Define short notice. I realize nobody gets a jury summons with sufficient time to get her child into a chic urban daycare center with a waiting list, but it's not like a jury summons goes out the night before you have to show up, either.
I could find someone a week out. Maybe not for free, but it wouldn't be much.
You're really telling me that you couldn't find emergency care for your kids if you needed to? (ETA: TTT not ah)
I could, but I can afford to shell out the $100-150 for it. If I couldn't afford that, then no, I probably couldn't. Especially since we've moved a lot and don't have big networks of friends here willing to take a day off work to watch our kids.
Define short notice. I realize nobody gets a jury summons with sufficient time to get her child into a chic urban daycare center with a waiting list, but it's not like a jury summons goes out the night before you have to show up, either.
I could find someone a week out. Maybe not for free, but it wouldn't be much.
You're really telling me that you couldn't find emergency care for your kids if you needed to? (ETA: TTT not ah)
define "wouldn't be much"...
Because I think the $5/hour per kid is pretty good. So 2 kids = $100 a day.
I could find someone a week out. Maybe not for free, but it wouldn't be much.
You're really telling me that you couldn't find emergency care for your kids if you needed to? (ETA: TTT not ah)
I could, but I can afford to shell out the $100-150 for it. If I couldn't afford that, then no, I probably couldn't. Especially since we've moved a lot and don't have big networks of friends here willing to take a day off work to watch our kids.
We've already established that just about everyone has to pay to go to Jury duty. Whether it be in work time, actual money, etc.
I could, but I can afford to shell out the $100-150 for it. If I couldn't afford that, then no, I probably couldn't. Especially since we've moved a lot and don't have big networks of friends here willing to take a day off work to watch our kids.
We've already established that just about everyone has to pay to go to Jury duty. Whether it be in work time, actual money, etc.
In many jury situations you call in the night before, or even the morning of, to see if you have to go in that day.
In others, you're called in on a couple weeks' notice.
In the OP, wasn't it less than a month?
Where I'm from, you get more than a month's notice that you'll be calling in every night for a week.
Who do you know that will clear their schedule for an indefinite period of time, which may not be filled by watching your kids if you don't have to go in?
Where I'm from, you get more than a month's notice that you'll be calling in every night for a week.
Who do you know that will clear their schedule for an indefinite period of time, which may not be filled by watching your kids if you don't have to go in?
I'm mobile and miss my physical keyboard!
well, my employer is on hold for that time and no one seems to mind.
I could, but I can afford to shell out the $100-150 for it. If I couldn't afford that, then no, I probably couldn't. Especially since we've moved a lot and don't have big networks of friends here willing to take a day off work to watch our kids.
We've already established that just about everyone has to pay to go to Jury duty. Whether it be in work time, actual money, etc.
So what are people to do if they really, truly cannot afford a sitter?
Who do you know that will clear their schedule for an indefinite period of time, which may not be filled by watching your kids if you don't have to go in?
I'm mobile and miss my physical keyboard!
well, my employer is on hold for that time and no one seems to mind.
I don't understand what comparison you're trying to make.
So why do mothers get special exemption from the pay portion of jury duty? It's a hardship for everyone.
And we're back to, abolish jury duty because everyone is a special snowflake.
No, it's not a hardship for everyone, not equally. It would be a hell of a lot easier for me, personally, to have jury duty, as I have someone to watch my kids and am not breastfeeding, than someone like the woman in the OP.
But I think that ESF's system makes the most sense - everyone should get one, maybe two 6 to 12 month postponements. They're still serving jury duty, just later, and now they have time to plan for it. Problem solved.
Why are people talking about the cost of childcare throughout the trial? This is just about showing up for selection. Show up, make your case (lost pay, breastfeeding, lack of childcare) and get dismissed.
I could find someone a week out. Maybe not for free, but it wouldn't be much.
You're really telling me that you couldn't find emergency care for your kids if you needed to? (ETA: TTT not ah)
define "wouldn't be much"...
Because I think the $5/hour per kid is pretty good. So 2 kids = $100 a day.
To me, that's "much."
I'm sure there are millions of working class families where both spouses work and combined, make less than most of the families here with a SAHP. I understand $100 or whatever childcare for a day costs is a financial burden for a lot of people, but why should you be excused from it, while Betty Blue Collar has to take a day (or longer) unpaid to go to jury service because she's not privileged enough to afford to stay home and care for her kids all day?
I mean, I understand it's a hardship, but if we start playing the financial hardship card, then we get a jury of rich people.
The system works because everyone shares the burden. For counties that don't allow reasonable options for postponement for everyone, then I understand the anger, but really, I fail to see why something like the way my county handles things puts unreasonable demands on anyone.
Why are people talking about the cost of childcare throughout the trial? This is just about showing up for selection. Show up, make your case (lost pay, breastfeeding, lack of childcare) and get dismissed.
That's what she tried to do, and they said "no, too bad, you still have to serve."
Why are people talking about the cost of childcare throughout the trial? This is just about showing up for selection. Show up, make your case (lost pay, breastfeeding, lack of childcare) and get dismissed.
Because there is no guarantee they'd be dismissed. Because evil blanket exemptions or some such.
well, my employer is on hold for that time and no one seems to mind.
I don't understand what comparison you're trying to make.
I'm mobile and miss my physical keyboard!
my employer has to (by law) clear my schedule for an indefinate period of time until i'm either chosen or not chosen for a jury.
i'm all for BFing moms getting an out on this one as they're the only source of food for an infant but other moms who SAH and are sole care givers shouldn't get an out for 16 years because they haven't figured out a Plan B, which you need to have anyway, just in case.
So why do mothers get special exemption from the pay portion of jury duty? It's a hardship for everyone.
And we're back to, abolish jury duty because everyone is a special snowflake.
No, it's not a hardship for everyone, not equally. It would be a hell of a lot easier for me, personally, to have jury duty, as I have someone to watch my kids and am not breastfeeding, than someone like the woman in the OP.
But I think that ESF's system makes the most sense - everyone should get one, maybe two 6 to 12 month postponements. They're still serving jury duty, just later, and now they have time to plan for it. Problem solved.
in NY it's one better. you can defer your original JD summons and volunteer at either local or state court for a time that works for you (provided it's within a certain timeframe of *i think* 6 months). once you show up for that, you've fullfilled your obligation.
Post by canthelpmyself on Oct 21, 2013 15:21:50 GMT -5
I am hard pressed to believe that the vast majority of people do not have someone in their lives or who cannot find someone to keep their kids for one day for a few hours or who can accompany them to the courthouse for that same amount of time.
The reason we shouldn't exempt mothers of young children automatically is because the vast majority of them are not friendless, unloved SAHMs living hand to mouth. And that's why they should have to report so a judge can sort out which mothers do have an actual hardship and which ones just don't want to miss out on gymboree.
Why are people talking about the cost of childcare throughout the trial? This is just about showing up for selection. Show up, make your case (lost pay, breastfeeding, lack of childcare) and get dismissed.
That's what she tried to do, and they said "no, too bad, you still have to serve."
...and she apparently had to magic herself a c-note to pay a babysitter (either to stay at home or come in with her), or magic up some friends who have nothing better to do for a day than care for somebody else's five month old.
With that kind of magic, you'd expect she'd be able to get a deferment from coming in, in the first place!
Why are people talking about the cost of childcare throughout the trial? This is just about showing up for selection. Show up, make your case (lost pay, breastfeeding, lack of childcare) and get dismissed.
Thank you. This is what I've been saying all along. And in this case, they even let you bring your kids and a friend.
Why are people talking about the cost of childcare throughout the trial? This is just about showing up for selection. Show up, make your case (lost pay, breastfeeding, lack of childcare) and get dismissed.
That's what she tried to do, and they said "no, too bad, you still have to serve."
No, she showed up with a baby. They told her that she needed to at least find a helper for that ONE day in order to make her case. She instead showed up with just the kid. She had a month and she couldn't scrape up a person to sit in the hallway with her baby for one day.
We'll never know if the judge would have been reasonable and dismissed her because she couldn't manage to follow the rules for that one single day.
If she followed the rules, made her case without having a baby on her hip at that time, and the judge then told her to suck it up and she brought her baby the next day...i'd be on the other side. But as is, I'm sorry - yes it's a pain in the ass. yes it's expensive. it's like that for EVERYBODY. A BFing mom with a kid who won't take a bottle should get an exemption, but if the rules in this place are that you have to do that in person, just follow the fucking rules like everybody else who also probably has their own sob story.
Why are people talking about the cost of childcare throughout the trial? This is just about showing up for selection. Show up, make your case (lost pay, breastfeeding, lack of childcare) and get dismissed.
That's what she tried to do, and they said "no, too bad, you still have to serve."
No. They said she had to show up for the day of selection and they wouldn't just dismiss her via mail. She showed up with a baby, specifically going against what she was told. Totally shocking, the judge was then pissed.
I know many families that cannot afford a babysitter. Mom stays at home and they live hand to mouth. There is no cash available for paying a babysitter, and you can't just put that on a credit card.
This is a genuine question, I am not trying to be an asshole, I am honestly curious because I just find it very hard to believe. Do you know many families with a SAHP who don't have regular interaction with other SAHPs? Namely, relationships with other people who are home during the day who could take your kid once in a while for something like jury duty or a doctors appointment or, god forbid, an emergency? Quite literally all of the people I know who SAH spend a good chunk of time every week with other SAHPs and their kids. If it is the case that there are huge numbers of SAHPs who are truly spending all of their time with no interaction other than their kids for 8+ hours every single day, I find that very isolating and sad. How are they not going postal?
I actually don't have a single SAHP friend I could call in a pinch, nor do we get together with other families for playdates really. We've moved many times due to Hs career and haven't had the time to foster real relationships with anyone. In an emergency we have parents who will leave work to help us, but that's not a feasible solution for more than a day of jury duty. FIL retired this year and babysits frequently, but can't really do more than 2 hours at a time because his health is not great.
And I'll be perfectly honest, if a friend looked at me and said s/he needed to sit on jury duty and needed me to babysit their kids for free all day every day for who knows how long I would not be able to help them. For one day so they can explain that childcare is an issue? Sure. But longer than that for less than $5 an hour? No way. I can barely keep up with my 3.
That's what she tried to do, and they said "no, too bad, you still have to serve."
...and she apparently had to magic herself a c-note to pay a babysitter (either to stay at home or come in with her), or magic up some friends who have nothing better to do for a day than care for somebody else's five month old.
With that kind of magic, you'd expect she'd be able to get a deferment from coming in, in the first place!
as opposed to the waitress and the mechanic she's sitting next to, who are going to magic up their fucking paycheck from that day when rent is due.
The system where you have to show up to plead your case regardless is pretty jacked - but it's jacked for EVERYBODY.
That's what she tried to do, and they said "no, too bad, you still have to serve."
No, she showed up with a baby. They told her that she needed to at least find a helper for that ONE day in order to make her case. She instead showed up with just the kid. She had a month and she couldn't scrape up a person to sit in the hallway with her baby for one day.
We'll never know if the judge would have been reasonable and dismissed her because she couldn't manage to follow the rules for that one single day.
If she followed the rules, made her case without having a baby on her hip at that time, and the judge then told her to suck it up and she brought her baby the next day...i'd be on the other side. But as is, I'm sorry - yes it's a pain in the ass. yes it's expensive. it's like that for EVERYBODY. A BFing mom with a kid who won't take a bottle should get an exemption, but if the rules in this place are that you have to do that in person, just follow the fucking rules like everybody else who also probably has their own sob story.
That's not what it says in the original story. It says she asked for an exemption *before* her jury duty date, and was denied. Come jury duty date, she had no other way to care for the baby, so she brought baby with her.
Post by litebright on Oct 21, 2013 15:26:11 GMT -5
I got a summons for jury duty when DD1 was about 6 months old, and I was BFing. We have no family within 1,200 miles and didn't have a sitter service at the time (for which we pay $13/hour). All of my neighbors and friends work. They were very clear that if you showed up with a kid, you were in deep trouble.
I asked for an extension because I was BFing, gave a rough date that I thought I'd be finished (a year from the date they'd asked), and it was granted -- although they did re-summon me pretty much exactly when I said I'd be available. Only one extension was allowed.
DH ended up taking the day off work so I could go down to the courthouse, nobody wanted me on their jury (I think in part because I'm a journalist) and I was dismissed. It ended up being way less hassle than I thought it would be.
Edit: So pretty much ESF's system, only I think they did have specific guidelines areas of exemption that would/could/might be granted.
So why do mothers get special exemption from the pay portion of jury duty? It's a hardship for everyone.
And we're back to, abolish jury duty because everyone is a special snowflake.
No, it's not a hardship for everyone, not equally. It would be a hell of a lot easier for me, personally, to have jury duty, as I have someone to watch my kids and am not breastfeeding, than someone like the woman in the OP.
But I think that ESF's system makes the most sense - everyone should get one, maybe two 6 to 12 month postponements. They're still serving jury duty, just later, and now they have time to plan for it. Problem solved.
If we take into account hardship on an unequal basis, we end up with juries full of only those who can afford to show up. That's not a solution anyone should want to see.
Why are people talking about the cost of childcare throughout the trial? This is just about showing up for selection. Show up, make your case (lost pay, breastfeeding, lack of childcare) and get dismissed.
That's what she tried to do, and they said "no, too bad, you still have to serve."
Not necessarily. She was told to report for selection, and I'm guessing that was because that is how this jurisdiction handles it (no waivers or exemptions by mail/phone). She would still have the opportunity to make her case there, she would just have to follow the rules and show up. Instead, she brought her baby with her (after being told she could if she brought a caregiver, which she didn't), and a judge who regularly gives exemptions held her in contempt.
Maybe the judge is an asshole, I don't know. Maybe she really didn't have someone she could get to come with her. But it isn't really the same as her being told too bad. It sounds like, to me, that she was told to follow the rules (in her jurisdiction) + given a special accommodation due to her BFing status, and that wasn't good enough for her (which I am not entirely sure I disagree with her on, to be clear).