Were you ever a childless supervisor of someone else who had kids?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| We're you ever a supervisor with kids who couldn't understand that sometimes us dinks stay out too late drinking and need to sleep in a bit, or decide to fly to Europe on a last-minute ticket and need Friday and Monday off without notice? |
Anonymous
| I have a kid, but I have also always worked at jobs where no one cared if you were 15 minutes late or left 15 minutes early on occasion, as long as you got your work done. Similarly, there are going to be times when you need to stay hours late, and you need to arrange for other care for the kids when you know that is going to happen. If you get your job done and do it well, no one should be worrying about whether you are counting your 20 minutes or pumping in your lunch hour or not. Now, if you are not meeting your professional obligations, that is another story entirely. |
Anonymous
| I don't know what OP's issue is, but I will say that I have been treated differently by some bosses because I have kids. I almost never miss work for child-related reasons, because I am lucky enough to have my retired mom living 10 minutes away from me. Yet, two of my supervisors have reminded me and only me that I can't take my kid out of daycare on my telework day (once every other week). WTF? I would never do that in a million years! |
Anonymous
|
I tell my team a very simple rule: I dont give a shit how or when it gets done as long as it gets done well.
They wanna work from 10am to 8pm? I dont give a shit. Want to work from home? Go the fuck ahead. Deliver quality and I'll reward. Deliver shit, and I'll be pissed. I dont care if you are coming into the office at 7am. Yes, I have kids. |
Anonymous
|
It's annoying when the employees thinks they should get SPECIAL TREATMENT because they have kids.
OP - Your co-worker obviously talks about her kids too much at work. She needs to shut it. |
Anonymous
I hope you cleanup your motivational speech when you deliver it to your kids. |
Anonymous
|
She is right. Sadly there are many bosses who are so worried about keeping up appearances that they are more concerned with making sure you work from 8-5, even if the product is so-so. Why should it matter if you work from 8:15-5:15 as long as the work product is great?
Luckily more employers are moving towards this flex-time and away from strict clock-punching. As long as these policies apply to everyone, it shouldn't matter. |
Anonymous
But I like your message! |
Anonymous
| Different issues here - employees are entitled to use sick leave as they see fit, and it seems to me that a child's sickness is just as legitimate a reason as an employee's. Chronic tardiness is another matter - that's not an emergency, it's not managing your life properly, and is unacceptable in an employee, no matter what the reasons. |
Anonymous
|
I manage an office in a Federal Courthouse. The office is open to the public, the hours are posted. The public complains if the office isn't open on time/closes early and/or the telephone isn't answered/calls returned promptly. This has happened a handful of times in 25 years. I had to give the explanations to Federal Judges. Not fun.
This is why I insist on employees reporting for work on time and leaving as scheduled. If they can find co-workers to cover, fine, but they must submit Leave Slips. |
Anonymous
+1 |
Anonymous
| This country has a choice: It can start creating more jobs with salaries capable of supporting a family on one income, or it can accept the reality that in families where both parents are working something is going to have to give when things happen with kids. As many PPs have said, the parents are not off the hook for getting all the work done. But workplaces have to become more flexible, provided that the work gets done. I love how employers are always talking about the need for workers to be come "more nimble" -- usually a euphemism for doing more with less -- but they never think that they have to change, too. It's not the 1950s anymore, people. If it were, most of us would still have pensions. |
Anonymous
|
"This country has a choice: It can start creating more jobs with salaries capable of supporting a family on one income, or it can accept the reality that in families where both parents are working something is going to have to give when things happen with kids."
I had a staffer who was frequently tardy because she did the school drop off for her kid. She refused to pay for onsite, before school, childcare, explore the possibilty of her husband doing the drop offs, or change her work schedule. Her tardiness and inflexibility were noted in Performance Evaluations, and she was denied raises and promotions. She was one of the "Family First" types, a former SAHM, who never got it. When our Fed agency had personnel cuts, she was the first to be dismissed. She is not missed. Something had to give and it was her employment with our agency. |
Anonymous
|
Oh please -- you think your generation is the first to deal with balancing work and family?
If anything, tour generation is the first to think they have to witness every single moment in their children's lives and they can't trust another soul to wipe their noses. As a friend of mine -- a successful business owner and mother of two -- always says, "Make a plan." |
Anonymous
| Hey 17:28, we're coming for the rest of you soon, kids or no kids. Time to cut the federal fat. The days of bloated bureaucracy, pensions and lifetime employment are over. People in the private sector work longer hours and when the economy is bad, some of them get laid off. That's soon going to be how it goes in federal agencies, too. |