Can she "Have it all"
Discussion
Can a colleague of mine "have it all"? Situation is this :-
In order to be promoted to the next grade, we will have to undertake "Masters level" study. This does not necessarily mean committing to a full Masters degree, but evidence of undertaking modules will suffice.
A colleague of mine is muttering that she is being discriminated against because she is unable to commit to this as she has "child care issues".
This makes me so mad! We all have to make choices in life - I have chosen not to have children, because {a} I can't stand kids {b} I have other things I want to do with my life. She has made her choice, which brings it's own sacrifices.
Does she have the "right" to have it all?
In order to be promoted to the next grade, we will have to undertake "Masters level" study. This does not necessarily mean committing to a full Masters degree, but evidence of undertaking modules will suffice.
A colleague of mine is muttering that she is being discriminated against because she is unable to commit to this as she has "child care issues".
This makes me so mad! We all have to make choices in life - I have chosen not to have children, because {a} I can't stand kids {b} I have other things I want to do with my life. She has made her choice, which brings it's own sacrifices.
Does she have the "right" to have it all?
Einion Yrth said:
She has the right to sort out her childcare issues and do the study - she does not have the right to be 'given a bye to the next round' just because she chose to be fecund.
exactly! It annoys me to hear people whining about having kids as though someone forced them into it.....MilnerR said:
She has the right to sort out her childcare issues and do the study - she does not have the right to be 'given a bye to the next round' just because she chose to be fecund.
Well...lets just hope that some hardworking and educated people do have kids eh? Otherwise the only ones reproducing will be the degenerate underclass...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Exactly, though this should be dealt with by the government ending the discrimination against well paid parents, in order to make it more affordable for professionals to have children, not special treatment by companies.
For instance allowing a house wife to transfer her personal allowance to her husband would only be fair.
JagLover said:
Exactly, though this should be dealt with by the government ending the discrimination against well paid parents, in order to make it more affordable for professionals to have children, not special treatment by companies.
For instance allowing a house wife to transfer her personal allowance to her husband would only be fair.
Personally, I think companies should bear some responsibility for this, not just the Government. The work-till-you-drop ethic in this country means that many people are afraid to even take holidays because they will be seen as not being committed.
Middle-class couples are more likely to be affected by this because due to better education and upbringing they are in better jobs where they have to work harder. Middle-class women particularly have been encouraged to be high achievers since many people consider having children at a very young age to be a waste of your life.
As you have said before, JagLover (see, I do listen to you) the taxation on earners at this kind of level is punitive. The Government could do more for these kind of people. However, I do feel that companies make it very hard for people to take time off to have children (men and women) and this should change. I know someone that works for a high street bank who asked to work longer hours so he could move to a 4 day week (they have a flexible working policy). He was initially refused but he persisted and got his 4 day week, but was then told he had effectively signed away his career and he would be the first in line for redundancy and receive smaller bonuses because he was seen as being less committed.
This is just not right.
I have kids and look after them on my own half the time. It means I have had to make sacrifices at work and I'll never achieve my full potential. So what? I have kids, I made the choice.
She needs to chose what's important in her life, her kids or her career. There isn't time to be career minded and a good parent. It's her choice which she devotes herself to.
She needs to chose what's important in her life, her kids or her career. There isn't time to be career minded and a good parent. It's her choice which she devotes herself to.
silversun said:
Personally, I think companies should bear some responsibility for this, not just the Government. The work-till-you-drop ethic in this country means that many people are afraid to even take holidays because they will be seen as not being committed.
Middle-class couples are more likely to be affected by this because due to better education and upbringing they are in better jobs where they have to work harder. Middle-class women particularly have been encouraged to be high achievers since many people consider having children at a very young age to be a waste of your life.
As you have said before, JagLover (see, I do listen to you) the taxation on earners at this kind of level is punitive. The Government could do more for these kind of people. However, I do feel that companies make it very hard for people to take time off to have children (men and women) and this should change. I know someone that works for a high street bank who asked to work longer hours so he could move to a 4 day week (they have a flexible working policy). He was initially refused but he persisted and got his 4 day week, but was then told he had effectively signed away his career and he would be the first in line for redundancy and receive smaller bonuses because he was seen as being less committed.
This is just not right.
As long as someone can go part time with no loss of operational performance, it is of course wrong for them to be first in line for redundancy and for lower bonuses. However a good firm will respond to the needs of their staff anyway, without intrusive government regulation.
JagLover said:
As long as someone can go part time with no loss of operational performance, it is of course wrong for them to be first in line for redundancy and for lower bonuses. However a good firm will respond to the needs of their staff anyway, without intrusive government regulation.
Yes, this is true up to a point. The problem is that companies are run by people and people have all kinds of subjective ideas, prejudices and theories which means that ultimately, company policies are shaped by individuals, which means there has to be some Government intervention otherwise we would go back to the bad old days of companies doing whatever they liked with their employees.
As I said before, I feel that the Government and companies are jointly responsible for the middle-classes failing to reproduce enough.
Mrs Cuchillo said:
A colleague of mine is muttering that she is being discriminated against because she is unable to commit to this as she has "child care issues".
Then she should be at home bringing them up, if she wanted them so badly, not moaning that she wants to do something else. Tell her I said so!
silversun said:
...but he persisted and got his 4 day week, but was then told he had effectively signed away his career and he would be the first in line for redundancy and receive smaller bonuses because he was seen as being less committed.
I do feel sorry for this guy. However it's hard to deny that someone who wants the company to adjust to them _is_ less committed than someone else who will put up with doing whatever the company tells them they're going to do.
silversun said:
Middle-class couples are more likely to be affected by this because due to better education and upbringing they are in better jobs where they have to work harder.
Not convinced of that to be honest. Whats harder, working 40 hours for a good wage, or working 40 hours for a pittance?
andy mac said:
Middle-class couples are more likely to be affected by this because due to better education and upbringing they are in better jobs where they have to work harder.
Not convinced of that to be honest. Whats harder, working 40 hours for a good wage, or working 40 hours for a pittance?
Working 40 hrs would be great.Don't know many well paid jobs where it stops "at the factory gates"
thanuk said:
I do feel sorry for this guy. However it's hard to deny that someone who wants the company to adjust to them _is_ less committed than someone else who will put up with doing whatever the company tells them they're going to do.
Too right. The true measure of commitment is how much you are willing consider whats best for the company versus what is best for you as an individual. The later depends upon what kind of game you are playing, short, intermediate or long term. I guess the real question is, "Why does this guy want to work a 4 day week?"
thanuk said:
I do feel sorry for this guy. However it's hard to deny that someone who wants the company to adjust to them _is_ less committed than someone else who will put up with doing whatever the company tells them they're going to do.
He was making a compromise. He worked longer hours on the other 4 days in order to have 1 day off. The company's flexible working policy allowed this but it appears that in practice people are not encouraged to do it.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff