Debate Club: parental perks in the workplace.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Xeney : One Thread

This question was suggested by a forum member, who can identify herself if she wants to, but can stay anonymous if she wants because this is just so damned evil. The question:

Should business places do more to create a 'family friendly' environment for employees (i.e., maternity/paternity leave, day care credits, flex hours, etc.)? Why or why not?

The evil part: if you have children, you argue con. If you are childless, you argue in favor of family-friendly policies.

The rules, again: the Debate Club topics are for practicing debating skills. You are not necessarily going to be arguing the side with which you agree. That's the whole point. If you can't or don't want to follow those rules, please post in another topic, okay? State your side in the first line of your post.

I'm just restating the rules because I'm going to start deleting posts that don't comply; otherwise, this exercise is pointless.

Have fun.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001

Answers

Too many people approach this argument from an emotional perspective. Family friendly places make economic sense.

As a general rule, happier workers equal more productive workers. Another general rule is that easing family pressures is one way to make workers happier, and thus more productive. So bring on the diaper pails in every office for the good of the economy! Or maybe not. But you get my point.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001


Curtis and like-minded folk are as full of shit as the poop stuffed diaper pails they want scattered throughout places of business. Quoting studies about how much happier and productive little Suzy Kumquat would be were she able to see her little Ralphie spit up all over himself during her lunch hour does nothing to persuade me that the overall cost to the company for Suzy-wannabe-homemakers cheery disposition would benefit the bottom line.

Having sex first thing in the morning always make my day go better, but do you see me out there campaigning for optional company sponsored prostitutes? No you do not. I take useless business trips and use the company credit card just like everyone else.

The workplace is for work. If you can't sit at home and watch a basketball game in peace without having the newest Barney video shoved into the VCR during the last five minutes of a tie game, which you have the choice to either watch and hope you catch SportCenter later or spend the next hour listening to your kid scream until he bursts a vessel in his forehead, what makes you think you'll be less distracted when the sitter has to instant message you to come down to the office nursery because little Johnny's head is spinning, his crib is floating off the floor and he's spitting streams of green bile on the other toddlers again?

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001


Once agan, Rude, you're too clever by half.* By your reasoning, businesses should not allow any non-work related outside contact with the world *at all* during the workday. No calls to set up lunch with friends, no checking on the kids at daycare, no mechanics letting you know your car is ready- because none of that is directly related to work, dammit.

A more enlighted perspective would see parental perks as merely an extension of the courtesies we now assume- personal calls, allowance for the odd long lunch, and the occasional package delivered to the office because you don't trust that little thief next door to leave the Fedex box on your doorstep alone.

Given the flexibility that most workers have in allowing work to take up an ever increasing portion of their lives, it's only reasonable to expect work to be a bit more accomodating of the remaining bits of life.

*If you woulda just stuck with my reasoning, we could submit a joint request to underwrite the production of Where the Boys Aren't, starring our gracious forum hostess (I've contact her about starring, and oddly enough, she's not responded yet. Must be conferring with her agent).

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001


[don't have kids, praise the lord.]

Additionally, a flexible work-life balance means that while work is, indeed, stretched around the needs of an increasingly busy kid-filled life, because of mature and professional mutal agreement, the work still gets done. Why do professional responsibilities need to be bound within a traditional 8 hour day? As long as deadlines are kept, productivity remains constant, and quality of work remains high, there is no particular need to assume allowing flexibility will cost the company anything at all.

Which goes to your point, rudeboy. What additional costs? With flexible work arrangements, fewer faux-sickdays will be called in, and less work time lost. The cost is minimal in setting up a workstation at home, particularly when an employee owns his or her own computer. There is also a sense of responsibility engendered and debt owed, when an employee is given these flexible boundaries. You'll often find an employee going to further limits and exceeding expectations when the weight of constant supervision is lifted. More work hours, more work produced, very little laid out by the company. And worker loyalty and longevity is all but ensured when a company takes a hand in helping balance parent and work responsibilities.

Co-worker jealousy and cries of favoritism could come into the picture, true. But while parents have a particular, very public reason for requiring these flexible schedules, there is no reason a single, or non-parent employee couldn't make a case for their own flexible arrangements - grad school, volunteerism, etc. Paid maternity and paternity leave is, of course, something particular to the situation, and cannot be argued against. But flex hours, working from home, and compressed schedules can be arranged for any employee, depending on their work situation.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001


I give up. You win Jen. Can we have sex now?

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001


I take it back, i don't give up (but the sex thing is still up to you).

Let's assume for a moment that everything you mentioned can be rolled into a workable plan. While we're at it, let's also assume that we all work in air conditioned ofices where we sit at desks on comfortable chairs in front of pc's all day long, where everyone has movie star looks, where everyone makes thirty bucks an hour and where Tom Cruise is not gay cuz that's the only fantasy world where a plan like yours would work.

You must think in terms of extending those type of family-oriented services beyond the white collar world and into the pulp mills, the canning factories and minimum wage food service industries. Factoring in the cost per each of these workers versus the revenue they bring in, would many employers actually find that the development of such social programs beneficial? I doubt it.

American families are so centered around work now. Is it unreasonable to suggest that working America need a life apart from the office? Many of us spend way too many hours on our careers as it is. Should we allow our jobs to govern and infiltrate each aspect of our lives? And if the boss knows that you don't have to pick the kid up from daycare, isn't it just a little more tempting for him to expect you to stay a bit later to finish up that project?

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001


[Required to argue for child-unfriendly workplaces.]

As a general rule, happier workers equal more productive workers.

Blatantly false. If you allow your workers to watch TV all day they may be happier, but they sure won't be more productive. It is easy to see that just making workers happier does not automatically make them more productive.

Not only that, but giving parents extra perks does not make everybody happier. Employees without children are bound to feel anger and resentment as they find their child-bound coworkers actually rewarded for their lack of job committment. Another general rule is that easing family pressures is one way to make workers happier, and thus more productive.

False once again. Allowing somebody to take time off to deal with "family pressures" leads to lost time at work and results in less productivity.

So bring on the diaper pails in every office for the good of the economy! Or maybe not. But you get my point

Well, no.

Let's face it, allowing a person to look after their family and work a full time job doesn't do anyone any favors. The family suffers, the workplace suffers, and the person trying to do both suffers. Is there any person more pitiful than the harried parent, trying to look after their family and work a full time job at the same time and doing a mediocre job of both? Employers should not take caregivers away from their families. Far better to hire somebody who will be fully committed to their job.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001


Jen's posts highlight the problem with the kid-friendly office. IT invites employees to dilute their workplace commitment, inviting longer hours in the name of dedicating more time to family during the work day. Even taking at face value the claim that happy workers are efficient workers and workers in a family-friendly environmnet are happy, you have to take into account the costs.

Parents who work "flexibly" around the clock are imposing on co-workers who prefer a fixed work schedule. If the parent, let's say senior to me, gives me his/her piece of the project after supper and we have to work on it again tomorrow, when do you think I have to put in my time? Evening and early morning, of course. And it's especially true if I don't have kids, because I don't have an excuse for not being able to work late. In effect, to provide parents with flexibility is likely to impose an around-the-clock workday on their colleagues.

I also have my doubts about the productivity that Curtis touts. Are those happy parent workers more productive than other workers, or just more productive than distracted parent workers who have to get their work done during the regular day? Does productivity measure their output or just the hours in a day when they're nominally available for work? I suspect that productivity maybe inflated.

But even if nominal productivity is increased, doesn't it come at the cost of a subsidy to the non-parents? Isn't work-subsidized day care provided at the expense of the people without children? And what about the overtime issues -- secretaries and copy staff who need to be there to cover for the "flexible" hours people work? And the cost of keeping the building open, or providing laptops and other mobile tools? They all cut into the alleged efficiencies of the happy worker.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001


Working in a field that is very family-unfriendly, I constantly see the fallout of such a system. Women, who still bear the brunt of childcare responsibilities in our society, are affected far more than men. Women who want to be scientists basically have three options:

1. Don't have children
2. Leave the field
3. Have children, but take several years off to raise them or accept a less demanding job within the field.

As a result of the conflicting demands of raising kids and having a scientific career the field's female talent pool is severely limited, and women make up only about 10% of senior science faculty at major research universities in the U.S., despite the fact that women have outnumbered men in undergraduate science degrees in the U.S. for the last 20 years.

Most people eventually end up having kids, and the primary caretakers of kids are almost all women. Child-friendly policies are woman-friendly policies and create a larger labor pool which is beneficial to both companies and workers.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001


Fallout? You call that fallout? The real problem there is that expensive training is wasted on women who are never going to use it.

And you forgot option number 4.

4. Marry a partner who is willing to look after the kids properly so that you can pursue your career.

That way, everybody wins.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001



Actually, in my field, option 4 isn't an option unless you're independently wealthy to start with. It's pretty much impossible to support a family on one postdoc's salary, and only slightly easier on an asst. professor's.

But I digress. Yes, lots of expensive training is being wasted, and even worse, lots of talent is never allowed to develop because of a lack of opportunities for people who want to have a career and spend time with their kids.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001


But Jennifer, isn't that just as true for men who want to have kids and want to spend time with them than the traditional men's role allows?

It doesn't seem like anyone can have a demanding job and be a devoted parent without short changing one of those. Having a helpful spouse is one way, but it has its limits.

I just don't think anyone can have it all.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001


Lizzie-I absolutely agree. It's hard for people of either gender to balance work and family responsibilities, which is why companies should do what they can to make it easier.

But the reality is that in most families, the woman takes on the bulk of the childcare responsibilities, so she is more likely to have to make career sacrifices than a man.

The end result of child-unfriendly work policies is a labor pool which excludes or marginalizes people (mostly women) who want to be involved in their kids' lives and wastes their talents.

And who knows...making the workforce more hospitable to women might even change the current gender inequities in childcare responsibility by reducing the salary gender gap. If mom has an equally or more lucrative job than dad, it would make more sense for him to stay at home.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001


Jen, this is not a women's issue. You are attempting to marginalize women who make the sensible decision not to have children, as if they aren't real women or something. This is not a women's issue, but a parents' issue.

The end result of child-unfriendly work policies is a labor pool which excludes or marginalizes people (mostly women) who want to be involved in their kids' lives and wastes their talents.

Raising children is not a waste of talent, Jen Wade, how dare you disparage my wife's good work in that way. The fact is, child friendly workplaces do little to encourage a parent who wants to be involved in their kids' lives to work an additional job.

As for the labour pool... well, it's harder than ever to get into university these days. Why not help ensure that the people who attend university and take up a valuable seat are going to use that training by making it clear that dedication to their job will be a requirement?

As for your own situation, I have little sympathy for someone who chooses a profession where long hours and low pay are the norm, and then complains about the long hours and low pay. (Recognize that argument of yours from the thin actors thread? ;-) Someone whose life plan includes children should find another profession.

If mom has an equally or more lucrative job than dad, it would make more sense for him to stay at home.

I couldn't agree more. It makes good sense for the person with the less lucrative job to just stay home. Child friendly workplaces are not necessary and are grossly unfair to people who make the decision not to have children.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001


The fact is, child friendly workplaces do little to encourage a parent who wants to be involved in their kids' lives to work an additional job.
Oh, I disagree. I work in an extremely child-friendly office, and I'm sure that many of my coworkers wouldn't work at all if they didn't have an office like this one. Many of them have spouses who are also lawyers, and they don't necessarily need the second income. They continue to work because this office makes it easy for them, and because it's difficult to give up the law entirely for a few years and then jump back into it. Difficult, but it's what many lawyers do when they have children, because the legal profession is generally *not* family-friendly.

How does the office as a whole benefit from the family-friendly policies here? Longevity. We have very little turnover here. I know of only two attorneys in over ten years who have left to raise children (one woman, one man). Others continue to work, sometimes at reduced hours for a while, sometimes just taking advantage of the flexible schedule. At any given time half the attorneys are off driving kids to soccer games or whatever, but the work gets done, the time gets billed, the kids get lots of quantity *and* quality time, and we have the advantage of not having to hire and train new people every five years when someone decides to spawn. One of my coworkers is a single mom who easily spends as much time with her daughter as my stay-at-home mom spent with me; she works full time with a flexible schedule and does way more than her share of the work around here.

Perhaps the best argument for family-friendly policies is just that there is no good argument against those policies ... so long as they are applied fairly and don't penalize the childless.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001



I've been reading a few different articles/essays on this subject via various online publications, and as a single woman herself (long-term relationship, currently childless), I do think there is a rather nasty element to some of the "child-free" rhetoric I've read.

What we're talking about here are people who are taking time to rear society's next generation, the kids-turn-adults who'll care for us all, parents or not, when it's our turn to be aged and infirm; we're not talking about putting unfair burdens on coworkers to, oh, I don't know, go climb Everest or something. Perspective, Dave; perspective. As a parent yourself, I'm surprised, frankly, that you don't share this view.

Life is unfair; society is unfair. Taken to its extreme, the position that childless workers should not have to subsidize (in time, resources, et cetera) coworkers who do have children, is like saying people without cars ought not pay for highway upkeep, or for schools. We don't all of us use the benefits available to us via our employers, and yet should be deny others their right to do so? If you want to talk truly unfair, "grossly unfair," can I mention the Bush Administration decision to fund Viagra prescriptions for male federal workers, while denying female workers access to employer-paid contraception...?

If the ability to rear one's child to the best of one's abilities while also earning a decent wage, and seeing fair and commensurate advancement in one's chosen profession ISN'T a "woman's issue," Dave, I'm not sure what is. Women are not men, and men are not women; surely we've established that already...?

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001


As a parent yourself, I'm surprised, frankly, that you don't share this view.

Probably not a fair argument in this context, since I told the parents they had to argue against family-friendly policies. We shouldn't assume that arguments here reflect actual opinions. (I, for instance, think that family-friendly offices are almost always unfair to people without children. Mine really isn't, but I think it's the exception.)

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001


You are attempting to marginalize women who make the sensible decision not to have children, as if they aren't real women or something.

I'm a bit perplexed as to how you came to that conclusion. After all, I'm a real woman, and I don't have children.

Raising children is not a waste of talent, Jen Wade, how dare you disparage my wife's good work in that way.

For anyone who is unclear on this point, I certainly did not mean to denigrate those who choose to be stay at home parents. We all have talents which end up wasted because we don't have time to develop them all. What I am advocating is that people be given as many opportunities as possible to be parents and pursue other talents.

As for the labour pool... well, it's harder than ever to get into university these days. Why not help ensure that the people who attend university and take up a valuable seat are going to use that training by making it clear that dedication to their job will be a requirement?

How would you suggest that this dedication be mandated or selected for by universities? It's pretty unusual for someone who is 17 or 18 years old to even know what kind of career they will choose to pursue much less to know what kinds of non-career responsibilities they will have in life.

As for your own situation, I have little sympathy for someone who chooses a profession where long hours and low pay are the norm, and then complains about the long hours and low pay. (Recognize that argument of yours from the thin actors thread? ;-) Someone whose life plan includes children should find another profession.

Indeed, I'm very much aware of the choices I will probably have to make (and I'm still not sure what I will decide even at my advanced age of 29). But I think the long hours and low pay are a relic of history rather than an integral part of the job. If these things changed, science wouldn't suffer--in fact, it would almost certainly benefit from the increased pool of talented people wanting to be scientists.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001


I'm sorry, Beth -- I posted impulsively, and didn't take enough time to read the guidelines as thoroughly as I should have. I'm sorry, Dave.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001

Should business places do more to create a 'family friendly' environment for employees (i.e., maternity/paternity leave, day care credits, flex hours, etc.)? Why or why not?

I'm a working mother of four (one now on her own), so for purposes of this discussion, I'm arguing against a workplace that consciously takes steps to create a 'family friendly' environment.

Most of the discussion here so far has focused on actual on-site day care so I'll note that having one's children at the work place would easily have the effect of reducing concentration on the job and increasing parent-related stress - the day care provider would be more apt to call in the parent for minor issues than they would if the parent had to actually leave work to attend to them. In addition, the child, knowing that their parent is right there, would be more apt to demand to see the parent, rather than learning to adjust to the routine of the day care provider. Such frequent interruptions would not only make it more difficult for parents, children and providers, but also employers (who may not be allowed under a 'family friendly' policy to limit the number of trips made to the day care area) and fellow employees whose work and deadlines are also interrupted.

Odds are, though, most family-friendly policies would not include physical day care facilities on site, but would be more likely to come in the form of time spend away from work during regular duty hours (either through flex time or parental leave, or informal absences without notice due to child-related emergencies) and financial compensation to make up for the expense of having children (such as offsetting the cost of day care, or private school tuition expenses - yes, I once had an employee who was considering offering that - or providing inexpensive family medical insurance).

In these situations, someone is having to pay for what the worker who is a parent is recieving - unplanned time away by one employee means another employee who must either fill in those gaps, be delayed in the completion of their own work, or simply be unable to leave themselves since the place is already shortstaffed. In terms of financial compensation, providing family insurance could raise the rates offered to all policy holders, including those without children. And it is simply unfair to provide one set of employees with a form of financial compensation that is unavailable to other employees for reasons that are not in anyway work related - it would be more more fair than to decide that you're going to offer free hair care services to all your naturally blonde employees.

To prevent issues of discrimination, an employer would have to provide across the board benefits - a policy allowing no-notice absenteeism without explanation of why, flex hours for all, an undetermined 'extra expense' money pot to draw from, etc. For many employers, the only way to provide a large number of benefits is to keep actual income and staffing low, and in the long run this hurts all employees, who will have to work harder to compensate for fewer employees, be unable to expect adequate increases in their income, and be held 'hostage' by a large number of benefits they cannot afford to pay for themselves, nor can they count on having them provided by a future employer. These issues would affect all employees, not just those with or without children.

Given a climate where American employers are expecting more and more hours out of their employees and expecting them to be available 24/7 if needed, allowing them to further seduce us into that situation by muddying the waters between work and homelife would be detrimental to both work and homelife. Employers should provide reasonable monetary compensation for a reasonable amount of work and stay completely out of their employees homelife otherwise, rather than 'rewarding' some lifestyles above others.



-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001


I'm a bit perplexed as to how you came to that conclusion. After all, I'm a real woman, and I don't have children.

Okay then, you're a woman. Explain to me how this is your issue.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001


Jen wrote:
I'm a bit perplexed as to how you came to that conclusion. After all, I'm a real woman, and I don't have children.

Okay then, you're a woman. Explain to me how this is your issue.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001


This is my issue in many ways, most of which I have already articulated. On the most personal level, the un-child-friendly conventions of my field mean I will likely not be able to raise children and excel in my chosen career. Another legacy of these policies is that the number of elite women role models in my field is very small. This, in turn, has led to the assumption by some that women aren't interested in being serious scientists or that they don't have what it takes to reach the highest levels in the field.

On a grander level, the traditional exclusion of women (and many other minorities) from science has indubitably means that many great scientific minds in history have not been given the opportunity to develop (see Virginia Woolf's "Shakespeare's Sister" essay for a more grandiose examination of this topic). Maybe some woman would have cured Alzheimer's disease by now if she'd had the chance.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001


Beth, as you have already admitted, your workplace is atypical. What I see time after time is very different from the siutation you described. I've witnessed a lot of friends, relatives, and coworkers going through the whole baby thing and what happens is this.

A woman goes on maternity leave. In Canada this gets her 1 year's UI (as of Jan 1, 2001. It was 6 months before that), which she happily takes. Sometimes they come back to work as planned, sometimes they just can't leave the little one. When she does come back she can be highly unreliable. And then just when they're up to speed and fitting in again they decide "this just isn't working" and up and quit.

This is disruptive and counterproductive.

Which brings me to my next point. Jen, you have it so absolutely backwards. Do you honestly believe that a bounty of women scientists balancing work and family is going to lead to women scientists being taken more seriously? It is precisely because women so often choose to have families that they are not always taken seriously. They will be taken less seriously. If an institution wants to have some serious research done, who are they more likely to hire? A candidate who will be dedicated to their work? Or one who will want to split their time between work and family?

As for the "women's issue" point, I have to concede. In looking around for a definition I found that autoimmunity, long term care, and bankruptcy are all women's issues. Who knew? I thought the term had some kind of meaning, but apparently it has evolved into one of those overused buzzwords.

So fine, it's a women's issue. But it should be pointed out that providing workplace perks largely used by women leads to a reluctance on the part of employers to hire them. This means that women who do not have children and never want to are unfairly discriminated against. This situation could get so bad that governments may even ignore fundamental human rights and pass sexist legislation forcing employers to hire less desirable candidates.

On the most personal level, the un-child-friendly conventions of my field mean I will likely not be able to raise children and excel in my chosen career.

The same holds true whether you're a man or a woman.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001


Jen, you have it so absolutely backwards. Do you honestly believe that a bounty of women scientists balancing work and family is going to lead to women scientists being taken more seriously? It is precisely because women so often choose to have families that they are not always taken seriously.

Yes, I do believe that making the workplace more child-friendly will enable more women to truly balance science (or any other kind of demanding work) and child-rearing rather than having to basically choose one or the other as is now the case. In addition, I think making it easier to balance family and career will lead many fathers to become more involved in child-rearing thus freeing up the mothers to devote more energy to their work.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001


While this falls outside the parameters set for Debate Club conversations, I'd like to respond to this (Beth, I'll understand if you decide to delete):

"It is precisely because women so often choose to have families that they are not always taken seriously. They will be taken less seriously. If an institution wants to have some serious research done, who are they more likely to hire? A candidate who will be dedicated to their work? Or one who will want to split their time between work and family?

As for the "women's issue" point, I have to concede. In looking around for a definition I found that autoimmunity, long term care, and bankruptcy are all women's issues. Who knew? I thought the term had some kind of meaning, but apparently it has evolved into one of those overused buzzwords."

Dave, I don't understand the sarcasm in the second paragraph, since the first one makes Jen's point.

It's a 'woman's issue' as long as women who choose to have families are taken less seriously, but men who choose to have families are assumed to be exempt from having to balance their time in equal measure to what the woman has to.

IE, an employer who knows you have children will assume your wife will handle most of the responsibilities, whether that is in fact true or not. An employer will assume a woman in the exact same situation will also be the primary parent to handle child- related emergencies, whether that's true or not. You are not penalized in the workplace for having children - women often are, by the exact opinions you're expressing here ("Why bother hiring her/promoting her? She'll just take time off for the kids.")

It will stop being a woman's issue when employers stop making assumptions about what an individual family's child-rearing arrangements are and when a father taking on his portion of the compromise necessary (or taking advantage of parental benefits offered by employers) isn't regarded as something off the wall.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001


Lynda, you're confusing two separate points. Obviously the issue of whether or not women in general are taken seriously in the workplace is a women's issue. That is self-evident. However, when it comes to family friendly work environments for employees, well, have a look at the following table:

. benefits
female - parent yes
female - non-parent no
male - parent yes
male - non-parent no

I trust you can see where the correlation lies.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001


Dave, I fail to see how the fact that my office is atypical means that similar policies wouldn't work elsewhere. Your so- called "typical" scenario doesn't address family-friendly office policies at all, except for parental leave. If all the company offers is a year's worth of parental leave, then no, they have provided no incentive for parents to continue working there. But that's not what we're talking about; we're talking about policies that make it easier to balance children and career, beyond the mandatory parental leave period.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Dave, current reality (at least here where benefits are up to the employer, not government mandated) is more like:

female - parent: takes benefits, often informally penalized in terms of promotion, hiring consideration, etc. Assumed to have a lesser commitment to work responsibilities than other groups.

female - non-parent: no benefits, often informally penalized if of childbearing years (assumption that she'll likely become a parent, so put in similar category as a female parent by assumption at least until she proves herself otherwise.)

male - parent: takes benefits that are not public (ie family insurance plan), avoids those that are visible such as parental leave. little informal penalization unless he opts to take those benefits traditionally assumed to fall to the women (time off to deal with family concerns, etc), then heavy fallout in terms of professional credibility.

male - non-parent: no benefits, no informal penalty.

Obviously, the issue is primarily parental/non-parental, but Jen is not wrong to regard it as a woman's issue as well, since nonparental women are affected by the assumptions about working parents where non parental men are not.

SO. Back to the topic at hand: Because of the above, 'family friendly' policies will be assumed by employers to be used primarily by female employees and as such, may have an adverse effect on all female employees - that is, an employer might choose to hire a man over a woman thinking it will cost less in terms of specialized benefits.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001


I have to argue for family friendly workplaces.
I guess its not really hard, in fact, its rather obvious. So children develop better when being cared for by one of its parents. It is in society's best interests to mandate that companies have better policies for parents that allow them to better perform the valuable task of raising useful citizens. Its in everyone's best interest that children grow up loved, cared for and educated or we will have illiterate criminals with no ability to pay taxes. Forget the whole what's best for the company thing: its best for a government to have an increasing number of productive citizens and taxpayers, both for increased tax revenues and decreased need to spend those revenues on law enforcement.

In this case parents should be seen as people with two jobs, both difficult. And those without should be seen as basically people who are not contributing to the future of the country.

personal note: I was clearly not on the debate team at college. and "The Price of Motherhood" is an interesting book in which Ann Crittenden does a good job explaining why having children totally screws up women's lives (though she also describes how it could happen to men who have primary care for children) economically. I believe these policies do tend to be women's issues (since no one else is giving a shit, frankly), but should immediately be germane to men if they don't want to see their wives or partners screwed over.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001


Unfortunately, those are really valid points, Lynda.

My thought is that maybe the answer is to move away from the idea of "family friendly" workplaces to "worker friendly" environments. "Flextime" offered to everyone who wants to take advantage of it, as long as it is discussed group- or office-wide, with all affected parties. There is the case in which someone who works on a project only at night effecting the schedule of the person who is in early - but oftimes that can be worked around, and a project schedule worked out.

And to address Rudeboy's point way up there - yes, my answer is geared more towards office/desk/computer environments, and not to retail or factory jobs, but a flextime kind of policy can be implemented in those fields as well. Stores and factories are often open longer hours and weekends, as well. With some effort, arrangements could be made for split shifts, compressed workweeks (40 hours in 4 days instead of 5), spread-out workweeks (40 hours in 7 days), flexible shift assignments - sometimes mornings, sometimes evenings, sometimes afternoons.

As for other fields, academic fields and otherwise - I'm at a loss.

But these are all probably fantasy ideas. It's left up to the company, whatever kind of company it is, to decide if its responsibility lies in helping employees balance work and life responsibilities - whether parental or otherwise.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001


Moderation questions? read the FAQ