Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wasn't talking to the OP or to you. I was responding to a specific post. I'm not going to explain myself again. You continually take my posts out of context. It's not my fault you have a reading comprehension problem.
Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension.
I'm fully aware of the post you were answering and my answer stands. Career priorities are different here. There's nothing wrong with that but they are different. You can tell by the different choices made.
I firmly believe that if a company offers maternity they should offer paternity as well because so often dads do a lot as well with the baby and they need the time off as well.
Time off is for medical recuperation. Dads don't need to recuperate from labor, do they???
That's right. They chose their kids instead of a career. They have chosen one over the other instead of both and that speaks volumes about their dedication to their careers. I believe that's all the op is saying. The choice to quit your career when you have kids means you are not as dedicated to your career or not as capable fo juggling career and kids as the person who chooses to keep their career after having kids. There is an innate difference in people who make these two choices.
If I were a hiring manager and I had a choice between a mom who had worked while her kids were young and one who quit her job, I'd take the one who worked. Why? Because she's a proven commodity. I know she can do two things at once. I know she doesn't take the easy way out. I know she doesn't quit when things get tough. And she, likely, has recent job skills.
I'm sure that's one of a million reasons why you are not a hiring manager. Although, I think the only reason you're saying it is because it's the choice you made.
That's right. They chose their kids instead of a career. They have chosen one over the other instead of both and that speaks volumes about their dedication to their careers. I believe that's all the op is saying. The choice to quit your career when you have kids means you are not as dedicated to your career or not as capable fo juggling career and kids as the person who chooses to keep their career after having kids. There is an innate difference in people who make these two choices.
If I were a hiring manager and I had a choice between a mom who had worked while her kids were young and one who quit her job, I'd take the one who worked. Why? Because she's a proven commodity. I know she can do two things at once. I know she doesn't take the easy way out. I know she doesn't quit when things get tough. And she, likely, has recent job skills.
How insulting. You think SAHMs are not capable and are taking the easy way out? No, dear, being a SAHM requires quite a few "job skills" that are rarely tested in the workforce, and it was MUCH easier when I was able to spend my big fat paycheck on whatever I wanted and have lunches out with just my husband while someone else put up with tantrums, a kid not napping, and trying to make my child into a productive human being. Being an electric engineer - for me, much easier, and we're a rare enough commodity that if I choose to stay with the career when I return to the workforce, I doubt I will have much difficulty. Believe it or not, it happens all the time, which if you were a hiring manager, you would actually know.
I think the career vs SAH charges are bull shyte. Would anyone in this thread keep their jobs if they hit the lottery tomorrow? I'm gonna guess no, which basically makes the assertion kind of weak. Most work because we have to, successful career or not. If you wouldn't work if you won the lottery then you prioritize the lottery over your career? Not necessarily.
I'm sure that's one of a million reasons why you are not a hiring manager. Although, I think the only reason you're saying it is because it's the choice you made.
No, I know what I saw when I was in industry. They'll take a proven commodity over an unproven one any day of the week unless it's a new grad. Taking time off is frowned upon unless it's for educational purposes. It shows you're not as dedicated to your career as someone who doesn't.
As to why I'm not in management, I could have been. I didn't want the job. But that doesn't mean I don't know how hiring managers think. I've known many. In fact, I was married to one.
Managers want people who are dedicated and who will work hard not people who quit when the going gets tough.
I think the career vs SAH charges are bull shyte. Would anyone in this thread keep their jobs if they hit the lottery tomorrow? I'm gonna guess no, which basically makes the assertion kind of weak. Most work because we have to, successful career or not. If you wouldn't work if you won the lottery then you prioritize the lottery over your career? Not necessarily.
Actually, I would. With enough money, I could buy the right to teach the way I think teaching should be done. I would, however, hire myself an assistant. I'm not a martyr.
It's one thing to quit because you will never need to work again. You're free to do what you want. It's another to quit because you can't juggle work and family. you're high risk when you RTW because no one knows if you can even handle both plus your skills are stale. Someone who chooses to take time off, literally, chooses to let their skills go stale. What does that say to an employer? Why would anyone take a chance on you when you're unproven and they'd have to retrain you when they can get a new grad who's chomping at the bit and doesn't have the distraction of family and train them? In 20 years in industry, I've seen zero ex SAHM's hired for meaningful positions. They were hired as receptionists and such but that was it.
And besides, you don't want to be a rehire with young kids. The best assignments go to those with more seniority, ditto the best shifts and hours and you haven't accrued any vacation time yet. When my kids were little, I had 6 weeks vacation and I used half of it to cover sick child care (they pick up every little bug in day care). When you're a new hire, you may not have any vacation time your first year.
No, I know what I saw when I was in industry. They'll take a proven commodity over an unproven one any day of the week unless it's a new grad. Taking time off is frowned upon unless it's for educational purposes. It shows you're not as dedicated to your career as someone who doesn't.
As to why I'm not in management, I could have been. I didn't want the job. But that doesn't mean I don't know how hiring managers think. I've known many. In fact, I was married to one.
Managers want people who are dedicated and who will work hard not people who quit when the going gets tough.
Maybe i have you confused with someone else, but were you not in the auto industry at the heart of bailout crisis in not so good 'ol MI? Can't say anyone takes that lot seriously. and honestly, your views and that of your cohort are dated.
If I were a hiring manager and I had a choice between a mom who had worked while her kids were young and one who quit her job, I'd take the one who worked. Why? Because she's a proven commodity. I know she can do two things at once. I know she doesn't take the easy way out. I know she doesn't quit when things get tough.
Wow. A drive-by from the mindset of a mid-20th century male chauvinist who thought the little woman belonged at home. Waiting for her lord and master to meet him at the door with a martini. Wrapped in Saran Wrap. Because she couldn't possibly have a brain in her head and be capable of running anything. Besides the Hoover.
Maybe i have you confused with someone else, but were you not in the auto industry at the heart of bailout crisis in not so good 'ol MI? Can't say anyone takes that lot seriously. and honestly, your views and that of your cohort are dated.
What time frame is the "heart of the bailout crisis?". You're talking about a short time frame there. I had a 20+ year career in engineering. I saw much more than just the crisis. I also saw the high flying 90's when workers were in short supply and companies were bending over backwards to keep good employees. Guess what I didn't see? SHAM being hired other than for trivial positions.
My SIL went to school to be an opthamologist assistant then decided to SAH. When she reenetered the work force the only thing she could get was a receptionist position. She never has worked her way back to being an assistant and she RTW during the 90's when employees were hard to find. She was a MSAHM but she'll tell you today that she wishes she'd never SAH because the price was too high. She thought she'd just jump right back in where she left off but that didn't happen.
Internally, I saw women derailed from management track positions because they decided to take long leaves. Sure, the company gave them a job when they came back but it didn't have the same upward potential.
Reality is, employers want employees with relevent, recent job skills and who they know will be there. Quitting your job when you have kids puts a big question mark on your ability to handle both kids and a job and it's assumed you have no dedication to your career (which begs the question "why did you choose it?"). Do you really think there are no repercussions to quitting your chosen career and taking years off? You're dreaming.
Before I graduated from college, all of the female engineering students had to attend a seminar that dealt with this. We were warned of the unforgiving nature of industry to taking time off to stay home. We were told that if we chose to SAH we should use the time to get an advanced degree and time our RTW with finishing that degree. Industry will forgive time off if it's used to improve your skills/further your eduction but not to SAH with the kids. You, simply, cannot have your cake and eat it too. Our choices come with price tags. You should know what the price is before you make the choice. Just ask my SIL. She never realized she pay a lifetime penalty on earning potential for that choice. She thought she was just giving up her income for those years. Reality is, she gave up a lot more than that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wasn't talking to the OP or to you. I was responding to a specific post. I'm not going to explain myself again. You continually take my posts out of context. It's not my fault you have a reading comprehension problem.
Our choices come with price tags. You should know what the price is before you make the choice. Just ask my SIL. She never realized she pay a lifetime penalty on earning potential for that choice. She thought she was just giving up her income for those years. Reality is, she gave up a lot more than that.
