But this is just the 1%, isn't it? So who cares about them?
5
And so if you are a woman not "lucky enough" to have found either a spouse who could make the primary income, "allowing you to stay home" (as if I would ever want that), or a male spouse sympathetic to the needs of the working woman (like hen's teeth), then you work until you drop. You have no family, so you can just work and work because you have to in order to afford your house, car and life. Or buy that trailer people think you should be in because you didn't marry. No perks of any kind because you don't belong to the "normal," expected setup. You can't rise to the top because you are a woman. You clean your own house, deal with car problems, shovel the snow, maintain the pool, are constantly out of the house to be around people ( in place of having a family or spouse). Somehow that is a single woman's fault. Is a single man treated the same? Well, no, because he's making more for the same job and enjoying respect and opportunities for career advancement to higher management levels all at the same time.
24
What a dumb article, more propaganda from the NYTimes as they strive to create a bigger divide.
However, it's highly hypocritical on the one hand to demand that companies make more women executives and then attack them when they accommodate the needs of that executive. Not the NYtimes business what a company does for their workers.
People! If you want the kind of job that requires 80 hours a week of dedication, and you're a woman that wants kids, and you want to be around your kids, you have a choice - fly with them (on your own or the companies expense), hire a nanny (or have a house husband), or work from your house.
If you want to spend time with your family outside of work, don't go after the jobs that require a lot of hours.
It's really that simple. Go for it!
PS When you're not happy with your choice, choose something else, don't demand that the business world change to your personal choice of how life should be. There are many waiting and wishing for your job all over the world.
However, it's highly hypocritical on the one hand to demand that companies make more women executives and then attack them when they accommodate the needs of that executive. Not the NYtimes business what a company does for their workers.
People! If you want the kind of job that requires 80 hours a week of dedication, and you're a woman that wants kids, and you want to be around your kids, you have a choice - fly with them (on your own or the companies expense), hire a nanny (or have a house husband), or work from your house.
If you want to spend time with your family outside of work, don't go after the jobs that require a lot of hours.
It's really that simple. Go for it!
PS When you're not happy with your choice, choose something else, don't demand that the business world change to your personal choice of how life should be. There are many waiting and wishing for your job all over the world.
17
I would expect nothing less from a firm that prints money. Of course an organization such as KKR can afford to fly nannies and baby's across the globe, the cost comes out to several places to the right of the decimal point for them. But what about "regular" companies that are a bit tighter on the budget?
6
As I have stated many, many times, as a commentator to these types of articles, nothing has really changed in the 30 years, since, I was a single working mother. You are not going to get the mid-sized and small companies, to give any sort of benefit to a caregiver, be it a mother or eldercare giver. We all do not work for Fortune 500 companies. I was at an event, speaking with a man, who was going to become a father any day. His particular company gives paternity leave. His wife works for a 6 person company. She will only take 2 weeks after the birth. When I asked him if he was planning on taking this paternity leave, he stated that he would not, since it was "career suicide". All the other men at this event, jumped on me and thought I was crazy to think that any one of them would take paternity leave. If they took a few days, they would take vacation time. This from a bunch of 35-40 year olds! I think that when there is such competition for jobs, the employee cannot ask for too much. There doesn't seem to be any respect for motherhood, fatherhood etc. If you are fortunate enough to be THE BOSS, then you can leave early and go to a soccer game or ballet recital, with nary a repercussion. When will this change???
13
In context of this column, there's an interesting car commercial I've seen aired lately. There's some voiceover talking about being busy, an offitce full of people with desks piled high, and a digital clock clicking over to 6 PM. Then one guy picks up his briefcase, slings his jacket over his shoulder and stalks out. The narration says "since when was leaving work on time an act of courage?" and as the elevator doors close on the rather smug guy heading out, all his fellow drones watch move over to the windows to watch enviously as he drives away through an empty city.
What a culture we've become. And since when is leaving work at 6 PM "on time"?
What a culture we've become. And since when is leaving work at 6 PM "on time"?
20
This article is spot on, until the end. Once again the responsibility is placed on the employee to, for example, figure out how not to make that business trip. What about the role of the organization? It is time for organizations to take some responsibility here as well. Organizations need to examine the way work is accomplished and question outdated assumptions about its design and structure.
7
The conclusion of the article is that "we need to reimagine leadership." Who does? Parents raising their kids? That's doable (maybe). But to imagine you are going to take today's executives and political leaders and impart kinder, gentler views of the workplace upon them (when they made it in this very culture)? That's utopian.
The problem the author raises of our culture of celebrated workaholism, and how it doesn't necessarily produce better workers and is incompatibile with parenting -- that's real. The solutions suggested -- those are not real, those are dreams.
The problem the author raises of our culture of celebrated workaholism, and how it doesn't necessarily produce better workers and is incompatibile with parenting -- that's real. The solutions suggested -- those are not real, those are dreams.
2
Having children doesn't benefit a company, it benefits society as a whole. The problem is that we put the burden for resourcing childraising on businesses (just as we do with health insurance, and just as foolishly). Of course businesses aren't going to spend their resources on it, or change procedural policies or time policies to encourage it, unless they absolutely have to. We need state-level interventions and resources for childcare, maternity and paternity leave, etc. We need this to be universally required because any organization that offers this, except as "perks" to the highest levels of intensely recruited professionals, will be at an organizational disadvantage. Although I'm guessing they will certainly recruit and hold more parents, I'm also guessing that they will in fact lose productivity in their parent-employees and that needs to be adjusted for as well in designing supportive policies that businesses will endorse.
11
In my experience working for a Fortune 500 company, the all-male leadership team not only had at-home wives -- their wives had help, and the men had secretaries/admins at work who performed some personal project management. It wasn't easy for them to identify with the working parents in the building. Today, my daughter works in a day care and can't believe how long parents work, how often they bring in sick children, and how tough her life just may be when she graduates from college and starts working. Something's gotta give!
18
Unemployment in America would be gone if the upper middle class dual income families had one parent chose to more for the future and parent instead of chase the payment on the second luxury SUV.
3
"We are a nation of working caregivers, except at the top of the corporate world."
Wonderful opinion piece. The above quote says it all. Women should be careful about bringing children into the world in this country unless they accompanied by a trust fund.
Wonderful opinion piece. The above quote says it all. Women should be careful about bringing children into the world in this country unless they accompanied by a trust fund.
7
This all reminds me of the time I worked at a large, well-known for-profit corporation. The company always appeared near the top of working women's or working mother's magazines as being best places for working moms because of the stated policies like job sharing and flexible hours. We laughed ourselves silly because it looked so good on paper but almost never took place. The magazine left out the part where an employee could work this way "with management approval."
19
One way we can have more family friendly workplaces, with an added benefit of cutting both unemployment and underemployment is for businesses to hire more people. There was a time when people could go home on time because there were enough workers to get all the work done in the 40 hours per week that's our standard shift requirement.
But then companies started laying off hundreds and thousands of people, expecting the people who didn't get laid off to add to their workload without complaining because, "After all, they still had jobs." Over time, hiring the least number of people and expecting them to work all the time became the "way business is done". Many of today's workers have no idea what it's like to work in a well-staffed workplace. So they accept the workplace this article talks about.
If businesses would hire back to the level where they didn't need their workers to stay late and work after they go home, society would be better off in many ways. People would be able to take care of their families. There would be enough people to cover if you have to leave for an emergency, thus there would be less resentment. The economy would get a huge boost because more people would have more money to spend. It's a win-win, unless you're an executive who fears having to take a pay cut or have less profit for the shareholders because you have to pay for all those extra employees. But-they end up paying for themselves as the economy gets that boost.
But then companies started laying off hundreds and thousands of people, expecting the people who didn't get laid off to add to their workload without complaining because, "After all, they still had jobs." Over time, hiring the least number of people and expecting them to work all the time became the "way business is done". Many of today's workers have no idea what it's like to work in a well-staffed workplace. So they accept the workplace this article talks about.
If businesses would hire back to the level where they didn't need their workers to stay late and work after they go home, society would be better off in many ways. People would be able to take care of their families. There would be enough people to cover if you have to leave for an emergency, thus there would be less resentment. The economy would get a huge boost because more people would have more money to spend. It's a win-win, unless you're an executive who fears having to take a pay cut or have less profit for the shareholders because you have to pay for all those extra employees. But-they end up paying for themselves as the economy gets that boost.
34
Its sad to find that money is NOT working for humankind but humankind is the slave of money. There was a time when men Worked FOR the family , family put first over work , home put first over work place . Humankind lived as humankind then . Society maintained the character of humanity.
Today its all business. We sacrifice self , our family and our children to aid inhuman corporates to make money. There was a time when it was a government of the people by the people and for the people. Now we have a government by the corporations, of the corporations and for the corporations.
Humanity is surrendering themselves to non- bio- intelligence and we are made to feel happy about it , made to feel its a great achievement for us !
All corporations themselves have usurped to the status of " individuals " and have started to believe that its for their exclusive benefit that the whole world is made and we are made to feel that is a great honour to be subservient to corporate interests. Slaves must have felt the same way earlier that hey are born , they and their children and family are born to seve and serve their master!
There was a time in premedival times that humankind are born to seve "God" ( whoever that was ),its the bounden duty of man and woman to praise The Lord, Fear The Lord God and our wisdom is rooted in that belief.
Modern times corrects it and issues the following amendment ;
for "God" ,
read ,"corporations"
Religious culture ,replaced by corporate culture.
Today its all business. We sacrifice self , our family and our children to aid inhuman corporates to make money. There was a time when it was a government of the people by the people and for the people. Now we have a government by the corporations, of the corporations and for the corporations.
Humanity is surrendering themselves to non- bio- intelligence and we are made to feel happy about it , made to feel its a great achievement for us !
All corporations themselves have usurped to the status of " individuals " and have started to believe that its for their exclusive benefit that the whole world is made and we are made to feel that is a great honour to be subservient to corporate interests. Slaves must have felt the same way earlier that hey are born , they and their children and family are born to seve and serve their master!
There was a time in premedival times that humankind are born to seve "God" ( whoever that was ),its the bounden duty of man and woman to praise The Lord, Fear The Lord God and our wisdom is rooted in that belief.
Modern times corrects it and issues the following amendment ;
for "God" ,
read ,"corporations"
Religious culture ,replaced by corporate culture.
6
The diagnosis is yet again made clear. Thank you. When, oh when, will we embrace the obvious treatment: shorter work weeks for all. It is not only women who choose to have children and not only parents who need balance in their lives. It is truly astounding how slowly our society and corporate America is adjusting to the consequences of the revolution (women in the workforce) that took place decades ago. How uncomfortable we apparently remain with that revolution.
9
Be sure to let us know when all those people flying around with paid for nannies find a cure for cancer.
Oh, they are just trying to get people to buy more Coke or get people to throw away money on useless baubles?
Do we live to work or work to live? Are we here to serve the economy or should the economy serve us?
Oh, they are just trying to get people to buy more Coke or get people to throw away money on useless baubles?
Do we live to work or work to live? Are we here to serve the economy or should the economy serve us?
26
People who live in hunter-gatherer societies work an average of 4 hours per day to provide sustenance. They devote the rest of their time to family gatherings, making art, play, religious ceremonies, etc. They also have a more varied and healthy diet that people in agricultural societies or most modern industrial ones. What they lack is modern medical care, and a buffer against natural disasters such as droughts, floods, or earthquakes. We don't want to go back to that way of life, even if we could--but the alternative shouldn't be working ourselves to death to enrich the modern-day pharaohs.
29
Time for humanity to fight corporatocracy . Corporations must work for humankind, the employees of corporations must work for their family , for their children and not the other way round.
Make all employees of a corporation preferential share holders of the corporation , investors as important as the corporate monied investors . Those who have money to invest , invests with their money, those who have skills invests with their skills , sometimes or often more valuable that just cash investments. The growth of corporations must benefit equally ( NOT EQUITABLY ) every worker in the same prportion ; what I mean is the money investor doubles his invested money in 4 years, then every worker must also get his total remunerations multiplied by double that amount ie, four times .
A ceiling need be kept on the profits that corporate money investors can make, on what an investor can take home ; the balance need to be distributed or shared byn the workers who se investment is in terms of their labour.
Beyond the ceiling , extra profits made need to be deposited in government treasury for the benefit of the society as a whole and the country in particular.
Radical changes in law and regulations need be brought about before the whole of humanity gets eradicated by the corporations.
Everyone's family and children are under attack ,not by foreign invaders but by the corporate invaders , corporations that have no geographical boundaries nor have any human interests .
Make all employees of a corporation preferential share holders of the corporation , investors as important as the corporate monied investors . Those who have money to invest , invests with their money, those who have skills invests with their skills , sometimes or often more valuable that just cash investments. The growth of corporations must benefit equally ( NOT EQUITABLY ) every worker in the same prportion ; what I mean is the money investor doubles his invested money in 4 years, then every worker must also get his total remunerations multiplied by double that amount ie, four times .
A ceiling need be kept on the profits that corporate money investors can make, on what an investor can take home ; the balance need to be distributed or shared byn the workers who se investment is in terms of their labour.
Beyond the ceiling , extra profits made need to be deposited in government treasury for the benefit of the society as a whole and the country in particular.
Radical changes in law and regulations need be brought about before the whole of humanity gets eradicated by the corporations.
Everyone's family and children are under attack ,not by foreign invaders but by the corporate invaders , corporations that have no geographical boundaries nor have any human interests .
5
Nice to know that the Times defines "workplace culture" in terms of executive "leadership" (with or without "perks") and not in terms of where so many women toil: factories, agriculture, domestic service, and low-end service-industry labor. I doubt that their top priority is decrying the inadequacy of Fedex'd breast milk and flying nannies.
19
I would have interested to know what percentage of those polled believed that at least one partner be ready to support a family, because 51% + 33% < 100%, so at least 16% think neither partner need be ready. Charitably perhaps those folks believe it should be a joint effort and responsibility.
1
This column identifies core problems with today's workplace. What isn't mentioned is the role of labor unions in trying to humanize working conditions. As labor has become weaker, employers have been increasingly able to dictate an inhumane pace on the job. Both of my children work at white-collar jobs that are covered by union contract, and neither has had to submit to being on call around the clock in the fashion described by the author.
27
"Despite tremendous progress, a majority of Americans still cling to traditional gender norms"
"Cling"? "Progress"? Maybe the majority has it right, there is no reason to label their position as clinging. That people have the freedom to be all avant-garde with their lives and try out non-traditional roles is a good thing. Which is not to say that non-traditional roles are always good thing.
People only have one life to get the work/life/family balance right. Traditional roles mean that people don't have to spend a decade or two determining their own personal roles, they can just take a prepackaged role and run with it.
The roles, as I see them presented by the major faiths:
Get out of school as a guy, find lawful employment, a wife, produce children, and provide for the family.
Get out of school as a gal, find a husband, produce children, take care of them, and maybe get a job later if you feel the inclination.
"Clinging" to these "non-progressive" roles means you can get moving on all this in your early twenties, as opposed to floundering around wondering which way really is up until your late thirties.
"Cling"? "Progress"? Maybe the majority has it right, there is no reason to label their position as clinging. That people have the freedom to be all avant-garde with their lives and try out non-traditional roles is a good thing. Which is not to say that non-traditional roles are always good thing.
People only have one life to get the work/life/family balance right. Traditional roles mean that people don't have to spend a decade or two determining their own personal roles, they can just take a prepackaged role and run with it.
The roles, as I see them presented by the major faiths:
Get out of school as a guy, find lawful employment, a wife, produce children, and provide for the family.
Get out of school as a gal, find a husband, produce children, take care of them, and maybe get a job later if you feel the inclination.
"Clinging" to these "non-progressive" roles means you can get moving on all this in your early twenties, as opposed to floundering around wondering which way really is up until your late thirties.
5
What percent of "get out of school guys" do you think is going to land a job that will pay for a partner to stay home and "produce children"? Seems like that option has been lost for most everyone whether they cling to or champion the traditional roles.
13
Many commenters miss the point. It's not about allowing someone paid time off for paternity/maternity leave then allowing them to jump right back in where they left off. It's about changing the workplace structure where working and family aren't totally separate, where you can only do one thing or the other. For many, taking "time off" isn't an option. Most working couples can't take 4 years off to get their kids to preschool. We need to change the way we consider work. I agree that the military and some other careers are more of a calling and you know that going into it, but for the rest, we need to strike a balance. Where being a "family man" or "hard worker" aren't exclusive of one another.
41
The author does not seem to understand that there are careers in which external factors require efforts outside of normal working hours from time to time. The entrepreneur pursuing an important business acquisition in competition with five other firms is not going to be very understanding if the deal teams at the law firm, investment bank and consulting firm engaged for the project are available only from 9 to 5. It's probably no different for a major new product launch or bid for a substantial customer contract. There are endless examples of situations in the real world in which the ability to get a lot done in a short period of time creates real value.
The disconnect is evident from the last sentence; the person who won't get on the plane on a moment's notice and insists on conducting the meeting without having to travel cannot be the most effective negotiator -- anyone who does difficult negotiations for a living understands that there are times when there is no substitute for getting everyone in the same room.
The disconnect is evident from the last sentence; the person who won't get on the plane on a moment's notice and insists on conducting the meeting without having to travel cannot be the most effective negotiator -- anyone who does difficult negotiations for a living understands that there are times when there is no substitute for getting everyone in the same room.
7
No one has to accept this. If you don't like the work environment, find a different job, or better yet start your own company where you can provide family friendly work policies to all your employees.
1
I made the decision long ago to put having a life ahead of having a career. And surprise of surprises, I've had both. And am most thankful for it. In retrospect, if I had chosen career ahead of life, then I probably would have had a fine career but not much life, as this op-ed piece shows. The tragedy is that our institutions (economic, social, political) are top heavy with careerists who've ditched having a full, well-rounded life, and the decisions they make are poorer for it---poorer for everyone.
8
"businesses are falling over themselves these days to cater to women who want to be or are mothers."
-- Some business only. If you're a night time janitor cleaning some office, warehouse, store or restaurant, you're out of luck.
-- Some business only. If you're a night time janitor cleaning some office, warehouse, store or restaurant, you're out of luck.
15
I think we are looking at this problem the wrong way. What is best for my child? High stress, high hour position may not be the best for myself and my child. Speaking with a well respected teacher from a high achieving high school in NJ, I was surprised when he told me the kids he worries the most about and who give him the most trouble are not those from the lower economic level in the school, but those whose parents both work and are mostly unavailable even for teacher conferences. Infants are one thing, but teens need an awful lot of guidance they may not be getting.
4
We need to get rid of the unrealistic notion that hard work and sacrifice bring reward. They don't. Many workers work hard, stay late, sacrifice family time and it brings them exactly nothing. They are never promoted to any more than a mid-level position, at best. They never earn a yearly salary even close to six figures. They are never given stock options and yearly bonuses. And, yet we cling to the ridiculous idea that someday our reward will come. Meanwhile, we retire with nothing saved, our children don't know who we are and our spouses have moved on. So much for the American dream. And, yet we still tell our young people to work hard, aim high and all the rest of the tripe. We should be telling kids that those sacrifices get you exactly nowhere, and the real reward comes when you find a job that you don't hate that pays the bills, that lets you save a little, that gives you some insurance and that has reasonable hours so you actually have a family life. Everyone can't be in the executive suite. Most people are just worker bees, and there's no shame in that. Working your life away while aiming for some impossible goal is a ridiculous waste of a life.
P.S. I will add that the people I have known who love their jobs the most and who seem the most content are the people who work for non-profits, which pay some of the lowest salaries. Those folks will never be rich by corporate standards, but their work is incredibly rewarding and their lives have meaning.
P.S. I will add that the people I have known who love their jobs the most and who seem the most content are the people who work for non-profits, which pay some of the lowest salaries. Those folks will never be rich by corporate standards, but their work is incredibly rewarding and their lives have meaning.
93
Here's a news flash: people who work harder make more money. In many, if not most fields of work, harder work and longer hours equate to more money. A doctor who works 5 days a week will, on average make 25% more than one who works 4 days a week, a teacher who also tutors in the evenings and takes a summer job will make more than one who doesn't, and a shift worker who works 6 or 7 shifts a week will make more than one who works only 5. Only in a corporate or government bureaucracy could one attempt to hide this fact.
Corporations on the one hand want to get the most work from their employees for the least cost, but on the other hand want to retain good employees by making their jobs palatable, if not desirable. It is really a credit to both corporations and working women that corporations are finally making accommodations to women who want to raise families. This shows that corporations have recognized the importance of keeping talented female employees and are willing to spend resources to keep them.
Corporations on the one hand want to get the most work from their employees for the least cost, but on the other hand want to retain good employees by making their jobs palatable, if not desirable. It is really a credit to both corporations and working women that corporations are finally making accommodations to women who want to raise families. This shows that corporations have recognized the importance of keeping talented female employees and are willing to spend resources to keep them.
11
I know lots of working people who work longer and harder than the "average" while making less money than the "average". Nursing home orderlies, tax drivers, construction laborers, and so on. I think your view of the working world is quite narrow. I sounds pretty much white collar and professional.
20
It's not just about women. Many, many fathers want to be more present parents than their fathers were. Unless and until men use the perks and work-life balancing options as much as women do, women will be devalued as employees for using those options. And men won't use them until it becomes the norm among men in general. A catch-22.
The Millenials may change this. They were not raised to believe that climbing the ladder makes you a better person. They want to like and be good at what they do, but above all to contribute and have meaningful lives. When no one buys the long hours bit, and when there is a labor shortage, corporate culture will change. Until then, we all slave away to line the pockets of the overpaid CEO.
The Millenials may change this. They were not raised to believe that climbing the ladder makes you a better person. They want to like and be good at what they do, but above all to contribute and have meaningful lives. When no one buys the long hours bit, and when there is a labor shortage, corporate culture will change. Until then, we all slave away to line the pockets of the overpaid CEO.
2
What about those workers who are paid salaries, not overtime, and don't necessarily benefit from putting in "extra" shifts for "extra" money?
2
For me, an unexpected benefit of having children has been the necessity to set boundaries that I was never able to set pre-children. If my child is sick or has to be picked up from school, I have to leave work, period. It's been 6 years and the world has not ended, I have not been fired, and my colleagues now know that I have boundaries. I work hard, meet my deadlines, and have shown that I am willing to drop everything for work a couple times a year, but not all the time. I have not been promoted since I had children, but honestly my childless colleagues work more hours and deserve that more than me. It's all good because I no longer draw all of my self worth from my career.
13
What per cent of these business leaders who are in conventional marriages end up divorcing their wives and marrying their mistresses, have mistresses, have flings, etc.?
8
Not all that many.
The high-paid worker who is supporting a family is usually devasted to lose them, not the ones who go in for trophy wives or "second" families.
Why mess with what is working, especially if the family life is good?
The high-paid worker who is supporting a family is usually devasted to lose them, not the ones who go in for trophy wives or "second" families.
Why mess with what is working, especially if the family life is good?
"...60 percent of the men have spouses who don’t work full-time outside the home, compared with only 10 percent of the women."
So... little has changed in the workplace since women were allowed out of the house except now because of technology, all worker bees, - and that's what people are - are expected to stay connected to the hive, even those high-paid ones who can afford to have spouses at home taking care of things.
Time to march for union protection again.
So... little has changed in the workplace since women were allowed out of the house except now because of technology, all worker bees, - and that's what people are - are expected to stay connected to the hive, even those high-paid ones who can afford to have spouses at home taking care of things.
Time to march for union protection again.
12
You may not want to believe this, but some mothers want to stay home and raise their children. I doubt the women to which you refer are being held in their homes against their will. Some mothers prefer to through themselves immediately into work again after giving birth, others work part time, some stay home. Some have to work and some do not. Fortunately we women live in a time where we can make our own choices, so we actually have come a long way since the '50's.
I started a consulting firm in 2000 based on the belief that work should be designed around life, not the other way around. We now have 20 consultants who have shaped their work life in a way that supports the life they want. I think we are on to something here.
4
Just say no to working for companies that expect you to be always available. Keep a work computer and a personal computer and do not mix them.
The model for the ideal worker has its roots in the in the ideal male which is imposed on females at the work place. The worker is like the caveman who goes out and brings home the meat while the care giver is treated like a third class citizen. This model is slowly changing, but we have far to go
3
American companies that insist on unhealthy levels of work hours are directly stealing from our children the healthy underpinnings of childhood. Even people that don't have children are not off the hook. They can expect poor health outcomes for themselves. This current model is unsustainable.
3
If you get your work done and can leave at a reasonable time, then you're labeled as not having enough work - and you're either given more or reprimanded for not being available. Sure, you can leave work "early" just so long as you're willing to work into the late hours of the night at home. You mean you didn't work through the weekend? You didn't work AT ALL on your vacation? Clearly, you're not dedicated to your career.
Hollow-eyed and soul weary, that's the way we like our workforce. Just at the raggedy edge of complete burnout.
Or, maybe that's just me.
Hollow-eyed and soul weary, that's the way we like our workforce. Just at the raggedy edge of complete burnout.
Or, maybe that's just me.
8
The intense focus on how to balance parenting and work, particularly for upper class families, ignores key questions: (1) where do we derive meaning and (2) what is the meaning behind most business anyway? Many of us derive meaning from, fulfill a real need by, providing financial security to family and institutions we care about. For some who can't make a choice about how/where to work, we do the work and pray for the best. For those who have financial security and are aiming for other things like recognition or power, there is meaning. Where there is no meaning, there is struggle. People seem to lack meaning when their business is not relevant enough to their core values. The accumulation of truly unnecessary things (latest e-device, new clothes) or working for a company that does not engage the worker doesn't provide the long-term meaning most people I know are striving to continually achieve. A curve like what we learned in economics class must show diminishing returns when too many resources are directed at one goal. We all have the responsibility to find things that move us and then to find work that helps maintain the motivation needed to succeed day to day in those things. In today's ever-changing unpredicable world, I am optimistic that reliance on odd corporate perqs for the highest ranking employees is not going to be needed by most of us: that we will find ways to support ourselves with less stuff and more life.
1
To all those people whose comments carried resentment for the special "privilege" that some companies (and other comments) would provide, I offer this. The article here was about a scenario that sounded like it came out of a movie script. But the REAL issue is that the American worker (the average of what used to be the Middle Class) is overworked, underpaid, overstressed and de-personified. Corporate America has become the controlling head of a population that almost represents a Metropolis scenario. Even the least skilled workers are bled of their energy in an environment that many (like Jeb Bush) feel should be more "productive" We are among the most productive countries in the world, yet the people who have earned that title are not recognized, either monetarily or professionally for their contributions. Many see vacations/sick leave/family leave and 401(K)s as privileges. They are not. They should be part of an employment structure that recognized the whole person. An employee who is treated well and can take care of his life is a loyal one who you will not have to replace.
83
One of the best people I have ever worked for frequently says, "if you can't do your job in 8 hours there is either something wrong with you or something wrong with the job."
Of course there are professions that one goes into knowing that they are not 9-5 or 9-6 propositions - the military, certain medical specialities, the priesthood/ministry, etc. These are callings as much as jobs. People choose that life (or in some sense it chooses them).
But your typical corporate/business/professional career should not be that way. As with Amazon, retailing and sending people merchandise is not a "passion" - and anyone who thinks it rightly demands 18 hour days is either deluded or cowed.
A company that is properly managed, has good systems in place, and is appropriately staffed will not have to ask employees - whether men or women, parents or not - to work unreasonable hours or to be available around the clock for emailing and other interruptions. The belief that people who work the longest are the most effective is a lazy concept. It is about control, comformity, and group identity - not productivity. We all need to question such assumptions a lot harder than most of us are willing. Grumbling is not action.
The guy who spends 10 minutes a day with his kids is making a big mistake - one he is likely to regret deeply.
Of course there are professions that one goes into knowing that they are not 9-5 or 9-6 propositions - the military, certain medical specialities, the priesthood/ministry, etc. These are callings as much as jobs. People choose that life (or in some sense it chooses them).
But your typical corporate/business/professional career should not be that way. As with Amazon, retailing and sending people merchandise is not a "passion" - and anyone who thinks it rightly demands 18 hour days is either deluded or cowed.
A company that is properly managed, has good systems in place, and is appropriately staffed will not have to ask employees - whether men or women, parents or not - to work unreasonable hours or to be available around the clock for emailing and other interruptions. The belief that people who work the longest are the most effective is a lazy concept. It is about control, comformity, and group identity - not productivity. We all need to question such assumptions a lot harder than most of us are willing. Grumbling is not action.
The guy who spends 10 minutes a day with his kids is making a big mistake - one he is likely to regret deeply.
198
I seriously doubt that that guy who gets 10 minutes a day with his children really has a choice. Unless he is willing to make a major geographical move to an area with a significantly lower cost of living, he is trapped. In many ways, this is no different than it was in the 1940's and 1950's. My late husband's father was a NYC banker and when my husband was a young child, he did not get home before his bedtime (children were put to bed FAR earlier in those days and actually got the sleep they need!). He saw his father on weekends and during vacations in the summer. At 14, he went to boarding school and only saw his parents on vacation. In no way did this warp his ability to have a wonderful marriage with me, and a wonderful relationship with our two children. He choose to teach as he did not want that lifestyle for himself, but he never resented his father's choice - it was just the way things were and he did have a mother at home.
1
Ironically, when work was at the office only, I and my coworkers could usually do our actual work in maybe half an hour a day most of the time. The rest was spent just wasting time, in case maybe at 4:45 the boss suddenly wanted to ask you a question. Now, the boss feels free to suddenly ask you a question at 2 AM Dec. 25.
We are becoming the most anti-choice country on the planet. If you wish to move up the corporate ladder and make a lot of money, your kids will never see you or know you, but they will know the nanny very well. If you are poor and cannot get an abortion, the portion of institutionalized racism that falls under womens health (aka anti-abortion) will be your lot. The right screams about how the government is dictating to us, yet the rights insistence on fewer selections is what's really killing our democracy. Please come beat me over the head wit hyour religious freedom junk come more, I don't think you've done enough damage yet - (she said sarcastically).
4
Unfortunately, life is full of choices and trade-offs.
3
So in the modern corporation it is more profitable to squeeze all the work out of a select group of employees even to the point of giving them special perks rather than hire additional employees to spread the work out among a larger group and also to lessen the number of unemployed? Why can't folks who are currently employed have a decent work schedule and why can't those who are either unemployed or underemployed get decent jobs, too?
22
Well said. To continue this trend of all-work and family an afterthought, we are maintaining chronic unrelieved stress alive, to everybody's peril. No balance allowed if we are to succeed, let alone promoted. A sad state of affairs. My comments have some weight, as my job as a general surgeon, consumed all time and effort and dedication, to the point of seeing my children grow unattended by yours truly, an emotional loss almost impossible to recover. We must do better. As the famous saying goes: no one who is dying will miss all the sterile hours working away. Nor even for fame and glory, nor greed for money and the power it engenders; can't take it with you.
9
I actually think the workplace culture will only change when when our attitudes about business changes. At present, we allow businesses to escape corporate taxes through (legal) tax schemes, permitting them to hoard millions overseas to escape taxes, tax investment profits at a lower rate, and allow boards to pay their chief executives ever higher compensation. Today, it's all about money and we want to squeeze the last amount of productivity out of everybody. This type of focus on short term gains at the expense of long term ones does not encourage companies to think about how they treat workers. To change attitudes requires a seismic shift on how we, as a nation, treat corporations. Our current tax code encourages short term gains, and companies are more than happy to comply. In the end, the worker is simply the collateral damage.
15
A splendid article in support of the One Percent. How about the people who don't get the perks of the firm kowtowing to them, rearranging working conditions to suit them, throwing more and more money at them, making their life easier? What about the people who actually work for a living? Not leaders. Not followers. Not drones. Just people who work in order to make their lives better. They notion that the "leaders" at a firm are what make that firm successful is a myth, nothing more.
13
I was in the role of "Mr.Mom" for a considerable while in the late seventies and early eighties when my wife, a teacher, returned to work after maternity leave, and I freelanced from home.
The experience was enlightening on many levels. I would occasionally, out of necessity, bring one of my children with me to a client visit. The workplace in this country is indeed a family unfriendly zone yet their are so many workplace "inmates" who are welcoming of an intrusion of family and children to an office setting. Clearly this was unusual, but I was able to get away with it.
This was a stark contrast to the experience I had earlier, and later, in management positions where any deflection of attention from work to family was frowned upon. One employer told me he wanted his "people" to be married to the company.
There is a hunger for change in the workplace regarding the definition of the model worker. The workaholic model may work for younger folk with no familial role or responsiblities, or as a temporary sacrifice to head off a financial crisis, or as a start to increase ones personal wealth and security, but it is not a healthy model for the long haul.
Workoholism, like alcoholism, is a disease. one that carries the potential for financial gain, but is disruptive of all that is stable and necessary for a good life. It turns work into a parasite that sucks the joy out of life and makes "a life well lived" impossible, for some, to achieve.
The experience was enlightening on many levels. I would occasionally, out of necessity, bring one of my children with me to a client visit. The workplace in this country is indeed a family unfriendly zone yet their are so many workplace "inmates" who are welcoming of an intrusion of family and children to an office setting. Clearly this was unusual, but I was able to get away with it.
This was a stark contrast to the experience I had earlier, and later, in management positions where any deflection of attention from work to family was frowned upon. One employer told me he wanted his "people" to be married to the company.
There is a hunger for change in the workplace regarding the definition of the model worker. The workaholic model may work for younger folk with no familial role or responsiblities, or as a temporary sacrifice to head off a financial crisis, or as a start to increase ones personal wealth and security, but it is not a healthy model for the long haul.
Workoholism, like alcoholism, is a disease. one that carries the potential for financial gain, but is disruptive of all that is stable and necessary for a good life. It turns work into a parasite that sucks the joy out of life and makes "a life well lived" impossible, for some, to achieve.
60
It's pretty hard to just give up that life if one lives in a major metropolitan area, as the cost of living is astounding. And making a geographic move is not always a possibility for many reasons.
1
Re: "Mr. Mom"--do you mean "Dad"?
Ironically, the jobs that don't impinge on your free time are things like flipping burgers and cleaning toilets.
2
Identifying the problem is easy enough-- work/life boundaries have gotten erased and that's tough on everyone, parent of not.
But what is a realistic solution given that the company that does not play by those rules quickly goes out of business? And if we fix American companies, how do they compete with foreign competitors who still cling to the old "work first" ways?
But what is a realistic solution given that the company that does not play by those rules quickly goes out of business? And if we fix American companies, how do they compete with foreign competitors who still cling to the old "work first" ways?
2
"I am the last person to object to policies intended to support working mothers..." but here I go anyway...
A few points: 1. If you make enough to comfortably afford a nanny or daycare, you have zero right to complain.
2. What is never mentioned by workers complaining about the brutality of the "always available" for work is that most of them spend a good chunk of their workday tending to personal matters via the same technology: personal e-mails, paying bills and shopping online, checking in on their kids via cell phone, etc. etc.
3. Maybe career-minded women need to shift their thinking when it comes to choosing a spouse, and choose an affable and dependable man who would be happy to stay at home with the kids, instead of a high earning individual with a socially-acceptable career. Some women say they would be all for this option, but as soon as the financial constraints of a single income set in (one car instead of one Mercedes and one SUV, a few days off with the kids instead of a week in Nantucket, and god forbid budgeting on food), for many, the tune changes.
A few points: 1. If you make enough to comfortably afford a nanny or daycare, you have zero right to complain.
2. What is never mentioned by workers complaining about the brutality of the "always available" for work is that most of them spend a good chunk of their workday tending to personal matters via the same technology: personal e-mails, paying bills and shopping online, checking in on their kids via cell phone, etc. etc.
3. Maybe career-minded women need to shift their thinking when it comes to choosing a spouse, and choose an affable and dependable man who would be happy to stay at home with the kids, instead of a high earning individual with a socially-acceptable career. Some women say they would be all for this option, but as soon as the financial constraints of a single income set in (one car instead of one Mercedes and one SUV, a few days off with the kids instead of a week in Nantucket, and god forbid budgeting on food), for many, the tune changes.
9
Maybe all working women are not "career-minded," but helping to pay for the house and food and everyday living -without the Mercedes. When I was raising a family, I was fortunate enough to be able to stay at home. But the cost of our nice 3-bedroom house way back then (1956) was $18,750, with a mortgage payment of around $80 a month.
By the time end of the 1970s,the "value" of the house had risen to over $50,000, heading up and up. Women had little choice but to start working to cover the rising cost of housing.
I'm all for women having the choice to fulfill their lives as they see fit. Certainly the one making the money (men) had all the power in the old days, and ithat was totally unfair and needed to be corrected, and everyone should be allowed to follow their calling.
Not everyone gets a chance to go to Nantucket -although that would be nice.
By the time end of the 1970s,the "value" of the house had risen to over $50,000, heading up and up. Women had little choice but to start working to cover the rising cost of housing.
I'm all for women having the choice to fulfill their lives as they see fit. Certainly the one making the money (men) had all the power in the old days, and ithat was totally unfair and needed to be corrected, and everyone should be allowed to follow their calling.
Not everyone gets a chance to go to Nantucket -although that would be nice.
1
Yes, that's why I said "career-minded women" and not "working women."
Also, the Nantucket/Mercedes bit was a flippant nod to the author and the woes of high-income households.
Thank you for completely twisting my comment in order to contribute your 2 cents.
Also, the Nantucket/Mercedes bit was a flippant nod to the author and the woes of high-income households.
Thank you for completely twisting my comment in order to contribute your 2 cents.
There has to be middle ground -- such as shared positions. My daughter (who works her A off) is a doc and now a med school professor. She has a son that was breastfed until he was 16 months old and also a husband who travels all the time. Parents helped out when she was on call. But most importantly, there is also a back up doctor -- others who can step in.
I was a stay at home Mom for 15 years. Breast fed each child for 3 years. Organic garden blah blah. Frankly I loved my girls, but I was a neurotic mess.
I went to law school in my 40s. Now at 65 I happily trot into the office on Saturdays if bored at home. I love working. It keeps me sane. Both my daughters have careers and have learned to balance. Our culture has to respect how much women are pulled and provide some backup. I adore and respect men, but they are different from us, and their brains do not work like ours. They will never ever feel the pull in all directions that women do. When the going gets rough, men turn inward, take a break, and take care of themselves. Women (with children) do need special considerations if they are to succeed in the workplace and at home.
I was a stay at home Mom for 15 years. Breast fed each child for 3 years. Organic garden blah blah. Frankly I loved my girls, but I was a neurotic mess.
I went to law school in my 40s. Now at 65 I happily trot into the office on Saturdays if bored at home. I love working. It keeps me sane. Both my daughters have careers and have learned to balance. Our culture has to respect how much women are pulled and provide some backup. I adore and respect men, but they are different from us, and their brains do not work like ours. They will never ever feel the pull in all directions that women do. When the going gets rough, men turn inward, take a break, and take care of themselves. Women (with children) do need special considerations if they are to succeed in the workplace and at home.
9
Children and family life are not for everyone. You cannot have everything at the same time. The American myth of productivity requires 24/7 work to the bone, no vacation mentality. The American ideal of the perfect family, high-achieving , well-adjusted kids requirs e a full-time mother/chauffer/meal-preparer/home-work checker/volunteer coach/school advocate. You either outsource this to a nanny (or two) or sacrifice the mother's career. Or, as a family, decide that aiming for balance is more important than financial success because you really want a family. In America, you cannot have both. We are lucky to have this choice.
6
Have you had to look for a job lately? It's not like you can ditch the high-level law track and step right into a low-stress position. In fact, I challenge you to find a position at any level of stress or prestige where the staff is large enough to handle the daily business and have something to spare when co-workers take time off. Usually you have a skeleton staff of people who do the jobs of two people or more. Corporate anorexia is deeply embedded in our culture at all levels.
1
No magical answer to these issues of course. The system might change slowly over decades. We can all make it known to others in our sphere what we would like, but who knows when it will happen.
The question often boils down to: do you want to be right, or do you want to be effective.
Given that we as an individual can't typically change the world, we have to be creative to the degree we can and find an approach that works best for ourselves and our family.
I'd suggest success is not determined by our salary, status or position in the organization, but by: are we reasonably happy and leading a meaningful life. We have to make the adjustments in priorities that lead to that I'd say. An individual choice of course. Don't let corporate America decide these things for you.
The question often boils down to: do you want to be right, or do you want to be effective.
Given that we as an individual can't typically change the world, we have to be creative to the degree we can and find an approach that works best for ourselves and our family.
I'd suggest success is not determined by our salary, status or position in the organization, but by: are we reasonably happy and leading a meaningful life. We have to make the adjustments in priorities that lead to that I'd say. An individual choice of course. Don't let corporate America decide these things for you.
".. the ideal workers are not the ones who stay at work the latest, but the ones who get all their work done and leave at a reasonable hour .." This alternative to the currently dominant business model of the ideal worker is an achievable goal. It's better for the workers and their families. It's likely better for long-term profits, as well, because happy, balanced, well-rested employees are more productive than sleep-deprived, one-dimensional, stressed-out workaholics.
I know this is so. For much of my work life, my employer compelled me to be a workaholic. I acceded to the demands of the workplace in order to pay the bills. And I knew I was not as productive while being chronically overworked, not because I was lazy or playing a passive-aggressive game, but because I was human.
Why do businesses perpetuate this absurd dichotomy between consumers and employees, doing almost anything for the consumers, and treating employees as chattel, as modern-day serfs? The more important label is consumers and employees are all PEOPLE. And people have needs which cannot be satisfied at a workplace.
I know this is so. For much of my work life, my employer compelled me to be a workaholic. I acceded to the demands of the workplace in order to pay the bills. And I knew I was not as productive while being chronically overworked, not because I was lazy or playing a passive-aggressive game, but because I was human.
Why do businesses perpetuate this absurd dichotomy between consumers and employees, doing almost anything for the consumers, and treating employees as chattel, as modern-day serfs? The more important label is consumers and employees are all PEOPLE. And people have needs which cannot be satisfied at a workplace.
11
There is a reason corporations hate unions: unions negotiate on behalf of employees for reasonable work hours and benefits. Until we organize again, the problems described in this editorial will continue, and we have only ourselves to blame. The next time you hear or read someone bashing a union, speak up!
37
If you are someone who would rather be paid the same as all of your peers then by all means support a union. To be that suggests you believe you are at the median or below in talent and ability. If you believe you are above average skip the union and fight for yourself when it comes to raises and promotions.
3
Absolutely True!
Entire paradigm of work must change. With adequate staffing, you don't need a office of 'chickens with their heads cut off' mentalities. 24/7 work environments benefit the 1% and no one else. I have never met a top executive that did not take tons of vacation and leisure time. Why not, when you have a army of wage slaves killing themselves for a few extra crumbs. One of these days people will wake up...I hope.
17
No flying nannies just mean that the nannies' families are without care givers. What a solution punishment by job title. How about work places that have universal employee friendly policies. Policies that are not dependent on job title. Or your social status. With or without children, with or without wives or husbands, with or without dependents just across the board employee friendly policies without discrimination. Employees who make a living wage; if you need time off for your own health care then do you have paid sick days; do you have paid health insurance; if your family member needs your care do you have paid personal time; do you have access to a retirement account? Just start with the basics employee policies across the board to establish universal employee friendly policies. Lets drop the Walmart or Apple extreme employee policies and develop a model that universal employee policies that benefit all workers at all levels.
18
"We need to reimagine leadership so that the ideal workers are not the ones who stay at work the latest, but the ones who get all their work done and leave at a reasonable hour; they are not the ones who get on a plane on a moment’s notice, even with a nanny in tow, but the ones who figure out how to conduct the meeting without having to travel."
This author wouldn't survive an hour at Amazon!
This author wouldn't survive an hour at Amazon!
3
A lot of companies are actually doing this. And it's even worse for employees! What it usually means is that there's someone watching you all day long - breathing down your neck with a virtual whip. "Work faster. Get it all done by 5, because we turn off the server and lock the doors!"
.
Let me read a bloody New York Times article in the morning and stay a little late to finish my work! I'll happily answer the occasional urgent email that comes through at 9 PM.
.
Let me read a bloody New York Times article in the morning and stay a little late to finish my work! I'll happily answer the occasional urgent email that comes through at 9 PM.
1
There's a bigger world out there than corporate finance, sales, and marketing. People in those lines of work deserve all the grief they get, since they cause so much grief themselves.
Re-organizing work should happen at the production and administrative level. Let the high flyers crash and burn if they can't hack it. Few will shed tears.
Re-organizing work should happen at the production and administrative level. Let the high flyers crash and burn if they can't hack it. Few will shed tears.
5
Executives prize commitment and loyalty above intelligence and creativity, as anybody who has met a few executives knows. Most large companies are personality cults, rather like Stalinist Russia. By lavishing pay and promotion on those who demonstrate loyalty to the company, and in particular to their executive superiors, the system is self perpetuating. Unfortunately, this system has proven successful. We are stuck with the system until a few counterexamples emerge.
55
In my experience, the people who get promoted are often not the best at what they do. The ones who get promoted are the best human bobble-heads: "Yes, sir".
Whatever is wrong with a company's culture, over time, usually becomes magnified by this process until it implodes.
Whatever is wrong with a company's culture, over time, usually becomes magnified by this process until it implodes.
2
The Washington Post published over the weekend a fascinating article on Stanford University Hospital, which offers perks to its physicians to incentivize them to work hard, cover the shifts of their colleagues, and offer excellent care for patients. Sure the patients want a well-rested, happy physician, not a burned out one. But the perks (healthy pre-made meals, laundry done, housecleaning done) make the hard work more tolerable.
This opinion piece is unrealistic. Companies in India and China are eating our lunch unless we work hard and innovate. American companies strive to focus, satisfy customers, innovate, and all of this takes hard work, often beyond the 9-to-5 timeframe. I've been to Denmark and Netherlands where work-life balance is way better than in the US, and it's great, but you don't see these companies blowing away competitors.
Get over it. Work hard. Money isn't everything, family and health are important. Try to achieve some sort of balance in your life between work and family. If you don't work hard, you won't have the means to pay for the many things that your family needs (college, retirement).
This opinion piece is unrealistic. Companies in India and China are eating our lunch unless we work hard and innovate. American companies strive to focus, satisfy customers, innovate, and all of this takes hard work, often beyond the 9-to-5 timeframe. I've been to Denmark and Netherlands where work-life balance is way better than in the US, and it's great, but you don't see these companies blowing away competitors.
Get over it. Work hard. Money isn't everything, family and health are important. Try to achieve some sort of balance in your life between work and family. If you don't work hard, you won't have the means to pay for the many things that your family needs (college, retirement).
5
I would add that if you really love what you're doing, it's not work. As a kid I used to stay up late drawing buildings on the computer, and building models of them using first Legos, and then chip board. Now I'm an architect. I do it for a living. I will happily take a moment away from a whiny three year old to answer a couple of work emails on a Saturday! I did just that two days ago. :-)
1
TEN minutes with your child at night?? Is that a joke?!? Ten minutes does NOT a relationship make.
I have a father who owns his own consulting business, and work came in seasonally for him. This means that while my dad would sometimes have to travel for weeks at a time, he would also go through phases of staying at home 24/7. During those periods of time, I had my dad making me breakfast, taking me to school, picking me up, helping with dinner, joking, playing, annoying, teasing and all of the other things that great, present fathers engage in. I know all of my father's best childhood anecdotes. I've heard all of his terrible "dad jokes." And while this may sound idyllic, a present father has a practical benefit as well - thanks to prompting of NPR in the morning and the news in the evening, I've had plenty of deep and political conversations with my father. By virtue of working in the "real world," he made political issues seem more vibrant and important than any classroom teacher ever did.
It is not fair to expect a father-child relationship to grow out of 10 minutes here and there, or a few weekend outings. I feel sorry for fathers and children whose relationships have come to this - we as a society need to evaluate the values that have created these circumstances. When will we learn that life is measured in time spent, and not dollars earned?
I have a father who owns his own consulting business, and work came in seasonally for him. This means that while my dad would sometimes have to travel for weeks at a time, he would also go through phases of staying at home 24/7. During those periods of time, I had my dad making me breakfast, taking me to school, picking me up, helping with dinner, joking, playing, annoying, teasing and all of the other things that great, present fathers engage in. I know all of my father's best childhood anecdotes. I've heard all of his terrible "dad jokes." And while this may sound idyllic, a present father has a practical benefit as well - thanks to prompting of NPR in the morning and the news in the evening, I've had plenty of deep and political conversations with my father. By virtue of working in the "real world," he made political issues seem more vibrant and important than any classroom teacher ever did.
It is not fair to expect a father-child relationship to grow out of 10 minutes here and there, or a few weekend outings. I feel sorry for fathers and children whose relationships have come to this - we as a society need to evaluate the values that have created these circumstances. When will we learn that life is measured in time spent, and not dollars earned?
12
Strict enforcement of the 40 hour (or less) work week, applying to ALL workers would go a long way. Laws mandating paid leave for all new parents would help too.
11
Why is the focus always on families with children? Why aren't there policies in effect for all of us whether we're married, have children, are single with children, or single without family, or single with family concerns, etc? Everything in America is set up to divide us against each other. We seem to believe that the only ones who deserve to be treated decently (although one could question the meaning of decent) are those with young children who are married. As a single adult with no family to help me out while I help out my family, I've gotten no special considerations on the job. I'm expected to cover for colleagues who have "real" families. I'm expected to give up my free time, stay late, come in on time the next day, re-arrange my schedule, etc.
Then, when I'm tired or burnt out I'm told it's too bad. When I needed to assist my mother my supervisor, who has a family and has been praised to the skies for his sensitivity with his family, ignored my requests until I cc'd everyone in creation. America treats employees very badly when it comes to sick time, vacation time, family leave, salary, hours, etc. When we're broken or they decide to become more "efficient" we suffer. Almost everyone I know works hard and receives very few rewards for their hard work. It's about time that our employers treated us like human beings rather than gears in the machine. We might even have a better workforce if we were treated like people.
Then, when I'm tired or burnt out I'm told it's too bad. When I needed to assist my mother my supervisor, who has a family and has been praised to the skies for his sensitivity with his family, ignored my requests until I cc'd everyone in creation. America treats employees very badly when it comes to sick time, vacation time, family leave, salary, hours, etc. When we're broken or they decide to become more "efficient" we suffer. Almost everyone I know works hard and receives very few rewards for their hard work. It's about time that our employers treated us like human beings rather than gears in the machine. We might even have a better workforce if we were treated like people.
105
Hen3ry- as a mother with (grown) children I couldn't agree with you more. For one thing, it is stigmatizing to have to plead special exemption for parenthood. Everyone should be treated decently.
1
Women should be paid to stay home for the first two years of their child's life and then the man should be paid to stay home for the third year.
15
I have a doctorate in life sciences/medical science. I decided when I completed by PhD to take time off to stay home with my then-2 year old and have a second child. I was home for four years full-time, and am so lucky and am so glad I did not decide to try to juggle career and baby years. I picked up where I left off -- and when I returned to my career, the inherent message was that I had done the baby thing and now I was back. That is not to say that I have not had to juggle while my kids were growing up, I certainly did. But I'm so thankful I did not have to juggle breastfeeding and the office, or travel and my babies. It's a tough decision and I don't think there are easy choices or solutions. I made the best one for me, and I would support anyone's choice whatever they do. But I think 24 hour drop of a hat availability is unhealthy anyway, kids or not. We need to learn to savor life before we implode as a society.
107
You were very fortunate to be able to "return" to a career (which it seems you had not actually started after grad school), most likely because you are in a high demand field. I'd be willing to bet you were not able to "return" to an academic job. Don't extrapolate your experience to an achievable ideal for most women.
11
Actually, I had worked before grad school, had my daughter while getting my PhD, and then returned to academia after significant efforts and networking for a couple of years before deciding that I was more interested in a non-bench career. I have worked very hard to create a career that works for me and that is one of excellence. I don't think my path would have been any different if I had not taken a break. I don't think I said I did not consider myself thankful. But I never expected my employers to accommodate my mother status. I do think that a time-limited break while staying in touch with professional connections and organizations so that a return is possible can be an achievable path for many parents.
3
Interesting piece, yet we all should remember that we have a choice... live to work or work to live.
11
For now, at least. Unfortunately, the more people are willing to be good corporate drones, forsaking their families and even themselves, the less this will be true.
Not everybody
Personally, I like having the opportunity to put my head down for long periods of time and work, work, work. Better able to concentrate on my task, and creative thought cycles can not be programmed, like putting children on a sleep schedule.
Those of you dissing the people who write emails at 3am when they are up and working... why are you reading them then? Why are your cell phones even on -- you must have agreed to that when you took the financial compensation? Or do you just think you have to respond to the boss in the middle of the night? (Don't you think she want to have people working for her who best know themselves, their needs, and how to budget their time and dollars to do what it takes to get the job done -- sometime yes, in person, and on the off-hours that this author does not prefer?)
While I like to put in long workweeks when the project demands and the work is there, I am able to budget my dollars, and then invest my income in what I have been working for. The life-balance thing, for my personal needs, is not a daily family routine, but a period where I can work intensely, then channel my energies into myself. It works for me.
The more authors like this woman seek to meet the needs of those in her own circumstances, the more choices taken from the rest of us. See Obamacare, for example, where the choices for many actually were reduced in the efforts to help others.
Those of you dissing the people who write emails at 3am when they are up and working... why are you reading them then? Why are your cell phones even on -- you must have agreed to that when you took the financial compensation? Or do you just think you have to respond to the boss in the middle of the night? (Don't you think she want to have people working for her who best know themselves, their needs, and how to budget their time and dollars to do what it takes to get the job done -- sometime yes, in person, and on the off-hours that this author does not prefer?)
While I like to put in long workweeks when the project demands and the work is there, I am able to budget my dollars, and then invest my income in what I have been working for. The life-balance thing, for my personal needs, is not a daily family routine, but a period where I can work intensely, then channel my energies into myself. It works for me.
The more authors like this woman seek to meet the needs of those in her own circumstances, the more choices taken from the rest of us. See Obamacare, for example, where the choices for many actually were reduced in the efforts to help others.
3
It is laudable that nytimes is focusing on work life issues, but the concern is misdirected on people high enough to be provided nannies. Please focus on the travails of 25-75 per hour earning dual income couples with kids, who face all these challenges and yet get no support from government or business. They pay a good chunk of taxes, don't get welfare and their employment lives are more and more insecure.
91
As long as the richest get these fancy perks, they will see no need for more universal parental leave. They really do live a world apart.
74
In the 80's when I realized that Reagan was leading the war against the middle class and that the country was devolving into the most anti-family country the world had ever seen, I decided that in order to survive I had to bring NO children in to the world. Sad to say my prescience was "right on" and without children we were able to retire early and leave the ever more frightening workplace behind us.
23
How is treating everyone equally, without making special accomodations, "anti-family"?
2
Quelle horreur! Parents making millions every year have to make a choice between work and family.
17
On a day the world economy is tanking, what are all these uber workers think they have accomplished? Get off the phone and go read your child a book.
43
I left a management engineering career to take care of two children, my father-in-law with Parkinson's and my aging mother. I was super lucky; my husband is awesome. We both had good jobs, so we were able to choose which of us would stay home (I volunteered). Both of us worked 50+ hours per week at office and 5-10 hours more at home.
I don't regret it - I love to be there for my family. And I don't mind living on less money since my husband did ok. But I resented having to choose between career and family.
You would think someone with a degree in electrical engineering, a minor in physics, and twenty years experience in power and energy would be a better-used resource.
I don't regret it - I love to be there for my family. And I don't mind living on less money since my husband did ok. But I resented having to choose between career and family.
You would think someone with a degree in electrical engineering, a minor in physics, and twenty years experience in power and energy would be a better-used resource.
62
There is no perfect world. Whenever anyone says "I didn't have a choice" I remind them that while we may not like the consequences of the choices presented to us, we are never without a choice. Your story is a perfect example of this.
As someone with your skills, I'd be curious to know why consulting work or maybe part-time teaching wasn't an option.
As someone with your skills, I'd be curious to know why consulting work or maybe part-time teaching wasn't an option.
1
Of course in the New York Times, jobs are all office jobs and employees are all highly educated and highly paid strivers. If we could only solve their work life home life balance all would be well with the world. Perhaps we need more of a capital/labor balance in our politics and economy. How much influence are we willing to give employers over our lives?
23
IThe workplace described in this article - drop everything and work - is why I quit a corporate job after I had kids. Even though the company I worked for has vastly improved the workplace for working parents - permanent part time jobs, work from home, accommodations for nursing, all real and substantial improvements - what hasn't changed in the company is the demand that, at least at the higher levels of career, employees hurry up and wait on executives. It was common then, and still is now, to find your meeting with execs rescheduled for 6:30PM, and waiting until after 7:00 to start. Or to come out of a Friday night meeting with an assignment due first thing Monday morning.
Kids need full time parents - even if they are working parents - who can drop everything when the child is ill, who are there for dinner and bath time, and story time, and later for homework help and just everyday conversation to help navigate mean kids, and hard teachers, and test worries and all the little and big tiger traps of growing up. Raising the children is the real full time job.
Rather than try to fight the system, I chose to focus on raising the kids. In a country which values economic output more than social output, I devalued myself greatly. But my husband and I raised really fantastic kids. I would love for my daughter and son to have the opportunity to raise their future kids without completely killing their economic value.
Kids need full time parents - even if they are working parents - who can drop everything when the child is ill, who are there for dinner and bath time, and story time, and later for homework help and just everyday conversation to help navigate mean kids, and hard teachers, and test worries and all the little and big tiger traps of growing up. Raising the children is the real full time job.
Rather than try to fight the system, I chose to focus on raising the kids. In a country which values economic output more than social output, I devalued myself greatly. But my husband and I raised really fantastic kids. I would love for my daughter and son to have the opportunity to raise their future kids without completely killing their economic value.
192
I wish all women had that choice, not just the ones in corporate America.
For years I labored in this culture as middle management. It was a waste of the time of my life.
27
Well, here it is, 40 years later, another version of the famous Ms. Magazine article 'I need a wife'. Plus ca change ...
43
thank you for the reminder; i just re-read. it is as pertinent as ever.
Companies should of course make it possible for parents to keep their jobs. But at such companies, a parent who reduces their commitment to work in order to increase their commitment to children should return the favor by allowing the company to choose more fully committed employees for leadership positions.
That's fair to everyone. Taking care of children is its own reward. Besides, there are very few positions of leadership in a company anyway. Those top jobs should go only to workers who earn them.
That's fair to everyone. Taking care of children is its own reward. Besides, there are very few positions of leadership in a company anyway. Those top jobs should go only to workers who earn them.
7
I think you are confusing commitment to work with availability and it's availability that this article is concerned with.
11
Raising decent children is a service to society and should be rewarded accordingly
1
Another paradigm that Ms. Weisberg might challenge is the one that says that in order for our lives to improve, we need "leaders" to change their minds about what is important. This thinking reflects the indoctrination of our system of compulsory mis-education, where twelve to sixteen or more years of standardized schooling leaves almost everyone convinced that there is some authority who ultimately determines their success in life, not they themselves. Self-directed learners don't need to wait for a CEO to set their priorities and make their choices for them; they create the life they want, freed up from the whining that "my boss won't let me blah blah blah", a hold-over from "my teacher won't let me blah blah blah."
20
I'd recommend this comment twice if I could.
OK, for those of us that decided not to have children, what kind of special perks are we going to get?
34
A clean, quiet home; expensive adult food and drink; and the pleasures of an evening of adult entertainment, uninterrupted by a wailing infant, a vomiting toddler, or the 8-year-old who is going through a phase of being afraid of the dark.
Cheers!
Cheers!
49
you get all the extra money not spent on child rearing (I think the estimate now is $150k not including college); nothing in the way of whatever career decisions you want to make; and all the benefits associated with a well-functioning society that supports families like lower crime rates and better education (you know, because these kids will be your doctor when you get old).
68
The children of all those parents who labored 24/7 at the unpaid job of bringing them up will one day be paying for the Social Security benefits that help fund your retirement. That's your perk. (Yes, being a parent is a 24/7 job, even for parents who work outside the home. Parents are responsible, 24/7, for making sure their children are well cared for.)
35
Somebody is gonna pay for that and it will be the consumers of the commodities or services those moms produce. I don't see any conflict here. Basic economics.
How do we fix this?
I have told my about-to-be college senior that a job with a great many comforts, like a gym on-site, 24 hour food and valet service to drop off and pick up laundry is a job that doesn't want you to go home. Thankfully he listened and found a job at a company without that level of support. He will be making less than some of his peers but he will get to go home every night.
Thing is, there are always takers for the killer jobs. Until there aren't, this system will never end.
My grandfather owned his own business and he lived comfortably. He was in the office by 9, had a leisurely lunch with friends and was home by 5:30 for dinner promptly at 6. There were no cellphones or answering machines in those days and he did very well indeed. His workers did not stay later or get in earlier than he. My father-in-law was a factory worker who had 4 weeks of vacation a year, together. My other grandfather was a lawyer who had every weekend off. When he met his family at the beach (they did not own a beach house) during the summer, he didn't bring a brief-case.
On the other hand, I just got back from a 2 week vacation, my first in almost 3 years, and checked my email many times each day. They set up my phone to be global so that, you know, I could be reached.
When I had my son, I did pump at work after my four-month unpaid leave, and was lucky to have had a private office and him in day-care down the street. I am LUCKY. Everyone should be.
I have told my about-to-be college senior that a job with a great many comforts, like a gym on-site, 24 hour food and valet service to drop off and pick up laundry is a job that doesn't want you to go home. Thankfully he listened and found a job at a company without that level of support. He will be making less than some of his peers but he will get to go home every night.
Thing is, there are always takers for the killer jobs. Until there aren't, this system will never end.
My grandfather owned his own business and he lived comfortably. He was in the office by 9, had a leisurely lunch with friends and was home by 5:30 for dinner promptly at 6. There were no cellphones or answering machines in those days and he did very well indeed. His workers did not stay later or get in earlier than he. My father-in-law was a factory worker who had 4 weeks of vacation a year, together. My other grandfather was a lawyer who had every weekend off. When he met his family at the beach (they did not own a beach house) during the summer, he didn't bring a brief-case.
On the other hand, I just got back from a 2 week vacation, my first in almost 3 years, and checked my email many times each day. They set up my phone to be global so that, you know, I could be reached.
When I had my son, I did pump at work after my four-month unpaid leave, and was lucky to have had a private office and him in day-care down the street. I am LUCKY. Everyone should be.
181
We fix this by providing Universal Daycare for the working poor who cannot afford to have anyone watch their children.
1
You hit the nail on the head. "Comfortable living" used to be fine. Nowadays comfortable means posh - eat out/carry in, new cars every two years, latest clothes, new computer/cellhone/tablet every time one is announced. There is never enough and that's why people take those demanding jobs. The person making $25,000 wishes for $50,000, certain that is the amount to make their life worthwhile. They hope to move up to ever more money so they can buy more stuff.
It's a complicated world, but I think we have the ability to make choices that simplify our lives if we can look at the bigger picture. Your advice to you son was amazing and I'm glad he listened. It's a testament to good parenting.
It's a complicated world, but I think we have the ability to make choices that simplify our lives if we can look at the bigger picture. Your advice to you son was amazing and I'm glad he listened. It's a testament to good parenting.
When a partner emails me at 2 a.m. on a Sunday morning, I am forced to ask myself whether he's a jerk or a thought leader.
60
He had a fight with his spouse.
13
I think there's only one answer to that question...
8
Or an insomniac who decided to use those sleepless hours instead of watching mindless late night infomercials about hair loss? The question isn't when he sends the emails but rather when he expects you to respond to them.
3
These perks appear to be designed by and primarily for, single mothers. Worse, they actually incentivize single motherhood, and in the case of Apple and Facebook, incentivize postponing motherhood. If and when such perks are made gender-neutral, presumably just around the corner, the corporates would be full-steam undermining marriage as an institution.
That, on surface, seems to be the unstated end-goal. Everything else is just touchy-feely spin. So the real question is who wants it more? Is the undermining of marriage by Tech-America an evil design, or just caving to what 30-somethings today see as necessary for happiness?
That, on surface, seems to be the unstated end-goal. Everything else is just touchy-feely spin. So the real question is who wants it more? Is the undermining of marriage by Tech-America an evil design, or just caving to what 30-somethings today see as necessary for happiness?
7
Tech-America is not "undermining marriage" or supporting single-motherhood. I don't see how you came to that conclusion at all. Perhaps supporting gender inequality is more accurate. However, mothers do give birth, not fathers, so there are some inherent differences that cannot be totally ignored.
7
You forget that women have a biological clock and men do not.
4
#Alexis
It's not the stated consequence, nonetheless fact remains single mothers stand to gain the most. What's the difference between a benefit and incentive? Very little. One single mother's benefit is another woman's incentive to go it alone. And so what if it is? If that's how women feel, if that's what women want, a wink and a nudge to free themselves from gender-unequal marriage to gender-equal jet-setting corporate mom, just say so and let them have it. No problem.
It's not the stated consequence, nonetheless fact remains single mothers stand to gain the most. What's the difference between a benefit and incentive? Very little. One single mother's benefit is another woman's incentive to go it alone. And so what if it is? If that's how women feel, if that's what women want, a wink and a nudge to free themselves from gender-unequal marriage to gender-equal jet-setting corporate mom, just say so and let them have it. No problem.
1
Who wants to shove their baby off on a stranger that they likely never met? Or spend the time becoming comfortable enough to leave their baby with this person while they are in meetings or work? This just adds more pressure
6
I believe the article meant a nanny that you already have would be paid for, not a stranger. Most families that are working full-time at the executive level have caregivers on their payroll.
2
"Caregives on their payroll" could also include grandparents, aunts, and other family members though, under such a system.. I don't know if subsidizing family members because the executives are keen to take advantage of such financial perks necessarily helps the struggling wage earner who does not have "caregivers on their payroll" but relies on on her mother's unpaid help with the grandchildren.
(Wouldn't the costs of the perks for the executive working moms and dads just be passed on, ultimately to the consumers and others who do not share in such benefits? Afterally, the cleaning lady has to work after-hours in the office, bathrooms, kitchens and hallways, no way to avoid it. Something tells me the author here is not so much concerned with providing that worker's children private-daycare for her contributions to the office. She likely is a contract worker also, with no company benefits at all. The rich get richer, the poor pay the price...)
(Wouldn't the costs of the perks for the executive working moms and dads just be passed on, ultimately to the consumers and others who do not share in such benefits? Afterally, the cleaning lady has to work after-hours in the office, bathrooms, kitchens and hallways, no way to avoid it. Something tells me the author here is not so much concerned with providing that worker's children private-daycare for her contributions to the office. She likely is a contract worker also, with no company benefits at all. The rich get richer, the poor pay the price...)
This has gotten way out of hand. Are those of us who are not parents somehow less valuable than those who are? The extra perks given to parents make them better paid than non-parents doing exactly the same work. What would be more equitable would be to assign a monetary amount to each job category and allow the employee to choose which perks they want up to that point. Every time a parent is allowed special treatment, like leaving work early, a non-parent likely has to pick up the slack. At a certain point this becomes too much. The choice to be a parent should not impact on the workload of co-workers or their real income.
200
Exactly. When I made a career move a few years ago I checked the "Best companies for working mothers" lists to see where not to look. Earlier in my career my child free status was thoroughly penalized and exploited - working until 8 PM on Christmas Eve, traveling 3x more than the Moms, etc. I won't be exploited like that again.
15
This is one more example of the 1% pitting the rest of us against each other so we will not see the real problem which is the the increasingly inhumane workplace created by the 1%. Please see the real enemy here -- a plutocracy that is intent on turning us all into wage slaves.
63
The answer to the question you pose is a resounding "YES!".
The reasonings are many. Without children, and I mean all children, your future into old age is questionable at best. If you think your friends are going to be helping you along there then I assure you that you are sadly mistaken. To raise a child to a responsible and contributing adulthood is expensive not only in time allocated but in education, health, and instilling morals upon which civilization is built, otherwise you will be looking at higher taxes to pay for all the prisons to lock up all those young and hopeless adults whom you selfishly denied while you night-clubing and sunning on the beach during warm weather months. Every time some one has a baby that baby becomes a piece in the puzzle that will be your future. So you can choose not to have children but you can not escape the fact that without the children of today you will have no future when you begin to get older. There will be no economy of value and therefore, everything that you value more than children will no longer have any value.
The reasonings are many. Without children, and I mean all children, your future into old age is questionable at best. If you think your friends are going to be helping you along there then I assure you that you are sadly mistaken. To raise a child to a responsible and contributing adulthood is expensive not only in time allocated but in education, health, and instilling morals upon which civilization is built, otherwise you will be looking at higher taxes to pay for all the prisons to lock up all those young and hopeless adults whom you selfishly denied while you night-clubing and sunning on the beach during warm weather months. Every time some one has a baby that baby becomes a piece in the puzzle that will be your future. So you can choose not to have children but you can not escape the fact that without the children of today you will have no future when you begin to get older. There will be no economy of value and therefore, everything that you value more than children will no longer have any value.
5
Why is the author shocked that workers are expected to show up at work? Working from home can never be a true substitute for showing up at least most of the time. You can't complain that women aren't paid exactly the same as the male counterparts and at the same time demand the work structure completely change to meet their need. There is a reason it is called work, not leisure or family time.
12
Please know that not all women are mothers, and not all working mothers have the entitlement attitude this article addresses.
13
Roxy, as a married man without children your point is well taken. My wife is a former management consultant who never missed a meeting for a 3rd grade play. And I volunteered ( though it was expected) to work 20 Fridays after Thanksgiving Day in a row ( the financial markets are open) because I don't have children.
4
Those working "at the top of the corporate world" are really not my concern. They can take care of themselves and it is astonishing that anyone would argue that these people are worthy of some sympathy from the rest of us. My goodness, let's have a pity party for the super-rich today. They work too hard and they are getting killed in the market today. Such a shame.
102
They're not all "super-rich" at all. If they live in the NYC metropolitan area, many make barely enough to live a middle class/upper middle class lifestyle and are being worked to death. Just because they aren't poor, doesn't mean that their quality of life should be so blatantly dismissed.
My own son was just here with his children for a few days vacation. An hour after getting off the plane from NYC, he had a 2 hr conference call. The next early evening, another conference call and a report that had to be emailed immediately - we were half way through a family dinner when he finally was able to join us.
I love technology but it has turned white collar workers into virtual slaves. My son works for an international company and it may not be Christmas Day or Thanksgiving in their country and they never hesitate to contact him and want his immediate attention - after all, THEY are the client and must be served immediately.
My DIL is a SAHD and I'm grateful that at least one parent can be home with their boys. First of all, their child care expenses would be horrendous and secondly, I firmly believe that no caregiver can truly take the place of a parent. It should be no surprise that 60% of men who earn enough for it to be possible, have wives who don't work. Why is this so awful? Are they not volunteers at their children schools for for a wide range of not-for-profits? Are they not caring for their children and their homes? Why is this a bad thing?
My own son was just here with his children for a few days vacation. An hour after getting off the plane from NYC, he had a 2 hr conference call. The next early evening, another conference call and a report that had to be emailed immediately - we were half way through a family dinner when he finally was able to join us.
I love technology but it has turned white collar workers into virtual slaves. My son works for an international company and it may not be Christmas Day or Thanksgiving in their country and they never hesitate to contact him and want his immediate attention - after all, THEY are the client and must be served immediately.
My DIL is a SAHD and I'm grateful that at least one parent can be home with their boys. First of all, their child care expenses would be horrendous and secondly, I firmly believe that no caregiver can truly take the place of a parent. It should be no surprise that 60% of men who earn enough for it to be possible, have wives who don't work. Why is this so awful? Are they not volunteers at their children schools for for a wide range of not-for-profits? Are they not caring for their children and their homes? Why is this a bad thing?
They actually should concern you -- because they set the policies that the rest of us must live by. A skew in their lives will warp ours beyond recognition.
2
Neildsmith - Such hate for those who have made it to the "top of the corporate world." Not everyone "up there" was given the position. Some, through hard work and late hours made it up there on their own. Why hate?
Working people in this society have dug an "availability" hole for themselves by adopting cell phones, email, and texting technologies which MAKE them available 24/7. Once upon a time when the phone rang and no one was home, you'd NEVER know! And if your office wanted to talk to you, they'd have to WAIT till office hours began and you showed up for work! I'm betting stress levels were much lower then and working parents spent more time with their children.
264
When I started working, that was what life was like. Now, near the end of my career, I look forward to the day when I retire, when I will throw all those telephones I have into the Pacific Ocean.
11
Many employers insist that their workers have cell phones, provide the numbers, and be prepared to answer them at any time of day or night.
This started out as a status symbol for the really important employees. Then, as employers thinned out their staffs, it became a necessity for everyone. When you barely have enough staff to cover the daily business, one employee who is out for vacation or an illness can throw a monkey wrench into the whole works. And so: The 24/7 world.
There is plenty of work out there for everyone. Employers just don't want to staff up to full capacity anymore. They don't have to.
This started out as a status symbol for the really important employees. Then, as employers thinned out their staffs, it became a necessity for everyone. When you barely have enough staff to cover the daily business, one employee who is out for vacation or an illness can throw a monkey wrench into the whole works. And so: The 24/7 world.
There is plenty of work out there for everyone. Employers just don't want to staff up to full capacity anymore. They don't have to.
25
It seems incredibly lame to me that so many people have bought into this way of life. Can't even take a real vacation, as they must stay in touch with the office at all times. Oy!
Sure, they make more money than I do but their lives are impoverished, no matter if they're married or single, childless or not.
I feel sorry for them.
Sure, they make more money than I do but their lives are impoverished, no matter if they're married or single, childless or not.
I feel sorry for them.
3
A combination of quotes:
"67 percent of Americans believe it’s 'very important' that a man be ready to support a family before getting married."
"51 percent of Americans believe that children are better off if the mother stays home..."
"Power makes people less able to understand another person’s perspective."
Workers trying to survive on minimum wage jobs, and the millions of Americans who will likely never be able to find work (hint: their potential jobs migrated to overseas sweatshops), are still human beings. Humans yearn to have sexual relations and to create a family. Poverty does not automatically erase this yearning.
Thus, many women love men who--aware that they will never be able to support a family--do not marry them. Babies are born.
People who have more wealth and power than the desperately poor are often unable to grasp this perspective. They or their wives and adult children "have babies." They label impoverished women "breeders" and make sport of slut-shaming them. Unmarried poor mothers--most of them unemployable in today's America--who stay home to raise their kids are faulted for needing My Tax Dollar for shelter and food rather than celebrated as loving parents.
It's a quintessentially American story. To feel empathy would be--gasp--socialism. It would imply that we are a society rather than a collection of individuals who should be unconnected and self-sufficient.
"67 percent of Americans believe it’s 'very important' that a man be ready to support a family before getting married."
"51 percent of Americans believe that children are better off if the mother stays home..."
"Power makes people less able to understand another person’s perspective."
Workers trying to survive on minimum wage jobs, and the millions of Americans who will likely never be able to find work (hint: their potential jobs migrated to overseas sweatshops), are still human beings. Humans yearn to have sexual relations and to create a family. Poverty does not automatically erase this yearning.
Thus, many women love men who--aware that they will never be able to support a family--do not marry them. Babies are born.
People who have more wealth and power than the desperately poor are often unable to grasp this perspective. They or their wives and adult children "have babies." They label impoverished women "breeders" and make sport of slut-shaming them. Unmarried poor mothers--most of them unemployable in today's America--who stay home to raise their kids are faulted for needing My Tax Dollar for shelter and food rather than celebrated as loving parents.
It's a quintessentially American story. To feel empathy would be--gasp--socialism. It would imply that we are a society rather than a collection of individuals who should be unconnected and self-sufficient.
128
Excellent comment!
3
Having children which you can't afford and expecting society to pick up the slack is immoral, despite all the excuses you just presented.
6
But apparently contraception and abortion are also immoral. What's an adult man or woman to do? Give up sex entirely from 13 to 50?
3
Oh, good news. More special, expensive bennies for parents.
14
One very true point is the insane amount of travel for work. Why is it necessary when it is now so easy to communicate by phone, Skype and computer?
Airports are mob scenes, planes are packed to the gills.
Flights are overbooked, oversold, cancelled. Passengers are frantically rescheduling their missed connections and, while waiting in long lines, madly calling the people they are supposed to meet, the people back at the office, the people who were supposed to pick them up, the children they won't get to see, etc.
I realize that these travelers are mostly at a high mid-level and NOT the ones holding down two or three all-hour jobs to keep their families fed and sheltered. But this self-induced trauma really strikes me as crazy.
Airports are mob scenes, planes are packed to the gills.
Flights are overbooked, oversold, cancelled. Passengers are frantically rescheduling their missed connections and, while waiting in long lines, madly calling the people they are supposed to meet, the people back at the office, the people who were supposed to pick them up, the children they won't get to see, etc.
I realize that these travelers are mostly at a high mid-level and NOT the ones holding down two or three all-hour jobs to keep their families fed and sheltered. But this self-induced trauma really strikes me as crazy.
73
This probably won't end very soon, if ever, since many CEOs are highly driven, highly competitive, type-A personalities, who think nothing of working 80 hours or more per week.
They set the tone, and everyone else must follow.
They set the tone, and everyone else must follow.
22
Or: Many managers are incompetent, not too bright, and can't manage their own time let alone everyone else's. People work 80 hour weeks not because there is too much work but because they have to redo everything they've done as the boss set them off in the wrong direction, refused to listen when errors were pointed out or simply changed his mind at the last minute.
Years ago I read a business book by a former CEO who sheepishly admitted that his company routinely promoted employees based on whose car was always in the parking lot after 7 pm. It was years before they realized that the reason wasn't dedication, but poor time management, bad judgement leading to mistakes, and sheer incompetence.
Years ago I read a business book by a former CEO who sheepishly admitted that his company routinely promoted employees based on whose car was always in the parking lot after 7 pm. It was years before they realized that the reason wasn't dedication, but poor time management, bad judgement leading to mistakes, and sheer incompetence.
36
"People work 80 hour weeks not because there is too much work but because they have to redo everything they've done as the boss set them off in the wrong direction, refused to listen when errors were pointed out or simply changed his mind at the last minute."
Or the employee had to redo everything thanks to his own lack of competence. Or the employee is passionate about his work, and doesn't want to interrupt his "zone".
My 10-y-o, when in the midst of a Scratch, Minecraft, or Python program, has to be reminded to eat. Why should we deny adults the same level of passion?
The assumptions being made in these comment are pretty severe.
...Andrew
Or the employee had to redo everything thanks to his own lack of competence. Or the employee is passionate about his work, and doesn't want to interrupt his "zone".
My 10-y-o, when in the midst of a Scratch, Minecraft, or Python program, has to be reminded to eat. Why should we deny adults the same level of passion?
The assumptions being made in these comment are pretty severe.
...Andrew
1
What a surprise! A society that prizes the value of work to deliver happiness achieves a level of economic income that is rich beyond the dreams of the societies of the past, yet its citizens live a life distressingly similar in some ways to that of the inmates of a forced labor camp.
No family, no life at home, no festivals or holidays, no community gatherings, no extended families, no friendly neighbours to congregate with. All have been relentlessly eliminated by our own timidity in the face of the shareholder driven workplace which perverts our sense of the work ethic for its own ends and works on our insecurities to make us ditch our actual lives for mere work in the office.
It appears that the invisible hand of the free market economy has a Midas touch. Remember, King Midas's hand turned everything he touched into gold, and he starved to death, rich beyond his wildest dreams, for he could not eat yellow metal.
No family, no life at home, no festivals or holidays, no community gatherings, no extended families, no friendly neighbours to congregate with. All have been relentlessly eliminated by our own timidity in the face of the shareholder driven workplace which perverts our sense of the work ethic for its own ends and works on our insecurities to make us ditch our actual lives for mere work in the office.
It appears that the invisible hand of the free market economy has a Midas touch. Remember, King Midas's hand turned everything he touched into gold, and he starved to death, rich beyond his wildest dreams, for he could not eat yellow metal.
344
So, mscommerce, what do you recommend as a solution?
2
This is a very apropos and brilliant description of our country. American adults need to read its childhood fables so they can re-learn as adults what they had learned as kids and simply forgot in the chaos of modern life.
To me, the point of this article is not that current working conditions eliminate family, home life, and holidays; it's that current structures essentially ensure that--in the vast majority of cases--women will create that home life by giving up their jobs to stay at home or by choosing relatively low-paying, "flexible" jobs. Men, who can choose from a wider array of options with more power and responsibility, will come home from work to a good dinner, the neighbors will drop in for drinks, and there will be plenty of holiday prep going on. But the price of that good cheer is often well-educated women who give up their own careers and instead train their ambition on having a Martha Stewart-worthy home and raising perfect, high-achieving children. (Link to articles about the fragility of over-parented children.)
2
What drives this absurd trend is the insatiable corporate appetite for ever-greater revenue and profit, which is driven by Wall Street’s unrelenting demand for quarter-by-quarter growth.
Children cannot be conned; an absent parent is eventually seen for what he or she is. No amount of affluence can replace the daily attention, guidance, discipline and role modeling that children and young people need and desire, even in their rebellious years.
“Total availability” is inconsistent with a balanced life. Life is not a dress rehearsal.
Children cannot be conned; an absent parent is eventually seen for what he or she is. No amount of affluence can replace the daily attention, guidance, discipline and role modeling that children and young people need and desire, even in their rebellious years.
“Total availability” is inconsistent with a balanced life. Life is not a dress rehearsal.
185
Investors invest in hopes of greater wealth. When and where was it ever different?
1
That's why parenting is a two-person job, Mark Hugh.
I valued my father's work, even when he was not present in the home and at all my extra-curricular activities, because I know his work outside the home was providing my brothers and sisters and I with the opportunities to learn, compete and participate in a world way bigger than our own little community or private shelter.
He wasn't always "there"physically when he was working, but he has always been there for us. Even when it wasn't all fun and games for him. Do you understand this? I suspect a lot of us had parents like this, and instead of dismissing their work, we are very very grateful to them for leaving the home daily and translating their work into worldly opportunities for us, in time.
In some cultures, these men are known as "Joseph"'s, emulating the quiet worker man who was an adoptive father to our savior, and therefore qualified him to fulfill the prophecy of one coming in the lineage of David. Joseph, the earthly father, provided that for his son too.
I valued my father's work, even when he was not present in the home and at all my extra-curricular activities, because I know his work outside the home was providing my brothers and sisters and I with the opportunities to learn, compete and participate in a world way bigger than our own little community or private shelter.
He wasn't always "there"physically when he was working, but he has always been there for us. Even when it wasn't all fun and games for him. Do you understand this? I suspect a lot of us had parents like this, and instead of dismissing their work, we are very very grateful to them for leaving the home daily and translating their work into worldly opportunities for us, in time.
In some cultures, these men are known as "Joseph"'s, emulating the quiet worker man who was an adoptive father to our savior, and therefore qualified him to fulfill the prophecy of one coming in the lineage of David. Joseph, the earthly father, provided that for his son too.
1
"What drives this absurd trend is the insatiable corporate appetite for ever-greater revenue and profit, which is driven by Wall Street’s unrelenting demand for quarter-by-quarter growth" . . . which in turn is driven by what? Investors chasing short term, quick profits in lieu of the long term. When was the last time you told your investment adviser, sell me stock that will languish for the next five to ten years?
Nanny and baby trailing behind Mom (or Dad) through airports, hotels, and restaurants does not sound like a childcare solution to me. Paying for nannies and the shipment of breast milk etc. are purely cosmetic measures and do not honestly address the problem of work/life balance in our mostly male 24/7 corporate culture. Companies are asking more and more of their employees, but even more of their children. It isn't fair to anyone.
122
We've researched this topic. Of course "constant availability" is a key disincentive for women wanting to be promoted to higher levels. Nothing new there.
What IS new is that most men hate the culture just as much as women do. Typically, when FORCED to choose, men are more likely to sacrifice family for work than women, but they do not want to be forced to make that choice.
Add to this all the research showing the dramatic health effects of sleep-deprivation which most people suffer when working in this constant availability culture.
So we cannot emphasize the article's final paragraphs enough.
EVERYBODY who works today wants to move away from this constant availability culture. In a world where we have so much unemployment, it is absurd that some people are working 80 hours while others cannot find work at all.
But there is light at the end of the tunnel:
The same sleep-deprivation research (e.g. "The Walking Dead" in the New Yorker) shows that the extra hours we put in are literally counter-productive.
Companies hire the very best people, but get mediocre performance from them by overworking them. It is ironic that we understand this concept in athletics ("over-training"), but we don't notice it in the work environment where it is much more prevalent.
Someday, management theory will catch up with the science and realize that fewer hours means better performance.
And someday society will realize the long-term benefits of both parents being home with kids!
What IS new is that most men hate the culture just as much as women do. Typically, when FORCED to choose, men are more likely to sacrifice family for work than women, but they do not want to be forced to make that choice.
Add to this all the research showing the dramatic health effects of sleep-deprivation which most people suffer when working in this constant availability culture.
So we cannot emphasize the article's final paragraphs enough.
EVERYBODY who works today wants to move away from this constant availability culture. In a world where we have so much unemployment, it is absurd that some people are working 80 hours while others cannot find work at all.
But there is light at the end of the tunnel:
The same sleep-deprivation research (e.g. "The Walking Dead" in the New Yorker) shows that the extra hours we put in are literally counter-productive.
Companies hire the very best people, but get mediocre performance from them by overworking them. It is ironic that we understand this concept in athletics ("over-training"), but we don't notice it in the work environment where it is much more prevalent.
Someday, management theory will catch up with the science and realize that fewer hours means better performance.
And someday society will realize the long-term benefits of both parents being home with kids!
207
What the author seems to be saying is: "That is not how I might like it to be, but that is how it is."
1
Boris Groysberg and Robin Abrahams, of Harvard Business School, completed a survey in 2014 of nearly 4,000 executives in a wide range of industries. It found that 60 percent of the men have spouses who don’t work full-time outside the home, compared with only 10 percent of the women.
It perpetuates the prototype of the ideal worker as someone who can — and does — regularly put work above everything else, including caring for oneself and one’s family.
----------------
Wow. You sure do misread your own assumptions into scientific data. Who is to say your interpretation of people's motives are correct?
Isn't it just as true to say, that instead of concluding the outside-the-home worker puts work above family that he/she is putting the family needs FIRST? Every family needs food, shelter, security. The working parent provides the necessities, while the stay-at-home parent primarily puts the family care and daily needs first (which is capable only because the other partner acquires the money necessary in today's society to care for the family.)
Studies have shown that children do best when the resources they need in coming up are available to them. Having a primary parent in the home, if they are educated about the growing child's needs and truly teaching and forming their growth, studies show helps children. You cannot mandate that people invest in their children equally, and yes, some paid providers can help care for families too.
But don't knock what works.
It perpetuates the prototype of the ideal worker as someone who can — and does — regularly put work above everything else, including caring for oneself and one’s family.
----------------
Wow. You sure do misread your own assumptions into scientific data. Who is to say your interpretation of people's motives are correct?
Isn't it just as true to say, that instead of concluding the outside-the-home worker puts work above family that he/she is putting the family needs FIRST? Every family needs food, shelter, security. The working parent provides the necessities, while the stay-at-home parent primarily puts the family care and daily needs first (which is capable only because the other partner acquires the money necessary in today's society to care for the family.)
Studies have shown that children do best when the resources they need in coming up are available to them. Having a primary parent in the home, if they are educated about the growing child's needs and truly teaching and forming their growth, studies show helps children. You cannot mandate that people invest in their children equally, and yes, some paid providers can help care for families too.
But don't knock what works.
8
But it DOESN'T work! Except for the teeny-tiny minority at the top of the heap. In most families there are two absent parents for most of the day, and still less-than adequate funds to run the family. Which fluffy little cloud do you live on?
16
Mary, this is a little off-topic, but studies do not show that stay-at home parents are better for children. There are, in fact, distinctly contradictory finding among many studies. I think the only honest conclusion we can draw from studies about how children fare in different care-giving arrangements is, "it depends". It depends on the child, the parent, the work situation, the quality of daycare, etc. Some children thrive with daytime caregivers who are not their parents, some do not. Don't knock what works - for each family.
7
A lot of this minority has a nanny (or multiple nannies) even with a non-working mother. It is so bizarre. Let's have children and not raise them...okay, maybe if you're living at Downton Abbey.
4
Why are high earning dual career couples thinking that raising children is not a full-time job? It is a 24/7 job requiring more hours than work outside the home. Why do these parents have children if they do not want to hire people to raise them when they are at work? Or perhaps they will decide having children is worth one of the high-earning parents giving up their job for 10 to 20 years? It does not have to be the mother. A loving father will do just as well staying at home with children.
Ask any parents who are not high earners if they would give up their two or three jobs and stay home with their children if they could afford it. What the US needs is Universal Daycare funded by the government through taxes of the entitled corporations who pay virtually nothing now. And the increased taxes of those same wealthy dual-income parents who want their cake and to eat it too (served by a nanny).
How about that?
Ask any parents who are not high earners if they would give up their two or three jobs and stay home with their children if they could afford it. What the US needs is Universal Daycare funded by the government through taxes of the entitled corporations who pay virtually nothing now. And the increased taxes of those same wealthy dual-income parents who want their cake and to eat it too (served by a nanny).
How about that?
38
Oh my - another piece on how the top 1%, or 5%, struggle to balance work, family, gender equality, and fun. And how does the nanny who is flown in and flies about balancing her children? Her relationship? Her dinner table? And the UPS worker who ships the CEC's breast-milk home -- how are things working out for her on her graveyard shift?
274
The UPS worker and other such often have labor unions, and for good reason. It was unions that gave us the 8 hour work day and the weekend. Before that people were typically working 11 hour days, 6/7 days a week. Labor unions built the middle class, and since Reagan with the breaking of Patco and anti-labor push, that same middle class has been decimated. Most of us are saddled with the 11 hour work day and 6/7 day workweek.
82
You hit the proverbial nail on the head. In fact the employees pictured in the story are the root of the problem. These brainwashed monkeys think that they are changing the world by delivering a Barbie doll somewhere in an hour, while what they are actually doing is feeding the beast of corporate greed, which is hollowing out the middle class.
16
Thanks to flexible employers, my husband and I had work schedules arranged so one of us could always be with our child when she was not in school. This worked wonderfully until my union employer fired me simply because I was the last hired. There are problems in union environments also.
2