I'm torn about this one. I know it's hard to have kids, and employers should be flexible enough to make raising kids and working possible, if for no other reason than that it's a good investment in the future workforce to have stable families. On the other hand, the festering resentment of the childfree: for god's sake, you CHOSE to have kids; you get tax breaks, and I'm paying for your kid's schooling with my property taxes (which I'm happy to do, see above "investment" argument), do I have to rearrange my life for your kid's soccer schedule now, too?
I think workplaces are having a hard time negotiating this minefield as more and more people choose not to have kids. Having a family has by and large been the norm, and a lot of people still make assumptions about what's worthy of flexibility (taking your kid to the doctor) and what's not (taking your beloved dog to the vet). A lot of more progressive workplaces (I think I remember that SAS in NC is one of the best examples) are instituting flexible benefits and PTO policies that accommodate a variety of lifestyles, whether you need to take your kid to sports, or volunteer in the community, or take care of an elderly parent. These places have lower turnover, lower absenteeism, higher productivity, and happier employees.
Bottom line, it's just good policy for employers to be as accommodating as possible of ALL of their employees' "special needs" but in an equitable way, and without burdening other employees.
__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
|