To what extent should employers accommodate parents?

They should because if they don’t the government will hammer them.

@Charles, what do you think they should do?

A similar question was asked by tinyfaery once.

”@Charles, what do you think they should do?”

If I was a corporation, I would do whatever it took to make the most profit. If not accommodating parents risked getting more business or fighting lawsuits, I would accommodate parents. If accommodating parents resulted in lower profits, I wouldn’t accommodate parents.

Having worked with many people who are parents, I’m fine with the flex time factor because it was something negotiated by their supervisor. In all cases experienced, it was discussed with all co-workers that would be impacted. It was the same when employees requested time off to deal with a personal matter that didn’t involve a child.

I’m not a fan of people bringing their children into the workplace except for two scenarios. As cute and charming as they are, I’m on the clock and so is the parent and all of the co-workers that gather around coo over the child.

The two exceptions: “Bring Your Child To Work Day.” The company I worked for has a program for that. It was a wonderful way for a child to experience what their parent’s life is like when they are at work. It might help them get some insight into what career path they may or may not choose. The other is a woman who is breast-feeding and has their child brought to them.. Our company had a private nursing room for this. It never disrupted others’ workload.

Safety issues? There are always going to be safety issues. Even in our office environment, it would be easy for a toddler to stick their finger in the automatic pencil sharpener or stapler.

The only issue that has come up with people who are a parent is when they call in sick when it’s their child who is the one with an illness. According to our company’s standards, this is not an acceptable use of the sick time benefit. If they need to stay home to take care of their child, I understand that. I am more than willing to pick up the additional work in order to cover for them. Claiming company money for something that is against policy is not kosher in my book.

Would anything stated above change if it pertained to the father instead of the mother? The only thing that would change is if the father or second mother who did not bear the child claim that they need time away from their job to nurse the child. :)

It’s too extensive. It needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. There’s legitimate situations and situations where the parents are obviously milking it (not literally).

As long as people are completing their work, in the required time, I don’t have a problem with being flexible in terms of work hours. I think parents should also not abuse any additional flexibility. I have a colleague, who I really love, but she takes family care leave to look after her children who are in their 20s when they have a cold or toothache. I find this abusive of the availability of such leave. She gets away with it though. I think because she has always done it.

I don’t think children should be brought into the workplace unless there is no other option and it is an emergency/temporary situation. They are distracting to both the parent and others.

I’m really in favor of more flexible hours, being able to do work from home that can be done from home, etc for everyone. I’m really fine with parents getting what they need, so long as when I need to pick my sister up from the airport, or go to a doctor’s appointment, or take care of something pet-related, or whatever, that’s ok, too.

I do have issues when parents get odd special treatment – like, if their kid is sick, then no one questions them staying home to care for them, but if I’m sick, well, aren’t I kinda a slacker for not pushing through and getting everyone else sick? But I don’t think the answer to this is to punish parents, but to be more understanding towards everyone.

Where I work, they are understanding of children being sick, and sick time can be used, contractually, for illness of a family member, which includes parents (if you have a parent who is ill or has to go to the doctor, it’s as legit as if you have a child in the same situation). Likewise, nobody wants us coming to work if we’re sick and may get everyone else sick.

It is my opinion they should accommodate the parent as best as reasonably allowable. That employee was hired with their age if not marital status and even the number of dependents disclosed at time of employment so the employer knew what it was getting with this employee.

I know it is a good/not so good dynamic between hiring young ambitious child bearing/rearing age employees over the been there done that older employees for the very reason of potential needs to be there for their kids. I juggled my own kids for 14 years and now as the employer I know just how stressful and inconvenient it is not only for the parent but for the company. For me we knew this ahead of time and even expect it. I don’t welcome those days as I still have them myself but I can’t see how a company cannot provide for some leeway for parent employees. If or when it is abused that door for leeway will slam shut. I find the more I give them the more the employees appreciates, values and respects this benefit. And in the end all of us give back more than they take and that to me is what makes it all work.

There’s no should to this. It’s an issue of whether employees are valuable enough to make these accommodations. Employers who are parent-friendly get a good reputation and may get better employees. Women, in particular, seem to be more loyal to employers who help them out with parenting issues.

As long as everyone has the flexibility to work from home or work an odd schedule when they need to (for whatever legitimate reason), I don’t see anything wrong with that. I think part of the problem between co-workers is due to the fact that parents are likely to need (and make use of) that flexibility more often than non-parents. Barring the abuse of the system, that shouldn’t lead to resentment, though.

There may be certain work environments that just can’t be that flexible. In that case, I don’t think parents should get the flexibility at the expense of non-parents never having it. Emergencies (for anyone) are one thing, but it shouldn’t be a common occurrence.

I agree with others on bringing kids to work. Unless it’s absolutely necessary, and only a very occasional thing, it shouldn’t happen (except on special days that are for that purpose).

It takes a village. We have a rather strong social policy in Norway. Our sick days are also for caring for sick kids. We are expected to breed, and breeding isn’t the exception, so with the majority of employees planning on being parents, or being parents themselves, there is more sympathy/empathy among us to understand what it is like raising kids and our official public policies reflect that. It probably makes the laws in the States look downright Dickensian.