We practice this type of work schedule at Philosophy Communication. I'm a big believer that if corporate America would like to see more top-notch female employees in leadership roles, they should ask and listen to what women really want. I also believe that for an organization to work this way, they have to spend a great deal of time at the beginning to set up goals and outcomes vs measuring employees on "sitting-at-their desk" time. Congrats to Werk. I applaud companies that are willing to listen and create jobs that work to enhance your life no matter your gender. This is a subject that I'm quite passionate about shedding a light on.
1
Flexible schedules and working remote can really only be applied to white-collar professional services industries.
In my previous job at a managed services company I managed 10 direct employees. Two of my staff members, both men, asked for changes to their schedules. One needed to drop off his kid at school and the other needed to pick his up. I changed one's official hours to 7-4 and the other's to 9-6. My expectations for the team was always that they be on their scheduled calls with their customers, complete all deliverables on time and as expected, and don't let me get any unexpected escalations for any of your accounts. Other than that they were free to come and go as they pleased. If you need to run errands, go to the doctor, etc. no problem just keep me in the loop.
In my previous job at a managed services company I managed 10 direct employees. Two of my staff members, both men, asked for changes to their schedules. One needed to drop off his kid at school and the other needed to pick his up. I changed one's official hours to 7-4 and the other's to 9-6. My expectations for the team was always that they be on their scheduled calls with their customers, complete all deliverables on time and as expected, and don't let me get any unexpected escalations for any of your accounts. Other than that they were free to come and go as they pleased. If you need to run errands, go to the doctor, etc. no problem just keep me in the loop.
1
While I love this idea - unfortunately, many people abuse this flexibility option. When you say you are going to work from home, yet do not respond to emails, don't meet deadline and post pictures of yourself out having fun on FB, it is proof that you aren't working from home. When you say flexibility does it mean work 40 hours or just whatever it takes?
2
I run a small agency that has tight deadlines. But I've been able to have flex time for my 2-3 employees. What I ask of them is not to "put in the hours by x date" but to be brutally honest with themselves and then with me about when they can complete the task by. Then I do my scheduling. It worked well when one person had a kid with issues, when another had some personal health problems.
The hardest thing, I've learned, is for people to admit to themselves that sitting at their desk for 8 hours doesn't mean they complete 8 hours of work. It takes more adjustment for them to be honest about their shortcomings... But the dirty secret is that I know what they are!
The hardest thing, I've learned, is for people to admit to themselves that sitting at their desk for 8 hours doesn't mean they complete 8 hours of work. It takes more adjustment for them to be honest about their shortcomings... But the dirty secret is that I know what they are!
4
Good luck. My experience is that most workplaces fight flexible scheduling because managers need to feel in control, and flexible scheduling gives employees more power. In one office where I worked employees were forced to take 5 minutes of vacation if they arrived 5 minutes late to their desks, no excuses, no exceptions.
3
I'm a lawyer at a big law firm, on the corporate side, and I know for sure that the vast majority of my work could be done at home. We all communicate for the most part via email, plus phone and instant messaging. Plus, I work with people in California, DC, and Boston, so I definitely don't need to be in my office for those projects.
I also notice that while male associates have children, I have yet to meet a female associate in my department with kids, even the married ones. All of the partners in my department are male as well. I'm worried about what will happen when I have kids, and I have attorney friends who are planning for the eventuality of leaving once they have kids. Law firms need to be more flexible and need to help make it possible for women to succeed once they become caregivers. Maternity leave is not enough. Flexible work hours would be a great start.
I also notice that while male associates have children, I have yet to meet a female associate in my department with kids, even the married ones. All of the partners in my department are male as well. I'm worried about what will happen when I have kids, and I have attorney friends who are planning for the eventuality of leaving once they have kids. Law firms need to be more flexible and need to help make it possible for women to succeed once they become caregivers. Maternity leave is not enough. Flexible work hours would be a great start.
3
Why does any firm "need" to accommodate people's private decisions? It's not as though there is any shortage of humans (or lawyers) out there.
1
Maybe it's the line of work I'm in, but I just don't see anyone having to work extra to cover for someone's absence or flexibility. We all have our own jobs to do, and we get them done. The only time work is shifted is if someone is too ill even to work from home, at a time when a hot project is due. And that is covered by sick days and is handled the same way for all.
4
It is so hard to raise kids these days because two pay checks are necessary, many of us have no extended family nearby who can act as back up in emergency childcare situations, and there is little flexibility in the workplace. I'm in an office environment where I am nickled and dimed for every second I'm away from my desk despite the fact that I'm a productive and dependable employee with great annual performance reviews and a well known strong work ethic. I am damn lucky to get a few days of paid sick leave per year, which I save for when my kids are too sick to go to school. I go to work when I'm sick. My husband and I don't stop from 6:30 am until 11 pm most days, and we are the incredibly fortunate members of the middle class. We are also exhausted with little to no time for ourselves or each other and are (sadly) excited that our kids will soon be old enough to come home from school and be on their own for a few hours so that we can work later. I really hope it's different by the time my kids are having their own families.
7
Too many of these responses are so unsympathetic! "I'm not allowed to have a flexible schedule, so why should anyone else?" "The moms take maternity leave, so the rest of us have to pick up the slack. Not fair!" "If you don't like having to make sacrifices for your kids, then don't have them!" "Nurses and teachers can't have a flexible schedule, so no one else should, either." Come on, people! This shows a real misunderstanding of what it's like to have children or care for elderly parents. Wouldn't it be nice if we all had the same expectations at work (i.e. working regular hours) and the same opportunities to care for families (either children or sick relatives), without some people being punished for having family responsibilities?
4
These responses are a reason to short circuit the whole controversy and just give everyone flexible hours.
3
There is no shortage of humans on the planet and indeed creating/maintaining obstacles to human reproduction is a beneficial thing for us and for all other species on the planet. I have no desire to work harder, contribute more in taxes or forego corporate profits so that self-indulgent people can create more little waddling Walmart shoppers to consume resources.
In other words, the universe simply does not need your spawn, so don't expect our help in producing or rearing them. If that is what you want more than anything else, do it but be prepared to shoulder the trade-offs yourself. The rest of us are busy using our time and energy on what has value to us, not what has value to YOU.
In other words, the universe simply does not need your spawn, so don't expect our help in producing or rearing them. If that is what you want more than anything else, do it but be prepared to shoulder the trade-offs yourself. The rest of us are busy using our time and energy on what has value to us, not what has value to YOU.
1
I'd like to boil this down to the core problem: that too many jobs come with the expectation that you will always be at your desk and/or always available. Of course there are some jobs for which this is true (ER doctor, POTUS...), but what about the rest of us who mostly just sit in front of computers? Can't most or all tasks be time-shifted? If you get an email, would things really fall apart if you responded in a half-day or a day? I say no - but most managers would disagree with me. Why? Because they are poor planners, and to them, everything is an emergency. How about stepping up to the plate, managers, and thinking about ways to reduce the fire-fighting and needless stress on your employees (and yourself!)? I guarantee that you would have happier employees, and almost certainly better retention and productivity.
12
Okay, great. I'm all for employers adjusting to the issues of their employees. I've always thought employers for the lesser skilled should be more flexible with their employees' issues; childcare being one of them. Like a single mom (even a dad) could be provided a schedule where they work say for 4 hours, then leave to tend to childcare, etc, then return maybe 3 hours later, to finish their shift. Fine.
However the real problem is; what about the rest of the workers who cant provide an "exception excuse" for inclusion in these perks? I apply, fill out all the necessary tax status boxes - single, no dependents, etc, - and now Im excluded from the flexible schedule group. Or any other of the initiatives that "Married(not) with Children" keep demanding from employers. Like paid leave for birth events, etc.
Singles, widows, and those who marry and choose not to have children, or don't marry but have children, don't get their fair piece of the pie. A single person or widowed, cant go on leave and come back with their jobs/salary, benefits protected.
And wholly left out of the equation are those who are taking care of their aging parents, or a sibling with special needs, etc. Personally, I lost a lot of money (both in hours worked, and promotion worthy status) having to be "on-call" for my parents a decade ago.
But get married, have kids or both - and suddenly exceptions are demanded and/or privileges are handed out.
Reforms have to be for all parties, or none at all!
However the real problem is; what about the rest of the workers who cant provide an "exception excuse" for inclusion in these perks? I apply, fill out all the necessary tax status boxes - single, no dependents, etc, - and now Im excluded from the flexible schedule group. Or any other of the initiatives that "Married(not) with Children" keep demanding from employers. Like paid leave for birth events, etc.
Singles, widows, and those who marry and choose not to have children, or don't marry but have children, don't get their fair piece of the pie. A single person or widowed, cant go on leave and come back with their jobs/salary, benefits protected.
And wholly left out of the equation are those who are taking care of their aging parents, or a sibling with special needs, etc. Personally, I lost a lot of money (both in hours worked, and promotion worthy status) having to be "on-call" for my parents a decade ago.
But get married, have kids or both - and suddenly exceptions are demanded and/or privileges are handed out.
Reforms have to be for all parties, or none at all!
4
I would have no problem with a flexibility policy that was useful to all! Probably, if you don't have a kid who threw up on you in the morning, you'd just as soon get to work on time and leave on time, and not be tied to your email all evening. You sound so jealous! Trust me, there's nothing to be jealous if. Most of us who need the flexibility aren't using it to drink margaritas and eat bon-bons! But absolutely-- everyone should be able to take time needed to care for a family member or friend, get the dog to the vet or the groomer, stay home during that stupid cable company "4-hour window," etc. Flexibility doesn't need to be zero-sum. My using it shouldn't mean you can't!
9
Women with children want reform to be for all parties. The articles I've read mostly focus on all caregivers (which include those taking care of parents, and would include taking care of a sibling), but there's no reason why everyone can't have a flexible schedule. Taking leave and coming back is usually associated with a need, like being sick or having kids, so if you have a need to take leave, try working it out with your employer. But if you're taking leave to do nothing, that's not the same situation and shouldn't be treated as such.
1
Even if flexible schedules were common place, the percent of women who could actually benefit from this is small. The jobs that most women (and men for that matter) have require their presence at the workplace. There is a greater need for child care services for these people.
This article addresses at best a very select niche of women.
This article addresses at best a very select niche of women.
5
I wholeheartedly support the concept of flexible schedules. I instituted a flextime schedule in my Seattle office starting in the 80's. It worked brilliantly for most of us. Essentially, staff were allowed to track their own time and schedule meetings with clients to work with their personal schedules, and negotiate trade-offs and sharing of work projects with other staff, as needed. I asked that phones be answered during "normal" business hours, from 8-5:00, and staff coordinated schedules to make sure there was someone was in the office during those hours. Staff loved having the authority to manage their time and it enhanced teamwork. We were even able to institute a successful job-sharing during recessions to maintain staff.
7
Lack of flexibility is one issue - and the fact that even many flexible employers don't actually add more resources to insure that one caregiver's time out of the office doesn't just dump off all her responsibilities to other (usually female) staff without any adjustments on the dumpees' behalf. But this article ignores all of the other reasons women lean out - the old boy's club, unconscious sexism, and the trifecta of mansplaining/bro-propriation/manterruptions that are still part of so many corporate cultures.
7
I know this doesn't work for all careers, such as medical professionals or teachers, but more companies where it does should consider this approach. I work in publishing. I go into the office 2-3 days per week, depending on my schedule, and work from home the rest of the time. I am a widow in my 40s raising 3 kids, and without this flexibility I don't know what I would have done. I feel like the fact that my employer trusts me to manage my own time and still accomplish all of my work makes me work that much harder. I definitely put in a lot of time, and have been rewarded with promotions and raises. I work with clients and colleagues all over the world, and this approach makes a lot of sense. There have been people that have not been a good fit for this type of arrangement, but technology has made it a very possible scenario. I think many companies would actually see increased productivity by doing so.
4
There’s often no very good argument against it, for mothers or fathers, but managers have this belief in the importance of “team building,” and this is seen as diminishing cohesion.
3
Its not all about the team building...but rather; who is the manager managing at the office? If there's no one there, the managers need to be eliminated. (which isnt necessarily a bad idea)
But its true, those who work from home are more often seen as outsiders, and also divas by those who don't, or more problematic can not. As they don't qualify for the "special exception."
Exceptions breed contempt among the ranks.
But its true, those who work from home are more often seen as outsiders, and also divas by those who don't, or more problematic can not. As they don't qualify for the "special exception."
Exceptions breed contempt among the ranks.
2
I work for a small consulting company where ALL employees work from home and team rapport is a high priority. We've found all kinds of ways to maintain bonds, but it does take work. We have calls every 2 weeks where the whole firm is on, the company supports pockets of employees in certain locales getting together in person regularly for lunch or dinner or whatever, but also just constantly reaching out to each other - on the phone, by email, IM, whatever. It can be done.
1
Flexible schedules can help, but it is far from the only major reason why there is a gender gap. Take academia as an example - the schedules are certainly much more flexible than most office jobs, but the gender gaps in many fields are HUGE and persistent. Anecdotally, I have even heard that parental leave exacerbates the gap because fathers could use the time to "get ahead" on work while mothers are still bearing the brunt of childcare duties. And this also shows that the underlying issue is not addressed by flexible work hours - we need to demand and expect that parental duties are evenly shared. Accommodating moms is great, but it can also just enable the culture of disparate parental roles unless we address that mindset head-on at the same time.
10
When I ran an 80-employee state agency, I offered flexible schedules between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. with the choice of a one-hour or 1/2-hour lunch (subject to adequate coverage of each area between 8 and 4:30, which didn't turn out to be a problem). Generally, the working moms ended up choosing the earlier schedules to be home when their children were out of school and the single people chose the later schedules so they could sleep in. The men were all over the board. It certainly made for a happier workforce.
9
What I really want is to work fewer hours with a shorter commute. As a single person, I would be willing to take a paycut to do so. I suspect that's what most parents or caregivers really want too (without the loss of salary or benefits). While telework may work from some, I prefer to maintain my home as my private sanctuary without the intrusion or expectation of working at home.
14
@JRC - I totally agree with you. I work fewer hours now, have a short commute and have good health insurance. It didn't solve all my problems but it did change my life. I lived in NYC for a long time (14 years) with a long commute the last 6 years and longer hours as well. It made me depressed.
I moved to Sac a little over a year ago and went through a string of horrible jobs where I was driving long distances and working from home. I did not like working from home for the reasons you state. I felt like I was at work 24/7 with no break. While I was working these horrible jobs I just kept pursuing other opportunities and eventually landed a few good ones close to where I now live in Sac. In NYC, I hated my life in the latter years because of the commute, work hours, etc. Now it is much, much better. It is worth pursuing what you write about. It takes a huge amount of effort but it will change your life if you can achieve it.
I moved to Sac a little over a year ago and went through a string of horrible jobs where I was driving long distances and working from home. I did not like working from home for the reasons you state. I felt like I was at work 24/7 with no break. While I was working these horrible jobs I just kept pursuing other opportunities and eventually landed a few good ones close to where I now live in Sac. In NYC, I hated my life in the latter years because of the commute, work hours, etc. Now it is much, much better. It is worth pursuing what you write about. It takes a huge amount of effort but it will change your life if you can achieve it.
6
Why can't you have both?
Create healthy boundaries, I did.
Just a thought
Create healthy boundaries, I did.
Just a thought
2
This is so true and so important.
I'm CEO of a 350 person tech company and we've fully embraced flexible working for years. I no longer see this as a benefit for employees, which is how it is normally portrayed, I see it as removing an unnecessary barrier between us and the best talent available. We are in a competitive market and we cannot afford to have barriers like "I want you in your chair from 9 to 5"
It has resulted in us having a perfect 50/50 split on gender across the whole company, and pretty good 45%female / 55% male split across all management levels plus 3 women on the group board.
Without Flexible working, I would lose my Group Sales Director, Sales Director Australia, Head of Employee Wellbeing, Group Reward Director and Head of Client Communication - all amazing people who happen to be women and happen to have care responsibilities and family lives which mean they need and want to work whatever hours necessary to get the job done and maintain their personal and family life.
A friend of mine went to work for Bloomberg recently in a support role that she could easily have done with flexible hours and they were so rigid, they wouldn't even allow her to change one of her days by 30 minutes. It just feels like dinosaur behaviour to think like that.
Technology is making the world move faster and when things go faster competition gets harder. We all need to be on our A-game and we need the best people on our teams to win. Flexible working is essential.
I'm CEO of a 350 person tech company and we've fully embraced flexible working for years. I no longer see this as a benefit for employees, which is how it is normally portrayed, I see it as removing an unnecessary barrier between us and the best talent available. We are in a competitive market and we cannot afford to have barriers like "I want you in your chair from 9 to 5"
It has resulted in us having a perfect 50/50 split on gender across the whole company, and pretty good 45%female / 55% male split across all management levels plus 3 women on the group board.
Without Flexible working, I would lose my Group Sales Director, Sales Director Australia, Head of Employee Wellbeing, Group Reward Director and Head of Client Communication - all amazing people who happen to be women and happen to have care responsibilities and family lives which mean they need and want to work whatever hours necessary to get the job done and maintain their personal and family life.
A friend of mine went to work for Bloomberg recently in a support role that she could easily have done with flexible hours and they were so rigid, they wouldn't even allow her to change one of her days by 30 minutes. It just feels like dinosaur behaviour to think like that.
Technology is making the world move faster and when things go faster competition gets harder. We all need to be on our A-game and we need the best people on our teams to win. Flexible working is essential.
20
sexist. I thought employment practices were supposed to be gender neutral?
3
I am a single woman in my 40s, never married, never had kids. I work as an occupational therapist in 3 hospitals. Since I work on an as needed basis, my schedule is flexible but it also means that I work when people want time off. I've worked every weekend for the last 8 months and lots of holidays. I also help cover maternity leaves so for me it is a win-win. The hospital gets the OT coverage it needs and I am able to make a decent living. My job is challenging but there are also rewards.
One thing most patients don't know is there are productivity expectations in hospitals for therapists. You must see a certain amount of patients per day and if your productivity is low, you get told about it. Even though these expectations are stressful, they are also helpful because everyone has the same expectations - married people, single people, etc. When you are working, you are working hard. Most days I come home exhausted.
I don't know how I'd feel if I worked in an office and had to constantly pick up the slack for those who have kids. There is no reward in that. It's unfair to people like me who chose not to have children. The NYT always assumes everyone is a motivated self-starter but that is untrue. I wouldn't want to be the single person stuck in some office while my co-workers with children are supposedly working from home. For this reason, I'm grateful to be in a profession where everyone has to be on site meeting expectations. And if they don't do the job, it's obvious.
One thing most patients don't know is there are productivity expectations in hospitals for therapists. You must see a certain amount of patients per day and if your productivity is low, you get told about it. Even though these expectations are stressful, they are also helpful because everyone has the same expectations - married people, single people, etc. When you are working, you are working hard. Most days I come home exhausted.
I don't know how I'd feel if I worked in an office and had to constantly pick up the slack for those who have kids. There is no reward in that. It's unfair to people like me who chose not to have children. The NYT always assumes everyone is a motivated self-starter but that is untrue. I wouldn't want to be the single person stuck in some office while my co-workers with children are supposedly working from home. For this reason, I'm grateful to be in a profession where everyone has to be on site meeting expectations. And if they don't do the job, it's obvious.
12
In my office it's pretty obvious when people don't do their work as well. That's because our work is written product, so if you don't have the written product when it's due, obviously you weren't working. Also, we all track our own hours so it's easy for the bosses to see how much time is put in. Maybe all offices aren't like that but working from home wouldn't make a difference for my office in that sense.
1
Anytime you have to produce a tangible product, it makes a difference. I agree with you. In your example it doesn't matter if you work from home or the office. Many jobs aren't so clear cut.
Will you pay the employees more when they cover for the people who don't show up to work? Will the employees who routinely don't show up have a litigable discrimination complaint when they don't get promoted because they don't show up for work? The answer, of course, is no, men are expected to show up for work and do other people's work without any comment that could be considered sexist, and women will be promoted at the same rate without doing the same work, lest the company be sued for discrimination.
This is already particularly onerous for gay parents, as they're expected to work and take care of their children, and stuck in between.
This is already particularly onerous for gay parents, as they're expected to work and take care of their children, and stuck in between.
4
Hi John. That is an interesting comment. I dont see anyone in my team picking up the work of someone who is working from home or who is ill. I expect the person to do their own work and not someone else. I also allow people, men or women, to work from home or have a flexible work arrangement. Someone in my team has a wife who has cancer and he elected to be here for her more and to work from home when he feels that she needs him. I never complained about his work when he is home. He is careful and responsive. THris may not work for every team but in my team, everyone is happy. I just wanted to point out also that any high achiever is rewarded more so I am not blind to that either.
6
The "doing other people's work" speaks to a certain kind of office. In my last position, I worked with a team of 6, each of us with distinct jobs. There was nothing to "pick up." I did not do database admin when the database admin guy was out. He did not write content when I was out.
3
Yes! Luckily I have flexibility. It makes a huge difference. I am sandwiched between two teens and two aging parents. I never know when my mom will need a ride to a doctor's apt. or I need to attend a school event.
3
Once, when I had kids that needed pick-ups and drop-offs after 5 and doctor appointments, etc., I was always getting grief from the younger people in the department because I had a hard time staying late. Time passes. Now my kids are driving and mostly looking after themselves. The younger people now have kids and are in the same situation I was in. I never, ever, missed an opportunity to schedule meetings, upgrades, anything at all, as close to 5 or later as possible. Good times.
5
This article could just as easily be written for fathers or pretty much any employee. Before I retired I had a job where every other week I got three days off and every three weeks I got four days off. It was really the difference between staying and going. I stayed because I loved the schedule.
I have always woken up early but really just don't get going until 9:00. I hated having to go to work early. To tag on to that I would say I was a very good employee, got great reviews and probably didn't call off sick more than a dozen times a decade. I think any employee who gives much should expect some flexibility in return.
I have always woken up early but really just don't get going until 9:00. I hated having to go to work early. To tag on to that I would say I was a very good employee, got great reviews and probably didn't call off sick more than a dozen times a decade. I think any employee who gives much should expect some flexibility in return.
8
Yet we live in a culture where the Employer is King. With a new admin that is likely to strip away various hard won employee protections, as they've been steadily stripped away the last several decades.
We have a few appointees who are very much pro-employer, and see workers as lines on budgets. Usually to be cut when wanting to seduce Wall St. and investors to look favorably upon them.
We have a few appointees who are very much pro-employer, and see workers as lines on budgets. Usually to be cut when wanting to seduce Wall St. and investors to look favorably upon them.
Except for one or two sentences here, this article mainly talks about women having more flexibility in their work. Women are still expected to bear the brunt of child-rearing. Why?
While more flexibility for BOTH men and women (not just parents) would work for some jobs, it will make barely a dent in the problem. We need affordable, accessible, good quality child care and elderly care, especially for the lower-income working class if we really want to close the wage and class gap.
While more flexibility for BOTH men and women (not just parents) would work for some jobs, it will make barely a dent in the problem. We need affordable, accessible, good quality child care and elderly care, especially for the lower-income working class if we really want to close the wage and class gap.
9
As the article acknowledges, it really wouldn't work for food service or teaching, as examples. In fact, I have hard time seeing how this applies outside of white collar, professional jobs. For example, in the case of Best Buy, which this article mentions, can you really let retail or warehouse staff pick their own schedules when the conventional retail hours and supply schedules will dictate those things.
There was a big reaction against so-called "upper middle-class feminism" which leaves women in lower-income groups out of the discourse about how to address gender inequality in the work place. It seems to me that is a major problem with this article. It proposes a solution that really doesn't apply outside of white collar, professional work, but hand-waves that rather glaring gap aside.
There was a big reaction against so-called "upper middle-class feminism" which leaves women in lower-income groups out of the discourse about how to address gender inequality in the work place. It seems to me that is a major problem with this article. It proposes a solution that really doesn't apply outside of white collar, professional work, but hand-waves that rather glaring gap aside.
26
Totally on point. Another advance for well-educated, mostly white, female specialists who are probably married and the secondary breadwinner in a two-income, two-children family. But, you have to start somewhere.
7
There's an additional factor which is not mentioned in the article : control.
Throughout my career, I have been involved with the largest of companies, small privately owned companies, and my own private business. My observations have led me to believe that many "middle" managers in large corporations feel very insecure about their jobs, and are very sensitive to even perceived criticism. They often build metaphorical fortresses around themselves within which they feel compelled to maintain absolute control.
An employee with a flexible work schedule threatens that need. Therefor,
such employees will be either subtley or overtly influenced to abandon the flexibility to which they are technically entitled.
In other cases, an employer may have an institutional culture of long hours. This is often true in the case of certain law firms, in which the ability to work- and bill- thousands of hours per year is a prerequisite to advancement.
Without fundamental changes to the very core of these work environments, many employees, unable to comply with the most excessive demands , will definitely suffer in both income and advancement. Inequality inevitably results.
Income inequality resulting from differences in skills, abilities, and performance will, and probably should persist in a meritocracy. Unfortunately, inequality all too often results from the refusal, expressed or implied, to accord simple flexibility to otherwise highly capable employees.
Throughout my career, I have been involved with the largest of companies, small privately owned companies, and my own private business. My observations have led me to believe that many "middle" managers in large corporations feel very insecure about their jobs, and are very sensitive to even perceived criticism. They often build metaphorical fortresses around themselves within which they feel compelled to maintain absolute control.
An employee with a flexible work schedule threatens that need. Therefor,
such employees will be either subtley or overtly influenced to abandon the flexibility to which they are technically entitled.
In other cases, an employer may have an institutional culture of long hours. This is often true in the case of certain law firms, in which the ability to work- and bill- thousands of hours per year is a prerequisite to advancement.
Without fundamental changes to the very core of these work environments, many employees, unable to comply with the most excessive demands , will definitely suffer in both income and advancement. Inequality inevitably results.
Income inequality resulting from differences in skills, abilities, and performance will, and probably should persist in a meritocracy. Unfortunately, inequality all too often results from the refusal, expressed or implied, to accord simple flexibility to otherwise highly capable employees.
10
When the company that I worked for adopted flexible hours all of the managers hated it because they felt that they had to get to work at the same time as the first employees did and could not leave until after the last one had left. Needless to say, the managers did not trust those whom they managed.
7
I fully support this for those roles where the man/woman is a sole contributor. But these are not the jobs that lead to the senior management or CEO positions. Today's work place is highly collaborative with meetings, discussions happening all the time. For this to work, one person's flexibility becomes every one else's problem as they have to constantly adjust their schedules (and their lives) to accommodate. In theory it sounds great but in practice its a nightmare leading to resentment on the part of those who are forced to change their lives to accomodate flexible schedules.
18
This begs the question….WHY do we have so many meetings and discussions happening all the time? I understand that some collaboration is necessary, and in some industries it may be the only way to work, but this is not true across the board. Far too many people are spending far too much time in useless meetings. When people are forced to measure productivity by presence instead of results, we end up with pointless meetings designed to fill time so that people FEEL busy all day without actually accomplishing much. If it were more painful to schedule meetings, we might all find out just how pointless the majority of meetings are.
I spent 10 years working for the government. Everyone was “present” every day on a fixed schedule and there was no shortage of meetings and collaboration. Mid level managers could easily spend 2-3 days each week on meetings and/or status reports. And yet…there was little productivity or innovation. If anything, the meetings were largely to reinforce “how it was always done”.
I spent 10 years working for the government. Everyone was “present” every day on a fixed schedule and there was no shortage of meetings and collaboration. Mid level managers could easily spend 2-3 days each week on meetings and/or status reports. And yet…there was little productivity or innovation. If anything, the meetings were largely to reinforce “how it was always done”.
11
Skype!
4
As an employer of professional-level people, I see immediately how important this is. It's a documented fact, which I would confirm, that having women represented in decision-making positions leads to better teamwork and better decisions. Our workplaces are in the middle of a very long, very muddled transition to meet the needs of women as well as men. If Werk helps push a transition to a more broadly-flexible workplace, they will be contributing something very basic and important to our culture and economy.
6
The idea of providing work flexibility for our law firm of three female attorneys, two of whom have young children was and is difficult. My wife quit a law job when we had our son and we started our own practice. So even though it worked for us, I was loathe to extend the same choice to our other attorneys. Well, it has worked out for the most part. Trust became a big issue until controls caught up to the new work domain.
4
I find the title of this article rather ironic, as the implication is that in order to close the gender gap, we need to make it easier for working women to work from home so they can then care for their children. What about making it easier for everyone, regardless of gender, to work from home (in instances where it's feasible)? Then leave it up to the individual couples to decide how to divvy-up childcare responsibilities, housecleaning, food shopping, etc. And if for whatever reason, the childcare continues to inordinately fall more to women vs. men, then the individual women need to examine their own relationships/consider whom they married. Plenty of men do indeed do their fair share of childcare, housework, and then some. I really tire of women acting as if all or most men do not pitch-in. If your particular man does not pitch-in, that's your situation. And if that's the same as most of your female friends, well as they say...birds of a feather flock together. But when someone finds they didn't make the best choice in a mate, they'd much rather paint everybody else's relationships with the same dirty brush, than consider their own shortcomings or poor decisions.
17
Interesting, and perhaps unconsciously telling, choice of words-"pitch-in."
6
So well said, thank you!
1
Interesting, and perhaps unconsciously telling, searching for one phrase to put in ". . ". Of course, California women can "tell such things".
I work at a company where all employees can control their schedules. Everyone has to have a reasonable amount of availability to accommodate meetings, but we all enjoy a load of flexibility. That is in part due to the nature of the work.
At my husband's company, his particular group is very outcome oriented, so schedules kind of matter (complete this task within 24 hours, for instance), but his boss is not hung up on specifics. He is able to work from home when necessary--the work just has to be done. This arrangement, though, is manager specific, which means not everyone enjoys this privilege.
At my husband's company, his particular group is very outcome oriented, so schedules kind of matter (complete this task within 24 hours, for instance), but his boss is not hung up on specifics. He is able to work from home when necessary--the work just has to be done. This arrangement, though, is manager specific, which means not everyone enjoys this privilege.
6
Bad idea -- there is no way this would work --- especially in small companies that employ mostly women!!! It is the old trick -- there is always one who will take unnecessary advantage. So the scenario is: if she can get away with it, why do I have to cover for her!!! And, the company that is paying their salaries gets hurt.
9
I work in a small company that employs mostly women, we all (men and women) have a great deal of flexibility, and it works great. I think what this comment and many others overlook is performance. My performance is measured on the quality, quantity, and timeliness of my work. No one cares when or how I do it. No one cares if they can see me. But they care immensely about whether I meet deadlines, meet productivity expectations, and turn out quality work. When someone fails to do that, it is handled as any poorly performing employee would be handled, up to and including termination of employment. No on ever has to pick up slack for anyone else. We retain our employees for a ridiculous number of years, we have very happy employees, and our organization is doing great. The gratitude of the employees for this flexibility and trust has translated into an incredibly dedicated group of people, and without disappointment, year after year, we can all count on the fact that everyone will do their job and do it well. Slackers do not thrive, no matter how much flexibility they have to potentially abuse.
9
Right, everyone knows it couldn't possibly work, because women! Amirite? Always taking advantage! And then backstabbing! Ugh. What a sexist response.
1
In my experience, most women working reduced or flexible schedules have their pay pro-rated accordingly. Why do you care if someone is worrying 30 hours if they are getting paid for 30 hours.
That's - In a nutshell - the Melinda part in "Bill & Melinda want superpowers" (Bill wants energy, Melinda wants time)
So much whining in these comments from women and men alike. Erin is impressive for getting a job that works for her and on her schedule. She went out and got something she wanted, on her terms. All the people complaining here are clearly not on the same level as she is. If you want something in today's world, you have to create it for yourself - she is the perfect demonstration of that!
7
"Bill, Tammy took off 3 months after having a baby, she will be back next week. To be fair, you will take off 3 months starting next week."
7
Sure - to make this equivalent, Bill would need to stay home for those three months, his health would need to be such that he were essentially recovering from a surgery, he would need to be awoken every couple of hours throughout the night to care for another person, and his days would be spent in full time childcare and housework (unless Bill were well off enough to hire full time help).
5
No, to be fair, bill would need to spend the employer-supported leave of absence doing things that are congruent with his own values and lifestyle choices, just as parents do.
3
If Bill is sick, needs to take care of parents, etc., then sure. Tammy took off because of a need; to be fair, Bill would also have to have a need (as in, she wouldn't have taken off unless she had to). Taking off to do nothing is not the same. Trust me, that momma is working.
I always wonder, do men who make these comments have wives who've had children? I hope not.
I always wonder, do men who make these comments have wives who've had children? I hope not.
In the 1990's Congress changed some of the work rules that affected my friend's company. His workforce of 30 people did worldwide scheduling for the government. Before the new rules, his workforce, about half women, worked when needed. After the new rules, which required core work hours and time cards to verify people were there, many in his workforce could no longer balance their jobs with families and education courses. Many of his best people left and, despite his client begging him to stay and doing everything they could to get him a waiver, he finally closed the company in frustration and protest.
Until now, I thought it was mere clumsiness on the part of legislators, but now I'm not so sure. Could it have been done intentionally to keep more women from moving up in the workforce? That was the outcome. The Congress involved claimed to put "family values" first. Yeah, right.
Until now, I thought it was mere clumsiness on the part of legislators, but now I'm not so sure. Could it have been done intentionally to keep more women from moving up in the workforce? That was the outcome. The Congress involved claimed to put "family values" first. Yeah, right.
5
Appreciate that companies are thinking through flexibility, however, the piece that I think is missing is that in order to close the gender gap, companies need to think about flexibility for both men and women. It shouldn't be the assumption that the woman plays the primary role in childcare. Giving fathers the flexibility to take some of that responsibility would be additionally helpful in freeing up time and energy for women to spend time on a career, and it would also destigmatize and build empathy around all employees making space for family work/life balance.
11
Bottom line: I don't see it ever happening that companies ensure flexibility for women and not men, and don't discriminate against the women who might hypothetically take that flexibility in the future -- including single women with no children. What was done in one country (Sweden, I think?) was to give parents up to X time off -- with the condition that the man had to take half of it, i.e., woman can take 6 months and man can take 6 months, so the family gets a year. But they cannot shift it to having just the woman take a year.
I will never pressure my children to have children. We live in a society that talks about family values and loving children, but it is not real. We do not have policies or a culture that truly appreciates parenthood. We do not have work schedules that allow us to have a full life with our children and fully participate in a work environment. I've stayed at the same job for over 15 years. I haven't had a raise in years, but I have enough flexibility that when my kids are sick I can call in and work from home. When my kids have extra curricular activities, I can arrange my schedule so I can get him/her there. Sadly, that is what it has come to - doing a job for less pay, but more flexibility.
18
My anecdote to add is that this works. I am 30 years old, have a graduate degree in a STEM field, and a ten-month old daughter. California generously gave me 12 weeks semi-paid maternity leave, but if I had to return to my office desk 8-5, plus commute and dressing time, it would have forced me out of my job.
We have in-home child care 40 hours a week and I have the flexibility to work these hours and the hours after my daughter is in bed. Working from home has allowed me to continue my projects while being able to breastfeed and re-balance the new normal in our home.
Importantly, I will be able to continuously grow my career with my company without having a "mommy hole" that disrupts so many career trajectories.
Full disclosure though, I work for a Dutch-owned US based company and I think the corporate ethos is different from most companies in the US because of this.
We have in-home child care 40 hours a week and I have the flexibility to work these hours and the hours after my daughter is in bed. Working from home has allowed me to continue my projects while being able to breastfeed and re-balance the new normal in our home.
Importantly, I will be able to continuously grow my career with my company without having a "mommy hole" that disrupts so many career trajectories.
Full disclosure though, I work for a Dutch-owned US based company and I think the corporate ethos is different from most companies in the US because of this.
14
This is a wonderful idea in theory, but it's not how the world operates. It would be great if the entire world made accommodations around everyone's schedule so that we could all work when it was convenient. It would also be wonderful if you didn't have to work long hours and still be effective in a high-responsibility job. Unfortunately, that's not practical. Employers are PAYING you to be there, after all...it's a reasonable expectation that you're there when THEY need YOU.
Global markets run on fixed hours...business need to be fully staffed during hours that make sense for the company. The ability to "work when it's convenient" will never gain traction beyond startups and small niche companies for many reasons;
1. Business will encounter situations where a critical mass of employees couldn't be on the job...and the company will be put in a bad situation.
2. People will abuse it...human nature. I've seen it so many times.
3. If this is implemented for a certain segment of the workforce (women only, for example) resentment would ensue and you'd see employers hiring less women...if for no other reason than to avoid the issue.
4. In some industries, companies need to have all hands on deck during certain hours...there's just no flexibility to be had.
5. In many industries, long hours = advancement.
Another example of the "everyone gets a trophy/I'm special" generation with the intrinsic belief that the world revolves around them.
Global markets run on fixed hours...business need to be fully staffed during hours that make sense for the company. The ability to "work when it's convenient" will never gain traction beyond startups and small niche companies for many reasons;
1. Business will encounter situations where a critical mass of employees couldn't be on the job...and the company will be put in a bad situation.
2. People will abuse it...human nature. I've seen it so many times.
3. If this is implemented for a certain segment of the workforce (women only, for example) resentment would ensue and you'd see employers hiring less women...if for no other reason than to avoid the issue.
4. In some industries, companies need to have all hands on deck during certain hours...there's just no flexibility to be had.
5. In many industries, long hours = advancement.
Another example of the "everyone gets a trophy/I'm special" generation with the intrinsic belief that the world revolves around them.
10
People abuse their time in the office, too.
How about "How to Close a Gender Gap? Let Men Parent More of The Time." And this written by a childfree human who thinks controlling work schedule is good for us who have chosen not to procreate too.
12
Who art directed the photo shoot for this article? They should be taken out back and shot like one of Betsy DeVos's grizzly bears. "Working from home" does not mean your attention is divided between your work and your misbehaving toddler. (I've spent the last 10 years as a remote employee battling that stigma. And I'm not even a parent.) The photos detract from this article's important message: the future of work is flexible in terms of where, when, and how work gets done.
31
I am annoyed by the lead picture.
i work from home in a FT staff position for my company, and there is no way I could have my children running around me while I work. I have FT childcare for my kids. Some days I don't even have time to eat lunch until 3 or 4, let alone attend to children. The photo that accompanies this piece suggests that people (women) who work from home are half caretaking, half working. For myself and other people I know who work from home, this is not the case.
i work from home in a FT staff position for my company, and there is no way I could have my children running around me while I work. I have FT childcare for my kids. Some days I don't even have time to eat lunch until 3 or 4, let alone attend to children. The photo that accompanies this piece suggests that people (women) who work from home are half caretaking, half working. For myself and other people I know who work from home, this is not the case.
39
Unfortunately, the state law in several states, and particularly California, make it increasingly difficult and risky to do many of the things in this article. California, for example, severely limits who can be an exempt employee and salaried, and so even very highly paid men and women have to be paid hourly, have mandated meal and rest periods that offer no flexibility, require overtime after 8 hours, and generate vast numbers of extremely expensive class action and individual lawsuits over things like expenses (employer must pay for home electricity is the latest type of lawsuit), alleged missed meal and rest periods, workers comp and so forth. It is extremely difficult to effectively monitor people or avoid these lawsuits if they are working remotely and not doing well, and there are many other issues. In several states like CA and others, many management employment lawyers now recommend against allowing these arrangements. Even with "exempt" employees, allowing people to work from home or flexible schedules is extremely risky in many states, and increasing numbers of employers in those states are not allowing it due to lawsuits, inability to monitor work and so forth. There also is a huge bias (in the NYT) and in many states against independent contractors, even though many skilled people, and not so skilled, like being ICs as it gives them exactly the flexibility noted in this article. As a result, good IC opportunities are being de facto wiped out.
4
IC's don't earn W-2 income, so you are shorting yourself come retirement time.
Not at all true that independent contractors ICs short themselves retirement income as some posters claim. Under federal law they can pay FICA unless they ignore the law and you also could chose to take the likely to be wasted FICA contribution and put it in an IRA or 401(k). Unions, plaintiffs lawyers and taxing entities like State of California don't like ICs. If you talk to real ICs 90% will tell you they like it better than punching a time clock. It gives exactly the flexibility this article recommends but increasingly companies can't allow it due to the threat of litigation and regulations. Seriously who is better off? The taxi driver making minimum wage in LA in some one else's cab who can't work more than 8 hours a day is assigned shifts and areas, must stop for a ridiculous unpaid half hour meal period five hours into his midnight shift instead of eating on the go, and can't work when he wants, or the guy working for uber in his own car writing off the cost of his car and working when, where, how much and how long he wants.
ICs have access to favorable retirement plans.
Let's be clear - inequality of raising kids between men and women is a marital issue, not a work place one. If you think you're husband isn't pulling his weight around the house, that's your issue. You're co-workers shouldn't pick up your slack because you choose a spouse poorly.
18
If both parents work, it's going to be an issue regardless. This isn't about inequality between married people, it's about inflexible workplaces.
The gender "gap" should be enlarged. Men and women are different, and built for very different enterprises.
3
The only employees at my company who get flexible hours are parents. Nothing for the rest of us.
12
"The main reason for the gender gaps at work .... is employers’ expectation that people spend long hours at their desks, research has shown."
Nope, the main reason is that once a woman gives birth it is ASSUMED she will be less flexible and want to put in less hours.
A top performer at all my jobs, once I had a baby, I was mommy tracked immediately - men deciding paternalistically that I don't want a harder job that lesser jobs were for my own good. So then you are back to working twice as hard to prove you are equal to your male counterparts. I worked with a slacker that once called out sick because his tropic FISH were sick - I kid you not - but if I had ever taken a day because my son was sick well that was expected now wasn't it. I never changed my work ethic or habits after having a baby but mommy tracked at several places and then just gave up. This is why working moms quit, whats the point when you will get no-where.
Nope, the main reason is that once a woman gives birth it is ASSUMED she will be less flexible and want to put in less hours.
A top performer at all my jobs, once I had a baby, I was mommy tracked immediately - men deciding paternalistically that I don't want a harder job that lesser jobs were for my own good. So then you are back to working twice as hard to prove you are equal to your male counterparts. I worked with a slacker that once called out sick because his tropic FISH were sick - I kid you not - but if I had ever taken a day because my son was sick well that was expected now wasn't it. I never changed my work ethic or habits after having a baby but mommy tracked at several places and then just gave up. This is why working moms quit, whats the point when you will get no-where.
7
We all know there are a lot of jobs where--sorry--you have schedules to meet, customers expect you to BE THERE at certain hours, etc. So either this article is only talking about certain types of jobs, or the expectation is that person 'X's co-workers are going to pitch in and fill in the holes so person 'X' can have the sort of work schedule she wants.
So who are the co-workers supposed to be? Yeah, I think you've already figured that one out.
And those co-workers can expect to be at the back of the queue when it comes to promotions, if the company ascribes to a certain POV.
So who are the co-workers supposed to be? Yeah, I think you've already figured that one out.
And those co-workers can expect to be at the back of the queue when it comes to promotions, if the company ascribes to a certain POV.
7
Employers are complete dictators because they're empowered by law to be that way. They've crushed the labor movement and now it's work when and where they want you to work or don't work at all.
I have always jealously guarded my ability to work part time. I won't even apply for a job that requires more than 3 days per week. But my husband spent 20 years in the building trades with a merciless slave driver of a boss. We kept hoping he'd be offered a more sustainable position in the company, estimator or something. But it never happened and since nobody works in his trade until 65 because the work is too hard and people generally ended up injured, we kept our eye out for other opportunities.
When we had the chance, we purchased a local business and now my husband is doing half the work for the same pay and it's not as dangerous. His job was unsustainable but another HUGE reason for the decision is that we know our parents will need caretaking in a few years and we wanted to be in a position to help them.
There are terrible psychological consequences for not being able to fulfill your caretaking responsibilities. Americans deserve better. We know how to bring unscrupulous employers to heel because we have examples from other countries. We just choose not to do it because a popular governing philosophy here is to let employers run wild even if it harms families.
I have always jealously guarded my ability to work part time. I won't even apply for a job that requires more than 3 days per week. But my husband spent 20 years in the building trades with a merciless slave driver of a boss. We kept hoping he'd be offered a more sustainable position in the company, estimator or something. But it never happened and since nobody works in his trade until 65 because the work is too hard and people generally ended up injured, we kept our eye out for other opportunities.
When we had the chance, we purchased a local business and now my husband is doing half the work for the same pay and it's not as dangerous. His job was unsustainable but another HUGE reason for the decision is that we know our parents will need caretaking in a few years and we wanted to be in a position to help them.
There are terrible psychological consequences for not being able to fulfill your caretaking responsibilities. Americans deserve better. We know how to bring unscrupulous employers to heel because we have examples from other countries. We just choose not to do it because a popular governing philosophy here is to let employers run wild even if it harms families.
8
Can we stop pretending this is an issue relating to mothers, women, or even parents? Wouldn't all of us office drones love to telecommute or have a flexible schedule or the ability to tell our bosses, "sorry, can't come to work today, my washing machine stopped working and I gotta deal with it"? If it sounds like I am saying that my day at the beach is just as important as your kid's soccer game, that's exactly what I am saying. We all want that flexibility.
19
And we all *should* have flexible hours.
At this point, we are stuck with a generation of managers who started working before mobility was a possibility, and who forged their identities around the society of the office. It's a cultural matter.
I think we see this in all of the depictions of people working from home in a set up that looks like an office job, chatting up coworkers on Slack.
Work can be a series of coordinated tasks -- and true teamwork -- without the social immersion.
At this point, we are stuck with a generation of managers who started working before mobility was a possibility, and who forged their identities around the society of the office. It's a cultural matter.
I think we see this in all of the depictions of people working from home in a set up that looks like an office job, chatting up coworkers on Slack.
Work can be a series of coordinated tasks -- and true teamwork -- without the social immersion.
I'd venture to say working 16 hours a day at a desk is incompatible with anyone's life, male or female; parent or non-parent. If they want to have a life, that is. If that's the commitment it takes to get to the top, I'm surprised anyone would want to make it. Besides the stress, it's just plain unhealthy to spend 16 hours sitting every day.
11
Many people could care less about getting to "the top" and would rather just have a decent job and a good life.
I am so sick of these kinds of solutions being aimed at parents. I mean, I am all for better work-family balance. But...I don't have kids, and a flexible schedule would allow me to have a better work-life balance. The work I do is writing-heavy and I can do it from anywhere. Being able to work from home one or two days a week, and at the hours I choose, would dramatically alter my life for the better. But, somehow, this is a conversation that's only about motherhood.
24
I am a single mother- and agree with the above comment. This article is off-point. It should be about flexibility in the workplace and for how in some cases, it can help with productivity rather than hinder it. That would be so much more insightful. Do I want to work from home? Maybe sometimes, but not regularly, because I like engaging with my co-workers and have a lot of meetings. BUT, do i think granting flexibility and allowing autonomy is necessary- yes. I think flexibility actually INCREASES productivity for all workers. Missing the point with this one NYT. Not to mention the picture of the woman working from home with the toddler running around is not the ideal scenario, for anyone involved.
1
The nature of work is unfair! It must change to meet the needs of women.
Economists think this is a good idea. And they know.
Which economists who know what about the economy? Uhhhhh
Look, a blimp!
Economists think this is a good idea. And they know.
Which economists who know what about the economy? Uhhhhh
Look, a blimp!
3
Translation: "The main reason for the gender gaps at work — why women are paid less, why they’re less likely to reach the top levels of companies, and why they’re more likely to stop working after having children — is employers’ expectation that people spend long hours at work, rather than at home, research has shown."
Solution:
1. Let women work the hours most convenient for them personally by forcing all other workers and businesses they engage with to work the same hours, changing the schedules daily with short (or no) notice.
2. Reward those who spend the least time at work with the highest raises and the most promotions.
Sound good?
Solution:
1. Let women work the hours most convenient for them personally by forcing all other workers and businesses they engage with to work the same hours, changing the schedules daily with short (or no) notice.
2. Reward those who spend the least time at work with the highest raises and the most promotions.
Sound good?
8
Please give me a huge break. This is why the women's movement only works for white women. How can we make cushy lives cushier? Are we still dwelling in the land of let's give white women even more choices. Here is a suggestion. Why not have these women join with hard-working women who really need flexibility in the workplace? Why not put your vast resources and time toward working with black and brown women who earn 64 and 55 cents to their 80 cents to ensure that employers don't penalize working women. Werk just enables women who would prefer to be full-time moms keep a toe in the work world. Some women actually need flexibility to ensure that their families are housed, closed, and fed.
7
I am so glad to see this topic getting even more attention! I work as a career specialist for FlexJobs.com, a job search company that helps professionals find flexible work arrangements, and we just celebrated our 10th anniversary in January. It's clear that flexible work options are one of the keys to improving not only the gender pay gap, but also to allowing families to balance all of their many responsibilities. Caregiving does often fall disproportionately on women, and that includes caring for both their children and their aging parents, and flexible work options make it possible to have meaningful careers, earn money, and have lives that work well for them.
What makes me the most optimistic is how companies are starting to openly embrace flexible work options. We just did an event with Intuit, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and VMWare, three of the many thousands of companies that openly hire for flexible jobs, including remote jobs, flexible schedules, professional part-time roles, etc. PwC is celebrating its flexible work program's 5th anniversary. Dell is on track to have 50% of its workforce working remotely by 2020. And they aren't offering these options simply out of the goodness of their hearts--flexible work is directly tied to low turnover, high productivity, lower operating costs, and healthier workforces.
I'm hopeful that this is becoming much less of a "black market topic" and much more an accepted way of working--for individuals, companies, and society.
What makes me the most optimistic is how companies are starting to openly embrace flexible work options. We just did an event with Intuit, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and VMWare, three of the many thousands of companies that openly hire for flexible jobs, including remote jobs, flexible schedules, professional part-time roles, etc. PwC is celebrating its flexible work program's 5th anniversary. Dell is on track to have 50% of its workforce working remotely by 2020. And they aren't offering these options simply out of the goodness of their hearts--flexible work is directly tied to low turnover, high productivity, lower operating costs, and healthier workforces.
I'm hopeful that this is becoming much less of a "black market topic" and much more an accepted way of working--for individuals, companies, and society.
5
Nice plug for your business. Next....!
3
I work for a major company that you've all heard of (it was singled out by Trump at one point). Recently there was a company-wide email ostensibly from the company CEO letting everyone know that we would now have the added benefit of flex-schedules, that all were eligible and this is now part of the company policy. As the article correctly points out, this was more of a facade than anything else. Over the next few days I personally witnessed lower level managers rejecting very reasonably requests for flex-schedules. Even 9/80's (which were once a standard schedule option at this company) were being rejected. It's a nice idea, and I applaud the effort, but business culture has a long way to go before flex-schedules are real and truly carry the benefits they pretend to.
3
The trouble with a 9/80 is that it typically means some employee gets every Friday afternoon off. Who then covers it?
2
Tangentially, this subject reminds me of a comment a
friend made to me many years ago. At the time I had two
children at home, a mother with early onset Alzheimer's
(my dad needed my help because he still had to work),
and a grandmother who called on me quite often. My friend
had a full time job, and I realized she didn't think I had one at home
when she asked me "what do you do all day?".
Obviously, I wasn't getting paid, but it was valuable work.
friend made to me many years ago. At the time I had two
children at home, a mother with early onset Alzheimer's
(my dad needed my help because he still had to work),
and a grandmother who called on me quite often. My friend
had a full time job, and I realized she didn't think I had one at home
when she asked me "what do you do all day?".
Obviously, I wasn't getting paid, but it was valuable work.
3
I work for a Fortune 500 company and manage a small team. The company offers 9-80 and flex day schedule options. Senior management overtly dislikes the 9-80 because it effectively makes every Friday an empty office day. So many people have earned their day off - you can't schedule meetings on Fridays. The work is still happening, just not so much on Friday.
For the flex days - or telecommuting, I've had to remind my own team that 'working from home' means you are actually 'working'. It's surprising how many people just go run errands for hours at a time when the schedule is defined as working during the same core hours, just from home.
I also have a co-worker who lives and works remotely from another town, which is great. But this person is disconnected from the rest of the team in a real way because they miss out on the casual hallway conversations and pre- or post-meeting banter, etc. They function more like vendor.
Within my team, I believe in 'tag-teaming' on projects. I may stay late to work on something that you can pick up early in the morning - we don't both have to stay late and come in early. This is helpful for folks trying to meet various outside obligations.
It is out of fashion to say people who work together should do so in the same place at the same time - but it is still very helpful for teams to operate this way much of the time, and remains the hurdle when people aren't physically together.
For the flex days - or telecommuting, I've had to remind my own team that 'working from home' means you are actually 'working'. It's surprising how many people just go run errands for hours at a time when the schedule is defined as working during the same core hours, just from home.
I also have a co-worker who lives and works remotely from another town, which is great. But this person is disconnected from the rest of the team in a real way because they miss out on the casual hallway conversations and pre- or post-meeting banter, etc. They function more like vendor.
Within my team, I believe in 'tag-teaming' on projects. I may stay late to work on something that you can pick up early in the morning - we don't both have to stay late and come in early. This is helpful for folks trying to meet various outside obligations.
It is out of fashion to say people who work together should do so in the same place at the same time - but it is still very helpful for teams to operate this way much of the time, and remains the hurdle when people aren't physically together.
3
I wonder how child care fits into this. I have worked for companies with very flexible working arrangements, but they consistently wanted to see an ironclad child care plan if an employee was working from home. Employees were not allowed to juggle child care with work, rather they required that someone other than the employee handle any child care. The employers even wanted to see the contracts with the nanny/sitter/daycare. The idea was that employees needed to be focusing on work when they were working.
6
This is a myth and an insult to anyone working professionally, and probably almost always targeted toward women/mothers. No one assumes a father working from home is secretly watching his toddler the entire day too, right?
Parenting any child under 5/6 requires near 100% supervision during the day, and no professional would think they could somehow work full-time and do this. In reality, it is more likely they need the flexibility around morning child care dropoff, at 830am, and not 7am when they'd have to leave for work. Or the pickup that may need to happen at exactly 5pm, and not 6/7pm when they'd get home from work. There is no occasional flexibility with childcare to pick your child up an hour or two late. There is also the dreaded, occasional 1 or 2 hour delay for school if it snows. If you're expected rigidly at your desk every day at even 9am, that would be a problem, even if it is only a couple times a month when it happens.
There are always plenty of small things like this with parenting, it has nothing to do with watching a child all day while also working fulltime. That's absurd.
Parenting any child under 5/6 requires near 100% supervision during the day, and no professional would think they could somehow work full-time and do this. In reality, it is more likely they need the flexibility around morning child care dropoff, at 830am, and not 7am when they'd have to leave for work. Or the pickup that may need to happen at exactly 5pm, and not 6/7pm when they'd get home from work. There is no occasional flexibility with childcare to pick your child up an hour or two late. There is also the dreaded, occasional 1 or 2 hour delay for school if it snows. If you're expected rigidly at your desk every day at even 9am, that would be a problem, even if it is only a couple times a month when it happens.
There are always plenty of small things like this with parenting, it has nothing to do with watching a child all day while also working fulltime. That's absurd.
3
The employers from my experience required the child care plans from anyone working from home, man or woman, but I get your point.
The insulting, impossible conditions faced by most of us in the workforce are part and parcel of a ruthless, capitalistic culture that values only shareholder profit. The quality of people's lives isn't even on the radar for most employers. In a digital world, there's no excuse for all the benefits of technology to flow exclusively to employers and never to workers. I'm a technical editor. There isn't one single thing about my job I couldn't do from home, but there isn't even any discussion in my workplace about extending even a modicum of flexibility. I think it's time Americans once again revisit the reasons why organized labor became a force in the workplace 100 years ago - conditions for working people are grievous today, and there's little hope for improvement on any serious scale anywhere in sight. We're just fodder for the gaping maw of shareholder profit.
5
Supply and demand. For all but a few select jobs, there are plenty of people willing to accept whatever conditions the employer cares to set.
Those who want to start firms and offer well-paid jobs with brief, flexible hours, lots of paid time off, primo health insurance and other benefits, etc., are free to do so.
Those who want to start firms and offer well-paid jobs with brief, flexible hours, lots of paid time off, primo health insurance and other benefits, etc., are free to do so.
7
This is getting off the topic, but we are basically throw away items once our employers can find someone else who can do the same job for less money. Look at yesterday's NYT's article about IT workers in San Francisco being replaced by lower cost H1B Visa holders from India.
If your company can outsource, in-source or automate your job, they will if it saves them money.
If your company can outsource, in-source or automate your job, they will if it saves them money.
10
It is difficult for flexible hours to work for any high pressure professional jobs. I know several women attorneys who chose part time work at major NY Wall Street law firms after having children - only to find that 60% time meant 40 or more hours a week instead of the usual 60 or more hours per week. This was further complicated by the fact that client and other attorney schedules in general and emergency situations in particular completely negated any planned flexibility concerning work hours chosen.
8
I can’t speak on all high pressure professional jobs, but I can tell you that at least with transactional attorneys, most of the “pressure” is inflicted by the culture of law itself. It’s one thing if you are dealing with clients who may lose their homes or not get critical medical care (which I did for a while), and another thing if your clients are energy companies, IT companies, etc (which I also had for some time). Clients in the latter category have “paper emergencies” for the most part. I’d wager that at least 80% of those could be solved with better planning and communication by clients and lawyers alike. However, lawyers’ willingness to be constantly available for these false emergencies ensures that lawyers will have to work insane amounts of hours. In addition, most attorneys take pride in the amount of time they spend working, despite the detrimental effects on their health and relationships, which further ensures that the profession will continue to operate with a focus on extreme hours instead of efficiency. Technology is already paving the way for the collapse of the traditional legal model. The smart money will adapt or die out.
3
For years I sought flexibility in my schedule for family and life balances, working for medium to large tech companies. Even the ones that are in the news for being "cool" and family-supportive places to work have certain managers that fight policy and don't allow flexibility. It always come down to the manager's choice, and unfortunately rigid policy or mindsets often trumps practicality or reasonable outcomes. It reached a breaking point when I was laid off the day my daughter was born and was to start my 3 week paternity leave. The big tech company had the flexible policy, but the deciding manager probably thought I wasn't all-hands-on-deck for our project. That is reality.
3 years later and I'm working for a small tech startup, with the option to work 100% remote. No groveling, coming up with excuses about the cable guy appointment, just trusted flexibility in schedule. In reality I still go into the office 2-3 days a week because I find it helps productivity. But on the 2 days a week I'm home, I can alternate with my wife about who drops off and picks up our daughter from pre-school in the middle of the day. (her flexible schedule also lets her work + parent) I can attend that monthly school recital that always happens at a difficult 11am. And I can be home for dinner at 6pm sometimes, instead of spending the hour on the train commuting every day, lucky to be home by 8.
In the end I manage my own time and schedule, and get to be a part of parenting too.
3 years later and I'm working for a small tech startup, with the option to work 100% remote. No groveling, coming up with excuses about the cable guy appointment, just trusted flexibility in schedule. In reality I still go into the office 2-3 days a week because I find it helps productivity. But on the 2 days a week I'm home, I can alternate with my wife about who drops off and picks up our daughter from pre-school in the middle of the day. (her flexible schedule also lets her work + parent) I can attend that monthly school recital that always happens at a difficult 11am. And I can be home for dinner at 6pm sometimes, instead of spending the hour on the train commuting every day, lucky to be home by 8.
In the end I manage my own time and schedule, and get to be a part of parenting too.
6
I'm all for flexible schedules, but wonder if the comparison of senior executive position gender is relevant for most of us. Yes, the percentage of women senior executives needs to increase. However, with 121 million American workers, the focus needs to be on providing as much flexibility as possible for all workers and not on positions that few people of either gender will attain.
Trying for the most senior jobs has its pitfalls. I am pretty sure that Betsy DeVos, Nikki Haley, Elaine Chao, and Kellyanne Conway will not be picking their hours in the White House. Success comes with a price.
Trying for the most senior jobs has its pitfalls. I am pretty sure that Betsy DeVos, Nikki Haley, Elaine Chao, and Kellyanne Conway will not be picking their hours in the White House. Success comes with a price.
4
The article correctly captures the struggle for a small subset of highly-education working mothers. However, any valid points are immediately cast aside when a hiring manager (usually a man) views the picture that was chosen to run at the top of this article. Many working mothers that take on the "high end" consulting projects have child care to accommodate the realities of a 9-5 corporate America, not a child playing by themselves in the background or doing work "while child is sleeping." I recommend thinking about the images just as much - if not more - than the written article.
11
Exactly. There aren't many employers who would be beating down the subject's door to hire her, frankly.
3
Agree with this idea, particularly that it needs to apply to both men and women. If women are working flex hours from home while men are visible in the office during business hours, men will still have an inherent advantage when it comes to career progression.
My husband and I both work about 80% and co-parent equally. We each have a day at home with our child and split daycare drop-off and pick-up the other three days. We are lucky to have jobs that afford us this balance.
However, I agree with other comments that flexible hours need not be just for parents. It's time we dispense with this outmoded notion of needing to be sat in a cubicle for a full eight hours/day in order to be considered "working."
My husband and I both work about 80% and co-parent equally. We each have a day at home with our child and split daycare drop-off and pick-up the other three days. We are lucky to have jobs that afford us this balance.
However, I agree with other comments that flexible hours need not be just for parents. It's time we dispense with this outmoded notion of needing to be sat in a cubicle for a full eight hours/day in order to be considered "working."
8
My employer allows flexible work schedules. As a manager I find them disruptive. It can be a challenge to find meeting times when everyone is in the office and available, and many employees seem to think any old errand is more important than our professional mission and they can take off at the drop of a hat. Employees set core hours that do not necessarily coincide with customers needs. Among my staff, men tend to use flexible schedules more than women. I think women face stigma -- they are shamed for needing family time -- whereas men get congratulated for "helping out at home." I try to be supportive (I wish I had been given greater flexibility when I had children at home) but I find there are a significant number of abusers and overall I have a negative opinion.
11
One of the root causes of pay imbalances is the ineffective performance appraisal processes in place in too many organizations.
As there are not available adequate measurements of performance, far too many managers rely on proxies, such as face time.
Many studies show that workaholics tend to actually be poor performers.
Organizations that make clear what the desired objectives of the organization are and then let the employees choose how to best achieve those objectives at the time of their choosing will tend to attract the highest performers and to dominate their respective markets.
As there are not available adequate measurements of performance, far too many managers rely on proxies, such as face time.
Many studies show that workaholics tend to actually be poor performers.
Organizations that make clear what the desired objectives of the organization are and then let the employees choose how to best achieve those objectives at the time of their choosing will tend to attract the highest performers and to dominate their respective markets.
1
Flexible schedules only work for certain types of jobs but not for others.
For office workers, yes but not for factory workers.
I believe Marisa Mayer ,CEO of YAHOO, abolished telecommuting.
So it is not just men who are unsympathetic to women workers' needs.
For office workers, yes but not for factory workers.
I believe Marisa Mayer ,CEO of YAHOO, abolished telecommuting.
So it is not just men who are unsympathetic to women workers' needs.
7
This seldom works across industries. It can work however, in industries and businesses working on a 24/7 system; although, not always department-wide. I worked in an industry like this. As long as individuals worked their requisite monthly hours, the range of scheduling with limited only by the number of days in a month. The ability to constantly change ones work schedule within a given month-was also endless. I never had to call off work due this flexibility.
2
Flexible schedules work for everyone, not just women with children. I have a flexible schedule- I can adjust my time to take the cat to the vet, run errands, wait for the repair person, and so on- and make up the work time that same day or within the 2 week pay period. As long as I get my hours in, let my boss and employees know, I'm good.
Combine that with telework- fantastic! My team and I are in two different states. We flex and telework. We have schedules and written agreements regarding flexing and telework. We use phone, email, Skype, conference calls, VTC to stay in touch. This allows us to take care of ourselves, our families, and our lives.
Many people in our workplace flex and telework; as has been noted, some jobs are not conducive to this as the work requires a certain schedule. Who is this employer? The federal government. In my agency, we think the maxi-flex schedule is the best benefit we have. The private sector should follow our lead.
Yes, the trust thing can be challenging; communication is key. But I think we work better when we have some freedom and flexibility and aren't worried about beancounting the minutes.
Combine that with telework- fantastic! My team and I are in two different states. We flex and telework. We have schedules and written agreements regarding flexing and telework. We use phone, email, Skype, conference calls, VTC to stay in touch. This allows us to take care of ourselves, our families, and our lives.
Many people in our workplace flex and telework; as has been noted, some jobs are not conducive to this as the work requires a certain schedule. Who is this employer? The federal government. In my agency, we think the maxi-flex schedule is the best benefit we have. The private sector should follow our lead.
Yes, the trust thing can be challenging; communication is key. But I think we work better when we have some freedom and flexibility and aren't worried about beancounting the minutes.
7
"It’s especially difficult for women because they have disproportionate responsibility for caregiving."
This seems to be the root cause, so we are we not solving the root cause but focusing on mediating the effects? Why are we still playing around with the concept that maybe caregiving is just the less valuable thing to do in life?
This seems to be the root cause, so we are we not solving the root cause but focusing on mediating the effects? Why are we still playing around with the concept that maybe caregiving is just the less valuable thing to do in life?
12
Exactly. Supply and demand.
Like it or not, there are more people capable of changing diapers than there are those who can pilot a plane, design a skyscraper, create a Super Bowl ad or even manage a website. When there is a surplus of any skill, its value will plummet.
Like it or not, there are more people capable of changing diapers than there are those who can pilot a plane, design a skyscraper, create a Super Bowl ad or even manage a website. When there is a surplus of any skill, its value will plummet.
3
The root cause is bad marriages in which the father won't lift a finger to help his own kids and the mother is forced to do everything or else the kids won't be fed or bathed? When we talk about unequal division of labor between parents, we're talking about a private relationship not normally subject to legislation. Is there any way to legislate that fathers do more childcare? Or should we try legislating that women can't reproduce with men who will be bad fathers? How exactly can this "root cause" be eliminated? I agree that so-called "women's work" has been devalued (largely by radical feminists, who do not consider being a full-time mother a respectable life choice), but I don't think there's any way to change private relationships between mothers and fathers.
1
Respectfully noted, but I think the commenter was actually trying to make the point that men are probably equally capable of changing diapers and that's a root cause not being addressed.
2
No sane person could offer a reasonable objection to an employer, upon seeing the talent, commitment and performance of a particular employee, working with that employee to create a flexible work schedule to accommodate the needs of a valued resource. The risk to that employer is that the accommodation might ultimately become a value-destroying mandate or legal requirement forcibly applied to the entire workforce.
Companies across the economy are experimenting with new ways to retain talented employees of all types. That process should be encouraged, while resisting the progressive impulse to impose things through laws and regulations.
Companies across the economy are experimenting with new ways to retain talented employees of all types. That process should be encouraged, while resisting the progressive impulse to impose things through laws and regulations.
3
It's that "retain" bit that gets sticky. I have a terrific (and fairly flexible) work environment - and my company was willing to take a risk on me because I'm a known entity with a long track record of good work. Why would a new company offer similar benefits without the same track record? It's a lot easier for companies to make the case to retain good employees than it is to hire like that in the first place.
1
The HR world is just now getting data on the productivity of workers in various flex and work-at-home settings. The data are broken down to granularity as to computer key strokes, email responses and various other quantitative and qualitative measures. The data are mixed. Some workers are incredibly productive. Others abuse the privilege or simply cannot focus as well as in a supervised office setting. Flex employees also must make special efforts to remain integrated into work groups and the company. That is why it is unfair to require companies to make these working arrangements uniformly available.
1
What about people who are far less productive in the workplace?
Please stop pushing this myth. It's 2017 and we all have access to the internet, and the information it provides. Women are not paid less.
15
Please use the internet to read the research by Claudia Goldin that explains why you're both right and wrong about this. Yes, the gender gap disappears if many factors like hours worked and schedule flexibility are held constant. However, having to hold those factors constant suggests the labor market for educated mothers is inefficient. In general, employers are paying men to work more inflexible hours when they could be paying smarter women to work those hours if they allowed for more freedom.
7
Says the man with no clue.
1
Maybe not in Canada Travis but here in the US yes, woman are paid less.
1
in many fields a worker cannot manage their hours (even the number they have to put in every week). Its as if many of us are on call 24/7. Considering this how much flexibility can employees in many fields have and still be employed?
2
There is a whole untapped market of employees who are stay at home care givers. In this day and age, I question why workers must commute, go into an office building and sit at a desk everyday. Was not the advent of computers going to be that we could work more from our homes?
Remember, women have half the brains (if not more), in this country. Not facilitating them is a terrible waste of an important natural resource.
Remember, women have half the brains (if not more), in this country. Not facilitating them is a terrible waste of an important natural resource.
9
Is there a whole untapped market of jobs crying out desperately for someone to fill them?
If not, why on earth jump through hoops for people who have made it clear that work is not their main priority?
If not, why on earth jump through hoops for people who have made it clear that work is not their main priority?
2
I worked as a contractor and you know what? Pretty much every company wanted you to come in even though it was possible to work from home.
And no, for some types of jobs you do actually have to be there.
And no, for some types of jobs you do actually have to be there.
1
I worked at a high tech computer manufacturer. We were constantly interaction with each other so arbitrary schedules wouldn't work. Now there was flexibility for example if both husband and wife worked at the company, the husband could take the maternity leave so the wife could keep on with a hot project.
Of course on the production line people had to be there otherwise production would stop.
I was testing computers which run 24 hours a day 7 days a week so we would schedule 3 shifts a day when deadlines were tight.
Of course on the production line people had to be there otherwise production would stop.
I was testing computers which run 24 hours a day 7 days a week so we would schedule 3 shifts a day when deadlines were tight.
3
Flexibility with work schedules is a benefit that is not quantifiable. Hiring a person who places priority on the interpersonal relationships in their personal life is merely hiring a person who places importance on relationships in general. For every business, this is a win-win proposition.
9
I have managed people, many were women with young children. One thing I found to be true, 100% of the time, allowing flexibility with time came back 2-3 fold in dedication, hard work, loyalty, and extra hours.
I had one boss who pushed me hard on this, to not allow this fexibility, I pushed back. Standing strong to my beliefs, and experience, again earned me loyalty.
Of course there will be those who take advantage, but then again, would they be good employees anyway?
I strongly concur with this article's premise.
I had one boss who pushed me hard on this, to not allow this fexibility, I pushed back. Standing strong to my beliefs, and experience, again earned me loyalty.
Of course there will be those who take advantage, but then again, would they be good employees anyway?
I strongly concur with this article's premise.
62
Way to go Joe! If only more employers thought like you.
1
You made my day. I've been fortunate to have managers like you for much of my career. They made it possible for me to have a good work/life balance and I made sure that I went all out for them each and every day. I've worked nights, weekends and even the odd vacation day here and there to meet the needs of my employer because they have earned my loyalty and respect. Everyone benefits.
1
You're a figment of my imagination. Managers like you don't really exist.
I understand that flexible time is mainly a women's issue because women bear the majority of childcare, but I think it's only a piece of a much larger problem that affects most workers: the increasingly longer work week that doesn't value the personal life of employees. Increased investment pressure on companies to raise their profit margins has pushed the workforce to work longer hours, and in the case of salaried employees, for no extra money. Why are employees expected to subsidize their company profits with extra work? And now with email and text, employees are expected to be essentially on-call 24/7. France recently outlawed employers from contacting employees after work hours. A happy, rested employee is a better employee. Time off is not a luxury, it's a basic need and right.
39
This raising kids and taking care of the household and extended family member thing isn't new. In fact, it's very old. Amazing that few American companies haven't been able to figure it out. Feels like they don't want to figure it out.
8
in the past they have not given time for employees to take of these issues, why would they now?
My guess would be because more women are in the workforce now (as opposed to in previous generations, when they were generally expected to stay home and not work).
I would love to see a statistic about the number of S&P 500 CEOs (96% male) who have stay-at-home spouses.
I think part of the problem is that a lot of these men don't know many professional, career-oriented women, and then they meet them, they don't know how to relate to them.
I think part of the problem is that a lot of these men don't know many professional, career-oriented women, and then they meet them, they don't know how to relate to them.
23
Its important to note its not just women with kids that only need schedule flexibility. Its for any person, male or female, married or single, kids or no kids, that need flexibility in this day and age. This entitlement of flexibility should not just be for a parent.
29
"Some jobs have to be done at a certain time and place, like teaching . . .." Not really. Educational technology is beginning the slow process of breaking down the classroom wall and expanding both the physical and pedagogical spaces in which learning occurs. The practice of blended learning, moreover, is altering the relationship between teacher and student in fundamental ways. The days of the brick-and-mortar school and the age-graded, 8:00-3:00 classroom as the sole loci of learning are numbered. Flexibility, even for teachers, will be the next future wave in the global workplace.
3
I hope students always have flash and blood teachers. Children should not be socialized by hardware or software.
Teachers actually have relatively flexible schedules, because we work many more hours than we get paid for. So all of the paper work, lesson writing, test grading, parent calling, etc., can take place whenever we find the hours.
Teachers actually have relatively flexible schedules, because we work many more hours than we get paid for. So all of the paper work, lesson writing, test grading, parent calling, etc., can take place whenever we find the hours.
4
We are also a lone nation among industrialized countries that while paying lip service to family values does not provide policies that aid those same families.
16
Other than WIC, SNAP, TANF, Section 8, free public education, tens of billions of dollars a year in taxpayer funded early childhood education, the USDA school nutrition programs, Medicaid, state-sponsored, taxpayer funded health care for children, child tax credit, dependent care credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit handout, Social Security survivors and minor caregiver benefits, Social Security benefits for some 8 million disabled children, Social Security retirement benefits and Medicare for non-contributing stay-home spouses, the FMLA, employer-sponsored health insurance extended to family members as well as employees, employer-sponsored parental leave, taxpayer funded family courts that handle custody matters, special needs/special education funded by the taxper, and on and on and on..... Not one of the above save FMLA and a tiny bit of SNAP is available to the chidlree. (I do think people awaiting a transplant can get Medicaid but that's a bit extreme).
Nah, we in the USA do nothing for "families" ... not a thing. Eyeroll.
Nah, we in the USA do nothing for "families" ... not a thing. Eyeroll.
16
KosherDill - A person has to be in pretty serious need to use most of the programs you mentioned and we don't do enough to keep people off of those programs or get them off them. You might want to start reading some economic news.
1
Yes, that is so true. Most of the benefits go to the wrong end of the lifespan. WE should be frontloading these benefits so the youngest in our society can benefit, thereby benefiting every one of us in the long haul, when we have healthier, better-adjusted, better educated future generations.
Never mind gender, take a lesson from Southwest Airlines, where employees choose the number of hours they'll work. Have been flying for 55 years + have never seen happier crews.
14
How fascinating that in our gig economy companies impose flexibility whenever it suits them, but when their employees require it it becomes a 'stigma'.
14
Just another area that women should be in control of for themselves and their families. When more employees are in charge of their own time productivity goes up. Of course digital methodology allows meetings to be held without having to physically being in the same location as the rest of the attendees. Team work is built on compromise and understanding.
2
Well, why can't I be in charge of my own time? I could mow the yard or mend fences and tend to the garden using the same magical time formula that women would use for changing diapers, feeding the kids and watching The View during working hours.
5
Because you have to feed the kids when they're hungry and change diapers when they're dirty. Your manly chores can be done on the weekend. And if you think these women are watching The View during working hours, you should visit my daughter or anyone else with two preschoolers. The only time the television gets turned on is when she collapses on the sofa after they go to bed.
1
I worked for a company that was very accommodating to many personal issues--but, up to a point. It is undoubtedly the case that in my company's environment business performance was greatly enhanced by having employees work in our office locations during working hours. Customers and clients expected this, and employees exchanged ideas and learned from each other. This article sees the business world solely from the perspective of the employee--generally the female employee--for the main purpose of giving her an opportunity to earn as much as a man on her own favorable terms. This is a very narrow perspective and ignores harm to business owners, including in some cases public shareholders, customers or clients, various vendors who serve businesses and need some certainty on where and when to provide their services, and fellow employees who are not looking for accommodations to their life choices (who often end up picking up the slack for the employee given "flexibility.") It is inevitable, in this "me" view of employment, that there are people who come to feel entitled and also simply take advantage of certain flexibility. When they go over the line and are reigned in, many of these people head right to an employment lawyer. It is clear that American businesses have suffered from being forced into a social welfare role. Governments should stop telling businesses how to run themselves beyond certain basic requirements.
2
Stop believing corporate propaganda.
American business is not suffering. Profits are at record highs. Stock prices are at record highs. Dividends are at record highs.
CEOs and shareholders are squeezing every last drop of productivity from employees, and finding every excuse to pay then less and less.
The income of the 1%, which owns 75% of all stocks has been climbing for decades, while median pay is flat, and hours worked is up. And capital gains is being cut, so they pay less taxes.
The incredible rise in productivity over the last three decades should have been shared with the employees, who actually do the producing, with higher pay, and less hours.
It is propaganda like yours that has convinced employees that they should work harder for less.
The 1% takes care of their interests with lobbyists and lawyers.
Workers need to start voting for our own interests, instead of the interests of the already rich, "job creators" that keep firing people.
Unite and fight.
American business is not suffering. Profits are at record highs. Stock prices are at record highs. Dividends are at record highs.
CEOs and shareholders are squeezing every last drop of productivity from employees, and finding every excuse to pay then less and less.
The income of the 1%, which owns 75% of all stocks has been climbing for decades, while median pay is flat, and hours worked is up. And capital gains is being cut, so they pay less taxes.
The incredible rise in productivity over the last three decades should have been shared with the employees, who actually do the producing, with higher pay, and less hours.
It is propaganda like yours that has convinced employees that they should work harder for less.
The 1% takes care of their interests with lobbyists and lawyers.
Workers need to start voting for our own interests, instead of the interests of the already rich, "job creators" that keep firing people.
Unite and fight.
6
J. It isn't me who has drunk the Kool Aid. Many businesses have suffered terribly with global competition from places where a single idea in this article would sprout endless laughter among both owners and workers. As to my points about how businesses benefit from having workers together, it is undoubtedly true in both my experience and in what I have observed in other businesses where intellectual capital is a key part of productivity. Also, much productivity improvements in US manufacturing and services has come from very large capital expenditures in automation and computerization made at the risk of the owners, not because the backs of manual laboring employees are bending further under the load. Stop worrying about the 1% being the solution to your problems. Try harder to be one of them if that matters to you.
1
Mitchell, have you ever taken care of children or a sick parent? Perhaps your wife did it all, and that's how you were able to climb the corporate ladder and not worry about your "life choices"? Most parents need two incomes these days. The world has changed. Perhaps you need to change with it.
2
Problem is the flexibility tends to be a one-way street -- employer expected to tolerate unreliability or awkward hours, employee never expected to step up and work unpopular hours, push hard on deadline, etc.
Furthermore we hardly need more people on the planet; producing them is a self-indulgent lifestyle choice even as we kill off other species every day, the ice is cracking apart in Antarctica and we're three years into a hottest year on record streak.
After being burned by some "bizzy mom" coworkers in recent years, my director has decreed no future newhires will be of childbearing age. Currently the department is all childfree or parents of adult children and runs like clockwork. People who want to experience parenthood can do so at their own risk and recognize there will be financial, career and other major trade-offs.
Furthermore we hardly need more people on the planet; producing them is a self-indulgent lifestyle choice even as we kill off other species every day, the ice is cracking apart in Antarctica and we're three years into a hottest year on record streak.
After being burned by some "bizzy mom" coworkers in recent years, my director has decreed no future newhires will be of childbearing age. Currently the department is all childfree or parents of adult children and runs like clockwork. People who want to experience parenthood can do so at their own risk and recognize there will be financial, career and other major trade-offs.
13
I hope you and your coworkers also plan to opt-out of social security and any other future benefit supported by other people's children. Our society depends on the children parents are producing. Tacitly relying on other people to produce new generations while simultaneously blaming them for it and refusing to make any adjustments to your own workplace or life is selfish and narcissistic. And your employer, by the way, is breaking the law - and missing out on a productive group of people.
5
Guess your mom didn't think having you was a self-indulgent lifestyle choice. No future hires will be childbearing age?! Wow. Way to openly discriminate. So how do young fathers figure in?
1
"no future newhires will be of childbearing age?" This is one of the strangest phrases I've ever read (and also illegal but that's a different issue).
1
The fact that so many commenters have difficulty understanding the underlying challenges of working and raising a family and their disproportionate impact on women tells me just how far we are as a culture from making real progress on this front.
The saddest part is that this is a chicken and egg problem. Until we have more women running companies, the culture will not shift (indeed, it can not shift, profits are currently being drawn from a system that benefits from workers whose family obligations are essentially subsidized by women family members and individual companies that move away from this model will be noncompetitive). But, it should be obvious that if we can make a real change toward accommodating family obligations then men will benefit greatly and care obligations can then finally reach a level where they are shared more equitably.
The saddest part is that this is a chicken and egg problem. Until we have more women running companies, the culture will not shift (indeed, it can not shift, profits are currently being drawn from a system that benefits from workers whose family obligations are essentially subsidized by women family members and individual companies that move away from this model will be noncompetitive). But, it should be obvious that if we can make a real change toward accommodating family obligations then men will benefit greatly and care obligations can then finally reach a level where they are shared more equitably.
9
The problem is that women accept the underlying assumption that they have to do the lions share of the house work and caregiving. Fix that and men and women can argue together for more flex time in the workplace.
1
Twenty-five years ago, I helped raise my two kids with my wife, who also had a full time job. Yeah, it's hard, but we did it.
Now, people just whine, raising kids is hard. I can't pay my school loan, etc.
Now, people just whine, raising kids is hard. I can't pay my school loan, etc.
8
"Until we have more women running companies, the culture will not shift "
we do have women in high levels of authority in many companies. Look at famous female executive at Facebook (i.e., "lean in") and the head of Yahoo. Both have child care right next to their office and will never, ever give anything close to that to other female employees.
we do have women in high levels of authority in many companies. Look at famous female executive at Facebook (i.e., "lean in") and the head of Yahoo. Both have child care right next to their office and will never, ever give anything close to that to other female employees.
5
None of us should be available "on demand" or 24/7 just to have a job. We should all have flexibility for whatever reason.
15
Back in the 90's, I had a mediocre secretary at my government job, downtown in a big city. She wanted to come in at 7 a.m. and leave at 4 only so she wouldn't have to make extra trips to pick up kids from child care. My boss was against it but I went to bat for her and she ended up being a fabulous secretary and her work product improved significantly. She just needed 1 hour on either end. I tended to stay late and when I would come in the next morning at 9 all of the work I had left the night before was done. Don't close the gender gap -- get a more productive employee!
13
You are so blinded to reality that you are still convinced Hillary Clinton won the election. Look, it's simple. Women don't want to work. Women have a maternal instinct. They actually want to be home with their children. High earning women marry high earning men. When your husband makes $500,000 a year and you make $200,000, and federal and state governments tax away over half your pay anyway isn't your choice obvious?
7
"Women don't want to work"
What nonsense. Women are *individuals*, and every single one of us has different needs and desires. Many women enjoy working, many more *need* to work in order to pay bills, many don't want kids at all, and many are very unhappy as stay-at-home parents.
Personally, I love kids, but I would go out of my mind if I was at home with them all day. And I find working to be extremely rewarding in its own right (apart from the necessity of a paycheck to cover my student loans, etc.) Being financially independent is a must for my piece of mind.
The idea that women are ruled by our biology is sexist, pseudo-scientific garbage right out of the 19th century.
What nonsense. Women are *individuals*, and every single one of us has different needs and desires. Many women enjoy working, many more *need* to work in order to pay bills, many don't want kids at all, and many are very unhappy as stay-at-home parents.
Personally, I love kids, but I would go out of my mind if I was at home with them all day. And I find working to be extremely rewarding in its own right (apart from the necessity of a paycheck to cover my student loans, etc.) Being financially independent is a must for my piece of mind.
The idea that women are ruled by our biology is sexist, pseudo-scientific garbage right out of the 19th century.
6
What's interesting is that if you look at all the research and talk to people who periodically work at home, it's apparent that on the days when women (and men, too) work at home, they end up working longer hours, just not the same hours, as those in the office.
9
Longer hours, because they do much less within each hour -- being home is very distracting. I've worked at home, but to do with a toddler -- YIKES! toddlers need constant supervision. Your mind would never be completely on either your work OR your child.
4
I don't have children to distract me when I'm working at home, only the cat. But there are fewer work distractions and it is so much easier to get in a flow and keep going.
2
After raising three children and getting divorced I moved to CA for a job in IT. I usually worked 11 hours a day with no complaints, I loved my job. My boss sang my praises and got me a twenty percent raise because of my abilities and effort. Then I was called back home for my mothers last days. The dying process took three weeks and in the middle of this my father suffered a major stroke. When I returned after this three week leave my office was moved, my team no longer reported to me, my projects were taken away and I was no longer invited to team meetings. When I confronted my boss he said I had too many family problems.
In today's young families men are taking on more caregiving responsibilities and I expect they will run into the same discrimination if they take time off for emergencies. I am hopeful that working electronically will provide greater flexibility for both women and men to take care of their families.
In today's young families men are taking on more caregiving responsibilities and I expect they will run into the same discrimination if they take time off for emergencies. I am hopeful that working electronically will provide greater flexibility for both women and men to take care of their families.
28
I am hopeful that working electronically will provide greater flexibility for both women and men to take care of their families.
I doubt it. More likely employees will just have to quite more often. This is the reality.
I doubt it. More likely employees will just have to quite more often. This is the reality.
Like it or not your team was not going to just sit around till you gt back. They were paid to do a job and their job didn't end with you not being there. Your projects were taken away because they were still needed to be done though you were gone. If a customer of your company and waiting on results of a project you were doing at the time, you think I would care about your mother or father? Perhaps I was paying my employees who needed results from the project you were working on. I do not see it as discrimination as to doing a job you were hired to do, be it male or female. Perhaps you went home to see to your family problems and got paid. You think I should pay my employees who need what ever your project did and I didn't get the results for my employees to do their job? The assembly line of production be it manufacturing or off line other types of production costs money when shut down. Who takes care of the kids is an internal family thing to be worked out within the family. If my employee, be it male or female, has no right to cost me more money for the results i expected. My competition isn't going to give me a break with their pricing because some of my employees had family problems costing me me more. Gains in productivity aren't happening because employees are bringing them about but because of automation and better production methods not because employees are faster strong or whatever.
4
While I certainly agree with the basic premise of the article, there's an underlying assumption that ironically reinforces the stereotype that makes many employers believe women are more problematic than men; namely, that the burden of childcare rests solely with the mother.
These days, husbands bear equal responsibility for raising a child. Shouldn't this article have been about PEOPLE in this situation rather than just mothers?
These days, husbands bear equal responsibility for raising a child. Shouldn't this article have been about PEOPLE in this situation rather than just mothers?
10
Husbands SHOULD bear equal responsibility for raising a child, but study after study reveals that women spend more time at it. The article begins to address that issue, near the end, however.
4
I'm glad to see some honesty about the fact that the pay gap is a fallacy and more a question of flexibility and choice related to child rearing. If it can work for the Company and the employee to have the flexibility, then go for it but there is some work that does require people together at the same time collaborating .. Marissa Mayer of Yahoo knew it and enforced it in her Development team. The fact is that younger women have every right to push for flexibility but also have to realize that they don't have a "right" for the entire commercial system to be reworked to enable their life choices
13
Having children is a bit more than a "life choice." A stable population benefits all of society--someone is going to be funding your social security, for example. Societies that make it difficult for women to combine motherhood and a career often have very low birthrates, with serious economic consequences.
10
The pay gap is not a fallacy. Single women with no children also gets paid $.70 to the dollar that men make. Nice try.
10
Sherry I have never seen a study that says this. Every single study I've ever read attributes the majority of the pay gap to child and elderly care responsibilities.
You're claiming in your comment that the pay gap for women without children is larger than the pay gap for those with children. That would be an interesting fact if it were true, but I'm very skeptical.
In the world where Trump supporters deal in alternative facts, it is important for more liberal supporters to ensure that they tell the truth.
I'd urge you to read some of Claudia Golden's research on the topic, I think she does a good job of framing what a real challenge this issue is.
You're claiming in your comment that the pay gap for women without children is larger than the pay gap for those with children. That would be an interesting fact if it were true, but I'm very skeptical.
In the world where Trump supporters deal in alternative facts, it is important for more liberal supporters to ensure that they tell the truth.
I'd urge you to read some of Claudia Golden's research on the topic, I think she does a good job of framing what a real challenge this issue is.
2
While there is nothing whatsoever wrong with companies attempting to accommodate those with families to a reasonable degree, these columns are disturbing to the degree they convey that women are 'owed' whatever they think they 'should' have in order to 'fulfill' themselves.
On behalf of my professional career I have given up a steady home, assured employment, extra time, quality of life, stable relationships, etc., etc., with full knowledge and acceptance of what I was doing.
Why are women deserving of anything more than men?
If women are married to men who won't support the choice to have children and take proportionate care of them, then either don't have children or get a divorce and marry a man who will help. Pretty simple.
On behalf of my professional career I have given up a steady home, assured employment, extra time, quality of life, stable relationships, etc., etc., with full knowledge and acceptance of what I was doing.
Why are women deserving of anything more than men?
If women are married to men who won't support the choice to have children and take proportionate care of them, then either don't have children or get a divorce and marry a man who will help. Pretty simple.
10
Wow, just wow. How low can you go in your lack of respect for the fact that women don't work only to fulfill themselves, they work because most families require two paychecks to survive on today's wages.
6
Exactly, Dmj. There is a huge labor surplus on Planet Earth -- everyone is highly replaceable so why on earth they think their demands to be fulfilled and accommodated amount to a hill of beans is beyond me.
We don't need more people on earth, we certainly don't need to rob some citizens to subsidize others in the production of surplus little environment destroyers.
If you want to produce kids, understand there will be significant hits to your finances, your career, other opportunities, your marital relationship etc. -- and if you still want to roll the dice, be prepared to deal with the outcome. My time, resources and money are going to go toward saving dolphins and elephants and bees, not producing more little Walmart shoppers in the USA.
We don't need more people on earth, we certainly don't need to rob some citizens to subsidize others in the production of surplus little environment destroyers.
If you want to produce kids, understand there will be significant hits to your finances, your career, other opportunities, your marital relationship etc. -- and if you still want to roll the dice, be prepared to deal with the outcome. My time, resources and money are going to go toward saving dolphins and elephants and bees, not producing more little Walmart shoppers in the USA.
3
That is nonsense, Sherry. It is quite possible to run a household on one income today -- I've done it for 35 years quite handily and so do millions of other families of moderate or low income.
It's also possible for two-income couples to live on one income for several years and save up to fund the pre-school childcare or parental leave years.
There are many solutions besides picking others' pockets. Work hard, save up, THEN reproduce.
It's also possible for two-income couples to live on one income for several years and save up to fund the pre-school childcare or parental leave years.
There are many solutions besides picking others' pockets. Work hard, save up, THEN reproduce.
2
I felt an enormous pressure to be at work and miss almost no time, even when my infant was really sick. That's because bosses and managers rise to positions of responsibility mainly because they are not caregivers, and they have no idea how hard it is--both to caregive and to outsource caregiving. Thus the vicious cycle continues.
That is why I struck out on my own and became my own boss. I charge a reasonable hourly rate for my services, and when I'm not doing paid work, I do caregiving. Now my life is no longer insane and I am earning WELL above the minimum wage. Just as a note, when I hire babysitters, I pay them a living wage and give them maternity leave pay too because I've been there and parents need to support each other.
That is why I struck out on my own and became my own boss. I charge a reasonable hourly rate for my services, and when I'm not doing paid work, I do caregiving. Now my life is no longer insane and I am earning WELL above the minimum wage. Just as a note, when I hire babysitters, I pay them a living wage and give them maternity leave pay too because I've been there and parents need to support each other.
24
This is so focused on families with small children. What about single people who have elderly parents or siblings to care for? Are our needs for flexibility any less? Our parents were there for us and some of us would like to be able to help them when they need it. As a single woman in the workplace I've watched as my male counterparts are praised to the skies for being willing to leave work early to care for a sick child, or pick up a child from school, or attend an afterschool athletic event, or go to the parent teacher conference. Women, if they do any of those things, are vilified. Women, if they care for an aging parent are often told, in words or actions, that the job comes first and if it isn't, they can be replaced.
In other words, females are penalized no matter what they do while most men, unless they are truly incompetent, aren't. They're viewed as heroes for being willing to do the hard work. For women it's just part of the expectations society has and it's too bad if we can't be super women. So we're underpaid, overworked, tired, and blamed for it. Nice.
In other words, females are penalized no matter what they do while most men, unless they are truly incompetent, aren't. They're viewed as heroes for being willing to do the hard work. For women it's just part of the expectations society has and it's too bad if we can't be super women. So we're underpaid, overworked, tired, and blamed for it. Nice.
53
When I found out my mom had colon cancer I went in to tell my boss I'd be out from the date of her surgery until she could be left alone during the day; likely some weeks.
He reared back and said none-too-kindly "Do you have vacation time to cover that?" in a skeptical tone. (I was an award-winning employee, top ranked in performance reviews, maybe one sick day every couple of years, promoted steadily in the 14 years at that job). He pestered me during this life-and-death situation even though I had scurried to leave things set up for my co-workers' convenience.
While I was off on my dismal mission, my manager's much younger, very healthy wife had a "miscarriage" at 6 weeks of pregnancy, which most of us women know is little different than a late period -- and he took an entire week off to stay home with her, because of her "emotional distress." I know for a fact it was logged as sick time, and I highly doubt anyone asked him if he "had enough vacation time" to cover his family's emergency. Don't let anyone tell you that parents are not accommodated or given deference in the 21st century workplace because it's just not true. They are over coddled, in my opinion. Time to start accommodating other permutations of family and personal life.
He reared back and said none-too-kindly "Do you have vacation time to cover that?" in a skeptical tone. (I was an award-winning employee, top ranked in performance reviews, maybe one sick day every couple of years, promoted steadily in the 14 years at that job). He pestered me during this life-and-death situation even though I had scurried to leave things set up for my co-workers' convenience.
While I was off on my dismal mission, my manager's much younger, very healthy wife had a "miscarriage" at 6 weeks of pregnancy, which most of us women know is little different than a late period -- and he took an entire week off to stay home with her, because of her "emotional distress." I know for a fact it was logged as sick time, and I highly doubt anyone asked him if he "had enough vacation time" to cover his family's emergency. Don't let anyone tell you that parents are not accommodated or given deference in the 21st century workplace because it's just not true. They are over coddled, in my opinion. Time to start accommodating other permutations of family and personal life.
13
I was fired from a job after my father was in the hospital. Why? My mother needed some help dealing with the doctors and asked me to assist. My boss didn't like my having to make personal phone calls during work time. However, we weren't busy and he wasn't interested in training us so I think it was just his way of being the boss.
1
So, the thrust of this article is that women are equal to men, so long as they get special treatment and benefits that men have never gotten? Women should be treated differently simply because they're women, without regard to coordinating with their husbands/partners/whatever and making family management choices that don't require special treatment in the workplace?
This seems silly and regressive to me. Giving perks where none have existed before based on sex alone is discrimination. Unless, of course, the same options will be offered to men, in which case we're talking a shift in the workplace paradigm, rather than something that is solely sex-based.
So, which is it? Women need special treatment or we need to change the way all people work? It can't be both, at least not if we're going to maintain fairness in the workplace.
This seems silly and regressive to me. Giving perks where none have existed before based on sex alone is discrimination. Unless, of course, the same options will be offered to men, in which case we're talking a shift in the workplace paradigm, rather than something that is solely sex-based.
So, which is it? Women need special treatment or we need to change the way all people work? It can't be both, at least not if we're going to maintain fairness in the workplace.
11
Historically, the "special treatment" that men received were wives/mothers who took care of their meals and laundry, the kids, parents, and home. When women entered the workforce, they were expected to do their jobs from 8 to 5 and continue in their care of the men in their lives, the kids, and the parents. That expectation is slowing shifting. More and more, couples work together to care for kids, home, each other, and careers. But it is still not the norm. Until it is, the conversation will still sound much like this article.
22
Elfego, did you read this part of the article:
This type of flexibility, while valuable, would not magically solve workplace problems. For one, any solution would need to be for both women and men.
I suspect not or you wouldn't be saying such an idiotic thing. Besides men get special treatment all the time at work. They can be aggressive, rude, nasty, etc., and they are considered excellent employees. They can be bossy, tactless, whatever, and no one marks them down or says behind their backs or to their faces that they are on the rag. Ergo they are always given the benefit of the doubt while women are just plain doubted.
This type of flexibility, while valuable, would not magically solve workplace problems. For one, any solution would need to be for both women and men.
I suspect not or you wouldn't be saying such an idiotic thing. Besides men get special treatment all the time at work. They can be aggressive, rude, nasty, etc., and they are considered excellent employees. They can be bossy, tactless, whatever, and no one marks them down or says behind their backs or to their faces that they are on the rag. Ergo they are always given the benefit of the doubt while women are just plain doubted.
12
When you spend equal time with your partner caring for family members: speak. Life for children is predicated upon someone having the flexibility to pick them up in mid-afternoon, or when sick or on school half days. Childcare is expensive and typically is only during normal work hours often not allowing travel time on either end. You have a working solution? You are volunteering your work time to care for someone sick? Thought not. You speak from a position of never having to make the choice between caring for someone ill or work.
4
I hate to break the news to you, but FLEXTIME has been around since at least the late 1980's.--that would be 35 years. But I think that is largely an excuse. My parents didn't have a flexible schedule--they worked graveyard shifts, week-ends, sat and sun, afternoon shift and yet managed to raise to boys, send them to school everyday, get them a college education and be successful middle class family.
Flextime is more or less for people who want everything. What people need to do is have fewer needs, and maybe reconsider the need for a family.
When I was young my mother had a business, but later went to work, and for as long as I can rememebr, both my parents worked, but there weren't the distractions then that there are today.
I think tha the real problems have not been examined yet, and flextime will NOT solve them. IMHO.
Flextime is more or less for people who want everything. What people need to do is have fewer needs, and maybe reconsider the need for a family.
When I was young my mother had a business, but later went to work, and for as long as I can rememebr, both my parents worked, but there weren't the distractions then that there are today.
I think tha the real problems have not been examined yet, and flextime will NOT solve them. IMHO.
6
But we didn't laws in place that said children had to be watched all the time. We didn't have people who were reporting 6 year old children who were walking to the store by themselves to get a carton of milk at their parent's request. We didn't prosecute parents for neglect when they didn't know where their children were every second of the day when the children were injured or did something stupid.
Flextime is for any employee who needs to care for themselves or a family member, not for those who want everything. Many times a day of hectic activity on the job is compensated by a slow day later on. The problem with most employers in America is that they expect their employees to work at double speed all day every day.
Flextime is for any employee who needs to care for themselves or a family member, not for those who want everything. Many times a day of hectic activity on the job is compensated by a slow day later on. The problem with most employers in America is that they expect their employees to work at double speed all day every day.
10
And why do you think should we continue to live in the era of your parents??
2
I had flextime in 1974 when I worked on Wall Street when I worked for a law firm in a support capacity during the great job shortage of that era. We were allowed to arrive at any time between 7AM and 10AM and leave between 2:45PM and 6PM depending on our time of arrival. (We actually had a 35 hour work week with a 45 minute lunch, which was quite normal in New York City at the time.)
It was wonderful! I beat rush hour both ways by coming in at 7AM and if I'd had children I could have been home in time for them to get home from school. (When I got home at 3:30 I took my bike out and rode the 13 miles to Coney Island every day and was in excellent aerobic shape as a result.) Everyone was happy and productive in my department, even though we were all bored. It really was a great system.
It was wonderful! I beat rush hour both ways by coming in at 7AM and if I'd had children I could have been home in time for them to get home from school. (When I got home at 3:30 I took my bike out and rode the 13 miles to Coney Island every day and was in excellent aerobic shape as a result.) Everyone was happy and productive in my department, even though we were all bored. It really was a great system.
2
How many decades now have we been talking about this? Probably as many as we've been talking about universal healthcare. Why do these things scare so many Americans? Throw in affordable day care, too.
Why do we fight so many wars when we aren't properly taking care of our own?
Why do we fight so many wars when we aren't properly taking care of our own?
10
FLEX TIME My wife and I are semi-retired. We worked in public schools. The schedules were fixed and strictly enforced. When classrooms full of children are waiting to be taught, there must be some firm guidelines. We're both semi-retired now. Thank goodness! There have been times when we've had to set everything aside due to family medical emergencies, of which there have been a large number during the past few years. As grandparents helping our children, grandchild and his aged great grandmother has taken a great deal of time and energy. We simply could not have undertaken these family responsibilities while working full time. If cyber schooling takes off, there may be a way to introduce more flexibility into work schedules. But I've got my doubts that will happen any time soon.
2
This is interesting, but probably applies to about 20 percent of women (or men) with jobs that would allow this flexibility. What about the rest of us?
9
Years ago I worked at a Wall Street firm which was rolling out software throughout its retail branches across the nation every weekend. Being understaffed a number of new hires were brought in. One was an Orthodox Jew who could not travel from Friday through Sunday. Since he was not able to participate in the rollout everyone else was forced to do extra work.
The same will happen when you let employees control their work schedules. Why choose "normal" business hours when you can work off-peak and not deal with the stress from work? And for the poor souls working during peak hours expect burnout to become the next issue to be addressed.
The same will happen when you let employees control their work schedules. Why choose "normal" business hours when you can work off-peak and not deal with the stress from work? And for the poor souls working during peak hours expect burnout to become the next issue to be addressed.
9
Like everything in our society, it's all about me. And the fact there isn't a magic wand. Those who want a new paradigm are always free to start a business based on it and offer everyone the ideal pay and schedule.
Back to the real world, if flexibility works for you and your employer great. But typically someone has to be in an office or store or school or lab, etc. when you're not. So they have no flexibility at that time, but you do. How is that "fair", especially when the flexibility generally goes one way, i.e. many who don't have kids are nearly always covering for those that do.
This problem largely comes down to individual or shared values and priorities....and the need for two paychecks. And if an employer or business can accommodate your priorities in such a way that makes everyone reasonably happy, wonderful.
In many jobs and for many couples, such desired flexibility won't work in the real world. So everyone has to compromise and make sacrifices. How each couple works out sharing of household duties and child rearing is up to them.
But men typically have no more flexibility than women. And society does not have to dictate who stays home, the couple can actually decide for themselves what's right or makes the most sense to them.
No one can have it all except over decades perhaps. Do what works for you as best you can, that's all any of us can do. With rare exceptions, you have to adjust to the world, it doesn't adjust to you.
Back to the real world, if flexibility works for you and your employer great. But typically someone has to be in an office or store or school or lab, etc. when you're not. So they have no flexibility at that time, but you do. How is that "fair", especially when the flexibility generally goes one way, i.e. many who don't have kids are nearly always covering for those that do.
This problem largely comes down to individual or shared values and priorities....and the need for two paychecks. And if an employer or business can accommodate your priorities in such a way that makes everyone reasonably happy, wonderful.
In many jobs and for many couples, such desired flexibility won't work in the real world. So everyone has to compromise and make sacrifices. How each couple works out sharing of household duties and child rearing is up to them.
But men typically have no more flexibility than women. And society does not have to dictate who stays home, the couple can actually decide for themselves what's right or makes the most sense to them.
No one can have it all except over decades perhaps. Do what works for you as best you can, that's all any of us can do. With rare exceptions, you have to adjust to the world, it doesn't adjust to you.
9
We could, in fact, shift policy so that flexibility is the default and the impetus is on the employer to justify schedule demands.
Gotta love all the comments that suggest that children are incompatible with work. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "in 2015, 92.7 percent of all men with children under age 18 participated in the labor force." So I guess some people can have it all*!
*Offer not valid for those who bear the majority of caregiving responsibilities at home
*Offer not valid for those who bear the majority of caregiving responsibilities at home
20
Absurd deduction.
Couples have a choice as to how/who will bear what proportion of responsibilities.
If you don't like that statistic, and if the women married to men aren't happy with their choices, then find other men to marry. Meanwhile, the men will do the same.
The more special treatment for women is pushed on men, the less interested men are in getting married and having children, period. A sad truth for women.
Couples have a choice as to how/who will bear what proportion of responsibilities.
If you don't like that statistic, and if the women married to men aren't happy with their choices, then find other men to marry. Meanwhile, the men will do the same.
The more special treatment for women is pushed on men, the less interested men are in getting married and having children, period. A sad truth for women.
2
You left out the "Freely Choose" qualifier in your last sentence.
1
@Law Feminist -- So, maybe it's the division of caregiving responsibilities that needs to be addressed, rather than creating yet another carve out for special treatment based on sex alone?
2
Are we ready to consider closing the gender gap in the US military casualties in the next world war as well?
5
The root of the problem is that the 40 hour workweek really no longer exists other than for some who work for the government or for those who are paid hourly. And yet, there are the basic functions of life that still have to occur in the margins of our time, and for most of us, without a stay-at-home spouse. Can we please stop sparring over who deserves what 'perks' and agree that EVERYONE needs adequate time away from work? Me, I work 55 hours a week (minimum), commute 2 hours each way and have a toddler. Flexibility at work is a lifeline and the only way I (barely) hold it together these days, but I would welcome a return to the 40 hour schedule of old.
22
Working from home and alternate work schedules (varied start and stop times that can accommodate personal time during the day as long as 40 hours are worked per week) have been the norm in the federal government for some time.
1
Yes, you are right. By 40 hour workweek was referring to the number of hours required, rather than a requirement that they be worked on a set schedule.
Please don't tell me it took all of 200 years to figure this out. Brilliant minds!
What kind of job is this piece talking about, all jobs or white-collar odds-and-ends jobs? Besides, why push the idea that childcare is a woman's responsibility?
3
Measuring "performance by presence" is a big issue for men and women. At my company, people can easily work from home and often do, but the CEO really likes to have people in the office.
One of my colleagues (male) needed to stay home to take care of an ill child and even though he was calling in for meetings and doing his work, the CEO was still grumbling about wanting the guy in the office.
Apparently (this is hearsay) when the HR manager took the CEO aside and mentioned that people need time for their families, the CEO scoffed and said that people who really loved their work would find a way to put the work first!!
Our CEO has a lot of talent, but he is single himself and would happily work 24/7 and 365--which is probably why is he the CEO!
So that disconnect between management that expects others to always put work first and other staff who want a balance between work and family time is a problem.
Workers can be brave and speak up, but there is always that risk of being replaced by someone who is willing to work nonstop and/or traditional hours.
One of my colleagues (male) needed to stay home to take care of an ill child and even though he was calling in for meetings and doing his work, the CEO was still grumbling about wanting the guy in the office.
Apparently (this is hearsay) when the HR manager took the CEO aside and mentioned that people need time for their families, the CEO scoffed and said that people who really loved their work would find a way to put the work first!!
Our CEO has a lot of talent, but he is single himself and would happily work 24/7 and 365--which is probably why is he the CEO!
So that disconnect between management that expects others to always put work first and other staff who want a balance between work and family time is a problem.
Workers can be brave and speak up, but there is always that risk of being replaced by someone who is willing to work nonstop and/or traditional hours.
15
"Our CEO has a lot of talent, but he is single himself and would happily work 24/7 and 365--which is probably why is he the CEO!"
And single.
And single.
3
The brutal reality: Flexibility is essential for any involved parent, male or female, given the unpredictability of children's illness, school vacations, activities, etc. Unfortunately, as many have also noted, fixed hours are also essential for certain jobs, like education; class meets at fixed times.
My husband, who is the family driver, is responsible for picking up our daughter from daycare by 6, but his current job involves assistant-teaching an intensive class that meets daily from 10 to 6. He comes early, at 9:30, to help students with extra questions, to compensate for leaving at 5:30, but if he were the head teacher (who earns 2.5 times more), he just couldn't do this.
My observation is that a job situation that allows for flexibility inevitably involves a trade-off of responsibility, and most of the time that trade-off also involves lower pay to compensate for not being available on demand. The exception — and the optimal situation — is for parents who have already attained a senior enough position in their field that they can avail themselves of the flexibility they need while still retaining authority and high pay (e.g. a law partner or senior magazine editor can leave at 3 to pick up a child or work from home on Fridays without consequence). But you can't break into a field, or be a lower-level employee, and expect to get far if you can't work fixed hours or have to show up late or take time off at the drop of a hat for a child.
My husband, who is the family driver, is responsible for picking up our daughter from daycare by 6, but his current job involves assistant-teaching an intensive class that meets daily from 10 to 6. He comes early, at 9:30, to help students with extra questions, to compensate for leaving at 5:30, but if he were the head teacher (who earns 2.5 times more), he just couldn't do this.
My observation is that a job situation that allows for flexibility inevitably involves a trade-off of responsibility, and most of the time that trade-off also involves lower pay to compensate for not being available on demand. The exception — and the optimal situation — is for parents who have already attained a senior enough position in their field that they can avail themselves of the flexibility they need while still retaining authority and high pay (e.g. a law partner or senior magazine editor can leave at 3 to pick up a child or work from home on Fridays without consequence). But you can't break into a field, or be a lower-level employee, and expect to get far if you can't work fixed hours or have to show up late or take time off at the drop of a hat for a child.
9
I work for an employer that is in the public employee sector. My company has extensive benefits for women regarding pregnancy,maturnity leave, and flex time for childcare. But in reality, what happens is the rest of the staff has to pick up the work for the woman on leave/flex schedule. In the last 5 years, an average of 1-2 women a year take 6-9 months off for maternity leave, then come back and work 20 hours a week. In the meantime,those of us who take care of elderly parents, or who have their own health issues, get little or no time off.
22
I know of a couple of instances of near back-to-back maternity leaves -- i.e. they became pregnant on a six or none-month leave and then expected another extended time out of the workplace hot on the heels of the last one. Say, 18 months out of 40 or 48 months total employment were spent on leave. How is that fair to the employer and co-workers?
3
I deal with that at my work too.
1
Nothing new. The only way to close the pay gap is to have equal pay for equal work, regardless of where it is done. It's a simple concept that hasn't been taught in business school.
1
Equal pay for equal job title, or equal pay for equal output, or equal basic income?
Done anywhere on the planet, or anywhere on the continent, or anywhere in the country etc?
Done anywhere on the planet, or anywhere on the continent, or anywhere in the country etc?
3
There is a big difference between what one EARNS and what one IS PAID.
I can PAY $20 an hour to two different workers. One chooses to work 40 hours a week and EARNS $800.
One chooses a personal lifestyle that makes her available only $25 hours a week so her paycheck reflects that at $500.
Over the years, employee No 1 by virtue of spending more time on the job develops better/more skills, a better professional network, more seniority and thus is more likely to be promoted or even recruited elsewhere. The part-timer, No. 2, puts in the minimum effort necessary, takes a lot of sick or personal days, is not available/reliable for big projects and rushes home rather than network.
If she says she is being discriminated against, she's delusional.
I can PAY $20 an hour to two different workers. One chooses to work 40 hours a week and EARNS $800.
One chooses a personal lifestyle that makes her available only $25 hours a week so her paycheck reflects that at $500.
Over the years, employee No 1 by virtue of spending more time on the job develops better/more skills, a better professional network, more seniority and thus is more likely to be promoted or even recruited elsewhere. The part-timer, No. 2, puts in the minimum effort necessary, takes a lot of sick or personal days, is not available/reliable for big projects and rushes home rather than network.
If she says she is being discriminated against, she's delusional.
5
I'm not so sure that the focus of this article is so much on the gender gap than it is about what can be done with an accessible means to achieve work and child rearing balance. Not all, but the majority of women who have young children feel an instinctual pull to guide the bulk of the child care. For myself, I WANT to lead my daughter's care. I can coordinate her needs in a way that's a bit more thoughtful than my husband, even though he does do a good job when he's in charge. It is the basic instinct of being a motherly mom. But it is also impossible for us to do this job equally. His job has much less flexibility than mine. As a full fledged heterosexual woman with motherly instincts, I have the natural pull towards leading the childcare. However, I don't think that it makes me less capable of managing anything in the workplace. Child rearing involves huge amounts of organization, time management, attention to detail, the ability to think on your feet, among others — I apply these same skills albeit with adults — in the workplace.
The flexibility topic should have also been equally applied to a man's job, as well. It's impossible to "do it all" without paying for childcare in any form, having one partner with employment flexibility, or one partner working part-time. It may be viewed as a gender gap or a sacrifice in career advancement, but it's the reality of the situation. I hope to see more flexibility and resources like Werk popping up in the next few years.
The flexibility topic should have also been equally applied to a man's job, as well. It's impossible to "do it all" without paying for childcare in any form, having one partner with employment flexibility, or one partner working part-time. It may be viewed as a gender gap or a sacrifice in career advancement, but it's the reality of the situation. I hope to see more flexibility and resources like Werk popping up in the next few years.
6
Have you considered starting your own business and staffing it with young mothers ? I wonder whether women with your views are willing to put their money at risk in support of those views .
2
A thousand times yes! I am a 33 year professional myself with two kids and a partner who has less flexibility (as a nurse he needs to be physically there). my job at a major university is flexible and adaptive to me. I have crazy busy periods where I definitely put in more than 40 hrs and then lulls where I catch up in life. I travel a little (I enjoy it) and I can work from home for a few days when recuperating after a trip away from my babies.
With technology and driven people, there is absolutely no need to slog after at a desk for 8 hours. Sometimes I just need a break or a new location to clear my head and then will sit down and pump out hour of unfocused work in 45 minutes. Flexible schedules allow us to reach a new level of life balance and productivity.
With technology and driven people, there is absolutely no need to slog after at a desk for 8 hours. Sometimes I just need a break or a new location to clear my head and then will sit down and pump out hour of unfocused work in 45 minutes. Flexible schedules allow us to reach a new level of life balance and productivity.
7
With technology and driven people, there is absolutely no need to slog after at a desk for 8 hours.
I'll tell that to my plumber and to the local trash collector, and the meter reader and butcher. Gee, technology is so freeing. wait til the robots take over and then see how much cmpanies need people who need flextime.
I'll tell that to my plumber and to the local trash collector, and the meter reader and butcher. Gee, technology is so freeing. wait til the robots take over and then see how much cmpanies need people who need flextime.
8
Le me guess - you are a bit more demanding of your Pediatrician.
7
Lauren: as you point out, correctly, this is very easy for ACADEMICS...who have short hours and flexible schedules, due to our very archaic reliance on schools schedules that STILL in 2017 follow agricultural seasons!
If schools ran all year, all week, all day like businesses...you could not just "take off" and "relax" because there would be demands on you all the time.
ONLY in academia is this possible. And of course, it is why our college costs are the highest in the world, and students graduate $100K in debt.
If schools ran all year, all week, all day like businesses...you could not just "take off" and "relax" because there would be demands on you all the time.
ONLY in academia is this possible. And of course, it is why our college costs are the highest in the world, and students graduate $100K in debt.
1
Absolutely agree. I work freelance, with a flexible schedule, ~80% time, to keep my family running smoothly. My annual pay is about 50% what my peers make working onsite full time. I get no holidays, vacation, sick time, chat time, or company benefits -- but my work is highly valued. The company wins big time in getting my labor for less. My family benefits having me nearby.
My salary, 401k, and professional advancement are the big losers.
My salary, 401k, and professional advancement are the big losers.
8
What do you do and what company do you work for?
Doesn't freelance mean that you work for yourself, as a private contractor able to set their own schedule and work on which projects you want? And I assume the folks working onsite are full-time employees with defined roles/responsibilities with the company?
You don't get holiday, vacation and sick time because you already set your own schedule! Do you not understand that?
You don't get holiday, vacation and sick time because you already set your own schedule! Do you not understand that?
7
but my work is highly valued.
despite what you say, apparently NOT. "My salary, 401k, and professional advancement are the big losers."
But it's OK, you can keep telling yourself you are valued. But wait until you retire with 60% less than what you need to survive. One MUST think future, there is no 2 ways about it.
despite what you say, apparently NOT. "My salary, 401k, and professional advancement are the big losers."
But it's OK, you can keep telling yourself you are valued. But wait until you retire with 60% less than what you need to survive. One MUST think future, there is no 2 ways about it.
4
Why is it a given that the primary care taker is a woman? This problem runs much deeper and until gender equality improves at home I don't see how it will improve at work.
12
Well for one, breastfeeding is preferred so women do tend to have more responsibility in the early years. I prefer to nurse as much as possible and theres no way around the nighttime feeds (though the partner does take a night on occasion). Also - I want to be with my kids as much as possible but I'm also crazy passionate about my job and can pump out a proposal or write or do research or watch a recorded webinar after my kids are in bed.
They have the milk.
1
What should gay male parents do to ensure breastfeeding?
Many of these comments elucidate exactly why the US is behind on this issue. Assumptions that flexibility means not working as hard, or that a flexible schedule is forever, or a flexible schedule means not being there in an emergency. Flexibility means working hard when it's needed, but arranging a schedule so that it works for you and your company's needs. It means acknowledging that being at the office does not necessarily mean being productive, and results should matter more than process. It's about trusting and empowering people. People I know on a flexible schedule are incredibly organized, efficient, productive and responsive employees.
Of course, we live in a country where many people see each other as belonging to different groups and see giving to one as taking away from another, a zero sum game. So I think the only way to promote these issues is to encourage companies to provide flexibility to all employees, and encourage employees to negotiate for flexibility. Tech companies do a good job of this.
Of course, we live in a country where many people see each other as belonging to different groups and see giving to one as taking away from another, a zero sum game. So I think the only way to promote these issues is to encourage companies to provide flexibility to all employees, and encourage employees to negotiate for flexibility. Tech companies do a good job of this.
20
I’ve worked for over 2 decades in a Fortune 20 company. A large part of success, for men and women, has to do with how flexible they are to meet the demands of the job. That often means working overtime, weekends, and traveling on short notice, sometimes for extended periods. This isn’t compatible with someone who needs a predictable schedule to care for children. Employers reward people that are flexible, not people that demand flexibility.
43
Why is the 40-hour work week sacred?
Before I became a free-lancer, I talked to a number of self-employed people, and one of them, a musician, said, "I have friends in the corporate world, and they spend a lot of time writing reports that are not legally required and that no one will ever read, playing games on their computers or shmoozing at the water cooler. When I work, I'm either teaching or rehearsing or performing, and when I'm doing any of those things, I'm fully engaged. I bet I spend as much time per week doing actual work as my friends who are expected to occupy a cubicle 40 hours a week."
As a free-lancer, I have found this to be true. My life is defined by projects, not by a schedule, and if I finish a project, whether it's in three hours or three grueling days, I'm free till the next project comes along. I can work at any time of the day, as long as I finish by the deadline.
I'd suggest that employers think in terms of projects and tasks rather than hours and stop assigning busywork. If the employee has finished doing what needs to be done that day, why shouldn't s/he be able to go home?
Before I became a free-lancer, I talked to a number of self-employed people, and one of them, a musician, said, "I have friends in the corporate world, and they spend a lot of time writing reports that are not legally required and that no one will ever read, playing games on their computers or shmoozing at the water cooler. When I work, I'm either teaching or rehearsing or performing, and when I'm doing any of those things, I'm fully engaged. I bet I spend as much time per week doing actual work as my friends who are expected to occupy a cubicle 40 hours a week."
As a free-lancer, I have found this to be true. My life is defined by projects, not by a schedule, and if I finish a project, whether it's in three hours or three grueling days, I'm free till the next project comes along. I can work at any time of the day, as long as I finish by the deadline.
I'd suggest that employers think in terms of projects and tasks rather than hours and stop assigning busywork. If the employee has finished doing what needs to be done that day, why shouldn't s/he be able to go home?
23
I don't know what you mean by "finished"? I day trade at home. Therefore, I am not an office worker (and my previous job was a professor). I am never "finished" with my work. I can always spend more time studying market trends, backtesting investment strategies, reading about companies' quarterly reports, reading about drug trials, studying hedge fund investing patterns, etc...
I could do all that 100 hours a week every week. I do not, but I COULD employ myself that much.
When I was an (adjunct) professor working on a dissertation, I could have spent 100 hours a week working on my dissertation, doing research, or designing seminar plans.
I guess the same is true of a musician rehearsing. You could always be playing more Bar Mitvahs or doing more studio gigs for advertising jingles.
The fact that most employees play video games or check Facebook does not mean there isn't always more work they could be doing.
I could do all that 100 hours a week every week. I do not, but I COULD employ myself that much.
When I was an (adjunct) professor working on a dissertation, I could have spent 100 hours a week working on my dissertation, doing research, or designing seminar plans.
I guess the same is true of a musician rehearsing. You could always be playing more Bar Mitvahs or doing more studio gigs for advertising jingles.
The fact that most employees play video games or check Facebook does not mean there isn't always more work they could be doing.
You proudly admit you have exactly zero experience running a business (but you have a musician friend who has talked to friends in the "corporate world," that's fantastic). And now, as a freelancer, you are making suggestions to business owners. I'll buy your book.
8
If a task can be done in half a day, one only need one employee?
Sounds like sexism to me.
5
So a woman choosing to work less and take care of a child that she also chose and to be paid less for HER choices is sexism? I don't understand.
4
Sounds like a case for cheap skilled immigrant labor.
1
Ultimately employers need dedicated employees and giving workers flexibility with their scheduling is a proven method of retention. Not all employers support that concept and in a tight labor market there is little consequence. However when and where there is a shortage of skilled labor employers tend to be more flexible.
It is also worth remembering all positions are not suitable for maximum schedule flexibility.
It is also worth remembering all positions are not suitable for maximum schedule flexibility.
5
The way to create equality in the workplace is not to make exceptions for some.
If women want to be treated fairly, they need to step up to the plate and do the same work as their counterparts.
The reason that childcare costs money is that to do it right, you have to attend to the child. To pretend that you are working, concurrent with parenting your children, is disingenuous...as someone who has managed people trying to do both concurrently...it simply doesn't work.
If women want to be treated fairly, they need to step up to the plate and do the same work as their counterparts.
The reason that childcare costs money is that to do it right, you have to attend to the child. To pretend that you are working, concurrent with parenting your children, is disingenuous...as someone who has managed people trying to do both concurrently...it simply doesn't work.
27
I am sorry, but you do not seem to have caught the meaining of the article. It refers to be goal rather than time oriented, not doing less work of any counterpart. If one person asks for part-time, he/she will still be expected to fully comply with the amount of work required.
About flexibility: the word has several uses. One can be flexible and allow the primary childcare more time (part-time, goal oriented and not time oriented, any other solution) for a while, then resume full time work. Or one can be flexible in the sense of having several type of contracts, with a varying percentage of part-time (50%, 60%, etc...) and specific goals.
So if you say it does not work, I would at least recommend to be more specific.
About flexibility: the word has several uses. One can be flexible and allow the primary childcare more time (part-time, goal oriented and not time oriented, any other solution) for a while, then resume full time work. Or one can be flexible in the sense of having several type of contracts, with a varying percentage of part-time (50%, 60%, etc...) and specific goals.
So if you say it does not work, I would at least recommend to be more specific.
4
There is a fine line between discriminating against women and playing the women's card.
IMO, we are straddling the line.
Blatant discrimination against women in theory and in practice is a thing of the past. It has technically been rectified by law.
Blatant discrimination against women can still occur. You see it pop up every now and then in news stories. It should be rectified ASAP.
What we have now are more subtle issues that may or may not be discriminatory against women. Good people on both sides can disagree for instance the pay gap is it discriminatory or normal market driven forces.
The danger here is to do what blacks did in the 1970s, ie after rectifing the terrible way they were treated before 1970, went the other way and played the card and put untold numbers on welfare that helped cripple our cities.
I know I witnessed it.
I am neutral on the issue this author brought up.
All I ask is to not play the card. It has done with almost all groups in history and yes even white men...ie the the reverse way...ie that's might white of you, ie since they were white they were superior and needed to be given deference.
IMO, we are straddling the line.
Blatant discrimination against women in theory and in practice is a thing of the past. It has technically been rectified by law.
Blatant discrimination against women can still occur. You see it pop up every now and then in news stories. It should be rectified ASAP.
What we have now are more subtle issues that may or may not be discriminatory against women. Good people on both sides can disagree for instance the pay gap is it discriminatory or normal market driven forces.
The danger here is to do what blacks did in the 1970s, ie after rectifing the terrible way they were treated before 1970, went the other way and played the card and put untold numbers on welfare that helped cripple our cities.
I know I witnessed it.
I am neutral on the issue this author brought up.
All I ask is to not play the card. It has done with almost all groups in history and yes even white men...ie the the reverse way...ie that's might white of you, ie since they were white they were superior and needed to be given deference.
6
You witnessed it? You mean you spent time in the 70's with African Americans who were trying to find employment and juggle family responsibilities despite discriminatory policies-- the FHA explicitly refusing to back loans for black folks right up until 1968 (for example)? Did you witness your black friend or neighbor finding housing, childcare, and a job, but deciding to enroll in welfare? Or was it something about their race that made this person you witnessed try to get public assistance?
What exactly did you witness Paul?
I'm currently witnessing the decrepit state of the majority-black school my daughter attends. I'm witnessing her school librarian get laid off as my white neighbors send their kids to private school. We're all witnessing black kids get killed by police on film.
Please, tell me what you say in the 70s. Was it an actual card?
What exactly did you witness Paul?
I'm currently witnessing the decrepit state of the majority-black school my daughter attends. I'm witnessing her school librarian get laid off as my white neighbors send their kids to private school. We're all witnessing black kids get killed by police on film.
Please, tell me what you say in the 70s. Was it an actual card?
5
Thank you for your reply Jane S....again I get this type of response from the right too not only the left like you..
Both sides only see the bad that is happening/happened and not the good.
Extreme right wingers do not see the tremendous good that was done by the civil rights movements during the 60s because they are racists they only see the bad, ie the abuse of welfare and violence in the inner city.
Same thing with the lefties. Instead of promoting the tremendous good that was done and working on it they fail to do anything re the abuse of welfare or the issue of guns in black areas. It is not the gun that is the issue, it is our cultural gun abuse sickness suffered by all Americans, white, black and police. It is very easy to scapegoat one group.
Both sides only see the bad that is happening/happened and not the good.
Extreme right wingers do not see the tremendous good that was done by the civil rights movements during the 60s because they are racists they only see the bad, ie the abuse of welfare and violence in the inner city.
Same thing with the lefties. Instead of promoting the tremendous good that was done and working on it they fail to do anything re the abuse of welfare or the issue of guns in black areas. It is not the gun that is the issue, it is our cultural gun abuse sickness suffered by all Americans, white, black and police. It is very easy to scapegoat one group.
1
To each employee his or her own negotiated arrangement is the way of the future in an employee employer relation. First an employer when hiring an employee should clearly state what their expectations/milestones are from the employee in a certain time period. Next they negotiate the hours when they expect physical presence in their place of employment tailored to the employee and the employer expectations. Once certain ground rules are laid down, the employee (male or female) should have the flexibility to work from home on certain day/s and save time for commuting and finding the nearest parking spot and finding places to have meals at convenient times. If the arrangement is mutually beneficial and productive you have a happy employee and sometimes that is more valuable to retain employees then to have a good pay but unilaterally dictate the working hours, have no flexibility and be stressed all the time. Honest, sincere, concensious, qualified, skilled employees no matter what gender should always be able to negotiate to control their working hours by providing commensurate value to the employer. An ideal employment has to be personalized and tailored to an individual irrespective of the race, religion, national origin or gender.
4
Excellent idea; rigidity has shown to break so much easier than the flexibility to keep women in the working force, so they can attend to family affairs we men seem so reluctant (and useless) to fulfill. A job that opposes a modicum of family life is not a job, it's torture. And the U.S. is so far behind social laws favoring balance, compared to more civilized countries (Europe, anybody?).
Hello Manfred,
I write from Europe. While it is true that our social welfare is better (e.g. paid maternity leave), lack of flexibility and pressure to leave your work, in particular at the higher level mentioned in the article is still existing. The form may vary, from unwritten pressure to having the women (only) sign a blank letter of resignation, just in case or making fun of men who choose to reduce their worktime to spend more time with the family. So the laws are there but reality is not there...yet, I hope.
I write from Europe. While it is true that our social welfare is better (e.g. paid maternity leave), lack of flexibility and pressure to leave your work, in particular at the higher level mentioned in the article is still existing. The form may vary, from unwritten pressure to having the women (only) sign a blank letter of resignation, just in case or making fun of men who choose to reduce their worktime to spend more time with the family. So the laws are there but reality is not there...yet, I hope.
5
manfred, in most other countries is HARDER for women to find high level jobs, as the employers KNOW they can take up to 3 years maternity leave off with pay...imagine a woman who has 3 kids! she's on your books but out of the workforce for NINE YEARS.
So they don't hire or promote as many women. Women in countries like Germany and Japan actually stay home more often and are full time SAHMs more than American women! and those countries have much higher rates of unemployment.
There is no utopian paradise out there.
So they don't hire or promote as many women. Women in countries like Germany and Japan actually stay home more often and are full time SAHMs more than American women! and those countries have much higher rates of unemployment.
There is no utopian paradise out there.
2
I stand corrected!
I am one of these women. I work FT and have tremendous flexibility. I am beyond lucky. I call the flexibility my "golden handcuffs" because the flexibility is so valuable that it chains me to my current work place despite no real increase in my salary for two years. THAT is how much I value the flexibility as a FT working parent.
All that is well and good but it doesn't address, as the article points out, women who are working hourly jobs. If we had improved options for childcare and a school system that wasn't built around some archaic (mythic?) farming schedule, we'd be able to help all working women (and men).
All that is well and good but it doesn't address, as the article points out, women who are working hourly jobs. If we had improved options for childcare and a school system that wasn't built around some archaic (mythic?) farming schedule, we'd be able to help all working women (and men).
10
The gender gap is a liberal myth. The article confirms it.
"..why women are paid less, why they’re less likely to reach the top levels of companies, and why they’re more likely to stop working after having children — is employers’ expectation that people spend long hours at their desks "
So, if someone is at their desk LESS, they don't earn as much or get advanced as much.
The gap is due to behavior, NOT gender.
"..why women are paid less, why they’re less likely to reach the top levels of companies, and why they’re more likely to stop working after having children — is employers’ expectation that people spend long hours at their desks "
So, if someone is at their desk LESS, they don't earn as much or get advanced as much.
The gap is due to behavior, NOT gender.
21
The point is, most jobs these days--especially white collar jobs--don't need to be done at the office. With the technology we have today that allows video conferencing for meetings and cloud-based apps that allow document revisions by multiple people in multiple places, the notion that one has to be at the office for 10 to 15 hours a day is ludicrous. In fact, in places where traffic is awful and mass transit scarce, telecommuting is already the norm. So why not just make it an option for everyone? It's not a myth that women pick up the bulk of the child-rearing responsibilities and that they are not advancing because of it. This is a great solution. And if an employer wants in-person face time, set one day a week when everyone has to be in the office for all hands meetings and to allow teams to meet in groups. If it's a recurring appointment on everyone's calendar, then it's so much easier for employees to schedule around.
5
But that expected behavior doesn't serve the real conditions of half of the work force, thus a structural impediment to gender parity in the work force--thus the gap is gendered from the start.
IF we care about increasing productivity for the entire work force, it might be best to build a work space that actually comports with reality.
IF we care about increasing productivity for the entire work force, it might be best to build a work space that actually comports with reality.
3
And the women are raising the kids and taking care of the parents and cooking and cleaning and handling all the errands and teachers' meetings so that you men have more time to spend at your desks. If you XYs would take on an equal share of household and family chores instead of just mowing the lawn once a week, women would have more time to work. So, yes, it is a gender issue.
10
There are three scenarios
1. Focus entirely on work
2. Focus partially on work, partially on child rearing
3. Focus entirely on child rearing
No CEO is being made as a result of the second scenario, and few women have the desire for the first scenario.
Flexibility may be the answer to an economy requiring dual income household, but it is not the answer to the wage gap.
1. Focus entirely on work
2. Focus partially on work, partially on child rearing
3. Focus entirely on child rearing
No CEO is being made as a result of the second scenario, and few women have the desire for the first scenario.
Flexibility may be the answer to an economy requiring dual income household, but it is not the answer to the wage gap.
11
"Few women have the desire for the first scenario" Please cite your sources.
5
Well intentioned nonsense. First, this assumes all women are "caregivers," patently false. Second, only a small percentage of jobs allow for the fantasy "flexibility" discussed herein. Third, those jobs don't pay particularly well, negating the point of the article. Fourth, lack of physical presence in the workplace is a sure fire way to reduce one's chances of promotion.
Full disclosure, I own a successful marketing communications firm with a significant female employee base. I'd love to pay the women what the guys make, but unfortunately none of them want to take a pay cut.
Full disclosure, I own a successful marketing communications firm with a significant female employee base. I'd love to pay the women what the guys make, but unfortunately none of them want to take a pay cut.
13
Sure. in my business, I will just ask my customers to come and go based on my staff's daily, unpredictable, and "flexible" schedule. Maybe I could post a sign of my staff's hours; I am sure everyone would be so patient and not purchase online.
24
Everyone knows that not all jobs are suited to flexible work arrangements or telework.
8
I fell like the NYT's thinks we still live in the Mad Men era when women were either secretaries or homemakers. I hate to tell you, but men and women have been sharing child rearing duties for decades now. Both men and women, have the same concerns about juggling family and career.
Please stop with your pandering articles directed at one gender.
Please stop with your pandering articles directed at one gender.
73
@Const - Really? "Men and women have been sharing child rearing duties for decades now"?? That's a wild overstatement. Some have, yes, but many don't.
3
I don't see so-called "flexible schedules" as being a genuine means to decreasing the gender gap or substantially improving work-life balance. In my profession, the hours demands are such that I could get some time off every day, if I worked 365 days per year. However, if I would like major holidays off and at least one day off each week, my workday extends to a time that entirely precludes any flexibility. Indeed, during the past two years, I was unable to take any vacation time. A more fundamental change is needed, and not just for working women.
11
So you're asking for major holidays off and to work an 80% schedule? I'd love to take one day off a week too.
1
Women keep saying they want equal pay for equal work, but then the equal work always has an asterisk. "I want to be paid the same as men in the office*"
*But I want to be able to work at home, when its convenient for me.
Sorry, that's not how it works.
*But I want to be able to work at home, when its convenient for me.
Sorry, that's not how it works.
56
The photo and caption are very misleading. Women who work from home generally understand it cannot be done while simultaneously caring for a small child. The woman depicted says she only works while her daughter sleeps except in emergency situations. as a woman attorney who occasionally works from home while my toddler is at daycare, I think that system is playing with fire and unlikely to aid productivity. but in any case, the photo is inconsistent with reality of how most women use flexible work schedules. it is very unfortunate to depict home work this way, as it suggests that workers try to do two incompatible tasks, work and childcare, simultaneously. In short the photo and caption are damaging to women.
171
I was coming here to say the same thing. That picture needs to be removed from the article as it pretty much sums up the fear every company has about giving ANYONE more flexible time. They may as well have shown a worker on the cell phone while at the salon, or with a laptop wired into the golf cart.
19
Well put! The comparison is totally apt. I could probably get more work done at the salon than home watching my toddler, though. If I had time to go...
2
Keaf, I don't understand. If the children are in daycare, then why do the women need to work from home, instead of the office?
If the work is truly "performance based" or "product based"...i.e., pay per unit of product, then it wouldn't matter, but generally, that is simply not do-able.
If the work is truly "performance based" or "product based"...i.e., pay per unit of product, then it wouldn't matter, but generally, that is simply not do-able.
2
Flexibility is great. But the jobs illustrated here seem to be part-time without benefits. That's fine if you're a dual-income household and one of you has a full-time job with benefits.
Single moms need flexibility too. Just sayin'.
Single moms need flexibility too. Just sayin'.
12
Some women that I have worked with already took the time they needed; the dog was sick, my grandmother died, my father is sick, my mother is sick, I'm sick, and on and on.
I worked with one women that never worked a 40 hour week in the seven years that we worked together-- oh, she got paid for 40 though.
Many others worked very diligently.
I worked with one women that never worked a 40 hour week in the seven years that we worked together-- oh, she got paid for 40 though.
Many others worked very diligently.
12
Ryan, I am with you on that one! We would call them "Getover Girls." There was always a story about being late, absent, having to leave early, take an extended lunch break with NO repercussions or docking of time. Meanwhile, guess who got their worked dumped on them? Single, childless, little ol' me and others in my situation.
6
And you've never once worked with a man who took a lot of time off? Really? I certainly have.
I also once worked with one guy who faked "working at home" once a week for several years. (He was actually taking no work home with him, and hiding his files in his desk drawer). So I guess, if we're judging an entire gender by anecdotes, mine cancels out yours.
To the extent that women take more time off to care for sick family members, that reflects the fact that a lot of men aren't stepping up to do their share at home. Maybe have a word with your fellow men about that, instead of carping about women.
I also once worked with one guy who faked "working at home" once a week for several years. (He was actually taking no work home with him, and hiding his files in his desk drawer). So I guess, if we're judging an entire gender by anecdotes, mine cancels out yours.
To the extent that women take more time off to care for sick family members, that reflects the fact that a lot of men aren't stepping up to do their share at home. Maybe have a word with your fellow men about that, instead of carping about women.
1
You can work while you have a toddler in the same room? Wow!I
17
nothing here that was not covered in the movie 9 to 5. this was all known then. human evolution takes a long time. where did my tail go?
4
So, the subtext here would seem to be that when things are apples and apples, when Emily and Aaron both work 60 hours a week including weekends, don't leave early and are available evenings via email, the oft cited $0.78 for every dollar wage gap (or whatever) doesn't actually exist. It's just a statistical construct. So can we stop calling it a gap? If Aaron wants to be a world class opera singer, and has to leave work precisely at 5p every Tuesday and Thursday, and frequently has recitals on weekends, Emily is going to get the promotion. It's as simple as that.
11
@Glenn Baldwin - Sorry, the gap does exist. Base salaries for the same job, same number of excessive hours, still pays one gender more than the other. And don't count on Emily getting that promotion if there's another well qualified male at the same level.
3
I would think all workers might benefit from having flexible work schedules. As the author pointed out, it's not just kids in the picture but also aging parents and whatever other familial obligations that a person might have. It also seems like considering some people are 'morning' people and others are 'night owls', it seems that forcing everyone to work a 8-5 job might not be the most productive. In this day and age, it does not seem like it should be that hard to give employees some flexibility because at the end of the day, you're interested in their productivity not whether they've been at their desk for 8 hours. If someone can finish a task in the time that suits both them and their employers, why should there be a problem? I hope more companies move away from the old 8-5 system towards one that makes more logical sense.
43
I worked "second" shift for 20 years and loved it. I am a night owl and working 4P-12A was perfect. I was up by 8 or 9A. During the day I was the merry widow - taking care of personal business and projects and even getting out to social events. Unfortunately, those jobs dried up and I am back to 9-5. I hate that "on your mark, get set, go" of getting up in the morning for an early-start job. I would go back to nights in a heartbeat.
6
If you like the idea of Werk but didn't see any listing that fit your skills or job requirements, I'd also recommend checking out FlexJobs. FlexJobs doesn't argue for workplace flexibility on your behalf in the same way that Werk does, but it does vet job listings from other websites and only includes positions with flexible hours, location, or both. It could be a helpful resource if you're interested in pursuing a flexible job!
12
It appears that "Werk" simply directs people to low paying McJob gigs like Uber or Lyft, or Task Rabbit.
Frankly, there are very few high level, high pay jobs that let you lolly gag at home, and play with your kids, while pulling down a six figure paycheck.
Frankly, there are very few high level, high pay jobs that let you lolly gag at home, and play with your kids, while pulling down a six figure paycheck.
2
Unlike the commenters who somehow think this justifies socialism, I 100% agree with the narrow but radical conclusion that we should move beyond the office. Sure offices are good sometimes but do we need to sit there all day? Not at all. Do we need to be in by 9:00 am? Not at all? Personally, I go in around 10:00 or 11:00, I do my best work at night and any company stupid enough to demand that I be in my chair at 9:00 wouldn't get my best work. Interestingly, I've also noticed that the less time I spend in the office, the more money I make.
56
I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but this entire concept is ridiculous. if you want to have children, make the sacrifice and have them, but recognize that you won't be able to be with your kids as much as other parents are who aren't working.
This is how it should be. I'm sure your children are your number one priority, but you shouldn't be treated any differently from anyone else, all because of your lifestyle choice.
This is how it should be. I'm sure your children are your number one priority, but you shouldn't be treated any differently from anyone else, all because of your lifestyle choice.
25
I agree with your comment. Consider removing caregiving and child rearing from the equation? What remains is that everyone needs flexibility; and productivity, not presence should be the measuring stick.
9
So, no one who has a job should have children, or just women? Either your suggestion is sexist on its face, or you're proposing that no one of childbearing age have a job. Assuming the latter (that you believe that women should stay home with their children while men are free to be full participants in society), it isn't practical to raise a family on one income anymore, and anyone who tries will get [heck] from the "personal responsibility" crowd about not doing the work required to raise a family without government assistance.
Also, the "lifestyle choice" of having a child is how you will have access to doctors, nurses, custodians, plumbers, and all the other workers required for society to function when you are old.
Also, the "lifestyle choice" of having a child is how you will have access to doctors, nurses, custodians, plumbers, and all the other workers required for society to function when you are old.
10
I agree with you, Casey and - ooooooo - I'm a woman.
3
These kind of articles in the New York Times always focus on a minority of professional women who are working by choice. The real problem, which helped land Trump in the White House, is that most families need two paychecks. Employers see employees as disposable, because that's what capitalism is. Cynical commenters blaming mothers for choosing to have children are completely unrealistic. We are talking about a problem that is endemic to society, not just the problems of a few people.
169
The reality is, as published in this paper a few months back, there is no wage gap for men and women without children. The gap only becomes apparent when women have children, which completely makes sense due to the commitments required for raising kids. This is a non-issue...investing your time in one pursuit reduces the time available for others.
4
Exactly, QED.
If I took time out of the workforce to write a book, volunteer, travel the world or watch "The Price is Right" every morning, my earnings would suffer too. Why is it such a shock for people when they take time out to reproduce and then find that those who didn't are further ahead careerwise?
Of course, they think they are doing "society" a favor by breeding, as opposed to those who volunteer, write, travel or watch TV, so they should get special treatment. Unfortunately on a planet teeming with 7 billion people, many of them hungy, out of work, sick or unable to even access clean water and a toilet, the days when producing additional humans was beneficial are LONG gone. Kids are a liability, not an asset, and would-be parents' planning should take that into account.
If I took time out of the workforce to write a book, volunteer, travel the world or watch "The Price is Right" every morning, my earnings would suffer too. Why is it such a shock for people when they take time out to reproduce and then find that those who didn't are further ahead careerwise?
Of course, they think they are doing "society" a favor by breeding, as opposed to those who volunteer, write, travel or watch TV, so they should get special treatment. Unfortunately on a planet teeming with 7 billion people, many of them hungy, out of work, sick or unable to even access clean water and a toilet, the days when producing additional humans was beneficial are LONG gone. Kids are a liability, not an asset, and would-be parents' planning should take that into account.
2
Employers see employees as disposable, because they are.
The law of supply and demand applies to labor as it does to goods.
The law of supply and demand applies to labor as it does to goods.
3
These articles always assume everyone works a a corporate desk job, ignoring all those who work service jobs, health care, education and other fields that require your presence at specific times. School schedules, 24 hour patient care, store hours all preclude any options for flex time and most of these jobs are done by women.
98
I think the point is that corporate/office work is suited to flex time in ways that others jobs are not. In many cases there is no reason to require the employee's physical presence in an office from 9-6 other than outdated notions of what work should be. People who work retail or 24/7 healthcare jobs can try to ask for the shifts that best suit their schedules, but they will never be able to work remotely.
9
Your point is so well taken. Plus, even office jobs require communication with co-workers --or with other businesses. Equally important, that communication is often best done in person. Thus, for the most part we all need to be working at the same time to allow a timely flow of information.
3
Hmmm..I disagree that everyone needs to work the same hours to achieve communication. Well-designed, time-limited weekly meetings with set agenda is a great way to share information. Unless one is in the medical field or armed services, there are few emergencies requiring everyone's attention simultaneously.
2
I have a twelve year-old son and work proximity, not gender, has been the primary determining role in who performs the quantity parenting. I work 15 minutes from home, my wife works an hour from home, so the pickups, drop offs, event attendance, handling sick days, snow days, all tends to fall to me.
That said, I fully support efforts to find every possible way- including flexible scheduling- that will finally break the gender gaps at work. But there are a few of us out here on the male side of the fence doing the heavy lifting as well.
That said, I fully support efforts to find every possible way- including flexible scheduling- that will finally break the gender gaps at work. But there are a few of us out here on the male side of the fence doing the heavy lifting as well.
50
As soon as an equal number of men as women become the primary childcare givers, and request this kind of work flexibility, we will close the gender gap. Women are at a disadvantage because they tend to be the ones that take on more responsibility for family and childcare. As a society, we need to support parents, both men and women. We need to think of "working parents", not "working mothers". Children need parenting, and children that grow up with decent parenting are more likely to be productive members of society. We need to re-frame the issue so that it addresses all parents, not just mothers.
45
Or even all caregivers. Imagine a world where the societal contributions of the son who cares for an elderly mother or the woman who takes her friend home from chemo were recognized and supported. I can't help thinking we'd be a less frightened, hostile country.
10
My experience with flex time is that as a single male I spent most of my workday during work that flextime employees should have done. I ended up doing most of my own work during nonduty hours. The problem with flex time is that unanticipated problems that have to be handled immediately keep walking through the office door.
15
It seems the employees with whom you work should not be awarded flex time due to productivity issues.
Equal treatment is great. But special treatment is greater!
All workers are equal, but some are more equal than others.
All workers are equal, but some are more equal than others.
17
You can complain about "special treatment" when all fathers are pulling their weight at home. Right now, a lot of men are getting "special treatment" by voluntarily having kids and then leaving the majority of the work to their female partners.
On average, women still do far more childcare and housework than men (even when both spouses are working full-time outside the home). There are any number of studies supporting this.
Fathers reap career advantages when their female partner takes on the full burden of childcare (e.g., when the wife is *always* the one who takes a day off with a sick child, etc.)
On average, women still do far more childcare and housework than men (even when both spouses are working full-time outside the home). There are any number of studies supporting this.
Fathers reap career advantages when their female partner takes on the full burden of childcare (e.g., when the wife is *always* the one who takes a day off with a sick child, etc.)
4
So the employer should fix the inequality in the marriage?
SD,
that's the problem of the women who chose those men to mate with. Why on earth would the rest of us care about division of labor and responsibility within a private household.
I personally have never dated (more than once) or been involved with a man who lacked the ability and willingness to manage household tasks. It's a major dealbreaker. If other women choose to partner with and even bear the children of guys who don't do "women's work" then that's their issue to deal with. Make better choices.
that's the problem of the women who chose those men to mate with. Why on earth would the rest of us care about division of labor and responsibility within a private household.
I personally have never dated (more than once) or been involved with a man who lacked the ability and willingness to manage household tasks. It's a major dealbreaker. If other women choose to partner with and even bear the children of guys who don't do "women's work" then that's their issue to deal with. Make better choices.
1
So the reason women get paid less is because they can't work all the time when they have kids. That's not really news.
However, it's never going to be the case that an employer values someone who only works when they want to over someone that works all the time. It's a simple value proposition - the person who works on a fixed schedule is worth more because they can be relied on to do work on demand. This is also why the "gender gap" (nearly) disappears when you compare men and women who have exactly the same jobs.
However, it's never going to be the case that an employer values someone who only works when they want to over someone that works all the time. It's a simple value proposition - the person who works on a fixed schedule is worth more because they can be relied on to do work on demand. This is also why the "gender gap" (nearly) disappears when you compare men and women who have exactly the same jobs.
27
Hee-hee, David, you one funny guy.
But it is good you have solved the problems of both equal pay and the gender gap in two terse paragraphs. I guess it's true what they say about the water in Princeton.
How many people could reduce the trials and commitments of raising children to "she works when she wants to"? Deeply impressive.
And who else could, on the one hand, extol the virtues of working on a fixed schedule and on the other, I have no doubt, support the abusive and self destructive random scheduling practices of your typical Walmart?
Mostly though, I am in awestruck by your ability to ignore that the execs you no doubt worship regularly take huge liberties with their own schedules, make themselves absent with impunity, and tell themselves its all good because they 'can work from anywhere'. Stunning intellectual achievement.
And 'Hello' to the missus.
But it is good you have solved the problems of both equal pay and the gender gap in two terse paragraphs. I guess it's true what they say about the water in Princeton.
How many people could reduce the trials and commitments of raising children to "she works when she wants to"? Deeply impressive.
And who else could, on the one hand, extol the virtues of working on a fixed schedule and on the other, I have no doubt, support the abusive and self destructive random scheduling practices of your typical Walmart?
Mostly though, I am in awestruck by your ability to ignore that the execs you no doubt worship regularly take huge liberties with their own schedules, make themselves absent with impunity, and tell themselves its all good because they 'can work from anywhere'. Stunning intellectual achievement.
And 'Hello' to the missus.
5
@David Gates - "who only works when they want to"??? Really? The problem isn't working the required number of hours. The problem is companies not wanting to give flexibility to workers -- either mothers or fathers -- with their schedules. Then there is also the gender bias where executives think it's perfectly ok for a guy to leave early for his kid's soccer game, but if the mother wants to do the same -- well she doesn't have the proper dedication, right? The irony is that over a few decades of working with C-level executives, they take the most time off in terms of vacations, dental/medical appointments on company time, etc., while begrudging a fraction of that time to their employees.
3
Bad idea.
2
This is not a new concept. Job sites like flexjobs.com and virtualvocations.com have specialized in positions and employers offering alternative schedule and telecommuting for years....many of those being entry level or customer service positions. I currently work in SEO, and began as an administrator doing data entry for the same company. Jobs like these exist. You just need to know where to look for them.
8
Funny, Obama used his executive powers to prevent exactly that - for the majority of women who are not on that select leadership track. He took all their flexibility away.
3
How so, and when, using what law?
11
@Kara Ben Nemsi - Funny, your comment contains no truth whatsoever.
3
Sarah and Lotus,
You are obviously living in a parallel world. Look up which executive order went into effect December 1, redefining certain labor laws as to time keeping, then you might understand. Three of these women work with me, and there was nothing I could do to help them.
You are obviously living in a parallel world. Look up which executive order went into effect December 1, redefining certain labor laws as to time keeping, then you might understand. Three of these women work with me, and there was nothing I could do to help them.
Maybe it's time to accept that no one can "have it all." If you want to be CEO, you need to be wedded to the job full-time. If you want to raise kids, and do it well, then invest your time in that path and accept that any outside work will pay less and carry less prestige. But, being an executive isn't the only worthy choice in spending one's life. Many people choose less money because they value what they are contributing, even if they get little admiration from society. Being a parent, for some people, is an important role they choose to contribute. As a society, we should be grateful to these people - they are nurturing our future.
91
So we should be grateful to the people who are nurturing or future, but they should be paid less, and enjoy less professional success? Wow.
4
I'm not sure how this comment addresses the article.
2
Perhaps our country could have it all by honoring the work parents do to rear the next generation of workers and leaders by supporting nationwide, income-wide pro-family policies.
3
Articles like these always begin by noting that women bear a disproportionate share of caregiving responsibility, which then requires them to have more flexibility in the workplace. When will we stop trying to fix the workplace and address the real problem--that caregiving is still seen as women's work?
109
It's decisions to set one's life priorities that need to be made between the couple raising the children or caring for elderly parents. My spouse stayed home to raise the children to school age and returned to work, but I had more flexibility to see to my in-laws. I did not go for promotions so I could get home to coach the kid's teams.
14
This is definitely the underlying issue. There is no way that I am raising my daughter to think she needs to be the primary caregiver. Mom is no different than Dad.
1
When will we stop trying to fix the workplace and address the real problem--that children require a lot of money and time, yet new parents seem completely shocked by this?
1
Guess what. maybe sometimes you can't have it all!!! Having (and raising) children is a completely separate job that requires sacrifice. Sacrifice of a number of things, including (potentially) upward mobility in the work place. If I want to spend less time at work and more with my family, or expect my workplace to make accommodations for my desire to spend more time raising my family, I would expect that I may have to make some sacrifices too.
66
It's not always about spending less time at work; it's more often about flexibility.
11
I don't completely disagree; clearly, you can't expect to both be CEO of a major corporation and also attend every soccer practice. But I also think that many companies don't let their employees work more flexible hours or from home because it doesn't "feel right." There's no logical reason why workers who spend all day on a computer can't do it, at least some of the time, at home. It shouldn't be so unusual to allow employees to pick up kids from school at 3 and then work an hour or two after they're in bed if they don't have in-person office meetings from 3-5.
10
How easy for you to say- as the man who won't be deemed either a bad employee or a bad mother if you have professional and personal ambitions. To risk staying at home does not just affect her career, it creates dependence and an inability to leave a marriage or relationships even if it's bad, if both partners want to work, they should be able to, and the burden shouldn't be for the women to either give up her professional identity or pay her whole salary in child care.
9
"Make America Great Again" - the only thing that was better 30+ years ago was the ability of one parent of average ability and eductation to financially support a family. Unfortunately, Trump's great America is racist, sexist, and homophobic (and probably hugely unequal with respect to income). The problem facing these families is that most people are not able to support a family on only one source of income. I don't care whether mom or dad does the breadwinning.
51
It is a parenting issue and it is also a caregiver issue for an elderly parent for both men and women. A successful business figures out how to retain valued employees with flexibility. The business that does not will not be successful in the long haul. I agree that factory or assembly line labor is a different case from a knowledge worker but it still is a problem for both businesses they will have to face.
6
We are twenty years behind Europe and California. Men are dragging their feet and trying to cling to power in America. Many don't really seem to care about women in a truly thoughtful (meaningful: laws) way. One wonders what such men really think of their daughters, mother, wives, sisters.
21
We don't get 8 weeks vacation like Europe either. We are not Europe and hopefully never will be.
1
Yet from the comments it seems women haven't learned to look past child-rearing as the justification. Do they need justification at all - although there are many and not all aligned with raising children.
And why is it a only a parenting thing?
As you consider the other good reasons for a pause, every gender or parent distinction disappears!
And why is it a only a parenting thing?
As you consider the other good reasons for a pause, every gender or parent distinction disappears!
3
@Ryan Bingham
what do you have against vacation?? So many studies have shown workers who take proper vacations are more productive at their jobs when they are there. Americans need to get over the "Protestant work ethic" to the degree it has been instilled that any priority over work or any benefit to the employee over the employer is somehow viewed as "immoral" and overwork and burn out is viewed as a badge of honor. There is a better balance to be sought out, and quite frankly, as the economy continues to automate and globalize we will be forced into those discussions much sooner than you think.
what do you have against vacation?? So many studies have shown workers who take proper vacations are more productive at their jobs when they are there. Americans need to get over the "Protestant work ethic" to the degree it has been instilled that any priority over work or any benefit to the employee over the employer is somehow viewed as "immoral" and overwork and burn out is viewed as a badge of honor. There is a better balance to be sought out, and quite frankly, as the economy continues to automate and globalize we will be forced into those discussions much sooner than you think.
2
As the father of twins, both with special needs, this should not be highlighted as just a female issue. I'm truly sick and tired of articles such as this which onlynpay attention to the female side of business. There are literally hundreds of thousands of fathers like me in the United States who struggle with their work schedules in order to be able to provide and make sure their children get everything they need. The fact that the NUT and the majority of the media feel this issue is only endemic to women is pathetic.
186
Men can be the victims of the system too. However, they are in the minority. Perhaps if you understand that women's issues are really about all of humanity, you can stop being so aggrieved and start participating in a great change.
9
More to the point: this article misses the critical factor -- does a "knowledge worker" have "knowledge" that is in demand?
Law degree? LSAT test-takers down for last five years. Not good.
Journalism? 60% of jobs from 1980s gone. Not good.
Not all college degrees are equal.
Law degree? LSAT test-takers down for last five years. Not good.
Journalism? 60% of jobs from 1980s gone. Not good.
Not all college degrees are equal.
4
I totally agree. Very important point.
3
How did "pay equity" become a thing? The only group that out earns white women are white men. Black and Hispanic women and men earn less than them. And white women way outnumber every other group (except for white men) in the top spots of most companies. Suffice to say, I'm tired of hearing the second most successful group in America whining. It just seems self absorbed and narcissistic. The issue should be fairness for all.
53
When we talk of women earning equal pay, where does that preclude black and brown women? Divided we fall.
24
I'm also talking about black and Hispanic men - they should be party of the conversation too (assuming you want to slide and dice by identity). And when you look at the women typically featured in these articles, who speak on tv, and who lead the feminist movement, they are overwhelmingly white. Let's face it, black and brown women (and men) are still trying to catch up to white women, much less worrying about catching up to white men. We need to address this issue more comprehensively from pay to caretaking, etc.
2
The premise of the article is "gender" gap, not racism. Just because one issue is spoken of doesn't suggest we ignore other issues. Are you saying we can't care about more than one issue or only have to look at every issue through a specific filter?
3
As a 50 year old woman who worked in a corporate environment for over 25 years before being laid off with other "older workers", I would gladly accept a flexible, part time or work at home position utilizing my experience and managerial expertise. However, this is a misleading article on many fronts because there are very few companies offering any positions (flexible or not) for experienced women. When politicians talk about job creation, they should be focusing on real meaningful and well paying work. I can't look at the Werk site to see if there are many opportunities being promoted. Job seekers are asked to join for $48 a year without knowing if these flexible jobs really are available. I can only assume there are a few startups and small companies looking for mid to low level workers.
97
This piece is as close to absolute nonsense as The Times has ever published.
We build diverse, collaborative teams with shared experiences, standards, processes, and cultures. The sine qua non of success is compression of time, cost, and error. Yet, in the name of an individual's desire to reproduce, Ms. Miller argues for introduction of working conditions that will increase cycle times, adversely impact morale, and favor one self-defined class of worker over others.
Networks speed spatial diversity and global collaboration; they do not, however, remove the need for synchronization, sequencing, and flow.
We build diverse, collaborative teams with shared experiences, standards, processes, and cultures. The sine qua non of success is compression of time, cost, and error. Yet, in the name of an individual's desire to reproduce, Ms. Miller argues for introduction of working conditions that will increase cycle times, adversely impact morale, and favor one self-defined class of worker over others.
Networks speed spatial diversity and global collaboration; they do not, however, remove the need for synchronization, sequencing, and flow.
35
There are over 75 people employed by the company I work for. We are spread out over Australia, the US, Canada, and a few smaller countries such as Romania. I have never worked for a company with such high moral. And yes, there are actual processes in place. When you manage thousands of websites (which various teams within your company worked together to build) you have to have organized processes and team work. Otherwise the whole system would collapse. The system is not for everybody or every industry, but it does work. And it works well.
14
What "class of worker" do you mean? The class that needs flexible working hours to address family or personal needs? Whom would that class conceivably exclude?
1
More buzzwords please?
17
This is nothing new. Look @ any European\Scandinavian country.
Of course, you would have to accept the premise that socialism works and works quite well.
In these countries, the priorities are on the family and then the worker and then the employer. Strong unions negotiate terms with employers as equal participants in the management structure.
A healthy worker that is paid well, is strong physically and emotionally will be an asset to the company; a highly productive one.
Flexi-times ( hours of the day worked dictated by the employee's schedule ) and shift work are the norm. If there are children, then easy access to day care is the norm. Women doing typical male jobs is the norm. Equal pay is the norm.
Happiness is also the norm.
Of course, you would have to accept the premise that socialism works and works quite well.
In these countries, the priorities are on the family and then the worker and then the employer. Strong unions negotiate terms with employers as equal participants in the management structure.
A healthy worker that is paid well, is strong physically and emotionally will be an asset to the company; a highly productive one.
Flexi-times ( hours of the day worked dictated by the employee's schedule ) and shift work are the norm. If there are children, then easy access to day care is the norm. Women doing typical male jobs is the norm. Equal pay is the norm.
Happiness is also the norm.
157
"Look @ any European\Scandinavian country."
OK. Much whiter, higher taxes, crumbling infrastructure, rigid class system, nanny state, plenty of bureaucrats to tell you what to do.
Not the USA.
OK. Much whiter, higher taxes, crumbling infrastructure, rigid class system, nanny state, plenty of bureaucrats to tell you what to do.
Not the USA.
4
Happiness is not the norm in Scandinavian countries. Suicide rates in these countries are higher than most.
2
Socialism works quite well when using other people's money.
Europe as a whole free-rides on the US defense umbrella, collectively paying far less than the stipulated 2% of GDP for defense.
Europe as a whole free-rides on the US defense umbrella, collectively paying far less than the stipulated 2% of GDP for defense.
5