Breastfeeding in the office?

[Ladeeda]

Provided daycare would also take a lot of people off the welfare rolls.....think about it.

I do not understand this part. Please explain.

There are options beyond daycare, even if it's just making friends with a retired neighbor to keep an eye on the kids while you're at work. I had a series of really bad babysitters, which was all my mother could afford, until I was in 4th grade. Then my sister (2 years older) and I just stayed home alone.

My single mother couldn't afford daycare or a decent babysitter. Her workplaces did not have daycare, she got paid in peanuts, and we NEVER went on welfare.

[Andara Bledin]

Well i don't see anyone FORCING workplaces to have daycare or allow breastfeeding anytime soon anyway.

So, you didn't actually read the article linked in the OP?

Mothers will be able to bring their babies to work and businesses will be asked to provide them with special breastfeeding facilities under Government plans to be announced this week.

The controversial proposal set out in a White Paper could cost employers thousands a year and business leaders warned last night the move could threaten jobs.

It comes just weeks after the European Parliament voted in favour of the Pregnant Workers Directive, which would introduce mandatory paid breastfeeding breaks for new mothers.

So, yes, governments are forcing workplaces to give breastfeeding mothers preferential treatment at the expense of everybody.

I give it five years before we start seeing exposes about how women aren't being hired at the same rate as men as a direct result of this sort of nanny state legislation.

^-.-^

[Ladeeda]

I give it five years before we start seeing exposes about how women aren't being hired at the same rate as men as a direct result of this sort of nanny state legislation.

^-.-^

Hey, it might result in young, child-free women being able to get their tubes tied or some kind of permenant birth control without having to breed first.

(Just call me Miss Brightside.)

[Lace Neil Singer]

Hey, it might result in young, child-free women being able to get their tubes tied or some kind of permenant birth control without having to breed first.

(Just call me Miss Brightside.)

That would be a bonus; as things stand right now, I've got five years to wait til I can get my tubes tied. XD

So, yes, governments are forcing workplaces to give breastfeeding mothers preferential treatment at the expense of everybody.

I just thought of something; what about bottlefeeding mothers? They're also mothers, and they will also suffer along with the childfree when Ms Breastfeeder slopes off for a three hour break.

Also, it occurred to me; just how do they plan to police this? I highly doubt that these women are going to be tailed home to make sure that they are just breastfeeding. There seems to be a large chance of this being abused; Mommie Dearest could just be heading to the shops or going home to shag hubby, and laughing her head off cuz she's being paid to do so.

[telecom_goddess]

I do not understand this part. Please explain.

There are options beyond daycare, even if it's just making friends with a retired neighbor to keep an eye on the kids while you're at work.

It would keep people off the welfare rolls by providing a much needed service. If a single mother can't afford daycare what's making her want to work and better herself?

The option of neighbors and whatnot may not always be available...or you get a good situation going and that person moves away...then what?

My single mother couldn't afford daycare or a decent babysitter. Her workplaces did not have daycare, she got paid in peanuts, and we NEVER went on welfare.

and that should NEVER happen. If her workplace had daycare and paid a living wage you wouldn't have had to grow up like that. It may not have been welfare but it was still poor conditions and there is no excuse for that.

[Ladeeda]

It would keep people off the welfare rolls by providing a much needed service. If a single mother can't afford daycare what's making her want to work and better herself?.

The same thing that makes anyone want to work. An unreliable bus service isn't an excuse for people who can't afford a car to not work and just live off the state.

The option of neighbors and whatnot may not always be available...or you get a good situation going and that person moves away...then what?

Then find some other way. There's ALWAYS options, if you look for them.

and that should NEVER happen. If her workplace had daycare and paid a living wage you wouldn't have had to grow up like that. It may not have been welfare but it was still poor conditions and there is no excuse for that.

Oh, bollocks. You make it sound like I was abused or starving. Just meant we had to do our homework without prodding and entertain ourselves until dinnertime. We had relative's phone numbers, knew emergency numbers, our own keys, and knew enough to know not to let anyone in. I was more responsible as a 4th grader than most 18 year olds first living away from home.

That's all that babysitters do, anyway. Just be there ignoring the kids in case Michael Meyers shows up. Yeah, better idea for kids to be supervised, but it's hardly a national emergency if it's not possible and you raised the kids to have 2 ounces of sense.

[telecom_goddess]

I still say that if you can't find options (and that is very possible, no matter how much you look) and can't afford daycare and the kids are just too young to be left alone (not to mention below a certain age its' illegal) then it doesn't prompt someone who's on welfare to work. But if daycare, the number one issue tying them down generally, were handled, it would put a lot of other people out there to work. Provided you can find a job of course.

Did you say you were left alone at home in the 4th grade with a younger sibling? If so that's completely illegal....you can be 10 and be left home alone for a couple of hours, or be 13 to watch someone younger. For a couple of hours only.

If I'm mistaken then I apologize, I don't have that info in front of me right now and don't exactly recall.

[Ladeeda]

No, I said I was left at home with an OLDER sibling. And trust me, we were a lot better off taking care of ourselves than with the babysitters we could afford, and a helluva lot better off than if we had gone on welfare.

I understand the law, which is to protect kids from being left at home for days without parents or anyone, to prevent neglect, but I think my mother did the right thing. It was a viable option, and the best one. Much better to be left alone after school until Mom gets back than sit in a bedroom in a person's apartment and watch their toddlers while the responsible adult deal drugs in the living room.

I do not agree at all that there can be no option but Stay At Home On Welfare, no matter the age of the kid, but I doubt either of us has the time to go over every single possible variation of circumstances.

[telecom_goddess]

Ahh I got that part wrong...not unusual for me. So your situation was ok for you which is good...but again not everyone has the same circumstances. It was so much easier in the old days when people had more extended family around and people stuck together in the same areas more. Now....that just doesn't happen so much.

Personally I think it's very progressive to have daycare on site at companies and to have people breastfeeding on site. And no it's not going to take 3 hours at a stretch

[Eisa]

I had to stay home by myself when I was in 4th grade. And babysat my 6-year-old sister every afternoon for about 2 hours.

...didn't find out that was actually illegal until about a year or so ago.

[AdminAssistant]

It was so much easier in the old days when people had more extended family around and people stuck together in the same areas more. Now....that just doesn't happen so much.

Yes, I suppose it would be easier on my sister if I had stayed in the area and could provide free babysitting for my nephew (and niece when she's there). But....it would mean being stuck in a place I hated with no job opportunities, soooo....yeahhhhh

Fiance and I have been talking about the whole 'kid' thing, even though I don't want any for several years after we're married. Sad thing is, if it comes down to it and one of us has to stay at home, it'll be me. Despite the fact that I have two degrees on him, he's got pretty valuable math skills and job experience that I don't. He'll be the breadwinner, and I'll *have* to stay at home, even though I don't want to. I used to think it was great that Mom stayed at home with us until we were in school, until I realized that those 10 years of not working really hurt her chance of getting a good job. Not having a job she could support herself on meant that when Dad started pulling his shenanigans, she didn't feel like she could leave. (That situation is getting slightly better now, especially since the house has been signed over to my sister and me.) Not to mention the fact that her kids became her sole focus of being, which means that she became really clingy, overprotective, and even now still suffers from Empty Nest Syndrome. And that I didn't spend a lot of time around other kids until I was 5 and had major socialization problems.

I've been reading a lot this semester about women in the academy, and how they still aren't being hired or promoted at equitable rates as men, particularly if they're married. I don't want the government to step in and say that my employer *has* to offer more than it already does (most universities offer daycare at a reduced cost for both employees and students). If women, especially mothers, continue to insist on these special privileges, then companies will start to hire fewer women. It's sad but true.

[Andara Bledin]

I've been reading a lot this semester about women in the academy, and how they still aren't being hired or promoted at equitable rates as men, particularly if they're married. I don't want the government to step in and say that my employer *has* to offer more than it already does (most universities offer daycare at a reduced cost for both employees and students). If women, especially mothers, continue to insist on these special privileges, then companies will start to hire fewer women. It's sad but true.

This. Very much this.

Women are already discriminated against for being able to become pregnant in the first place. If we force workplaces to make even more concessions than are already in place that only help women who have kids, it will make employers even less willing to hire us.

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

One of my profs was telling me that a lot of women don't wear their wedding/engagement rings when they go on interviews. (See, they aren't allowed to *ask* if you're married, but if you're wearing a ring on the ring finger of your left hand....) And, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to leave off my ring, which I regard as a pretty sacred symbol of my engagement, just to give me an edge. No woman should have to do that. When/if I get a professorship, I'm going to kick exactly as much ass as my male colleagues, if not more. I don't need special treatment, just equal pay. And you know what? I'm perfectly fine with taking my 6-8 weeks of maternity leave and getting back to work.

What's really funny is that these same reports say that universities are actually more likely to hire a married man than a single man, because a married man will be more concerned about stability and will be less likely to jump ship for a better offer elsewhere.

[fireheart17]

One of my profs was telling me that a lot of women don't wear their wedding/engagement rings when they go on interviews. (See, they aren't allowed to *ask* if you're married, but if you're wearing a ring on the ring finger of your left hand....) And, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to leave off my ring, which I regard as a pretty sacred symbol of my engagement, just to give me an edge. No woman should have to do that. When/if I get a professorship, I'm going to kick exactly as much ass as my male colleagues, if not more. I don't need special treatment, just equal pay. And you know what? I'm perfectly fine with taking my 6-8 weeks of maternity leave and getting back to work.

Funnily enough the occupation I'm aiming for (primary school teacher) actually seems to be better catered to women regardless given the stigma against male teachers (doesn't stop them from doing so, I had a few primary male teachers). Regardless, I don't like the feeling of rings on my fingers, I'm always fiddling with them, so I'll probably end up getting a wedding ring and wearing it on a chain afterwards. Keeps it out of sight during the interview and nobody gives a damn.

[Rapscallion]

In this day and age it's impossible.

I think it's always been a bugger to manage. Try asking back up the ancestors.

Rapscallion