# bias in the work force against those with no kids



## pinkyBear (9 Nov 2007)

Sorry this is a particulary un PC rant  but here it goes. We dont have kids and I work in IT - we have a release due out soon and all are working flat out to get things done on time - yesterday I put in a 13.5 hour day - today will probably be the same...
The parents of children - gone after the 8 hours - leaving the rest of us to pick up the flack...


----------



## zag (9 Nov 2007)

Ah, that's a great one altogether . . . people who work an 8 hour day per contract are somehow being unfair to you.

If you have a problem then it should be with your employer, not with the people you work with.

z


----------



## Graham_07 (9 Nov 2007)

?  Do you get paid for 13.5 hours or for 8 ?


----------



## contemporary (9 Nov 2007)

not quite the same but many years ago i relied on dublin bus to get me to work, one particularly bad week i was late every morning by 5 to 15 minutes and was hauled in for being late, i retorted that I'm always here til 6 (finished at 5) he said i'd dont pay you til 6 but i start paying you at 9am, so from then on i made sure to be in a 9 but no matter what the issue was I always left at 5.


----------



## pinkyBear (9 Nov 2007)

No I dont get overtime or time in lieu - I have a friend in Medicine who also has the same issue with being stuck with work that belongs to others because they have kids and they leave. 
Dont get me wrong - I do have a heart, I would never expect anyone to work consistantly above what they should. But why should poeple with no kids take the additional work from those that do have kids....

In certain industries - like IT - there are times - not that often that the team do have to pull together to get stuff done...Extra hours are worked, what ever it takes.....


----------



## ubiquitous (9 Nov 2007)

I think your employer is understaffed...


----------



## truthseeker (9 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> No I dont get overtime or time in lieu - I have a friend in Medicine who also has the same issue with being stuck with work that belongs to others because they have kids and they leave.
> Dont get me wrong - I do have a heart, I would never expect anyone to work consistantly above what they should. But why should poeple with no kids take the additional work from those that do have kids....
> 
> In certain industries - like IT - there are times - not that often that the team do have to pull together to get stuff done...Extra hours are worked, what ever it takes.....


 
Do you HAVE to stay? Can some arrangement not be worked out with employer that everyone is putting in equal time in these scenarios?
I understand where you are coming from - I dont think its people with kids causing the problem, its a personal choice if you want to go home or not - the people with kids choose to go, you choose to stay.


----------



## Squire (9 Nov 2007)

It's a fair point pinkyBear but who decides to give the people with kids permission to go home? Was it actually announced to the team. "If you have kids, you can leave now, if you have none, you must stay until the work is complete" ?

If so, that seems unfair. If however, no notice was given about the requirement to stay late what would you expect people with prior commitments to do, if they have kids or not.

Either way, it just sounds like bad/lazy management to me. If you feel you are being taken advantage of by your employer you should complain but blaming collegues with dependants is a bit unrealistic, is it not?


----------



## room305 (9 Nov 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> I think your employer is understaffed...



Not necessarily. It's quite common in IT - particularly in the software development sector to have to work very long hours to meet scheduling deadlines. Hiring extra staff would mean a lot of people twiddling thumbs during leaner periods, and the learning curve involved makes it impractical to simply hire extra staff in the run-up to a deadline.

Ideally, of course, the deadline would be set in such a manner as to not require such a push for the finish. However, in my experience the customer only really begins to focus on their requirements as the deadline approaches and they seem to think nothing of making major changes or adding extra features practically at the last minute.

I just think it is a tough sector in which to maintain a relationship let alone kids! Most employers remain firmly stuck in dotcom mode, expecting employees to work impossible hours for low pay even though they can no longer dream of retiring as millionaires in their mid-thirties!


----------



## efm (9 Nov 2007)

Pinkbear - I'm not sure I understand the issue - why don't you just leave at 6 if you want to?

What difference does having children make?


----------



## Trafford (9 Nov 2007)

This is something I would envisage a difficulty if I was ever to have children. My work schedule is so erratic that I it wouldn't be fair of me to have children at the moment. Naturally you lose flexibility because children have to be collected from school/minders, have to be brought to extra-curricular activities, have to be fed etc. Children are totally dependent so unless you are in a position to let other things take a back seat, then it's a virtually impossible situation. They can't just be left to their own devices because Mum and Dad have a deadline in work. 

I guess because these parents work the 8 hours expected of them then you can't gripe about them really. I'm sure if these colleagues are as conscientious as you, then they feel bad enough about having to leave others to finish up the work, but what can they do about it realistically? They have different priorities. They HAVE to have different priorities because they have children depending on them.


----------



## buzybee (9 Nov 2007)

Pinky Bear, 

A lot of companies in the private sector are like this. They don't really have enough people to get all the work done in the normal workilng week. You mentioned that sometimes the IT business is quiet. Could you not ask to get time off in lieu for the extra hours you work when meeting a deadline? I know it is not all that simple to do this if no one else is doing it.

I know that people with families are probably using their families as an excuse to get out of work at a reasonable time. I bet even people who have teenage children are doing this. Yet they are all getting paid the same as you and all the other people without children. 

Maybe you and some other people without children could just start to leave a bit earlier as well. As long as you and others are working long hours the Co. won't get in contract staff & solve this. Sometimes things have to come to a head (missing the deadline) for the Co. to take note & bring in better work practices.

Failing that, I would advise you to try and move to an industry/job with more normal working hours. I worked extra hours for free over the last couple of years in jobs. I think it can intefere with health if you work long hours all the time. Now I am on panels for the public sector. Will take pay cut if I move but health & the chance of a family is worth it.


----------



## pinkyBear (9 Nov 2007)

Room305 seems to have a good understanding of the nature of the IT business. It is difficult to hire additional staff just to cover release times.



> Maybe you and some other people without children could just start to leave a bit earlier as well.


 - it is not that straight forward - as there are very strict deadlines that have to be met. If they dont get met - the contract oobligations are not met/ or no sale happens - we are out of a job!
My point is really, team work - it is noticed that during times of priority the parents are no where to be seen and it is left to others to tidy things up...

I understand children too are priorites and naturally they come first - but once in a while it would be nice to have some support...


----------



## shanegl (9 Nov 2007)

As long as these deadlines are being met this will continue. It sounds like there is a culture in your company that accepts that these people can go home early while others pick up the tab? In this case it can be hard to stand against it. I've had similar problems in the past with being "forced" by culture to cover people going home to the country.

You should bring your concerns to management though. At the end of the day, remember that you are subsidising these people. It should definitely form part of your next pay review.


----------



## pinkyBear (9 Nov 2007)

> It sounds like there is a culture in your company that accepts that these people can go home early while others pick up the tab?


The company I work for are surprisingly nice - but it is the culture of the industry. The company have worked hard ensuring reasonable plans are in place, and adaquate staffing levels.. But in this business things can unexpectantly can go wrong at the last minute...


----------



## Pique318 (9 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear, I feel a little better that I'm not the only one that thinks this way !

I'm in the exact same situation where leaving after the 8-hour day is impossible because of deadlines but the queue of people leaving bang on time is ridiculous.

OT isn't paid and time in lieu is returned about 20-30% of what was actually earned.

The attitude seems to be "Shure you don't have kids, what do you need to go so 'early' for?".

At times, you feel like you need to apologise for having to leave after 10-11 hours !

Bear in mind, most managers are long gone but dealing with US customers means the day can stretch till 10-11pm regularly.


----------



## Trafford (9 Nov 2007)

The point you make about team work would be a good one to raise at your next review, or even before. Let the managers then manage the situation better, bearing in mind all their employees situations.


----------



## contemporary (9 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> - it is not that straight forward - as there are very strict deadlines that have to be met. If they dont get met - the contract oobligations are not met/ or no sale happens - we are out of a job!



it doesnt seem to bother the parents....


----------



## Trafford (9 Nov 2007)

contemporary said:


> it doesnt seem to bother the parents....


 
I'm sure it does. One can't assume that they are ok with leaving bang on time and leaving work to their colleagues. They are in a bit of a no win situation, unless they are lucky enough to have full time support who can do the parenting for them when the pressure is on at work.


----------



## Caveat (9 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> - it is not that straight forward - as there are very strict deadlines that have to be met. If they dont get met - the contract oobligations are not met/ or no sale happens - we are out of a job!
> My point is really, team work - it is noticed that during times of priority the parents are no where to be seen and it is left to others to tidy things up...


 
Presumably the parents too are aware of these deadlines - do none of them feel the same pressure/responsibility that you appear to feel?

Have you tried simply 'leaving on time' even when you know there is work to be done?


----------



## pinkyBear (9 Nov 2007)

> Bear in mind, most managers are long gone but dealing with US customers means the day can stretch till 10-11pm regularly.


Oh how true....



> Presumably the parents too are aware of these deadlines - do none of them feel the same pressure/responsibility that you appear to feel?


Absolutly - there are daily and weekly meetings communicating what needs to get done - if things get delayed what happens is they are added to the next plan line... And so on... 



> Have you tried simply 'leaving on time' even when you know there is work to be done?


 Oh god yes, I am no saint, if I am incontrol of my work load I will go home on time - but there are occasions when at teh end of the project life cycle there are additional things that need to get done and every one tries to pitch in... It is during these times I notice that it is the more junior and the no kiddies - that are left behind...


----------



## shanegl (9 Nov 2007)

Trafford said:


> I'm sure it does. One can't assume that they are ok with leaving bang on time and leaving work to their colleagues. They are in a bit of a no win situation, unless they are lucky enough to have full time support who can do the parenting for them when the pressure is on at work.


 
I bet they're ok collecting the same wage though!


----------



## diarmuidc (9 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> But in this business things can unexpectantly can go wrong at the last minute...


----------



## Seagull (9 Nov 2007)

Is there a reflection in increases or bonuses of who has put in the extra hours?


----------



## casiopea (9 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> - it is not that straight forward - as there are very strict deadlines that have to be met. If they dont get met - the contract oobligations are not met/ or no sale happens - we are out of a job!
> My point is really, team work - it is noticed that during times of priority the parents are no where to be seen and it is left to others to tidy things up...



I work in a similiar environment to you Pinkybear and I do understand where you are coming from but I also think you are being a bit unreasonable.  The parent as well as feeling the above pressure (the contract obligations are not met/ or no sale happens ) also has the pressure of knowing that their child is waiting for them with a minder, or in a creche 
or school.  Its double the pressure.  They have to chose.  They are feeling more pressure at this point than you, as the pressure is coming from both directions (work and family).



pinkyBear said:


> I understand children too are priorites and naturally they come first - but once in a while it would be nice to have some support...



Children dont switch off "once in a while", (Im sure most parents would love that!), they are always there.  In many cases the parent may wish to put in a 13.5 hr day but simply cant, they have to go home and embark on another job - that of a parent.  They dont go home and put their feet up and watch Heros, they are feeding, bathing, engaging and trying to make up for the guilt of leaving their child for 8 hours every day mon-fri of their young lives so they can pay a mortgage.  They arent off having fun while you put in your extra hours.

Also these things are quite often cyclical.  Ive been working in IT 11 years.  I have worked countless overtime (unpaid) hours for the reasons stated above, I have cancelled holidays for projects and even given up weekends, but some day soon please God I may be lucky enough to have a family and when I do I will leave having done 8 hours to pick the baby up in the creche and I wont feel guilty about the looming deadline (there's always one in my experience) as I have "put my hours in". Ill know at that stage, Ill have team members putting longer hours in, but I also know that there is a high chance in the future theyll also find themselves in that (family) position.  It is as you say, teamwork,  you support oneanother as well as the project.


----------



## pinkyBear (9 Nov 2007)

> Is there a reflection in increases or bonuses of who has put in the extra hours?


 - no 
Hi Casiopea -


> understand where you are coming from but I also think you are being a bit unreasonable.


 I don't think so - I would not expect a parent - or anyone to work continously late - not healthy - however just because you have put your hours in previously that when your time comes you can leave at the appropriate time while your colleagues work late..


> God I may be lucky enough to have a family and when I do I will leave having done 8 hours to pick the baby up in the creche and I wont feel guilty about the looming deadline


Before the election I had a visit from Bill Tormey - canvasing - he was running for Fine Geal but he also works as a consultant in Beaumont Hospital. I mentioned earlier I have a friend in medicine - so I asked Bill about the new 40 hour directive for doctors - his responce - I had to do those hours when I was a registrar so why shouldn't others!!!

Casiopea - I completely understand that parents have obligations and priorities outside of work - how ever *once in a while* it would be nice if they chipped in like the rest of us... 

If its the case that once you have children, you can abandon colleagues at times of need - then why dont all working women have children - then we can too don't have to work as hard....


----------



## Sunny (9 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> -
> If its the case that once you have children, you can abandon colleagues at times of need - then why dont all working women have children - then we can too don't have to work as hard....


 
Quotes like that don't help your argument. You have obviously never had to combine a career with a family so you are in no position to call working mothers slackers.


----------



## casiopea (9 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> - no
> Before the election I had a visit from Bill Tormey - canvasing - he was running for Fine Geal but he also works as a consultant in Beaumont Hospital. I mentioned earlier I have a friend in medicine - so I asked Bill about the new 40 hour directive for doctors - his responce - I had to do those hours when I was a registrar so why shouldn't others!!!



Not really too sure what your point is?



pinkyBear said:


> Casiopea - I completely understand that parents have obligations and priorities outside of work - how ever *once in a while* it would be nice if they chipped in like the rest of us...



Like I said, children dont "switch off" once in a while. The parent has no choice in this matter.



pinkyBear said:


> If its the case that once you have children, you can abandon colleagues at times of need



Its not abandoning, its prioritizing.  Staying on after 6pm while your child has noone to look after them - that is abandoning.  

BTW, there is a responsibility here as well on the project manager of the project.  A project manager should think in terms of the type of resources they have and can they put the hours in, and schedule accordingly.  Ideally of course a project should be scheduled so no one feels undue pressure but that never happens for various reasons.



pinkyBear said:


> - then why dont all working women have children - then we can too don't have to work as hard....



Dont understand your point?  A lot of working women and men have children?


----------



## pinkyBear (9 Nov 2007)

> Quotes like that don't help your argument. You have obviously never had to combine a career with a family so you are in no position to call working mothers slackers.


True - you are right and yes I went a bit overbord - so point well made..

Sorry about that - Its just that I do get a bit frustrated with the late nights, and as I said the juniors and the no kiddie people having to work late..

I do know working mums juggle and work very hard...


----------



## z103 (9 Nov 2007)

> - it is not that straight forward - as there are very strict deadlines that have to be met. If they dont get met - the contract oobligations are not met/ or no sale happens - we are out of a job!



It is that straightforward.
I've worked in software development for over 15 years, and have been in similar positions. However, I've learnt that I only work the hours I've been contracted for. If I want to do charity work, there are far more worthwhile causes.

If the company you work for can't compete, then maybe they should go out of business, and let either better run, or foreign companies (with lower overheads) take on the work load.

Do you own shares in the company?


----------



## efm (9 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> If its the case that once you have children, you can abandon colleagues at times of need - then why dont all working women have children - then we can too don't have to work as hard....


 
Firstly I think this is a very sexist remark - men have and feel the same pressures of work vs family as women.

Secondly I think the point that previous posters have made is valid - the issue isn't really with the people who work their contracted hours and go home (as they are legally entitled to!), the issue is with your company that allows extra or unfairly allocated work to go unnoticed and unrewarded.

As I said earlier why don't you just leave after your eight hours? If you're doing all this extra work for no extra reward why bother? Is there some other reason you stay to finish the job?


----------



## pinkyBear (9 Nov 2007)

> Do you own shares in the company?


 - Nope 



> As I said earlier why don't you just leave after your eight hours? If you're doing all this extra work for no extra reward why bother? Is there some other reason you stay to finish the job?


 The reason I stay late is that I have a sense of pride in my work - I like to get things sone per schedule...



> Firstly I think this is a very sexist remark - men have and feel the same pressures of work vs family as women.


 - Yes the remark was uncalled for by me and apologies. 



> the issue is with your company that allows extra or unfairly allocated work to go unnoticed and unrewarded.


 That could very well be it.


----------



## Sunny (9 Nov 2007)

To be honest PinkyBear, maybe if you stopped posting here you might not have to do a 13.5 hour day. Are the working mothers on the internet??  

Only joking by the way!


----------



## pinkyBear (9 Nov 2007)

> maybe if you stopped posting here


 - Oh the joy of a build  Gets really boring - and yes - because the builds are long - i just have to stay ltr to get stuff done!



> Only joking by the way!


 I know you are


----------



## z103 (9 Nov 2007)

> the issue is with your company that allows extra or unfairly allocated work to go unnoticed and unrewarded.
> 
> *That could very well be it./*


*

I don't think that is it. The company is there to make money, which, presumably it's doing. Your managers are doing a great job - getting you to work for free!

The issue lies with you. No one is forcing you at gun point to stay late, but you do. You then complain about others who have more sense and go home on time.

Your loyalties are misdirected. You might see the light after another few years of toil, when the people who go home on time get promoted ahead of you etc. etc...*


----------



## efm (9 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> The reason I stay late is that I have a sense of pride in my work - I like to get things sone per schedule...


 
Just because someone doesn't stay late doesn't mean they don't have pride in their work!

If you have to stay late to get things done on schedule then the schedule is wrong, unrealistic, badly managed - take your pick. Is NOT because people with children leave after working a full day.

Edit - just saw Leghorn's post and I think he's hit the nail on the head!


----------



## pinkyBear (9 Nov 2007)

> If you have to stay late to get things done on schedule then the schedule is wrong, unrealistic, badly managed - take your pick. Is NOT because people with children leave after working a full day.


I agree with all of the above. 
However I think I am been taken out of context - I don't always have to work late, and I would never expect anyone to do so. However the nature of our business is that comming upto a release it is all hands on deck, and every one tries to pitch in. But those that pitch in are usually those without children..


----------



## efm (9 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> I agree with all of the above.
> However I think I am been taken out of context - I don't always have to work late, and I would never expect anyone to do so. However the nature of our business is that comming upto a release it is all hands on deck, and every one tries to pitch in. But those that pitch in are usually those without children..


 
Read Leghorn's post again:

"The issue lies with you. No one is forcing you at gun point to stay late, but you do. You then complain about others who have more sense and go home on time.

Your loyalties are misdirected. You might see the light after another few years of toil, when the people who go home on time get promoted ahead of you etc. etc..."

You're going to have to come to terms with this yourself!


----------



## nt00deep (9 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear: I think you are working for the wrong company. Where I am, it is the young singles without kids that leave on time more so than the (by now) grey-bearded ones.

Squash, swimming, hangen', chillen', nights out, telly, and 'stuff' seems to be more of a draw for the young guns than family is for the older guns. The family guys just get on and deal with their commitments, juggle well, work at home if necessary when the kids are in bed, and yes, they are well looked after. Any young gun that sticks his head above the rest gets the lift he deserves. Attitude is rewarded as much as effort.

Talk to your manager, find a solution, or move on - but don't lose the conscientiousness. Don't look for an easy life elsewhere. Look for a place that appreciates your conscientiousness. They are out there.


----------



## Caveat (9 Nov 2007)

nt00deep said:


> Talk to your manager, find a solution, or move on - but don't lose the conscientiousness. Don't look for an easy life elsewhere. Look for a place that appreciates your conscientiousness. They are out there.


 
Well said.


----------



## carpedeum (9 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> Sorry this is a particulary un PC rant but here it goes. We dont have kids and I work in IT - we have a release due out soon and all are working flat out to get things done on time - yesterday I put in a 13.5 hour day - today will probably be the same...
> The parents of children - gone after the 8 hours - leaving the rest of us to pick up the flack...


 
This is just an observation of someone who has been there, bought the t-shirt etc.

I worked for 30 years up until recently in IT for the _best_ multi-nationals. The fact I _had_ children, was the reason _I_ really suffered. 

Firstly, because of the demands of IT, my wife (better career, but, less earning potential) was forced to jobshare, resulting in a signifficant loss of monthly income. Admittedly, in the long run and in hindsight ,our children benefitted from her being at home and being able to take part in extra-curricular activities after school e.g. swimming lessons, sport, girl guides & scouts, afternoons at the beach in the summer etc. We also didn't move from our first house to the bigger second house and take out too big a mortgage.

Secondly, I missed out on substantial parts of my children's early childhood e.g. home too late for meals, home too late to say goodnight at bedtime, not helping out with homework, sometimes working at weekends for application rollouts or infrastructure installation, missing school parent-teacher meetings and sports days, basically not being there for them etc.

I worked for an excellent company. I was not on overtime, but, was on a good general package which forced the no-brainer when choosing between work and home life. The big difference I noticed in recent years was that younger people walked out at 5.00pm! They had no interest in overtime if they were offered it. However, they were not on as good terms and conditions as me either. Some were also on contract. Whatever their reason for leaving early, they are right! Employers in recent years have used longer serving staff to burn the midnight oil while paying newer staff less. 

Earlier on this year, the sudden availability of a redundancy package dovetailed with the mid-life realisation that I had missed out on a lot of family life. I bailed out! I have enjoyed spending a lot of time with my youngest child (9 years of age). I am still deciding on what to do next!

My advice... buy a smaller house, live nearer the workplace to minimise commuting, leave work early to enjoy a life that passes quickly regardless of whether or not you want children, plan to have your children while you are young and either of you take turns at jobsharing or downshifting (a concept I laughed at 20 years ago!) at different stages. Too many people are putting the big house, SUV/second car, two holidays a year and other transient materialistic rewards first. Identifying what you really _need_ as opposed to what you _want_ is more important. You can work the long hours for the materialistic things when the kids are reared!

The rewards in an IT career are not in the right proportion to the hours worked or the responsibility. My advice to my kids entering corporate life... become an accountant, HR manager or marketing executive!


----------



## Trafford (9 Nov 2007)

shanegl said:


> I bet they're ok collecting the same wage though!


 
They are probably aware that their bonus will be down compared to their colleagues, and that promotions may be slower coming to them, but are prepared to accept that. Ironcially as they are the ones with the dependants they could probably do with that extra cash more, but that's life!

The way our contracts in work are phrased, is says that while overtime is not paid, extra hours of work do not go unnoticed and will be considered at bonus time, or words similar to that. 
Promotions will be warrented based on work done, regardless of what time of day you do it. One manager I had once said that as far as he was concerned, people working late was a sign that they couldn't cope with their workload! I know this is idealistic, especially at deadline time, but it was refreshing to see a manager who wasn't automatically impressed by people, just because they chose to stay late in the evenings.


----------



## buzybee (9 Nov 2007)

I would think it unfair that you must stay late at work.  You should just start walking out on time.  

I know parents have more pressure than you re: children etc, but you may never get the chance to have children if you ruin your health by the stress of working long hours.  I also think some parents of young children can be very selfish regarding everything else except their families.  They are making the right choices and will get the payback when they are older re: family relationships etc.  However, they still want to earn good money and want the people with no children i.e. 'you' to carry them in terms of work.  In years to come, they will have earned good money and will have families around them, but the single people who keep 'carrying them' may very well have no children and no relationship.

I have always wanted a family when I was younger.  However, I kept getting stuck in companies where I had to either work long hours to keep my job, or else leave my job completely.  Because of this, and getting no sick pay, I felt that if I got pregnant & was sick, I could lose my job.

In fact I was let go from my last job because I only worked 45 hours a week and couldn't get the work done fast enough.  It may not necessarily be a bad thing if you start leaving work on time and if you are let go from your job.  At least then, you can search for another job, try to build on your experience, and you may get into a better company, where lots of hours are not expected, or at least where you are rewarded for all these hours.


----------



## triplex (9 Nov 2007)

Pinkybear, 

so glad you posted this - i work in an office of 5 people where 3 of them are on 3 days a week because they 'have kids'- as the only person in the office without kids, i am ALWAYS at the back of the queue when it comes to annual leave, days off etc.. AND they always take 13 weeks in the summer when i've been told i can't take holidays then...

discrimination i calls it!


----------



## truthseeker (9 Nov 2007)

triplex said:


> Pinkybear,
> 
> so glad you posted this - i work in an office of 5 people where 3 of them are on 3 days a week because they 'have kids'- as the only person in the office without kids, i am ALWAYS at the back of the queue when it comes to annual leave, days off etc.. AND they always take 13 weeks in the summer when i've been told i can't take holidays then...
> 
> discrimination i calls it!


 
Triplex - I assume the people on a 3 day week are on a different contract and different terms to you? If that is the case then they probably have less days annual leave available also.
There is no logical reason why you should be at the back of the queue?

How do anyone get to take 13 weeks off every summer? Annual leave is normally approximately 20 or 25 days a year - on a full time contract.


----------



## casiopea (9 Nov 2007)

triplex said:


> Pinkybear,
> 
> so glad you posted this - i work in an office of 5 people where 3 of them are on 3 days a week because they 'have kids'- as the only person in the office without kids, i am ALWAYS at the back of the queue when it comes to annual leave, days off etc.. AND they always take 13 weeks in the summer when i've been told i can't take holidays then...
> 
> discrimination i calls it!



Its not discrimination,  Im in the same situation as you and Pinkybear.  Children have a right to spend time with their parents (though noone my organisation can take 13 weeks paid) and in this day and age with ridiculous mortgages people cant afford to stay at home fulltime and have to resort to working.

To me it sounds like poor project management.  If you or pinkybear were on my team I would want you to come and talk to me about this - go talk to your project manager, or as other posters suggest change organisation where your contribution is valued.


----------



## MandaC (9 Nov 2007)

The same happened in our office about a year ago.  The set hours of the office are 9-5.30 with an hour for lunch.  A new girl started and she was given the option of either 9-5 with a half hour for lunch or 9.30 -5.30 with a half hour for lunch, as she had to drop/collect her child from creche.

It was unfair on the other Secretary who was there before her and not given the option of taking the half hour lunch.  

It didnt bother me in my position because I usually stay later anyway, but it caused bad feelings with the two secretaries.


----------



## truthseeker (9 Nov 2007)

MandaC said:


> The same happened in our office about a year ago. The set hours of the office are 9-5.30 with an hour for lunch. A new girl started and she was given the option of either 9-5 with a half hour for lunch or 9.30 -5.30 with a half hour for lunch, as she had to drop/collect her child from creche.
> 
> It was unfair on the other Secretary who was there before her and not given the option of taking the half hour lunch.
> 
> It didnt bother me in my position because I usually stay later anyway, but it caused bad feelings with the two secretaries.


 
Why didnt the secretary who had been there longer ask to be given the same options? 

If she DID and was refused then that is completely unfair, but if she DIDNT and then its her own problem that she didnt speak up


----------



## Trafford (9 Nov 2007)

truthseeker said:


> Why didnt the secretary who had been there longer ask to be given the same options?
> 
> If she DID and was refused then that is completely unfair, but if she DIDNT and then its her own problem that she didnt speak up


 
This is true. Every contract is negotiable and it sounds like the new employee negotiated terms which suited her and her employer. 

Regarding the 13 weeks off, that sounds like parental leave, which those employees are unpaid for so really they are much worse off than those in the office, in the long run. Again, they have negotiated a position which suits their situation and which must suit the employer also.


----------



## michaelm (9 Nov 2007)

Doing extra hours without pay, recognition, shares, a bonus, time in lieu - more fool you; and all because you take pride in your work?  Naturally for parents, their children are their number one priority, it's not their fault if you choose to stay late.  I suspect that most parents, indeed most people, work to live rather than live to work.


----------



## Pique318 (9 Nov 2007)

michaelm said:


> Doing extra hours without pay, recognition, shares, a bonus, time in lieu -


...welcome to the IT industry !!


Oh to be a Public Sector worker....


----------



## Trafford (9 Nov 2007)

Pique318 said:


> ...welcome to the IT industry !!
> 
> 
> Oh to be a Public Sector worker....


 
Indeed it is a reality of many industries in the private sector, not just IT. I work in an in-house legal department and it is not uncommon for people to work through the night if a deal is time critical. It's just the reality of working for a living for a lot of us. It doesn't bother me to be honest. I worked a weekend a couple of weeks ago, and then left early afternoon the following Friday as I was going away. It's all about balance. In the leaner times we are out the door at 6 too.


----------



## Caveat (9 Nov 2007)

Pique318 said:


> ...welcome to the IT industry !!
> 
> 
> Oh to be a Public Sector worker....


 
Indeed - haven't noticed any posters (in relation to all the above) saying things like "What?! - that's mad - get on to the union - I can go home when I like..."


----------



## RainyDay (10 Nov 2007)

I can't resist from wondering if the parents who disappear at 5pm spend as much time reading/posting on AAM during working hours?



room305 said:


> However, in my experience the customer only really begins to focus on their requirements as the deadline approaches and they seem to think nothing of making major changes or adding extra features practically at the last minute.


Sounds like you need to have some discussions with the project manager about scope control. Allowing major changes and extra features to be added at the last minute in an uncontrolled manner is unprofessional. It puts delivery of the agreed product at risk, and puts the profitability of the business at risk. If the major changes and extra features are really important, the customer will pay for them and will wait for them. If they are not worth paying/waiting for, they are not worth you working unpaid overtime for.


----------



## MandaC (10 Nov 2007)

truthseeker said:


> Why didnt the secretary who had been there longer ask to be given the same options?
> 
> If she DID and was refused then that is completely unfair, but if she DIDNT and then its her own problem that she didnt speak up





She did speak up, to say that she would prefer to do those hours as well,  and if they were an option that she should be given first choice, as she was there longer.  

She was basically told that that was the hours the new girl had negotiated and that she was being unreasonable as she only lived down the road (and had no kids) and the other girl had to collect her child from creche. She stated that this was discrimination against her as people  with children should not get preferential hours.  What used to happen too was that she would end up with the work that was either last minute and had to go out, necessitating staying  back even later as the other girl had to be at the creche at a set time and literally just picked up her coat and went at clocking off time.

It caused some amount of friction in the office in general  as both girls were doing the exact same job (one had to cover for the other)with most people taking the side of the older secretary (not personally, just about the principal of the thing) and the new secretary felt embarressed and did not settle in because she knew everyone was cheesed off(even though it was not directly with her), so the situation did not work out and ended up with the new girl having to leave.


----------



## Persius (10 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear, if there is a serious downturn in the state of your company, remember you are as likely to be made redundant as the parents. And if the company goes bust, you all will be made redundant. So don't waste more energy than you're contracted to for your employer. They owe you a wage, and you owe them 7.5 hours hard work per day.

As to the posters who talk about "doing their time" when they're childless, and then expecting to be able to work standard 7.5 hour days later when they've children, I find that hard to believe. Do ye expect to be working for the same employer and even same line manager for all this time? Otherwise all that unpaid overtime in your youth is just "water under the bridge" which will be quickly forgotten. It won't get you any credit later on.

In short, life is too short. Don't waste it all on work when it goes unrewarded.


----------



## truthseeker (11 Nov 2007)

MandaC said:


> She did speak up, to say that she would prefer to do those hours as well,  and if they were an option that she should be given first choice, as she was there longer.
> 
> She was basically told that that was the hours the new girl had negotiated and that she was being unreasonable as she only lived down the road (and had no kids) and the other girl had to collect her child from creche. She stated that this was discrimination against her as people  with children should not get preferential hours.  What used to happen too was that she would end up with the work that was either last minute and had to go out, necessitating staying  back even later as the other girl had to be at the creche at a set time and literally just picked up her coat and went at clocking off time.
> 
> It caused some amount of friction in the office in general  as both girls were doing the exact same job (one had to cover for the other)with most people taking the side of the older secretary (not personally, just about the principal of the thing) and the new secretary felt embarressed and did not settle in because she knew everyone was cheesed off(even though it was not directly with her), so the situation did not work out and ended up with the new girl having to leave.



Well that sounds incredibly unfair MandaC. When the new secretary left did the older one change to the new hours or stick with her old ones? 
I can understand that the new secretary had negotiated these hours as part of her contract - but I dont think the older secretary was being unreasonable in asking for her own contract to be reviewed in light of someone else doing the same job having different (and sounds like more advantageous) hours. Would there have been a case here for the old secretary to take the company to the labour court I wonder?


----------



## casiopea (12 Nov 2007)

Persius said:


> As to the posters who talk about "doing their time" when they're childless, and then expecting to be able to work standard 7.5 hour days later when they've children, I find that hard to believe. Do ye expect to be working for the same employer and even same line manager for all this time? Otherwise all that unpaid overtime in your youth is just "water under the bridge" which will be quickly forgotten. It won't get you any credit later on.



It was me that said that, but I think youve taken it up slightly wrongly.  I dont think my employer "owes" me anything.  I know from my contract that I am not owed overtime or even time in lieau.  

The comment was more about myself and what I owe myself, I personally feel I have done those hours in effort to support my employer, I wont feel bad in future doing the the standard contracted hours (and receiving my contracted salary) and then leave to pick up a child.  Its more of a personal statement.




Persius said:


> Do ye expect to be working for the same employer and even same line manager for all this time?



Absolutely yes.




Persius said:


> In short, life is too short. Don't waste it all on work when it goes unrewarded.



I completely agree, I also think this is something that you learn.  Its easy to sway to pressure from your peers,  I did cancel holidays when I was first working for projects now kids or no kids there is no way I would do that.  

I strongly agree with the project manager comment from Rainyday above.


----------



## Purple (12 Nov 2007)

Yes, people with no kids do get preferential treatment and no, it's not right.
If you choose to have a child that’s your own business, you shouldn't expect your colleges or employer to cover for you.
I have three children so I am aware of the demands which that places on parents but just as it's not OK to pay men more than women for the same job it's not OK to pay people with children the same as those with none if they are not doing the same job (i.e. hours, holidays, flexibility etc).


----------



## casiopea (12 Nov 2007)

Purple said:


> I have three children so I am aware of the demands which that places on parents but just as it's not OK to pay men more than women for the same job it's not OK to pay people with children the same as those with none if they are not doing the same job (i.e. hours, holidays, flexibility etc).



I agree with you but we arent talking about people leaving early, we are talking about people leaving at their contracted time to leave and not being able to do overtime because they have to collect children who would be left without care. It is not discrimination, there is nothing stopping me getting up and leaving at 6pm either even though I dont have children.  

If a parent has arranged extra holidays, flexibility (say half days) or part-time work their renumeration and contract will have be adjusted to reflect this, they would not be on the same salary as someone working fulltime.

If you are willing to work hours and hours of overtime unpaid there is a high chance you will be exploited by your organisation and no gaurantee you will be renumerated.

I work in project management and in the irish team we have 12 people, 4 of whom have children and arent available after 5:30pm or 6pm (depending on the individual).  I know this when I created my project plan.  Just as I know that most of the irish team will take all of christmas off, most of the american team will take time at thanksgiving, most of the chennai team had last week off for a festival.  As PM I need to evaluate who and where my resources are and schedule accordingly so no resource is unduly taxed.  The quality of the work produced by the four parents referred to above is very high, they are very dependable - I would be lost without them.  Since the start of the project I have lost 3 resources (with no children) to another organization (after they had been trained for this project) - this is a risk with that group, they have no attachments and are more likely to move.  I cannot tell them to stay, they arent discriminating against me or anyone else.  Some of us will at some point have to work some overtime, I will have to ask one of the parents to take some calls at home probably over go-live  (as he has a skill not shared by the others), but all things being equal it is my responsibility to track tasks and schedule the project in such a manner that no-one is in till midnight.  On go-live, should the project be successful, bonus's will be divided in percentages based on contribution, I will get along with another PM to recommend who I feel should receive what percentage.  At least 2 of the parents will be up in the high end of the bonus's because the work they do is of such a high quality and they also contribute so much more (in the way of mentoring).   

Sorry I am rambling a bit, but this thread has really baffled me.  I simply dont understand why leaving at your contracted time is regarded as discrimination.  If Pinkybear were on my team, I would want him/her to talk to me about this.

Also, working overtime is a cultural thing.  Its very prevalent in american organizations.  Here in Switzerland there is a very different attitude to working overtime and very few people do.


----------



## Jock04 (12 Nov 2007)

Purple said:


> Yes, people with no kids do get preferential treatment and no, it's not right.
> If you choose to have a child that’s your own business, you shouldn't expect your colleges or employer to cover for you.
> I have three children so I am aware of the demands which that places on parents but just as it's not OK to pay men more than women for the same job it's not OK to pay people with children the same as those with none if they are not doing the same job (i.e. hours, holidays, flexibility etc).


 
Agreed. In my experience, salaried staff have always been expected to put in a little extra time if circumstances demanded it. Often, there would be no extra pay, but there would be some latitude with regard to doctors appointments, etc without loss of pay.
I'm disappointed that most of the responses have been leaning towards telling the OP to drag themselves down to the lowest common denominator.
A good work ethic should be applauded, not derided. Like a few others, I'd question whether some people have made the correct employment choices, if they are so unable & unwilling to show some flexibility.
Without wishing to go over the top, it's attitudes like this that can lead to jobs being lost to other markets. Certainly, no-one should be a slave to the workplace, but there must surely be some room for common sense, and in return good employers should recognise this.


----------



## buzybee (12 Nov 2007)

Pinkybear was feeling upset because she felt she had to stay all hours working, when the people with families could just leave at their contracted time.  It is a culture thing in Ireland.  Employers tend to be more lenient towards people with families.  I.e. they don't expect them to do loads of unpaid overtime.  However, a lot of Irish employers have the attitude that single people & those without children 'having nothing better to do' so they might as well help out & do unpaid overtime at work.

When I was single, my previous employer hired a girl with a child (a few months after employing me).  He paid her about 4 K more than me despite the fact that I was more qualified than her, and had more experience.  She was 26 and I was 31!!!    When I looked for a salary increase the general attitude was that she had a family to support, whereas I only had to support myself.  (I asked professionally for my increase and mentioned my experience, achievements etc.  I did not moan about having to pay a full mortgage on my house as a single person).  Even though I was professional with them, they were not professional with me.

I no longer work for that company surprise surprise.  

As Pinkybear has given her employers the habit of working unpaid overtime in this company, it will be difficult to change.  E.g. if she starts leaving on time, the relationship with her seniors may be damaged, as the attitude will be 'you always did overtime before, why stop now!!!'

Pinkybear should try to move companies, and should try not to work any overtime in the next company.  If she has to work overtime, she should try & get it built into her annual bonus.


----------



## Mel (12 Nov 2007)

Parents who are using a creche (or childminder) will be penalised for collecting their children late. It's usually a scandalous rate of something like €20 per 15 minutes in a creche. Childminders can be flexible but also (understandably) want time with their own families before they go to bed. 
And they will also need to be compensated for any additional time worked. If you are on a salary you are then paying someone else for the privilege of working an hour or two extra in the office. 

But even if they are physically out of the office how do you know that they aren't working? I often bring home work to check in the evening, check and answer emails etc. Does everyone around me know this? I don't know. Do I feel I need to explain where I'm going at 5.30? Hell no!


----------



## casiopea (12 Nov 2007)

I think though we are talking about 2 different things here.  The situations described by buzybee and MandaC are discrimination.  The issue isnt with the parent as such but rather with the organization themselves.  Buzybee you were dead right to leave.  In both scenarios I would wonder if the employee has a case for the labour courts.

The other scenario, people leaving at their contracted time to pick it up their children, isnt discrimination.  Nor is it a reflection on the quality of their work or their dedication to their organization.


----------



## Mel (12 Nov 2007)

How did buzybee even know what her colleague was earning? 
Someone there was very unprofessional letting that information out. 
If it's any consolation, that 4K wouldn't go far in childminding, she might have got 6 months worth out of it if she was lucky.


----------



## Purple (12 Nov 2007)

Mel said:


> If it's any consolation, that 4K wouldn't go far in childminding, she might have got 6 months worth out of it if she was lucky.


That is totally irrelevant. In this country you get paid what you earn, not what you need (or feel you need). Anything else would be unjust.
If my childminding costs €200 a week should I get €200 more than a person doing the same job that has no children? Absolutely not. 
If that were the case a colleague who had a €300 a day cocaine habit should get paid for that as well!


----------



## Mel (12 Nov 2007)

Buzybee's colleague negotiated a better deal before she started - so fair play to her. Maybe she was just more qualified or efficient and the employer gave buzybee a token excuse (which didn't work)? 

My own manager has said more than once that I can't have what I'm looking for in my review and then adds 'but sure you're young' - is that to imply that someone a bit older with the same experience and doing the same job is paid more? I hope not!


----------



## michaelm (12 Nov 2007)

casiopea said:


> . . people leaving at their contracted time to pick it up their children, isnt discrimination.  Nor is it a reflection on the quality of their work or their dedication to their organization.


casiopea has it right.


----------



## buzybee (12 Nov 2007)

I had known what my colleague was earning because I was doing all the accounts and payroll for the organisation.

My colleague was doing hotel reception (senior receptionist, over 2 junior receptionists).  She had a 3 year hotel management diploma and was 25.

I had a business degree and was half way through my accountancy exams.  I was 31 at the time, and had been working full time since I left college (just like my colleague).  Therefore I had 4 to 5 more years experience than her.

Fair play to her for negotiating a better deal than me.  However, when I went with my skills & experience (gained previously & on the job) & asked for an increase I was fobbed off.


----------



## Mel (12 Nov 2007)

But you weren't even doing the same job so? In which case her age, family status, experience etc. has nothing to do with it. 
She was fully qualified at what she was doing, with the additional responsibility of people to manage. 
Qualifying accountants always seem to earn poor enough money but then can earn a lot more once qualified.


----------



## buzybee (12 Nov 2007)

We were. In fact she was in the office with me.  She was doing some sales reports & some of the same work as me.

When she was out, I would do her sales reports etc.  When I was out, she didn't know how to do the wages & accounts so she couldn't help me out.

She spent most of her time in the same office.


----------



## Mel (12 Nov 2007)

Did you have the same job title / description?


----------



## MandaC (12 Nov 2007)

truthseeker said:


> Well that sounds incredibly unfair MandaC. When the new secretary left did the older one change to the new hours or stick with her old ones?
> I can understand that the new secretary had negotiated these hours as part of her contract - but I dont think the older secretary was being unreasonable in asking for her own contract to be reviewed in light of someone else doing the same job having different (and sounds like more advantageous) hours. Would there have been a case here for the old secretary to take the company to the labour court I wonder?




Once the new girl left, it was made clear that the revised hours were not an option for anybody.  Because we are out in the middle of nowhere, everybody would have preferred to take a half hour break and go home that half hour earlier.

Anybody else taken on was not given an option of changing the hours in any way. 

The old Secretary did not pursue it, as she felt she had made her point.  I really dont know if she would have had a case in the Labour Court.

I feel that right across the board, that favourable treatment is definitely given to those with children.


----------



## Mel (12 Nov 2007)

I wouldn't agree that it's 'across the board' at all. 
That girl probably had to be at the creche for when it closed at 6pm. There is no flexibility in a creche, so rather than lose a potentially good employee her manager(s) decided to arrange things in a practical way that meant she could do the job. She was probably very competent and it sounds like she was driven out of her job by petty jealous colleagues. Maybe she would have a case at a tribunal for constructive dismissal?


----------



## MandaC (12 Nov 2007)

Mel said:


> I wouldn't agree that it's 'across the board' at all.
> That girl probably had to be at the creche for when it closed at 6pm. There is no flexibility in a creche, so rather than lose a potentially good employee her manager(s) decided to arrange things in a practical way that meant she could do the job. She was probably very competent and it sounds like she was driven out of her job by petty jealous colleagues. Maybe she would have a case at a tribunal for constructive dismissal?



No, she left after three months after a heated discussion with the employer about her constant absenteeism. 

She did leave her child in a creche.  However, what people do in their personal lives is their own business.  If the hours of the office were set for that particular job, then it was unfair to offer more favourable hours to somebody because of their personal requirements.     

I can see exactly where the our older secretary was coming from. She visited her mother three or four nights of the week in a nursing home on her way home from work and finishing a half an hour early would let her do that and eventually get home a half an hour early, too.  She felt that she had every right to obtain the more favourable hours if she was doing the same job, same pay, same status.  

By the way, no body did anything to drive anybody out of their job and that is a most unfair statement.
The older secretary in fairness, did all she could to train in the new girl and help her settle and made it clear that the problem was with the employer and not personal. She also told the girl directly that was going to speak to the employers about the change in work hours, and would prefer that she knew upfront rather than let her think she was complaining behind her back.

There's nothing jealous or petty about standing up for your rights against discrimination.

The fault lay totally with our bosses. At the time, (and probably still is), it was proving hard to get good office staff even though it was quite a well paid position.  A number of people were shortlisted for second interviews, only to have got positions before the second interview.  They were panicing and thought this girl would fit the position, and tried to suit her, without realising that by suiting her, they were discriminating against somebody else.  They did not believe what they were doing was discriminatory in any way.


----------



## Persius (12 Nov 2007)

casiopea said:


> Persius said:
> 
> 
> > Do ye expect to be working for the same employer and even same line manager for all this time?
> ...


 
Well good luck to you if that's the way it does work out - and I mean this genuinly. However the possibility of redundancy should never be ruled out. A company I worked for went bust. First a merger and the local sales and marketing staff were let go. Then wage freezes and finaly redundancy. I can't complain as we got a good payoff, and I got a new job straight away. But having experienced that, you realise that a "job for life" is very rare in the private sector.

I don't know about Switzerland, but I've seen plenty of redundancies (often with dirty tricks) in Germany where employee rights are generally considered to be strong.

And aside from redundancy, there could be any number of changes to your personal or professional circumstances which necessitate a new job (or a new set of managers). So I believe in working hard for your employer. From a self interest perspective alone this improves the chance of a good reference, and also it's the "right" thing to do. However, I don't believe in sacrificing your whole life to him. And working more than 10 hours a day is too much IMHO.


----------



## Mel (13 Nov 2007)

MandaC said:


> It caused some amount of friction in the office in general as both girls were doing the exact same job (one had to cover for the other)with most people taking the side of the older secretary (not personally, just about the principal of the thing) and the new secretary felt embarressed and did not settle in because she knew everyone was cheesed off(even though it was not directly with her), so the situation did not work out and ended up with the new girl having to leave.


 
Apologies if I misinterpreted the above statement. 
I wonder if the absenteeism had anything to do with the atmosphere in the office? 
Basically, unfair as it seemed, the managers made an arrangement that allowed her to come to work. If they hadn't she probably couldn't have, simple as that. As you say, everyone has something going on in their personal life, but in fairness, collecting your kids from a creche on time is hardly a personal decision or choice, it's not negotiable.
And these kids will be paying your pension one day.


----------



## Trafford (13 Nov 2007)

It's actually to be applauded that bosses are flexible towards people who are primary carers, be it for children or an elderly or sick person. Once the work is done and the caring is done a workable compromise is great to see.

It sounds like in the case of the new versus the old secretary that bad management was the fault.

I looked to work a day a week from home as I have a 4 hour round trip commute and the hours are killing me. My work allows for home working completely, which my boss acknowleged, but he refused me because "other people might look for it and then I wouldn't know how to manage it".  I argued that other people all live within minutes of the office so might understand why I was allowed one day from home, but he was afraid to take that leap. I do see his point in that other people might request it, but fear of managing that situation if it should arise is no excuse. 

As a result, he is now going to lose me as I can't keep up the job on account of the travel. That was my offer of compromise.


----------



## MandaC (13 Nov 2007)

Mel said:


> Apologies if I misinterpreted the above statement.
> I wonder if the absenteeism had anything to do with the atmosphere in the office?
> Basically, unfair as it seemed, the managers made an arrangement that allowed her to come to work. If they hadn't she probably couldn't have, simple as that. As you say, everyone has something going on in their personal life, but in fairness, collecting your kids from a creche on time is hardly a personal decision or choice, it's not negotiable.
> And these kids will be paying your pension one day.



No she was absent because her child was ill and her husband did not take time off work.

It is really a personal decision as to whether or not you have children, so I don't see where you are coming from? 

I would not be happy if someone was taken on to do the same job as me, but given better hours, irrespective of whether or not they have children.  I would certainly speak to the management and voice my dissatisfaction.


----------



## Mel (13 Nov 2007)

Having them might be, but taking care of them once they are here isn't up for discussion or compromise. Of course it's natural to seek the same benefits that you perceive someone else to be getting for the same job, I just think that thinking child-free versus parents is petty to say the least. 

Of course there are people who abuse the situation; we've all worked with someone whose kid was 'sick' every other week, but really, that's probably how they always were, 'sick' themselves every other week well before they had kids. 

If childfree people are so annoyed that they have no 'excuse' to leave the office why don't they take on some addtional committment? Evening education, a youth group, coaching a sport? And then see how easy it is to have to drop tools mid-flow because of having to be somewhere else.


----------



## MandaC (13 Nov 2007)

I don't think people should take on something as an "excuse" to leave the office.  You don't need an excuse to leave at your contracted time.

I agree with the point, people are either "sickies" or not.

We all have our personal lives and what is done outside of office hours is really none of the employers business, or concern.


----------



## casiopea (13 Nov 2007)

Persius said:


> Well good luck to you if that's the way it does work out - and I mean this genuinly. However the possibility of redundancy should never be ruled out. A company I worked for went bust. First a merger and the local sales and marketing staff were let go. Then wage freezes and finaly redundancy. I can't complain as we got a good payoff, and I got a new job straight away. But having experienced that, you realise that a "job for life" is very rare in the private sector.
> 
> I don't know about Switzerland, but I've seen plenty of redundancies (often with dirty tricks) in Germany where employee rights are generally considered to be strong.



Thanks Persius,
The sentiment is appreciated.  I wasnt trying to be glib about the "absolutely yes", the fact of the matter is my DH and I have no family near us and DH works in the next county.  So should a baby arrive I would be the only person to pick him or her up.  I wouldnt expect special treatment (half days/leaving early etc) but I would expect to leave at leaving time.  Maternity leave is short here (14 weeks) and the thought of leaving a young baby (or young child) in a creche after 6pm while I take a meeting/monitor a build/review test plans is not bearable for me.  Im a firm believer in quality vs. quantity.  Its better to work 8 high-quality hours than 10 or 11 hours of variable quality.  Something I have been working on the last few years is focusing more quality and if I do have to do overtime I really ask myself - why? Is this because of me (could I have worked more efficiently at the beginning)? Is it because of my PM (and not scheduling correctly)?  Or is simply called for on this occasion?  I have found it an interesting exercise to date.  

If I get made redundant so be it,  luckily support in Switzerland (while poor for maternity leave) is excellent for redundancy.  I have worked hard for my organization for over a decade, I do feel it would be their loss.  Also as mentioned earlier on this thread, working late consistently is a cultural thing,  children or no children most Swiss have left the office by 6pm.


----------



## Mel (13 Nov 2007)

I used 'excuse' in parenthesis as that's how it seems some people are see others' children. I don't consider it an excuse, but then it's not up for discussion. I have to collect my son. Occasionally I'll actually bring him back to the office if I really need to get something finished that can't be done form home, but really, how fair would that be if it was a regular thing? His day is also long enough already. 
We are saying the same thing really; that girl arranged her work hours with management so that her life would not encroach on her work. Otherwise she would have been potentially late in the mornings, or watching the clock and racing out the door to make creche closing time, or even lost her creche place over repeated tardiness. That she was unfortunate to have a poorly child is beside the point really.


----------



## MandaC (13 Nov 2007)

Mel said:


> I used 'excuse' in parenthesis as that's how it seems some people are see others' children. I don't consider it an excuse, but then it's not up for discussion. I have to collect my son. Occasionally I'll actually bring him back to the office if I really need to get something finished that can't be done form home, but really, how fair would that be if it was a regular thing? His day is also long enough already.
> We are saying the same thing really; that girl arranged her work hours with management so that her life would not encroach on her work. Otherwise she would have been potentially late in the mornings, or watching the clock and racing out the door to make creche closing time, or even lost her creche place over repeated tardiness. That she was unfortunate to have a poorly child is beside the point really.



Unfortunately, the crux of it is that there is a business to run and constant absenteeism was causing a problem, being a team member down.  We are a very small group of six so every person is needed all the time.

In the case of the girl in our office, her child had a bout of sickness, but to be fair most employers would not keep on someone who had over three weeks "sick" in the first three months. The fact that her husband was unwilling or unable to take time off from his work did not help either.


----------



## annR (13 Nov 2007)

I sell build / release software which can automate all that work you're doing and then you won't have to do over time!  Send me a PM!


----------



## Mel (13 Nov 2007)

Yes, unfortunately smaller companies are usually less family-friendly because they just can't afford to be. You're right, it's hard to make a good impression in a new job if you're unfortunate enough to have something like that happen so early on. The poor girl had to make the choice between leaving a sick child with someone else (maybe there was nobody else) or keeping her new job. 
Her husband not taking the time off is just another one of the challenges facing working mothers - often it's the mother's job that is seen as less valuable or essential for the family, and she will then be the one to take time off if the children are ill. 

There's an interesting article on this subject here: 
http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/News-About-Us/Childless_workers_feeling_resentment.htm

and another one here: 
http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/072104/new_072104005.shtml

Again, like people have been saying all along, it seems to come down to management putting good policies in place, rather than harbouring resentment for your colleagues which won't solve anything.


----------



## z103 (22 Nov 2007)

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2007166671122.gif


----------



## z104 (24 Nov 2007)

There is only 24 hours in a day. You are paid to work 8 hours a day. you do not owe your employer any more than this unless they are prepared to pay you for it. This is why it's called compensation. You are being compensated for giving your precious time. You cannot buy your time back once it's sold to your employer. Remember, you will be dead in a few years so use your time wisely


----------



## RMCF (25 Nov 2007)

Getting back to the general point raised right at the start of this thread, yes I believe that there is bias towards parents. But I don't envy them (at the minute anyway).

In work I see many cases of parents being allowed to do things that non-parents aren't:

-time off at very short notice
-being allowed to 'nip out for an hour' during work
-go to doctors appts
-phone in sick more often


Sort of comparable to smokers, who get several 10 min breaks during the day that non-smokers would get moaned at if they sat with their feet up at their desk.


----------



## snuffle (25 Nov 2007)

RMCF said:


> Sort of comparable to smokers, who get several 10 min breaks during the day that non-smokers would get moaned at if they sat with their feet up at their desk.



Not really.  
I've never seen a situation where smokers were taking more breaks than non-smokers - any smokers I know (and I'm one myself) tend to take their smokebreaks when general breaks are given - ie if there's an 11 o clock coffee break for 10-15 minutes, they use this to nip out for a smoke and same again for lunchtime or the afternoon break, whereas other non-smoking workers may use this time to pop to the shop if there's one nearby or sit and have a cuppa in the canteen.  In fact I've never seen smokers taking any more breaks than non-smokers in any job I've ever been in.


----------



## Trafford (26 Nov 2007)

I'm sure if a non-parent needed to the visit the doctor they wouldn't be prevented from doing so by their employer, just because they have no kids? I don't see the link.


----------



## ailbhe (26 Nov 2007)

Trafford said:


> I'm sure if a non-parent needed to the visit the doctor they wouldn't be prevented from doing so by their employer, just because they have no kids? I don't see the link.


 
I think that parents will have more doctors appointments though. Their own and their kids in comparison to someone with no kids who will only have their own.

As somone who has to be the main "picker upper" due to my partners work I find that I don't and won't have as many oppurtunities as my other half. I stayed at home with my daughter for a while and work in a 9-5 Mon-Fri job as he works irregular hours. I have found that his ability to do this has lead to promotion and regular payrises. I have to be out of work by 5.30 and can't drop the kiddo off til 9 so can't go in early.
Now, this isn't an issue for me. I'm happy to do it but it does show that while those with kids may be able to leave at their scheduled time and have the "perks" of being able to take time off to be with a child at short notice etc it does have the knock on effect that we are not noticed for the work we do and are passed over for promotion until our kids are older and managment know we won't need to be rushing home at the designated hour.


----------

