Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 18:18:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 13:23:29 GMT -5
Two week vacations are pretty rare at the company I work for. I don't even schedule my one week ones except for on weeks when there are already holidays. We're getting 3 days holiday for the Fourth of July this year, (normally it's 2) so that is usually the week I take off. Most people just take long weekends for most of their days and the "BIG VACATIONS" are a week off.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 9, 2015 15:24:33 GMT -5
Two week vacations are pretty rare at the company I work for. I don't even schedule my one week ones except for on weeks when there are already holidays. We're getting 3 days holiday for the Fourth of July this year, (normally it's 2) so that is usually the week I take off. Most people just take long weekends for most of their days and the "BIG VACATIONS" are a week off. Same here. it is a real feat to take off one whole week without keeping things running at the office. I can't imagine how I'd do two weeks, unless I schedule a 2 hour checkin at the start of the second week with my direct reports to make decisions that they are not empowered to make. This isn't micromanagement in my case, they are "temps" and so are not allowed to make certain calls that I can. It's pretty common for people to take a month of vacation at my workplace. I get about 6 weeks vacation, but I don't take it all at once. Six weeks at once is too long, unless I'm going hiking in the Himalayas or something
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 9, 2015 15:27:07 GMT -5
I get being frustrated when people take a long leave of absence.
I just don't get punishing the worker. The worker is doing nothing wrong, they are exercising benefits given to them by their employer/the government.
I don't get the YM stance that employees are the bad guy when every example so far seems like a management/company issue. I DEFINETLY don't understand the attitude that all women between the ages of 18-35 should be discriminated against based on the fact you got pissed at one person taking leave and how your COMPANY handled the situation.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Feb 9, 2015 15:41:16 GMT -5
I get being frustrated when people take a long leave of absence.
I just don't get punishing the worker. The worker is doing nothing wrong, they are exercising benefits given to them by their employer/the government.
I don't get the YM stance that employees are the bad guy when every example so far seems like a management/company issue. I DEFINETLY don't understand the attitude that all women between the ages of 18-35 should be discriminated against based on the fact you got pissed at one person taking leave and how your COMPANY handled the situation. I couldn't agree more. There are staffing models that allow for coverage of absences/illnesses without placing too much burden on any specific employee (while still ensuring that everyone has plenty of work to do). If an employer chooses not to investigate that option, and instead overworks its employees and uses the economy as an excuse, they are doing so only because they know they can get away with it. If you're a good employee with in-demand skills, you shouldn't have to put up with that. Go to another company that won't require you to do 2 full-time jobs when someone is absent. If enough people do that, maybe staffing models will change.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 9, 2015 15:50:45 GMT -5
FMLA was enacted in 1993. So that's 22 years companies have had to get used to the idea that people can be out for an extend period of time and come up with contingency plans. The fact that they can't or won't shouldn't be taken out on the person using the benefit.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 9, 2015 16:01:06 GMT -5
2015-1993=22 years.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,232
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 9, 2015 16:01:10 GMT -5
22
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 9, 2015 16:02:42 GMT -5
Whoops.
Can I blame my bad math skills on being sleep deprived after staying up with a 5 month old?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 9, 2015 16:09:04 GMT -5
I get being frustrated when people take a long leave of absence.
I just don't get punishing the worker. The worker is doing nothing wrong, they are exercising benefits given to them by their employer/the government.
I don't get the YM stance that employees are the bad guy when every example so far seems like a management/company issue. I DEFINETLY don't understand the attitude that all women between the ages of 18-35 should be discriminated against based on the fact you got pissed at one person taking leave and how your COMPANY handled the situation. I couldn't agree more. There are staffing models that allow for coverage of absences/illnesses without placing too much burden on any specific employee (while still ensuring that everyone has plenty of work to do). If an employer chooses not to investigate that option, and instead overworks its employees and uses the economy as an excuse, they are doing so only because they know they can get away with it. If you're a good employee with in-demand skills, you shouldn't have to put up with that. Go to another company that won't require you to do 2 full-time jobs when someone is absent. If enough people do that, maybe staffing models will change. I think it is very easy to have this thought process when you work for the government. Where I work, it is all about the bottom line How can a company not be iverstaffed if at every department you gave extra coverage in case someone goes out for a few months?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 9, 2015 16:10:17 GMT -5
I get being frustrated when people take a long leave of absence.
I just don't get punishing the worker. The worker is doing nothing wrong, they are exercising benefits given to them by their employer/the government.
I don't get the YM stance that employees are the bad guy when every example so far seems like a management/company issue. I DEFINETLY don't understand the attitude that all women between the ages of 18-35 should be discriminated against based on the fact you got pissed at one person taking leave and how your COMPANY handled the situation. And why get pissed at people like me who refuse to get stuck doing the work of two people again? Blame the company for creating the situation
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Feb 9, 2015 16:13:56 GMT -5
I get being frustrated when people take a long leave of absence.
I just don't get punishing the worker. The worker is doing nothing wrong, they are exercising benefits given to them by their employer/the government.
I don't get the YM stance that employees are the bad guy when every example so far seems like a management/company issue. I DEFINETLY don't understand the attitude that all women between the ages of 18-35 should be discriminated against based on the fact you got pissed at one person taking leave and how your COMPANY handled the situation. And why get pissed at people like me who refuse to get stuck doing the work of two people again? Blame the company for creating the situation I think one of the issues is that people don't refuse to do the work of two people. Instead they do the work. Perhaps because people fear for their jobs, but they don't feel like they can say no. Which is why the current cycle continues. People who take FMLA have a legal right to take that time, but the people left behind don't have a legal right to refuse additional work. I don't know how to solve that issue. At least not the way that our workplaces currently work.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Feb 9, 2015 16:17:22 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more. There are staffing models that allow for coverage of absences/illnesses without placing too much burden on any specific employee (while still ensuring that everyone has plenty of work to do). If an employer chooses not to investigate that option, and instead overworks its employees and uses the economy as an excuse, they are doing so only because they know they can get away with it. If you're a good employee with in-demand skills, you shouldn't have to put up with that. Go to another company that won't require you to do 2 full-time jobs when someone is absent. If enough people do that, maybe staffing models will change. I think it is very easy to have this thought process when you work for the government. Where I work, it is all about the bottom line How can a company not be iverstaffed if at every department you gave extra coverage in case someone goes out for a few months? So your company is willing to require you to work the jobs of 2 people for 4+ months so they can improve their bottom line? You didn't get extra compensation for your coverage? I guess I would have trouble working for a place that seemed to have such little respect for its employees. To give a (government) example, we have 6 administrative assistants. One has been out for several months with an undiagnosed illness. While she is gone, admin assistants #2 - #6 are each handling a couple of the tasks she was responsible for. This means they are all working at about 120% of capacity, which is a hell of a lot better than 200% of capacity. (And yes, I know the job of an admin is different than the job of a director, etc. -- but it's the same process at the higher levels, the division of duties is just a little different).
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 9, 2015 16:17:45 GMT -5
And why get pissed at people like me who refuse to get stuck doing the work of two people again? Blame the company for creating the situation I think one of the issues is that people don't refuse to do the work of two people. Instead they do the work. Perhaps because people fear for their jobs, but they don't feel like they can say no. Which is why the current cycle continues. People who take FMLA have a legal right to take that time, but the people left behind don't have a legal right to refuse additional work. I don't know how to solve that issue. At least not the way that our workplaces currently work. I don't "fear" for my job. I'm the head of finance, if I missed deadlines I would lose my job. No doubt about it
|
|
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 9, 2015 16:18:43 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more. There are staffing models that allow for coverage of absences/illnesses without placing too much burden on any specific employee (while still ensuring that everyone has plenty of work to do). If an employer chooses not to investigate that option, and instead overworks its employees and uses the economy as an excuse, they are doing so only because they know they can get away with it. If you're a good employee with in-demand skills, you shouldn't have to put up with that. Go to another company that won't require you to do 2 full-time jobs when someone is absent. If enough people do that, maybe staffing models will change. I think it is very easy to have this thought process when you work for the government. Where I work, it is all about the bottom line How can a company not be iverstaffed if at every department you gave extra coverage in case someone goes out for a few months? Why does your company think keeping your dept. understaffed (your own words) is a good idea? The bottom line? The culture that 40 hrs a week is part time? I don't know. You probably do. But keeping you understaffed means that they're opting to flirt with potential disaster when someone has that heart attack. Or has some kind of breakdown due to stress. This may bite them later on, it might not. But if you're not happy about the amount of hours you and your staff work, then it should be addressed with Management. And this holds for everyone, not just MT.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Feb 9, 2015 16:24:13 GMT -5
I get being frustrated when people take a long leave of absence.
I just don't get punishing the worker. The worker is doing nothing wrong, they are exercising benefits given to them by their employer/the government.
I don't get the YM stance that employees are the bad guy when every example so far seems like a management/company issue. I DEFINETLY don't understand the attitude that all women between the ages of 18-35 should be discriminated against based on the fact you got pissed at one person taking leave and how your COMPANY handled the situation. And why get pissed at people like me who refuse to get stuck doing the work of two people again? Blame the company for creating the situation Oh I do! I don't think the anger should be directed at either the employee taking off or the employee covering duties. It's entirely the company's responsibility to manage workload allocation.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 9, 2015 16:24:50 GMT -5
I think it is very easy to have this thought process when you work for the government. Where I work, it is all about the bottom line How can a company not be iverstaffed if at every department you gave extra coverage in case someone goes out for a few months? Why does your company think keeping your dept. understaffed (your own words) is a good idea? The bottom line? The culture that 40 hrs a week is part time? I don't know. You probably do. But keeping you understaffed means that they're opting to flirt with potential disaster when someone has that heart attack. Or has some kind of breakdown due to stress. This may bite them later on, it might not. But if you're not happy about the amount of hours you and your staff work, then it should be addressed with Management. And this holds for everyone, not just MT. I'm part of senior management and I did address it. I requested a new head in our department and was shot down. I had a very detailed outline of why we need it and my boss signed off on it. So it is very rad to say that we should just request new staff, refuse to do the work, etc, but at the end of the day, you don't always have the option
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 18:18:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 16:27:43 GMT -5
I work for a really big company and there are only three quality techs covering some 25 or so customers at the division I'm at. One does almost strictly quoting which leaves two of us and the other guy is an idiot. But, each customer has it's own reporting requirements and there's no way even a smart person could just step in and figure out how I generate all these spreadsheets and charts I have. For the most part, when I'm gone my stuff just sits and the customers don't get their data. There are some day to day things that I have backup for, but all the specialized things? Nope.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 9, 2015 16:30:29 GMT -5
And why get pissed at people like me who refuse to get stuck doing the work of two people again? Blame the company for creating the situation
You're entitled to feel how you feel.
I think it's ridiculous that the employer has set up things so the only solution apparently is to discriminate against a large portion of the work force.
After 22 years you'd think employers would figure out how to deal with people (not just women) on FMLA leave without it involving others being dumped on. The fact they can't/won't isn't the fault of the person taking the benefit. Nor is it the fault of the people left behind to do the work.
Disagree or not I'd say that is a barrier women have to still overcome. There shouldn't be a situation created that results in women being denied employment based on the fact that statically speaking women of their age will have children in the near future.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 9, 2015 16:34:22 GMT -5
So your company is willing to require you to work the jobs of 2 people for 4+ months so they can improve their bottom line? You didn't get extra compensation for your coverage? I guess I would have trouble working for a place that seemed to have such little respect for its employees. To give a (government) example, we have 6 administrative assistants. One has been out for several months with an undiagnosed illness. While she is gone, admin assistants #2 - #6 are each handling a couple of the tasks she was responsible for. This means they are all working at about 120% of capacity, which is a hell of a lot better than 200% of capacity. (And yes, I know the job of an admin is different than the job of a director, etc. -- but it's the same process at the higher levels, the division of duties is just a little different). May I point some things out. 1. the people I see who say it itsn't a big problem have something in common. they either are foreigners (weltz, etc), where the culture and laws are supportive of employees. OR, they (like you, singlemominmd, etc) work either for the government or for government contractors. Those in private enterprise seem to be more the situation that Miss T. and I find that the existing group is usually just expected to "step up and handle it". SOMETIMES, we get a little extra money to hire a temp to take a little of the work off (though they can't handle the senior decisions/tasks), but even that is rare. I think it has to do with workplace culture, but also international pressure. We now are in a global marketplace and have to compete with people who make a lot less and don't have these issues. in many countries, someone with my job working at my company would have a driver, housekeeper, nanny, and potentially a SAH spouse, so that if they were asked to step up, they have a ton of support in every other area of their lives. I'm not sure this is all of it, but most places I've worked the existing team is supposed to cover it (regardless of the reason for absence). So much this!
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 9, 2015 16:37:40 GMT -5
From the looks of this chart most of the world has way more generous maternity leave policies than the states. Some even go so far as to extend paid paternity leave to the fathers as well.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/maternity-leave-paid-parental-leave-_n_2617284.html
If other countries can function with more generous leave policies then how come the United States can't? What makes us so different from the rest of the developed world?
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Feb 9, 2015 16:43:54 GMT -5
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Feb 9, 2015 16:44:52 GMT -5
From the looks of this chart most of the world has way more generous maternity leave policies than the states. Some even go so far as to extend paid paternity leave to the fathers as well.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/maternity-leave-paid-parental-leave-_n_2617284.html
If other countries can function with more generous leave policies then how come the United States can't? What makes us so different from the rest of the developed world?
Greed
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Feb 9, 2015 16:47:05 GMT -5
I can understand this. I think it is far from ideal, but I can empathize with the pressure to compete in a world where someone can do a FT high-skilled job for $2/day... and I have no idea what the answer to that problem should be.
My question is why this seems to fall on the shoulders of female job applicants. Unlike women, it's still legal to discriminate against the obese, who are statistically fairly likely to have an extended absence due to health issues at some point (heart attack, stroke, diabetes). Or you might have an employee who is into extreme sports and is risking a lengthy recuperation after breaking something. I don't think "extreme sports enthusiast" is a federally protected class. But at least from this thread, it seems like women of childbearing age are the only ones who present any risk of extended absences. And it is ILLEGAL to discriminate on this basis when making hiring decisions. Why not discriminate on any number of legal factors?
(This is a general question, not directed at anyone specifically).
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 9, 2015 17:03:56 GMT -5
I can understand this. I think it is far from ideal, but I can empathize with the pressure to compete in a world where someone can do a FT high-skilled job for $2/day... and I have no idea what the answer to that problem should be. My question is why this seems to fall on the shoulders of female job applicants. Unlike women, it's still legal to discriminate against the obese, who are statistically fairly likely to have an extended absence due to health issues at some point (heart attack, stroke, diabetes). Or you might have an employee who is into extreme sports and is risking a lengthy recuperation after breaking something. I don't think "extreme sports enthusiast" is a federally protected class. But at least from this thread, it seems like women of childbearing age are the only ones who present any risk of extended absences. And it is ILLEGAL to discriminate on this basis when making hiring decisions. Why not discriminate on any number of legal factors? (This is a general question, not directed at anyone specifically). In my 20 professional years I can only remember one guy who went out of work for an extended period of time (more than a week or two). I don't remember any obese women/men going out in extendedeave due to their weight. I know dozens of women who went out on maternity leave, usually more than once In all my years of working, I can't remember any man ever taking paternity leave So in my mind, any person can go out on an extended leave but a woman of child bearing age has a much greater chance than anyone else. I don't have an answer. All I know is I refuse to go through that again
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Feb 9, 2015 17:07:13 GMT -5
So your company is willing to require you to work the jobs of 2 people for 4+ months so they can improve their bottom line? You didn't get extra compensation for your coverage? I guess I would have trouble working for a place that seemed to have such little respect for its employees. To give a (government) example, we have 6 administrative assistants. One has been out for several months with an undiagnosed illness. While she is gone, admin assistants #2 - #6 are each handling a couple of the tasks she was responsible for. This means they are all working at about 120% of capacity, which is a hell of a lot better than 200% of capacity. (And yes, I know the job of an admin is different than the job of a director, etc. -- but it's the same process at the higher levels, the division of duties is just a little different). May I point some things out. 1. the people I see who say it itsn't a big problem have something in common. they either are foreigners (weltz, etc), where the culture and laws are supportive of employees. OR, they (like you, singlemominmd, etc) work either for the government or for government contractors. Those in private enterprise seem to be more the situation that Miss T. and I find that the existing group is usually just expected to "step up and handle it". SOMETIMES, we get a little extra money to hire a temp to take a little of the work off (though they can't handle the senior decisions/tasks), but even that is rare. I think it has to do with workplace culture, but also international pressure. We now are in a global marketplace and have to compete with people who make a lot less and don't have these issues. in many countries, someone with my job working at my company would have a driver, housekeeper, nanny, and potentially a SAH spouse, so that if they were asked to step up, they have a ton of support in every other area of their lives. I'm not sure this is all of it, but most places I've worked the existing team is supposed to cover it (regardless of the reason for absence). Or they are me. I don't know how many times I have to make my point. I work for a company of 7 (at the moment, it has been as few as 5 and as many as 8). I'm as critical as it gets. There isn't a ton of cross over. Both times I went on maternity leave there were 2 aspects of my job that no one else in the office could do (not even my boss). I would have SWORN the world was going to end that my coworkers were going to just hate me because of my maternity leave. But somehow they managed. With my second leave we were a lot busier, so a part time guy was going to work full time to do some of low level stuff that I usually handle. He ended up being sick (chronic migraine) my entire maternity leave. I handled a couple critical elements - writing a report here or there or a few calculations, but he never made it in. We had a contingency plan in place - my coworker and boss in the office who ended up being slammed - weren't slammed because of maternity leave. Why don't other companies come up with freakin plan? Why is the plan MT works 2 jobs? My coworker having a heart attack last year. You cannot plan for that. Why are people pissed about a leave that is planned for when an unplanned leave puts the company in such a worse position? Plus if you are that swamped how do you handle someone quitting? I gave 1 months notice for this job, but we are in the middle of being slammed with work (being a project based industry). My boss is screwed. He hasn't even had time to look at resumes or advertise if they are going to replace me. At the end of the day, it isn't my problem, but it just drives home the fact that there are more difficult situations when it comes to staffing than a maternity leave.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 9, 2015 17:13:01 GMT -5
May I point some things out. 1. the people I see who say it itsn't a big problem have something in common. they either are foreigners (weltz, etc), where the culture and laws are supportive of employees. OR, they (like you, singlemominmd, etc) work either for the government or for government contractors. Those in private enterprise seem to be more the situation that Miss T. and I find that the existing group is usually just expected to "step up and handle it". SOMETIMES, we get a little extra money to hire a temp to take a little of the work off (though they can't handle the senior decisions/tasks), but even that is rare. I think it has to do with workplace culture, but also international pressure. We now are in a global marketplace and have to compete with people who make a lot less and don't have these issues. in many countries, someone with my job working at my company would have a driver, housekeeper, nanny, and potentially a SAH spouse, so that if they were asked to step up, they have a ton of support in every other area of their lives. I'm not sure this is all of it, but most places I've worked the existing team is supposed to cover it (regardless of the reason for absence). Or they are me. I don't know how many times I have to make my point. I work for a company of 7 (at the moment, it has been as few as 5 and as many as 8). I'm as critical as it gets. There isn't a ton of cross over. Both times I went on maternity leave there were 2 aspects of my job that no one else in the office could do (not even my boss). I would have SWORN the world was going to end that my coworkers were going to just hate me because of my maternity leave. But somehow they managed. With my second leave we were a lot busier, so a part time guy was going to work full time to do some of low level stuff that I usually handle. He ended up being sick (chronic migraine) my entire maternity leave. I handled a couple critical elements - writing a report here or there or a few calculations, but he never made it in. We had a contingency plan in place - my coworker and boss in the office who ended up being slammed - weren't slammed because of maternity leave. Why don't other companies come up with freakin plan? Why is the plan MT works 2 jobs? My coworker having a heart attack last year. You cannot plan for that. Why are people pissed about a leave that is planned for when an unplanned leave puts the company in such a worse position? Plus if you are that swamped how do you handle someone quitting? I gave 1 months notice for this job, but we are in the middle of being slammed with work (being a project based industry). My boss is screwed. He hasn't even had time to look at resumes or advertise if they are going to replace me. At the end of the day, it isn't my problem, but it just drives home the fact that there are more difficult situations when it comes to staffing than a maternity leave. Wehave cross training so there is coverage for each job. But if anyone quits we are all screwed until we hire someone, get them trained and up and running
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,890
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Feb 9, 2015 17:39:01 GMT -5
Guys in my group take paternity leave. Not 12 weeks but they do take a couple weeks. My manager is going out on maternity leave soon. I survived last time, I'll survive this time. On the other hand my work load doubled permanently the last time someone left. And we've been under a freeze and everything else so no one has been replaced since I was hired 4.5 years ago. We've lost 50% of our staff in that time. So yeah some of us government people get it.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,153
|
Post by giramomma on Feb 9, 2015 17:55:51 GMT -5
I didn't get a chance to listen to the whole thing, but my public radio channel did a talk today on paid maternity leave.
It sounds like there's a movement in congress to tax everyone like .2% so that we can have paid leave after the birth of a child. The plan was to not make it maternity leave, but parental leave.
I was listening to the guest, and honestly she was not making a good case for paid leave.
She was saying that essentially, women should not have to use vacation time or sick leave to pay for maternity leave. She was also using the example of one family where the woman got fired from her first job when she was newly pregnant. She found another job, but didn't qualify for short term disability. So the "poor" mom had to 1) use vacation time 2) use sick leave 3) put bills on their credit card because they couldn't live on one income 4) They had to "sacrifice" by giving up going out to eat
I think this was a poor example. There's no way in HELL I want to have part of my paycheck taken away so that someone can plan their finances poorly and eat out in the name of paid maternity leave. Maybe if the guest had picked a different woman, like someone who had used up all her sick leave/vacation/fmla time taking care of her dying mom, and had an oops, and some savings, but not enough to carry the family through 3 months, well, I'd feel a little differently. Or maybe if she was laid off in her 8th month of pregnancy, and found a new job but didn't have leave benefits.
I'm not going to feel bad for some woman because she doesn't think she has to plan a pregnancy. Or she's above it. Or that her life shouldn't have to change at all because of her choices. Or that love will pay the bills and things will just work out.
I had to use all my vacation time and sick leave if I wanted to get paid during leave. I also had to save up the difference before hand. When all of that was in place, then I got knocked up.
Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine. And I'm not willing at this point, to pay for someone else to have the luxury of poor planning.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Feb 9, 2015 17:56:55 GMT -5
actual protection of their workers and markets? I don't know of any country in the world that will slit it's own throat the way we will to set up clearly lopsided trade agreements that help THE OTHER COUNTRY more than us. it's the silent crisis and why I fear for our republic. we should be in trade deals, but they should MAKE SENSE for the United States first and foremost. that's what *our* negotiators should be negotiating. instead, we run it like a charity and do all of these one sided deals to "help" these other countries because "we're better off". it's a hidden form a foreign aid. I agree about the trade agreements, but not all companies that pull this shit are involved in manufacturing or international trade. It's just the new Walmart attitude of squeezing every fraction of a penny of short-term profit out that they can--screw the long-term consequences.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 9, 2015 18:09:22 GMT -5
Guys in my group take paternity leave. Not 12 weeks but they do take a couple weeks. My manager is going out on maternity leave soon. I survived last time, I'll survive this time. On the other hand my work load doubled permanently the last time someone left. And we've been under a freeze and everything else so no one has been replaced since I was hired 4.5 years ago. We've lost 50% of our staff in that time. So yeah some of us government people get it. Do the rest of you work a ton of hours to make up being short staffed or do jobs just get pushed back?
|
|