What right does *she* have to work?
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 04-01-2003 - 6:44am |
They were discussing a co-worker. This woman just moved here from NY, and due to the differential in housing costs, is living quite nicely off the sale of her home on Long Island. AND working FT. She has no children, just a SO. He is making decent money also.
I was a little astounded at the attitude that she has no right to have this job, when she doesn't *need* to work. She is taking away from the mom who has kids to feed, who *needs* to work. Blah blah blah.
I'm usually not bothered with gossip, but I did find this attitude bothersome. Where would we draw the line? Anyone who knows me, knows I am as sappy as the next guy in regards to children. But, in the retail business, I can say the kids are used as the reason for requesting nights and/or weekends off. Which is not fair to those who are childless. Very few retail establishments offer "mothers" hours. The co-worker in question is *not* working family friendly hours. Mostly nights. And also, a seperate question, pulled from the post below. Should the traveling and over nights be delegated to those who DON'T have family? Personally, I have always been keen on traveling. (Providing they put me up in a place with room service ;-)
How much SHOULD family factor in when applying for, or filling a position?
- Family Friendly Professional Organizations 1
- Opt out or left out? 429
- Gender wage gap 5
- Women Not Taking Full Maternity Benefits 2
- How do moms make money at part-time? 59
- Why does MIL have to hide behind lies 10
- Do you think that long paternity leave is unrealistic? 86
- Yahoo Expands Maternity Benefits 383
- Parent Ethnotheories: How Americans Parent 9
- Dear Daughter, why I work... 9
Memeber Support
| Q: | Where can I change my password? |
| A: | Log in, go to Edit My Preferences, and click the Account tab. Make and save your changes. |
Pages
As to the the question of traveling, any one taking a job that requires traveling should be willing to travel no matter what their family status. If you don't want to travel then don't take that job.
I think that family should factor in but that should be done by the employee before they take the job. The employer should be very honest about what the expectations of the job are and then the employer should decide if the they can meet those expectations. If they can then they should take the job and if not then they should not. But they should not take the job and then complain about it.
The coworkers are just plain jealous. They have no idea what debts this woman may have, what her setup with the SO is, what elderly relative she might be supporting, or any of a thousand other possibilities. They need to mind their own business.
If somebody doesn't want to travel overnight, then they shouldn't apply for or accept a job that requires that. How difficult a concept is that for people to grasp?
If that applicant is a mom with 4 kids. Great. If it is a man with a high-income wife. Great. If it is a student right out of college. Great. I think that only a person's ability, education, skills, etc should be considered when deciding on the right candidate for the job. Their marital status, financial status, parenting status ... none of that is appropriate decision-making material.
And part of this plays itself out. If the job has awful hours, not many moms are going to apply. In fact, not many people who want traditional hours are going to apply. If it requires travel, not many moms are going to apply, nor are people with an elderly mother in the home, etc.
But, an employer might make concessions. If teh *best* applicant for the job wnats it without travel? And its the only way the person will take the job? that might be a better solution for the employer than another applicant who isn't as qualified who will travel.
And, when a person has proven themselves valuable or indispensable, established a work record, etc, it might be in the best interest of the employer to cut them a break. I have a friend who was traveling 40% in her govt job, but when she had a baby, they let her work PT with no travel. Why? Because she was a mom? Nope. because she had worked for them for over 5 years and they knew she was very good at what she does and if they had to either watch her quit or change her job requirements, then change they did. It was the best solution for the employer, and the employee.
Anyhoo ... that's my two cents.
Hollie
FTR, I think the ladies in your scenario aren't very nice.
the dollar.
What you overheard was the whole rationale for the
existence of the SAHM of the postwar era. "What right
does that *woman* have to take that job when there is
a man who needs that income to support his family?"
Federally subsidized daycare programs were shut down
and women were laid off en masse, to make room in the
workforce for men after WW2 ended. The US govt.
finally let go of this around 1972, but still it
lingers on. Even at my DH's law firm, men are given
preference for partnership when they are married
with children, but women are not. I've actually
heard senior partners say it; the presumption is
that men are more stable employees when they are
married w/ children, but women are more stable
employees when they are single, or at least,
childless.
As far as the gossiping women, it's jealousy pure and simple. They can't stand the thought that they have a coworker who does "need" the money, as I'm sure they would all love to be in that position.
Susan
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that approaching 90% of all men work to retirement. The number for women who *have* worked full time is approaching 75%. Women quit their the work force after having joined it almost a third more often than men do.
Considering that partnership in a law firm is a more-or-less career-length commitment I can see why partnership selection might be skewed in favor of married-with-families (read that "stable") men rather than married-with-families (read that "might quit to be mommy full time") women.
I'm not saying that it's right to discriminate that way - I suspect it's illegal, but it certainly is understandable.
Firefly
Pages