SITE NOTICE | MORE..Upload Sermons From Mobile! With the 4.0 release of our iPhone App, effective immediately, all broadcasters can now upload audio sermons to SermonAudio directly from their iOS device! Check it out! .. click for more info!
IF the boss allows an employee to leave early to take his children trick-or-treating (or to the doctor, or so the employee can watch a school play, etc.) is the boss being fair to everyone else who still has to work a full day?
Is it fair to offer a working mother a flexible schedule but not provide the same option to a woman without children?
A growing number of childless workers are answering ‚Äúno‚ÄĚ to questions like these, prompting HR magazine to ask employers in a cover story ‚ÄúAre You Too Family Friendly?‚ÄĚ
It‚Äôs an issue because of the changing nature of the population in the United States....
"...is the boss being fair to everyone else who still has to work a full day"
"Is it fair to offer a working mother a flexible schedule...?"
Yes. Employers have the Biblical right to discriminate & treat workers unequally, so long as they keep their promises. Since people are diverse (as we are so often reminded these days by HR types), it is no surprise then that their value to a business varies as well. If we grant that *pay* may vary (which most people accept), why then should other terms of employment be equal?
I think it is only the bureaucratic desire for uniformity that drives businesses to have consistent employee time-off & other policies. But we should not suppose that any nebulous ethic of "fairness" requires them to do so.
Alot of these childless people don't see how much they are missing out. Nothing is wrong with the flexibility of a working mom. Especially if she is a single mom struggling. It is different when a working mom has to maintain a lifestyle in a particular neighborhood. How many people are willing to have a downgrade in their lifestyle to be at home. What will the neighbors think?
I think the childless are right. A working mother makes the choice doesnt she? Then she will have to put up with the discomfort it brings. They want everything! I didnt work because I wouldn't have even dreamt of handing my little ones over to strangers to raise ..so when we were struggling we didnt have much,it didnt kill us either ! We made everything ourselves and bought second hand.. it can be done, we are living proof -haha-and I even miss those days now we are better off !! and oh yes, our children are happy secure stable human beings..what more can one ask for ?!
Really the truth is...! Does not matter what anybody or says. Its always a debate. Busybodies in others affairs. And Christians stink the worse at this sin. Christians reading there bibles makes them out spoken and gangsters of law. Christians are quick with unbridled tongues to babble off scripture to downtrodd anyone not doing or saying anything there way. All christians sin themselves daily and are under the same sentence of death for sin. If one wants to know whats going on in sin, christians always tell what the other sinner is doing or saying. Wonder what judgement day is gonna be like, will there be a massive amount of christian accusers telling God who the sinners are..? I'm Barry a sinner who needs Christ due to having parts of sin remaining in my mortal body and mind. I'll be with sin till I die under this sentence of death within me. www.puritan-books.com
Vic wrote: I take it these childless who are doing all the sobbing will give up the idea of retirement since the children of others will be footing the bill!
Yes Vic, I agree with Suzy, it is an excellent point
Another point is to ask a mother how many jobs(functions/roles) she participates in, whilst serving the community raising the next generation, as a mother. Thus to be fair shouldn't she receive TWO salaries for her two careers?
Of course the ideal solution, as John has posted below, is for Mothers to remain at home. But why not pay her for the same reason.
Your Post "Every morning I see the fools dropping their babies off at the day care in $30,000 cars. It makes me sick. I'm not talking about widows, either. I'm talking about silly women with healthy, able bodied husbands who send their wives out to earn them a living or allow them to do it. These men are the equivalent of whores. They have sold what's precious for money and mammon." ______
No, it is the pure selfishness of 'mothers' (if you can call them that) who abandon their children and homes by working so they can grab their handful of the world's baubles.
I know, I know: "But I have to work! We have to have food on the table!" as she drives to work in her SUV and then stops on the way home from work for her pedicure (probably listening to whiny James Dobson or the oxymoronic 'Christian Working Woman" on the radio) then home to her husband who is "gonna have his toys". I've heard it over and over and over again.
Every morning I see the fools dropping their babies off at the day care in $30,000 cars. It makes me sick. I'm not talking about widows, either. I'm talking about silly women with healthy, able bodied husbands who send their wives out to earn them a living or allow them to do it. These men are the equivalent of whores. They have sold what's precious for money and mammon.
I believe this is exactly what Scripture speaks of when it describes the last days when people will be "without natural affection". What is more natural than a mother's love for her child? Women who leave their children so they can work surely lack that natural affection. Christian mothers (especially) should be at home.
I have a child and a second one on the way. Yes, I've taken time off for "family" reasons, but never without using leave. The same leave that all my co-workers earn, but I still hear about the "unfair treatment" that I receive. However, they frequently use leave for fishing trips or home remodeling.
Through my experiences, it is the self-centeredness of the childless that is the center of the problem.
Employers ought to have the freedom to pay married fathers more than single men and women for the same work. Why shouldn't an employer support the family if he wants to? Its his business and his profits.
It is the feminists who have demanded equal pay for equal work that have helped to destroy the family.
I think that these "childless" may be forgetting that they were once children. Or perhaps they haven't forgotten, and, sadly, didn't have anyone willing to take time off for them. It should also be mentioned that well-raised children will produce a healthier society in which they will be able to retire more safely.
The other thing would be for the childless, and those with children to mind each others own respective businesses. It is like the parable with the vineyard workers in which the boss paid his all day workers the same amount as he paid those who worked an hour. Those who worked all day agreed to the wage and that was their deal; those who worked one hour agreed to a wage and that was their deal. Now days we throw discrimination and all that, so it's harder for a boss to do as he will, but if a mother or father warns his employer that he will need to be off for certain 'family' things, I see nothing wrong with it. It was a situation that the boss knew before he hired the worker.
A much more basic, effective, but highly unpopular solution to this problem today is to just keep one parent (preferably the mother) home to raise and care for the kids (and take them to and from school, the doctor, etc.).
This would free up the remaining parent to work in the same company with the same treatment as single workers, preventing such a "revolt of the Childless" and other such resentments and problems arising from modern society's continuing general revolt against the traditional family structure.