You must log in or # to comment.
I think this shows up in various ways. Watching a salaried worker come in late, stay home cause kids are sick, take off early because kids have dental appt, etc versus watching the low paid hourly worker under them go without pay to take care of all the same things because they aren’t salaried, have no wfh ability, and are out of leave from using it so often sucks.
Thats not the argument though, its a ‘with kids’ versus ‘without kids’ comparison.
Youre right. It still seems relevant to me that even among the childed, there seem to be “levels” of whose kids are automatically privy to easier/better care. But yes…
I recall a coworker who drove truck getting hell for staying home with his wife when they had to put down their beloved dog. One guy scoffed and said it was ridiculous and he needed to man up and show up instead of using time off for a dog. I was floored. Seems like if youre high enough up, you can take a day off for anything and everyone just assumes it must be for a good enough reason…
ITT: people thinking that offering everybody the same flexibility means taking that flexibility from parents
smfh
It absolutely does. If you have 2 employees and 1 works from home due to kids. All of a sudden the other guy gets butt hurt cuz he wants to work from home now you have to accommodate the asshole that wants to work from home so he can sleep in.
Can you explain how allowing both employees to work remotely “means taking that flexibility from parents”? Also, why do you characterize people who want to work remotely as assholes? This reads like you have some kind of personal animosity you’re expressing here rather than a considered opinion based in something legitimate.
How do you know the worthless parents aren’t sleeping in? What’s this assumption that suddenly they’re responsible adults because they popped out a kid? That’s not guaranteed, I’ll tell you that.
I’d argue they’re less responsible if they’re popping kids out left and right without being prepared for it financially or thinking of the childrens’ well-being. But, as it is.
Funny. I was thinking about how I’d like a dog but I know it would strain my finances and I don’t have the space for it so I have employed this radical strategy called “not spending money I don’t have.”
If more humans put that thought in before making other humans willy nilly, we would be in a utopia.
We shouldn’t be bringing unwanted people into the world.
I have 6 figures available to spend on credit cards right now, but that money isn’t mine and I’d have to pay to borrow it which is COMPLETELY unsustainable as an ongoing cost to maintain a pet. 10 years ago, that would’ve been pretty dangerous. Now I’ve got much more self control and foresight to understand what will happen if I carry balances.
But that’s not taking anything from the one that has kids. They still get to work from home
Can you explain why the childless employee is an asshole in this scenario?
Because breeders feel entitled, and they resent anyone who has a better life than them because they didn’t reproduce
And everyone should have a stable home, healthcare, good paying job, etc.
I think people fail to understand what it means to work in America. Y’all Europeans really have no clue how bad we have it. If your job is accommodating you because you have kids and someone else complains, your company doesn’t accommodate both. They cancel your accommodation because of “fairness”. There is no ADA accommodation for kids.
The fact they agreed to it in the first place is a miracle. So yes people with no kids need to stfu. You already winning by keeping your money and more free time. Let parents have this one thing.
Why do I have to subsidize your weak pull-out game?
Because the continuation of society requires children.
People are destroying the planet and causing others to suffer. Having more than one kid is negligence.
And I’m not particularly impressed with “society” at the moment, so stop doing me “favors.”
But thank you for your “service” in “saving” civilization. 🫡
https://phys.org/news/2026-03-global-human-population-earth.html
If you don’t like living in society you’re welcome to leave, and the people destroying the planet are a cabal of wealthy overlords not the average working family.
I am? Okay where can I go that has no society? How do I get there? Am I allowed to be there?
We are massively overpopulated already.
Those who choose not to have kids are Making room already in all the pediatric and child services they will never use.
Those with kids benefit when those without kids get the same treatment.
We’re not overpopulated, we’re bad at resource dispersal because we’ve built our society to reward greed and individualism.
That’s no different line of reasoning if you said billionaires don’t have too much money they are just bad a resource dispersal because we’ve built our society to reward greed and individualism. Which I wholly reject as well.
You aren’t wrong that we need to fix a lot of things such as our management or resources and waste products, and that greed and individualism are things we need to curtail, but just from water and food production going into the climate change we already have experienced, the global population is much worse off than it would be if we worked to reduce the global population by at least 1/3rd. (Under about 6.5 billion a d 4.9 being maximally ideal iirc)
That’s just how the data wizards worked things out. That number is not a static number either. If magically we woke up tomorrow and all of the systemic problems were suddenly functioning in the best possible technical capability we have right now, the global population could support about 18-20 billion if they were spread out maximally.
But that’s just not the reality we live in. We have so much waste both in usable things like food waste, and garbage from end of the line material(mostly plastic
That’s the conclusion I’ve arrived at after looking into this topic multiple multiple times. (I started looking at it seriously when countries began pulling out of the Kyoto Accords) I could be mistaken about some of the information I hold to be true, and if I am I will need to readjust my perspective on this, but I’m not going to do that with you. I dont have the patience or grace to argue with people who want to ignore reality.
ITT: people pretending others “cheese” some unfair advantages by having kids when having kids is almost always a net negative in terms of time, money, career opportunities and so much more.
People who choose not to have kids do so for a reason, don’t pretend these factors don’t exist for parents. As a society we need a next generation, how would you ever retire otherwise? Because of this we should support parents, not envy them for whatever small benefits they get to slightly offset all the disadvantages and are often absolutely necessary to allow them to raise kids.
Easy. Companies themselves should not care about the employees families. They have no benefit from a person having children. Governments should very much care about people having children. All benefits - if any, should be decided on the goverment level. And companies will have to adhere to the law. Firms chase their own benefits. The goverment (should) work for the benefit (and future) of all citizens.
Tight command and control systems, like you’re advocating here, are hard to manage. Too many competing interests. Its the primary reason 20th Century style communism failed, and they had an honest to god good go at it. Moving away from such a tight system is a key reason why China has been so successful since Deng Xiaoping.
Labeling healthy social support systems as Communism, or reflective there of is a clearly propagandized concept.
Bullshit.
All benefits - if any, should be decided on a government level
Thats not the same suggestion as a healthy social support system.
An example of a healthy social support system could be where the government sets a baseline of standards that must be met, but businesses can go above that in a competitive reachbfor employees.
What was suggested by OP was far tighter, where the top line and base line were controlled by the government. Those systems are referred to as command and control systems, the most famous example of which is probably the USSR, maybe in that conglomeration the GDR might be the best example, for its good and horrifying aspects.
You and I are probably having different underlying assumptions about the connotations relating to communism though. Its not a spectre haunting europe for me, thats fascism.
I think its important to be able to comment on all systems of governance in a reflective and complex systems driven way. By understanding the drawbacks by comparison with other systems, even when those other systems failed, we can understand our own systems more clearly.
Most of europe has laws mandating a minimum number of vacation days, some have +3 / +5 extra if you have children. Almost every country (I lived in) has +5 days sick leave for people with kids (added to the base mandated for everyone) In germany you can deduct various child related expenses from your taxes (though you don’t have those expenses at all if you do not have children). The list goes on… In the end these are the benefits mandated by the governments. On top of that, some companies add extra benefits (and this is the part, that does not make sense to me and feels like the real discrimination that shouldn’t be there)
I have kids, worked full time as a parent for 25 years and no problem with this. Set the baseline flexibility and treatment good enough to accommodate parents. You don’t need to take it from childless people to give it to parents. Not a zero sum game here.
What I do have a problem with is hostility towards parents, and hostility towards non-parents. We are all in this together, and it’s not frivolous to raise the next generation, someone did that for you. Nor is it selfish to just live your own life - work should not demand our whole lives.
Now that my kids are grown, I still work at a flexible employer, and use that flexibility for doctors appointments, errands to places only open during working hours, and concerts & shows. Would I defer to someone with a child or aged parent with an emergency? Yes. Would I defer to someone with no kids whose partner was having an emergency? Yes.
Controversial take: Pit the workers against each other while the boss takes even more time off.
Oligarch spotted
As a parent, I am given the same exact treatment as I was at the same company before. I already was a flex worker in the sense of WFH or office is entirely up to me (except when I need to be somewhere, but the need is the key), if I take my child to a doctors appointment, I am using my sick time which is allocated to all employees equally. My insurance is arguably a “better deal” since the “family plan” cost doesn’t change when you add another dependent vs if it’s just you and your spouse.
I would ask what these people think when they get “extra flexibility” when they have an aging parent or sick spouse they are responsible or assisting the care of? Is that flexibility okay, simply because having a child is a choice, and having a parent is not? Then what about your spouse?
I agree with others in this thread that are suggesting these people don’t really care about flexibility, they just want to take it away from the parents that use it or need it.
Sure, as long as they take care of other human beings in need during their time not working as well.
I am not responsible for your offspring. If you can’t take care of your kids, don’t have them. Be an adult and take accountability of your own life.
So but I am responsible for other people to have more flexible free time just for fun? It’s not about others taking care of my kids or be accountable for my life. It’s just about taking parents needs into consideration, similarly to sick or handicapped people.
the issue is you are assuming they ask for free time just for fun and that taking care of your kids is not fun at all (you can be as miserable as you want or really enjoy parenting)
Taking care of your kids can be fun but it is work, which is not paid and not honoured (as this thread shows). Of course it’s the parents “fault” and responsibility but why is it so difficult to see it from a solution based angle: our world would be so much better if we as a society would take more care in raising our children. My child is your future employee, neighbour, colleague, political representative, nurse etc… The well being of every child should be in everyone’s interest.
We can’t do any of this with the way society and the economy is currently structured. We should be able to have stay at home parents… blame our current oligarchs for the fact that that is impossible for 99% of families, not your coworkers for refusing to sacrifice their lives for your decisions.
we clearly think the same in this issue, but I still don’t see how that would make you assume people without kids just as for free time for fun
oh and your child could be my future robber, rapist, drug dealer or whatever
No one is punishing you for having kids. We should support the future generations. That’s why we fund schools and social programs. What you’re missing to understand is that childless people shouldn’t be punished for not having kids. Why should I be forced to take care of your kids? I work in biotechnology not child care. Take care of your kids or pay someone that can. Every child should not be everyone’s interest. This is not a village. This is earth in 2026.
Do not handicapped people get punished because handicapped people have special parking lots close to the entrance? I wouldn’t call it punishment. It’s a conflict of interest where the interest of parents is given more weight. Similar to the decision that the tax money of everyone goes to funding schools.
When did we move the goal post to force you to take care of my kids? But you are okay to fund schools and social programs which more or less is exactly you taking care of my kids. But kids should not be in everyone’s interest? Sounds like a lot of cognitive dissonance to me.
This is earth in 2026 where everyone is even more dependent on on everyone else (not like in ancient villages but through work and transactions) and not you living alone in the woods.
You literally said childless people should take care of other humans who need it. Are you AI?
So but I am responsible for other people to have more flexible free time just for fun?
No, but you ARE responsible for your own decisions. That’s it. You don’t get extra perks just because you forgot to wear a condom 7 years ago.
It’s just about taking parents needs into consideration
If you aren’t capable of handling your job, why do you have it? Accommodations are like… the ability to go to doctors visits, and a chair to sit it. Accommodations aren’t “force Kevin to do my work because I didn’t plan ahead.”
Accommodations are “have the ones with kids have the early shifts and have them have the vacation during school holidays”
Because no childless person could possibly ever want those things.
Why would you want to take your vacation while kids are out of school? Anywhere you go will be overrun by kids…
Of course they want those things as well, otherwise there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place.
Everyone should have the freedom to take care of their lives when they need to.
This includes being paid a salary that doesn’t keep you on the edge of poverty and ruin.
This should be the lowest bar legally. The fact that minimum wage isn’t tied to inflation was inconvenient decades ago, now it is actively harming everyone in the US.
There are more labor protections that we need (see: EU countries with functioning democracies) but pay and leave minimums are the most impactful to the most people’s quality of life.
I hate to be the person thats is all like “as a parent…”, however - to me having to leave early, come in late or take a day off to deal with kids being sick, appointments or just daycare/school drop off/pickup is worse.
The premise of this feels like “smokers get a break so why shouldnt we?”. But realistically my work is still there, i am stressed about the thing i havent done that should/needed to be done that day, the amount of work i now have to catch up on and the extra stress of trying to get the ‘non-work’ things done as quickly as possible so i can be back at work to get through my workload.
And ontop of that, you likely had to cut your work time short because your kid is sick or hurt and you are also stressed about that, its not like you jump in your car and start whistling to the radio heading home early.So yes, i think a non-parent should have just as much flexibility as a parent, but thats a conversation to have with your boss and not some guilt you try saddle on parents when they cant be at their workplace for their full X-hours per day. I would never make a coworker feel guilty because they left half an hour early a couple days per week to go like practice for their sport or hobby or something, so afford the same respect for someone who has ‘child commitments’ instead of your ‘leisure commitments’ because they arent the ones saying you cant take time off too.
Your choice of wording is telling. You compare child commitments to leisure commitments, as though people without children only have leisure to think of. While the comparison is children and no children, making one side obvious and the other side highly variable, but, for example, many people care for other family members and extended networks who are not biological children. It is definitely not leisurely to care for a parent with dementia.
The problem isn’t that parents should get special understanding and special treatment, the problem is that capitalist society (distilled into the work scenario) values productivity over humanity. Automation, and now AI, were supposed to let us work less and still sustain the same output, but instead, we’re demanded to produce more and more, and we’re pushed to work even more than before.
Its the classic strategy of making the poor blame and fight each other instead of fighting the ruling class together.
No, capitalist society does not care about productivity.
It’s proven time and time again giving flexibility, working from home, a good life/work balance , etc. to workers improves their productivity. A happy worker is a good worker.
What they care about are control and numbers. They want to measure, compare and see numbers go up short term. And you can only do that by keeping your workers on a tight leash.
Yep. And that mean that everyone shall have the time and confort to rise a child. And then choose to do it or not. Fuck the bosses
I think it would be ideal if everyone could be afforded the flexibility they need in their own lives for whatever they might wish to do, but I don’t think this take is a very good one.
The reason parents are often given these benefits is because there is an understanding that there is a literal human being’s life on the line, and that this person cares incredibly strongly about that child.
I might care a lot about an event I want to go to, but when it comes down to it, any boss would probably pick making sure a parent can pick their kid up from school over me being able to go a concert or something.
If everyone had a kid tomorrow, you’d probably see a lot of these benefits not be offered as freely, considering how businesses would simply just be understaffed to handle that much demand for flexibility, skipping certain hours, schedule changes, etc.
All that said though, there is still room for benefits and additional flexibility to be afforded to workers… if corporations are willing to spend extra money on more staff, better accommodations like not requiring in-office work when the work only requires being on a computer all day, stuff like that.
Good take. I have just three things to add:
- parents have all the needs of a childless person and their child’s needs
- childless people have this magical way of turning into parents
- even childless people benefit from parental benefits - when they are children
I think we all should get more guaranteed time off to just enjoy our one finite life.
I think if someone needs to come in late/leave early/go home unexpectedly we shouldn’t have to justify it because we are adults (so long as we get our assigned tasks done WHO CARES). If we can’t meet work goals I think we should (as again - fucking adults) have a conversation with our team/manager to handle it.
I think if we are sick we should be given time and space to recover. It’s not our employer’s business how, what, or why (that includes not requiring an employee to see a doctor or get a FUCKING DOCTORS NOTE). When it comes to sick time I don’t care if someone is taking care of themselves, their sick child, their elderly parents, or their chihuahua with a broken leg, they shouldn’t have to explain it, they shouldn’t have to justify it, and it should be given identical time and grace.
I don’t think that unmarried or childfree people should have to cover all the holidays because ThEY dON’t HaVE fAMilY. That’s cruel and untrue and heteronomative. And if you have ever said this to someone, stood by while someone else said this, or benefited from someone using this logic to make the same person/people work EVERY holiday please know I think you are a trash person.
I think management/the owners/corporate will give us all as little time as they can get away with and LOVES it when we segment ourselves into in- and out-groups that fight over off-time like it’s a resource the workers control. We don’t. Don’t let them convince you we aren’t all in this together and that we don’t ALL deserve more free time.
