Principal Financial-Remote work

[cowgirl836]

It's always wild when management assumes there's grandparents (your or her parents), that you still have a relationship with, that they live nearby, that they don't work, that they're capable of watching your children, and that they can do this at the drop of a hat. (My wife hasn't had parents since she was a teenager.)

I'm going to toe the Cave line here and point out that it becomes a serious problem when people "in charge" have that mindset and think that's still how childcare works. Because that's how it was for them or they never had to think about it - largely cobbled together and organized behind the scenes by women.

They then have no motivation or see the reason to view stable, quality childcare as a vital part of the workforce infrastructure. Another reason to have people from all walks and stages of life in our political leadership. *Steps off soapbox*

 

[cowgirl836]

Or maybe not, because there's always at least one listed.

Oh for sure, was typically fairly high turnover, which carries over into the larger dairy industry as well.

 

[MJ29]

It's always wild when management assumes there's grandparents (your or her parents), that you still have a relationship with, that they live nearby, that they don't work, that they're capable of watching your children, and that they can do this at the drop of a hat. (My wife hasn't had parents since she was a teenager.)

My parents are retired but live 45 minutes from me, so daily childcare is not even an option. However, even if they lived closer, it is not their obligation or responsibility to watch my child. I think it's rude when people assume or guilt the grandparents into watching the kids.

 

[BCClone]

My parents are retired but live 45 minutes from me, so daily childcare is not even an option. However, even if they lived closer, it is not their obligation or responsibility to watch my child. I think it's rude when people assume or guilt the grandparents into watching the kids.

We took our first child to a daycare center at first. My MIL guilted us into having her watch our kids from then on out. Watch is basically what she did, she watched kids and did very little with them. She also wouldn’t watch kids on Thursdays so we had to arrange for that. It was a big reason I changed jobs was to be able to be with them on thursdays and for the many vacations she would take.

If you think we saved money, not really, it was a little less than daycare centers, but with the crazy schedules and my wife feeling guilty she would buy her high chairs and other things she needed for the kids she watched.

She also liked to tell us if “firsts” happened there, like first steps/words/ roll over so we knew she experienced them and not us.

If we asked her to help us out so we could attend something together and couldn’t find a sitter, it was like moving a mountain for her. So we basically asked my mom who was excited to be with the grandkids.

 

[cyphoon]

I was told my 50 hours/week was "way too low" and "it takes 60-80 hours a week to advance at this company." Then the next comment from my boss was "But you're a dad/husband, so you gotta decide which one you want."

This would make a great review on glassdoor or indeed. Sanitize and obfuscate it a bit of course.

H

 

[jsb]

My parents are retired but live 45 minutes from me, so daily childcare is not even an option. However, even if they lived closer, it is not their obligation or responsibility to watch my child. I think it's rude when people assume or guilt the grandparents into watching the kids.

And watching kids is a lot of work. Not everyone has grandparents in their 50’s.

 

[JP4CY]

And watching kids is a lot of work. Not everyone has grandparents in their 50’s.

And there's a difference in watching and having a curriculum. Kids need to be taught/played with/exercise/nutrition; not plopped down in front of a TV and be fed crap food.

 

[jsb]

And there's a difference in watching and having a curriculum. Kids need to be taught/played with/exercise/nutrition; not plopped down in front of a TV and be fed crap food.

For sure. But even if that wasn’t the case not all grandparents can do that. I have a friend who had kids late and she’s upset that grandpa and grandma can’t do everything with her kid that they did with the other grandkids 15 years ago.

 

[cowgirl836]

And watching kids is a lot of work. Not everyone has grandparents in their 50’s.

Yep. It's one thing to help out in a pinch or even once a week and another to be the default childcare. Most grandparents that are physically capable..............are quite likely still in the workforce themselves.

 

[KnappShack]

And watching kids is a lot of work. Not everyone has grandparents in their 50’s.

Ummmm....some have parents in their 50s!

 

[Sousaclone]

That sucks. No one should be told they should be working 60-80 hours.

Depends on what is talked about during the hiring or interviewing process.

I've got a group of about 15 engineers that are running 70-75 hrs a week (6 days), but they work 3 weeks on, 1 week off. It's a lot of hours and they compensated accordingly, but this wasn't information that was hidden from them during interviews.

The reality is that the construction and engineering industry is a meat grinder. Especially with more and more demands from clients and owners.

 

[dmclone]

Depends on what is talked about during the hiring or interviewing process.

I've got a group of about 15 engineers that are running 70-75 hrs a week (6 days), but they work 3 weeks on, 1 week off. It's a lot of hours and they compensated accordingly, but this wasn't information that was hidden from them during interviews.

The reality is that the construction and engineering industry is a meat grinder. Especially with more and more demands from clients and owners.

I'd need to be paid $300k+/year for that kind of schedule. It sounds like the type of job where it would be better to hire 25 engineers to not kill the 15. I worked those type of hours in my career but it was always a short term thing.

 

[cowgirl836]

I'd need to be paid $300k+/year for that kind of schedule. It sounds like the type of job where it would be better to hire 25 engineers to not kill the 15. I worked those type of hours in my career but it was always a short term thing.

This is what ultimately kills me with **** like this. Every goddamn bit of research ever done will TELL YOU that we LOSE productivity after X hours per week (and it's generally less than 40!) So pushing **** like this is just......it's so dumb. You will up your rate of errors, lower quality, reduce creative thinking/problem-solving, and results in higher turnover. It's a long term loss. It's just dumb from every business perspective EXCEPT short term gain which is too commonly the only thing looked at.

 

[CYdTracked]

Depends on what is talked about during the hiring or interviewing process.

I've got a group of about 15 engineers that are running 70-75 hrs a week (6 days), but they work 3 weeks on, 1 week off. It's a lot of hours and they compensated accordingly, but this wasn't information that was hidden from them during interviews.

The reality is that the construction and engineering industry is a meat grinder. Especially with more and more demands from clients and owners.

If someone is hired on with that being part of the job description is one thing. Problem is many corporations the job description is a standard 40 hour week unless otherwise stated so if your manager tells you that you should be nearly twice as much as your job requires just to get a fair evaluation that is just exploitation and a threat to get more work out of you that is beyond a normal workload.

 

[cycloneG]

Bosses are using RTO mandates as a way to ‘blame employees as a scapegoat for bad firm performance,’ new research finds

Return to office mandates don’t actually improve a company’s financial performance—despite bosses saying it will.

fortune.com

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Bosses are using RTO mandates as a way to ‘blame employees as a scapegoat for bad firm performance,’ new research finds

Return to office mandates don’t actually improve a company’s financial performance—despite bosses saying it will.

fortune.com

It's all so predictable at this point.

 

[cowgirl836]

It's all so predictable at this point.

I really wish some of these headlines like"remote workers get fewer promotions " (don't even get me started on the bias already at play there) they'd say "leaders failing to adapt to new landscape of work", "managers falling behind in world of remote and hybrid work". Treat it with the same disdain as companies that refuse to embrace AI.

 

[cycloneG]

Even Fortune execs who mandate a return to office admit that it doesn't improve productivity, finds Atlassian’s 40-page remote work report

1 in 3 bosses whose people are required to work in-person told Atlassian that it doesn’t move the needle.

fortune.com

 

[cycloneG]

Remote Workers Engage in Deeper Work With Fewer Interruptions, Says Hubstaff Data

/PRNewswire/ -- Remote employees dedicate more time to focused work and encounter fewer interruptions than their in-office colleagues, according to a new...

www.prnewswire.com

"Annually, remote work protects an estimated 62 hours' worth of work that in-office teams lose due to daily interruptions"

 

[BoomerClone]

Full disclosure, I have only read the OPs initial post. I have seen this thread pop up a lot and never actually clicked on it. The dudes been fired right?







I like to push buttons.