I had a coworker who commuted to Crystal City from West Virginia! Total insanity. Not that I consider WV to be DC metro but people do it, mainly because of the insane COL.
I think part of the reason daycares in the DC area are so inflexible and have inconvenient hours is because they're catering to the Feds who can leave at 4 pm every day.
I can't leave work at 4
But it assumes also that schools start at a certain time that would allow you to get your kid off, go to work and all be home within time to pick them up. My son's school doesn't even start until after 8:30. So I can't start a workday between 7-8 to allow me to get off at 4. Also I can't leave at 4 anyway. I don't mean to make it all about me but that it what is frustrating about how stuff is structured here. It makes a lot of assumptions that leave out many families and leave a lot of people struggling to parse together care.
You're obviously working for the wrong agency
But yes - the hours are ridiculous. My nephew's daycare just announced that they're closing at 5:00 instead of 5:30. My SIL can't leave work until 5:00, like, you know, normal people. She's like, well, I'll be there when I can, which will probably be 5:30, because there is absolutely nothing I can do about this.
It is so frustrating to me that we have this country full of innovators, people working on solving problems with technology and entrepreneurship, yet they're apparently busy solving the problems of "how can I find someone nearby to have sex with me?" and "how can I get food delivered to me at 3 am?" instead of "I need to work and I can't take my 3 year old with me" and "my mom has Alzheimers but I can't afford to put her in a home and I need to work". Could it be because....wait for it...these are by and large women's problems?
This is my soapbox issue. Well, one of them, alongside postpartum mental health which this is obviously tied to. I'm tired of complaining about it though and ready to start DOING something. But what can I do?
Post by penguingrrl on Feb 11, 2016 9:52:28 GMT -5
Oh, and I will say the daycare I used during the campaign offered amazing hours and wasn't crazy expensive. Full time was $688/month and they were open until 11:30. Apparently a lot of their clients were nurses, so they adjusted to allow those who finished their shift at 11 to get there. And they opened at 5:30 or 6 am. And they only asked for 24 hours notice if/when you needed care. So those on rotating shifts, especially retail workers who often have last minute schedule changes, could make it work.
Such a novel idea and from what I could tell it was very successful. We need options like that if we are ever going to make headway in gender equality.
One thing that maybe sort of gives me a tiny bit of hope is how FINALLY there is starting to be some innovation in how medical services are delivered. The Minute Clinic idea has finally taken off, doctors offices are offering extended hours more often, there are more options for people who work 8-5. Not long ago, this was not the case, and it was incredibly frustrating and cut a lot of people off from medical care (or forced them into the emergency room). I don't know that we have the same pressure here, since basically everyone needs medical care while childcare is a smaller, more specific demographic, but I'm hoping that as men are increasingly becoming involved in childcare responsibilities, there will be more people trying to figure out how to solve this problem (and of course, make money off it). IT COMPLETELY SUCKS that it takes men caring about this issue for there to be some action, though.
Oh, and I will say the daycare I used during the campaign offered amazing hours and wasn't crazy expensive. Full time was $688/month and they were open until 11:30. Apparently a lot of their clients were nurses, so they adjusted to allow those who finished their shift at 11 to get there. And they opened at 5:30 or 6 am. And they only asked for 24 hours notice if/when you needed care. So those on rotating shifts, especially retail workers who often have last minute schedule changes, could make it work.
Such a novel idea and from what I could tell it was very successful. We need options like that if we are ever going to make headway in gender equality.
Absolutely! I have no idea how people who serve our community or medical professionals or laborers with shift work manage with this outdated system.
Post by juliette21 on Feb 11, 2016 10:02:04 GMT -5
I see a lot of "well, no one forced you to have the kid(s)" and "if you don't want to/couldn't make sacrifices, then you shouldn't have had kids" in comments sections and on FB. I think there is a definite boot straps type approach to child-rearing, where if you aren't able to do it without help then you shouldn't have had them. Otherwise you're just whining/bitching. It's disgusting.
I see a lot of "well, no one forced you to have the kid(s)" and "if you don't want to/couldn't make sacrifices, then you shouldn't have had kids" in comments sections and on FB. I think there is a definite boot straps type approach to child-rearing, where if you aren't able to do it without help then you shouldn't have had them. Otherwise you're just whining/bitching. It's disgusting.
Yep. It's our American "you're on your own" attitude.
Oh, and I will say the daycare I used during the campaign offered amazing hours and wasn't crazy expensive. Full time was $688/month and they were open until 11:30. Apparently a lot of their clients were nurses, so they adjusted to allow those who finished their shift at 11 to get there. And they opened at 5:30 or 6 am. And they only asked for 24 hours notice if/when you needed care. So those on rotating shifts, especially retail workers who often have last minute schedule changes, could make it work.
Such a novel idea and from what I could tell it was very successful. We need options like that if we are ever going to make headway in gender equality.
Absolutely! I have no idea how people who serve our community or medical professionals or laborers with shift work manage with this outdated system.
luck or money. A good friend is a hospital respitory therapist, her shift is 3-11 in the afternoon. Her husband is a cop and has the evening shift as well. if it wasn't for her mom being able and willing to provide child care they would be pretty screwed since neither has had the opportunity to switch shifts yet.
Oh, and I will say the daycare I used during the campaign offered amazing hours and wasn't crazy expensive. Full time was $688/month and they were open until 11:30. Apparently a lot of their clients were nurses, so they adjusted to allow those who finished their shift at 11 to get there. And they opened at 5:30 or 6 am. And they only asked for 24 hours notice if/when you needed care. So those on rotating shifts, especially retail workers who often have last minute schedule changes, could make it work.
Such a novel idea and from what I could tell it was very successful. We need options like that if we are ever going to make headway in gender equality.
Absolutely! I have no idea how people who serve our community or medical professionals or laborers with shift work manage with this outdated system.
Doctors have nanny's. Or SAHW's. At least that's the case for all the doctors I know personally. (small sample, but from comments they've made about their coworkers I'm pretty sure that's typical)
ETA: I hit post before I finished my thought... Which was going to be - which illustrates the issue nicely since you need to make doctor money in order to easily manage weird shifts. Everybody else in the hospital is just screwed.
I wish on-site daycare for employees was a standard thing provided in large office complexes and hospitals and other similarly concentrated employment centers. I kow a handful of places that have one and it seems like such an awesome win-win situation.
Post by PatBenatar on Feb 11, 2016 10:07:58 GMT -5
Ugh a few months ago I heard a working mother say that "Women not staying home with their kids was one of the worst things that happened to this country" I rolled my eyes hard and said something like the bigger issue was that women need/want to work and the resources suck to accommodate working parents. She didn't say much after that.
Because women are paid like .60 cents for every dollar a man makes?
The article states that about 40% of women are primary breadwinners in their households. Not a majority, but not insignificant either. The poster above specifically mentioned the wife's paycheck. Husbands don't automatically earn more and no one ever seems to assume that the husband's paycheck would get sacrificed. And even if the wife earns less, stepping back from her career may have more detrimental effects for the household, particularly when it comes to benefits.
Not to mention there are households headed up by two married women too.
I was being TIC. I know men don't automatically earn more. My point I guess is that people just assume men are the breadwinners.
I feel like the "we" in this title is speaking to a certain well-off part of the population. Like the modern day leave it to beaver household that's evolved to a married man and woman both working and taking home a middle/upper middle class sort of income. At some point between leave it to beaver and the present, women contributing financially became more of a necessity to keep up a certain standard of living.
Also, the people working in day cares are people, too. Extended hours would probably require more staff and more shifts. How can we complain about infant care being $2k per month? That shit is hard work. It's physically and mentally exhausting. Can those child care workers even afford themselves?
That's the other thing - the reality is that, like education, childcare is expensive. It costs money to pay competent workers, pay for safe, clean facilities, etc. But it's necessary and important. So who bears the burden? We've decided as a nation that it's the parents and daycare workers who should bear the burden - parents in the form of high costs, workers in the form of low wages.
Quality daycare is something that benefits society as a whole - children who are in safe, high quality facilities turn out to be better-adjusted, better-educated, more productive adults, workers who aren't stressed about childcare are more productive, healthier employees, daycare workers who are paid better in turn spend that money buying goods and services which stimulates the economy. So IMO, it's worth the investment by us, the taxpayers and the government, to subsidize or even outright fund this. Yes, it's expensive, but it has huge benefits for everyone, even those without children.
But unfortunately, we have a short-sighted, narrow view of things in the US and we get "tough, you're on your own" instead.
Also, the people working in day cares are people, too. Extended hours would probably require more staff and more shifts. How can we complain about infant care being $2k per month? That shit is hard work. It's physically and mentally exhausting. Can those child care workers even afford themselves?
That's why we absolutely need government subsidized childcare. Daycare workers are criminally underpaid in this country, but you can't expect working parents to shoulder the entire burden (minus the measly $5k tax limit, which was less than half of what I spent for one kid in daycare in 2015). There is absolutely a public good served by government support for childcare.
ETA: Or just read ttt above, who said it much better than I did.
I feel like the "we" in this title is speaking to a certain well-off part of the population. Like the modern day leave it to beaver household that's evolved to a married man and woman both working and taking home a middle/upper middle class sort of income. At some point between leave it to beaver and the present, women contributing financially became more of a necessity to keep up a certain standard of living.
Also, the people working in day cares are people, too. Extended hours would probably require more staff and more shifts. How can we complain about infant care being $2k per month? That shit is hard work. It's physically and mentally exhausting. Can those child care workers even afford themselves?
That's the other thing - the reality is that, like education, childcare is expensive. It costs money to pay competent workers, pay for safe, clean facilities, etc. But it's necessary and important. So who bears the burden? We've decided as a nation that it's the parents and daycare workers who should bear the burden - parents in the form of high costs, workers in the form of low wages.
Quality daycare is something that benefits society as a whole - children who are in safe, high quality facilities turn out to be better-adjusted, better-educated, more productive adults, workers who aren't stressed about childcare are more productive, healthier employees, daycare workers who are paid better in turn spend that money buying goods and services which stimulates the economy. So IMO, it's worth the investment by us, the taxpayers and the government, to subsidize or even outright fund this. Yes, it's expensive, but it has huge benefits for everyone, even those without children.
But unfortunately, we have a short-sighted, narrow view of things in the US and we get "tough, you're on your own" instead.
I really hope I'm not derailing this thread, but I do wish low-cost, high-quality childcare and preschool for all was Bernie's drum rather than free college.
I feel like the "we" in this title is speaking to a certain well-off part of the population. Like the modern day leave it to beaver household that's evolved to a married man and woman both working and taking home a middle/upper middle class sort of income. At some point between leave it to beaver and the present, women contributing financially became more of a necessity to keep up a certain standard of living.
Also, the people working in day cares are people, too. Extended hours would probably require more staff and more shifts. How can we complain about infant care being $2k per month? That shit is hard work. It's physically and mentally exhausting. Can those child care workers even afford themselves?
Ditto ttt and smock regarding the answer being subsidized daycare. I have never taken home $2,000/month, which is what left me out of options. I have a college degree, I had 7 years of experience in my field and I had to leave the workforce due to daycare costs, which has long made me wonder how those without my qualifications possibly make it work.
In the long run, staying in the workforce would have been better for me personally, for my family and for the economy at large, but instead I was forced into a SAHM role because of antiquated ideas regarding daycare in this country.
Post by thatgirl2478 on Feb 11, 2016 10:23:54 GMT -5
When we (referring to the people in this discussion) discuss paid leave, are we talking about the standard 4-6 weeks, the full 12 given by FMLA or expanding family leave time in addition to having it be paid for? I just want to know how far we're taking it.
So part of the problem is that traditional Male/Female roles have always put the women caring for the kids. This holds true for the mother who had the kids, the teenager who babysits the kids (most sitters are female), the daycare workers who watch the kids during the day, the preschool teachers who take them at a young age and the majority of the teachers that will be with them daily. Obviously the mother has to birth the kids, but we can start to change the other traditional 'girl jobs' now.
Part of the problem is that generally women make less than men, so if daycare is taking 80% of one person's paycheck it makes more sense to have them stop working.
Part of the problem is (and this goes back to gender rolls) that women are generally expected to be more nurturing and involved with their kids, where as men are just expected to come home, take off their pants and sit around waiting to be served. We (general we) ASK the fathers to watch the kids while we take some Mom time instead of just expecting them to do it (and not because we don't know if they are doing anything else at the same time), which is an awful lot like asking a sitter to watch them. We joke that if our husbands stayed with the kids all they'd do would be to put on the TV for the kids and maybe toss them a container of applesauce and some bread at lunch. If we expect more from them, hopefully society will too.
Part of the problem is that in many parts of the US it's so expensive to just live that you HAVE to have 2 incomes to live what we've come to consider a 'normal' life. And that's just housing, food, transportation, etc - not even saving for college! For that you pretty much need your kid to work from the womb too.
There are a lot of factors to this problem, I'm not sure paid leave will solve. It can't hurt, but it won't solve the whole problem.
That's the other thing - the reality is that, like education, childcare is expensive. It costs money to pay competent workers, pay for safe, clean facilities, etc. But it's necessary and important. So who bears the burden? We've decided as a nation that it's the parents and daycare workers who should bear the burden - parents in the form of high costs, workers in the form of low wages.
Quality daycare is something that benefits society as a whole - children who are in safe, high quality facilities turn out to be better-adjusted, better-educated, more productive adults, workers who aren't stressed about childcare are more productive, healthier employees, daycare workers who are paid better in turn spend that money buying goods and services which stimulates the economy. So IMO, it's worth the investment by us, the taxpayers and the government, to subsidize or even outright fund this. Yes, it's expensive, but it has huge benefits for everyone, even those without children.
But unfortunately, we have a short-sighted, narrow view of things in the US and we get "tough, you're on your own" instead.
I really hope I'm not derailing this thread, but I do wish low-cost, high-quality childcare and preschool for all was Bernie's drum rather than free college.
It would make so much more sense! We already have too many high school kids that 'graduate' and are in no way prepared for the 'real world' let alone the expectations of college!
Also - just because it just popped into my head - my rather conservative, libertarian leaning, occasionally assholish bootstrap waving husband totally supports heavily subsidized daycare.
He doesn't even support government funded HEALTH care, but he's all for free daycare for poor people and reduced price for middle-class.
It seems so obvious to me that this is something we should have as a civilized people. But NOPE.
That's the other thing - the reality is that, like education, childcare is expensive. It costs money to pay competent workers, pay for safe, clean facilities, etc. But it's necessary and important. So who bears the burden? We've decided as a nation that it's the parents and daycare workers who should bear the burden - parents in the form of high costs, workers in the form of low wages.
Quality daycare is something that benefits society as a whole - children who are in safe, high quality facilities turn out to be better-adjusted, better-educated, more productive adults, workers who aren't stressed about childcare are more productive, healthier employees, daycare workers who are paid better in turn spend that money buying goods and services which stimulates the economy. So IMO, it's worth the investment by us, the taxpayers and the government, to subsidize or even outright fund this. Yes, it's expensive, but it has huge benefits for everyone, even those without children.
But unfortunately, we have a short-sighted, narrow view of things in the US and we get "tough, you're on your own" instead.
I really hope I'm not derailing this thread, but I do wish low-cost, high-quality childcare and preschool for all was Bernie's drum rather than free college.
I'm sure he'll get to it later...just be patient, ladies!
When we (referring to the people in this discussion) discuss paid leave, are we talking about the standard 4-6 weeks, the full 12 given by FMLA or expanding family leave time in addition to having it be paid for? I just want to know how far we're taking it.
I actually take issue with your referring to 4-6 weeks of leave as "the standard." There is no standard in this country for paid leave.
I see a lot of "well, no one forced you to have the kid(s)" and "if you don't want to/couldn't make sacrifices, then you shouldn't have had kids" in comments sections and on FB. I think there is a definite boot straps type approach to child-rearing, where if you aren't able to do it without help then you shouldn't have had them. Otherwise you're just whining/bitching. It's disgusting.
And then those of us who make the decision not to have kids--for the reasons you've mentioned, among others--are castigated as selfish, soulless assholes who only want our moneybags to keep us warm at night.
When we (referring to the people in this discussion) discuss paid leave, are we talking about the standard 4-6 weeks, the full 12 given by FMLA or expanding family leave time in addition to having it be paid for? I just want to know how far we're taking it.
I actually take issue with your referring to 4-6 weeks of leave as "the standard." There is no standard in this country for paid leave.
When only 12% of private sector workers get ANY paid leave, it's definitely not the standard.
I see a lot of "well, no one forced you to have the kid(s)" and "if you don't want to/couldn't make sacrifices, then you shouldn't have had kids" in comments sections and on FB. I think there is a definite boot straps type approach to child-rearing, where if you aren't able to do it without help then you shouldn't have had them. Otherwise you're just whining/bitching. It's disgusting.
And then those of us women who make the decision not to have kids--for the reasons you've mentioned, among others--are castigated as selfish, soulless assholes who only want our moneybags to keep us warm at night.
That's the other thing - the reality is that, like education, childcare is expensive. It costs money to pay competent workers, pay for safe, clean facilities, etc. But it's necessary and important. So who bears the burden? We've decided as a nation that it's the parents and daycare workers who should bear the burden - parents in the form of high costs, workers in the form of low wages.
Quality daycare is something that benefits society as a whole - children who are in safe, high quality facilities turn out to be better-adjusted, better-educated, more productive adults, workers who aren't stressed about childcare are more productive, healthier employees, daycare workers who are paid better in turn spend that money buying goods and services which stimulates the economy. So IMO, it's worth the investment by us, the taxpayers and the government, to subsidize or even outright fund this. Yes, it's expensive, but it has huge benefits for everyone, even those without children.
But unfortunately, we have a short-sighted, narrow view of things in the US and we get "tough, you're on your own" instead.
I really hope I'm not derailing this thread, but I do wish low-cost, high-quality childcare and preschool for all was Bernie's drum rather than free college.
Dit-to. There are studies in education that indicate that the school drop out process can begin as early as pre K and kindergarten. Pre-K, people!!! There are huge, huge social and health benefits (regardless of whether the testing shows them) to having universal pre K and engaging kids at a young age. I think focusing on free public college, is great, but it only addresses one demographic of our society. What about the kids who aren't on the college track, who don't know how to get on the college track, and are at risk for dropping out? I would like to see one of the candidates focus on that segment of the population too.
When we (referring to the people in this discussion) discuss paid leave, are we talking about the standard 4-6 weeks, the full 12 given by FMLA or expanding family leave time in addition to having it be paid for? I just want to know how far we're taking it.
So part of the problem is that traditional Male/Female roles have always put the women caring for the kids. This holds true for the mother who had the kids, the teenager who babysits the kids (most sitters are female), the daycare workers who watch the kids during the day, the preschool teachers who take them at a young age and the majority of the teachers that will be with them daily. Obviously the mother has to birth the kids, but we can start to change the other traditional 'girl jobs' now.
Part of the problem is that generally women make less than men, so if daycare is taking 80% of one person's paycheck it makes more sense to have them stop working.
Part of the problem is (and this goes back to gender rolls) that women are generally expected to be more nurturing and involved with their kids, where as men are just expected to come home, take off their pants and sit around waiting to be served. We (general we) ASK the fathers to watch the kids while we take some Mom time instead of just expecting them to do it (and not because we don't know if they are doing anything else at the same time), which is an awful lot like asking a sitter to watch them. We joke that if our husbands stayed with the kids all they'd do would be to put on the TV for the kids and maybe toss them a container of applesauce and some bread at lunch. If we expect more from them, hopefully society will too.
Part of the problem is that in many parts of the US it's so expensive to just live that you HAVE to have 2 incomes to live what we've come to consider a 'normal' life. And that's just housing, food, transportation, etc - not even saving for college! For that you pretty much need your kid to work from the womb too.
There are a lot of factors to this problem, I'm not sure paid leave will solve. It can't hurt, but it won't solve the whole problem.
I think at least a full 12 weeks paid. Many women are hurrying back to work at 6 weeks because they can't afford to take any additional time off, which is ridiculous. Let's let moms and babies at least go through the 4th trimester/newborn phase without having to worry about money. I agree with this 100%.
Even if I only received 20% of my paycheck, it would be worth it for ME to keep working. That's 20% more than I had, plus childcare gets cheaper as kids get older, hopefully raises or bonuses will come, in addition to retirement savings. For me, I'm not sure it would be. I think it would be dependent on commute, job satisfaction, and growth potential. I agree that this is pretty person specific.
As to the entire bolded paragraph, I don't know one single household that functions like that. I'm sure they exist, but of my small sample of IRL friends, the people I work with, and the people on this forum, I don't know anybody that jokes about that or expects their H to do the bare minimum. I will say, this is not how MY house works, but I have seen it among my friends as well as here (not CEP, I bounce between ML/MMM/and MM with the occasional pop in on H&G).
When we (referring to the people in this discussion) discuss paid leave, are we talking about the standard 4-6 weeks, the full 12 given by FMLA or expanding family leave time in addition to having it be paid for? I just want to know how far we're taking it.
I actually take issue with your referring to 4-6 weeks of leave as "the standard." There is no standard in this country for paid leave.
Sorry - you are correct. I was simply referring to it being 'standard' because it's the amount of time usually recommended for healing post birth and it's what *I* am used to seeing as a person who has always had either maternity leave policies or short term disability policies covering her. I agree that it's not a correct term for a very very large part of the work force.
Post by jeaniebueller on Feb 11, 2016 10:38:18 GMT -5
The other random thing---subsidized daycare would be great and I am not arguing against it, but i also worry about what more rules and regulations would do to the small, in home daycare providers. Where i live, we mostly have IH daycare. My DCP has been a DCP for over 10 years and does a phenomenal job. She just had her yearly inspection and has to make some type of physical change to her daycare area to comply with whatever rule or regulation was in violation, which she has never had to do in the past. Her comment to me was "and they wonder why more people don't want to keep their licenses up." There is a good reason for the rules and regs, but i also think that some of them are so restrictive that they basically shut out many homes or people that could be great DCPs--leading to smaller supply, higher prices, etc.
When we (referring to the people in this discussion) discuss paid leave, are we talking about the standard 4-6 weeks, the full 12 given by FMLA or expanding family leave time in addition to having it be paid for? I just want to know how far we're taking it.
I actually take issue with your referring to 4-6 weeks of leave as "the standard." There is no standard in this country for paid leave.
Precisely. Instarted a new job in October and had to negotiate a maternity leave. I'm taking 4 weeks, unpaid. FOUR WEEKS. I will still likely be bleeding when I return to work. I'm the executive director of a non profit. I'm the only employee. My Board d was stuck between a rock and a hard place. So when I go back at 4 weeks "at least" I get to bring the baby with me. Huh?
FMLA online applies IF an employee has been with a company for a year and IF that company has more than 50 employees. In that regard, small businesses are bad for women employees.
The other random thing---subsidized daycare would be great and I am not arguing against it, but i also worry about what more rules and regulations would do to the small, in home daycare providers. Where i live, we mostly have IH daycare. My DCP has been a DCP for over 10 years and does a phenomenal job. She just had her yearly inspection and has to make some type of physical change to her daycare area to comply with whatever rule or regulation was in violation, which she has never had to do in the past. Her comment to me was "and they wonder why more people don't want to keep their licenses up." There is a good reason for the rules and regs, but i also think that some of them are so restrictive that they basically shut out many homes or people that could be great DCPs--leading to smaller supply, higher prices, etc.
You know, as much as people complain about the federal government and want more local control, IME, it's local and state regulations and fees and taxes that are most onerous and put up the biggest barriers to small businesses. I really think that cities and states do far more to hamper the birth and growth of small businesses than the federal government.