that is known for certain is she is female, kids are present without childcare and she was fired by a male boss - oh and she blogs about being a mom.

No-one knows her right, nor the boss, he could be an evil jerk but that's not even a remote consideration, it's all in her control and yet she is declared wrong by a majority. Sort of like she was asking for it

Actually, I think this has nothing to do with the job I think this is because her "situation" is just unacceptable. As for if she were a dad, I think he would have been fired even faster, and it would still be wrong, I think primary caregiver dads have an even tougher time. If there are little kids there is no reason flex hours can't be accommodated since being home was not a choice the employee made, it's not a choice any human makes, it's the result of a disease and children take precedence.

What do you do for a living? I’ve been a SAHM forever, but there are way too many moving parts for DH to have flexible hours, since he spends hours every day on conference calls. He’s been with the same company for over 30 years.

 

[jrmasm]

She wasn’t fired because of her kids, she was fired for not doing her job.

 

[Kestryl]

This is a single case, but I full expect to see more women leaving the workforce in the coming weeks and months.

Anecdotally, I’m seeing the “who leaves the workforce” debate happen real time with many of my friends and co-workers. Childcare availability and reliability is atrocious is some areas, and not everyone lives by family.

I have a co-worker who is a father to two young kids (first and second grade). His wife makes more than he does and her job is where they get health insurance from. They’re having difficulty with daycare (no family nearby, problems finding consistent care that doesn’t get shut down because of a covid connection). If schools are online this fall, he has said he will need to take a leave of absence or quit, because of the two of them, they need her job more.

If my husband and I had young kids, we would be in the same position as my co-worker (no family nearby, just relocated). I get paid more than my husband, and my job is where our health insurance is. My husband would be the one to quit.

That may seem to show the opposite of what I stated first about women leaving the workforce, but consider this: the decisions above would be based on income and benefits.

The fact is that women make, on average, less than men. You can argue about how women tend to take lower-paying jobs than men, but if it comes down to a situation where someone in a man-woman relationship has to quit to take care of kids, it is more likely going to be the woman.

 

[Disneybuckeye]

Would FMLA be able to be used in this type of situation? I would think not, but it might be worth an ask. Our company also has an option of personal leave of absence that someone might be able to use.

As a mom I understand the difficulties. We had no family and DH and I dealt with these issues together. We are now four months in and I know my company is starting to expect families to make arrangements for some kind of child care if there children are too small to handle most of the day without a lot of supervision.

 

[kaytieeldr]

but if it comes down to a situation where someone in a man-woman relationship has to quit to take care of kids, it is more likely going to be the woman.

Whereas it should be, as with your co-worker, the person whose income/benefits have laws effect on the family.