this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36129 readers
134 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

One thing really annoying that I've noticed working in the white collar industry is that some people get a free pass all the time on important things, just because they have kids. For example, in a different team who often has to step away during business hours and becomes unreachable, simply because they have kids. There's always some sort of excuse with them. Have to go pick him up from the bus stop, have to go pick him up from school because they got in trouble, dance recital during the middle of the day, always something. But when it comes to ordinary normal people who don't have kids, it feels like there's a lot more scrutiny. Why do you need a doctor's appointment in the middle of the day? Why do you need to go pick up a prescription at lunch time, like why can't you work through lunch?

But also, when it comes to employment, it feels like there's a lot of preferential treatment for people with children. Oh that person has kids / children! They need the job a lot more. They have a little girl! Clearly they need it more than the the person who has a disabled spouse, because kids are way more important than an adult dependent! We can't fire this person, they have kids! Let's choose someone who doesn't have a family. Like, stuff like this. Why is there so much preferential treatment to people who have children? Is this some sort of utilitarian thing? The least number of people affected?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

In a way, yes. Good healthy families are a core of a functioning society. However some examples you gave:

Why do you need a doctor's appointment in the middle of the day?

Unless you're in a society where doctors are available in the evening, this is a silly question

Why do you need to go pick up a prescription at lunch time

Again, depends on the pharmacist's opening hours

like why can't you work through lunch?

This is just stupid completely

They need the job a lot more. They have a little girl!

This makes sense, as again, someone with a child needs to provide for a family

Clearly they need it more than the the person who has a disabled spouse, because kids are way more important than an adult dependent!

This is stupid and a disabled spouse or any dependent should also be taken into consideration

We can't fire this person, they have kids! Let's choose someone who doesn't have a family.

This makes sense. Some people need more money than others. That's a basic fact. You or I would find more value in £1000 than a billionaire would.

Society flourishes when there are more middle class families flourishing. (By "more" middle class, I mean raising people to the middle class and maintaining those who are as well.) It is natural order that we should make society an easier environment to have a family in, rather than harder. Lest you end up like Japan or China with a declining population

Society was wrong when it started to hate women who had more kids and lived off of child benefits (and maybe a husband's wage helping as well). If they're actually doing a decent job at parenting, let them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

By the same logic a disabled spouse doesn't mean you get any additional consideration right?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

"I nutted in a girl once, I'm better than you"

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No. Everyone should get the same treatment, as if they had children.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Exactly this. If you need to step away, take care of something, or just need a break, that ought to be entirely acceptable.

The reason it seems like parents "get away with it" is because they push limits, because they have a priority higher than anything else related to employment. I have to go get those kids. Is that report urgent? Cool, I'll get to it as soon as the literal humans whose lives are depending on me for basic survival are safe at home. Are you going to fire me for parenting? Because that doesn't change my priorities.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

My opinion on this, it fully depends.

I fully agree that people should be empathetic to people with kids because there are events that are outside of their control. This being said I don't think they should be sympathetic to it. At the end of the day it isn't that person's problem that someone else has a kid, so therefore they shouldn't be affected by it. Being said the world isn't a perfect place and if you straight out don't show any sympathy period you're going to make enemies Having a kid should not be a get out of jail free card for any type of commitment, no if ands or buts.

Since you mentioned the professional World I'll keep it more leaning towards that, a worker with a kid should not be getting preferable treatment to someone without a kid unless it is something that is directly out of that person's control. A kid being sick is one thing, leaving early due to a doctor's appointment is a whole different thing. They make sick days and they make vacation days for that, if the company is willing to work around your appointments that's great, but that should be a treatment that they are given to everyone regardless of if you have a kid or not.

As for the lunch example that you gave, without getting too far off topic I firmly believe that that shouldn't be happening. Regardless of if you have a kid or not. Depending on your contract you're entitled to a lunch, and in most companies that lunch is unpaid. If I'm not being paid my company is not going to dictate what I'm doing. Lunch period Is very often the period that I use to be able to do the things like what you mentioned such as going to the store or going to the bank, that's none of my employers buisness what I'm doing during that time.

in the professional World shit happens, managers will give preferable treatment to people they like and to the more efficient workers. Some managers also struggle to see the difference between empathy and sympathy and go a little too far in worker preference, this doesn't mean that it's right. This is a human trait, it's against our nature to go against it. However as cold-hearted as it sounds employees life outside of the job should not be a problem of the employer. I'm not saying they should be the first one on The Chopping block, but I am saying that if that worker is less efficient, or ends up working less than higher other workers, the fact that they have a kid at home should not be taken into account.

Please note that this post is not including if your country has laws prohibiting certain actions. Such as in the US FMLA states that once the worker has been with the company for a year they can be entitled to up to 6 months of job protected unpaid leave as long as it's being used by one of their eligible statuses, and one of these is if I remember my paperwork is caretaking of a dependant or immediate family

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

"A kid being sick is one thing"

You just wrecked your whole argument and put the flaw to OP and all the kid-free people here.

If your opinion is that "a kid being sick is one thing" then all we're talking about here is degree of consideration, not whether to consider or not.

OP and others here are acting like having a kid is some get out of work card. "This one weird trick drives bosses insane!!"

It very well may be the case that parents get a little more grace, but chances are that the boss has kids too. Because it starts with "a kid being sick is one thing."

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Depends on the situation. If the parent(s) look absolutely done with life because their crotch goblins are draining the very life from them, I'd do shit like let them go ahead of me in line even if they have hella shit and I just have 1 thing. Let them get on their way and get some rest.

Like, I'm thinking more about the parents than the kids unless the parents are being Karens.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago

Working class trying to strip other working class of rights and privileges. Yes parents of children should get considerations according to their need.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Up until the last few years I'd hear the same argument about smokers taking breaks. Think the solution is to just keep heading ceos till things improve.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

Smokers are actively detrimental to their health, though, while families benefit society

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

Pretty much agree with the last statement.

Disagree with the first statement. Given that the survival of our species is one reliant on us not only having children but also raising them in a way that improves our world and doesn't make it worse.

The later of course is the Crux of the problem. A society that doesn't encourage parents to be good parents and just shits on them instead is not a society that wants to survive.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm a parent, and I don't want special treatment. Some consideration would be nice, but honestly I just want every employee to be treated like adults.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago

The only co-worker I have on my team has two kids. She's an absolute pleasure to work with and is a champ when it comes to getting shit done.

As a result, I go out of my way to ensure that she's covered when she needs to do things for/with her kids. Mainly because I really don't wanna lose her but also because she pulls her weight and doesn't ever take advantage of the situation.

I don't have kids, don't want 'em, and don't really care if anyone else does, but if you're a good teammate and I can see you're a great parent too, I'll support you as much as I can.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don't have kids myself, but I understand that it's the employers fault they don't extend the same privileges to me, not the parents fault for receiving the privilege.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

Exactly. This whole argument is just allowing corporate greed and manufactured resource scarcity to win.

Working class trying to remove rights and privileges from the working class because the ruling class creates a situation that encourages it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago

There's always some sort of excuse with them. Have to go pick him up from the bus stop, have to go pick him up from school because they got in trouble, dance recital during the middle of the day, always something.

I am a single parent and work the same hours per timesheet and get the same allotment of personal leave per year as everybody else at my employer.

If I happen to use that personal leave to pick up a kid who threw up in their classroom while somebody else uses it to see their optometrist or attend a funeral isn't really anybody's business.

I take one early afternoon each week to take my kid to an after school activity, this puts a weekly 2 or 3 hour deficit in my timesheet that I either make up by working a bit longer on the other days or if the sheet doesn't balance I make up the difference by spending some annual leave. (I try to avoid using AL like this because I would rather save it for holidays but it is occasionally required.)

I don't telegraph all of this timesheet accounting to my colleagues, they will know which day I'm leaving early that term and the rest isn't really their business. At the end of the day/month/year I have my schedule OKed by my line manager and work the commitments of my contract.

But when it comes to ordinary normal people who don't have kids, it feels like there's a lot more scrutiny. Why do you need a doctor's appointment in the middle of the day? Why do you need to go pick up a prescription at lunch time, like why can't you work through lunch?

If your employer / manager is second guessing your leave thats an issue between you and them and shouldn't have your looking at your peers with resentment.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

In practice, kids provide more good excuses to work around unrealistic expectations, like needing fifteen minutes to pick up something. There's a good emotional excuse in "I need to take my kid to the doctor", much more than "the Elden Ring expansion came out". If your boss is being unreasonable, you'll need something good to dissuade them. Unfortunately for everyone involved, kid stuff just happens a lot less predictably and a lot more during office hours than (your own) adult stuff. Kids get sick more, do more dangerous things, are more vulnerable, and have weirder schedules than adults. They also can't really get around by themselves up until a certain age, and at certain age ranges they probably shouldn't be going to doctor's appointments without adults either, even if they can get there by bike or by public transport themselves.

As for kid stuff happening during the day: that's just how kid stuff works a lot of the time, unfortunately. Doctors and schools are open for only so many hours a day. It's not like parents get that time off, they need to do chores they'd rather not be doing when they're away from work. However, if you need to see a doctor or pick up medicine, you shouldn't be restricted to super uncomfortable times because you're not a child.

I don't see why a kid would be more important than a disabled spouse, or any spouse for that matter. If there's a family concern where you need to be present, kids shouldn't get preferential treatment. When it comes to things like being available in your free time or being put forward as a backup, your time should be as valuable as anyone's time. However, something to consider is that in some occasions parents will negotiate their contracts to be exempted from certain things, often at a cut in pay or with something else to make up for it; in those cases your time is legally worth less than theirs, but that's down to contract negotiation.

As for being fired and other stuff where dependents may suffer, I think that's only logical. It often doesn't matter which team member gets fired for economic reasons, so a compassionate boss should probably fire causing the least amount of suffering. Someone's going to feel the pain, but unless there's a good reason to fire someone else, a single person having their life upset by getting fired will be preferential to a family of four having their life upset.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Sounds to me like your company sucks and you're taking out your frustration on people with kids. You are being absolutely unfair.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They already are. Months of parental leave, come back, make another child, get another couple of months off. If the money is it there to allow this, why can't we get some kind of sabbatical

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Depending on your state, you can! Is your parent dying of cancer and requires constant care? Did you get in a car accident that requires a multiple day hospital stay, and a wound the size of a dinner plate? You too can have a few weeks unpaid leave to recover. Thinking of maternity (or paternity) leave as a sabbatical is a joke.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago

I got exactly one day off for the funeral after a parent's cancer but it's not really comparable. Becoming a parent doesn't exactly happen against your will. I may as well take a dog and claim I need time off to walk it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes and no. Everyone deserves the same benefits here. The issue isn't why someone with kids gets a free pass, but why you don't get the same offering. Why should someone have to work harder because they're infertile, gay, or otherwise unable to reproduce?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago

But that's on the capitalist, not on the worker. They should hire some more people to cover for whoever has emergencies.

I have a kid now and I understand the frustration of who didn't have kids. The problem is that the frustration is to the wrong person.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's all about that work-life balance. For example, I fuck off to the bar all the time

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago

Daydrinking isn't a hobby, it's a necessity

load more comments
view more: next ›