New Haven Independent

posted by: Threefifths on July 4, 2012  2:28pm

And now the boys at work resent me, and my manager told me I need to switch working Monday nights for Tuesday nights. Which means I don’t get to ever see my little girl’s new ballet class. I already promised her I would be at every one, and I think she’s sick of me apologizing about missing everything she does. I don’t know how everyone else does it.

Everyone I know work were they have a union.You should form one.

The Union Advantage: Facts and Figures.

http://www.seiu.org/a/ourunion/research/union-advantage-facts-and-figures.php

posted by: Ladybug on July 4, 2012  4:15pm

I am infuriated at the mentally - if I cant have it, you cant either….

posted by: switt on July 4, 2012  6:20pm

As someone without children, I cannot count the number of times I have been expected to work weekends or major holidays such as New Year’s Eve so that a colleague could spend “more time” with her children.  I have found that infuriating, especially as I have had plans, which I had to disregard,  too.  You chose to have children, and now you must work.  I see no reason for preferential treatment in that.  And by the way, have we got another Ann-Marie Slaughter here?  I found her remarks ill-founded as well.

posted by: Brutus2011 on July 4, 2012  8:05pm

As someone who has raised my child by myself (12 yrs old now), I wish the best for the author and her family.

One cannot truly understand unless one has gone through this.

I only hope the stress and the decisions forced by difficult family circumstances do not adversely affect our kids.

Sometimes I think all who manage others should be required to experience what Vanessa and her family have gone through.

posted by: trainspotter on July 5, 2012  3:49am

I think the author is struggling with the reality that she is no longer a stay at home mom and that is really what she wants to be. Maybe an attitude adjustment is in order? I also sadly went back to work following a layoff. Flash forward 5 years and that job paid the medical bills when out of the blue, my husband was diagnosed with terminal cancer and now allows this widow to support her children. Your kids won’t remember a missed class, but they may in time gain an appreciation for the sacrifices their mom made keeping the family afloat and allowing them to enjoy childhood luxuries like ballet lessons. Don’t dwell on what you can’t give them, be thankful for what you can give them.

posted by: streever on July 5, 2012  8:07am

@Switt
One could just as easily say to you that you need a different job—that you made a choice to have a job that requires working on holidays—that you made a choice when you made plans with friends. Why is the “blame” laid at Vanessa’s feet?

Special treatment? She wants to see her daughter grow up and share a life with her. You call that special treatment?

The most disturbing aspect is the attitude of her co-workers—men—who already *do* get special treatment compared to a woman. As a man, I think it is disturbing to read about the men acting the way they are. Men are recipients of privilege already in our society.

posted by: ASL on July 5, 2012  10:11am

Thanks, Vanessa, for sharing your story.  It’s not an easy thing to do (neither the writing nor the working mothering!). 

@switt: You choose to work somewhere where you have to work New Year’s Eve or other holidays when you’d rather be socializing.  That’s your choice so I find your remarks ill-founded.  (And what’s with “more time” in quotes?  You think your colleague got the time off and then spent it at a bar rather than with the children?  I don’t understand what those quotes are intended to connote.) 

In any case, the fact is that to the (very limited) extent that employers make concessions to employees’ family life, it’s because the employees requesting those concessions are worth the trouble.  We certainly don’t yet have policy in this country that encourages employers to be family friendly or working mother friendly.  Employers don’t engage in preferential treatment—it has to do with the employer’s bottom line.  What do I need to do to keep this employee and what can I afford to do given what this employee contributes to the workplace?

posted by: Adam E on July 6, 2012  7:22am

@Streever & ASL

It sounds that what Switt is saying is that while he or she works somewhere that is open during weekend & holiday hours, the shifts were already set (allowing Switt to make plans) and were then later adjusted to accommodate the familial needs of Switt’s coworkers.  Now I’m not familiar with the politics at Switt’s place of employment (does he or she have to agree to cover a shift when there is a request for a change or is the manager actually reshuffling the schedule so the coworker’s needs can be accommodated no questions asked), but who wouldn’t be frustrated over that regardless of the reason?  Why should Switt ‘need a different job’?

There seems to be a prevailing notion that the free time of people without children is somehow less important than the time of people with.  ASL, I understand that when most parents ask for time off it’s not to go live it up but to take care of certain responsibilities, but that should not assume that the time of other individuals without those responsibilities is diminished.

posted by: Miss E on July 6, 2012  7:40am

I can thoroughly relate to this story as I am also a single working mother of two teenage girls. I find a couple of the comments below a bit disturbing because here you have a parent who desires to raise her child to the best of her ability, but due to the economy and pure necessity, she HAS to work. I’m sure she didn’t choose to have children with the expectancy of having to be the bread winner of the home, but that is how things go. this woman should not be mocked for doing what has to be done. If she just sat back and collected welfare, people would be using that against her too.. what happened to compassion for our fellow man/woman?

posted by: streever on July 6, 2012  8:56am

Adam E:
At issue is where Switt is laying the blame—on the employee who has children. If indeed the job is mistreating Switt, or you, or anyone else, then it is the owners of the company or managers who are running staffs with 0 redundancy that are to blame. With an extra staff person, they would be better able to weather their obligation to their staff.

Switt’s comment—in context—sounds like a condemnation of Vanessa, who simply bargained for a better deal at her job.

Men do this every day: It is a large factor in why men earn more. A man would not receive the response that Vanessa is receiving. The response is inappropriate. As an employee, Vanessa has every right to bargain for a better deal, as do her co-workers.

Being angry, or bitter, or divisive over it should not be an option. Someone working a job, raising a family, and dealing with unemployment issues is not a good target for scorn.

posted by: ASL on July 6, 2012  9:10am

Thanks, Streever.  That’s precisely it.

@Adam E: I wasn’t really suggesting the switt needed another job, only pointing out that if Vanessa’s choices can be criticized (per switt, Vanessa chose to have children and therefore loses the right to advocate for a more flexible work schedule), so can switt’s.

posted by: Perspective on July 6, 2012  6:16pm

While I dont entirely agree with Switt’s comments there are some underlying points to be made.  Did the authors supervisor tell the ‘men’ that the reason she is being given this treatment is because she is a mom?  This could have led to the decisiveness as well.  Is everyone entitled to this schedule or just her?  Perhaps a rotating schedule would work here.  While I applaud mom’s for working (as mine did) there are sacrifices that occur on a daily basis for the ‘breadwinner’ of a family.  This includes missing ball games, concerts, etc.  As a working Dad, there are many events in my children’s lives that I miss due to work responsibilities.  The fact is your gender should not dictate whether or not you miss out on these things or not.  Many women cite the equal pay arguement.  I agree they should be paid as an equal, but ALL aspects of the job need to be equal as well.

posted by: streever on July 6, 2012  10:02pm

@Perspective
I find your perspective alarming and troublesome—but please, don’t take it personally, it is a modern trend that many people are demonstrating.

Why should people have to sacrifice family to be more “productive”?

No one needs to work as many hours as we do.

America is in a race to the bottom, where those of us near the bottom tear each other apart.

We sacrifice families, leisure, health, and living.

As a nation, we’re saps.

posted by: Perspective on July 7, 2012  3:16pm

@streever.  No offense taken, but I disagree that this is a modern issue.  Even our forefathers missed out on family items to support their families and to make things better for the next generation.  Do you think the farmer of generations ago was home or in the fields?  Problem is every generation wants more and do not realize what they have.  OUr western society has forced many to take on these sets of ideals as well.  I agree with you that many families have both sets of parents working to afford the ‘luxuries’ of modern life, but with the economy the way it is, many are trying to simply get by.

posted by: streever on July 7, 2012  4:21pm

Not so fast, Perspective. Scholarly research shows that this simply isn’t true—http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html

Also, I’m not suggesting it is merely for leisure! Actually, I’m saying the opposite. We work so much to get by because our society has accepted that as a norm. It was not normal for most of our history, and certainly shouldn’t be accepted now, either.

posted by: Adam E on July 8, 2012  8:22am

@Streever

I’m not sure what that link is intended to show. The article comprises a discussion of medieval peasant life and then concludes by showing that the length of the average working week rose sharply through the mid-1800’s, only to eventually settle at a level roughly 1/3 greater than what 14th century ‘casual laborers’ (people which the article calculates only worked 120 days annually).  In fact, the article is showing that the length of the average work week has declined almost 50% since the 1850’s.

Also, despite spending fewer hours working (although given differences in life expectancy between then and now, I would guess that the percentage of one’s total life spent working probably isn’t much different, or is maybe even greater), the medieval people discussed (along with most of the people encompassed in the timeline covered by the article, for that matter) lived their lives without access to plumbing, electricity, or even the most basic elements of modern healthcare.  I certainly wouldn’t trade today’s quality of life to go live back then.

posted by: Sammy on July 10, 2012  12:56pm

I don’t know why I’m surprised by this anymore, but the Independent is a very anti-union publication with very anti-worker readers.

What nobody has pointed out in the midst of attacking this lady for making the outrageous (!) request that she not work every single weekend of her life, is that she is likely a valued and productive employee at her workplace. She could have gone into her manager’s office and asked for a raise, but instead she asked for some flexibility and her request was granted because to lose her as an employee wouldn’t be in the company’s best interests. So they can fiddle with her schedule in a way that she wouldn’t need to get childcare on the weekend.

If her wining co-workers and others on this thread think they deserve more flexibility or a raise, they can ask for one instead of claiming that having a child is a valid reason to deliberately punish a wage earning worker.