I think this question pits parents and others against each other, when it shouldn’t. Parental leave is necessary to raise a child. But at the same time, workers in general need leave for mental health among other things.

I also think this is more of a problem for places like America where leave is really, really unfairly distributed and there’s basically no worker protections. There should be plenty of medical and annual leave, as well as government support in case medical leave isn’t enough to get better.

As a parent, I am given the same exact treatment as I was at the same company before. I already was a flex worker in the sense of WFH or office is entirely up to me (except when I need to be somewhere, but the need is the key), if I take my child to a doctors appointment, I am using my sick time which is allocated to all employees equally. My insurance is arguably a “better deal” since the “family plan” cost doesn’t change when you add another dependent vs if it’s just you and your spouse.

I would ask what these people think when they get “extra flexibility” when they have an aging parent or sick spouse they are responsible or assisting the care of? Is that flexibility okay, simply because having a child is a choice, and having a parent is not? Then what about your spouse?

I agree with others in this thread that are suggesting these people don’t really care about flexibility, they just want to take it away from the parents that use it or need it.

Not quite the same formulation, but I’ve read the argument that paternal leave should be equal to maternal leave, and that both should be mandatory, because otherwise it creates an incentive for companies to hire men rather than women who might make use of maternity leave. I can see a similar argument for all workers, so that there isn’t an incentive to hire people who will never have children over those who will.

Of course, all of these scenarios presume that any companies would willingly provide any leave whatsoever, which is already a fantasy. A company will only provide as many benefits as it is forced to, and a functioning regulatory state is the only entity that could force such compliance.

Yep. And that mean that everyone shall have the time and confort to rise a child. And then choose to do it or not. Fuck the bosses

I love these wholesome debates. Let’s all hate on each other as we fight over scraps from the Master’s table.

Easy. Companies themselves should not care about the employees families. They have no benefit from a person having children. Governments should very much care about people having children. All benefits - if any, should be decided on the goverment level. And companies will have to adhere to the law. Firms chase their own benefits. The goverment (should) work for the benefit (and future) of all citizens.

And everyone should have a stable home, healthcare, good paying job, etc.

This one is wildly different between Europe and the US context.

ITT: people thinking that offering everybody the same flexibility means taking that flexibility from parents

smfh

Fairness shouldn’t depend on your personal life—flexibility should be about people, not categories.

I agree in principle, and do sometimes get mildly annoyed having to cover for people because they are out due to parental obligations, but overall I really don’t mind or care that much. I’ve had to do it a number of times now and sometimes it can be very stressful but that’s why I get paid. Being a parent sucks so I feel bad for them having to put up with all the bullshit, it’s not like they are off having fun when they can’t be at work because their kid is shitting uncontrollably with a high fever or whatever nightmare is going on. Not having kids is great, the occasional extra work or responsibilities that comes with being more reliable than coworkers with kids is the tiniest of tradeoffs for me. Maybe it helps that I like my coworkers and am happy they get to be responsible parents. Additionally, if your boss or someone higher up is out on extended parental leave it can be beneficial to your career if you fill in for them and get some time working “above your station” because your org gets forced into it. I know it was for me early in my career.

As a haver of kids: Sure, why not? I’ll take some smoke breaks as a non-smoker, too. I’m saying this unironically or whatever by the way, that second part isn’t supposed to be a gotcha or anything. I’m also a worker in the US so I’m biased, used to workplaces that go the extra mile to try and squeeze every ounce of both productivity and humanity out of you. Give everyone all the flexibilities!

Caring the reason why someone needs flex time is a bullshit thing.

ITT: people pretending others “cheese” some unfair advantages by having kids when having kids is almost always a net negative in terms of time, money, career opportunities and so much more.

People who choose not to have kids do so for a reason, don’t pretend these factors don’t exist for parents. As a society we need a next generation, how would you ever retire otherwise? Because of this we should support parents, not envy them for whatever small benefits they get to slightly offset all the disadvantages and are often absolutely necessary to allow them to raise kids.

Of course childless people have needs too and deserve workplace flexibility. This post smacks of looking into your neighbor’s bowl though. If you don’t have all the additional obligations that come with parenting, don’t claim to be the same as those who do. Whatever life concerns you also have: your own health, aging parents, mental wellness, pets, etc etc etc parents ALSO have on top of kids. So get the workplace flexibility you need without crying about what parents get. If you know, you know. And if you don’t know, you really don’t know (but your mother does).

I’m so fucking sick of being looked at like a prodigal slob for being a parent. SMfH. Here we are taking swipes at each other instead of focusing on the employers. Good job playing right into their hands. Fuck.