Personal life and work balance question

[mongers]

Marti actually makes a bona fide point, for a change.

I usually make good points here. It's just that I usually make unpopular/un-PC points which makes bleeding heart pony-tail shits to hate it, and you and Neil just pile on it for the fun of yanking my chain.

No, actually you don't.  You're a pissy little bitch, with pissy little bitch points.

That's unfair.

I've met Marty. He is average height from recollection.

To be fair, his incontinence problem was that evident either.

[Barrister]

Marti actually makes a bona fide point, for a change.

I usually make good points here. It's just that I usually make unpopular/un-PC points which makes bleeding heart pony-tail shits to hate it, and you and Neil just pile on it for the fun of yanking my chain.

I understand that it how you perceive it...

[The Brain]

lol bona

[Zanza]

However, in project work it was usually a case of trying to make do with as few resources as possible, because the client would only pay for so many man-hours.

So your argument is that because your employer sold the project for the price of 100 hours and you actually need 200 hours that should be the problem of the employee and not the employer? I have to disagree. If the employer can't make a realistic effort estimate, that shouldn't be the problem of the employees.

As I said, employees expecting flexibility should show it themselves too. Of course an employer can expect that employees work more in peak times and then maybe take time off in slow times. But that should be within reason. It is not reasonable to expect parents to forsake their children just because you just happen to have a peak workload. One of the main things here is to enable the employee to work from home he has a chance to take care of both private and professional priorities.

[Syt]

So your argument is that because your employer sold the project for the price of 100 hours and you actually need 200 hours that should be the problem of the employee and not the employer? I have to disagree. If the employer can't make a realistic effort estimate, that shouldn't be the problem of the employees.

If the alternative is not getting the project(s)?

I don't say I was happy there, and am rather glad to not be part of that anymore.

[Martinus]

So your argument is that because your employer sold the project for the price of 100 hours and you actually need 200 hours that should be the problem of the employee and not the employer? I have to disagree. If the employer can't make a realistic effort estimate, that shouldn't be the problem of the employees.

I don't get the should/shouldn't rhetoric here. What does it mean? If a business model or the nature of the business demands that, who is to say this "shouldn't" be the case?

Different businesses have different dynamics. People are not required to work in conditions they do not like (although usually such unpredictable working hours also translate into higher pay). I just don't see why someone who wants to spend time with his wife and kids should be given priority over me wanting to spend time with my boyfriend.

[Barrister]

So your argument is that because your employer sold the project for the price of 100 hours and you actually need 200 hours that should be the problem of the employee and not the employer? I have to disagree. If the employer can't make a realistic effort estimate, that shouldn't be the problem of the employees.

I don't get the should/shouldn't rhetoric here. What does it mean? If a business model or the nature of the business demands that, who is to say this "shouldn't" be the case?

Different businesses have different dynamics. People are not required to work in conditions they do not like (although usually such unpredictable working hours also translate into higher pay). I just don't see why someone who wants to spend time with his wife and kids should be given priority over me wanting to spend time with my boyfriend.

It's the kids part, not the wife.  Wives and boyfriends can look after themself if you're not there.  Children can not.

[Martinus]

So your argument is that because your employer sold the project for the price of 100 hours and you actually need 200 hours that should be the problem of the employee and not the employer? I have to disagree. If the employer can't make a realistic effort estimate, that shouldn't be the problem of the employees.

I don't get the should/shouldn't rhetoric here. What does it mean? If a business model or the nature of the business demands that, who is to say this "shouldn't" be the case?

Different businesses have different dynamics. People are not required to work in conditions they do not like (although usually such unpredictable working hours also translate into higher pay). I just don't see why someone who wants to spend time with his wife and kids should be given priority over me wanting to spend time with my boyfriend.

It's the kids part, not the wife.  Wives and boyfriends can look after themself if you're not there.  Children can not.

Having kids is your lifestyle choice. A lot of my colleagues (including the non-single ones) do not have kids. Hire a nanny.

[Barrister]

I refuse to consider an act that perpetuates the species as a "lifestyle choice".

By the way "hire a nanny" is not a fail-proof solution.  Nannys get sick, get days off, and are not on call 24/7.  We don't have a nany but rather a day home (essentially our kid goes to the nanny's house, rather than the nanny coming to our house) which works fine most of the time - unless she is taking a holiday, or gets sick, or has to go to the doctor.

[Valmy]

Or is a crazy ass germaphobe who makes me....er....clients go  pick their kids up if they so much as cough. 

[CountDeMoney]

I refuse to consider an act that perpetuates the species as a "lifestyle choice".

I dunno, man...for someone like Marty, who's not pitching in, it is. 

[Martinus]

I refuse to consider an act that perpetuates the species as a "lifestyle choice".

Hahahah, how did I know it will come down to that! Just an inkling. 

You are not being hired by your employer to "perpetuate the species".

[alfred russel]

A great woman once wrote a book, "It takes a village" to raise a child. While it may be attractive to want to shut ourselves off from crying babies in airplanes, a possible temper tantrum in a restaurant, or a coworker who needs to leave early to care for a sick child, it is probably counterproductive in the long run for society to not accomodate parents. I believe that children are our future.

[Barrister]

I refuse to consider an act that perpetuates the species as a "lifestyle choice".

Hahahah, how did I know it will come down to that! Just an inkling. 

You are not being hired by your employer to "perpetuate the species".

As a society as a whole (and which your employer is a part of) we do need to allow and encourage people to have children at a replacement level.

[Admiral Yi]

This is the one thread that Marty is right in.

If you work for a company that maintains brutal hours and crazy deadlines then you shouldn't get a special dispensation for having children.