Comments on: Parentonomics

By: Fine

Fine — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 07:49:08 +0000

“Many parents are discriminated against”

But Sam, how were you as a parent being discriminated against? Do you think a childless person would have got the conditions you were asking for?

By: Chris (a different one)

Chris (a different one) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 05:39:10 +0000

wizofaus @ 91 – well it depends on how much they pay you for those extra hours (say through bonuses or promotions. Besides, not all worked hours end up of equal value to employers – it can depend very much on the situation. Eg there’s an emergency situation at a customer site and someone works an 80 hour week to fix it quickly. They may pay the employee for those extra 40 hours (or even more), but the value of the effect of the extra 40 hours work to the employer can be worth much much more than the extra labor cost.

By: wizofaus

wizofaus — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 05:18:22 +0000

But even from the perspective of an employer you’re no more productive for working longer hours, unless they don’t pay you for those hours.

By: Chris (a different one)

Chris (a different one) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 05:07:25 +0000

But then I’ve seen people who absolutely love their job, are very talented, work really long hours and get more done than 5 other people.

I meant to say “… more than 5 other people combined”. Probably more depending on who you’d compare them to.

By: Chris (a different one)

Chris (a different one) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 05:04:57 +0000

wizofaus @ 88 – was talking about from the perspective of the employer. They’re not going to reward you extra if you work long and hard hours and don’t actually produce any more than normal. But then I’ve seen people who absolutely love their job, are very talented, work really long hours and get more done than 5 other people. Of course the trick is to not burn out but thats a lot less likely if you really enjoy what you do.

By: wizofaus

wizofaus — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 04:54:08 +0000

“Working extremely long and hard hours” isn’t being productive in any really meaningful sense of the word. A productive job is one where working a reasonable number of hours a week generates sufficient wealth to fund a good standard of living.
If our economy were super-productive we could work just 1 hour a week and still enjoy very high standards of living.

By: Chris (a different one)

Chris (a different one) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 04:41:15 +0000

Sam @ 82: I’d say it really does depend on where you work. I’ve been at one company through different stages of my life (single/coupled/children). I wouldn’t call it discrimination, but when single I was approached first when it came to last minute travel because it would be less hassle for me to make last minute arrangements than someone with a family. But then making those extra efforts was also recognised when it came to performance reviews.

Its not a unionised work place but with a child now, I’ve found the company pretty good (can always improve things of course) with the whole work/life balance thing. Very flexible leave conditions and working conditions, and understanding and even encouragement from some of the managers that I would not want to work the same sorts of hours as I did previously. Its one of those places where they will let you work extremely hard and long hours if you want to (and reward you if you are very productive), but they generally don’t expect it of you.

By: Pavlov's Cat

Pavlov's Cat — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 04:20:46 +0000

Sam, it’s not a matter of either/or. I can’t speak for others here, but my own points at least were actually about gendered work-sharing.

I was not arguing that workplaces were parent friendly; I was arguing that some workplaces are or were not — in very insidious and manipulative ways — non-parent friendly either. It is entirely possible for workplaces to take away with one hand and then take away with the other hand.

By: Peterc

Peterc — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 04:02:47 +0000

I have a daughter at over 2; it does get interesting. Number 1s pose no problems but number 2s are a challenge for some reason. And the chocolate frog approach is not working too well.

The whole deal would be of no interest to those without children (unless you are visiting), but it certainly is for those with them. Especially the cleaning up.

One of my friends recommends waiting for summer – less clothing is good.

Our biggest gripe with the economics is paying rates and taxes and not getting a kindergarten place without holding the child back – this has happened to every child within our mother group’s circle!!!

By: wizofaus

wizofaus — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 03:48:53 +0000

Sam, surely somebody has before proposed that the default sick leave entitlement should be based on the number of dependents in your care? I have to say, since marrying and having children, virtually all the sick leave I’ve ever used was for care of family.