A society should always prioritize its weaker members. Children are among these. The flexibility given to the parents is not a gift to the parents, but to the children.

Same energy

I think it would be ideal if everyone could be afforded the flexibility they need in their own lives for whatever they might wish to do, but I don't think this take is a very good one.

The reason parents are often given these benefits is because there is an understanding that there is a literal human being's life on the line, and that this person cares incredibly strongly about that child.

I might care a lot about an event I want to go to, but when it comes down to it, any boss would probably pick making sure a parent can pick their kid up from school over me being able to go a concert or something.

If everyone had a kid tomorrow, you'd probably see a lot of these benefits not be offered as freely, considering how businesses would simply just be understaffed to handle that much demand for flexibility, skipping certain hours, schedule changes, etc.

All that said though, there is still room for benefits and additional flexibility to be afforded to workers... if corporations are willing to spend extra money on more staff, better accommodations like not requiring in-office work when the work only requires being on a computer all day, stuff like that.

This thread is so fucking sad to read. All of you are workers squabbling over the basic dignity to have paid leave from work. You all sound like slaves, justifying your lashes. What if, and I know this is radical, we enabled all workers to have as much flexibility as possible over how they are productive with their labour?

A lot of parents in the comments here. I do believe that there are some concessions that parents should receive, but there is a noticeable imbalance in the flexibility given to parents and non-parents.

I think that paid parental leave is something that parents should receive over non-parents without question. You are being given that time to recover and raise your infant. In my country, it is even paid by the government to the employer so that they can pay the employee.

The thing that irks me is when parents get priority for leave requests etc because of their kids. My wife and I have missed out on family holidays because our employers have told us that parents get priority for leave during school holidays. Ignoring the fact that our families are travelling in school holidays because there are children in our family.

I have been told by employers that I cannot start an hour early today (in a job that has no client facing role) in order to leave early for an appointment. Yet there are people sending the “out of office for an hour to pick up the kids” message every other day.

I think this question pits parents and others against each other, when it shouldn't. Parental leave is necessary to raise a child. But at the same time, workers in general need leave for mental health among other things.

I also think this is more of a problem for places like America where leave is really, really unfairly distributed and there's basically no worker protections. There should be plenty of medical and annual leave, as well as government support in case medical leave isn't enough to get better.

Extra time off isn't some kind of reward for having kids, it's to make having kids possible. We'll be old someday and we'll need those kids to support us. Give parents all the time off they want. Imagine the kind of guy who sees a new mom get time off work to take care of a literal shit machine and thinks "She's the one who decided to excrete a crotch goblin. I should get the same amount of time off work as she does so I can play more Elden Ring." Then imagine how that guy smells.

Yes, fight among each other and leave us millionaire bosses alone 🤑

monkey's paw / evil genie / etc:

Wish granted. All employees - with or without children - will now be treated badly and given no flexibility

i’ve thought about this a few times since having a kid and it’s made me realise that the most important change is the confidence to say there is something that work must be flexible over.

for example, it is a dealbreaker to me that i must be able to drop and collect my child from school. so my manager and i have spoken about arrangements that allow that to happen.

but it’s that same kind of confidence that someone without kids could bring to the table and say that wednesday is guild night and they need to leave early for it. i mean it doesn’t sound “socially acceptable” but i think that if having kids or religious observances allows you to say “i need this flexibility” you should have the confidence to demand it.

and if your manager is someone who only respects religious or family demands id also condone saying it’s for religious observances and taking no further questions.

People should be accommodated by their workplace for their unique circumstances, even if others in that workplace don’t share those circumstances. This should not come at the expense of their coworkers. Accommodation can be fair without being strictly equal, but care needs to be taken or resentment will occur.

A lot of this could be solved if the standard business strategy about staffing wasn’t “cut payroll to the bone then hire back when things start to break down to maintain the absolute bare minimum at all times”

Classic equality/equity debate.

The long and short of it is, having children is not merely a personal benefit to the parent, it's a critical and necessary part of any functioning society. The proof is simply that you and everyone else owe your existence to your/their parents.

The burden of this task falls on the shoulders of parents. It's about as much work as a full time job.

Think of it as paying it forward for your parents and your own childhood. Maybe put aside the individualism that is rotting modern society from the inside out.

Those who take the responsibility of caring for society's newest members should be given more leeway/support in many areas, not just employment. I don't have kids (yet, God willing), I'm just not unempathetic/extremely self-centered/nihilistic. We do live in a society, after all.

I love these wholesome debates. Let's all hate on each other as we fight over scraps from the Master's table.

I could really go for a 6 months hiatus and the same for my girlfriend. We both never had kids.

I know that having kids isn't a vacation though. It's a lot of work. So it's not quite the same.

ITT: people pretending others "cheese" some unfair advantages by having kids when having kids is almost always a net negative in terms of time, money, career opportunities and so much more.

People who choose not to have kids do so for a reason, don't pretend these factors don't exist for parents. As a society we need a next generation, how would you ever retire otherwise? Because of this we should support parents, not envy them for whatever small benefits they get to slightly offset all the disadvantages and are often absolutely necessary to allow them to raise kids.

People saying that kids are important to society so we should allow parents extra flexibility, it rests on the assumption that what non parents would be doing with that flexible is less important to society. What if I'm giving blood, or helping an elderly parent, or volunteering at a homeless shelter? It's hardly the employers role to judge pass judgement on what is a worthwhile use of time.

Not quite the same formulation, but I've read the argument that paternal leave should be equal to maternal leave, and that both should be mandatory, because otherwise it creates an incentive for companies to hire men rather than women who might make use of maternity leave. I can see a similar argument for all workers, so that there isn't an incentive to hire people who will never have children over those who will.

Of course, all of these scenarios presume that any companies would willingly provide any leave whatsoever, which is already a fantasy. A company will only provide as many benefits as it is forced to, and a functioning regulatory state is the only entity that could force such compliance.

Ideally with should always be flexible. However if it's not there should be a good reason for exceptions and having to care for a young child is often a good reason in my opinion.

I believe people without children can have good reasons as well and some people with children need less flexibility.

E.g. a single parent usually struggles more than one with a partner stays home to focus on the children or one who lives in the same house as the grandparents.

If you're speaking about vacations it's usually due to fixed school vacations so if the person with a child wants to be able e.g. wants to travel with their family they have to do it during the official school vacations.

At least here school is mandatory otherwise and not sending your child to school is a crime.

I think this shows up in various ways. Watching a salaried worker come in late, stay home cause kids are sick, take off early because kids have dental appt, etc versus watching the low paid hourly worker under them go without pay to take care of all the same things because they aren't salaried, have no wfh ability, and are out of leave from using it so often sucks.

Based on the tone and language of the discussion, this is very USA things.

And for that I've a song.

I have kids, worked full time as a parent for 25 years and no problem with this. Set the baseline flexibility and treatment good enough to accommodate parents. You don't need to take it from childless people to give it to parents. Not a zero sum game here.

What I do have a problem with is hostility towards parents, and hostility towards non-parents. We are all in this together, and it's not frivolous to raise the next generation, someone did that for you. Nor is it selfish to just live your own life - work should not demand our whole lives.

Now that my kids are grown, I still work at a flexible employer, and use that flexibility for doctors appointments, errands to places only open during working hours, and concerts & shows. Would I defer to someone with a child or aged parent with an emergency? Yes. Would I defer to someone with no kids whose partner was having an emergency? Yes.

And everyone should have a stable home, healthcare, good paying job, etc.

Hot take, company executives should get as little flexibility as the employee at the company that’s awarded the least flexibility.

Agreed, all workers should have maximum flexibility to balance their lives. Why hurt productivity for the sake of a rigid schedule?

Its my contention that happy workers are more productive. Let every worker take the time they need to maintain their work/life balance, so long as the quality of their work is unaffected.

Of course childless people have needs too and deserve workplace flexibility. This post smacks of looking into your neighbor’s bowl though. If you don’t have all the additional obligations that come with parenting, don’t claim to be the same as those who do. Whatever life concerns you also have: your own health, aging parents, mental wellness, pets, etc etc etc parents ALSO have on top of kids. So get the workplace flexibility you need without crying about what parents get. If you know, you know. And if you don’t know, you really don’t know (but your mother does).

I’m so fucking sick of being looked at like a prodigal slob for being a parent. SMfH. Here we are taking swipes at each other instead of focusing on the employers. Good job playing right into their hands. Fuck.

Whomever wrote that never had children.

What extra flexibility do parents have? Are we talking about doctor and school appointments? I don't have kids and I'm allowed to go to a doctor during work hours. I'm also allowed medical leave to care for family members. I can come up with any excuse to leave work for couple of hours as long as I make up for it later. If I work less, I'm unreliable and it happens regularly I will eventually get fired, same as someone with children.