SAHM/WOHD Issue

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-2004
SAHM/WOHD Issue
1289
Thu, 07-13-2006 - 4:35pm

My husband came home the other day with this story:

His coworker, J and J's wife, K just had a set of twins born via in-vitro after 17 years of marriage and infertility. Anyway, the end of the pregnancy was difficult and K was on bedrest and the babies were born (I think) 6 weeks early - one of them had to stay in the hospital for 2 weeks after birth. OK - that's the background.

K got a lot of attention during pregnancy - not being able to move around on her own. Now the babies are 4 months old, but although she is a SAHM, she expects (yes, expects) J to leave work every day at 4. That's the normal time, but at times they are required to work overtime if something has broken and needs to be fixed before the next shift comes in. According to my husband, J comes home every night and fixes dinner, washes bottles, takes care of the babies, and then gets up with them in the middle of the night. The only time K is bothered with them is during the day when she's home alone. (I know, this account is how J related it to my husband, so the story is probably more one-sided than the situation really is.) And K may have post-partum depression and that can explain needing J so much....

K's mom and sister both lives within a halfmile of her and can come to help with the babies, but she expects J to leave work everyday at 4 to do it. She also calls a lot during the day. Anyway, the other day something had broken and J needed to stay past 4, but he tried to leave - my husband's and J's boss told J that he needed to decide what is more important - him taking care of those babies or him working to provide for those babies? Sounds to me like J's job is starting to be in jeopardy and he makes pretty good money for the area of the country we live in. Replacing that income would be very hard.

Just wanted to see what y'all thought about this.

Pages

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
In reply to: jen1098
Mon, 07-17-2006 - 10:23pm
But it doesn't happen to every working mom. But I wouldn't expect you to get that.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
In reply to: jen1098
Tue, 07-18-2006 - 12:23am

Are you sure that's Federal? I remember some of the Federal "break" rules being repealed during the 2d Reagan administration, and I think that was one of them.

From the current FSLA fact sheets (http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs22.htm):

Rest and Meal Periods: Rest periods of short duration, usually 20 minutes or less, are common in industry (and promote the efficiency of the employee) and are customarily paid for as working time. These short periods must be counted as hours worked. Unauthorized extensions of authorized work breaks need not be counted as hours worked when the employer has expressly and unambiguously communicated to the employee that the authorized break may only last for a specific length of time, that any extension of the break is contrary to the employer's rules, and any extension of the break will be punished. Bona fide meal periods (typically 30 minutes or more) generally need not be compensated as work time. The employee must be completely relieved from duty for the purpose of eating regular meals. The employee is not relieved if he/she is required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while eating.

Based on the above, all I am getting is that if you answer the phone while you are "at lunch" then you have to get paid for the time. In past positions I've had (mostly govt., btw), we did have rules that defined the standard work day for exempt personnel as 8.5 hrs. including a paid 30 minute lunch period which could not be skipped in order to shorten the work day. However, since exempt employees never clock in or out, they are pretty much expected to be willing to respond to client needs at any time they are on the premises; in return for this consideration, one doesn't quibble over trifles such as phone calls to/from the plumber or their children.

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
In reply to: jen1098
Tue, 07-18-2006 - 12:34am

<>

Nope. What it's saying is that you have to be given 30 minutes a day when you are completely relieved of your duties, and your employer does is not required to pay you during that time. The "The employee is not relieved if he/she is required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while eating." statement is simply a definition of "completely relieved".

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: jen1098
Tue, 07-18-2006 - 12:46am

I'm sorry but any man that could stay in bed and ignore the cry of one of their twins as the mother is feeding the other is an ass.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
In reply to: jen1098
Tue, 07-18-2006 - 1:26am
It would probably be worked out on a first-come first-serve basis. Seniority has simply not been a deciding factor for these kinds of things at the jobs I've had. I don't even remember the topic coming up in any context, to be honest. But perhaps that's just the field I work in.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-09-2006
In reply to: jen1098
Tue, 07-18-2006 - 3:03am
Dunno. Sounds like she nailed it. You've described an entire group of men so spineless and weak they can't even tell their wives they're taking a vacation day. Doesn't sound like the behavior of actual *men* but rather emasculated facsimiles just trying the title on for size.
Avatar for kerry88
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
In reply to: jen1098
Tue, 07-18-2006 - 6:58am
Wow - guess I stand corrected - perhaps it's state law. I'll look it up. I've had many jobs, and never have I been allowed to not take lunch. DH's work tried to do it w/ one worker - got sued pretty badly.
Kerry with Campbell Elizabeth 11.03.06 and Benjamin Brady 12.10.03
Avatar for kerry88
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
In reply to: jen1098
Tue, 07-18-2006 - 7:02am

If the the "dad sleeping at lunch thing" was your focus you might have been a bit clearer. Your post:

"i agree but would say that applies to both of them. not that the mom is going to get a lunch hour in the normal sense of the word but i would think that at some point during the day there would be some time when both babies are asleep at the same time"

Regarding your latest post - one thing got to me:
"cleaning, that becomes a pretty low priority with one infant, i would think with two it would fall even further down the list."

I have two large breed long haired dogs and I have to vacuum once a day so my house doesn't look like a petting zoo. There's NO way I want an infant on the floor when it's dirty, so cleaning is and always has been a big priority for me.

Kerry with Campbell Elizabeth 11.03.06 and Benjamin Brady 12.10.03
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-09-2006
In reply to: jen1098
Tue, 07-18-2006 - 7:03am

"I personally found it very tough to "sleep when my baby slept". My pattern didn't work that way. "

ITA. I just could not feel relaxed enough. I was always worried I'd fall into a deep sleep and not be able to hear the baby crying.

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
In reply to: jen1098
Tue, 07-18-2006 - 7:54am
The only part you got wrong was the length of the lunch break - it's 30 minutes, not an hour. Other than that, you are right - they are required to give you 30 minutes with NO work duties at all during that time.

Pages