Why is having a family such a big deal?

I see two sides, possibly three, to all this. A good employer, of which there are few, wants its employees to be a part of the company/business/whatevs. To do that the company has to be an active part of the employees life and not just a paycheck. With that comes the trials and tribulations of having kids and commitments that are not in any shape or form beneficial to the company's bottom line, day care, football games, ballet thingies, etc. Being one of those few good companies the value the employee brings to the company both financially and intrinsic (sp?) outweighs the cost of that employee's outside commitments to family and such.

The problem is most companies don't give two craps about their employees other than they show up on time, stay late, never get sick and the do more with less every fiscal year. Throw a bunch of clueless HR types into the mess and you get dumbutt questions like these.

It is only going to get worse. The boomers have handed the next generation(s) a crap sandwich and we have to find a way to live and raise a family in a landscape that all but demands a duel income household with 30 minute commutes into the city from your 1500 sqf house built by the lowest bidder.

/rant
 
PositionAndHold said:
When was the last time you were in the military?

I've pretty much agreed with you when it comes to not being hired because of family situation.

The fact is you have no idea what it's like to be in the military at all. People always have this idea of what it's like. They really only see what they think are the fun things involved. I did four years active duty Air Force, 94-98, enlisted. In that four years I spent 2 years away from my wife. Of that 2 years, I did 6 months in Kuwait, 8 months later I spent my last year in Korea. I cam home a civillian. To say the AF cared I was away from my family is laughable. While I was in Korea four guys in my shop of about 12 got divorced, that was just my shop. Divorce rates durinig deployments are HUGE.

I'm not saying all this as a pity party. It sucked at the time, but looking back it is what made me an adult. I can say I did it, along with the millions that came before me and after.

Maybe if you tried to make your argument with out bringing up the whole military vs. civilian debate, it would be more receptive.
Click to expand...

A large number of family and friends who serve/served makes me at least "slightly" aware of what its like. Marital problems and divorce aren't the military's fault, being away from home is part of what you sign up for, but to suggest that all people from my generation believe they are entitled to work is laughable at best, and hypocritical at worst. Its not about "mil lives vs. civilian lives," its about the fact that the man painted an unrealistic picture of the world and stomped on a guy who is having problems finding work potentially in part because he has a family. That's wrong. There's nothing ethically right about it (or in some states LEGALLY right about it). Believe me, I know that the military does some jacked up stuff to families, if you want a PM I can tell you about my family's issues with the Army, but it isn't all rainbows and lollipops on the outside, nor is wanting FAIR treatment when it comes to your family status too much to ask from an employer.

Would you say the same thing if he said it was OK for gays/minorities/women/etc. to be discriminated against? This isn't military vs. civilian, I called him out because I thought what he said was wrong. His service is commendable, that's not what's in question here, and his hard work to get where he's at isn't either. Those sorts of defenses are non-sequitors, bottom line: the military DOESN'T (to the best of my knowledge) discriminate against people for having a family. It might suck - because you'll be slogging it out in the sandbox/wrenching in Korea/etc. with all the single guys even though you have a dozen children - but its fair.

Again, why is fairness a bad thing? Why is fairness something we shouldn't shoot for, or shouldn't hold people accountable because of? Its ridiculous to say, "well, life ain't fair, too bad," and leave it at that! Things SHOULD be fair. I'm not talking "In Sovietski Soyuz everyone guaranteed right for labor job," I'm saying that if two equally qualified people show up for the job, and the company intends to hire one of them, somebody shouldn't be disqualified because of race, sexual orientation, marital/family status, gender, or any of the other things. If one of the guys is a Dbag, then the choice is obvious, if one guy can't work weekends because he has to take Billy to soccer practice and marks "I cannot work weekends," on his application, whereas the other guy can, its obvious, but asking, "so do you have a family?" in the interview so you can weed out people that MIGHT have outside commitments? That's wrong.

I guess the better question is, "what kind of country do you want to live in?" The one where nobody is going to be discriminated against, or the one where someone can be kicked to the curb because they have a family?
 
ppragman said:
A large number of family and friends who serve/served makes me at least "slightly" aware of what its like. Marital problems and divorce aren't the military's fault, being away from home is part of what you sign up for, but to suggest that all people from my generation believe they are entitled to work is laughable at best, and hypocritical at worst. Its not about "mil lives vs. civilian lives," its about the fact that the man painted an unrealistic picture of the world and stomped on a guy who is having problems finding work potentially in part because he has a family. That's wrong. There's nothing ethically right about it (or in some states LEGALLY right about it). Believe me, I know that the military does some jacked up stuff to families, if you want a PM I can tell you about my family's issues with the Army, but it isn't all rainbows and lollipops on the outside, nor is wanting FAIR treatment when it comes to your family status too much to ask from an employer.

Would you say the same thing if he said it was OK for gays/minorities/women/etc. to be discriminated against? This isn't military vs. civilian, I called him out because I thought what he said was wrong. His service is commendable, that's not what's in question here, and his hard work to get where he's at isn't either. Those sorts of defenses are non-sequitors, bottom line: the military DOESN'T (to the best of my knowledge) discriminate against people for having a family. It might suck - because you'll be slogging it out in the sandbox/wrenching in Korea/etc. with all the single guys even though you have a dozen children - but its fair.

Again, why is fairness a bad thing? Why is fairness something we shouldn't shoot for, or shouldn't hold people accountable because of? Its ridiculous to say, "well, life ain't fair, too bad," and leave it at that! Things SHOULD be fair. I'm not talking "In Sovietski Soyuz everyone guaranteed right for labor job," I'm saying that if two equally qualified people show up for the job, and the company intends to hire one of them, somebody shouldn't be disqualified because of race, sexual orientation, marital/family status, gender, or any of the other things. If one of the guys is a Dbag, then the choice is obvious, if one guy can't work weekends because he has to take Billy to soccer practice and marks "I cannot work weekends," on his application, whereas the other guy can, its obvious, but asking, "so do you have a family?" in the interview so you can weed out people that MIGHT have outside commitments? That's wrong.

I guess the better question is, "what kind of country do you want to live in?" The one where nobody is going to be discriminated against, or the one where someone can be kicked to the curb because they have a family?
Click to expand...

:)

EDIT: to add to that :). I like where Pat is trying, like hell, to bring this thread. It's almost like we are back on topic- if just briefly. I give a +1.
 
ppragman said:
This isn't military vs. civilian, I called him out because I thought what he said was wrong. His service is commendable, that's not what's in question here, and his hard work to get where he's at isn't either.
Click to expand...

If it's not what's in question here why'd you bring it up in the first place? You sure are spending a lot of words on a one line comment from him.

I'd be willing to bet if asked he'd tell you he thinks it's BS if an employer doesn't hire someone solely because they had a family. And then I bet he'd tell you if it happened to suck it up and move on to the next interview. What do you say... Put $5 on it?
 
Originally Posted by cencal83406
Everyone here lives under a rock, or something similar, I assume?

Where in the Constitution of the United States of America does it say (and sure, consult the Bill of Rights specifically) that a private business has to allow freedom of the xyz?

I thought the Bill of Rights was there to protect us from the government? So why are we all up in arms about a private business and its shady hiring practices? Choose not to work there - choose not to do business there...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mone...imination.html

Perhaps they're asking if you are (insert race/gender) because part of the job is being a gigolo and that hasn't worked out for the (insert race/gender) folks in the past?

Maybe it looks bad for the customers that you are a (insert race/gender)? Much like it could look bad if you had piercings or tattoos clearly visible all over your body? And why would you want to give them ammo "I can provide reasons why I'd be a better employee because I am (insert race/gender)". Maybe an ex-employee that was (insert race/gender) abused the crap out of their sick time to pick the kid up from school. When you're not at work you're not productive, so they're hedging their bets by lowering the number of "Non-minority" (in their eyes) applicants to the ones who won't flake out?

Purely playing devils advocate here. It's truly interesting to see things from the conservative, business perspective.
Click to expand...


PositionAndHold said:
Fixed it for you. I too am just playing devils advocate.

I'm a middle of the road kinda guy, not really political at all. I believe the most qualified should be hired. Period. Race, gender or any other "factors" shouldn't influence the hiring decision. Problem is, a lot of the dirt bag companies didn't see it that way, and it's taken a couple generations to right those wrongs, and we still have a long way to go.

The Bill of Rights is also there to protect us from each other.
Click to expand...

That was my first reply.

And this was my second

Maybe if we didn't have to make up for generations of societal views and hiring practices that were any thing but 'fair', we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm 35 so I'm not sure what "generation" that makes me. I think you may confusing "fair" with "entitlement”.
Click to expand...

So if I didn't get my point across. I think it is completely unfair to hire some one based on any thing but their job qualifications.

Of course the military doesn't discriminate based on family life. I was simply pointing out that the military vs. civilian debate really has no place here. Hacker said life is not fair. You responded implying that he wouldn't know what unfair was and the military is all roses and rainbows. He was correct, life isn't fair and that's true whether military or civilian. When I was talking about entitlement I wasn't referring to you or the op. I was simply stating there has been on more then one occasion, the younger generation referred to as entitled. Not in the thread per se, but in others and by media types.

So I think we agree more then we disagree. It's some times hard to get points across on the internets. :)
 
This thread is certainly NOT about mil v. Civ. Hacker NEVER brought that up - Pat did. It's a poor comparison in this case anyway because the military discriminates heavily when they hire people.
 
Ian J said:
If it's not what's in question here why'd you bring it up in the first place? You sure are spending a lot of words on a one line comment from him.

I'd be willing to bet if asked he'd tell you he thinks it's BS if an employer doesn't hire someone solely because they had a family. And then I bet he'd tell you if it happened to suck it up and move on to the next interview. What do you say... Put $5 on it?
Click to expand...

I never questioned his service, that's what HE assumed I was doing. I think what he said initially was hypocritical coming from a guy who never had to worry about his family getting in the way of a <edit>getting</edit> job.
 
ppragman said:
I never questioned his service, that's what HE assumed I was doing. I think what he said initially was hypocritical coming from a guy who never had to worry about his family getting in the way of a <edit>getting</edit> job.
Click to expand...

If that's your point, when have you had to worry about your family getting in the way of a job?

And no to the $5? ;)
 
Ian J said:
If that's your point, when have you had to worry about your family getting in the way of a job?

And no to the $5? ;)
Click to expand...

I actually have had employers ask about my family situation, I've had employers question me in great detail about my fiancee, including things such as, "do you think your fiancee will be fine living here, because we're worried she might want to take off in the future, and you might follow her." I've had that question asked flat out at least 3 times now. So, yes. I have experienced that. It is dammed hard to convince people that your family won't be a problem - and each time it never was to begin with. I don't think I've ever been turned down because of that, but yeah, I have experienced that.

Well, I'll buy you a beer if I ever run into ya, but it won't be a good beer, it'll be something cheap and off the bottom of the rack, not out of disrespect, but rather because we can buy more of it that way and get hammered and talk about over-dramatized adventures.
 
ppragman said:
Well, I'll buy you a beer if I ever run into ya, but it won't be a good beer, it'll be something cheap and off the bottom of the rack, not out of disrespect, but rather because we can buy more of it that way and get hammered and talk about over-dramatized adventures.
Click to expand...

If that's the case let me buy the good stuff on my over-inflated government salary. :D
 
ppragman said:
when was the last time you worked for a civilian employer?
Click to expand...

If your argument is that I don't know what it's like because it's been a long time since I've worked for a civilian employer, then I'll counter and ask how recently you've been in the military.

If it's more recently than I've had a civilian employer, then I'll buy your argument about my opinion. If not, your platitudes about military life (based on what you've heard from others) is just as ignorant and invalid as you think my opinions about the civil workforce (based on you not really knowing the extent of my history in the civilian workforce) are.

Fair enough for you?
 
Hacker15e said:
If your argument is that I don't know what it's like because it's been a long time since I've worked for a civilian employer, then I'll counter and ask how recently you've been in the military.

If it's more recently than I've had a civilian employer, then I'll buy your argument about my opinion. If not, your platitudes about military life (based on what you've heard from others) is just as ignorant and invalid as you think my opinions about the civil workforce (based on you not really knowing the extent of my history in the civilian workforce) are.

Fair enough for you?
Click to expand...

Seems reasonable, but I think you've missed my point. Like that its NOT ok to discriminate based on family status, and that "life isn't fair" isn't an adequate defense for injustice.
 
Hacker15e said:
Precisely where we disagree is the thought that the inherent unfairness in human life (and society) somehow equates to "injustice".
Click to expand...

I would agree on that, do you think its ethically right for a company to discriminate against potential employees because of marital or family status?
 
ppragman said:
I would agree on that, do you think its ethically right for a company to discriminate against potential employees because of marital or family status?
Click to expand...

Uh oh... Hope I'm not about to lose five bucks here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top