The sperm donors are usually more flexible. They don't have a kid hanging on to a teat.
Having children a new right for accommodation in the workplace? What do you think??
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
I'm not sure if "idiot" is quite the right word, they are just clever enough to act like idiots but one thing for sure a "human right" for one person is often an encumbrance for another.
That's not what I have been hearing as this is reported on the news. However, it would not be the first time reporters are wrong and probably won't be the last, but I can certainly see that this would be a logical outcome.
You are correct, my mistake on the numbers.
Doesn't change the fact that she was unwilling to seek out and pay or childcare for that 4 hour shift like every other person does. I think they bent over backwards for her by allowing her to not work rotational shifts like all the other agents at the airport do and I'm sure you will find some with children. What this ruling does is open the door for all the other employees with kids to now dictate when they will work. This will turn into a nightmare for any employer who runs shifts and I can see them not hiring women with children or young women who might be having children in the future. She has not done any good for those women out there because it will become a consideration for employers when hiring.
Perhaps according to the union agreement the shift she was demanding required paying some overtime.
I think you underestimate the ease with which people can find child care. I have a friend who works at the Legislature and she had a brutal time finding a daycare that fit her work hours and kids' school situation, and she's 9-5 with only a half hour of travel time in there.
Also, the court ruling never said that they had to give children precedence over any other workplace consideration. They merely said that the employer can't tell her that children were a choice and therefor won't be factored in.
Any employer needs to balance a host of issues when planning schedules.
Talking about this with hubby he unapologetically stated that he factors family life in and some of his employees get 'preferential' treatment from the organization because of it. But, the staff is usually on board with that fact. Single dad is the only tool hand who is not expected to wiggle with his days off schedule. All other hands are expected to be somewhat flexible unless they have a good reason. Unfortunately, that 'preferential' treatment in his field means he makes less money because he can't pick up and go when a bonus earning job comes up. But regardless, the family life is factored in and accommodated for.
I would certainly imagine it did which is another consideration. Why should we, the taxpayers, foot the bill for her extra pay (being a federal govt employee I am sure it isn't cheap) because she chose to have a kid.
My DiL looks after two kids for a single cop. She often has them overnight. Since the kids go to the same school it works out not too bad.
lol.... that right there is exactly it.
It's a biological drive that has the capacity to kill a woman if unmet. It can tear apart marriages, families, and the individual. While I've made the rational choice to cap my family due to health concerns (I was going blind from my pregnancies due to pseudotumor), I would have taken the health risk to have my first two. I had no choice. It was my driving factor from the time I was 10 years old on.
So can you dismiss it and say 'your choice, I'm not going to try to accommodate you?'
The close of this article states that her request was reasonable. Turning it down simply because policy said you could is flawed.
Just another example of unequal rights for women. Equal means equal, not equal but with a few extra rights thrown in because of your gender. That makes me feel discriminated against because I am a man. So in my mind you need to make a choice, you either want equal rights or different rights and if you choose different then we can go back to barefoot & in the kitchen and you can forget about voting. ;-)
That is the opinion of the author. I think she made a request and was offered a compromise, which she initially accepted (meaning she managed childcare at first). She decided that the employer should be at her beck & call and give her whatever she wants and went to the idiots at human rights even though she had accepted their original offer. Realistically they could have said no, the job you signed up for requires rotational shift work and if that doesn't work for you then look elsewhere.
Where does it go from here? Can she, or other new parents, now go to their employers and demand more money because of the cost of having a baby claiming discrimination based on family status if the employer doesn't pony-up another grand a month? Can I tell my employer I won't be working Tuesday & Thursday nights and Saturdays because my kid has hockey, even though I signed up for 24/7 on call and it would cost him business (read: a lot of money)?
It is a terrible ruling by the HRC and the federal court proving that you don't have to have an IQ higher than a houseplant to be on either panel. The precedent is the top of a very slippery slope which will, over time, become a complete nightmare for employers as more & more people claim 'family status' exemptions from policies and demands of the job.
The way things worked in the old days when we made a decision to do something we usually planned on doing it ourselves, but if we thought we needed outside help, we checked first that it was available, not taking anything for granted! No one should be expected to pay for someone else's agenda. The tail continues to grow while the dog is getting smaller!-
I guess it's fine when you are the one getting preferential treatment. But if that is a given within a work environment, some type of compensation needs to be given to those who are the ones constantly shifting, adjusting, and changing. It's about team work. Otherwise the environment becomes poisonous and under productive.
I think most people will quite willingly give in an emergency and now and then just out of kindness, but when it becomes a small group given repeated preferential treatment with no payback required, that is selfish, unequal and a very poor setup that will reap it's own poor result.
I think most people will quite willingly give in an emergency and now and then just out of kindness, but when it becomes a small group given repeated preferential treatment with no payback required, that is selfish, unequal and a very poor setup that will reap it's own poor result.
why are you applying it just to women? It seems to me that lies with you not with the HRC. I know men who are just as driven to have families, but I can't speak to their experience the way I can to mine. The fact that I'm a woman speaking doesn't mean the HRC said 'women' must be accommodated for childcare and not men.
Because 99.995% of the time it will be applied to women.
That is because I live in the real world, not the little fairy-tale dream world of the HRC.
Whether it is a woman or a man matters not. The point is whomever signed up and agreed to do a job under certain conditions and with certain requirements. Now that person cannot or will not live up to the requirements they committed to for whatever reason and instead of finding alternate employment they want the employer to change those conditions and requirements of the job. That is not fair to the employer or the other staff who live up to their responsibilities surrounding employment.
oh good, everytime my child stays home because there is a PD day, I expect my employer will allow me to shift my schedule around.....NOT!
take heart Jimmy.. The HRC has just decided that your employer and your co-workers have fewer rights... Consider PD days covered as it would be discrimination otherwise
Am I the only one that took the time to read the bloody decision?
She tried extremely hard to find a babysitter, but have you ever wondered why they call it daycare? She could not find a place open during evenings when many shifts would take place.
Other people were given such shift patterns: 3 days at 12 hours per day. They offered her less than what she was willing to work and bumped her down to part time which was basically full time 36 -> 34, meaning she would basically have the same life impacts but would lose many benefits.
They refused to do so for her because they thought that her need for such a schedule was something that they could base their decision on.
They were not required to make accommodations, but they were required to not use her family status as the reason for not making accommodations, apparently this distinction is too subtle for many people here. Once you have a policy of making accommodations you cannot say it is ok for one thing but not ok for prohibited grounds of discrimination.
She tried extremely hard to find a babysitter, but have you ever wondered why they call it daycare? She could not find a place open during evenings when many shifts would take place.
Other people were given such shift patterns: 3 days at 12 hours per day. They offered her less than what she was willing to work and bumped her down to part time which was basically full time 36 -> 34, meaning she would basically have the same life impacts but would lose many benefits.
They refused to do so for her because they thought that her need for such a schedule was something that they could base their decision on.
They were not required to make accommodations, but they were required to not use her family status as the reason for not making accommodations, apparently this distinction is too subtle for many people here. Once you have a policy of making accommodations you cannot say it is ok for one thing but not ok for prohibited grounds of discrimination.
She didn't refuse to do her job, or change the conditions. The conditions there always were that shifts were negotiated, that's why there were policies on the books regarding said practice. The only difference she has made, is that childcare concerns can no longer be brushed off. That still doesn't mean that they HAVE to accommodate if they can't, it only means that they can't be dismissive of it.
So, if she tried, and was successful to get daycare, the HRC would never have assessed that she was discriminated against?..
btw - this woman is not the only single parent in the world that works evenings. It's a BS excuse to lean on that the logic for a discrimination ruling
So, what you're saying is that the employer was not required to make accommodations, but were required to make accommodations based on her individual situation... WTF?
By virtue of the HRC decision, the shifts that she negotiated (read: demanded) are now lost to any other employee that might have had a chance to negotiate those same opportunities.
No 2 ways about it: she is benefiting at the sole expense of the other employees