Political Memes

I think this question pits parents and others against each other, when it shouldn't. Parental leave is necessary to raise a child. But at the same time, workers in general need leave for mental health among other things.

I also think this is more of a problem for places like America where leave is really, really unfairly distributed and there's basically no worker protections. There should be plenty of medical and annual leave, as well as government support in case medical leave isn't enough to get better.

No? Definitely no. First of all child leave for extended times should be mandatory to provide. Also the flexibility that people with children are for the child.

Check out the crabs in the bucket.

I hate to be the person thats is all like "as a parent...", however - to me having to leave early, come in late or take a day off to deal with kids being sick, appointments or just daycare/school drop off/pickup is worse.
The premise of this feels like "smokers get a break so why shouldnt we?". But realistically my work is still there, i am stressed about the thing i havent done that should/needed to be done that day, the amount of work i now have to catch up on and the extra stress of trying to get the 'non-work' things done as quickly as possible so i can be back at work to get through my workload.
And ontop of that, you likely had to cut your work time short because your kid is sick or hurt and you are also stressed about that, its not like you jump in your car and start whistling to the radio heading home early.

So yes, i think a non-parent should have just as much flexibility as a parent, but thats a conversation to have with your boss and not some guilt you try saddle on parents when they cant be at their workplace for their full X-hours per day. I would never make a coworker feel guilty because they left half an hour early a couple days per week to go like practice for their sport or hobby or something, so afford the same respect for someone who has 'child commitments' instead of your 'leisure commitments' because they arent the ones saying you cant take time off too.

I love these wholesome debates. Let's all hate on each other as we fight over scraps from the Master's table.

ITT: people thinking that offering everybody the same flexibility means taking that flexibility from parents

smfh

This is an argument for equality based on an individuals rights. A more robust argument for equality is Peter Singer's equal consideration of interests.

Jeremy Bentham argued that a being's capacity to suffer is what is morally relevant when considering their interests, not their capacity for reason. Equal considwration of interests - Wikipedia

For example: In a situation where an equal sum of time is given to everyone without considering the individual's interests, and those of people that rely on said person (eg, children, disabled, elderly), we would have increased neglect and less efficient systems of division of labour. Thereby negatively effecting the society as a whole and in time that individual who had an increased time allotted who doesn't necessarily have a need for it.

Its like the arguments for defunding government services, often that leads to a less safe society costing the wealthy in extra security who often are the key proponents of defunding government services.

The argument is highly related to Karl Marx's, "From each accoding to his ability, to each according to his needs." Maybe less prescriptive than Marx's argument.

I have kids, worked full time as a parent for 25 years and no problem with this. Set the baseline flexibility and treatment good enough to accommodate parents. You don't need to take it from childless people to give it to parents. Not a zero sum game here.

What I do have a problem with is hostility towards parents, and hostility towards non-parents. We are all in this together, and it's not frivolous to raise the next generation, someone did that for you. Nor is it selfish to just live your own life - work should not demand our whole lives.

Now that my kids are grown, I still work at a flexible employer, and use that flexibility for doctors appointments, errands to places only open during working hours, and concerts & shows. Would I defer to someone with a child or aged parent with an emergency? Yes. Would I defer to someone with no kids whose partner was having an emergency? Yes.

Not quite the same formulation, but I've read the argument that paternal leave should be equal to maternal leave, and that both should be mandatory, because otherwise it creates an incentive for companies to hire men rather than women who might make use of maternity leave. I can see a similar argument for all workers, so that there isn't an incentive to hire people who will never have children over those who will.

Of course, all of these scenarios presume that any companies would willingly provide any leave whatsoever, which is already a fantasy. A company will only provide as many benefits as it is forced to, and a functioning regulatory state is the only entity that could force such compliance.

A society should always prioritize its weaker members. Children are among these. The flexibility given to the parents is not a gift to the parents, but to the children.

And everyone should have a stable home, healthcare, good paying job, etc.

Hot take, company executives should get as little flexibility as the employee at the company that’s awarded the least flexibility.

And non-smokers should be given as many breaks as the smokers!