Pawternity leave

@divegeester said
Setting national precedents for reduced working hours is not good management.

The team I lead where highly motivated, well rewarded, developed, promoted, happy and retained. One person asked the question, the answer was no and no one asked again, they were on contracts, the business is not obliged to change a contact especially if it sets a national precedent.

The ...[text shortened]... er person led, missed all their financial numbers, KPIs and the leader eventually left the business.

"Setting national precedents for reduced working hours is not good management. "
You keep saying that. What do you think it means. We already have reduced working hours, no company is obligated in offering part time if it doesn't want to just because another company does.

"The team I lead where highly motivated, well rewarded, developed, promoted, happy and retained"
Unless you were a recent mother who had to make adjustments. And, of course, if we believed you.

"The team the other person led, missed all their financial numbers, KPIs and the leader eventually left the business."
Yes, and it was all because of those mothers who got half hours and not the additional mismanagement that came with it or despite it.

@divegeester said
So let’s allow people to take time off to care for their new pet.

Maybe people can work all the Ts (ten till two, Tuesday to Thursday), so they can take their hamster for a walk.

Sure. And be paid accordingly, with all the benefits (or lack thereof) that come with working 12 hours a week.


I bet you're the kind of manager that assigns extra work if your subordinate is done with his share quicker.

@zahlanzi said
Sure. And be paid accordingly, with all the benefits (or lack thereof) that come with working 12 hours a week.


I bet you're the kind of manager that assigns extra work if your subordinate is done with his share quicker.

so when it comes to work you want equal shares, but when it comes to money you want those with more to share theirs?

@suzianne said
I hate to say it (no, I don't), but nobody asked you.

Golly, angry so early in the morning.......

@divegeester said
It’s one, probably quite woke-aware, CEO testing opinion. It’s not legally enforceable, or entitled.

But this will get the blood flowing through the dive-hating veins…

During my time as a director in a blue-chip one of the female sales reps asked if she could change her contract to part time to suit her new lifestyle with a baby. I said no. At the time there was no ...[text shortened]... one way to be fair and it’s not by giving in when you don’t have to.

As for pet leave. Just LOL.

Hate to sound like 'trump', but again, if they miss work, they get fired. How can I make money otherwise? And some libs here think that company owners should ;'share profits' with the employees. If that were the case with your blue-chip, I doubt the other employees would let these weenies lay out of work and cause a reduction in profits. Why can libs not see common sense?

@zahlanzi said
"No that’s isn’t what I’m saying but I appreciate the effort to put words in my mouth. "
That wasn't a question. That WAS what you were saying.

"your “why didn’t they just hire more people” comment gives away your ignorance of how head count is managed across a large enterprise, the impact on pension funding, IT and infrastructure costs such as company cars, the cost pe ...[text shortened]... at you are talking about."
Well since you were the first to declare this i guess it's settled then.

If you disagree, then please free to pick out any one of the points I made and actually address it.

@zahlanzi said
"Setting national precedents for reduced working hours is not good management. "
You keep saying that. What do you think it means.

I’ve said it once actually.

I think it means exactly what I said it means; it’s an unambiguous statement of fact.

@zahlanzi said
No, but I work in a corporation that treats its workers fairly and I see the level of productivity that comes with that.

I have also worked in other corporations with inflexible absurd managers like you said you were and they always seem to spend quite a lot on training new employees because the ones they have just quit.

A happy employee is an asset to the company. I ...[text shortened]... okeness" it's about good, pragmatic management. It's about investing in people, not disposable cogs.

Define 'treat workers fairly.' And while you are at it, define 'living wage' and 'fair share'. Not to get off subject of. course, I am just making. point that you fellers use these phrases like they are emblazoned into our society. They are not.

@zahlanzi said
We already have reduced working hours, no company is obligated in offering part time if it doesn't want to just because another company does.

I agree, although I don’t see what relevance it has to changing contracts.

@zahlanzi said

"The team I lead where highly motivated, well rewarded, developed, promoted, happy and retained"
Unless you were a recent mother who had to make adjustments. And, of course, if we believed you.

"The team the other person led, missed all their financial numbers, KPIs and the leader eventually left the business."
Yes, and it was all because of those mothers who got half hours and not the additional mismanagement that came with it or despite it.

The mother in question was hired by me personally and was a consistent top performer. Her performance or engagement didn’t slip because her request for a contract change was refused.

@divegeester said
Setting national precedents for reduced working hours is not good management.

The team I lead where highly motivated, well rewarded, developed, promoted, happy and retained. One person asked the question, the answer was no and no one asked again, they were on contracts, the business is not obliged to change a contact especially if it sets a national precedent.

The ...[text shortened]... er person led, missed all their financial numbers, KPIs and the leader eventually left the business.

You make a good point here, as most libs here think that the employees should have a say in how the business is run. Generally, they do not.

@divegeester said
So let’s allow people to take time off to care for their new pet.

Maybe people can work all the Ts (ten till two, Tuesday to Thursday), so they can take their hamster for a walk.

Can they take paternity leave and pawternity leave at the same time? Do they run concurrently, or can one period off be added to another period off? Whichever it is,, we do not want the employee to be unhaaaaaaaaapy.

@zahlanzi said
"The team the other person led, missed all their financial numbers, KPIs and the leader eventually left the business."
Yes, and it was all because of those mothers who got half hours and not the additional mismanagement that came with it or despite it.

No it was a compound effect of many decisions which led to a sense of inequality of shared responsibility and an imbalance of accountability within the team. The compound effect over a couple of years was people attrition, several realignments of territories, difficulties in hiring for the larger regions and a general decay in motivation and engagement.

@averagejoe1 said
Have you fellers gone mad? And monikers of 'Pet Parents'? Weenie at its finest. Time off to care for a new pet? Me, I would fire an employee for even asking for it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/new-pet-parents-paternity-leave-b1940204.html

Meh. Free market. Let companies try what they like. Who cares? If it's a bad idea (which it almost certainly is), they'll find out and reverse course soon enough. If by some chance it turns out to be a good idea, then we'll have a data point. I'm always happy to let private companies do sociological research on their own dimes, as long as they're not engaged in discrimination.

Government-enforced "new pet" leave (not under discussion, yet)? That would practically be grounds for armed revolution.

@divegeester said
Here speaks a person who’s never lead a team in the corporate environment, never run a business and lives in a rainbows and unicorn world of absolutes and sugar-cane morality.

Funnily enough, the Dutch have a very productive work force, yet work fewer hours than most countries.

As do, I would presume, Sweden, Denmark, etc.

It probably comes down to a healthy work environment, the amount of fun one has and a lot of autonomy on how to create the needed output.

And there’s already a stumbling block with a lot of traditional “bosses”: output targets, instead of presence measurement.

Of course, in factories and the like that may be an issue. But for a lot of work, it’s much better to allow freedoms, than the opposite.

Pawternity sounds very far fetched to me.
But say, working from home, so you can care for your paws (or whatever)… why not? If it doesn’t disrupt output, what’s the problem?