Why is having a family such a big deal?

[O&M]

I'm not sure why there's so much anti-labor talk in this thread (though I expect it from O&M),

It's not that I am anti-labor. It's more correct to say that I am pro-business, because I recognize that without business, there is no need for labor.

Give you a real-life example. I remember listening to a story on WLS years ago. The essence of it was that the owner of a convenience store was being sued by a former employee for wrongful termination. The former employee alledged that he was let go because he was black. The store owner basically admitted that, but went on to explain his reasoning; the local neighborhood had been boycotting his business because of who he chose to hire (apparently they made no secret about it.)

So you tell me, what is a person to do? Keep the employee on in the name of "fairness" and risk lose his business? or let the employee go and save the business? I don't really want an answer here. I am just using this an example of the real challenges that business faces, and that being "fair" isn't always so, if you'll pardon the pun, "black and white"

Oh and IIRC, the business owner also was not white.

 

[Ian_J]

The military.

IMO, the military deals with family reluctantly.........kind of the whole if they could have their way, if they wanted you to have a family they'd issue you one. Sure, there's all this lip service about family this, that, etc, etc.

Aroo?

(It would take too long to type up the bazillion examples contrary to your opinion )

 

[Ian_J]

Says the man who has a government job with benes, time off, decent pay, and healthcare options for as many kids as he wants.

This isn't the first time you've discounted someone's opinion (I think Hacker caught this from you before) because they were in the military. You might want to consider Hacker just might have experienced "unfair" in the military in ways not found in your experience. Not the same kind and maybe not even worse, but very real and very different.

Saying "Says the man who has a government job" sounds jealous and petty and really discounts what it takes to get where Hacker is. Not saying you are, but in text on a forum it sounds pretty bad. Back when you called me asking about options in the military you didn't seem like that type of young man and seemed to understand what it took to be a good military Officer.

 

[MikeD]

Aroo?

(It would take too long to type up the bazillion examples contrary to your opinion )

I think if the military had its choice, they'd rather take guys without families. Granted that couldn't happen, but I could see it happening in bizarro-world if allowed.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

This isn't the first time you've discounted someone's opinion (I think Hacker caught this from you before) because they were in the military. You might want to consider Hacker just might have experienced "unfair" in the military in ways not found in your experience. Not the same kind and maybe not even worse, but very real and very different.

Saying "Says the man who has a government job" sounds jealous and petty and really discounts what it takes to get where Hacker is. Not saying you are, but in text on a forum it sounds pretty bad. Back when you called me asking about options in the military you didn't seem like that type of young man and seemed to understand what it took to be a good military Officer.

Considering hacker's insulting broadbrush post...

We could get into job benefits and such, but I think this country would save a lot of money by switching to a 401k retirement for military members and no health care post-service. The military is a business just like everything else and you are no longer helping that business turn a profit once you are retired.

 

[Hacker15e]

I think this country would save a lot of money by switching to a 401k retirement for military members and no health care post-service.

Do the math on that...take a look at what military retirement costs and see what kind of fiscal significance it really is in the greater context of the US gov't budget.

I think you'll fine that this is something well short of "a lot of money".

More importantly, you have to look at what is required to retain professional warriors in an all-volunteer military. The financial carrot that the military retirement offers has traditionally been a distant second place to the financial benefits offered by leaving the military and joining the private sector. If you lose the financial carrot, you lose one of the biggest incentives to retain your long-term professional corporate knowledge in the military.

What does it "cost" to have every member of the military leave after their initial service commitment is up? Huge amounts of proficiency and readiness. I happen to think that the retirement scheme is a pretty small price to pay to entice people to stay in the military longer and retain that professional skill.

 

[Hacker15e]

Says the man who has a government job with benes, time off, decent pay, and healthcare options for as many kids as he wants.

Just what, exactly, does that have to do with this discussion?

My point was that we have an entire portion of the American population that has a very skewed view of the world -- a world view cultivated through the "participation ribbon" upbringing which makes people think that every endeavor in life has to be completely equal, completely fair.

Unfortunately, that's not reality...nor is there some universal force which requires fairness. In fact, life is inherently unfair, and the idea that everything "should" be fair is folly.

In this case, people irritated because a company might not be "completely blind" in hiring employees are living in that false world of fairness. Hiring employees is an inherently subjective process...although there are certainly areas where the US Government says that employers are not allowed to use in discriminating between employees (and I don't mean the politically-loaded colloquial meaning of "discriminate" -- I mean the use of the word in which an employer is able to judge differences in the overall individual), all hiring involves discriminating between many different aspects of potential employees. In the flying world, discriminators are flying hours, type ratings, job history, education history, etc...but as this thread mentions, there are many other areas that an employer would be stupid to completely ignore.

And, let's face it...it's their "right" to do so. We don't life in a socialist state where jobs are a right and someone is obligated to provide you a job. We live in a free market where employers are free to hire or terminate help as required for their business.

We're not talking about opportunity here. Everyone has the OPPORTUNITY to be employed (and I agree, THIS is where there should be as much fairness as possible). NOT everyone has the "right" to be hired.

BTW: I've faced phenomenally unfair treatment during my time in the military -- that's okay, because life is inherently a subjective and unfair game, and military decisionmaking follows that same paradigm.

Please stop suggesting that my service in the military is part of some work program that was served up to me on a platter, which has resulted in me living a life of leisure on the government teat, free of any worries that you "hardworking folk" struggle with daily. You clearly have no idea what I've done in my career to get where I am, nor what difficulties I may have faced along the way. I'm not looking for sympathy -- I'm not one to go dragging out my heartache stories, because boo-hoo, everyone has a story. I'm simply tired of you dragging this out to try and discount my opinion every time I make a statement about life, finances, etc.

Maybe after you've gone through the process of applying to fly with the military, been selected, been through training, been through a couple combat deployments, etc, you can come back and tell me what a life of leisure I live.

 

[jynxyjoe]

I love that this thread turns into who is more underpaid. More proof every pilot thinks they are underpaid.

Let's hear more of the contest though!

"In this corner- coming out of a military base near you, a person who needs no introduction. The guy/gal who gets paid a living wage, real benefits, paid training, medical forever, and a pension! The guy/gal who gets shot at and goes wherever needed and defends freedom for all of us! It's the military pilot!

And in this corner, looking broke as a joke without a smoke. He/she volunteers to fly you around for free, he may even pay you to do it. A person who couldn't do simple enough math to stay out of his own profession. Someone who jumps in the lake then bitches the water is too cold... and stays in. He/she makes 20 grand, before taxes, paid his/her own training, can't afford the medical plan and couldn't tell you what a pension is, and is more likely to shoot themselves for the sake of the creditors. In fact you all know him, he's the moron that flew you out here! Civvy pilot extraordinare!"

 

[jynxyjoe]

Dance puppets dance!!!!

 

[Hacker15e]

I love that this thread turns into who is more underpaid. More proof every pilot thinks they are underpaid.

Never said I was underpaid -- in fact, for the vast majority of my career I've been underpaid.

There have been moments reacting from SAMs and AA shot at me, though, where I have earned every single cent of my pay.

I'll make no bones about the fact that I have good pay and benefits. It's just not the life of leisure that some on the outside seem to think, because most of us aren't dragging out our hardships for the public to see. I volunteered for this job, knowing full well what I'd be sacrificing to do it. It's pretty idiotic to complain about the precise things I knew about when I put pen-to-paper and raised my right hand.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Never said I was underpaid

in fact, for the vast majority of my career I've been underpaid.

I'm not gonna pretend we agree on everything all the time or that we are friends of any sort so I will not claim to be Mercutio. Nor do I actually want to continue the fight by egging you two on. I attempted to bring a moment of levity in where everyone could laugh and cool off and get back to being civil.

Anyway, go on winning hearts and minds.

 

[Hacker15e]

I actually meant to say, "for the vast majority of my career I've been overpaid".

In other words, I volunteered for this job, and I enjoy doing it for the most part. Certainly at earlier points in my career, I would have gladly done it for a lot less money.

 

[ppragman]

Just what, exactly, does that have to do with this discussion?

My point was that we have an entire portion of the American population that has a very skewed view of the world -- a world view cultivated through the "participation ribbon" upbringing which makes people think that every endeavor in life has to be completely equal, completely fair.

Unfortunately, that's not reality...nor is there some universal force which requires fairness. In fact, life is inherently unfair, and the idea that everything "should" be fair is folly.

In this case, people irritated because a company might not be "completely blind" in hiring employees are living in that false world of fairness. Hiring employees is an inherently subjective process...although there are certainly areas where the US Government says that employers are not allowed to use in discriminating between employees (and I don't mean the politically-loaded colloquial meaning of "discriminate" -- I mean the use of the word in which an employer is able to judge differences in the overall individual), all hiring involves discriminating between many different aspects of potential employees. In the flying world, discriminators are flying hours, type ratings, job history, education history, etc...but as this thread mentions, there are many other areas that an employer would be stupid to completely ignore.

And, let's face it...it's their "right" to do so. We don't life in a socialist state where jobs are a right and someone is obligated to provide you a job. We live in a free market where employers are free to hire or terminate help as required for their business.

We're not talking about opportunity here. Everyone has the OPPORTUNITY to be employed (and I agree, THIS is where there should be as much fairness as possible). NOT everyone has the "right" to be hired.

BTW: I've faced phenomenally unfair treatment during my time in the military -- that's okay, because life is inherently a subjective and unfair game, and military decisionmaking follows that same paradigm.

Please stop suggesting that my service in the military is part of some work program that was served up to me on a platter, which has resulted in me living a life of leisure on the government teat, free of any worries that you "hardworking folk" struggle with daily. You clearly have no idea what I've done in my career to get where I am, nor what difficulties I may have faced along the way. I'm not looking for sympathy -- I'm not one to go dragging out my heartache stories, because boo-hoo, everyone has a story. I'm simply tired of you dragging this out to try and discount my opinion every time I make a statement about life, finances, etc.

Maybe after you've gone through the process of applying to fly with the military, been selected, been through training, been through a couple combat deployments, etc, you can come back and tell me what a life of leisure I live.

Lot's of people who've spent their entire career in the military like to say how unfair life is, or how people outside don't get it that life isn't fair. In all actuality, there are aspects of military life that are substantially better than civvie life, I just think its hypocritical for someone who lives immersed in a quasi-meritocracy, who doesn't have to worry about getting healthcare for his family, or finding a place to live, and doesn't work for an hourly wage that can be turned off the instant the economy takes a dump (that's not to say you're not immune from RIF, but that's not the point) to say that an employer has every right to discriminate against someone for having a family! I'm not saying you live a life of leisure (anybody who might have to bomb someone, or get shot at doesn't), but let's be honest, the military has some damn good benes and programs for people with families. Now, that doesn't mean you don't earn it, or that I'm somehow saying that you have it easy, but when was the last time you had to go to a job interview where your family could disqualify you?! Its not that he has the right to be hired, but his family should have no bearing on getting hired at all.

I'm not suggesting that your service in the military is part of some work program, rather I'm suggesting that maybe someone who has access to medical care, post-secondary education for a reduced rate or free, family health care, and substantial child services, as well as all kinds of insurance options isn't necessarily qualified to comment on the intricacies of civilian "fairness" in jobs, or that someone who lives and works in these situations can accurately broad brush an "entire generation." From what I understand, you've been in almost 20 years now (which is commendable), when was the last time you worked for a civilian employer?

 

[ppragman]

This isn't the first time you've discounted someone's opinion (I think Hacker caught this from you before) because they were in the military. You might want to consider Hacker just might have experienced "unfair" in the military in ways not found in your experience. Not the same kind and maybe not even worse, but very real and very different.

Saying "Says the man who has a government job" sounds jealous and petty and really discounts what it takes to get where Hacker is. Not saying you are, but in text on a forum it sounds pretty bad. Back when you called me asking about options in the military you didn't seem like that type of young man and seemed to understand what it took to be a good military Officer.

What I'm saying (and what I've said from the get go in this thread) was that it was wrong to DQ someone for having a kid. Hacker's comment was ridiculous, I don't think that he's qualified to comment on "ALL" of the generation. I'm sure he's had unfair times in his career, that's not the point. Where I take issue with it is when he says basically, "well, you should expect this, this is ok, because life isn't fair." BS. This isn't ok. A GOOD employer wouldn't give a damn whether the man had 15 kids. A good employer wouldn't make that part of the interview.

Jealous? Hell no, he's got wayyyyy to much responsibility for me. What bothers me is that he thinks its just fine that the guy is potentially getting discriminated against because he has a family, and that this is the result of a "generation brought up thinking that everything has to be 'fair'." It seems slightly hypocritical that a man who is imbedded in a system which would support 15 kids if he wanted it - and in fact my old next door neighbor who was in had 8 kids - to say, "tough, life ain't fair" when someone may be experiencing discrimination for having a kid outside that system.

 

[TOP]

We could get into job benefits and such, but I think this country would save a lot of money by switching to a 401k retirement for military members and no health care post-service. The military is a business just like everything else and you are no longer helping that business turn a profit once you are retired.

This 401k program you speak of, how will it drive down the cost of the fiscal budget? Before you blast an answer, let me ask a few more questions.

Would you deploy to countries all over the world, most of which are hostile to American’s, and most where a small percent of the population is trying anything and everything to kill you?

The US Government can’t get civilians to go to these places for anything less than a small fortune.

Are you willing to work 12-36 hours straight and be able to do it again 12 hours later? How about that schedule for 12 to 15 months straight? How about 1-4 days off a month while deployed?

I would venture to say the answer to any of the above questions is no! Certainly not for sub $80,000 range and most pay checks are WAY less than that.

How many months have you spent away from home in the last 8 years? Do the math carefully. I have for myself. I have 32 months with my family, within my home(s), with my belongings… IN THE LAST 8 YEARS. That’s more than 5 years away from home.

I knew what I signed up for and I also know what I was promised in return for my time. I bet it is considerably less than what you are willing to do it for. (No sympathy requested non deserved)

As for the health care post retirement. Does your job require you to maintain a physical fitness level beyond most of the American population?

Where in your job do you face plant on the concrete ground because a system alerts you to the imminent impact of a projectile of some sort.

Where in your job are you not compensated for the damages that are caused by the work you were required to do? And I don’t mean damages caused by a bad decision (if we are hurt by the commission of misconduct we must pay our own medical bills. Plus if death occurs during the commission of misconduct, our families do not receive the life insurance annuity).

So unless you and the rest of the American public are ready to spend $45,000 per year per E-1 up to and above $1,000,000 per year per O-10, I don’t think your 401k will work.

Besides, there is only 25% of the American populace that is fit to serve and less than 1% that actually does. Which percentage are you?

Now, back to the topic of the thread. I don’t think it is right that a family hold someone back from attaining a job and I think it is unfair. I don’t yet know how I would respond to the question if asked, but I highly doubt I would skirt the question. I just may not work there…

 

[jrh]

What I'm saying (and what I've said from the get go in this thread) was that it was wrong to DQ someone for having a kid.

Just to clarify, are you saying it's *ethically* wrong or *legally* wrong?

It seems slightly hypocritical that a man who is imbedded in a system which would support 15 kids if he wanted it - and in fact my old next door neighbor who was in had 8 kids - to say, "tough, life ain't fair" when someone may be experiencing discrimination for having a kid outside that system.

It might not be very nice, but it's only pointing out reality to say, "Tough, life ain't fair." Reality doesn't change, regardless who points it out.

Bill Gates could loudly proclaim, "It sucks to be poor." Many would consider this to be a somewhat obnoxious statement coming from one of the world's wealthiest individuals. But that doesn't mean it's not a valid point. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[ppragman]

Just to clarify, are you saying it's *ethically* wrong or *legally* wrong?



It might not be very nice, but it's only pointing out reality to say, "Tough, life ain't fair." Reality doesn't change, regardless who points it out.

Bill Gates could loudly proclaim, "It sucks to be poor." Many would consider this to be a somewhat obnoxious statement coming from one of the world's wealthiest individuals. But that doesn't mean it's not a valid point. Don't shoot the messenger.

Ethically wrong.

 

[PositionAndHold]

Lot's of people who've spent their entire career in the military like to say how unfair life is, or how people outside don't get it that life isn't fair. In all actuality, there are aspects of military life that are substantially better than civvie life, I just think its hypocritical for someone who lives immersed in a quasi-meritocracy, who doesn't have to worry about getting healthcare for his family, or finding a place to live, and doesn't work for an hourly wage that can be turned off the instant the economy takes a dump (that's not to say you're not immune from RIF, but that's not the point) to say that an employer has every right to discriminate against someone for having a family! I'm not saying you live a life of leisure (anybody who might have to bomb someone, or get shot at doesn't), but let's be honest, the military has some damn good benes and programs for people with families. Now, that doesn't mean you don't earn it, or that I'm somehow saying that you have it easy, but when was the last time you had to go to a job interview where your family could disqualify you?! Its not that he has the right to be hired, but his family should have no bearing on getting hired at all.

I'm not suggesting that your service in the military is part of some work program, rather I'm suggesting that maybe someone who has access to medical care, post-secondary education for a reduced rate or free, family health care, and substantial child services, as well as all kinds of insurance options isn't necessarily qualified to comment on the intricacies of civilian "fairness" in jobs, or that someone who lives and works in these situations can accurately broad brush an "entire generation." From what I understand, you've been in almost 20 years now (which is commendable), when was the last time you worked for a civilian employer?

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.

 

[dasleben]

Where did I say anything about a company having a right to pry into every aspect of a person's life??? That's completely off base.

Throughout this entire thread, I've simply been explaining legitimate reasons why employers *do* take into consideration a person's family, whether you like it or not.



Yes, that is good reading. It supports my points quite well.

Notice the very limited number of laws that actually define familial discrimination (section 6).

Also notice the lines that begin by saying, "While this may appear to be a form of marital status or familial discrimination, it is probably not illegal." That's what I've been trying to emphasize all along. You might not like the way a company does or doesn't work with your family, but that doesn't mean it's against the law. A lot of people think a lot of things are "discrimination" when in reality, that's life. A person just has to deal with it.

There's a BIG difference between, "This is a crappy company to work for. Don't bother applying if you care about your family," versus, "This company is illegally discriminating against prospective employees. They should be sued."

Well, it sounds like you're all squared away then. Just keep doing what you're doing. I don't plan on interviewing with your company anytime soon, so it really doesn't affect me. That said, I lost my job almost 3 years ago, and had to move all the way across the country for a new one. Thankfully that company didn't ask where my family was located, and I got the opportunity to stay gainfully employed. I hope whatever company you go to after the one you're at now gives you the same opportunity.

 

[HRDiva]

Throughout this entire thread, I've simply been explaining legitimate reasons why employers *do* take into consideration a person's family, whether you like it or not.

Notice the very limited number of laws that actually define familial discrimination (section 6).

On the Federal level some workers are protected:
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-orientation_parent_marital_political.html

There are laws in 20 states that prohibit discrimination in employment based on marital status.

The EEOC is also keen on Caregiver discrimination: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/caregiving.html

On top of the legal part, workplace flexibility is a big issue in retention. Gen Y employees express a high preference for it, to the point that they will leave if it is not present. Now that they have made it a big deal, the Boomers and Gen X'ers, who love the idea but were afraid to ask, want it too. So, good luck keeping top talent if you maintain a rigid stance. Turnover is very expensive and can seriously impact the bottom line. It doesn't take much to be known as an employer of choice vs. a bad employer in this time where social networking gets the word out in minutes.