forums

OT -- Panhandle School Keeping it Classy

Advertisement
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
I hope so, MAB. We don’t have the brightest mofos running our company, which is y I’ll be doing my own thing in a minute.
Click to expand...

**** I quit a pretty lucrative pest control job with a new small company in April because they valued profits over their customers and employees.

Didn't have any ppe besides dust masks. No state mandated half face respirators, no nitrile gloves for mixing chems and had me, the only guy with a preexisting condition (asthma) doing all the interiors becuase I had the most experience.

After all that lied to me about who was doing the most customer contact. My dumbass probably would have stayed if the decision had been mine instead of forced.

Sad thing is most of the people who "needed" their interiors done were elderly people. I advised that I had been in contact with many people through my route and they didn't care none.
 
Advertisement
Based on the current comments in this thread, I may get destroyed for this but it's a genuine question...

My read of that article is that it only applies to people whose job requires them to be on location M-F 9-5. Yet they aren't saying "You must all come in, COVID be damned!"; in fact, quite the contrary, they are allowing people to elect to work remotely instead. What this policy is saying is IF you are a job that requires you to be on location and IF you elect to work remotely from home instead, then you must have child care options in place as you will not be allowed to both elect to work from home while also being the one in charge of supervising your children at the same time. Why would that be received as such a crime to humanity? Have you ever tried to have a constructive work day at home while you're in the care of young children by yourself? It is literally impossible. Sure, you MIGHT be able to get a burst of work in here and there, but there is ZERO chance you can work 9-5. Zero. In fact, you can't come anywhere even remotely close to working a full work day if you're in charge of young kids on your own, youd be lucky to get 2 productive hours in.. unless you have a spouse, babysitter, family member, day care, etc, in which case this entire discussion is moot.

I am well aware that for many people with schools being out of session and finances hurting because of COVID it leaves them in a very difficult spot to figure out how to return to work while also having their kids cared for, especially single parents. My analysis here has no impact on my sympathy for those in that situation. But I'm still not grasping the outrage here. If you think this policy is so absurd and offensive, what would your alternative be for single parents who have no means of child care yet are supposed to work M-F 9-5 in their job (regardless of whether its FSU or any entity or corporation in America)? Do they just not work (or try their best to get a few mins in here and there from home if they get lucky and their kids both nap at the same time) and yet still get paid their full salary? And if you say yes to that, then for how long? What if schools dont open in the Fall or even next Spring? What if their is no vaccine? All companies are required to just keep paying all employees full time even if they cant work anywhere near full time, and do so indefinitely?

I'm not getting the outrage re this policy. School me on what I'm missing here. And no, I'm not "siding with FSU".
 
Last edited:
For_The_U said:
Based on the current comments in this thread, I may get destroyed for this but it's a genuine question...

My read of that article is that it only applies to people whose job requires them to be on location M-F 9-5. Yet they aren't saying "You must all come in, COVID be damned!"; in fact, quite the contrary, they are allowing people to elect to work remotely instead. What this policy is saying is IF you are a job that requires you to be on location and IF you elect to work remotely from home instead, then you must have child care options in place as you will not be allowed to both elect to work from home while also being the one in charge of supervising your children at the same time. Why would that be received as such a crime to humanity? Have you ever tried to have a constructive work day at home while you're in the care of young children by yourself? It is literally impossible. Sure, you MIGHT be able to get a burst of work in here and there, but there is ZERO chance you can work 9-5. Zero. In fact, you can't come anywhere even remotely close to working a full work day if you're in charge of young kids on your own, youd be lucky to get 2 productive hours in.. unless you have a spouse, babysitter, family member, day care, etc, in which case this entire discussion is moot.

I am well aware that for many people with schools being out of session and finances hurting because of COVID it leaves them in a very difficult spot to figure out how to return to work while also having their kids cared for, especially single parents. My analysis here has no impact on my sympathy for those in that situation. But I'm still not grasping the outrage here. If you think this policy is so absurd and offensive, what would your alternative be for single parents who have no means of child care yet are supposed to work M-F 9-5 in their job (regardless of whether its FSU or any entity or corporation in America)? Do they just not work (or try their best to get a few mins in here and there from home if they get lucky and their kids both nap at the same time) and yet still get paid their full salary? And if you say yes to that, then for how long? What if schools dont open in the Fall or even next Spring? What if their is no vaccine? All companies are required to just keep paying all employees full time even if they cant work anywhere near full time?

I'm not getting the outrage re this policy. School me on what I'm missing here. And no, I'm not "siding with FSU".
Click to expand...
Whether you are taking care of kids on the clock or not is none of their concern. Especially if you are doing the job effectively, which I assume they would be cause they still have the job. This is bs.
 
Advertisement
StPeteCane said:
Whether you are taking care of kids on the clock or not is none of their concern. Especially if you are doing the job effectively, which I assume they would be cause they still have the job. This is bs.
Click to expand...
Whether you are the sole supervisor of young children instead of working during your work hours is not your employer's concern? What?!? Mind you, they didn't have to offer a remote option, they could have demanded all full time employees have to report to campus in which case all the people in that situation would have been forced to either find child care arrangements or leave their jobs. Based on your logic, are you saying if that had been the case then everyone in that situation should have been allowed to bring their children to work with them everyday and babysit them there while they 'work'? This policy re those electing to work from home instead of on site is no different in that regard.

What you are doing is shifting this discussion from reality over to sensationalism. Your premise is based on an impossibility; that being, that someone can be the sole supervisor of young children while simultaneously working full time hours and being productive. That is simply not possible. Period. With maybe some extraordinarily rare exceptions, which can't be what drives the analysis.

So I'll ask again, if you think this policy is so wrong, what is your alternative?
 
Last edited:
For_The_U said:
Based on the current comments in this thread, I may get destroyed for this but it's a genuine question...

My read of that article is that it only applies to people whose job requires them to be on location M-F 9-5. Yet they aren't saying "You must all come in, COVID be damned!"; in fact, quite the contrary, they are allowing people to elect to work remotely instead. What this policy is saying is IF you are a job that requires you to be on location and IF you elect to work remotely from home instead, then you must have child care options in place as you will not be allowed to both elect to work from home while also being the one in charge of supervising your children at the same time. Why would that be received as such a crime to humanity? Have you ever tried to have a constructive work day at home while you're in the care of young children by yourself? It is literally impossible. Sure, you MIGHT be able to get a burst of work in here and there, but there is ZERO chance you can work 9-5. Zero. In fact, you can't come anywhere even remotely close to working a full work day if you're in charge of young kids on your own, youd be lucky to get 2 productive hours in.. unless you have a spouse, babysitter, family member, day care, etc, in which case this entire discussion is moot.

I am well aware that for many people with schools being out of session and finances hurting because of COVID it leaves them in a very difficult spot to figure out how to return to work while also having their kids cared for, especially single parents. My analysis here has no impact on my sympathy for those in that situation. But I'm still not grasping the outrage here. If you think this policy is so absurd and offensive, what would your alternative be for single parents who have no means of child care yet are supposed to work M-F 9-5 in their job (regardless of whether its FSU or any entity or corporation in America)? Do they just not work (or try their best to get a few mins in here and there from home if they get lucky and their kids both nap at the same time) and yet still get paid their full salary? And if you say yes to that, then for how long? What if schools dont open in the Fall or even next Spring? What if their is no vaccine? All companies are required to just keep paying all employees full time even if they cant work anywhere near full time, and do so indefinitely?

I'm not getting the outrage re this policy. School me on what I'm missing here. And no, I'm not "siding with FSU".
Click to expand...

You need to work on your multi tasking skills if you can't watch kids and be productively work at the same time. It's no different then when you constantly have employees coming into you office with questions, colleagues IM'ing you with request, and c-Suite wanting to go for 2hr working lunches (cough cough at your local steak house strip club). Maybe you should become a forest rangers, they have minimal distractions and you can let your kids run wild, nature will sort it via natural selection.

Also working parents tend to be hyperfocused and more productive because they work extended hours broken up over the day. So you may put in 6 hrs during the 9am to 5 pm window then log on again from 9pm to 11pm.

Some Firms have even been seeking out working parents for years.
www.wsj.com

McKinsey Tries to Recruit Mothers Who Left the Fold

McKinsey is quietly recruiting female employees who left the consulting firm some years ago, presumably to start families, a signal that some companies are re-examining some of the most basic terms of women's working lives.
www.wsj.com www.wsj.com

Go Canes
 
Last edited:
ThomasM said:
I have to say, here in Canada they are bending over backwards for working parents. So far, at least. Family is the reason people work to begin with. They will always come first.
Click to expand...
That’s how it should be.

Something has gone astray in the US. Not trying to go on a soapbox about it, but the idea of the stay at home parent has become looked down upon for some reason. Parents send their kid to daycare when it would make more financial sense for one parent to just stay home and actually raise the child. ****, with common sense, even the stay at home parent could work part time and still watch and raise children.
 
Advertisement
Paranos said:
You need to work on your multi tasking skills if you can't watch kids and be productively work at the same time. It's no different then when you constantly have employees coming into you office with questions, colleagues IM'ing you with request, and c-Suite wanting to go for 2hr working lunches (cough cough at your local steak house strip club).
Click to expand...
Either you've never had kids or you are just being plain disingenuous here. This hypothetical you keep relying on has no basis in reality.
 
Last edited:
Artist Formerly Known As said:
That’s how it should be.

Something has gone astray in the US. Not trying to go on a soapbox about it, but the idea of the stay at home parent has become looked down upon for some reason. Parents send their kid to daycare when it would make more financial sense for one parent to just stay home and actually raise the child. ****, with common sense, even the stay at home parent could work part time and still watch and raise children.
Click to expand...
Agree 100% with that. That is the arrangement in our house and I am appreciative every day for everything my wife does for our family. My wife's full-time job IS being a stay at home mom and it can be as challenging and straining as any other job in America. But the discussion about this FSU policy has nothing to do with stay at home parents. It is about parents who have chosen not to be stay at home parents and instead have elected to be fulltime members of the work force.
 
Last edited:
Paranos said:
Also working parents tend to be hyperfocused and more productive because they work extended hours broken up over the day. So you may put in 6 hrs during the 9am to 5 pm window then log on again from 9pm to 11pm.
Click to expand...


Straight from the article:
The policy only applies to employees whose job duties require them to be on campus full-time during normal business hours
Click to expand...


The insatiable desire of our society right now to push everything towards the sensational even when doing so flies in the face of the fact pattern at hand is absolutely destroying civil discourse in this country.
 
Last edited:
For_The_U said:
Either you've never had kids or you are just being plain disingenuous here. This hypothetical you keep relying on has no basis in reality.
Click to expand...

Do you feel the production would drop significantly for teachers if they watched their kid while they graded papers at home?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top