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.
. . . “You shouldn’t say, ‘I’m leaving at 3 p.m. to take my kid to a soccer game,’ ” she says, “because what about the person who has to take their parent to chemotherapy or the person who needs to go to marriage counseling?”
It is not right that child free employees always must cover for those who take off because of child issues.
The article says that time off, to be fair, should not be linked to the reason, and that every employee should have the right to this perk.
I once worked for a company that instituted 'flex time'. Their version of this is that the employee had to flex his hours, 24/7, to the company's work requirements. We were told not to travel out of commuting range over the Christmas holidays - a major corporation, a household name.
Do employees with children have a 'time off' advantage in most companies?
I've seen flex-time being implemented in a manner where the employees must work 8-hour shifts, but can move those shifts earlier for later as long as they are there for a preset "core hours". So let's say the core hours are 10am to 3pm, you can work from 7am-3pm or from 10am-6pm and anywhere inbetween as long as it's 8 hours. So someone who has to attend to children or other things either in the morning or evening can do so.
I've seen flex-time being implemented in a manner where the employees must work 8-hour shifts, but can move those shifts earlier for later as long as they are there for a preset "core hours". So let's say the core hours are 10am to 3pm, you can work from 7am-3pm or from 10am-6pm and anywhere inbetween as long as it's 8 hours. So someone who has to attend to children or other things either in the morning or evening can do so.
Company I worked at instituted Flex Time and it was very successful.
As far as employees with children given more leeway to leave work to attend to issues regarding their children: in my experience, many times it came down to the boss. I've seen bosses who have children be more tolerant than bosses without children.
We have flex time in the summer. HR has a "suggested" 4 day work schedule (basically coming in early or staying late, and taking a 45 minute lunch rather than the hour lunch currently instituted for hourly staff members), but in my department, no one cares how you come up with the extra hours. Many of us use vacation time that we don't predict will be able to roll over at the end of the year.
It's a nice perk, but certainly benefits those will children in home daycares that often go to 4 days a week the most.
. . . “You shouldn’t say, ‘I’m leaving at 3 p.m. to take my kid to a soccer game,’ ” she says, “because what about the person who has to take their parent to chemotherapy or the person who needs to go to marriage counseling?”
It is not right that child free employees always must cover for those who take off because of child issues.
The article says that time off, to be fair, should not be linked to the reason, and that every employee should have the right to this perk.
I once worked for a company that instituted 'flex time'. Their version of this is that the employee had to flex his hours, 24/7, to the company's work requirements. We were told not to travel out of commuting range over the Christmas holidays - a major corporation, a household name.
Do employees with children have a 'time off' advantage in most companies?
I think sometimes the advantages are unofficial. Before I had my own child, I ended up having a completely miserable year at a job where my teammate basically did not show up for work most of the year. She'd had a baby and just didn't want to work anymore, but instead of quitting she used various kinds of leave, unpaid time off, etc. This meant no one could be hired for her position and I ended up having the work of two people - I worked 60-70 hour weeks and still couldn't get it all done. I spent so much time crying that year. It was awful. We had been friends before that but I ended up kind of hating her for it. I still think that if people have children, which is a choice, then they should minimize the impact on their coworkers. Now that I have a child of my own I just don't work at a job that requires more than I can give. I think that's fair.
I also remember how an employee who had just had a baby was given flex time, but I was not allowed the same flexibility so that I could attend to some medical problems that were actually preventing me from having children. It was the same job. It really left me bitter about the whole working parent thing.
However, I have never heard of official time off just for people with children. It's usually for any number of reasons. Nevertheless, I do think people with children who try to do more than they can handle often burden the rest of us, and I think it's inconsiderate and unfair. If you can't handle the work and the family, then don't do both. I know it's not right that it is that way, but it's still not fair to burden coworkers. People without children have things that are just as important to them.
Flextime was introduced in the UK in the early 1970s and the name was patented by the man who created it. In the early 2000s, as I recall, parents with children under the age of 6 were given the legal right to request flextime of their employers. It's a system which has been adopted throughout most of the UK for many workers and has been very successful. As long as the hours are worked and the job performed properly (not all workers are eligible) its positive benefits seem to far outweigh any negatives.
"Do employees with children have a 'time off' advantage in most companies?" If a flextime policy is implemented then I think the answer would be no. Without such a policy the situation can be a lot more tricky particularly in situations which poster katie45 raised where some employers discriminate in favor of parents with children which so often (and understandably so) leads to resentment among coworkers.
It depends a lot on the job whether there can be flex time or not.
For example in a hospital, how many patients would want to know that the nurse didn't respond to the call bell because he or she was using flex time. Or people eating out in a restaurant can't get their order placed because all the employees were on flex time.
Too often an employer gives you job because they really need you to be there to do it.
I'm not sure I understand the question. If it is true "flex time" all employees could use it, regardless of the reason, and the time would have to be made up some other time. No one would have an advantage over anyone else. If a parent flexed more often, s/he'd have to make up that time more often. If that is ok with the company, I don't see the issue. It depends on the job, of course. In a job where coverage is needed at all times, flex time probably wouldn't be a good idea, and probably wouldn't be offered. In a job where everyone works on their own, what difference does it make how your coworker gets their 40 hours in?
Location: Stuck on the East Coast, hoping to head West
4,640 posts, read 11,937,291 times
Reputation: 9885
I think all of my jobs for the past 10 years have had flex time and it applied to everyone. One change I've seen that I really like is companies allowing sick leave that can be used if you are sick or if your child is sick. Parents aren't given more sick leave, they have the same amount as people who don't have kids. But it's nice to be able to call in and tell the truth--your kid is sick--as opposed to having to lie and say you're actually sick.
Right now, several of my coworkers--parents--are complaining because we are currently penalized for using sick leave. I think you can call in sick twice a year without getting a warning. Each day counts as one occurrence so if you call in sick two days in a row--boom, a warning. Even if we have earned sick leave, they don't want us using it. The parents are complaining that this just isn't realistic when you have kids. I argue that this is just a stupid policy, period. I'd leave the whole parent/kid issue out of it.
I learned a long time ago life isn't fair. If you don't like your work situation then move on.
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.
