Harman at it again.

[KentPhilip]

Look at it from a woman's point of view though - you can have kids or a decent job but not both. Why?

Are we really such a poorly run crappo economy that we can't accommodate a highly skilled and capable 50% of the potential workforce working in a slightly different way? You lot sound like the Taliban sometimes - I mean why bother sending girls to school?

But they can. Its just that women need to lower their salary expectations to compensate employers for the months off they need for children. That's the fairest and most equal way of doing things for the employers.

[rootsnall]

Not even by the power of teleconferencing?

Ahhh ! Silly me.

[dang65]

Look at it from a woman's point of view though - you can have kids or a decent job but not both. Why?

The headmistress at my kids' primary school had a baby a few months ago. She now works from home one day a week, and brings the baby in to school with her on the other four days. People have gone in to her office during the day and found the curtains closed and the baby dozing. When she's teaching classes, the headmistress's mother comes in to school and sits at the back of the classroom holding the baby.

So it doesn't seem to be a problem to have kids and a decent job.

[BoredBloke]

The headmistress at my kids' primary school had a baby a few months ago. She now works from home one day a week, and brings the baby in to school with her on the other four days. People have gone in to her office during the day and found the curtains closed and the baby dozing. When she's teaching classes, the headmistress's mother comes in to school and sits at the back of the classroom holding the baby.

So it doesn't seem to be a problem to have kids and a decent job.

But not really workable in most situations is it.

If you have a woman who wants say 3 kids, then that is a significant chunk of time out of her career. So why is it fair for her to have that time off, while everybody else is still working for the organisation, only for her to come back and take back up not where she left off, but from where her couterparts are now. I'd say the fact that her employer allowed her job to remain and allow her to return at the point where she left is a fair enough situation. What isn't fair is to return and expect to be at the same level she would have been had she not chosen to have kids.

[wobbegong]

The headmistress at my kids' primary school had a baby a few months ago. She now works from home one day a week, and brings the baby in to school with her on the other four days. People have gone in to her office during the day and found the curtains closed and the baby dozing. When she's teaching classes, the headmistress's mother comes in to school and sits at the back of the classroom holding the baby.

So it doesn't seem to be a problem to have kids and a decent job.

I can't see that arrangement going down a storm at say, Goldman & Sachs, though, can you?

"Get Jenny in here would you?"
"Sorry Mr Blankfein, she's in a darkened room with her milkers out."
"What!??"
"It's OK, her Mums coming in at half past, she can pop up then."

[Incognito]

Look at it from a woman's point of view though - you can have kids or a decent job but not both. Why?

Are we really such a poorly run crappo economy that we can't accommodate a highly skilled and capable 50% of the potential workforce working in a slightly different way? You lot sound like the Taliban sometimes - I mean why bother sending girls to school?

No problem with a woman doing both if that's what she's doing, but if a woman wants to pop one out, take a break from the job for a year or so and then get straight back into work on the same wage, benefits etc then why can't I go off travelling for a year and expect to walk straight back into my job (hypothetical permie talking there)

I'm very sceptical when it comes to equal rights for women. I spent 6 years in the Navy watching a bunch of slaaaags playing the ticket to sad old men to get an easy life. Suckers fell for it every time.

[realityhack]

But not really workable in most situations is it.

If you have a woman who wants say 3 kids, then that is a significant chunk of time out of her career. So why is it fair for her to have that time off, while everybody else is still working for the organisation, only for her to come back and take back up not where she left off, but from where her couterparts are now. I'd say the fact that her employer allowed her job to remain and allow her to return at the point where she left is a fair enough situation. What isn't fair is to return and expect to be at the same level she would have been had she not chosen to have kids.

Agreed - it's not realistic for her to expect to return to any level further from that she left, unless she was due a promotion before maternity leave.

[SueEllen]

No problem with a woman doing both if that's what she's doing, but if a woman wants to pop one out, take a break from the job for a year or so and then get straight back into work on the same wage, benefits etc then why can't I go off travelling for a year and expect to walk straight back into my job (hypothetical permie talking there)

In the public sector you can.

I've worked at a company where a boss said if he had it his way he would employ no-one with any children. The only workers at that company who had children where male and they kept leaving early to put their children to bed.

BTW I can see both sides to the argument not because I'm female and have been discriminated against but because I know women who can't have children and women who effectively manage their childcare. The ones who can't have children found out in their 20's. I also have a cousin who managed to have 2 children, and hide it from her immediate boss and colleagues for 4 years so she could get promoted.

[dang65]

I can't see that arrangement going down a storm at say, Goldman & Sachs, though, can you?

"Get Jenny in here would you?"
"Sorry Mr Blankfein, she's in a darkened room with her milkers out."
"What!??"
"It's OK, her Mums coming in at half past, she can pop up then."

Yeah, imagining that sort of situation has given us many a laugh when we talk about the headmistress.

I'm absolutely astonished she's getting away with it. In fact, I wonder how she would react if one of the other female teachers asked to do the same. Or one of the male teachers.

She's not even a half-decent head teacher, so it's not as if people are happy to put up with the personal creche just to keep her in the job. Worst head teacher I've encountered so far, in thirteen years of having children at school.

[Incognito]

In the public sector you can.

I've worked at a company where a boss said if he had it his way he would employ no-one with any children. The only workers at that company who had children where male and they kept leaving early to put their children to bed.

BTW I can see both sides to the argument not because I'm female and have been discriminated against but because I know women who can't have children and women who effectively manage their childcare. The ones who can't have children found out in their 20's. I also have a cousin who managed to have 2 children, and hide it from her immediate boss and colleagues for 4 years so she could get promoted.

I totally agree with you that both sexes should be treated equally. A man can be just as bad. However, I believe paternity and maternity laws aren't comparable at the present time. Let’s see Harman change that one.

Whilst people say that this is a deep rooted problem and is all due to the old boys club in establishments, everywhere I've worked, it's always been men the last one out of the door at night. Why shouldn't companies be allowed to reward perceived loyalty and commitment to work first?