Languish.org

I'm interested what Languishites think, as the approach to this varies wildly. For example, in work like mine, you are expected to work a lot, often over weekends. This is a nuisance to everyone, but people who have kids (and have to occassionally take them to schools or hospitals etc.) grumble about it more. Then again, someone may for example have a chronic disease which takes them out of work for days or weeks at a time.

Option 1 says such reasons should be tolerated and accomodated and they should not affect such person's pay or career prospects - some people claim this is the right approach - do you agree?

Option 2 says this should be tolerated, but should be taken into account for career or promotion reasons. So you are given a choice - either dedicate yourself more to the career or to your personal life, with consequences.

Option 3 says that such people should be let go.

For the sake of argument, assume that such disruptions are statistically significant - of course if someone has to come late to work once a month or so, then it is not relevant. If they have to leave the office early each day, or are unavailable once a week, then it is relevant.

Option 1.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 03, 2012, 04:14:17 AM
Option 1.

Really? How is it fair? To me it's a classic case of moral hazard. Why do people that, say, hire a nanny be worse off than people who refuse to do so and as a result their work performance suffers?

Depends, what does the CBA cover.

Quote from: 11B4V on May 03, 2012, 04:30:28 AM
Depends, what does the CBA cover.

CBA? Can't Be Arsed?  :huh:

Collective Barganing Agreement.

or are you just asking something in general and not specific?

Martinus, I used to think you were an OK guy, and that your opinions and online persona was a deliberate exageration, where your real life was more nuanced and pragmatic.

But these past months you've become so extreme, so socialible inept and your attitudes so close to sociopathic as they can possibly be without having you comitted.


I hope you die a very old man, lonely, in a cold cold place, exploited by your former relationsships in every possible way.

V

Option 1.5 - meaning that while companies should certainly accomodate for a chronic illness and should be flexible regarding taking care of children, that has to be within reasonable bounds. Obviously at some point, it affects career chances, e.g. working part time will harm your prospects, but shouldn't exclude promotion, but having to leave every Thursday at 4 pm to pick up your child from kindergarten shouldn't - companies should be able to cope with that.

Quote from: 11B4V on May 03, 2012, 04:34:28 AM
Collective Barganing Agreement.

or are you just asking something in general and not specific?

In general.

Quote from: Zanza on May 03, 2012, 04:35:25 AM
Option 1.5 - meaning that while companies should certainly accomodate for a chronic illness and should be flexible regarding taking care of children, that has to be within reasonable bounds. Obviously at some point, it affects career chances, e.g. working part time will harm your prospects, but shouldn't exclude promotion, but having to leave every Thursday at 4 pm to pick up your child from kindergarten shouldn't - companies should be able to cope with that.

This, I would not take a job that didn't allow me to flex my hours around being able to attend doctors and children's functions, but I would make up by doing the hours at other times.

V

For all office jobs, companies should generally allow more working from home and at flexible times.

That's obviously not possible when you work at an assembly line or in retail, where companies can show less flexibility regarding work time.

Quote from: Valdemar on May 03, 2012, 04:34:54 AM
Martinus, I used to think you were an OK guy, and that your opinions and online persona was a deliberate exageration, where your real life was more nuanced and pragmatic.

But these past months you've become so extreme, so socialible inept and your attitudes so close to sociopathic as they can possibly be without having you comitted.


I hope you die a very old man, lonely, in a cold cold place, exploited by your former relationsships in every possible way.

V

Wow. That's unexpected.

I hope you and your family die soon, too, preferably in a painful way. Judging from your posts about your personal life, I think it's more likely to happen (at least as far as you are concerned) than what you exploited from my own posts about my personal life to create a barb directed at me. :)

of the options, #1

Quote from: Zanza on May 03, 2012, 04:40:53 AM
For all office jobs, companies should generally allow more working from home and at flexible times.

That's obviously not possible when you work at an assembly line or in retail, where companies can show less flexibility regarding work time.

Well, I am not saying that people should not be allowed to work from home. I'm talking about people missing deadlines and so on because they refuse to hire a nanny and use their children as an excuse not to work. And I'm talking about guys here.

Fortunately, my boss (who herself has children) seems to have the same attitude as I do: we pay you well enough to hire a nanny - if you can't put out long hours despite that, then perhaps you should seek a job that pays less but offers less demanding schedule.

Basically what Zanza's saying.  I think most companies should be able to accommodate people with young families or illness through flexible working and that sort of thing.  It shouldn't be allowed to impinge on the progress of an otherwise talented employee.

Martinus, what job levels are we talking about here? Receptionists? Secretaries? Partners?

Quote from: Syt on May 03, 2012, 04:47:53 AM
Martinus, what job levels are we talking about here? Receptionists? Secretaries? Partners?

Mid-and-upper management (so senior associates, partners etc.).

He's obviously talking about himself. As always.

If you work for a big law firm, you get a target for chargeable hours (amongst other targets). Everyone shoudl have the same targets but there should be a degree of flexibility in how the traget is achieved and the firm should accommodate its fee earners. So home working etc should be encouraged.

The "hire a nanny" attitude, the whole "judge everyone as if they were like me" attitude that you expose in so many posts lately and the apparent complete lack of ability to see it from anybody else POW, is what is grating on me. You seem to become more and more stereotyped and more an more one track minded, dismissing any other way of doing things, from breat feeding to employee management. Calous would be a fitting term, with definite streak of anti social.

As to the chance of your wish being granted, I may most likely live to very old age thank you, the disease is non lethal.

V

I'm with Zanza and the rest, as long as you're able to be as productive as required by your position and are able to deliver as expected, this kind of things shouldn't be held against you, and there are many measures that can be taken to accomodate for them without your output being in jeopardy. Of course this is going to vary wildly depending on the kind of work, but for a modern service occupation it should be handleable.

I think the default expectation should target a work week of 37-42 hours. I understand that there are difficulties keeping it down to that level when senior posts are involved, but that does not mean that efforts to restrict long hours cultures should not be made.

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 04:48:27 AM
Mid-and-upper management (so senior associates, partners etc.).

I was at an event once where someone asked a board member of the company I work for regarding his personal work life balance. That board member said that his job would require sixteen hour days everyday. That's fair enough as you know what the price is if you want such a position. The higher you go in the hierarchy, the better you are paid, the more the company can demand obviously. However, most people aren't in a senior position in an international law firm, so I answered not for your perspective, but rather for that of the average office worker.

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 04:43:53 AMWell, I am not saying that people should not be allowed to work from home. I'm talking about people missing deadlines and so on because they refuse to hire a nanny and use their children as an excuse not to work.

Missing deadlines is obviously not acceptable, but then the deadline should be set in a way that the employee can actually make it considering his/her work-life balance. That's what should be expected from a modern company.

QuoteAnd I'm talking about guys here.

Welcome to the 21st century: fathers want time with their children too and guys can have chronic diseases too. Gender shouldn't play a role.

QuoteFortunately, my boss (who herself has children) seems to have the same attitude as I do: we pay you well enough to hire a nanny - if you can't put out long hours despite that, then perhaps you should seek a job that pays less but offers less demanding schedule.

With a company policy like that, you'll obviously lose some talented people, but I guess there are still enough people who are willing to sacrifice their private life for their career, so it won't hurt the company much. Might hurt the work culture though.

Another vote for 1.5. It should be tolerated and should not affect the person's career prospects so long as it's within reason and does not affect the person's ability to deliver his required work to deadline and specified quality, and does not dump any incomplete work on his hapless colleagues.

Quote from: Zanza on May 03, 2012, 05:41:07 AM
Missing deadlines is obviously not acceptable, but then the deadline should be set in a way that the employee can actually make it considering his/her work-life balance. That's what should be expected from a modern company.

Well, in my previous job you had to hit the deadline, no matter what (at least in our region). If the deadline was a public holiday: tough noogies. If it meant you having to stay late or come in on weekends: so be it. If you missed any deadlines: prepare to be bitchslapped. And I'm talking about the "normal" employees there.

Quote from: Zanza on May 03, 2012, 05:35:47 AM

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 04:48:27 AM
Mid-and-upper management (so senior associates, partners etc.).

I was at an event once where someone asked a board member of the company I work for regarding his personal work life balance. That board member said that his job would require sixteen hour days everyday. That's fair enough as you know what the price is if you want such a position. The higher you go in the hierarchy, the better you are paid, the more the company can demand obviously. However, most people aren't in a senior position in an international law firm, so I answered not for your perspective, but rather for that of the average office worker.

Personally I've never understood that attitude. Then again i'm not a workaholic sociopath.

I think more productive workers should get preference regardless of family situation, but also echo the sentiments of the majority that companies should be flexible and not demand too many hours.

Also, since I'm a nice guy, I hope everybody in this thread dies in their sleep. Preferably tonight.  :P

I was almost always tolerant of people's personal life issues. AS LONG AS THEY TALKED TO ME.

We don't manage robots.

Depends on how it affects productivity, obviously.  Pretty much what Zanza said.

Quote from: Valdemar on May 03, 2012, 04:34:54 AM
Martinus, I used to think you were an OK guy, and that your opinions and online persona was a deliberate exageration, where your real life was more nuanced and pragmatic.

But these past months you've become so extreme, so socialible inept and your attitudes so close to sociopathic as they can possibly be without having you comitted.


I hope you die a very old man, lonely, in a cold cold place, exploited by your former relationsships in every possible way.

V

He likes to generate these little polls (git it) not because he's interested in our answers, but because he already knows it himself, and would like very much to have it validated.

He is, in short, a douchebag.

Quote from: The Larch on May 03, 2012, 06:22:06 AM
Personally I've never understood that attitude. Then again i'm not a workaholic sociopath.

Good luck with that economy of yours. Poland's, on the other hand (it being a country of workaholic sociopaths), has grown consistently in each of the last 20 years.

Quote from: Brazen on May 03, 2012, 05:41:58 AM
Another vote for 1.5. It should be tolerated and should not affect the person's career prospects so long as it's within reason and does not affect the person's ability to deliver his required work to deadline and specified quality, and does not dump any incomplete work on his hapless colleagues.

The last part is kinda key, isn't it? Hence I was curious about your perspective - have you ever been required to stay late/work over weekend because the extra work went to you as your colleagues could not take it due to personal life commitments, such as children?

Quote from: Syt on May 03, 2012, 05:58:04 AM

Quote from: Zanza on May 03, 2012, 05:41:07 AM
Missing deadlines is obviously not acceptable, but then the deadline should be set in a way that the employee can actually make it considering his/her work-life balance. That's what should be expected from a modern company.

Well, in my previous job you had to hit the deadline, no matter what (at least in our region). If the deadline was a public holiday: tough noogies. If it meant you having to stay late or come in on weekends: so be it. If you missed any deadlines: prepare to be bitchslapped. And I'm talking about the "normal" employees there.

That's the attitude at a big law firm. It pays very well but it's a price you pay for that. So people who agree to such set-up but then insist on using they "get out of jail" card are imo gaming the system and are dishonest to their bosses and colleagues.

Incidentally, to people who "voted 1.5" - I think your choice is really 2 - the opening post states that such personal life issue should create work disruptions/performance drops that are "statistically significant". If they don't then there is no issue to talk about.

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 08:39:48 AM
The last part is kinda key, isn't it? Hence I was curious about your perspective - have you ever been required to stay late/work over weekend because the extra work went to you as your colleagues could not take it due to personal life commitments, such as children?

I guess this is why I have not yet responded to the poll.  It really depends on the specific circumstances.  It is not like everybody with personal commitments is going to dump work on everybody else or not be able to reach deadlines.  If they are coming late to work yet do it in a responsible way, within the policy of the office or company, and get their work done then no big deal.  My wife does miss some work about once a week but guess what?  She is always way ahead of her deadlines and does it within company policy.

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 08:39:48 AM

Quote from: Brazen on May 03, 2012, 05:41:58 AM
Another vote for 1.5. It should be tolerated and should not affect the person's career prospects so long as it's within reason and does not affect the person's ability to deliver his required work to deadline and specified quality, and does not dump any incomplete work on his hapless colleagues.

The last part is kinda key, isn't it? Hence I was curious about your perspective - have you ever been required to stay late/work over weekend because the extra work went to you as your colleagues could not take it due to personal life commitments, such as children?

Yes, I have.

As long as it's not abused I have no problem with it.  I don't want to work for an organization who expects it's employees to be robots with no outside interests save the practice of law.

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 08:39:48 AM
The last part is kinda key, isn't it? Hence I was curious about your perspective - have you ever been required to stay late/work over weekend because the extra work went to you as your colleagues could not take it due to personal life commitments, such as children?

No, my colleagues are all under 25 :P

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 04:43:53 AM
Well, I am not saying that people should not be allowed to work from home. I'm talking about people missing deadlines and so on because they refuse to hire a nanny and use their children as an excuse not to work. And I'm talking about guys here.

I see even you realized that your first post was idoitic and so you decided to change the rules.  Either that or you are a complete idiot and you equate people being flexible about their work with missing deadlines.  In my experience people who are otherwise mature and treated well will meet deadlines and their family obligations if given the freedom to do so.  Something that may well be outside your experience.

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 08:44:29 AM
Incidentally, to people who "voted 1.5" - I think your choice is really 2 - the opening post states that such personal life issue should create work disruptions/performance drops that are "statistically significant". If they don't then there is no issue to talk about.

No, because option two specifically states "It should be tolerated/accomodated, but should be taken into account for the purpose of pay or promotion" and I don't think it should in any way affect their pay or promotion. They just need to organise any time away so it minimally inconveniences their colleagues, as we all should do when arranging time off, even work trips. Give and take.

Quote from: Brazen on May 03, 2012, 08:54:08 AM

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 08:44:29 AM
Incidentally, to people who "voted 1.5" - I think your choice is really 2 - the opening post states that such personal life issue should create work disruptions/performance drops that are "statistically significant". If they don't then there is no issue to talk about.

No, because option two specifically states "It should be tolerated/accomodated, but should be taken into account for the purpose of pay or promotion" and I don't think it should in any way affect their pay or promotion. They just need to organise any time away so it minimally inconveniences their colleagues, as we all should do when arranging time off, even work trips. Give and take.

:yes:

In the last few months I have:

-left work (when I was in the office) to take my pregnant wife to the hospital.  once I brought her back I stayed late to finish my prep for the next day's court
-took work home when my dayhome lady needed to go to the doctor, so I had to pick up little Tim
-have given my employer lots of notice about baby's due date so they don't schedule me into anything contested in the couple weeks leading up to that day

So far, nobody else in my office has been inconvenienced by my family issues, and I've worked late or from home to make up for it.  Some day that may not be the case - I will try my best to not affect my co-workers, but if it happens, it happens.  They will cover for me, the same as I cover for them.

As for "we pay you enough - hire a nanny"... we may some day hire a nanny.  The numbers make sense when you have two kids.  But A: I want to be the one raising my kid, not some stranger, and B: I'm not crazy about having some stranegr live in our house.

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 08:38:20 AM

Quote from: The Larch on May 03, 2012, 06:22:06 AM
Personally I've never understood that attitude. Then again i'm not a workaholic sociopath.

Good luck with that economy of yours. Poland's, on the other hand (it being a country of workaholic sociopaths), has grown consistently in each of the last 20 years.

People already work gajillions of unpaid overtime over here, thankyouverymuchnowfuckyouwitharustyspoon.

And newsflash, there's a world besides big shot law firms, not that you know anything at all about it.

For some reason this thread has reminded me of H. H. Asquith, Liberal Prime Minister of the UK 1908-1916, back in the days when Britain counted for something in the world, yet he appeared to have masses of free time to get up to all sorts of activities. This book review from The Spectator illustrates the point well :

http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/7763798/life-and-letters-a-pms-summer-reading.thtml

Cameron should take a leaf out of his book, pro rata to Britain's diminished importance I would imagine 3 or 4 hours a week would be the appropriate workload.

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 08:38:20 AM

Quote from: The Larch on May 03, 2012, 06:22:06 AM
Personally I've never understood that attitude. Then again i'm not a workaholic sociopath.

Good luck with that economy of yours. Poland's, on the other hand (it being a country of workaholic sociopaths), has grown consistently in each of the last 20 years.

Here again is a confusion between growth of the economy and its strength.  If Poland's average income rose from 2 chicken bones per month to 6 chicken bones per month over the last 20 years, adjusted for inflation, that's impressive growth.  However, that doesn't make its economy stronger than that of a civilized country.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 03, 2012, 09:31:30 AM
Cameron should take a leaf out of his book, pro rata to Britain's diminished importance I would imagine 3 or 4 hours a week would be the appropriate workload.

It is a mystery how exactly it works.  I reading a story speculating about how Roosevelt and the Pentagon could wage a war with an military about 12 times the size of our current one on opposite ends of the earth with a tiny percentage of their current staffs.

Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2012, 09:40:03 AM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 03, 2012, 09:31:30 AM
Cameron should take a leaf out of his book, pro rata to Britain's diminished importance I would imagine 3 or 4 hours a week would be the appropriate workload.

It is a mystery how exactly it works.  I reading a story speculating about how Roosevelt and the Pentagon could wage a war with an military about 12 times the size of our current one on opposite ends of the earth with a tiny percentage of their current staffs.

Doesn't seem to be a fair comparison.  The Roosevelt era Pentagon lost hundreds of thousands of troops in combat deaths.  These days we enjoy unrivaled technological and organizations superiority, to the point that our enemies simply do not have the option of confronting us on the battlefield.

Four pages in, and nobody realizes it's just another Marti "I hate breeders, please validate my hatred" thread.  Suckers.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2012, 09:59:02 AM
Four pages in, and nobody realizes it's just another Marti "I hate breeders, please validate my hatred" thread.  Suckers.

Sure we did, but it's entertaining

Marty should adopt a child so he, too, can reap the benefits of parenthood.

Quote from: Syt on May 03, 2012, 10:04:45 AM
Marty should adopt a child so he, too, can reap the benefits of parenthood.

Marty is too vain for that, he'd probably buy one from the breeders.

Quote from: Syt on May 03, 2012, 10:04:45 AM
Marty should adopt a child so he, too, can reap the benefits of parenthood.

That sounds like a plot for a TV sitcom.

I thought Marti wanted a child at some point?  :hmm: He'd better get on the case soon before his ovaries dry up :P

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2012, 07:36:47 AM

Quote from: Valdemar on May 03, 2012, 04:34:54 AM
Martinus, I used to think you were an OK guy, and that your opinions and online persona was a deliberate exageration, where your real life was more nuanced and pragmatic.

But these past months you've become so extreme, so socialible inept and your attitudes so close to sociopathic as they can possibly be without having you comitted.


I hope you die a very old man, lonely, in a cold cold place, exploited by your former relationsships in every possible way.

V

He likes to generate these little polls (git it) not because he's interested in our answers, but because he already knows it himself, and would like very much to have it validated.

Yeah, and how does that usually work out? :lol:

Mart's got a persecution complex that would make a Christian proud.

Anyway, in this case, I agree with him.  People with personal lives should be punished. <_<  But I should still be allowed to regularly come in around noon, as is my custom.

Quote from: Ideologue on May 03, 2012, 10:41:25 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2012, 07:36:47 AM

Quote from: Valdemar on May 03, 2012, 04:34:54 AM
Martinus, I used to think you were an OK guy, and that your opinions and online persona was a deliberate exageration, where your real life was more nuanced and pragmatic.

But these past months you've become so extreme, so socialible inept and your attitudes so close to sociopathic as they can possibly be without having you comitted.


I hope you die a very old man, lonely, in a cold cold place, exploited by your former relationsships in every possible way.

V

He likes to generate these little polls (git it) not because he's interested in our answers, but because he already knows it himself, and would like very much to have it validated.

Yeah, and how does that usually work out? :lol:

Mart's got a persecution complex that would make a Christian proud.

Anyway, in this case, I agree with him.  People with personal lives should be punished. <_<  But I should still be allowed to regularly come in around noon, as is my custom.

Is this the entitlement we were discussing? :hmm:

TBR SANCTITY.

Quote from: Brazen on May 03, 2012, 10:33:59 AM
I thought Marti wanted a child at some point?  :hmm: He'd better get on the case soon before his ovaries dry up :P

I already have someone in my life who is young, immature, moody, keeps secrets and leeches up my money. It's my boyfriend. :P

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2012, 09:59:02 AM
Four pages in, and nobody realizes it's just another Marti "I hate breeders, please validate my hatred" thread.  Suckers.

Naw, Gups nailed it early on:

QuoteHe's obviously talking about himself. As always.

As someone already said, the rest is just for sport.

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 11:04:46 AM

Quote from: Brazen on May 03, 2012, 10:33:59 AM
I thought Marti wanted a child at some point?  :hmm: He'd better get on the case soon before his ovaries dry up :P

I already have someone in my life who is young, immature, moody, keeps secrets and leeches up my money. It's my boyfriend. :P

Are you still going to get upset when people say you pay for sex?

Quote from: Ideologue on May 03, 2012, 11:04:15 AM
TBR SANCTITY.

In my thread? :unsure:

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2012, 11:06:03 AM

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 11:04:46 AM

Quote from: Brazen on May 03, 2012, 10:33:59 AM
I thought Marti wanted a child at some point?  :hmm: He'd better get on the case soon before his ovaries dry up :P

I already have someone in my life who is young, immature, moody, keeps secrets and leeches up my money. It's my boyfriend. :P

Are you still going to get upset when people say you pay for sex?

Are you? :hmm:

Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2012, 11:06:42 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on May 03, 2012, 11:04:15 AM
TBR SANCTITY.

In my thread? :unsure:

Is that the rule?  Oh, this changes everything. :D

Anyway, my roommate says I'm being spoiled by the flexibility of the hours on this project.  He goes in at eight thirty because "that's when people are supposed to go into work."  Besides seeming a very archaic attitude more applicable to an agricultural society, he leaves at five when I leave at midnight, so there's some evidence that he's lazy one.

Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2012, 11:07:00 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2012, 11:06:03 AM

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 11:04:46 AM

Quote from: Brazen on May 03, 2012, 10:33:59 AM
I thought Marti wanted a child at some point?  :hmm: He'd better get on the case soon before his ovaries dry up :P

I already have someone in my life who is young, immature, moody, keeps secrets and leeches up my money. It's my boyfriend. :P

Are you still going to get upset when people say you pay for sex?

Are you? :hmm:

Only you (and Marti) would think there is a direct comparison.  Very Marti like of you.

And yes you are a real ass for breaking tbr confidentiality. You need to fix that.  Unless you want to end up like Marti in even more ways.

Marti, I hate to break it to you, but your boyfriend isn't actually gay. He just pretends to be gay so he can leech your money. It's standard Eastern European fare.

Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2012, 11:07:00 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2012, 11:06:03 AM

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 11:04:46 AM

Quote from: Brazen on May 03, 2012, 10:33:59 AM
I thought Marti wanted a child at some point?  :hmm: He'd better get on the case soon before his ovaries dry up :P

I already have someone in my life who is young, immature, moody, keeps secrets and leeches up my money. It's my boyfriend. :P

Are you still going to get upset when people say you pay for sex?

Are you? :hmm:

When you quote his posts, they actually show in my screen. :(

Quote from: Solmyr on May 03, 2012, 11:18:43 AM
Marti, I hate to break it to you, but your boyfriend isn't actually gay. He just pretends to be gay so he can leech your money. It's standard Eastern European fare.

Marti's rich, but not nearly that rich.

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2012, 11:13:19 AM
And yes you are a real ass for breaking tbr confidentiality. You need to fix that.  Unless you want to end up like Marti in even more ways.

:huh:

I didn't realize Ide joking that I'd call him entitled was violating TBR sanctity...

Quote from: DGuller on May 03, 2012, 11:22:51 AM

Quote from: Solmyr on May 03, 2012, 11:18:43 AM
Marti, I hate to break it to you, but your boyfriend isn't actually gay. He just pretends to be gay so he can leech your money. It's standard Eastern European fare.

Marti's rich, but not nearly that rich.

I'd pretend to be gay if the price was right. And then I'd sell the video.

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2012, 11:13:19 AM

Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2012, 11:07:00 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2012, 11:06:03 AM

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 11:04:46 AM

Quote from: Brazen on May 03, 2012, 10:33:59 AM
I thought Marti wanted a child at some point?  :hmm: He'd better get on the case soon before his ovaries dry up :P

I already have someone in my life who is young, immature, moody, keeps secrets and leeches up my money. It's my boyfriend. :P

Are you still going to get upset when people say you pay for sex?

Are you? :hmm:

Only you (and Marti) would think there is a direct comparison.  Very Marti like of you.

On this bit - just feminism. :P

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 11:22:19 AM

Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2012, 11:07:00 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2012, 11:06:03 AM

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 11:04:46 AM

Quote from: Brazen on May 03, 2012, 10:33:59 AM
I thought Marti wanted a child at some point?  :hmm: He'd better get on the case soon before his ovaries dry up :P

I already have someone in my life who is young, immature, moody, keeps secrets and leeches up my money. It's my boyfriend. :P

Are you still going to get upset when people say you pay for sex?

Are you? :hmm:

When you quote his posts, they actually show in my screen. :(

Get used to it. People quote Raz all the time.

Quote from: Syt on May 03, 2012, 05:58:04 AMWell, in my previous job you had to hit the deadline, no matter what (at least in our region). If the deadline was a public holiday: tough noogies. If it meant you having to stay late or come in on weekends: so be it. If you missed any deadlines: prepare to be bitchslapped. And I'm talking about the "normal" employees there.

Of course. But then a good manager would assign adequate resources to the task at hand. If that's not the case, it's bad management and frankly shouldn't be the problem of the employee as he has no way to assign adequate resources.
Of course, companies being flexible means they can expect employees being flexible too. So if the deadline really, really has to be on a public holiday, it's fair to expect the employees to show up and do their work, no matter their private situation. Year-end closing in accounting is one such case. I am in IT and obviously you have to do system upgrades on weekends and sometimes in the week between Christmas and New Years' Eve and no one can seriously complain about that.

Quote from: Brazen on May 03, 2012, 11:29:08 AM

Quote from: DGuller on May 03, 2012, 11:22:51 AM

Quote from: Solmyr on May 03, 2012, 11:18:43 AM
Marti, I hate to break it to you, but your boyfriend isn't actually gay. He just pretends to be gay so he can leech your money. It's standard Eastern European fare.

Marti's rich, but not nearly that rich.

I'd pretend to be gay if the price was right. And then I'd sell the video.

:hmm:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2012, 09:59:02 AM
Four pages in, and nobody realizes it's just another Marti "I hate breeders, please validate my hatred" thread.  Suckers.

Oh, we knew. Best part is, IT IS NEVER GOING TO CHANGE. We rule!

Quote from: Martinus on May 03, 2012, 08:39:48 AMThe last part is kinda key, isn't it? Hence I was curious about your perspective - have you ever been required to stay late/work over weekend because the extra work went to you as your colleagues could not take it due to personal life commitments, such as children?

Yes, plenty of times.

I've covered my colleagues' backs before. Conversely, they've covered my back as well.

I generally prefer working in a place where my colleagues and I act as if we're on the same team, rather than as competitors.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2012, 09:59:02 AM
Four pages in, and nobody realizes it's just another Marti "I hate breeders, please validate my hatred" thread.  Suckers.

Oh we know. It's obvious.

Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2012, 11:27:51 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2012, 11:13:19 AM
And yes you are a real ass for breaking tbr confidentiality. You need to fix that.  Unless you want to end up like Marti in even more ways.

:huh:

I didn't realize Ide joking that I'd call him entitled was violating TBR sanctity...

yeah, its prolly fine

Quote from: Ideologue on May 03, 2012, 11:07:55 AMIs that the rule?  Oh, this changes everything. :D

Anyway, my roommate says I'm being spoiled by the flexibility of the hours on this project.  He goes in at eight thirty because "that's when people are supposed to go into work."  Besides seeming a very archaic attitude more applicable to an agricultural society, he leaves at five when I leave at midnight, so there's some evidence that he's lazy one.

The smart choice is to go in whenever your managers and other senior people whose views are valued are there. So if they're in late and stay late, you're the smart one. If they're in early and leave early, then your roomie's the smart one. If the managers are there the whole time then it doesn't matter, and if they're barely there just be there early enough that you're in before them and out after.

Quote from: Ideologue on May 03, 2012, 11:07:55 AMIs that the rule?  Oh, this changes everything. :D

That's not the rule.

Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2012, 11:27:51 AM:huh:

I didn't realize Ide joking that I'd call him entitled was violating TBR sanctity...

Yeah, I don't think calling Ide entitled is something that's particularly limited to TBR.

Not that I personally would call him that.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 03, 2012, 09:31:30 AM
For some reason this thread has reminded me of H. H. Asquith, Liberal Prime Minister of the UK 1908-1916, back in the days when Britain counted for something in the world, yet he appeared to have masses of free time to get up to all sorts of activities. This book review from The Spectator illustrates the point well :

http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/7763798/life-and-letters-a-pms-summer-reading.thtml

Cameron should take a leaf out of his book, pro rata to Britain's diminished importance I would imagine 3 or 4 hours a week would be the appropriate workload.

When faced with a difficult decision MacMillan used to take the afternoon off to read an Austen novel and consider.

I saw a blog post recently which I think has something to it.  The pressures of office are increasing but at the same time we're always choosing younger leaders often with young children.  Perhaps we should go grey again.  I'd vote for Alastair Darling.

QuoteIt is a mystery how exactly it works.  I reading a story speculating about how Roosevelt and the Pentagon could wage a war with an military about 12 times the size of our current one on opposite ends of the earth with a tiny percentage of their current staffs.

Less information, far smaller media pressure.

Quote from: DGuller on May 03, 2012, 10:06:13 AM

Quote from: Syt on May 03, 2012, 10:04:45 AM
Marty should adopt a child so he, too, can reap the benefits of parenthood.

Marty is too vain for that, he'd probably buy one from the breeders.

Pretty soon he will be able to pay some unethical Korean scientist to clone himself. And fix all of his defects, of course.

Quote from: Fate on May 03, 2012, 12:52:34 PMI'm pretty soon he will be able to pay some unethical Korean scientist to clone himself. And fix all of his defects, of course.

That assumes that Marty's personality is derived from genetic problems.

Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2012, 12:05:42 PMYes, plenty of times.

I've covered my colleagues' backs before. Conversely, they've covered my back as well.

I generally prefer working in a place where my colleagues and I act as if we're on the same team, rather than as competitors.

:yes:

Quote from: Ideologue on May 03, 2012, 11:07:55 AM
Is that the rule?  Oh, this changes everything. :D

Anyway, my roommate says I'm being spoiled by the flexibility of the hours on this project.  He goes in at eight thirty because "that's when people are supposed to go into work."  Besides seeming a very archaic attitude more applicable to an agricultural society, he leaves at five when I leave at midnight, so there's some evidence that he's lazy one.

I don't know the work you are doing or who you are working for, but I think your roommate is right. A big part of work is being available for one off questions and for lack of a better word networking. You may spend 99% of your time working solo on a deliverable, and do a good job, but if someone has a simple question at 9 in the morning, they are going to be annoyed if they can't get it answered until after lunch. Also, even if your bosses are there until midnight, the other people around the office aren't. If one day you are applying at an office where a current admin has moved, and she mentions that you were a nice guy that showed up at noon but worked late, I would like your chances.

Seems reasonable to me that people who deliver more get paid more and get promotions etc. People who think that having kids isn't worth a minor loss of career success have a twisted value system.

Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2012, 11:39:02 AM
On this bit - just feminism. :P

I gladly whore myself out for love :wub:

Quote from: The Larch on May 03, 2012, 09:21:54 AM


And newsflash, there's a world besides big shot law firms, not that you know anything at all about it.

I work in an environnemnt at least as competitive as big law in Poland, management Consulting in a London based company, and I Can fit two boys, judo training for both, chronic disease, and workloads without even considering a nanny. I guess it comes Down to Maturity of nation, employéers and employers.

In fact, the only help we have are inkompetent cleaners from Poland :D

V

Quote from: Ed Anger on May 03, 2012, 11:53:08 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2012, 09:59:02 AM
Four pages in, and nobody realizes it's just another Marti "I hate breeders, please validate my hatred" thread.  Suckers.

Oh, we knew. Best part is, IT IS NEVER GOING TO CHANGE. We rule!

Ofc  :D because if we stopped there would be no new martis in a generation

V

Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2012, 12:36:16 PM
Not that I personally would call him that.

Nor I. :D

Quote from: Zanza on May 03, 2012, 04:40:53 AM
For all office jobs, companies should generally allow more working from home and at flexible times.

That's obviously not possible when you work at an assembly line or in retail, where companies can show less flexibility regarding work time.

That's not entirely correct, though, because at lower levels, employees are more, well, "interchangable" than is true as you go up the corporate ladder.  For example, when I was in management at a retail store, we might have had 16 cashiers on the payroll, and needed 10 of them to work on a given Monday.  If 2 of them had appointments to go to a parent-teacher meeting at their kids' shools on that day, it didn't matter to us--we could just give those 2 the day off and also give 4 of the remaining 14 the day off as well.

Between 1 and 2.
Give a lot of leeway for people with kids, sick parents, etc... but you do have to draw the line somewhere.

I voted #1, mainly just to drop a big moist soft-serve shit right on Marti's face.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 03, 2012, 12:52:12 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 03, 2012, 09:31:30 AM
For some reason this thread has reminded me of H. H. Asquith, Liberal Prime Minister of the UK 1908-1916, back in the days when Britain counted for something in the world, yet he appeared to have masses of free time to get up to all sorts of activities. This book review from The Spectator illustrates the point well :

http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/7763798/life-and-letters-a-pms-summer-reading.thtml

Cameron should take a leaf out of his book, pro rata to Britain's diminished importance I would imagine 3 or 4 hours a week would be the appropriate workload.

When faced with a difficult decision MacMillan used to take the afternoon off to read an Austen novel and consider.

I saw a blog post recently which I think has something to it.  The pressures of office are increasing but at the same time we're always choosing younger leaders often with young children.  Perhaps we should go grey again.  I'd vote for Alastair Darling.

QuoteIt is a mystery how exactly it works.  I reading a story speculating about how Roosevelt and the Pentagon could wage a war with an military about 12 times the size of our current one on opposite ends of the earth with a tiny percentage of their current staffs.

Less information, far smaller media pressure.

Yes, I remember the furore when Darling was the first UK politician to recognise the scale of the problem and what might be required to sort the problem out. I would have quite liked this period of austerity to have been led by Darling and Labour; if you look at the track record, rather than rhetoric, nobody can cut like the Labour party. Partly, of course, because people know they love to spend so believe them when they preach economies; whereas the Tories only preach economies because they are all rich bastards  :D

I would also prefer older people, with a variety of experiences and backgrounds, to be on the frontbenches of the Commons. Britain has been in economic crisis since 1873 after all, some of the silly young people in charge don't seem to realise that as they are swayed too much by minor fluctuations  :P

Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2012, 12:33:52 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on May 03, 2012, 11:07:55 AMIs that the rule?  Oh, this changes everything. :D

Anyway, my roommate says I'm being spoiled by the flexibility of the hours on this project.  He goes in at eight thirty because "that's when people are supposed to go into work."  Besides seeming a very archaic attitude more applicable to an agricultural society, he leaves at five when I leave at midnight, so there's some evidence that he's lazy one.

The smart choice is to go in whenever your managers and other senior people whose views are valued are there. So if they're in late and stay late, you're the smart one. If they're in early and leave early, then your roomie's the smart one. If the managers are there the whole time then it doesn't matter, and if they're barely there just be there early enough that you're in before them and out after.

My immediate boss loves me, as far as I can tell.  He did once make me come in at 8 just to see if I could (I did), but since then he's been pretty cool with it. :lol:

They care more about the amount and quality of work you do, not what time of day you do it, since it's completely interchangeable short of missing a production deadline (there is no client contact, obviously, and the law firm has someone there pretty much eight to midnight since things got stepped up; salient points from meetings can be summarized by someone who was actually there or by memo; if they need me for a special project because I'm great, they leave a post-it on my keyboard; and so forth).

That said, they could demand more rigid hours--hell, they could probably cut our pay by 40% and most people would still show up; I mean, I'd have to--so it's not that I don't appreciate it.  It's actually a way cool working environment, especially for what it is, and a little surprising given the doc review horror stories I've heard (locking people in, no air conditioning, impounding phones, paralegals being total assholes, etc., factors which are almost entirely absent here).

P.S.: is it wrong to hide the Diet Cokes behind less popular sodas in the fridge?  Or just smart?

Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2012, 02:53:20 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2012, 12:36:16 PM
Not that I personally would call him that.

Nor I. :D

:hug:

Quote from: Zanza on May 03, 2012, 11:39:33 AM
Of course. But then a good manager would assign adequate resources to the task at hand. If that's not the case, it's bad management and frankly shouldn't be the problem of the employee as he has no way to assign adequate resources.
Of course, companies being flexible means they can expect employees being flexible too. So if the deadline really, really has to be on a public holiday, it's fair to expect the employees to show up and do their work, no matter their private situation. Year-end closing in accounting is one such case. I am in IT and obviously you have to do system upgrades on weekends and sometimes in the week between Christmas and New Years' Eve and no one can seriously complain about that.

Oh, no doubt about certain lines of work (accounting etc.) that have fixed deadlines.

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.

Quote from: Ideologue on May 04, 2012, 02:21:18 AM
P.S.: is it wrong to hide the Diet Cokes behind less popular sodas in the fridge?  Or just smart?

Diet Coke? :x

Stop it guys, otherwise someone will post the map !!!!

Quote from: Syt on May 04, 2012, 02:25:41 AM

Quote from: Zanza on May 03, 2012, 11:39:33 AM
Of course. But then a good manager would assign adequate resources to the task at hand. If that's not the case, it's bad management and frankly shouldn't be the problem of the employee as he has no way to assign adequate resources.
Of course, companies being flexible means they can expect employees being flexible too. So if the deadline really, really has to be on a public holiday, it's fair to expect the employees to show up and do their work, no matter their private situation. Year-end closing in accounting is one such case. I am in IT and obviously you have to do system upgrades on weekends and sometimes in the week between Christmas and New Years' Eve and no one can seriously complain about that.

Oh, no doubt about certain lines of work (accounting etc.) that have fixed deadlines.

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.

This. Plus in service work you can't really predict work fluctuations and you can't hire enough people to be fully manned for times of work overload - because then you would have too many people most of the time when there just isn't enough work.

For example, in our department, we had hardly any work in March and suddenly more projects than we could possible service (including weekends and holidays) in April/May - and in this line of business you can't just tell the clients to wait or come back later since most projects' schedules are decided by external factors (e.g. process letters in M&A transactions). Not to mention, the way it usually works, you accept an instruction to represent the clients in, say, 10 private equity M&A deals... then on average one third of this gets delayed, one third gets cancelled and one third goes ahead as planned. So you have to plan around this statisics... and obviously if suddenly you get all of them go ahead as planned, you are screwed, and no "prudent manager planning" could save you.

When I read some of the comments here, a lot of people seem to work in really cozy/sheltered work environments. I have friends like this too. Of course they get paid 25 times less than I do.

Which is why I get pissed off at people who get paid the same as I do and insist of having cozy/flexible working hours and accomodating bosses.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 04, 2012, 02:39:51 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on May 04, 2012, 02:21:18 AM
P.S.: is it wrong to hide the Diet Cokes behind less popular sodas in the fridge?  Or just smart?

Diet Coke? :x

It's good and good for you.

We run out a lot though so lately I've just been bringing my own in, to supplement the meager few cans I can squirrel away. :(

Quote from: Ideologue on May 04, 2012, 02:21:18 AM

Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2012, 12:33:52 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on May 03, 2012, 11:07:55 AMIs that the rule?  Oh, this changes everything. :D

Anyway, my roommate says I'm being spoiled by the flexibility of the hours on this project.  He goes in at eight thirty because "that's when people are supposed to go into work."  Besides seeming a very archaic attitude more applicable to an agricultural society, he leaves at five when I leave at midnight, so there's some evidence that he's lazy one.

The smart choice is to go in whenever your managers and other senior people whose views are valued are there. So if they're in late and stay late, you're the smart one. If they're in early and leave early, then your roomie's the smart one. If the managers are there the whole time then it doesn't matter, and if they're barely there just be there early enough that you're in before them and out after.

My immediate boss loves me, as far as I can tell.  He did once make me come in at 8 just to see if I could (I did), but since then he's been pretty cool with it. :lol:

They care more about the amount and quality of work you do, not what time of day you do it, since it's completely interchangeable short of missing a production deadline (there is no client contact, obviously, and the law firm has someone there pretty much eight to midnight since things got stepped up; salient points from meetings can be summarized by someone who was actually there or by memo; if they need me for a special project because I'm great, they leave a post-it on my keyboard; and so forth).

That said, they could demand more rigid hours--hell, they could probably cut our pay by 40% and most people would still show up; I mean, I'd have to--so it's not that I don't appreciate it.  It's actually a way cool working environment, especially for what it is, and a little surprising given the doc review horror stories I've heard (locking people in, no air conditioning, impounding phones, paralegals being total assholes, etc., factors which are almost entirely absent here).

P.S.: is it wrong to hide the Diet Cokes behind less popular sodas in the fridge?  Or just smart?

Focusing on having your immediate boss love you is a mistake. You need his boss to love you - and if you don't think your immediate boss is a great guy, you will have an easier time pushing him down the staircase when the right moment comes to take his spot.  :lol:

Quote from: Valdemar on May 03, 2012, 04:51:10 AM
As to the chance of your wish being granted, I may most likely live to very old age thank you, the disease is non lethal.

Seriously? We had to put up with so much whining about it and it's not even lethal? Jesus.

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 03:01:15 AM
Focusing on having your immediate boss love you is a mistake. You need his boss to love you - and if you don't think your immediate boss is a great guy, you will have an easier time pushing him down the staircase when the right moment comes to take his spot.  :lol:

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

Fuck your immediate boss.  May be the guy that impacts you on a daily basis the most, but he's also the first body you're going to need to walk over.  He's also going to be the first guy that drowns you.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2012, 07:02:11 AM
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.

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 07:54:32 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2012, 07:02:11 AM
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.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2012, 07:59:54 AM

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 07:54:32 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2012, 07:02:11 AM
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.

Quote from: Gups on May 04, 2012, 09:15:43 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2012, 07:59:54 AM

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 07:54:32 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2012, 07:02:11 AM
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.

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 07:54:32 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2012, 07:02:11 AM
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...

lol bona

Quote from: Syt on May 04, 2012, 02:25:41 AMHowever, 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.

Quote from: Zanza on May 04, 2012, 10:02:36 AMSo 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.

Quote from: Zanza on May 04, 2012, 10:02:36 AM
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.

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 10:12:55 AM

Quote from: Zanza on May 04, 2012, 10:02:36 AM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 10:18:53 AM

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 10:12:55 AM

Quote from: Zanza on May 04, 2012, 10:02:36 AM
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.

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.

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

Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 10:24:17 AM
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.  :lol:

Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 10:24:17 AM
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.  :lmfao:

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

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.

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 10:28:24 AM

Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 10:24:17 AM
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.  :lmfao:

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.

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.

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 10:28:24 AM
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.

@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.

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 10:12:55 AM

Quote from: Zanza on May 04, 2012, 10:02:36 AM
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).

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2012, 10:31:53 AM
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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2012, 10:31:53 AM
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.

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 10:42:20 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2012, 10:46:04 AM
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).

I picked option 1 for Marti's sake.

Quote from: Zanza on May 04, 2012, 10:33:39 AM
@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? :huh:

Quote from: Zanza on May 04, 2012, 10:33:39 AM
@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.

Quote from: garbon on May 04, 2012, 10:55:23 AM
Is it suddenly an unnatural desire for a homosexual to want children? :huh:

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

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2012, 10:46:04 AM

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 10:42:20 AM
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"?  :hmm:

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.

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 11:00:52 AM
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"?  :hmm:

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.

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 11:00:52 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2012, 10:46:04 AM

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 10:42:20 AM
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"?  :hmm:

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. :P

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 10:57:06 AM
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

Well generally employers have policies that indicate precisely what accomodations they have to/will make do they not?  Are we presuming people are going over those limits and not doing things according to policy or just using them?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2012, 11:05:00 AM

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 11:00:52 AM
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"?  :hmm:

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.

My point is that parenting invariably creates emergencies that parents cannot ignore. You say parents can ignore them and that "thousands, if not millions" will do so.

Dunno what you are basing that on. 

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 10:57:06 AMIf you are an evangelical Christian and are opposed to contraception and abortion,

You're confusing evangelicals with catholics. Nothing wrong with contraception for most evangelicals.

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 11:05:43 AM
A partner in my law firm was in the negotiations room while his wife was delivering the baby. :P

It would impress me more if the partner was female and doing negotiations by teleconference while delivering her own.  :P

In my experience the people that act like Marti or the partner Marti described are the ones who need to show they are martyrs to the cause because they dont really have anything else to offer but their hours.

For the rest of us, the world is a bit different.

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 11:13:07 AM
It would impress me more if the partner was female and doing negotiations by teleconference while delivering her own.  :P

Heh I had a director when I worked at Dell who all but did that.  I remember she had her husband pick her up at work when she started labor and was on the phone with my manager on the way to the hospital.  Her husband finally wrestled the phone away from her when they got there.

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 11:11:19 AM
My point is that parenting invariably creates emergencies that parents cannot ignore. You say parents can ignore them and that "thousands, if not millions" will do so.

Dunno what you are basing that on.

A wild guess at the numbers employed in Big Law and high pressure Wall Street.

I don't know what you're basing your claim that parenting invariably creates emergencies that parents cannot ignore on.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2012, 11:18:45 AM

I don't know what you're basing your claim that parenting invariably creates emergencies that parents cannot ignore on.

They are called kids.

Quote from: Valmy on May 04, 2012, 11:07:39 AM

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 10:57:06 AM
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

Well generally employers have policies that indicate precisely what accomodations they have to/will make do they not?  Are we presuming people are going over those limits and not doing things according to policy or just using them?

This goes to my point. Why will lawfirms do stuff like offer to top-up salaries during maternity leave, or offer other forms of accomodation (as mine does)?

The answer is that they wish to attract the best candidates, and they know that the best insist on accomodation.

Those employers who offer money in lieu of accomodation, as Yi suggests, are bound to find it a losing strategy. Why? For the simple reason that people's lifestyles change.

Say firm A offers a higher salary and firm B offers accomodation. A single guy joins firm A for the money. After a few years, he gets married and has a kid - hardly an unknown or unusual event. He now leaves firm A and joins firm B - who, in this scenario, reaps all the benefit (and firm A loses all the benefit) of that employee's years of work-related experience.

Of course the other side to that is that firm A is going to be more attractive to single people just out of university. But overall, the downsides of such a policy are likely not going to be worth it in a purely self-interested analysis.

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 11:05:43 AM

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

That's just plain fucked up.

I've been very clear with my employers - they better put me in less critical assignmend the couple of weeks leading up to the due date, because when I get "that call" I am leaving no matter what.

That being said short of the birth of a child or a very limited set of tragedies, nobody is saying my employer needs to "bend over backwards".  Instead it's about "reasonable accomodations".  For me it comes down to court vs office days.  If I am in court I can not leave.  Simply impossible, and my wife hopefully can deal with the situation.  If I'm in the office though being able to work from home, or work later on another day, are reasonable accomodations to make.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2012, 11:18:45 AM
I don't know what you're basing your claim that parenting invariably creates emergencies that parents cannot ignore on.

Being a parent myself. And the experience of every single other parent I've ever known or met, without exception.

Just ask here. Any parents reading this *not* experienced any emergencies requiring their attention, while raising their kids?

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 11:25:20 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2012, 11:18:45 AM
I don't know what you're basing your claim that parenting invariably creates emergencies that parents cannot ignore on.

Being a parent myself. And the experience of every single other parent I've ever known or met, without exception.

Just ask here. Any parents reading this *not* experienced any emergencies requiring their attention, while raising their kids?

Nope.  I suppose if you have a full-time stay-at-home partner it is minimized, but I'm pretty sure you can attest to the fact that things still come up that demand your attention.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2012, 07:59:54 AMNo, actually you don't.  You're a pissy little bitch, with pissy little bitch points.

Good point.

Quote from: Valmy on May 04, 2012, 10:50:18 AMBut 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).

He wishes it was the standard, because it would give him the edge over someone in the company who has children and whom Marty is apparently unable to get ahead of. Instead he bitches about it.

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 11:25:20 AM
Being a parent myself. And the experience of every single other parent I've ever known or met, without exception.

Just ask here. Any parents reading this *not* experienced any emergencies requiring their attention, while raising their kids?

OK, you've tricked me into arguing an absolute, just like a tricky Jew lawyer would.  Though I would like to point out in passing that there's no law of physics that says such and such family emergency requires immediate attention or that a parent cannot stay at work.  Those are choices.

I'm not arguing that there is no such thing as a family emergency that should be accomodated.  Marty might, but he hasn't so far in this thread.  What I'm arguing, and what I thought Marty was too, is that a working father or mother's absence from the work place can and does impose burdens on their coworkers, and that this burden is disproportionately borne by coworkers without children of their own, since they are always making deposits but never making  withdrawals.

Then there's also the issue of the nature of the business, which is of course related to the issue about burden sharing.  Should a firm expect a parent to take off to tend to Jake's ear infection if it means a missed deadline or a lost sale?  I think it's perfectly reasonable for an employer to say we expect parents to work through that at crunch time.

Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 10:46:33 AM
I have to point out this isn't a gay / straight issue either.

Indeed.  I'd add that I think the viability of 'hiring a nanny' depends on where you are.  I imagine the cost of hiring a nanny in London would exclude even the vast majority of successful very well-paid lawyers.  Obviously it's best to have good childcare (and lots of companies here help pay for it) but a live-in, 24 hour trained and accredited nanny is something that's way beyond most families.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2012, 11:18:45 AMA wild guess at the numbers employed in Big Law and high pressure Wall Street.

I don't know what you're basing your claim that parenting invariably creates emergencies that parents cannot ignore on.

You figure most people would ignore the funeral of a parent?

Not a kid, I know, but still something that falls under "accomodation".

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2012, 11:45:20 AMThen there's also the issue of the nature of the business, which is of course related to the issue about burden sharing.  Should a firm expect a parent to take off to tend to Jake's ear infection if it means a missed deadline or a lost sale?  I think it's perfectly reasonable for an employer to say we expect parents to work through that at crunch time.

I actually did have a couple of ear infections as a kid. They kind of sucked.

My position, but as an employee and as a manager - and as a key stakeholder should any of my start up shenanigans work out - is that family emergencies are to be accommodated. The simple fact is that you're able to get more from your people if they know you have their back. A company is better off if it has happy employees and without pissy whiners like Marty.

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 10:28:24 AM

Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 10:24:17 AM
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.  :lmfao:

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

What about jury duty (or pogrom duty, in your case)?  Should the employee picked for jury duty get passed over for promotion, because he wasn't smart enough to get off during voir dire?  From the employer's point of view, it makes sense to punish employees who get on jury duty, but that would be a terrible thing for the legal system and our society in general.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2012, 11:45:20 AM
OK, you've tricked me into arguing an absolute, just like a tricky Jew lawyer would.  Though I would like to point out in passing that there's no law of physics that says such and such family emergency requires immediate attention or that a parent cannot stay at work.  Those are choices.

I'm not arguing that there is no such thing as a family emergency that should be accomodated.  Marty might, but he hasn't so far in this thread.  What I'm arguing, and what I thought Marty was too, is that a working father or mother's absence from the work place can and does impose burdens on their coworkers, and that this burden is disproportionately borne by coworkers without children of their own, since they are always making deposits but never making  withdrawals.

So you are making a "fairness" argument. I was making an argument from the POV of the *employer* (who is only going to care about "fairness" vs. other employees if it impacts the bottom line somehow). From the employer's POV, what matter is - in offering "accomodation" to parents (thus retaining their services), is it likely to drive away the Martys who are pissed off at such "unfairness"? Which matters more to the employer - parents, or Marty (or Martys?)

Even assuming that we give not a shit about the employer and only care about "fairness" in some abstract sense, I doubt there is a real concern here. I question the notion that those without kids will "never make withdrawals".

First, even those who have no kids can have family emergencies. I bring up the situation of caring for aged parents because it is apropos to myself - my secretary had to take some time off because her aging parents were in a car accident and can no longer take care of themselves - she had to find a home for them and arrange their affairs. This was a big "withdrawal".

Second, as I pointed out above, people's situations can change. I myself lacked a kid until my late 30s. Up till them I'd been making no "withdrawals".

QuoteThen there's also the issue of the nature of the business, which is of course related to the issue about burden sharing.  Should a firm expect a parent to take off to tend to Jake's ear infection if it means a missed deadline or a lost sale?  I think it's perfectly reasonable for an employer to say we expect parents to work through that at crunch time.

There is always going to be a trade-off with accomodation. If I had a trial comming up, it had better be a real major emergency for me to cancel it. But if I was forced to choose between dealing with an honest to god major life emergency concerning my kid and my work, I'd choose the kid every time - albeit obvioulsly such events are going to be extremely rare. Honestly, I'd have little respect for an employee under me who chose differently, and if my employer demanded differently, I'd choose another employer.

I think the view of a career matters too.  The truth is that at the start of your career you'll be making lots of deposits - I have friends who are trainee solicitors who've had to work 26 hour days - at the end you're not really making many withdrawals either.  Unless someone has another kid every couple of years then for most people the period of 'withrdawals' is limited.

As BB says it's not a gay straight thing and as Malthus says it's not necessarily about kids either.  I'd say the real dichotomy is between humans and sociopaths.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 04, 2012, 11:52:13 AM

Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 10:46:33 AM
I have to point out this isn't a gay / straight issue either.

Indeed.  I'd add that I think the viability of 'hiring a nanny' depends on where you are.  I imagine the cost of hiring a nanny in London would exclude even the vast majority of successful very well-paid lawyers.  Obviously it's best to have good childcare (and lots of companies here help pay for it) but a live-in, 24 hour trained and accredited nanny is something that's way beyond most families.

:huh:

It's certainly an option here.  We may even do it once my wife goes back to work.  Typically the nanny is brought in from a foreign country.  You have to follow all applicable laws so they get paid a salary that is at least minimum wage, but as a live-in nanny you get to deduct reasonable food and board from their wages.  The "trained and accredited" part is pretty basic though - no criminal record and some very basic qualifications.  BUt then again we didn't get any particualr training before becoming parents either.

But the problem is a nanny is NOT available 24/7.  They get to work set hours.  They get holidays.  They can also become sick, or need to go to the doctors.  If we got a nanny (instead of a day home) I don't think things would be any easier or more difficult then they are now.

Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 12:52:18 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 04, 2012, 11:52:13 AM

Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 10:46:33 AM
I have to point out this isn't a gay / straight issue either.

Indeed.  I'd add that I think the viability of 'hiring a nanny' depends on where you are.  I imagine the cost of hiring a nanny in London would exclude even the vast majority of successful very well-paid lawyers.  Obviously it's best to have good childcare (and lots of companies here help pay for it) but a live-in, 24 hour trained and accredited nanny is something that's way beyond most families.

:huh:

It's certainly an option here.  We may even do it once my wife goes back to work.  Typically the nanny is brought in from a foreign country.  You have to follow all applicable laws so they get paid a salary that is at least minimum wage, but as a live-in nanny you get to deduct reasonable food and board from their wages.  The "trained and accredited" part is pretty basic though - no criminal record and some very basic qualifications.  BUt then again we didn't get any particualr training before becoming parents either.

But the problem is a nanny is NOT available 24/7.  They get to work set hours.  They get holidays.  They can also become sick, or need to go to the doctors.  If we got a nanny (instead of a day home) I don't think things would be any easier or more difficult then they are now.

We had a nanny - actually, a relation of my wife's from Ukraine. She lived in the room you guys slept in.

She was amazing. I wish very much we could have sponsored her to stay permanently.  :(

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 12:56:31 PM


She was amazing.

:perv:? :P

How complicated is the nanny sponsoring process? Where do you start?

Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2012, 01:03:43 PM
How complicated is the nanny sponsoring process? Where do you start?

Yes, I would like to know as well.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2012, 01:06:11 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2012, 01:03:43 PM
How complicated is the nanny sponsoring process? Where do you start?

Yes, I would like to know as well.

:lol:

Jake, I'm not quite certain.  I believe you generally go with an agency who sets most of it up.  My brother's fiance came over to Canada as a nanny, so I've asked her about it and that's where I get all of my information.  Now the advice she gave me was that it was a lot easier to get a nanny who was already in the country, but for whom the first family didn't work out for one reason or another.  It seems it saves you a lot of the immigration problems because it's already been done.

In your case you might have relatives of your wife who you want to bring over though, so I don't know.

And Malthus - because she was family she probably would have been "on call" all the time.  My sister-in-law mentioned though that she certainly took her days off (in particular once she started wanting to spend time with my brother).

Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2012, 11:39:33 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 04, 2012, 10:50:18 AMBut 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).

He wishes it was the standard, because it would give him the edge over someone in the company who has children and whom Marty is apparently unable to get ahead of. Instead he bitches about it.

Not really, no. The only people ahead of me are either childless, or the partner I mentioned, or my boss who has a son herself but says people like this should hire a nanny (actually, she did go from a negotiations room to a hospital when she was giving birth if I remember correctly). It's my lazy underlings that I am annoyed with.

Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 01:14:57 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2012, 01:06:11 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2012, 01:03:43 PM
How complicated is the nanny sponsoring process? Where do you start?

Yes, I would like to know as well.

:lol:

"Uh...where's the child?"
"Don't worry about it."

*points at litter box*

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2012, 01:06:11 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2012, 01:03:43 PM
How complicated is the nanny sponsoring process? Where do you start?

Yes, I would like to know as well.

:lmfao:

Quote from: DGuller on May 04, 2012, 12:09:51 PM

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 10:28:24 AM

Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 10:24:17 AM
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.  :lmfao:

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

What about jury duty (or pogrom duty, in your case)?  Should the employee picked for jury duty get passed over for promotion, because he wasn't smart enough to get off during voir dire?  From the employer's point of view, it makes sense to punish employees who get on jury duty, but that would be a terrible thing for the legal system and our society in general.

What part of "statistical significance" you don't get? Admiral Yi put it the best - you guys are arguing the absolutes. Sure, everyone has emergencies that are rare. However if "emergencies" happen regularly and consequently interfere with their ability to perform their job/meet deadlines on a regular basis, this is no longer acceptable. And stuff like a little kid's ear infections can happen on a weekly basis. If a parent insists on taking the time off/leaving work every time this happens, then it becomes a problem for everyone else.

Over here, Option 1 is the only one acceptable.

Option 2 will get the employer investigated by the State for possible abuse of power over employees. Indemnities and a fine will probably follow suit.

Option 3 will land the employer in jail.

As for me:

Quote from: Zanza on May 03, 2012, 04:35:25 AM
Option 1.5 - meaning that while companies should certainly accomodate for a chronic illness and should be flexible regarding taking care of children, that has to be within reasonable bounds. Obviously at some point, it affects career chances, e.g. working part time will harm your prospects, but shouldn't exclude promotion, but having to leave every Thursday at 4 pm to pick up your child from kindergarten shouldn't - companies should be able to cope with that.

Best way to go.

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 01:18:40 PM
What part of "statistical significance" you don't get?

The part where "statistical significance" is relevant.  Here is a primer:  statistical significance doesn't mean "a big number as opposed to a small number".  Statistical significance means that given the data, you are confident that the number is not zero.  You can be supremely confident in the estimate that breeders are 0.1% less productive than non-breeders, because you have enough data to estimate the impact so precisely.  However, I doubt that this impact is big enough to worry about for employers.

I thought we should help saving the bankrupt EU states, but having read the responses from the likes of TheLarch or Martim Silva I think we should let them sink. I'm so happy Poland is not a nanny state of lazy layabouts.

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 12:29:18 PM
So you are making a "fairness" argument. I was making an argument from the POV of the *employer* (who is only going to care about "fairness" vs. other employees if it impacts the bottom line somehow). From the employer's POV, what matter is - in offering "accomodation" to parents (thus retaining their services), is it likely to drive away the Martys who are pissed off at such "unfairness"? Which matters more to the employer - parents, or Marty (or Martys?)

In private equity M&A? I'm pretty sure you will find more many Martys than "concerned parents".

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 12:29:18 PM
There is always going to be a trade-off with accomodation.

Agreed.  And I think it's perfectly acceptable for businesses to set higher or lower thresholds.

Quote from: HVC on May 04, 2012, 01:00:03 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 12:56:31 PM


She was amazing.

:perv:? :P

She was also 56 years old, weighed 220 pounds, and had a bit of a moustache.

Of course, for porto-canucks, that probably equals :perv:

:P

Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 01:14:57 PM
And Malthus - because she was family she probably would have been "on call" all the time.  My sister-in-law mentioned though that she certainly took her days off (in particular once she started wanting to spend time with my brother).

Nope - she was of course willing to be "on call" in emergencies, but she certainly took days off.

For one, she was quite religious and spent every Sunday church-going (the role of religion in effect allowing people to take a day off and socialize is underrated in the modern world).

For another, she had a plethora of relations in Canada to visit.

She was by no means a pushover - more a sort of force of nature, in spite being elderly and somewhat overweight. She did stuff her way, which was usually good because she was good at a lot of things; but her willingness to change or adapt was very limited. For example, she more or less refused to speak English except in very limited circumstances.

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 03:38:20 PM

Quote from: HVC on May 04, 2012, 01:00:03 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 12:56:31 PM


She was amazing.

:perv:? :P

She was also 56 years old, weighed 220 pounds, and had a bit of a moustache.

Of course, for porto-canucks, that probably equals :perv:

:P

now now... come to think of it, to some them it probably would :lol:

Quote from: HVC on May 04, 2012, 03:56:49 PM
now now... come to think of it, to some them it probably would :lol:

You are too damned good natured. Takes all the fun out of attempting to tease you.    :D

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 03:59:53 PM

Quote from: HVC on May 04, 2012, 03:56:49 PM
now now... come to think of it, to some them it probably would :lol:

You are too damned good natured. Takes all the fun out of attempting to tease you.    :D

Languish has beat the gruff out of me. I'm like a battered spouse haha

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 01:22:49 PM
I thought we should help saving the bankrupt EU states, but having read the responses from the likes of TheLarch or Martim Silva I think we should let them sink. I'm so happy Poland is not a nanny state of lazy layabouts.

So sayeth the Pole. When one of our companies took over the supermarket chain Biedronka in Poland and applied there the standard work shifts they demand in Portugal, all the Polish workers went crying to the authorities, whining that they were being 'expoited' and 'driven like slaves'.

Poles gotta show they can work under our employers before they can criticize our workers for being lazy.

Quote from: Martim Silva on May 04, 2012, 04:59:24 PM
So sayeth the Pole. When one of our companies took over the supermarket chain Biedronka in Poland and applied there the standard work shifts they demand in Portugal, all the Polish workers went crying to the authorities, whining that they were being 'expoited' and 'driven like slaves'.

Poles gotta show they can work under our employers before they can criticize our workers for being lazy.

:pinch:

That has to hurt.

But hey, Marty isn't some prole pole. He's a high-powered super-somebody. There are different rules in his circle of..whatever.

I suspect that by the end of this week (and by that I mean Sunday night) I will have worked around 75 hours. :)

Quote from: Caliga on May 04, 2012, 05:41:51 PM
I suspect that by the end of this week (and by that I mean Sunday night) I will have worked around 75 hours. :)

:yuk:

Quote from: Caliga on May 04, 2012, 05:41:51 PM
I suspect that by the end of this week (and by that I mean Sunday night) I will have worked around 75 hours. :)

Not really anything to be proud about, field hand.

Now, working 48 and then billing 75...now that's how a house boy does it.

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 11:25:20 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2012, 11:18:45 AM
I don't know what you're basing your claim that parenting invariably creates emergencies that parents cannot ignore on.

Being a parent myself. And the experience of every single other parent I've ever known or met, without exception.

Just ask here. Any parents reading this *not* experienced any emergencies requiring their attention, while raising their kids?

My mom quit working and became a stay-at-home mother after the birth of my little brother.  If we were sick or had some other issue, she dealt with it instead of calling my stepfather home from work.  I am almost positive that the only child-care related work absence he ever had was for the birth of my brother.

Now, no doubt he would have taken time off if we had ever had any truly life-threatening injuries or illnesses.  And I don't have a problem with accomodating workers who have kids (or elderly, unwell parents, or spouses/partners with cancer, etc.), but some people want to take a week off because their 15-year old has a cold.  Screw that--Junior can take a cough drop and blow his nose without help from his parents at that point.

I'm not really proud of it, but when you are juggling two acquisitions at once, it is what it is.  When it makes sense financially for the company to buy something, they're going to do it with no regard to timing, other projects, etc.

Quote from: Caliga on May 04, 2012, 09:35:12 PM
I'm not really proud of it, but when you are juggling two acquisitions at once, it is what it is.  When it makes sense financially for the company to buy something, they're going to do it with no regard to timing, other projects, etc.

Tell me about it.  Bastards.

 :sleep:

Quote from: dps on May 04, 2012, 09:34:17 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 11:25:20 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2012, 11:18:45 AM
I don't know what you're basing your claim that parenting invariably creates emergencies that parents cannot ignore on.

Being a parent myself. And the experience of every single other parent I've ever known or met, without exception.

Just ask here. Any parents reading this *not* experienced any emergencies requiring their attention, while raising their kids?

My mom quit working and became a stay-at-home mother after the birth of my little brother.  If we were sick or had some other issue, she dealt with it instead of calling my stepfather home from work.  I am almost positive that the only child-care related work absence he ever had was for the birth of my brother.

Now, no doubt he would have taken time off if we had ever had any truly life-threatening injuries or illnesses.  And I don't have a problem with accomodating workers who have kids (or elderly, unwell parents, or spouses/partners with cancer, etc.), but some people want to take a week off because their 15-year old has a cold.  Screw that--Junior can take a cough drop and blow his nose without help from his parents at that point.

Not sure of the point of this anecdote. I was asking about parents these days, right now, not in the days when by and large mommy was expected to take care of kids full-time.

Unless perhaps your solution to the "problem" of offering reasonable accomidation to parents is to have society somehow turn back the clock to an earlier generation, when women generally stayed home and took care of the kiddies.

That would be nice I suppose, provided salaries for one wage-earner sufficed for a whole family. But I do think changing our whole society so that it resembles the past is going to be a lot harder than simply offering reasonable accomodation, don't you?

As for staying home from work for 15 year old junior with the sniffles - what is requested (and usually given) is "reasonable" accomodation. I'd agree, yes, staying home with 15 year old junior isn't "reasonable". So would most people.

Quote from: Malthus on May 06, 2012, 03:09:45 PM
I'd agree, yes, staying home with 15 year old junior isn't "reasonable". So would most people.

The only people that would need to stay home with their sick 15 year old are the same people that have probably had to pick up said 15 year old from a police station once or twice.

Quote from: Malthus on May 06, 2012, 03:09:45 PM

Quote from: dps on May 04, 2012, 09:34:17 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2012, 11:25:20 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2012, 11:18:45 AM
I don't know what you're basing your claim that parenting invariably creates emergencies that parents cannot ignore on.

Being a parent myself. And the experience of every single other parent I've ever known or met, without exception.

Just ask here. Any parents reading this *not* experienced any emergencies requiring their attention, while raising their kids?

My mom quit working and became a stay-at-home mother after the birth of my little brother.  If we were sick or had some other issue, she dealt with it instead of calling my stepfather home from work.  I am almost positive that the only child-care related work absence he ever had was for the birth of my brother.

Now, no doubt he would have taken time off if we had ever had any truly life-threatening injuries or illnesses.  And I don't have a problem with accomodating workers who have kids (or elderly, unwell parents, or spouses/partners with cancer, etc.), but some people want to take a week off because their 15-year old has a cold.  Screw that--Junior can take a cough drop and blow his nose without help from his parents at that point.

Not sure of the point of this anecdote. I was asking about parents these days, right now, not in the days when by and large mommy was expected to take care of kids full-time.

Unless perhaps your solution to the "problem" of offering reasonable accomidation to parents is to have society somehow turn back the clock to an earlier generation, when women generally stayed home and took care of the kiddies.

Well, some people do still have that arrangement, though they are now a distinct minority.  Isn't MonkeyAnger's wife a stay-at-home mom?  At any rate, my point was, for any family in which one parent doesn't work, there's not any reason for the other parent to have to leave work for child-care related reasons, except for very serious illnesses or injuries.

QuoteThat would be nice I suppose, provided salaries for one wage-earner sufficed for a whole family. But I do think changing our whole society so that it resembles the past is going to be a lot harder than simply offering reasonable accomodation, don't you?

There are advantages to one parent not working, both for families and employers.  Obviously, going back to that model as the social norm isn't something that's likely, and individual employers can't really do anything to influence that, so yes, for them, offering reasonable accomodation is really all they can do--unless they just want to be hardasses about it.

QuoteAs for staying home from work for 15 year old junior with the sniffles - what is requested (and usually given) is "reasonable" accomodation. I'd agree, yes, staying home with 15 year old junior isn't "reasonable". So would most people.

Sure, but part of the problem with offering reasonable accomodation is that when a parent says that they need to miss work because of a sick child, often the employer isn't going to really if the kid is really sick enough to require a parent's care.  Sure, you can require a doctor's slip, but that's just an additional hassle for everyone involved, and it's not like if a parent takes a kid to the doctor, the doctor won't write the slip even if the kid isn't really all that sick.

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 03:12:23 AM

Quote from: Valdemar on May 03, 2012, 04:51:10 AM
As to the chance of your wish being granted, I may most likely live to very old age thank you, the disease is non lethal.

Seriously? We had to put up with so much whining about it and it's not even lethal? Jesus.

I think you may be confusing me with someone else? I haven't written about since I got it around 2006.

V

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2012, 11:45:20 AM
OK, you've tricked me into arguing an absolute, just like a tricky Jew lawyer would.  Though I would like to point out in passing that there's no law of physics that says such and such family emergency requires immediate attention or that a parent cannot stay at work.  Those are choices.

Actually there probably are laws here in socialist paradise that could do that :)

They usually trot out the various versions of "bad parenting", mal treatment and stuff like that if they think your are doing too many bad choices, like NOT attending your kid if its taken to the ER for stiches, NOT picking it up from school or day care often enough and things like that :)

V

Quote from: Martim Silva on May 04, 2012, 04:59:24 PM

Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 01:22:49 PM
I thought we should help saving the bankrupt EU states, but having read the responses from the likes of TheLarch or Martim Silva I think we should let them sink. I'm so happy Poland is not a nanny state of lazy layabouts.

So sayeth the Pole. When one of our companies took over the supermarket chain Biedronka in Poland and applied there the standard work shifts they demand in Portugal, all the Polish workers went crying to the authorities, whining that they were being 'expoited' and 'driven like slaves'.

Poles gotta show they can work under our employers before they can criticize our workers for being lazy.

Not to mention they export a good deal of their unemployemnt to all the nanny states as unskilled craftsmen and cleaners :D

Should they ever be sent home unemployment benefits would ruin Poland :D

V

Quote from: Valdemar on May 03, 2012, 02:42:38 PM

Quote from: The Larch on May 03, 2012, 09:21:54 AM


And newsflash, there's a world besides big shot law firms, not that you know anything at all about it.

I work in an environnemnt at least as competitive as big law in Poland, management Consulting in a London based company, and I Can fit two boys, judo training for both, chronic disease, and workloads without even considering a nanny. I guess it comes Down to Maturity of nation, employéers and employers.

In fact, the only help we have are inkompetent cleaners from Poland :D

V

It may come down to an other Poland-related thing: they being considered a second-class location within the organization.

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 04, 2012, 11:14:52 AM
In my experience the people that act like Marti or the partner Marti described are the ones who need to show they are martyrs to the cause because they dont really have anything else to offer but their hours.

For the rest of us, the world is a bit different.

oh snap!

but yeah.

Besides, I don't get Marty's point (well, I do, he is a victim and stricken with unowrthy underlings, I don't get the point he pretends to have).

His underlings arent working hard enough? What? They are not completing tasks on time? Fire them, hire others.
Or is it that they swim through the whole thing easier than he did and it hurts him? :P

Quote from: dps on May 06, 2012, 07:22:42 PM
Well, some people do still have that arrangement, though they are now a distinct minority.  Isn't MonkeyAnger's wife a stay-at-home mom?  At any rate, my point was, for any family in which one parent doesn't work, there's not any reason for the other parent to have to leave work for child-care related reasons, except for very serious illnesses or injuries.

Sure. But that hardly affects the argument, which is about those who *do* need accompdation.

QuoteThere are advantages to one parent not working, both for families and employers.  Obviously, going back to that model as the social norm isn't something that's likely, and individual employers can't really do anything to influence that, so yes, for them, offering reasonable accomodation is really all they can do--unless they just want to be hardasses about it.

And if they do, it isn't to their benefit, because it decreases the pool of employees.

QuoteSure, but part of the problem with offering reasonable accomodation is that when a parent says that they need to miss work because of a sick child, often the employer isn't going to really if the kid is really sick enough to require a parent's care.  Sure, you can require a doctor's slip, but that's just an additional hassle for everyone involved, and it's not like if a parent takes a kid to the doctor, the doctor won't write the slip even if the kid isn't really all that sick.

What differentiates this situation from an employee asking for time off because *they* are sick?

Same problems of verification and potential for abuse, isn't there? My family doc would write me whatever note I want - and why not, he doesn't owe my employer anything. Would the "solution" be to fire everyone who ever gets sick, or rather, demand that they show up to work no matter what?

You can see that taking such a "hard line" on that would hardly be in an employer's best interest - as the overlap between "good employees" and "employees who never get sick" may not be perfect, right?

Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2012, 09:00:58 AM
What differentiates this situation from an employee asking for time off because *they* are sick?

Are you really that dumb or deliberately obtuse? The answer is "frequency".

Quote from: Martinus on May 07, 2012, 09:23:10 AM

Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2012, 09:00:58 AM
What differentiates this situation from an employee asking for time off because *they* are sick?

Are you really that dumb or deliberately obtuse? The answer is "frequency".

And "frequency" impacts on verification how ... ?  :hmm:

Not to mention, while very young children may be more frequently sick on average than middle-aged persons, as I mentioned, things change. Older employees are going to be more frequently ill on average than non-infant children. So perhaps the old should be fired.  :lol:

Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2012, 09:30:43 AM
Older employees are going to be more frequently ill on average than non-infant children. So perhaps the old should be fired.  :lol:

Or perhaps just the hypochondriacs...

I don't think a business should suffer because of personal issues of employees. And this is coming from someone who's missed months of work due to chronic disease. I feel that it's society as a whole that should help out in these cases, just as we pool resources in so many other areas.

That being said, happy employees are better employees. It's stupid to burn out people by being inflexible and setting deadlines that will be missed unless there's chronic overtime. I've seen plenty of this.

The way this currently works for me is that my schedule is more flexible than that of my workmates. On top of helping with mild fatigue issues, this leaves me time to focus on myself -- especially being able to spend a couple hours at the gym -- as well as regularly visiting doctors, having tests and procedures done and so on.
On the other hand, I'm willing to spend long hours in the field when necessary, or man the fort when others are enjoying their holidays.

Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2012, 09:00:58 AMYou can see that taking such a "hard line" on that would hardly be in an employer's best interest - as the overlap between "good employees" and "employees who never get sick" may not be perfect, right?

It only overlaps in in the minds of those whose only strength is always showing up.

OK, now here's a case in point:  just chatting with a friend of mine, who is an associate dean.  She was all worried about today being packed with meetings and things to do, and she texts me this AM that she's staying home.

Why?  Because her 14 year old daughter is throwing up.  Throwing up.  Nothing more.  No fever, no bloody stool, no mucous discharge.  Just barfing.
Christ, when I was 14, the only way one of my parents stayed home with me was if I had a fever over 101.  And vomiting?  There better be blood in that vomit, young man--I have to be at work at 8am.
Helicopter Moms.  :rolleyes:

This is why I don't like to hire people with children.

"I can't come in to work today, my child is sick."
"Funny, I don't recall your child working for me."

I suspect that "my child is sick" is often a lie and just an excuse to play hookey.  I used to work with a woman at my previous company whose daughter was 'sick' at least once every two weeks, if not more.

I used to be 'sick' that much as a child. I was often faking it.  :menace:

I tried to fake it too, but my mom was too smart to fall for it.  Mom Radar or something told her when I was bullshitting. :blush:

Quote from: Caliga on May 07, 2012, 06:27:07 PM
I tried to fake it too, but my mom was too smart to fall for it.  Mom Radar or something told her when I was bullshitting. :blush:

Me too.  Especially with Mom being a registered nurse and all.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 09:19:13 PM

Quote from: Caliga on May 07, 2012, 06:27:07 PM
I tried to fake it too, but my mom was too smart to fall for it.  Mom Radar or something told her when I was bullshitting. :blush:

Me too.  Especially with Mom being a registered nurse and all.

Ouch.  :console:

Quote from: Caliga on May 07, 2012, 06:21:15 PM
I suspect that "my child is sick" is often a lie and just an excuse to play hookey. 

Well, in my friend's case, she's simply an overprotective hovermother.

Quote from: Caliga on May 07, 2012, 06:21:15 PM
I suspect that "my child is sick" is often a lie and just an excuse to play hookey.  I used to work with a woman at my previous company whose daughter was 'sick' at least once every two weeks, if not more.

You know there are days when I can't wait to get to work, because it means I don't have to deal with small children.  :blush: