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?

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

Most workplaces, despite laws and regulations proclaiming otherwise, are not parent friendly. Many parents are discriminated against. For every story on this thread of a childless person having to make a sacrifice for someone with children, there are many more of people with children having much worse happen to them.

I worked in a job (teaching) where the union had secured the right for parents to work part time, and our employed described themselves as a ‘child friendly workplace’. I wanted to work 0.9 FTE to enable me to have one afternoon a week where I could pick my children up from school and thus have a point of contact with their school, and to also have this time to make medical appointments for one of my children who had an ongoing medical condition. I had to fight, and the compromise was my teaching 1.0 (Full time) within 0.9 FTE hours and getting paid at 0.9 FTE. All perfectly legal due to a loop hole in the system. A colleague who frequently was telephoned by her child’s day care to collect him due to illness was told by our childless head of department to quit her job.

With three children to cover with my 10 days sick leave (one of whom was frequently sick) I always ran out of sick leave. When one of my children required surgery and I had no leave left, I delayed that surgery for two weeks so as not effect my Year 12s exam prep, was then required to take a week leave without pay (despite the fact I had no contact teaching when the 12s left), but the school still delivered their mock exams to my house for me to mark while on leave without pay and trying to care for my child.

I know many people with children who have faced very similar issues.

It does seem your friend was a little naive to take back the position at her old rate of pay, when she knew for certain that the employer could afford more, and indeed wasn’t likely to be able to find anyone else who would work at her old rate (or they’d already be employing that person).

When she returned from overseas a few years later, my sister went back to her old position, replacing the other guy who had originally replaced her. She was more than a little surprised to be offered the position at her old rate of pay and job title, even though she was doing the same work as this “Photo Lab Manager”. When questioned, the pharmacist (who owned the business as well)argued that the other guy needed to be paid more because he had a wife and children to support and as she was a single young woman, she didn’t need the money!

She was not a member of a union (there was no union for pharmacy assistants then; not sure if there is now apart from the SDA), and like many young workers was afraid to rock to boat. She decided to just wear it, which outraged me as I worked for a union myself at the time and I couldn’t believe that she would let him get away with that. Even now I can’t believe that anyone could seriously argue that it is okay for rates of pay to be based on your domestic situation, rather than on qualifications or experience.

It’s a pity she didn’t take him on, because it would have been entertaining to see him before both the Industrial Relations Commission and the Equal Opportunity Commission trying to justify that point of view…

I live near a market too, but I’d love to know how you do a weekly food shop for $40. I can only assume you don’t buy eye-fillet steak too often (my wife thinks nothing of spending $20 on meat for a single meal!).

It’s good to live near a market. Family of 2.2 gets a whole week of fruit, vegies and meat for less than $40.

wizofaus, I can’t recall the stat and am too lazy to look it up, but I believe people with children live longer? Of course, that’s all at the wrong end of life, but presumably reflects some health benefits of children.

I’m actually fairly sure David @ 54 is wrong wrt to food

Ever go to Woolies and try shopping for a family?

Food trend has reversed

The percentage of food costs as part of household budgets decreased steadily since the great depression thanks to automation (the “green revolution”) but that’s now finished. We’re running out of arable land and oil and those facts are showing up in food prices.

Which is a good thing – and probably one of the reasons why birth rates are much lower in developed countries than they are in developing countries. In developed countries kids are essentially a cost – you get no economic benefit from having them. In developing countries, especially in rural areas, it’s often the other way around – kids are often a net economic benefit, so having lots makes sense.

Having said that, I would extremely wary of any revision to family-based welfare that would potentially leave thousands of kids insufficiently cared-for.