Personal life and work balance question

[Valmy]

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

I guess I missed where BB was asking they pay him to perpetuate the species.

[Zanza]

@Marti: So when someone calls being gay a lifestyle choice you explode but if a heterosexual fulfills his natural desires - which include having children for most people - it's a lifestyle choice? To have children is just as deep a desire in most humans as living your sexuality is for you.

[Malthus]

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.

Replace "look after my aging parents, who require care" with "spend time with my boyfriend" and I'll agree.

Essentially, people at work should have each other's back. Parents of small children are often faced with life emergencies that require their attention. This is not really a "choice" any more than choosing to take care of your parents is a "choice". Plenty of people have cut off all contact with their parents for various reasons, just as plenty of people choose to not have children (or cannot have children).

[Valmy]

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.

Yeah the company should be flexible and accomodating sure, but not allow employees to not do work or miss deadlines.  I don't think anybody is suggesting that.  With the obvious, and infamous, exceptions of things like maternity leave.

[Malthus]

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.

No, he's wrong, even on purely self-interested grounds, and there is a good reason why employers are or ought to be willing to accomodate people with small kids (or aging parents who need care, or whatever) - because such occupations tend to rely on workers who are not infinitely fungible.

Thus, if employer A is unwilling to accomodate anyone, it must choose from a more limited pool of qualified and skilled workers - those who have no human ties whatsoever requiring accomodation - no children, no aging parents, or whatever.

They are likely to lose out to company B, who is willing to accomodate and can thus choose from a much wider pool of skilled candidates.

The value of not offering accomodation is a small increase in hours worked. The cost is to disqualify something like three-quarters of candidates for consideration. I don't see how a rational employer would choose the non-accomodation option.

[Admiral Yi]

Thus, if employer A is unwilling to accomodate anyone, it must choose from a more limited pool of qualified and skilled workers - those who have no human ties whatsoever requiring accomodation - no children, no aging parents, or whatever.

No, the hiring pool is those people who prefer to accept cash in place of accomodation.

[Barrister]

I have to point out this isn't a gay / straight issue either.

I sometimes do docket court with a lesbian who is struggling with some child care issues after the split up with her partner recently.

[Valmy]

No, the hiring pool is those people who prefer to accept cash in place of accomodation.

Well again this is why I am not answering the question.  There are alot of variables here, there may indeed be times when you shouldn't do certain jobs if you want a life outside of work.  If it is an understanding at the company that no accomodations of any sort are going to be made then everybody knows that going in.  But is that the standard at Marty's company?  It seems like it isn't but he wishes it was or something (or maybe they wish it was but Polish law requires them to have certain policies in this area).

[garbon]

I picked option 1 for Marti's sake.

[garbon]

@Marti: So when someone calls being gay a lifestyle choice you explode but if a heterosexual fulfills his natural desires - which include having children for most people - it's a lifestyle choice? To have children is just as deep a desire in most humans as living your sexuality is for you.

I don't really see how that's comparable. Either set could have kids.  Is it suddenly an unnatural desire for a homosexual to want children?

[Martinus]

@Marti: So when someone calls being gay a lifestyle choice you explode but if a heterosexual fulfills his natural desires - which include having children for most people - it's a lifestyle choice? To have children is just as deep a desire in most humans as living your sexuality is for you.

Wow, there is so much mixed up stuff here I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, your sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice. Living with a same sex partner is a life style choice, but in the same way as it is for a heterosexual person to live with an opposite sex partner. Having children is also a life style choice but of a much more different manner (i.e. the choice is much more free) - if it wasn't, then every sexually active straight person would have children, which is hardly the case.

Secondly, when it comes to lifestyle choices, I always said that people should be free to choose their lifestyle and they should not be prevented from doing so by law - and I have always said that the whole argument whether homosexuality is a choice or not is really a red herring for this very reason - as long as you are not hurting anyone, you should be free to life how you want.

That does not mean however that if your lifestyle choice interferes directly with your ability to do your work, your employer should bend over backwards to accomodate that. If you are an evangelical Christian and are opposed to contraception and abortion, noone forces you to work in a drug store or become an abortion doctor, but if you sign up to be one you should not be given a free pass not to perform your job properly. Same with muslims working in pork-selling butcher's store, a gay person signing up to be a straight porn star, or... a parent signing up for work with murderous and unpredictable working hours. Each of these jobs requires you to possess certain qualities or do certain things, and if you are not in a position to peform them properly, then it is not a matter of your lifestyle but a matter of you being unfit for your position.

[Valmy]

Is it suddenly an unnatural desire for a homosexual to want children?

I hope not.  It would really be a shame if Sheilbh didn't pass his genes on to the next generation.

[Malthus]

Thus, if employer A is unwilling to accomodate anyone, it must choose from a more limited pool of qualified and skilled workers - those who have no human ties whatsoever requiring accomodation - no children, no aging parents, or whatever.

No, the hiring pool is those people who prefer to accept cash in place of accomodation.

Amounts to the same thing.

Or are you saying there exist parents who, when little baby Jake has to go to the hospital with an ear infection, would say something like "no, back in 2009 I signed a deal that offered me $1,000 more in salary per year to have no accomodation, and a deal is a deal. Baby Jake, suck it up"? 

Realistically, an employer who insists that parents of young kids get *no* accomodation simply can't hire parents (or must let employees who become parents go). Or for that matter have any other employees with "special needs" like aging parents.

Since this includes a large majority of the human race, this isn't a very good strategy for hiring and retaining employees who have special skills or expertise - which, unsurprisingly enough, are exactly the sort of employees who usually have to work crazy hours or meet exacting deadlines.

[Admiral Yi]

Or are you saying there exist parents who, when little baby Jake has to go to the hospital with an ear infection, would say something like "no, back in 2009 I signed a deal that offered me $1,000 more in salary per year to have no accomodation, and a deal is a deal. Baby Jake, suck it up"? 

I am saying there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of parents who say I could go to the hospital to check up on little Jake with some dumbass ear infection but that will fuck up my chances of promotion/bonus/corner office/partnership.

[Martinus]

Thus, if employer A is unwilling to accomodate anyone, it must choose from a more limited pool of qualified and skilled workers - those who have no human ties whatsoever requiring accomodation - no children, no aging parents, or whatever.

No, the hiring pool is those people who prefer to accept cash in place of accomodation.

Amounts to the same thing.

Or are you saying there exist parents who, when little baby Jake has to go to the hospital with an ear infection, would say something like "no, back in 2009 I signed a deal that offered me $1,000 more in salary per year to have no accomodation, and a deal is a deal. Baby Jake, suck it up"? 

Realistically, an employer who insists that parents of young kids get *no* accomodation simply can't hire parents (or must let employees who become parents go). Or for that matter have any other employees with "special needs" like aging parents.

Since this includes a large majority of the human race, this isn't a very good strategy for hiring and retaining employees who have special skills or expertise - which, unsurprisingly enough, are exactly the sort of employees who usually have to work crazy hours or meet exacting deadlines.

A partner in my law firm was in the negotiations room while his wife was delivering the baby.