zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 6, 2015 15:58:36 GMT -5
Why not bring in a temp to cover maternity leave? I can't understand why my company didn't do this either. They have the money to overpay salespeople... I know that not everything is easily trained in a short amount of time, but some of it is. Actually, in the case of my 2nd pregnancy (both of which happened after over a decade working there), they should have just hired a 2nd person. The problem was, they were trying to get away with paying out the absolute minimum they could get away with, instead of investing in their growth. Because temps cannot do the job usually. If you have someone with a skill, it isn't as easy to replace as someone answering the phone.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Feb 6, 2015 16:03:38 GMT -5
FMLA does have the exceptions for "key" employees. So if it's really that big a deal, there you go.
Also, for something that applies to both genders, how about the protections for people in the military? Both genders, protected long absences, longer than childbirth...so Miss T wouldn't hire anyone who could be called for military service either, right?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 6, 2015 16:06:03 GMT -5
The smart women I know mention up front they have daycare and backup daycare.
That's not what is being discussed.
What is being discussed is not hiring any women of child bearing age because there are good odds they will get pregnant and then "screw you" by taking maternity leave.
A LOT of women in the workforce are "childbearing age" and that age is climbing as more people postpone having kids and technology advances. So what age then would be appropriate for women to enter the workforce so they aren't "screwing" their supervisors/employers over?
Or are we going to go back to the days when your employer handed you a pink slip the day you started to show?
Or are we going to expect women to sign agreement stating they won't get pregnant and have some sort of semi permanent birth control inserted before employment?
And for those who support the idea, is it acceptable if it applies to you? OR are you somehow above it and this rule only applies to other potential child bearing age leeches?
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Feb 6, 2015 16:10:16 GMT -5
Why not bring in a temp to cover maternity leave? I can't understand why my company didn't do this either. They have the money to overpay salespeople... I know that not everything is easily trained in a short amount of time, but some of it is. Actually, in the case of my 2nd pregnancy (both of which happened after over a decade working there), they should have just hired a 2nd person. The problem was, they were trying to get away with paying out the absolute minimum they could get away with, instead of investing in their growth. Because temps cannot do the job usually. If you have someone with a skill, it isn't as easy to replace as someone answering the phone. I didn't claim they could do everything, but I'm sure they could do some of it. They could probably learn a lot in 4 months. I was in a weird accounting niche, but lots of it is pretty standard, or at least not that hard to learn. They should have tried a paralegal to replace me when I left, instead of an accountant, but my job was weird.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Feb 6, 2015 16:13:13 GMT -5
FMLA does have the exceptions for "key" employees. So if it's really that big a deal, there you go. Also, for something that applies to both genders, how about the protections for people in the military? Both genders, protected long absences, longer than childbirth...so Miss T wouldn't hire anyone who could be called for military service either, right? I guess it didn't apply to my company either, even though it had > 50 employees. I guess the employees had to be within a certain radius. My husband s place didn't have to abide by FMLA either.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 6, 2015 16:13:19 GMT -5
FMLA does have the exceptions for "key" employees. So if it's really that big a deal, there you go. Also, for something that applies to both genders, how about the protections for people in the military? Both genders, protected long absences, longer than childbirth...so Miss T wouldn't hire anyone who could be called for military service either, right? no I wouldn't. Because skmekne will be stuck doing the work if they grt called up. It isn't fair to those of us left. Outside of the very low level jobs, most of the jobs in my department take a lot of experience sonincant just hire some temp
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 6, 2015 16:13:58 GMT -5
It's not easy, overcoming the biases against parents. You have non parents pissed off to have to cover for parents. You have employers pissed because they hire someone who works for a year, then out she goes with leave. You have the "sandwich " generation or even someone like Pat who got it from both ends. We have an employee who is 68. She's freaking out because her daughter has cancer and wants to go to her side even though daughter says NO, for the same reasons DH said NO to his kids visiting in hospital, waste of time watching someone in a hospital bed. Plus, the patient has to communicate and act cheery when all they want to do is sleep and be grumpy! So even though no child bearing issues, life happens.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Feb 6, 2015 16:15:50 GMT -5
FMLA does have the exceptions for "key" employees. So if it's really that big a deal, there you go. Also, for something that applies to both genders, how about the protections for people in the military? Both genders, protected long absences, longer than childbirth...so Miss T wouldn't hire anyone who could be called for military service either, right? It has a lot to do with how the company functions. For example, if everyone is working 60+ hours a week, and then one person is out due to any medical or other reason - it makes it pretty tough for the others to absorb anything. It's poor planning and structure on the part of the company, but this has become so common and accepted, that the ire is directed at the employee who is out. and then - to focus on the pregnancy issue as the root cause, when at any time an employee could be in a serious accident or have a long-term illness keeping them out for the same amount of time - is ludicrous. -yeahthat-exactly
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 6, 2015 16:16:39 GMT -5
If a temp could learn the job in four months, I'm guessing that temp could find themselves in a good job. But to what end? If the person comes back, the temp is out of a job.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Feb 6, 2015 16:20:07 GMT -5
Why not bring in a temp to cover maternity leave? I can't understand why my company didn't do this either. They have the money to overpay salespeople... I know that not everything is easily trained in a short amount of time, but some of it is. Actually, in the case of my 2nd pregnancy (both of which happened after over a decade working there), they should have just hired a 2nd person. The problem was, they were trying to get away with paying out the absolute minimum they could get away with, instead of investing in their growth. Exactly. It's not like you're paying the employee while they're on maternity leave. (I'm guessing)
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 6, 2015 16:20:36 GMT -5
FMLA does have the exceptions for "key" employees. So if it's really that big a deal, there you go. Also, for something that applies to both genders, how about the protections for people in the military? Both genders, protected long absences, longer than childbirth...so Miss T wouldn't hire anyone who could be called for military service either, right? It has a lot to do with how the company functions. For example, if everyone is working 60+ hours a week, and then one person is out due to any medical or other reason - it makes it pretty tough for the others to absorb anything. It's poor planning and structure on the part of the company, but this has become so common and accepted, that the ire is directed at the employee who is out. and then - to focus on the pregnancy issue as the root cause, when at any time an employee could be in a serious accident or have a long-term illness keeping them out for the same amount of time - is ludicrous. I agree that we are understaffed but in today's economy that isn't going away. So it hurts big time to lose anyone for any length of time. A week or two is one things...months off is another thing. I'm not willing to give up time with my kids so someone else can be home with hers. I don't care if you all disagree with me. I'm the one that worked insane hours
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 16:51:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2015 16:21:07 GMT -5
I don't think so. If a man is a bad boss people tend to say he is an asshole. If a woman is a bad boss people tend to say all women are bad bosses. Conversely if a woman is a good boss people tend to say she is an exception. If a man is a bad boss people tend to say all men are assholes trying to prove who has a bigger penis. If a woman is a bad boss people tend to say that it's because the people under her are the problem because they can't handle having a female boss. People say all kinds of stuff, pretending they only say bad things about one gender simply isn't true. I stand by what I said. There are more male bosses and people have experience with a wide range of the quality so they don't think to generalize to all men in that situation. There are fewer women bosses so people still tend to generalize, in a negative way. It is related to the results of the resume studies that Drama cited. Pretending that negative comments about women don't have a stronger impact on all women just isn't true.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 6, 2015 16:25:40 GMT -5
I'm not willing to give up time with my kids so someone else can be home with hers.
I don't care if you all disagree with me. I'm the one that worked insane hours
You're entitled to your opinion.
I just find it interesting that you're stance is you have the right to spend time with your kids come hell or high water and you'll go so far as to discriminate when hiring in order to achieve it.
But if another woman wants to be with her kids and exercises her employer granted benefits to do so she's a no good lousy leech.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Feb 6, 2015 16:26:21 GMT -5
The economy was doing pretty well the last time I checked. At this point it's just cheapness on the employer's part.
Which will backfire tremendously when a woman who is rejected for a job stumbles across a post like this from the employer on a message board and uses it as a basis for a discrimination lawsuit...
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Feb 6, 2015 16:27:19 GMT -5
It has a lot to do with how the company functions. For example, if everyone is working 60+ hours a week, and then one person is out due to any medical or other reason - it makes it pretty tough for the others to absorb anything. It's poor planning and structure on the part of the company, but this has become so common and accepted, that the ire is directed at the employee who is out. and then - to focus on the pregnancy issue as the root cause, when at any time an employee could be in a serious accident or have a long-term illness keeping them out for the same amount of time - is ludicrous. I agree that we are understaffed but in today's economy that isn't going away. So it hurts big time to lose anyone for any length of time. A week or two is one things...months off is another thing. I'm not willing to give up time with my kids so someone else can be home with hers. I don't care if you all disagree with me. I'm the one that worked insane hours Then it seems that the company is hurting itself by not hiring another worker if they're understaffed. They run the risk that someone IS going to be out and balls/deadlines will be dropped or missed. Or burnout will set in. If they're willing to accept that risk, that would be their right as an employer. I don't blame you for not wanting to give up time with your kids. You feel you've paid your dues in that respect.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Feb 6, 2015 16:27:22 GMT -5
If a temp could learn the job in four months, I'm guessing that temp could find themselves in a good job. But to what end? If the person comes back, the temp is out of a job. Isn't that the definition of a temp? They're not all temp to hire, and not all want to be.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Feb 6, 2015 16:31:59 GMT -5
It has a lot to do with how the company functions. For example, if everyone is working 60+ hours a week, and then one person is out due to any medical or other reason - it makes it pretty tough for the others to absorb anything. It's poor planning and structure on the part of the company, but this has become so common and accepted, that the ire is directed at the employee who is out. and then - to focus on the pregnancy issue as the root cause, when at any time an employee could be in a serious accident or have a long-term illness keeping them out for the same amount of time - is ludicrous. I agree that we are understaffed but in today's economy that isn't going away. So it hurts big time to lose anyone for any length of time. A week or two is one things...months off is another thing. I'm not willing to give up time with my kids so someone else can be home with hers. I don't care if you all disagree with me. I'm the one that worked insane hours It goes both ways. You're compensated more, so there's less funds to hire more staff. You are compensated more to make up for the insane hours needed to cover the lack of adequate staff.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 16:51:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2015 16:39:03 GMT -5
I agree that we are understaffed but in today's economy that isn't going away. So it hurts big time to lose anyone for any length of time. A week or two is one things...months off is another thing. I'm not willing to give up time with my kids so someone else can be home with hers. I don't care if you all disagree with me. I'm the one that worked insane hours Then it seems that the company is hurting itself by not hiring another worker if they're understaffed. They run the risk that someone IS going to be out and balls/deadlines will be dropped or missed. Or burnout will set in. If they're willing to accept that risk, that would be their right as an employer. I don't blame you for not wanting to give up time with your kids. You feel you've paid your dues in that respect. The company is the one piling the work onto you, not the woman on mat leave. With proper organization it is not difficult or more expensive to have the proper staffing levels to cover mat leaves or absences due to injury or illness. The company's refusal to handle this situation professionally is a big barrier that women face.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Feb 6, 2015 16:40:29 GMT -5
FMLA does have the exceptions for "key" employees. So if it's really that big a deal, there you go. Also, for something that applies to both genders, how about the protections for people in the military? Both genders, protected long absences, longer than childbirth...so Miss T wouldn't hire anyone who could be called for military service either, right? It has a lot to do with how the company functions. For example, if everyone is working 60+ hours a week, and then one person is out due to any medical or other reason - it makes it pretty tough for the others to absorb anything. It's poor planning and structure on the part of the company, but this has become so common and accepted, that the ire is directed at the employee who is out. and then - to focus on the pregnancy issue as the root cause, when at any time an employee could be in a serious accident or have a long-term illness keeping them out for the same amount of time - is ludicrous. Hell, I resigned and everyone is freaking out because we are understaffed. I gave a months freakin notice and everyone is flipping out. Maternity leave was hell of a lot easier because he had 7 months notice. Of course the part time guy who was going to go full time while I was out ended up being sick basically that entire 6 weeks (not 4 months) and I worked more hours than him. Hmmmm... Yeah, maternity leave really is a problem.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 6, 2015 17:50:52 GMT -5
Then it seems that the company is hurting itself by not hiring another worker if they're understaffed. They run the risk that someone IS going to be out and balls/deadlines will be dropped or missed. Or burnout will set in. If they're willing to accept that risk, that would be their right as an employer. I don't blame you for not wanting to give up time with your kids. You feel you've paid your dues in that respect. The company is the one piling the work onto you, not the woman on mat leave. With proper organization it is not difficult or more expensive to have the proper staffing levels to cover mat leaves or absences due to injury or illness. The company's refusal to handle this situation professionally is a big barrier that women face. So cutbacks are ony a barrier to women? Because the men work just as much
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 6, 2015 17:53:11 GMT -5
I agree that we are understaffed but in today's economy that isn't going away. So it hurts big time to lose anyone for any length of time. A week or two is one things...months off is another thing. I'm not willing to give up time with my kids so someone else can be home with hers. I don't care if you all disagree with me. I'm the one that worked insane hours It goes both ways. You're compensated more, so there's less funds to hire more staff. You are compensated more to make up for the insane hours needed to cover the lack of adequate staff. I'm compensated more because of the knowledge and skill I bring to the table. I am not compensated to do someone else's job. so you think every higly compensated employee should have to cover somejne else's workload? I sure don't I've also told my boss I will never do that again. He told me to higher better next time.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,232
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 6, 2015 17:55:36 GMT -5
... He told me to higher better next time. A better high is always good.
|
|
siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Feb 6, 2015 18:15:19 GMT -5
I understand why individuals and individual businesses get frustrated by maternity leave, but if society wants to keep having procreation, it's just something that's got to be allowed for. Especially if you want highly-educated, self-sufficient people procreating. Otherwise we're going to have a real life Idiocracy situation going on. Or the "aging society" problems that are facing places like Japan.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Feb 6, 2015 18:16:19 GMT -5
It goes both ways. You're compensated more, so there's less funds to hire more staff. You are compensated more to make up for the insane hours needed to cover the lack of adequate staff. I'm compensated more because of the knowledge and skill I bring to the table. I am not compensated to do someone else's job. so you think every higly compensated employee should have to cover somejne else's workload? I sure don't I've also told my boss I will never do that again. He told me to higher better next time. 1. If that's all the compensation was for, you would not have worked insane hours while your staff was out on leave. 2. You'd better get a full family medical history of all future hires, and maybe a PI to follow them to see if they enjoy high-risk hobbies on the weekends. Check their teeth and ears out, while you're at it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 16:51:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2015 18:17:49 GMT -5
The company is the one piling the work onto you, not the woman on mat leave. With proper organization it is not difficult or more expensive to have the proper staffing levels to cover mat leaves or absences due to injury or illness. The company's refusal to handle this situation professionally is a big barrier that women face. So cutbacks are ony a barrier to women? Because the men work just as much Not organizing your company in a way that deals with a mat leave without piling double time the work on coworkers is a barrier for women. You doing twice as much work when someone was on leave was not about cutbacks.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 16:51:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2015 18:19:24 GMT -5
FMLA does have the exceptions for "key" employees. So if it's really that big a deal, there you go. Also, for something that applies to both genders, how about the protections for people in the military? Both genders, protected long absences, longer than childbirth...so Miss T wouldn't hire anyone who could be called for military service either, right? no I wouldn't. Because skmekne will be stuck doing the work if they grt called up. It isn't fair to those of us left. Outside of the very low level jobs, most of the jobs in my department take a lot of experience sonincant just hire some temp how would you know that somebody was in the National Guard or Reserves?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 16:51:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2015 18:21:17 GMT -5
It goes both ways. You're compensated more, so there's less funds to hire more staff. You are compensated more to make up for the insane hours needed to cover the lack of adequate staff. I'm compensated more because of the knowledge and skill I bring to the table. I am not compensated to do someone else's job. so you think every higly compensated employee should have to cover somejne else's workload? I sure don't I've also told my boss I will never do that again. He told me to higher better next time. Translation - don't hire women of child bearing age.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 6, 2015 18:57:41 GMT -5
... He told me to higher better next time. A better high is always good. lol. Oops
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 6, 2015 19:00:45 GMT -5
So cutbacks are ony a barrier to women? Because the men work just as much Not organizing your company in a way that deals with a mat leave without piling double time the work on coworkers is a barrier for women. You doing twice as much work when someone was on leave was not about cutbacks. So organizations should have extra people on staff just in case someone goes out? That isn't practical
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 6, 2015 19:01:33 GMT -5
no I wouldn't. Because skmekne will be stuck doing the work if they grt called up. It isn't fair to those of us left. Outside of the very low level jobs, most of the jobs in my department take a lot of experience sonincant just hire some temp how would you know that somebody was in the National Guard or Reserves? I would hope they would disclose that prior to being hired.
|
|