Posted on 09/05/2020 12:07:57 PM PDT by Theoria
Pandemic policies at tech companies have created a rift between parents offered more benefits and resentful workers who don’t have children.
When the coronavirus closed schools and child care centers and turned American parenthood into a multitasking nightmare, many tech companies rushed to help their employees. They used their comfortable profit margins to extend workers new benefits, including extra time off for parents to help them care for their children.
It wasn’t long before employees without children started to ask: What about us?
At a recent companywide meeting, Facebook employees repeatedly argued that work policies created in response to Covid-19 “have primarily benefited parents.” At Twitter, a fight erupted on an internal message board after a worker who didn’t have children at home accused another employee, who was taking a leave to care for a child, of not pulling his weight.
When Salesforce announced that it was offering parents six weeks of paid time off, most employees applauded. But one Salesforce manager, who is not permitted to talk publicly about internal matters and therefore asked not to be identified, said two childless employees, reflecting a sentiment voiced at several companies, complained that the policy seemed to put parents’ needs ahead of theirs.
As companies wrestle with how best to support staff during the pandemic, some employees without children say that they feel underappreciated, and that they are being asked to shoulder a heavier workload.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Lol, were they slaves? They could go work for someone who more valued “minorities and women.” And under my rock...that where freedom lives.
LOL. I don't even keep that around my office, so I guess I have one less concern than you did!
but it’s true. and God Forbid if it’s a single mom..... you have to do all her work with a smile.
When Ross Perot was running EDS, he only wanted to hire married employees with children, figuring they would be more loyal because of their increased responsibilities at home, in other words, they couldn’t afford to be out of job.
How odd is it that "encouraging families" almost universally does the exact opposite?
Well, I owned a bar, before modern POS systems were a thing. Had to keep an eye on those rascals giving away free drinks to their friends.
The “child free and proud” losers are free to work elsewhere.
I always point out that when you subtract all of the additional expenses you incur just so both parents can work, in the end, it really isn’t all the advantageous.
For example, you might only need one car, if one parent works. Money on work clothes, daycare, more eating out, it all adds up.
Well, that explains it. LOL!
Just wow.
That’s a good point about Ross Perot and EDS. But I’ll bet his focus — certainly earlier on — was on hiring men with wives and kids at home.
Also he hired Veterans returning from Vietnam.
Wished now I’d voted for him in 1992.
‘One of the great paradoxes in the modern world is that societies that provide the most “family friendly” work places — usually by law — tend to have the lowest birthrates in the history of the human race.
‘How odd is it that “encouraging families” almost universally does the exact opposite?’
You’re making an unfounded assumption about which is the cause and which the effect.
Any workplace policy that flies in the face of sound economic principles is likely to have destructive consequences.
When God cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden and told them that they and their children would have to work for a living, He didn't offer any comfort by assuring them that they'd at least have a good "work-life balance." :-)
People that buy and sell can work from home.
Brokers that line up buyers and sellers can work from home.
My profession is manufacturing, so working from home is a foreign concept I’m still trying to wrap my head around.
The Bob’s from the movie ‘Office Space’ will have a field day with the work at home crowd.
The higher the birth rate, the less the perceived need for family friendly policies. QED.
Rights? I’m talking about a contract with an employer. Don’t like the terms, don’t sign it. Jeez, is this still a “conservative” website?
“Any workplace policy that flies in the face of sound economic principles is likely to have destructive consequences.”
Which does not imply that encouraging families will do the exact opposite.
What often gets overlooked in these conversations in that these policies have destructive side effects that are driven by two factors: (1) a loss of productivity from the separation of work effort from compensation; and (2) the breakdown of families from the replacement of family responsibilities by employer and/or government largesse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.