Discrimination at work.

Jerry, who was the girl and...

who was your buddy? I know a lot of people fired for reasons other than what is on the paperwork. I can beat that, I know a lady that took every single sick, personal and vacation day she had. She used more of her insurance entitlement in a month than my family of five did in a year. When whe was there she spent most of the day smoking. She made more money than me and did 1/10th the work and she was single. Single people don't have a lock on good behavior by any means. If your guy was a good worker and was fired for being sequestered, he got screwed but that has nothing to do with the lady. Worse did he have a family? Besides you indicated as part of her family a sister. You don't have parents or a sister? We just had a lady at work take FMLA to take care of her terminally ill mother. In your book she is taking advantage right? With you guys's attitude I can imagine you may have problems at work.

 

Bo - I don't mean this in a bad way at all, but I noticed in another thread you are a HR seeking person. I think there is discrimination everywhere, and saying that people with kids get an advantage is a bit dishearteneing. I hope that each and every case is seen as uniwue and there is no stereotypes in determining if discrimination exists.

For every case that someone is iscriminated for having kids, i can show you one without, and for each that is because of sex, I can show you one that is not.... I think it is determined by the case, but I do not think (and I think is your original question) - is there a perdominate case for people without kids, I think no - just like there is no pattern for race, creed, color, sexual orientation - it is just ignorance.

 

Chris,

I think you're last post very out of line, especially since you don't even know. Anyways I thought I'd respond to you're last post to clear somethings up.

1. I own a condo in the Toronto area and a portion of my property tax goes towards public schools. So I am paying for other peoples children education.

2. No one paid for my education. I have been supporting myself for the last 7 years.

3. I know very well that the world dose not revolve around me and I am not making a generalized assumption. All my friends that don't have children are always complaining how much special treatment people with children are getting at work.

4. I don't think I will ever be lonely, even if I chose not to have children. I have lot's of great friends and we are contently going out to dinner, night clubs, shopping and the gym. So I don't spend all day at home feeling sorry for myself and I do get out and enjoy my fellow man, a LOT. If they end up leaving this world before me I'll probably just make new friends. I am capable of making new friends really fast if I want to. But if someday I do end up being all alone I don't think that it will be a big problem for me because I feel perfectly fine and content being alone.

Bo

 

Emphasis is being placed on child/children, I don't think that they are the cause of any problems. IMHO, it is more or less a matter that has to be worked out with HR depts. and company policies. Reasonable companies with reasonable supervisors/managers are able to balance and to compensate one for the other.
If someone with children gets extra time off when the kids are sick, then those without kids can/should be given benefit(s) in other areas like bigger bonus or more time off for personal matters. The supervisor/manager should be flexible and be able to balance the scales concerning his/her staff.

 

Do your friends who do have children complain about the "special" treatment other people with children at work get? Or is it just the ones who've never had children to care for who sense this great injustice?

Nobody is asking Onan to change diapers, wipe up vomit, tend to a fever, take a child to a doctor's appointment, or attend a graduation ceremony. They're asking Onan for a little help to make the very difficult task of juggling parenting and career possible.

I suggest, if you are unhappy at work about taking up the "slack" of parents, that you go to your supervisor and ask for a raise. When asked for a rationale, explain that you are doing everyone else's job, and expect to be paid for it. Tell your colleagues that are parents that you will no longer do their job for them unless you are paid part of their salary. Start a support group for childless employees who are Fed Up and Not Going to Take it Any More.

You may not realize it, but many parents with careers consider the childless to be the slackers in the workplace. Being a parent is a 24/7 job that kills many chances at career advancement, promotion, raises. We watch as single people put in extra hours at work, where it "counts" as we head home to put in "extra hours" at often unappreciated tasks such as mopping up vomit. Believe it or not, one hour of parenting is often a lot more stressful than one hour of overtime put in at work. Lives are at stake, and the pay sucks.

 

I couldn't agree with you more, but I at a lot of companies things are not always like that.

 

I'm sorry but I am not buying any of you're excuses about having to change dippers, clean up vomit and ect. Having children is a choice. You don't sound like an individual that has the IQ of a fly, so I am positive that when you made the choice to have children you knew what you are getting yourself into. You made you're bed and now you have to lay in it. Sorry if I sound like a big A** Hole, but I'm just being very honest right now.

Also for you're info, I don't need to go and start a support group for childless* employees as you put it, because there are already hundred out there, which basically proves the that there millions childfree fed up employees out there.


* When talking about individuals such as myself you should be saying childfree not childless. Childless has a connotation of loss or regret. Childfree implies satisfaction and deliberate choice. To be childfree means giving thought to not having children as opposed to the contemplation most parents give to having them.

Bo

 

It's OK, Bo. I think it is better (in the long run) if people who don't want children don't have them. So don't get me wrong there. I don't think the "childfree" should go out and have kids. People who don't want to be parents typically don't make good parents, so it's no loss. Even when one wants to have children, it's hard work.

Now, the issue is that you feel that the "childfree" are discriminated against in your workplace. In one workplace I know, visual overtime is rewarded greatly -- more so than actual productivity. The more hours a person stays at his or her desk past 5 -- the bigger the rewards come bonus time. That someone who leaves at 5 on the dot actually produces more product than the person spends more time at lunch but stays until 6:30 ;-) is beside the point. In this particular workplace, the childfree can impress management more by always being the last out the door.

The childfree are typically the ones, in that company, who earn the big bonus-time dollars.

So, as I originally said -- you've just been working for the wrong company. ;-)

 

You can't say that for sure, because you don't know exactly what goes on and is being said at management meetings behind closed doors. Maybe when it comes to employe evaluation management looks at quality not quantity. So because the childfree workers are not rushing out the door at 5, but instead stay and work till 6:30 there work is better quality. The bottom line is that you can't gather enough solid evidence to to prove that point.

Bo

 

HR

Bo, I recall from another post that you want to get into HR - what would you do about this "discrimination"?

Tracey

 

No BO you don't understand

Unless you worked and paid taxes at the age of five somebody paid for your education.

Yes, you are probably perfectly capable of making friends now. The question is when you are 80 and confined to a wheel chair in a nursing home. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are blessed with relatives which are not confined to such a place. I served as custodian for my grandfather for the brief time he lived in one and I now take care of my grandother. They are heartbreaking places to visit. The residents always want to go home and talk about "my people" who are going to come get them. For many, there are no people. For others, they will never come to take them home because they can't take care of them. It is a sad tale that many here have seen. Bo, hope you are the first of your circle of friends to go. Otherwise, you WILL be lonely.

I noticed you do not address the studies which show the childless or people with stay at home spouses advance much further in the work place. Why, because it kills your particular theory of discrimination. There is discrimination, but it is in your favor not against. Nor do you address the fact that it is the parents whom keep our society and economy going, not the childless. There will be a tomorrow and someone to take care of you in that nursing home thanks to our children. Yours is not a life of sacrifice, but a life of leisure and self indulgance lived on the back of families. Don't whine now because you may have to work just a little extra at work. It is work which will be rewarded in the long run by advancement, bonuses or wage increases further feeding your life of leaisure.

I don't begrudge the nights awake with a sick child. They are worth every minute for the other times such as when I come home and my child runs in to my arms hollering, "daddy" or gives me hugs and kisses before they go to bed. The bed time stories and coaching, cub scout and girl scout meetings. I wouldn't give it up for the world. I am the lucky one and feel sorry for you.

The problem with your side of this argument bo is that you, quite frankly, don't know what the heck your talking about. You have only one side of the argument. You are the classic one legged man in the butt kicking contest. I have been single w/o kids and married (twice) with kids. I have been a childless worker and one with a child. I have been a supervisor of both and adjusted to the needs of both. Of the three workers I had to most accomodate, one was helping out his mother with a dying father, another had a daughter with liver disease, and the other was faking an injury from an auto accident so he could sue. The latter one was the worst and everybody was angry at him (married and single) for it. Again, parents have no lock on needing help.

Good luck bo. Hope life opens your eyes up soon. It's the holiday season, check out "A Christmas Carol" and see what life can become if one spends too much time dwelling on their own needs.

 

I had the night to sleep on that bit of woodsy wisdom.

No amount of foresight and planning could have predicted any number of things that have come up in life since I married and decided to have children. For instance, fourteen years ago, I did not know my wife would one day step on a curb the wrong way and break her foot. I did not know this, so I could not have know she would do it when the children were at an age that she'd need me to take them to and from school for the period of time she needed to recover from surgery. Is that the bed I made? Life is full of random events that we must deal with.

The difference is, the chances are five times for me what they are for you of something random taking me by surprise.

What I did know is that I was willing to accept responsibility for the well-being of four people other than myself. And that means I have done everything from muck toilets to kiss ass -- things I never would have done if I'd been the only person to account for.

Because you don't have children, what you don't realize is that the inefficient slacking you are witnessing from the child-burdened is part of them. Choice or not, you're going to have to come to terms with the life decisions of others without calling heads or tails on its "fairness."

Here's an HR question:

"John Doe has a stay-at-home wife and three children. Joe Blow is single with no children. Both have the same job title at your company. Both do an equally good job. Both are paid the same salary. Both work the same number of hours. In other words -- they are indistinguishable from one another. You have been asked by management to pick one to lay off, since the department is downsizing. Which do you decide ay off and why?"

The truth of the matter -- in the above situation, given two equally good employees who produce the same product -- it is best for society to lay off the single, childless man. Because you are single and childfree, you may not understand why. Because you are part of a society, you should try to understand why, nevertheless. Understanding why requires you to let go of your current particulars and to consider a bigger picture.

 

Let me get in to the discussion again pls. I'd like to quote an email message sent by a relative. Here it goes like this:

"When things in your life seem almost too much to handle, when 24 hours in a day are not enough, remember the mayonnaise jar...and the beer.

A professor stood before his philosophy class and had some items in front of him. When the class began, wordlessly, he picked up a very large and empty mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls.

He then asked the students if the jar was full. They agreed that it was. So the professor then picked up a box of pebbles and poured them into the jar. He shook the jar lightly. The pebbles rolled into the open areas between the golf balls. He then asked the students again if the jar was full. They agreed it was.

The professor next picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar. Of course, the sand filled up everything else. He asked once more if the jar was full. The students responded with a unanimous "yes."

The professor then produced two cans of beer from under the table and poured the entire contents into the jar, effectively filling the empty space between the sand. The students laughed.

Now, "said the professor, as the laughter subsided, "I want you to recognize that this jar represents your life.

"The golf balls are the important things--your family, your children, your health, your friends, your favorite passions -- things that if everything else was lost and only they remained, your life would still be full.

"The pebbles are the other things that matter like your job, your house, your car. The sand is everything else--the small stuff.

"If you put the sand into the jar first," he continued, there is no room for the pebbles or the golf balls. The same goes for life. If you spend all your time and energy on the small stuff, you will never have room for the things that are important to you. Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness. Play with your children. Take time to get medical checkups. Take your partner out to dinner. Play another 18. There will always be time to clean the house, and fix the disposal.

"Take care of the golf balls first, the things that really matter. Set your priorities. The rest is just sand"

One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the beer represented.

The professor smiled. "I'm glad you asked. It just goes to show you that, no matter how full your life may seem, there's always room for a couple of beers.""

Regards,

 

Excellent story.

Though I'm wondering what happened to the mayonnaise.

 

Felipe

Amen, brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Thank you guys….

BTW, I used this story to support my argumentation to an issue in “work ethics” in my HR research paper. And know what, my professor gave me a high mark for that issue.

 

There are a few postings here about the correlation of being married and quality of work. First, to make the generalization that people without kids will work until 6:30 and later than those with kids - in my experience is not true (but if there is published research on it, please provide the link). Being without kids, and/or single, there is a very active social life in some cases, and I think there might be some, but for the most part nobody wants to live at work.

Secondly the correlation between productivity and childfree - there is been a great deal of study about employee turnover and marriage and family. There IS a correlation, and I think it is logical. I was much more able to pick up and move for a better job opportunity than now.

So the data does back up that statistically a person who is married and with children will turnover jobs much less than those who are single or without children. The numbers don't lie.

The productivity I am not sure about any studies or research in that area.

I think there is a great deal of stereotyping based on a few experiences. Bo - you original question asked if other experienced it, so I think the answer is no from most of the board. I hope you see that, especially from an HR point of view that one person's experience is not the same as the entire company.

I don't have kids yet, and I like to get out of here at 5:00 like those with kids, I may not have kids, but I have a life outside of here.

 

Re: Maybe you are overreacting....

Lets see:
OK, Lets

a. It will be our children who pay your social security when you retire.

If social security still exits when I retire. I don't count on that so I put a significant portion of my income away. I don't plan on retiring in the US anyway. Merida Mexico and Cork Ireland are my ideas, but then I have 30 years to decide.

b. It is parents ensuring the world still goes around tomorrow because without children there wouldn't be one. Look at is what is happening in countries with negative population growth.

Plenty of unemployed people have kids so your kids wouldn't make one whit of difference.

c. Because parents have school age children they can only take vacation over the summer and during the Christmas so they pay twice as much. Those without children get far more value when they go on vacation and have more of it since theirs don't get burnt up for kids events.

You could stay home with your little screamers. In fact I think that children should be prohibited on commercial flights during certain hours. Fly them in the morning or late at night.

d. Parents own larger homes so they pay way more in property taxes.

Specious- the people with the largest home I know are childless.

e. I fork over roughly $10k per year for tuition and they go to cheap schools.

The NEA has ruined public education in the USA. If you want your children to have a good education and most probably not be murdured private schools are the way to go.

f. A good chunk of the economy is driven by the needs of the family so your job may actually exist because of families.

Uh, no I am a nurse, and soon to be a librarian as well I will have patients and patrons of all ages. I do try to avoid children as I abhor screaming.

g. Parents have to own geeky vehicles so the kids can fit in them (minivans).

Lack of taste should not be blamed on children. Vomiting, strange noises, and noxious odors can be blamed on children but they did not force you to get the shoebox on wheels.

Point is, w/o kids there will be no world tomorrow and it is no bed of roses being a parent. Remember, you chose to be single just like they chose to be parents. Live with your choices.

Of course there will be a world tomorrow. If the snail darter becomes extinct will the world end. If humans became extinct tomorrow the animals would probably throw a party. The world won't end because upright walkers drop dead, heck it would probably improve.

Single people can choose to have children later if they so desire. People with children are prohibited from killing them if they decide they don't like them.


That said, there are some professions in which having a child would not affect one's co-workers as much as others. Nurses, police officers, and others who do shift work most probably do not place as great a burden on their co-workers as do those in offices because one can always find another nurse or police officer to do some overtime work. In an office you have to train someone to fill out the TPS report, or make those present take up the slack for the absent parent.

So don't expect any sympathy from me because you decided to have children it is most certainly not my fault you drive a geeky car on your vacations in the summer.

If it is any consolation however, I too someday will be in that boat most probably. I hope I win the lottery ... of course solely so I don't inconvenience my co-workers by tending to my screamers.

 

Argh, too late to edit my last post.

Please note that my previous message contained tongue-in-cheek humor which may not be suitable for all audiences.

 

Hello,

Sorry for not posting for a while but I was very busy with work and applying to MBA and LLM programs. Anyway back to the subject, I think that society in general discriminates against the childfree. Granting special privileges to those that reproduce creates unprivileged and subtle social pressure for those that don't. During the 106th Congress, dozens of bills were introduced to increase the child tax credit, award stay-at-home parent grants to return to school, and expand the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act. Is it fair to give tax credits to parents regardless of income?

Should the childfree be expected to work extra hours because they don't have children? Should employee benefit plans reward fertility rather than longevity or merit? The childfree see a world of colleagues who are stressed out because they've chosen to believe the lie--you can have it all. Employers create benefit packages that are full of maternity leave, pregnancy coverage, and other child-friendly perks that mean parents effectively earn more than non parents for doing the same job. The childfree grown tired of parents who play the kiddie card and exempt themselves from overtime, travel, weekend, and holiday duty as well as employers who expect non parents to take up the slack. They watch as parents get away with things like bringing children to work, coming in late because of day-care issues, or working at home to save on child care.

Times, reporter Jan Hoffman adopted a baby. She asked for and was granted maternity leave and was permitted to extend that leave beyond the federally mandated twelve weeks. However, when Linda Lee, another Times employee, requested unpaid time off to write a book, the request was denied. It seems to the childfree a moral decision has been made for them--there is no more valuable pursuit than family and children.

So far, it has been taken for granted that people who have children have a right to dip into the public purse for their education and health care. But on what sense of logic is this based? When politicians shifted the tax burden from families (parents with children) there's never any talk of who it's shifted to. There are many choices that adults make. One choice might be to parent a child. Another choice might be to have a career. Time and money limit the choices we make, or at least they should. For the government funds the one choice over another, is to say it one choice is more valuable than another. Read how Joel Slemrod and Jon Bakija authors of Taxing Ourselves, explain it: Having children is largely a voluntary choice, and may even be viewed as a matter of personal consumption preference from the point of view of the parents. Some adults prefer to save up and spend their money for a round-the-world trip, while others prefer the job of children with the attendant costs of food, diapers, Nintendo, and possible college. Is it fair to reward adults who prefer to have children, at the expense of adults who prefer other ways of spending their money?

Selfishness is a term often hurled about by both sides. Parents say the childfree simply want to lead a hedonistic lifestyle. The childfree don't want to consider anyone's needs but there own. They are immature in the sense that they refuse to put anyone else first. The childfree have heard it all before. They argue that people rarely have children out of an obligation to humanity. They want a baby to coo over, a genetic link to the future, or simply didn't use birth control. Somehow working families has become a code phrase for parents. Because you have no children, you have no family , and it may be perceived that you have no life and therefore can be imposed upon by your employer, coworker, even the tax system.

As a society we have to recognize and respect the needs of everyone. We must re-conceive personal identity, separate parenthood from identity. Those who don't have children are not career-crazed or sad, barren spinster types. Neither stereotype acknowledges that people, even those who have longed to be parents, can have rich and balanced lives without children.

Corporate attitudes need to change and companies must see the big picture. What's sad is that, in the rush to embrace ''family values,'' corporations seem to imply that some families are more valuable than others. Benefit programs need to be evaluated to find inequities.

Also another example of how society in general discreminates childfree is the way that some people with children talk to people childfree people. Why is it considered acceptable for someone with children to say to someone who dose not want children " Just wait you'll change you're mind"? However it's not consideren acceptable to say to parent with a small baby "Just wait you'll change you're mind about wanting to be a parent"? I had this happen to me so many times that I lost track of it, and a lot of the times it was people that knew me for only a few days that said that to me. Also what is up with all these grants the the govarnment is giving to mothers that had a child well in their teens and because of that they never ended up finishing college and getting a degree? To me this is like rewarding mistakes and stupidity.

There are choices to make and potential parents must ask themselves which they want more, a larger income or a relationship with their children. The government cannot subsidize reduced parental investment in children. Parents alone bear the responsibility of their children unless they fall into povery. It doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes responsible parents.

Bo