Why do you and the other unmarried person allow that to happen, though? The employer can only do this if you're complicit in their actions.

Actually I think it is tax break to SOME parents, not all.

Hey, I work long hours too! And personally I never though of having children as a duty (sacred or otherwise) or a privledge or anything for that matter. Just kinda liked them at the time. Now that mine are grown I can't stand the little buggers and I constantly tell my kids not to gift me with grandchildren.

Several reasons, actually:

1. We take pride in our work and in meeting our deadlines. We don't feel that our authors (I work for a publisher) should be penalized because some members of the team are unwilling or unable to equitably divide work.

2. Our boss is one of the worst offenders in the child-related must-leave-work category. We have, repeatedly, mentioned this both to her and human resources. The general response is a roll of the eyes and, "You would understand if you had children."

3. The job market in publishing isn't exactly stellar right now.

4. While the EEOC would be thrilled to take a complaint if we were being treated unfairly for having children, there aren't a whole lot of people who care if you have an unequitable working environment compared to mothers.

>While the EEOC would be thrilled to take a complaint if we were being treated unfairly for having children, there aren't a whole lot of people who care if you have an unequitable working environment compared to mothers.

Does this mean you have taken it up with them?

Exploratory phone call. It is not something they feel is pursuable.

Hmmm...interesting.

Heleva:

I can't stand the little buggers...

Hey, no personal attacks! ;-)

(did I just use a smiley?? yeesh, I feel dirty)

You should follow some of or faith based threads then Bugger.

I don't have children. I do pay a lot more in taxes than the national average, which is as it should be. I was simply saying that since it is in all of our interests that children be raised well, no one should have a problem giving a little extra benefit to those who are doing the raising. I don't know what "yuppie quality children" means, but certainly those who are more in need should be given more benefits.

Anse wrote: Don't misunderstand what I'm about to write here: I believe women should have absolutely equal rights as men to pursue careers, etc. But the fact is that in past generations, the burden of parenthood was greatly reduced by the fact that one parent stayed at home.

Anse, you are so brave, the parent vs non-parent wasn't a big enough can of worms... you had to open up the working mom vs working dad vs non-parent worker can of worms too. I was recently castigated by a woman for complaining about science/tenure timing being unfair to women who wanted children. I was told that women and men were completely equal and that I, as a woman, should have no more time off to have kids than a man. And I thought, really??? The only part of having kids that I plan to complain about is that I can't make my husband bear them, push them out, or lactate for them. Seriously, I would really like to split this in half, he can have the first, and I'll have the second. Here's my real point: Are we so obsessed with absolute fairness and equality in this country that we can't just except that complete fairness is not really attainable?

Detailed social accounting (value added to society for being a doctor vs a lawyer, or a parent vs a non-parent) is just not feasible, so we don't do it. Since value added depends on what type of doctor you are (dermatologist vs free-clinic internist) and what type of lawyer you are. Society messily tries to come together and promote some of its greater interests, of which decent children seems to be one most of us can agree on, so I say lets all suck it up and accept that getting to absolute fairness between parents vs non-parents may just not be worth the effort. Especially since those tax breaks don't look so big to me. As for at work, in my current childless state I occasionally pitch in to help my parent co-workers get home on time and I feel good about it. I probably enjoy helping them because it is my choice and when I don't want to or can't do it--I generally say no.

Looney:

I don't have children. I do pay a lot more in taxes than the national average, which is as it should be. I was simply saying that since it is in all of our interests that children be raised well, no one should have a problem giving a little extra benefit to those who are doing the raising. I don't know what "yuppie quality children" means, but certainly those who are more in need should be given more benefits.

I understood you don't have children yet, Looney. You used the term Yuppy, which I thought disappeared in the 80's. I assume a yuppy would have upwardly mobile children as well.

I don't believe I stated anywhere in my posts that I didn't want to give a little more to those raising children. If you had bothered to read fully you would have seen that I stated I have never refused to pay my taxes which fund schools, libraries, etc.

However, I do not think it's "as it should be" that I should be penalized because I don't have children. Nor do I think this idea of "doing society's work" is valid. We all do society's work as long as we contribute in some way to society. I make sure my neighborhood is safe so that children will be safe. I drive safely, slow down at school crossings, don't cuss within earshot of children. But paying someone for the choice of having children does not seem equitable to me. I already pay for all the other benefits that I don't use.

im1, I agree that social value can't be measured fairly. So Saletan should lay off his "doing society's work" and get over himself.

It's great that you help out those with children. I have too. I can't count how many Christmas shifts I volunteered to work because I didn't have children. I loved family holidays as a kid and wouldn't cheat any child out of that. I don't recall ever getting a thank you from the family guys for this. Apparently it's expected and if I hadn't volunteered I would have simply been chosen.

Tax breaks may not seem so big but add every family who claims the exemption and it adds up. I suppose it's the feeling of entitlement that bothers me. Perhaps if we all felt a little more grateful and less entitled the world would be a better place.

Do you think if the government or HR instituted some flexible part-time or 3/4 time options that this would help the situation? Wouldn't it be harder to justify the same pay for 9-5 and 8-6 if there was some way on the books to work just a little less and still keep your position?

I agree that the childless are being taken advantage of in your workplace, and am only asking in general if the all or none work attitude of corporations doesn't lead to these "off the books" fixes which are just patently unfair to those giving 100%. 80% work day deserves 80% pay. When I have kids I wish I could implement some system like this but part time options seem rare in many fields. It seems like as a parent you are often forced to be all in or all out of the work force and at times in your life when it is really hard to be all in, it would be really nice if you could be 3/4 in, instead of taking advantage of childless co-workers.

I agree, entitlement breeds resentment. When I feel my co-workers with children aren't at least a little bit appreciative of my help, I cut them off. If they take advantage, then I stop helping...that way I don't have to feel resentful. Of course, they could be cursing me behind my back but I really don't care since most people become accustomed and ungrateful without the occasional reminder that my help is not something they are entitled to.

Next Christmas, don't volunteer and point out you've done enough Christmas's recently that you can't reasonably be chosen. If you want to, you can then switch with the person chosen, but you have family too... maybe this year should be devoted to them.

what does adding to the already unsustainable population of the world have to do with being socially responsible?

the biggest reason people have children is genetic influence. pure and simple.