How well off are we compared to the 60's and 70's?
The couple, E's parents, looked like they were doing well for the times, but I feel that we are much better off (as a whole) nowadays! Those pictures reminded me a lot of my growing up pics. We had 1 TV and 1 car and some orange furniture, that we got used from my rich aunt. Everybody has so much stuff these days... Nowadays, if the baby doesn't have a hundred different toys it's nearly child abuse. I had "a place" to put my toys; Kids today have toy rooms. Tweens and teens have all the latest electronic games as toys, back then there was pong on TV, if you could afford it both pong and a TV. Electricity was cheaper but of course there was nothing using it back then. My computer had to be sharpened when I broke the point off, and grocery stores never had to make you wait while they changed the tape on the cash register... because your bill was written on the side of the bag. You didn't have much of a choice until that super market opened up down the way. How modern! A local furniture store is advertising children's bedroom sets for $600. I think my last bedroom set was $500 from Sears back in the early 70's. ...Oh the communications we have! Forums like this didn't exist. Clubs existed. Chat was done person to person and interesting tidbits were held onto and remembered (well, some were remembered) until next week's meeting. Need help? You may have brought your dog to the vet, who helped you and your dog for short money. I guess not everything is better  but in trauma cases I'll take today's vet medicine over the old stuff.
Conversations nowadays are instant, if you don't pick up and reply to your email or IM instantly, your mother will call you on the house phone and then on the cell phone. Cell phones!!! Unlimited or virtually unlimited calling! Free nights and weekends! Instant access to the police! E-911 services! (do you remember calling the police at whatever your exchange was plus 1212? OMG! Back then your mother had to wait all day to tell you what a good child you are, and to check up on her "latch key" kids. Conversations with friends and "distant" relatives were held by snail mail, which took a week to get a letter anywhere outside your region. Pick up the phone? Calls were very expensive, only to be made in an emergency, and then maybe only after 11PM! ...and medicine? Some forms of cancers have gone from 95% fatal to 95% curable. Breast cancer detection and treatment for women is sooo much better and so much more successful; Overall death rates for cancer have been declining year after year after year while our lifespans have been increasing! That's doubly amazing since cancer prevalence is so much higher as we age. ...and everything is so safe compared to back then, too. Cars can take massive collisions and people can walk away from them. The early 70's was the advent of the "5 MPH front bumper"; (do you remember how much they stuck out in front?) I guess Congress was more concerned about protecting people's property than preventing injury back then. Now people with certain agendas tell us how "unsafe" our SUVs are because they might roll over. I'll betchya dollars to donuts (though there isn't much of a price differential these days) that today's SUVs are much safer than any car from the 60s, 70s and maybe even the 80s. ...how about the current economy? How does that compare with then? And the recession we had in the 70s! Wow o wow. Nothing like the 30s of course, but it was a real recession! The economy contracted and unemployment was very high. Nowadays we listen to Presidential candidates tell us that our economy is in such bad shape... and we believe them! They keep saying we're in a recession, but the definition of recession is, and always has been, two consecutive quarters of economic contraction. We may yet let the price of oil and the politicians scare us into a real recession, but the last two quarters have STILL shown growth in our economy. We won't officially be in a recession for at least 6 more months... IF the economy contracts. We haven't had a single quarter of contraction even while the price of fuel has skyrocketed. Yes, the price of some things has gone up, and yes, I think we're headed for inflation and some hunker down a little bit and exercise some discipline in spending times. There may be some higher unemployment. The good news there is that now there are two wage earners per family, if one is laid off there's a good chance the other isn't. So things are GREAT compared to just a handful of years ago, and things will continue to get better and better in the years ahead. There have been and will continue to be bumps in the road - the way up isn't a straight line. But put things in perspective; turn off the TV and the Cell phone and the Computer and the DVDs and Playstations and get out the Parcheesi and Monopoly and make some popcorn (from scratch, please) get some water to drink and have a cheap weekend night or two... in. So do you agree? Are we, as a whole, materially better off now than 30 years ago? How about you and your family? Do you stop to smell the roses and marvel at where we are? Have you let politicians and TV Newspeople convince you we are in a "recession?" Have you lost all hope, or are you hopeful for a grand future? Phew! My fingers are tired! Food for thought. |
|
|
| Personally? I think my husband and I are better off than my parents were. Then again, we are a 2 income family, my mom was a stay at home mom.
As a society, I have to disagree with you. Yes, people have a lot more "stuff" and are far more self indulgent in terms of trips, jewelry, dining out, etc. But how is all of this "stuff" being paid for? Personal debt. In the 60s and 70s, the goal was to own your home - pay off the mortgage completely. Now, people take out home equity loans. Have you been to a mortgage burning celebration in the past decade? People are financing their current indulgences by increasing their mortgage debt, and as we're seeing now, this is one of the factors leading to the increase in foreclosures. What about credit card debt? Did your parents have unpaid credit card balances in the 60s and 70s? I couldn't find numbers that far back, but the average credit card balance per house has risen from $2550 in 1990 to $7520 in 2003, a higher percentage than the rise in income over the same period. Lower savings. According to the Brookings Institute, the US savings rate used to run at 11% of income, lower than other developed countries to begin with. In the 80s it started to drop, and in 2005 the US savings rate reached 1%. So, as a nation we're spending almost every cent we earn and aren't putting anything away "for a rainy day". Accumulated wealth. Many of the people of my generation are benefiting from the accumulated wealth of our parents' generation, either through inheritance or through direct support. Do you know any 30 or 40 year olds living with their parents or being "helped" by their parents? Do you know some grandparents who are paying expenses for their grandchildren? People are spending the money that their parents or grandparents saved in the 60s and 70s. I know the argument - it's OK, I'd just get that money when they die. But the point is that today's toys and vacations are being paid for by money made and saved by a thriftier generation. I see a lot of people driving nicer cars than me, living in fancier houses than me, shopping at designer stores... who are one paycheck away from losing their homes. So I think as a nation we look like we're better off than we are. Are we really safer? There are police and metal detectors in our schools, every day. And I live in one of the best school districts in AZ. When I was in high school in the early 80s, 1 girl in my class got pregnant (and had the baby - I can't count any that chose another way out). Our high school has a day care center for babies of students. In every state, Child Protective Services is overwhelmed with child abuse cases. The Justice Department stated that somewhere in America, a woman is raped every 2 minutes. Apparently I am the pessimist to Ron's optimist, but I do worry about where this country is going. I think the US is the greatest country in the world and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I just wish our benchmarks for success hadn't become so superficial. I'd like to see good manners, self respect, hard work and frugality come back into popularity. |
| People may have more BUT more people are searching for peace and good relationships more...I find today a good day is not turning on the cell phone, no computer, a great dinner with family and friends with music playing and no TV! I taught for 30 years...students now are being drugged to sit in there seat, lots of counseling because they don't have parents who care for them, they want teachers to entertain as they are used to it and cannot focus more than 7 minutes on a task but all have their own TV and games in their room at home. Yes, we have more but we talk to machines instead of face to face, no one has time together because the workday is much longer and the bills are much higher, children are given "things" to keep them occupied instead of time one on one with loving people. Our parents couldn't get the credit they give to college students who don't have a job...families eat dinner together every night, a family vacation didn't cost several thousand dollars, yes...it was so much simplier times....people actually talked to people...students did their homework with parents helping, dinner was a family affair, and people read books because they had time...I love using the technologies of today but I advocate having less material items and more with people, okay...need to stop...I could go on and on....my daughter is having a baby anyday...they have no cable TV, bought a smaller house than the bank wanted them too, and they buy nothing on credit...she decided she wanted to go back...I think more and more young people will raise their children with less TV time, more reading, and more time with parents, less finanancial pressures. |
| Is a lower savings rate indicative of lower savings, or is it indicative of higher earnings? I hear all the time that we don't save enough, and I'm a huge proponent of savings, but I'm not so sure about the meaning of this statistic.
I can't imagine the possibility that with all the 401Ks and IRAs out there that people have less (even in adjusted dollars) in savings than they did in the 70s when these didn't exist. Is it possible that they do not count 401K investments as savings since the money isn't earned/taxed yet? Nearly every single person I know (personally) has a 401k or an IRA of some sort, and the others have very substantial home equity. Then again, perhaps I travel in rarefied air? I suppose the real question is are people more financially prepared for retirement than before (assume that Social Security will fulfil its obligations.) |
| I agree wholeheartedly with Sue's and Linda's thoughts. I dunno if it's pessimism but I think we've sold out a great heritage to have our mountain of stuff. |
Ron wrote: I can't imagine the possibility that with all the 401Ks and IRAs out there that people have less (even in adjusted dollars) in savings than they did in the 70s when these didn't exist.
Yeah but you can borrow against it so, essentially it's like saving nothing to many people. |
Ron wrote: Is it possible that they do not count 401K investments as savings since the money isn't earned/taxed yet? Nearly every single person I know (personally) has a 401k or an IRA of some sort, and the others have very substantial home equity. Then again, perhaps I travel in rarefied air?
I think you may have more financially prudent acquaintances than the average. You're not seeing foreclosures in Mass? I've had two on my street this year. I was shocked, never would have guessed from the cars (brand new van this year) and toys (kids running around on motorized scooters) that these families were about to default on their biggest "asset". I will check on the savings rate question when I get time, that is a good point. The one report specifically stated the credit card debt has increased more than income. I'll see if I can find something similar for savings. |
| So do you agree? Are we, as a whole, materially better off now than 30 years ago? No, I don't think we're overall better off. I do agree that our expectation of our standard of living has changed, but I also believe that applies for the middle and upper classes only.
How about you and your family? I was a child in the 70's and my parents are gone, so I really have no way to get the "details". But I do know that when I was growing up, we were always comfortable and never wanted for much of anything. We were able to go to private schools, summer camps, participate in private sports clubs, installed a swimming pool. Today, that is a bigger struggle for our family, and we make A LOT more money than my parents ever did. We save, but we struggle to do it. We do not have a lot of "disposable" income at all. Do you stop to smell the roses and marvel at where we are? Absolutely! The improvements in technology, medicine, and awareness of all sorts is fantastic. Have you let politicians and TV Newspeople convince you we are in a "recession?" No, although I do believe we are teetering on the brink. I also believe the reasons we are not fully in the throngs of one is due to lessons learned in the past, better investments, and more pressure on the Fed to manage it more proactively (not to say they a bang up job, however). Have you lost all hope, or are you hopeful for a grand future? No, I haven't lost hope at all. But I think I am a realist and I see things as they are for many more socio-economic groups than my own. Poverty has not shrunk, the working-poor class has grown. Some individuals make poor choices, some have no choices to make. |
At the risk of causing a backlash  I think we are better off because we (women) have over burdened ourselves. I had a stay at home mom who never worked and unlike Ron I had a play room 
My 24 year old daughter is fond of asking why we didn't stop when we got the vote   I am tired of working all day and still keeping up at home, doing the shopping etc and never seeming to have any time to enjoy my "standard of living". Doesn't seem to be better off to me.
Of course my kids can find me where ever I am because if they can't reach me on my cell phone thay can get me on the blackberry my boss makes me carry so that I am never out of touch - or any of the electronic leashes my husband has to carry as well. did I mention I hate Mondays? |
kerry wrote: At the risk of causing a backlash
I think we are better off because we (women) have over burdened ourselves. I had a stay at home mom who never worked and unlike Ron I had a play room My 24 year old daughter is fond of asking why we didn't stop when we got the vote I am tired of working all day and still keeping up at home, doing the shopping etc and never seeming to have any time to enjoy my "standard of living". Doesn't seem to be better off to me. My wife heard a strongly feminist economist in college say that the women's right's movement really hurt women by maligning and disenfranchising the stay-at-home mothers ("domestic engineers"?) so badly. Her theory was that with all the women entering the workforce salaries became depressed because of the extra labor force (think supply and demand) to the end that now we're forced to have two working parents - which is typically very disadvantageous to mothers who generally end up with an unfair burden at home after work anyway. I tend to agree with that line of thought. However, that is not to say in any way that women in the workforce whether by choice or circumstances should be treated or compensated in anyway differently than their male counterparts. |
| I have no idea why you wanted equality. Now you've got it, you came down to the man's level and now have higher incidences of "men's diseases" and have to leave your kids to go to work every day and hold the door open for me.
Well, I'm just kidding. Mostly. I've never had a door held for me by a woman. Men hold the door for me frequently. I'm not sure what this means.  |
chowderdawg wrote: I tend to agree with that line of thought. However, that is not to say in any way that women in the workforce whether by choice or circumstances should be treated or compensated in anyway differently than their male counterparts. But they are. There's a ton of studies out that show that women are paid less for the same job as equally qualified/experienced, etc. men. Obviously there are exceptions to that, but overall it seems men are still paid more. Ron--I'll hold the door for you! I always hold the door for people. Feminism has always bothered me, but that's because I came along after the movement, so I've always felt 'equal' to boys and men. So I've never had to experience what life was like in the past. I think it's annoying that people get so upset with the working vs stay at home mom debate. To each her own. Each family can decide what's best for them. Some people would rather struggle on one 40,000/year salary and have mom stay home and not have an extras, whereas others would rather have the extras and have mom go into the workforce. |
Ron wrote: I have no idea why you wanted equality. Now you've got it, you came down to the man's level and now have higher incidences of "men's diseases" and have to leave your kids to go to work every day and hold the door open for me.
I was in college during the women's movement and used to make that same argument. didn't get me very far and here I am counting down the last 9 years to retirement so I can have a life 
When my mother was my age she still had a 12 year old at home and would spend her days shopping and cleaning house etc. I still get stuck with the household chores and work 12 hour days - hmpf! Oh well progress. |
| How she said it: barney1 wrote: Ron--I'll hold the door for you! I always hold the door for people. How I read it: barney1 wrote: Ron--I'll hold the door for you! I always hold the door for old people.
 |
| Give it some more time. I know in this society everything is about now, now, now... and we could probably force employers through laws and civil lawsuits to pay equal dollars for equal value but it would be brutal and counter productive, in my opinion.
As women continue to move upwards in corporations, and continue to have longevitiy in their careers the pay inequality will continue to shrink -- to a point. However, here's the bad news. A colleague and I were discussing this issue in depth (that means over a cup of coffee in the lobby) maybe 10 years ago. We operate in a free market labor market. If there are women available who have value that is equal or above the value of men for 20-40% less (a number I've seen tossed around) pay... wouldn't you think the market place would correct for that? Wouldn't companies be out recruiting these value workers, and wouldn't that increase the demand for them, and increase their pay? I think it would, so there's something else going on. Is it women don't know how to get a raise? Since you can get raises by changing jobs, is a problem that women operate their careers differently, stay in the same job longer? Is there still some bias left? Since longevity and seniority play a part in wages, is time away from work to raise a family going to be an intractible issue? So the question remains: why is it that some corporations feel that women have lower value? Let me also mention that I have had men and women who worked for me who earned more than I did, some of them much more. Their technical skills were more in demand than my managerial skills.... and that's just the way it was. My highest paid employee ever was a woman, my highest paid contractor ever was a man. My favorite boss ever was a woman. My least favorite colleague was a woman. Things are <strike>getting better</strike> becoming equal. |
| Here's another question about things being better or worse now: Inflation, I just don't get it. I just finished reading a news report about how wonderful the inflation rate is (and has been) this quarter, a mere 0.2%. How is that even remotely possible when pretty much everything I buy is 50-100% more than it was just two years ago??? |
| Because the price of housing isn't up; the price of cars isn't up (yet), the price of electronics is still falling, the prices of imports from China aren't up (yet); the prices of lots of things haven't risen (yet).
It takes a year or two for a surge in oil prices to work it's way through the economy if other things (like increased imports) don't suppress the increases. They frequently call food and energy the "volatile prices" and when they report inflation numbers they break it down into total and "core." They sometimes also report the PPI (Producer Price Index) as an inflation number. You need to be sure which number they are referring, the media doesn't make it easy. Give it time ... |
| Sigh...So as long as we're not trying to eat or use energy, we're in fantastic shape! I guess I've been looking at it all wrong...Sigh... |
| LOL |
Ron wrote: I have no idea why you wanted equality. Now you've got it, you came down to the man's level and now have higher incidences of "men's diseases" and have to leave your kids to go to work every day and hold the door open for me.
Well, I'm just kidding. Mostly. I've never had a door held for me by a woman. Men hold the door for me frequently. I'm not sure what this means. I hold doors for men... One of the reasons for the women's movement was that we wanted our own money instead of asking our hubby's for an allowence. There where many issues. I remember when Pant Suits first came out for women and if she wore one to work she was sent home like a child to change her clothes. |
violet wrote: Ron wrote: I have no idea why you wanted equality. Now you've got it, you came down to the man's level and now have higher incidences of "men's diseases" and have to leave your kids to go to work every day and hold the door open for me. Well, I'm just kidding. Mostly. I've never had a door held for me by a woman. Men hold the door for me frequently. I'm not sure what this means. I hold doors for men... One of the reasons for the women's movement was that we wanted our own money instead of asking our hubby's for an allowence. There where many issues. I remember when Pant Suits first came out for women and if she wore one to work she was sent home like a child to change her clothes. I always ask my husband for an allowance but I never get one.  |
Since we're SO equal now...I was in Starbucks this morning with both hands full and 9 months pregnant and a man walks in as I'm about to walk out, and he DOESN'T hold the door for me. Lets it swing shut right as I'm at the door.  |
violet wrote: One of the reasons for the women's movement was that we wanted our own money instead of asking our hubby's for an allowence. There where many issues.
But then on the downside I believe that has also left women, especially mothers, far more vulnerable to their husband walking out on them because "they can take care of themselves" society wide. Nor is it right that one partner or the other, working or not, dominate the finances like that either. |
chowderdawg wrote: violet wrote: One of the reasons for the women's movement was that we wanted our own money instead of asking our hubby's for an allowence. There where many issues. But then on the downside I believe that has also left women, especially mothers, far more vulnerable to their husband walking out on them because "they can take care of themselves" society wide. Nor is it right that one partner or the other, working or not, dominate the finances like that either. I would never want a man to stay with me just because he thought I couldn't take care of myself. Let him walk out. I can take care of myself. I'd rather struggle alone than be miserable with someone who isn't happy in the marriage. No thanks! |
barney1 wrote: Since we're SO equal now...I was in Starbucks this morning with both hands full and 9 months pregnant and a man walks in as I'm about to walk out, and he DOESN'T hold the door for me. Lets it swing shut right as I'm at the door.
I hate that. I notice it more and more whenever we're OUTSIDE of Texas. |
| Sorry, didn't mean to imply "can't" that way. If you're talking about chronic unhappiness, then yes I agree...but no marriage/partnership/whatever is peaches and cream all the time and if there is no sense of obligation to each other, what's to keep anybody from riding through the lows? What I mean is that if there is by mutual agreement the division of responsiblity such as "traditional" roles (ie the admittedly easy breadwinning job & the difficult homemaking job) a partnership is created that is (should be?) more difficult to leave because of the unique responsibilities each partner carries. This all, of course, assumes normal and caring individuals - once that assumption is violated the rules change.
I'm pretty sure the only reason my wife puts up with me is because she knows I'd be a lost cause if somebody wasn't watching out for me.
I'm feeling hesitant at contributing to furthering the deviation from topic here... |
ButtersStotch wrote: I would never want a man to stay with me just because he thought I couldn't take care of myself. Let him walk out. I can take care of myself. I'd rather struggle alone than be miserable with someone who isn't happy in the marriage. No thanks! You can only say that because you are equal. If you weren't, you couldn't. |
chowderdawg wrote: but no marriage/partnership/whatever is peaches and cream all the time
That's true.... but they can be Peaches and Herb all the time! yeah yeah! 
Yeah yeah, show'em how you do it now! |
| No Peaches and Herb fans, eh? |
Ron wrote: ButtersStotch wrote: I would never want a man to stay with me just because he thought I couldn't take care of myself. Let him walk out. I can take care of myself. I'd rather struggle alone than be miserable with someone who isn't happy in the marriage. No thanks! You can only say that because you are equal. If you weren't, you couldn't.I don't know about that. People who aren't "equal" can still be pretty capable to taking care of themselves. If it means enough to you to be independent, you'll find a way no matter what. I really don't think traditional roles need to define a marriage. I've always felt marriage should be based on mutual respect and love for each other. Everyone has their own opinions, though. |
| LOL
I'm not saying people who are in a tough situation should stay, where did I say that? I said that you wouldn't be able to just get up and leave if you didn't have equality. Maybe you're confusing equality with minor financial differences. Try being a woman and walking out on your husband in say, Iran or Saudi Arabia. You have equality. Equality under the law and relative and near financial equality. If it was the 1920's you would be hard pressed to do what you're saying here in this country, not only because of wide financial inequality but also because of social considerations. You would likely not have the same independent mindset that you do as a modern American woman. I'm also not saying that the equality you have is perfect. It isn't. There are still issues and I would guess that a lot of sporadic inequalities will exist for many decades. Someday we may be counting lines of code written or ergs* performed and paid for on a piece work basis to ensure equality. *an erg is a very small unit of work. 1 horsepower hour of work is equal to about 26,845,195,000,000 erg. 1 watt is 10,000,000 erg |
| I'm not debating history, I'm well aware of the suffrage and feminist movement through the years as well as that conditions were certainly not what they are now. The point I'm trying to make now is about the idea of a need to still have "traditional" roles as a means for keeping a relationship together, which I think speaks very poorly about both sexes involved, like they need "jobs" in the relationship in order to sustain the marriage. Then again, I guess some people need as much help as they can get... |
| http://objflicks.com/TakeMeBackToTheSixties.htm
I just got this from a friend - a reminder of the good, and bad, of the 60s. |
Ron wrote: ButtersStotch wrote: I would never want a man to stay with me just because he thought I couldn't take care of myself. Let him walk out. I can take care of myself. I'd rather struggle alone than be miserable with someone who isn't happy in the marriage. No thanks! You can only say that because you are equal. If you weren't, you couldn't.This is a topic that always makes me crazy. Today, there is no reason for a woman to get herself into a position where she has to stay in a toxic marriage just to support herself and her children. Women have so many opportunities now. We should be teaching our girls that they should establish themselves in a profession, and be self supporting before having children. At that point if you get married and have children, even if you leave the job market, you can always fall back on those skills if you need them. 50% of marriages end in divorce. Women need to be pragmatic and plan for the fact that they may wind up financially responsible for themselves and their children. So why do so many women in the US in the year 2008 choose not to be equals? I'm not talking about those of you who are happily married, stay at home moms. I'm talking about those who fester in bad relationships because they have no options. And I agree - a woman with no work experience and a few children is limited in her options. You're not going to pay rent, utilities, food and childcare on a minimum wage job, not even with child support. Do we still raise our daughters to believe that their primary calling is to be a wife and mother? Do women still believe that it's more respectable to be in a marriage, no matter how miserable, than to be unmarried and self supporting? |
Bailey's Mom wrote: Ron wrote: ButtersStotch wrote: I would never want a man to stay with me just because he thought I couldn't take care of myself. Let him walk out. I can take care of myself. I'd rather struggle alone than be miserable with someone who isn't happy in the marriage. No thanks! You can only say that because you are equal. If you weren't, you couldn't.This is a topic that always makes me crazy. Today, there is no reason for a woman to get herself into a position where she has to stay in a toxic marriage just to support herself and her children. Women have so many opportunities now. We should be teaching our girls that they should establish themselves in a profession, and be self supporting before having children. At that point if you get married and have children, even if you leave the job market, you can always fall back on those skills if you need them. 50% of marriages end in divorce. Women need to be pragmatic and plan for the fact that they may wind up financially responsible for themselves and their children. So why do so many women in the US in the year 2008 choose not to be equals? I'm not talking about those of you who are happily married, stay at home moms. I'm talking about those who fester in bad relationships because they have no options. And I agree - a woman with no work experience and a few children is limited in her options. You're not going to pay rent, utilities, food and childcare on a minimum wage job, not even with child support. Do we still raise our daughters to believe that their primary calling is to be a wife and mother? Do women still believe that it's more respectable to be in a marriage, no matter how miserable, than to be unmarried and self supporting? You'd be surprised--at least I was! I visit another forum for people with my medical condition and it is AMAZING what some of those women put up with. Low self esteem seems to have to do with it, or at least a lot of it. They don't believe they can do better, don't believe they can find a man better (and they know their man isn't good). They're scared to be alone, so they opt for the first choice. And I'm always surprised to hear the 18 year old girls talk about being engaged and wanting to start a family, but they have no money (not that it's stopping them), and that they want nothing more than to stay at home and not work and raise kids. Which is fine, but if something goes wrong, I don't see how they can manage to support themselves and their future kids. So it is still out there that people have this mentality. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with wanting to stay at home with the kids. I think it's great if you want to do that. I think that being able to choose whether or not you want to stay home is great these days. But the people who choose to do so to the detriment of their life I just don't get. I guess with me personally it was just different because I was raised in an environment where getting an education was the norm, where NOT going to college wasn't even a consideration. There was 1 person in my high school who didn't go to college right out of high school. It was just expected that I'd go to college, graduate (on time!) and get a job, all of which I did, and I STILL have had a hard time making ends meet at point in my life, and I've had decent jobs. |
Bailey's Mom wrote: Women need to be pragmatic and plan for the fact that they may wind up financially responsible for themselves and their children.
That's not even just women--everyone needs to plan ahead. So many people have all these children young and then the marriage either crashes and burns or something happens to one of the partners and they're absolutely screwed. I find it infuriating as well, too, Sue. On a somewhat related side note: I am also disgusted with shows like Extreme Home Makeover, where in nearly (not all) every instance where they're awarding someone with a brand new home, the person would not have been in such dire straights if they had just planned ahead! "I'm 28 with six kids and no husband." Seriously? You didn't think having that many kids so young, so fast might be a problem for you financially, timewise and in raising them in case something happened? Ever heard of moderation? I think these shows set terrible examples for people because they see bad decisions getting bailed out time and time again. The stories that I do feel bad for are the ones where someone has a small family, one of them gets sick and, for one reason or another, their insurance doesn't cover everything (or they lose a job along with it or something) and they get wiped out from medical bills. In that case, you can only plan ahead so much. There are a lot of things you can't see coming but there's a lot of easy things that you can plan for all along to make your life a lot easier. It's selfish not to, especially if you have kids. Nothing makes me more upset is seeing kids suffer for their parents' poor lifestyles and choices. |
ButtersStotch wrote: The point I'm trying to make now is about ... Do you always change the subject when you debate?
Fine! You're not equal and don't need to have equal civil and social rights in order to be independent.
The efforts of others who have paved the way for you and the social turmoil and upheaval and change were all wasted, all a woman needs is sheer determination! 
Some people believe in "commitment" and honoring their wedding vows and are determined to try to make it work, and not every woman has had the opportunities you have had and is married to a man as enlightened as James. Finally, you might be in a different place mentally if you have 3 kids and a lousy marriage and are looking at the reality of having three kids and no money, no prospects and nowhere to go.  |
Ron wrote: The efforts of others who have paved the way for you and the social turmoil and upheaval and change were all wasted, all a woman needs is sheer determination!
Picking fights today, Ron? |
Ron wrote: The efforts of others who have paved the way for you and the social turmoil and upheaval and change were all wasted, all a woman needs is sheer determination! Apparently, sheer determination and self promotion are pretty important factors Quote: By Carol Hymowitz The Wall Street Journal Originally published February 9, 2004 NEW YORK -- From kindergarten through graduate school, studies show that girls outperform boys in grades, admissions and even extracurricular activities. Hard work is the driving force, as girls read and spend far more time on homework than boys. But the very traits that propel them to the head of the class -- diligence, organization, a keen ability to follow instructions and to discern what teachers want -- aren't enough to catapult them up the corporate ladder, and may even be holding them back. When it comes to landing a corner office or executive title, what counts a lot more than conscientiousness is daring, assertiveness and the ability to promote oneself -- all qualities men more typically demonstrate. Men and women business-school graduates seem to start out on equal footing, landing roughly the same number of line and staff corporate jobs across industries. But three decades after they entered the business world in droves, women still aren't climbing nearly as fast or as high as their male counterparts. A recent study of women in corporate leadership by Catalyst, a New York research organization, found that women accounted for only 15.7 percent of corporate-officer positions and 5.2 percent of top earners at Fortune 500 companies in 2002. Even more telling, the majority of women in top jobs are in staff rather than line positions, which rarely lead to the very top. Women hold only 9.9 percent of line corporate-officer jobs, where they would be overseeing a business that earns money for their company, compared with 90.1 percent for men. 'Good girls don't advertise' Researchers and female executives cite a variety of reasons for this meager showing: male executives' reluctance to mentor women, women's exclusion from informal networks, a hesitancy to consider women for the toughest posts, and women's own struggle to balance careers and families -- sometimes leading them to settle for less-demanding roles at work. But a big factor holding women back is their good-girl, or good-student, behavior. "Women will work themselves to death in the belief that if they do more and more, that will get them ahead, when it isn't so," said Terri Dial, former vice chairman of Wells Fargo & Co. and president and chief executive of its Wells Fargo Bank. "They think, 'If I do the work, my bosses will see it and reward me.' " That may never happen. Even Dial, now an adviser to companies, admits that as a senior executive she took advantage of her female subordinates' willingness to be grinds. "Good girls don't advertise, only prostitutes advertise," she said. "We feel dirty promoting ourselves." As a result, women are still getting stuck in the middle, shut out of "the club at the top." |
Bailey's Mom wrote: Ron wrote: The efforts of others who have paved the way for you and the social turmoil and upheaval and change were all wasted, all a woman needs is sheer determination! Picking fights today, Ron? Bailey's Mom wrote: Apparently, sheer determination and self promotion are pretty important factors Excellent point.
I will say at the risk of alienating absolutely everyone, that in all of my years in the software business, I never knew one single woman who worked as many hours as some of the men. Never. I try not to mention that too often as it is purely anecdotal. But in 20 years I never ran into a woman in the hallways at 2AM, and I never came in to find a woman still working after an all nighter. I only knew 1 woman who offered/wanted to be on call 24/7, even when the pay was extremely good for getting a call ($70 base for one night on call plus $70 an hour after the first hour if called, back in the early 90's) and there was a waiting list of guys wanting to carry the beeper. Never. Maybe part of "self promotion" is the sacrifices one makes to the job. Perhaps men are more willing to sacrifice their lives and health to the job. If all else is equal, equal ability, equal quality... if you are the boss, who are you going to promote? The one who works 65 hours a week and has shown willingness to do whatever it takes, or the one who works 60 hours a week and you never see at 6 in the morning still working after an all nighter? As I've said previously, there may be other issues...maybe this is one of them. |
Ron wrote: ButtersStotch wrote: The point I'm trying to make now is about ... Do you always change the subject when you debate? Nope, both of my posts referred to a comment someone else had made about the lack of incentives to stay in marriage now when things get rough since the traditional roles are no longer defined, neither of which really had anything to do with equality in my intention, more the idea of marrying today for the right reasons. Without those roles now, your choice in partner becomes more important. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to take my shoes off and go get pregnant now. See y'all in the kitchen later! |
ButtersStotch wrote: If you'll excuse me, I'm going to take my shoes off and go get pregnant now. Can I have your shoes then? So cute! |
barney1 wrote: ButtersStotch wrote: If you'll excuse me, I'm going to take my shoes off and go get pregnant now. Can I have your shoes then? So cute!Lol. I have them in front of a space heater right now. I'm trying to warm up the leather so they're more flexible! |
ButtersStotch wrote: barney1 wrote: ButtersStotch wrote: If you'll excuse me, I'm going to take my shoes off and go get pregnant now. Can I have your shoes then? So cute!Lol. I have them in front of a space heater right now. I'm trying to warm up the leather so they're more flexible! nice!!! hurting and smelly.... |
Ron wrote: I try not to mention that too often as it is purely anecdotal. But in 20 years I never ran into a woman in the hallways at 2AM, and I never came in to find a woman still working after an all nighter. I only knew 1 woman who offered/wanted to be on call 24/7, even when the pay was extremely good for getting a call ($70 base for one night on call plus $70 an hour after the first hour if called, back in the early 90's) and there was a waiting list of guys wanting to carry the beeper. Never.
Maybe part of "self promotion" is the sacrifices one makes to the job. Perhaps men are more willing to sacrifice their lives and health to the job. If all else is equal, equal ability, equal quality... if you are the boss, who are you going to promote? The one who works 65 hours a week and has shown willingness to do whatever it takes, or the one who works 60 hours a week and you never see at 6 in the morning still working after an all nighter? I was "downsized" because my position was eliminated due to restructuring. I suspect it also had something to do with the fact that I have no children and a husband with a decent job. As I've said previously, there may be other issues...maybe this is one of them. Gee, where I used to work (in the printing industry) it was just the opposite. I was the one who stayed all night long and had over an hour's commute to and from work. When I got home, it was my phone that rang at all hours of the night. Even though it was someone else's job (male), I had most of the answers to their questions.
Something that hasn't been mentioned is the inequality in hiring. We had applications from an African-American woman with zero experience, a Caucasian woman with minimal experience, a Caucasian man with moderate experience and a Caucasian man with all the necessary qualifications and lots of experience. Top management pushed to hire the African-American woman for their "quota". Our general manager insisted they needed someone with experience so they settled on the Caucasian woman, which still met their quota criteria. I find it pathetic when companies bypass qualified applicants to fill a quota regardless of their race, sex, etc.. |
| okay i can probably get shot here - but - the phrase was "equal pay for equal work".
I never supervised a male who had to leave every day at 5 pm to pick up the kids from day care. I once had a staff of three - all in various stages of part time work because they all had babies within two months. what it meant was my boss and I worked pretty much around the clock to pick up the slack it was two of the worse years of my life - and then one went out on another maternity leave. I am not trying to say women can't work and have children - I was a working mother. But, if a job requires around the clock work, and many jobs do, how is that equal work? |
| kerry, I am not completely sure of your point.
I work mostly with people young enough to be my kids: young marrieds with young families or just about to have families. The men do not leave to pick up their kids at 5 because that's what their WIVES do. One guy works late so he can avoid picking up his son from daycare, and also avoid helping to prepare dinner or occupy his son before bed time. Somehow, some way, women are still seen as primarily responsible for the children and their careers are less important than their husbands'. We've had a few women go on maternity leave and that meant that we all covered extra work. We've also had one young husband have to take time off to help care for his wife, who was diagnosed with bone cancer; he is the sole support and they have 2 very young kids. He struggled hard to work enough hours to maintain his job and more importantly, health insurance. Their church and we, his co-workers pitched in to help care for the kids over months, as well as holding benefits to help defray some of the enormous costs (even with excellent health insurance coverage). One male co-worker is expecting his first child this summer and is contemplating taking a leave of absence and whether they will be able to afford it. Another co-worker was recently diagnosed with very, very early breast cancer. We will all be helping to cover her shifts, just as we helped cover the shifts of the guy who injured his shoulder playing basketball and was off many weeks, and restricted for more after he came back. And so it goes. We'll do the same if someone else is injured or has a heart attack or whatever. If you and your other supervisors were working around the clock to cover for maternity leaves, you were understaffed. Maybe that's all your company could afford--or wanted to pay for, but that doesn't change the fact that you were understaffed. And if the women were part timers, the company was likley saving a great deal of money in benefits: the women could rely on their husband's benefits. Career wise, they'll suffer. And it will be implied that it is their own fault for being so lazy as to need time off to recover from a pregnancy. Or to want to raise their kids and not pay someone else to do it for them. This is what is different as far as women vs men, in my experiences: I grew up (in 60's) being told constantly by people, usually boys (and thankfully not my parents) that girls couldn't do this or that or whatever, usually math or science. My reply was to ask, simply what they got on the last math or science test. I always outscored them seriously. My mother wanted me to play in the band, but would not allow me to play the drums or the trumpet, the only instruments that I was vaguely interested in (no loss to the music world there) because they weren't 'girl' instruments. And I wasn't interested in the flute or clarinet, so no band for me. Because I didn't have brothers, my father taught us girls to fish, to ride a bike, to skate, to climb trees, to clean fish and game, to hunt (for those of us who wanted--I chose not to shoot), to camp, to repair bicycles, make home repaires, do lawn care, etc. If my dad didn't have a fishing buddy to go with him on a Sat. am in the summer, one of us got drafted. He always showed off our catch to the fishermen we'd meet, even if he had something far more impressive in the hold. Oh, and we learned to drive the boat. Far more boys than girls peopled my math and chemistry and physics classes when I started University. When I went back, in my late 20's, there were still more males than females in the chem classes, but it was more even in the biology ones. I finished up in my 40's--and more of my classmates were women than men. It took me so long to finish because I did what many--maybe most--women did (and still do): I put my husband's academic and work career ahead of my own. Our children did not come as planned (and I can quote you chapter and verse about stats for every birth control method under the sun--amazing how many times we beat the odds---not that we regretted a single child). 2 of my children were born when I went back to school in my late 20's --and my husband detested his job so much that he didn't want to wait for me to finish my remaining year, which is why I didn't go back until my 40's. In those years, I raised kids, worked a series of bad paying jobs (usually but not always part time) and put in full time hours volunteering in my children's schools and in our community. And cooked every meal from scratch, made Christmas presents and Halloween costumes, and grew a garden, and other assorted absurdities. Please don't let anybody tell you that only women with paying jobs work: anybody home with children who is doing a half way decent job raising them is working ---and working hard. Most days, my day started before 7 and ended sometime after 11--sometimes much, much later. I remember that most days, the only time I sat is if I had to drive somewhere, or was holding a child or reading to someone. But I was on the go, constantly. Whether or not I also went to classes, or was working a paying job. It is still assumed that men will have jobs and are probably not going to take a family leave or a maternity leave. They are still fast tracked for management and supervisory positions. Women bear harsher criticism from their co-workers and from those they supervise, at least in my observation. My best boss was a woman. My worst was a man. In general, the women have been harder workers than the men, no matter what job I held. With only one or two exceptions, women move for men's jobs, but not the reverse. I work for a major organization which is widely recognized as being one of the best -and most progressive--places to work in the U.S. Almost every high level supervisor I can think of is male. Quite a number of my co-workers are married to other employees of the same organization. One of the supervisors in my lab is the sole support of her family; when they relocated for this job, he wasn't able to find work immediately as an EMT--as he did previously--and so is staying home to raise their kids, instead. He's one of the very, very few men who are choosing to let their careers take a back seat to the wellbeing of their children and their wive's careers. Of course, EMTs earn low wages compared with what his wife is able to earn, so it is a logical choice. But a brave one. I am as intelligent and as driven and as capapble as my husband, yet he is the one who earned a PhD, and who has a job earning nearly--and soon to be twice what I earn. I had not intended to postpone my career so long, but the needs of my children were always more important and since he was further along in his career (because I delayed mine) it was more logical that his career take precidence over mine. Am I happy with this? Not completely. Sometimes, I have been exceedingly frustrated by this. If he died or if we divorced, I would be in much, much worse shape, financially than he would be if I died or if we divorced. Still, my husband chose his career path because it allowed him to spend more time with his family vs earning substantially more money. This reflected both our values--I am glad that he had a flexible enough schedule to spend real time with our children. I have a job: it's a good enough one, all things considered. It's not a career: ageism is holding me back, frankly. It is assumed by most of my co-workers, many of whom are younger than my oldest son, that I am adverse to change and techno-phobic, neither of which is true. Actually, I handle the rapid changes that occur within our lab as well as any of them. Same with technology. My work ethic is better and I am more flexible and in far less need of constant praise and recognition. It's generational, really. And I can afford to be more flexible: I don't have little children to put to pick up and feed and put to bed. We live in a small city in SE Minnesota. We often joke amongst our family that our town is about 20-25 years behind the rest of the world. In many ways it is: I can write a check almost anywhere without showing my driver's license. When my kids were young and wanted to go to play at a class mate's home, I generally knew by the family name who the child was, and who their parents, siblings, grandparents and extended family were, and whether the kids were going to be well supervised or if it would be better to play at my house. Even if I hadn't actually met the parents themselves. There are few secrets around here: almost everything ends up in the local papers. 3 of my kids and my husband have all had photos of them with various of our OES published in one or the other of the local papers. This is not much different than small town/rural Indiana where I grew up. Until I went to college, I never met anyone who was from another country. Almost everybody I knew was a Baptist. The more liberal were Methodist. A few were Catholic and even fewer were Jehovah's Witnesses or other conservative branch of Christianity. The first time I met a Jew was when I moved into my college dorm. My first college room mate was 1st Generation American of Lebanese extraction. And Muslim. Now, I have lost count of the number of countries represented by friends, co-workers and neighbors over the past 30 years or so. Or even the religions: every major religion, and a few fairly minor ones. Every color. Every race. Every continent--except Antarctica and one of my friends' husband worked at a research station there for 6 months. My kids have grown up exposed to many different cultures and peoples and religions, and are much richer for it. Their friends are of a much wider variety of back ground than mine were--and they have seen how much racist attitudes still affect their friends. My daughter reports that girls are expected to be smart--but not to express their opinions, at least not strong ones. They are still expected to be pretty, hard working, polite, obedient, and to put their needs/wants below those of any male around. And my state is supposed to be progressive. Well, it was 20 years ago: we've really back-slid a lot. When I was in high school, I worked hard to have at least 5 outfits I could wear to school, and paid for most of my clothes myself--or sewed them. We had to wear dresses or skirts until I was a sophomore in high school. I remember hearing dire warnings about what would happen if girls wore pants to school. I guess they decided it wasn't as bad as what would happen if girls kept coming to school in short skirts....My principal wouldn't let us say the word 'pregnant' on the intercom when we wanted to petition to allow girls who were pregnant to finish high school. Their boyfriends/fathers of their children could finish school, play sports, participate in any extra-curricular activity--and receive tons of locker room accolades. Girls were shunned and kicked out of school. My daughter's bedroom during high school was a sea of clothing--and she had far less than many of her friends (and more than others--with whom she shared generously). Many, but not all, she paid for with her own money. As did her brothers. We have more luxuries than when I was a kid. I married a guy from a much more well-to-do family: we have less than they did, by quite a lot, really. Part of it is he is a city boy with rich (by almost anybody's standards) grandparents: my grandparents and uncle farmed when farmers were poor. Almost everybody I knew when I was a kid had the same backround as I did, from religous to racial to economic and educational level of our parents. We were a tiny bit better off because my father had a car allowance because his job required a lot of travel. My kids attended public schools (our choice) with everybody from the children of professors, doctors, lawyers, senators, millionaires to the children of murderers, rapists, drug dealers, factory workers, many working poor, and their friends came from all of these groups. One of my son's good friends was homeless for a time and lived with us for as long as I could convince his grandmother to allow it: he ended up changing schools 7 times during high school--and still graduated. He was forced to drop out of college because of lack of money and financial misdealings of various family members. His father could have supported him but chose instead to lavish support on his new son, who was only a year old. Andy didn't meet his dad until he was 17. His grandmother stole his rent money when he was 18. Of course, when I was growing up, some kids had parents who drank. Now, alcoholism and drug use, and gambling addictions have put so many kids into poverty that it hurts to think about. I see the young mothers I work with struggle to balance family and work (few call it career) and kids. They are much, much more inclined to spend money on their kids instead of time and constantly feel the pinch of money--as I did when we lived on one income. They don't cook much, or read much. They are much more inclined to (foolishly, to my way of thinking)_ spend money on too many cute clothes for their kids than for themselves and too much more likely to spend money on educational video games than on books for their kids. Only 2 that I can think of take their kids to the library. Ever. I shudder to think of how many hours of television their kids watch. Or how much pop they drink. Or how much junk food they eat. Although I was much more strict about these things with my kids than my mother was with us. They are much more afraid of ....everything than I was, than my parents were. Please don't naively think that there were no murderers, rapists, child molesters when I was a child. A friend's sister was abducted from their family restaurant on Christmas eve, raped and murdered by someone who was convicted of doing the same to 2 other young women. My mother in law was molested by a family member--and told not to say such a disgusting thing again when she tried to tell her mother. A cousin tried to rape me. I never told. He was later ordained as a minister. His first wife left him, charging cruelty. My family thought I was awful when I asked who he beat: his wife or kids (both, as it turns out, although my family scoffs--his sister testified for her sister in law in court). My husband and I both have cousins who liked to start fires. And who have problems with alcohol abuse. One of his uncles and one of his cousins is gay. His uncle is married and has been for over 50 years. My dad grew up in the 30's in rural Indiana yet knew where he could purchase quite a variety of illegal drugs in the 40's. |
tgir wrote: If you and your other supervisors were working around the clock to cover for maternity leaves, you were understaffed. Maybe that's all your company could afford--or wanted to pay for, but that doesn't change the fact that you were understaffed. And if the women were part timers, the company was likley saving a great deal of money in benefits: the women could rely on their husband's benefits. Career wise, they'll suffer. And it will be implied that it is their own fault for being so lazy as to need time off to recover from a pregnancy. Or to want to raise their kids and not pay someone else to do it for them.
I haven't read through your whole post but I have to say most people wouldn't say the State government was understaffed. I am not saying anything about fault. i am saying IF a job requires overtime as needed - then ALL employees need to be able to do the overtime. Sorry I was a working mom too - when I was able to meet the requirements of the job. |
kerry wrote: tgir wrote: If you and your other supervisors were working around the clock to cover for maternity leaves, you were understaffed. Maybe that's all your company could afford--or wanted to pay for, but that doesn't change the fact that you were understaffed. And if the women were part timers, the company was likley saving a great deal of money in benefits: the women could rely on their husband's benefits. Career wise, they'll suffer. And it will be implied that it is their own fault for being so lazy as to need time off to recover from a pregnancy. Or to want to raise their kids and not pay someone else to do it for them. I haven't read through your whole post but I have to say most people wouldn't say the State government was understaffed. I am not saying anything about fault. i am saying IF a job requires overtime as needed - then ALL employees need to be able to do the overtime. Sorry I was a working mom too - when I was able to meet the requirements of the job. I'm not sure what you expect these women to do: plan their children (assuming their pregnancies were planned---only 1 of mine was) around their co-workers' pregnancies? Around the needs of their job? Quit their jobs? Make their spouses quit theirs so they could work for the luxurious wages I'm sure your state govt paid? Your department surely had some months to plan for how staffing would be covered during maternity leave and afterwards. Most employers--including governmental bodies-- don't simply allow their employees to switch to part time work to accomdate familiy needs (physical disability is different, as is a family illness, etc) without adequate staffing, even if it means additional hiring, etc. Your department was understaffed. It might have lacked the authority to hire more help, but that doesn't change the fact that it was understaffed. I guess I never knew a state or federal agency to require overtime. I've worked for a couple of fed. govt. agencies in the past (as temp worker) and my husband and one sister has, as well. |
kerry wrote: tgir wrote: If you and your other supervisors were working around the clock to cover for maternity leaves, you were understaffed. Maybe that's all your company could afford--or wanted to pay for, but that doesn't change the fact that you were understaffed. And if the women were part timers, the company was likley saving a great deal of money in benefits: the women could rely on their husband's benefits. Career wise, they'll suffer. And it will be implied that it is their own fault for being so lazy as to need time off to recover from a pregnancy. Or to want to raise their kids and not pay someone else to do it for them. I haven't read through your whole post but I have to say most people wouldn't say the State government was understaffed. I am not saying anything about fault. i am saying IF a job requires overtime as needed - then ALL employees need to be able to do the overtime. Sorry I was a working mom too - when I was able to meet the requirements of the job. If a job requires overtime, it should be disclosed at the interview/hiring time that working late or on weekends or whatever is required of the job, and it should be disclosed by the potential employee as to whether or not they can work that schedule. It's different if the schedule changes once a person is hired, but something doesn't sound right to me. Either the women involved weren't totally forthcoming with their restraints, or the employer wasn't. You are able to not hire someone if they can't work the hours demanded of the job. I |
Quote: Either the women involved weren't totally forthcoming with their restraints, or the employer wasn't. You are able to not hire someone if they can't work the hours demanded of the job.
Unless I misunderstood, what happened is that the women gave birth after being hired. I remember when that was grounds for having your employment terminated. They were in various stages of maternity leave/reduced work hours. With multiple employees on reduced work schedules, this does create a strain. However, the employer is supposed to make it possible to cover the work load, no matter who the employer is, govt. included. Not all do, of course, but that's not the point. If all of these women had voluntarily left their jobs as soon as they gave birth, the dept.would have been in the position of having to hire and train all of their replacements--not a better situation for those left to pick up the slack. What if someone had been hit by a car, crossing the street? Another person had a heart attack? Cancer? Broke a leg? Why is short term disability due to pregnancy considered somehow less important? Why are women considered slackers or irresponsible for not doing everything that everybody wants them to do? It seems to me that women are still being punished for having a baby--which means, after all that they probably had sex. I guess we're supposed to carry the whole weight for that. |
barney1 wrote: kerry wrote: tgir wrote: If you and your other supervisors were working around the clock to cover for maternity leaves, you were understaffed. Maybe that's all your company could afford--or wanted to pay for, but that doesn't change the fact that you were understaffed. And if the women were part timers, the company was likley saving a great deal of money in benefits: the women could rely on their husband's benefits. Career wise, they'll suffer. And it will be implied that it is their own fault for being so lazy as to need time off to recover from a pregnancy. Or to want to raise their kids and not pay someone else to do it for them. I haven't read through your whole post but I have to say most people wouldn't say the State government was understaffed. I am not saying anything about fault. i am saying IF a job requires overtime as needed - then ALL employees need to be able to do the overtime. Sorry I was a working mom too - when I was able to meet the requirements of the job. If a job requires overtime, it should be disclosed at the interview/hiring time that working late or on weekends or whatever is required of the job, and it should be disclosed by the potential employee as to whether or not they can work that schedule. It's different if the schedule changes once a person is hired, but something doesn't sound right to me. Either the women involved weren't totally forthcoming with their restraints, or the employer wasn't. You are able to not hire someone if they can't work the hours demanded of the job. I See this isn't easy is it? We are very clear about time demands when we interview. and everyone says they are open and willing to work overtime and we do try to accomodate everybody. but situations like mine happen. I knew I would start something with this . |
| I'm just not sure what you want the women to do: quit? Not have babies? Bring their babies to work?
Actually, I understand how hard it is to accomodate a co-workers limitations due to pregnancy, maternity and other medical leave. My work place has gone through this a lot in the last few years. 2 women were hired when they were pregnant (and disclosed this info); another co-worker's wife has bone cancer--they have 2 very young children and his wife wasn't physically able to do much of their care, such as lifting, doing laundry, preparing meals--chemo made her very sick and very weak; another co-worker has breast cancer. She's just starting treatment. Another co-worker was out longer than either of the women on maternity leave with an injured shoulder. He got the injury playing basketball. This is just the past couple of years. I've covered for people on these leaves. Many years ago, I was the one on maternity leave. It's been a long time, but I know that I think it is easier to cover for someone's absence than it is to come back early from having a baby and jump into working full time and overtime and commuting and trying to figure out how to juggle everything. Much easier. To me, it seems that the issue is with whoever manages the staffing for that dept. Things happen--and not all of them are maternity related. Women coming back from maternity leave are not entitled to work part time hours--something the young moms in my work place would have lept upon if they could. Rather than be upset with women for having children, perhaps the correct target would be personnel for inadequately planning for these absences. |
| I think sometimes women come back before they are ready to be at work. Yes I understand financial issues. unfortunatley not all jobs allow for temporary staff to come in because of the technical or specific nature of the work.
I never said I had an answer - just an issue |
| I work in a technical field, too.
The women who came back after maternity leaves came back full time because they had no alternative. If part time were available, I'm sure they would take it. The man whose wife has cancer is working a full time schedule, with as much FMLA and PTO help as possible. I don't know how this is working. There are grumbles from one or two people who work the same shift that he isn't pulling his weight. These are the same people who cry and scream and bellow if they don't get everything they want as soon as they want. The man with the injured shoulder was out longer than the women on maternity leave and came back with job restrictions, which are no longer in place. Apparently, this was the second time he has had to be off because of a basketball injury. The other occured before I worked there. The issue is still with the employer/personnel. They are responsible for the staffing. |
| As a federal worker I can tell you that there are NO PROVISIONS for when someone goes out on FMLA. They consider your job to be your job and no one else will be assigned your job while you are away. That means no temporary staffing or temporary hiring; everyone else is just expected to cover the shift or the workload and that is how it is.
The problem is with the system, not with the employee or the manager or the supervisor. |
Maxmm wrote: As a federal worker I can tell you that there are NO PROVISIONS for when someone goes out on FMLA. They consider your job to be your job and no one else will be assigned your job while you are away. That means no temporary staffing or temporary hiring; everyone else is just expected to cover the shift or the workload and that is how it is.
The problem is with the system, not with the employee or the manager or the supervisor. Excatly the same here and our learning curve is about two years so temporary help is not very useful. |
| Yes, I had forgotten that the federal government likes to exempt itself from employment laws and regulations.
The training period for my workplace, if you are already experienced and worked elsewhere within the organization--and are a quick learner--is 6 months, minimum. Everybody else: year, minimum, to be minimally qualified. |
| hey ron --how'd you like to right an article for my site???
for the humor interest section? |
peeps wrote: hey ron --how'd you like to right an article for my site??? Why, did you find something humorous in my writings?for the humor interest section? |
| i don't know if i should answer sarcasticlly....
let's say, entertaining! |
| you get the topic covered and still entertain. then throw in a joke -- it's good stuff.
do you write for anything other than these forums? you should. |
| so...do you write for only our enjoyment, or is there another outlet as well? curiosity!!!! |
| Exactly! I write for curiosity! |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|