351
Thoughts? (piefed.cdn.blahaj.zone)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 127 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 41 points 1 month ago

Regrettably, this focused flexibility has an unintended side effect. It makes people with children less desirable in the job market. If it is a universal right, then it has the effect of pulling those with kids into parity with the non parents.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago

Why not both? I chose not to have kids because I think this world is idiotic and don't want more unnecessary suffering.

[-] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 month ago

And it's your choice, which is absolutely respectable. But refusing to support your society's children because you're childless is not better that being against DEI because you're white.

When it's possible to give the same flexibility to everybody, that should be done of course, but it's not always the case.

[-] moustachio@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

It’s not “society’s children” they’re refusing to support, it’s their shitty employer under capitalism. If we lived in a utopian society, you’d have a point. It’s not the employee’s role to sacrifice for some other person the employer is accommodating at your expense.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago

From each according to there ability, To each according to there need.

People with children need more from society, as long as those people are also contributing as much as they are able, they deserve to have that need me

[-] Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

That’s it! I’m taking “smoke breaks” every hour for my health…

[-] jaybone@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 month ago

Good thing our benevolent overlords grant us such gracious “gifts” 👌🏼🍆

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 68 points 1 month ago
[-] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago

Wouldn't this be the workers asking for an equal number of cookies regardless of if they have children? Sounds to me like saying everyone should get more flexibility.

[-] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago

I read it more like immigrants being helped to integrate into the host country. Extra help is sometimes granted where it is necessary

This post is crying about parents getting extra flexibility instead of the actual issue of capitalists exploiting workers to the limit

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 28 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] neatchee@piefed.social 10 points 1 month ago

On the one hand you are absolutely correct about these accommodations being for the benefit of the children

On the other hand, if your employer is denying your reasonable request for PTO, or denying accommodations in an emergency unrelated to children, then your company is already understaffed.

Any employer that can't handle the sudden absence of an employee is failing at management and is not somewhere I would want to continue working. If your shift needs everyone to show up or things fall apart, run for the hills.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] king_comrade@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago

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?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] redwattlebird@thelemmy.club 17 points 4 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jeffep@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

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

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[-] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 month ago

I agree with you, but I'd also say that work should just be more lenient and flexible in general, regardless of if a person is a parent. I believe one of the reasons we're seeing less people have kids in the last two generations is because they have less time and ability to take care of themselves, date and find partners, and such little free time outside of their soul crushing underpaid existence that when the idea of having kids at all comes up it becomes an extremely daunting and undesirable prospect to sacrifice the tiny amount of time they have for themselves to a kid that doesn't exist yet. I'm speaking to a US experience, so mileage may vary outside the shit show that is my country, but it very much so feels like here that if you have a moment of free time that isn't in service of a corporate overlord then you are a lazy good for nothing piece of useless crap, and you should just figure out how to schedule your doctor's appointments during your time off, even if that means that doctors just aren't open when you're not at work.

All that said, I don't actually believe parents get that much more leeway from their employers than nonparents do. It's just that parents say "I have to do x because I have a child" when requesting time off, and nonparents say "can I have this time off work because if x".

Parents tell their employers "I have to have this time off. I will not be here after 3pm on Tuesday" and nonparents tend to phrase as a request because that's how we're taught to ask for time off. In my anecdotal experience, anyway. My brother was the first person to point out to me the difference in phrasing, and since then, basically my entire working life, whenever I request time off I effectively approach it as telling them I just won't be here. Out of my hands. And fuck, it works. Employers find all kinds of ways to handle that, and that's normally by denying the requests made by people who phrase it as "pretty pretty please can I have a personal life for just a few hours in the 7th of March 2032?"

We need more militantly angry employees lol

Was about to hit submit when I saw how long this comment is, and realized I don't remember most of what I wrote. I'm recovering from a seizure I had a few hours ago (first one! Yay! Let's hope no more), and I'm too tired to reread it. Gonna leave it up for posterity to read tomorrow when I'm feeling better lol

[-] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago

Recover well friend

[-] KaChilde@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Endmaker@ani.social 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

monkey's paw / evil genie / etc:

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

[-] zurohki@aussie.zone 11 points 1 month ago

Hey, nothing changed.

[-] lycanrising@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] YeahIgotskills2@lemmy.world 9 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] underisk@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago

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”

[-] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 8 points 4 weeks ago

I hate to be the person thats is all like "as a parent...", however - to me having to leave early, come in late or take a day off to deal with kids being sick, appointments or just daycare/school drop off/pickup is worse.
The premise of this feels like "smokers get a break so why shouldnt we?". But realistically my work is still there, i am stressed about the thing i havent done that should/needed to be done that day, the amount of work i now have to catch up on and the extra stress of trying to get the 'non-work' things done as quickly as possible so i can be back at work to get through my workload.
And ontop of that, you likely had to cut your work time short because your kid is sick or hurt and you are also stressed about that, its not like you jump in your car and start whistling to the radio heading home early.

So yes, i think a non-parent should have just as much flexibility as a parent, but thats a conversation to have with your boss and not some guilt you try saddle on parents when they cant be at their workplace for their full X-hours per day. I would never make a coworker feel guilty because they left half an hour early a couple days per week to go like practice for their sport or hobby or something, so afford the same respect for someone who has 'child commitments' instead of your 'leisure commitments' because they arent the ones saying you cant take time off too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] E_coli42@lemmy.world 8 points 4 weeks ago

No because they have different needs. Society should focus on providing people based on their needs, not how much they produce. Only a slave bases his worth on his productivity.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] arcine@jlai.lu 6 points 4 weeks ago

Yes. But blame the bosses, don't blame parents.

load more comments (2 replies)

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.

[-] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

As much as a full time job? There are 168 hours in a week. Work is only 40. For many years, not even the night is your own. You are on call 24x7. Imagine a tech office asking a team of two to cover a 24x7 oncall rotation for for not 1, but 2 major applications that could crash at anytime, and do so often one way or another. Then ask them to spend 40 hours a week on a 2nd job. The reality is that we as a society (in the US at least) do children a disservice. Each one is different. They learn differently, they feel differently, their needs are different. And we hand the controls over to two people with no experience, and hardly any sleep to make some of the most important decisions in a childs life. Parents should have more support from trained professionals. That in turn would allow them to be more effective at work. Even couple where one parents stays home with the kids needs help. Often an outside perspective can spot things the people who are there all the time miss.

[-] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago

As a society and species that only survives by way of humans, having children supporting humans with children makes sense.

The hot take in the OP is dumb, selfish, and short sighted.

[-] Paulemeister@feddit.org 4 points 4 weeks ago

I don't really care if humans will exist in the future. I do care about the humans that will exist, leaving them with a habitable earth. But besides that what do I care about the survival of the human species? I don't see why people contributing to the survival of humans should be rewarded. I do see that people with a child need more flexibility because it's hard to care for a child and because I have empathy I support more flexibility and support for them. But why does the flexibility for those people imply inflexibility for others? I'm fine with being 'selfish'. I want to have a good life, don't you?

[-] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 weeks ago

It’s always fascinating when it’s proposed that those more closely associated with reproduction are framed as intrinsically holding greater social value than any other member of a society. For me it’s one of the clearest indicators of a system not worthy of engagement.

My reading of the original post is that the flexibility afforded to parents by a workforce, in the rare instances they are, should not be gated behind their proximity to progeny.

Work should be subservient to the needs of the society it is conducted within, to argue otherwise is abdicating one’s humanity.

[-] RBWells@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago

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.

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.

[-] neatchee@piefed.social 12 points 1 month ago

Paternity/Maternity leave isn't for the benefit of the parent, it's for the benefit of the child.

This is like seeing your coworker get time off for cancer treatment and wondering why you aren't afforded the same time off

[-] IEatDaFeesh@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago

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

[-] GraniteM@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 4 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 4 points 4 weeks ago

This is an argument for equality based on an individuals rights. A more robust argument for equality is Peter Singer's equal consideration of interests.

Jeremy Bentham argued that a being's capacity to suffer is what is morally relevant when considering their interests, not their capacity for reason. Equal considwration of interests - Wikipedia

For example: In a situation where an equal sum of time is given to everyone without considering the individual's interests, and those of people that rely on said person (eg, children, disabled, elderly), we would have increased neglect and less efficient systems of division of labour. Thereby negatively effecting the society as a whole and in time that individual who had an increased time allotted who doesn't necessarily have a need for it.

Its like the arguments for defunding government services, often that leads to a less safe society costing the wealthy in extra security who often are the key proponents of defunding government services.

The argument is highly related to Karl Marx's, "From each accoding to his ability, to each according to his needs." Maybe less prescriptive than Marx's argument.

[-] moseschrute@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago

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

And for that I've a song.

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago

And non-smokers should be given as many breaks as the smokers!

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2026
351 points (92.7% liked)

Political Memes

11720 readers
163 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS