franka@tekcad.UUCP (09/18/83)
My message on child rearing has gooten a few responses. So far the count runs 1 for and 2 against. One of those who was against me made a response that condemned my not wanting to have children as unnatural. I promptly filed this flame into the bit bucket. Somehow I don't think that my present desire not to have children is unnatural and I doubt that many of the non-parents (and probably even many parents) would agree with this view. On the other hand, tekig1!karenw (Karen Walker of Tektronix) sent back a reasoned response. I will take the time to reply to her comments. >I don't think anyone is asking companies to subsidize children. I think >that all people are asking for is a little more flexibility so they can >pursue a career and raise a family in the manner they think most appropriate. I don't think that anyone is asking companies to subsidize children, either. But that seems to be the result. A few years back employers justified higher salaries for men (and perhaps still do) on the grounds that men had a family to support. This is what a little more flexibility in wages so one can pursue a career and raise a family can do to a segment of society (in fact this used to be a factor in paying unmarried men less than married men). >I think if you were to ask the people who would like things made easier if >they would be willing to make a few sacrifices in order to have a few more >benefits, I think they would be quite willing. I agree again. Unfortunately, most of these people DON'T ask for sacrifices and in many cases the people who are paying for them don't have any choice in the sacrifices which they may make. > Some possible sacrifices >would be a possible lower pay due to being a part-time employee. Most >part-time employees also get only partial health coverage and insurance >coverage and I think you'll find they get lower profit sharing also. Again I commend your reasonable views, but most people would not subscribe to them. The idea for lower pay for part-time is a great idea until you find out that the majority of the part-time workers would prob- ably be women and that opens up the whole EEOC can of worms which no com- pany wants to hassle with. Perhaps you know of some places where part-timers get only partial health coverage (in fact you may be right about our com- pany). Unfortunately, there are many places where people are lobbying for FULL benefits for part-time workers. Also, the major cost of benefits programs comes not from the program themselves, but from the administrative costs of these programs. The amount of people needed for the administrative portions of benefit programs rises at least linearly with the number of people in these programs. More people => more administrators => more cost. The gentleman whose flames I deleted also sugested (in one of his few non-rabid sentences) that since his company pays ~ $100K per year in burden costs for an engineer his working at home saves money by letting people share the physical plant re- sources that he would otherwise use. It is my belief that the extra costs associated with the administration of this space for multiple workers off- sets any gain by space sharing. > I >have noticed though that part-time engineers can often be more productive >than full time engineers because they know they have less time to get things >done and are a little more serious about not wasting time at work. I have also noticed that people who get paid twice as much for a job also tend to be more productive. Does that mean that we should pay everyone twice as much? No, it means that we should determine if the costs associated with paying everyone twice as much is compensated by the productivity gain. It means that we must weigh the gain in productivity against the cost of the pro- gram initiated. And this IS what irritates me. No one has ever presented me with a study showing that part-time workers are so much more productive than full-time workers that their use offsets the higher administrative costs. If that were the case it would seem that industry would be overflowing with part- time workers. If it truly was cost-beneficial to a company to use part-time workers everyone would be doing it. > Anyway, >I think you came across with a bit of a negative attitude. People with >children aren't the only ones who could benefit from a little more flexibility. >People who enjoy skiing in the winter, sailing in the summer, or whatever >hobbies they might choose to spend more time with, might possibly enjoy a >little more flexibility. I don't think I come across with a negative attitude. I have always agreed with the concept of flex-time. The main problem happens when you come up with a proposal for concepts like job-sharing, which only increase administr- ative costs with little benefits to the company. >p.s. I have no children and am not planning any children but I do think that >things could be made a little easier for people who are conscientious enough >to properly raise children. I have seen too many children ignored by parents >who just don't have time for them because they are too tired or whatever. I >think we are doing more harm to society by not making it easy for parents to >spend an appropriate amount of time with their children than we would be >doing by possibly trying to help them work things out. I hope you don't let the guy who flamed to me know that you aren't planning on having children (Oh no! Unnatural behavior spreading on the net). I also think that things could be made a little easier on people who con- scientiously raise children. But how about making things easier for those who conscientiously choose not to have children? I am tired of hearing that soc- iety benefits from these programs. I have seen several families where both parents work and some of the kids have turned out good and some of them have turned out bad. I have seen families where one parent was home all the time or part time and some of the kids have turned out good and some of them have turned out bad. I have even seen families where neither parent worked (at both ends of the socioeconomic scale) and some of the kids have turned out good and some of them have turned out bad. I think that the way a person grows up has to do more with the values instilled in him by his parents and the people around him than the amount of time the parents spend with the child. I could say that if you don't have the energy to BOTH financially AND emotionally care for your children you should consider not having children. You could say that society has an obligation to ease this burden. Again, I know that parenting is a hard task. I grew up in a family of six children where my father worked on the average of sixty hours a week and my mom was in hospitals for months at a time for back surgery and later hooked on pre- scription drugs so badly that she couldn't take care of the family. My older sister and I raised the other four kids. We took on the responsibilities of supporting the family emotionally while my dad was supporting us financially. This was not a responsibility we had any choice in. It was a matter of sur- vival (BTW, everybody turned out OK. A nurse, an engineer, a lawyer, an ac- countant, an advertising copywriter, and a seaman in the USN were the results, and all of them are very, very competent). So when people cry to me that society should make it easy on them when they chose to have a child (with both the joys and responsibilities therein), and at my expense, I tend to get a little PO'd (it's different for abandoned mothers and people who have no choice in the matter. Them I will support un- conditionally). These days everyone is crying for consideration and special favors from a societal structure which simply cannot support everything for everyone. I commend you in your fight to change society to be the way you want it, but please don't call me negative for fighting for a society where personal responsibility also plays a role. Frank Adrian (tektronix!tekcad!franka)
mem@sii.UUCP (Mark Mallett) (09/22/83)
b I don't know who this "gentleman" (refered to by tekcad!franka) is, who speaks in rabid sentences and is afraid of unnatural behaviour; but if I were him, I might take offense at the snide remarks and the vague, offhand, and especially inaccurate references to my comments. Mark Mallett decvax!sii!mem