Possible Solution
Okay, as promised, here’s an idea that could work in appeasing all employees and alleviate the bad feelings between parent and non-parent employees…and make it easier on the employer, too. It’s not my original idea, but I’ve tweaked it a bit.
Employers give “points” to employees based on years of service, merit, or some such employment related condition (similar to how many employees accumulate more vacation/sick/personal time off as years of service increase).
Then the employer assigns a certain number of points to a smorgasbord of benefits, from which each employee can choose.
For example:
A new employee at Vandalay Industries is awarded 10 points upon being hired. After one year of service, his/her point allocation is increased to 12 points. After three years of service, his/her point allocation is increased to 15 points. Additionally, points could be awarded as bonuses or alternate compensation for overtime. And, importantly, points can be carried over from year to year.
Vandalay Industries then provides the employees with a menu of benefits to choose from and the point value of each benefit, such as:
Health isurance for employee - 2 points (2.5 points if you want vision and dental coverage added)
Health insurance for employee’s spouse or domestic partner - 2 points (2.5 points if you want vision and dental)
Health insurance for employee’s children - 2 points (2.5 points if you want vision and dental)
One week of vacation, personal, or sick leave - 1 point
Tuition reimbursement for one college course – 1 point
Bus pass – .5 point
Parking space – 1.5 points
Life insurance – 1 point
Disability insurance – 1.5 points
Each company is free to designate the number of points it gives its employees and the point value of each benefit, depending upon the cost of the benefit to the company. Obviously, the companies that give the most points and have the lost point value assigned to each benefit are going to be the most desirable companies.
So let’s take me…
I would choose the best health insurance coverage, costing 2.5 point. I would also choose the life and disability insurance, which would cost me another 2.5 points. That leaves me with 5 points left. Depending upon the city, I would opt for either the bus pass or the parking space, take a college course, and take the rest as vacation/sick/personal time. I could rollover my points to the next year if I didn’t use all the vacation/sick/personal time I chose, or if I ended up not taking a college course.
Parents would probably choose differently…opting to spend more points for family health insurance and vacation time. Keep in mind, however, that only one of the spouses would have to “buy” the family insurance. The other spouse could bank points with his/her company in anticipation of having children. Just as a single person or childfree individual would be able to anticipate taking a two or three month trip around the world by banking enough points.
Make sense? Is anyone slighted in this scenario?
Powered by FireStats
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:13 pm
100% unrelated to this topic. but I don’t have any IM info for ya.
Saw this thought of you
http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/whokilledtheelectriccar/trailer/
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:35 pm
I like your point system, as long as legally required benefits are still available to employees (like, use the points or pay for sick leave, etc).
September 25th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
The Point System:
The point of your point system and related discussions seems to be fairness – People should be free to choose how they live their personal lives and should be neither penalized nor rewarded at work because of their choices.
The biggest issue seems to be with time off work – the inability to work because of parenting related “demands” (very subjective). Should employers accommodate this or not and if they do, must they give other employees the same time off even though those employees don’t have the demands that caused the employer to relent to the parents in the first instance. If you look at fairness from the employer’s perspective, the colors change.
When I first read your blogs and the comments on the topic, my reaction was that you might be arguing somewhat facetiously . Perhaps you really believe that if an employer is forced to give equal time off to non-parents and parents alike, the result would be that everyone would get less time off, not more, which, in the name of fairness, would finally put parents in their proper place according to your view.
I thought this because I can see no use to an employer for an employee who exercises the choice to take all or most of the points in vacation time. Twelve to fifteen weeks a year (even four to eight) in vacation time is more like a yearly sabbatical for most employers. What sort of job allows for this? It’s even worse when the time is broken up into an hour here, a half a day there resulting in a part time employee working the job of a full time employee (which is the same problem you say parents cause). Is an employer seriously going to be able to manage a full time work force that has the unqualified choice of showing up only part-time?
There was a comment to one of your blog entries awhile back that you dismissed as off point. I can‘t find it now, but it went something like – before we talk about your issue, we have to decide whether parenting is of any paramount importance in our society ( at least that‘s how I read it). I think that person was right to raise the question. I think if parents are permitted to walk all over non-parents in the work place (frankly I haven’t experienced this), it is because most people, employers among them, start from the assumption that parenting is more important than many other pursuits. (And, do I really need to say this, it’s not you who’s less important, its the activity you’re involved in.) You, and those who share your view, do not accept this premise, so you advocate for a “justice” and “fairness” that makes no special allowance for parents. But in order to make this judgment, you had to first reach a conclusion about the relative importance of parenting. Since you are satisfied that parenting is no more or less important than, say, an employee’s need to smoke or go to a concert, for you there is nothing more to discuss – fair is fair and all that…
When I ask myself if parenting is more important than other non-work related pursuits, I hear many voices. (Different from the voices I usually hear) Some say, of course it is, where would humans be without it. Others say that while ideally parenting should be more important, in practice most parents suck so why should they get special treatment. Still others (and I think the loudest) say, yes its true most parents suck, but it is a tragedy that most parents suck. Maybe most parents wouldn’t suck if the world recognized the critical importance of good parenting and did more to help reach the ideal of good parenting (of course I also believe people should be licensed to have children, but that’s another topic).
But, I do not hear a single voice putting parenting on a par with recreational, or even academic or professional pursuits, assuming one has to choose, which in our world it appears they do.
Anyway, in practice, your point system continues to perpetuate the current class structure, where parent employees (especially single parent employees) are less desirable than non-parent employees. While it may seem “fair” to you because it treats everyone equally, it does not solve a single problem. It equates parenting with recreation, which I believe is the cause of your perception of inequality, not the answer to it.
I also think it’s a bad idea to let the tail (the small minority of parents who use their status to shirk their responsibilities at work) wag the dog (a society that is in desperate need of better, more successful, more engaged parents).
So, there you have it.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
First of all, the point system I support and described is a general model and I’m sure it would have to be tweaked in several places before anyone tried to implement it. Employers would certainly be able to put stipulations on them, like you can only take X points as vacation. However, the point system would be specifically devised to mimic the cost of each benefit to the employer. Therefore, depending on what it would cost the employer to replace an employee during the vacation, the number of points time off is worth would change. Many companies have employees whose job it is to fill in for those on vacation. Specifically, I believe the Erie County Public Library has “per diem” employees who are called in to cover for regular employees who are on vacation, out sick, etc. In that case, it’s easy to calculate what a week of vacation would cost the employer…it would be the cost of the per diem employee for that week. In other cases, it might not be as easy. That would be up to the employer to calculate. It might end up that one employer allots 3 points per week of vacation, while another allots only 1.5.
My next issue is certainly one of fairness and equity, and you seem to take issue with that. I’m a huge proponent of treating people equally and not discriminating, which is why I’m completely and totally in favor of same-sex marriage. Everyone should be afforded the same rights, no matter his/her race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, etc., including reproductive status.
People make the conscious choice whether or not to be a parent. We all make choices in life. And we all need to live with those choices. To expect someone else, or society in general, to make special accommodations and give special treatment because of those choices, is, in my opinion, selfish and arrogant. I’m thinking of a line from an old show…maybe it was Baretta… “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.” Why should people who either made the choice not to procreate or those who have kids but don’t use it as a trump card be made to suffer at the hands of those who didn’t have the foresight to plan well and simply expect everyone else to pick up their slack? Yes, there are exceptional cases. I’m not talking about exceptional cases. I’m talking about the “normal” run-of-the-mill cases.
Let’s try this scenario: Chris has a job interview with Vandalay Industries and is told in the interview that one of the job requirements would include overnight travel several times per year. Chris is offered the job and accepts. Several months after Chris is hired, the first one of these business trips comes up. But, Chris is a single parent and has no one to watch the child(ren) during this business trip. Should Chris expect someone else to cover this portion of the job requirement? What if Chris’s co-workers are all in the same boat and no one can go on the business trip?
Another thought I had when reading your response was that it smacked of communism. Wasn’t it Karl Marx who said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”? While you may not be talking about monetary communism, you certainly seem to be advocating a communist system with regard to “time.”
I made my choice not to have kids for a variety of reasons…one of which has to do with what I want to do in my life/with my life. Why should someone else’s choice to have kids be put upon me to interfere with the choices I specifically made so I could reach my goal? Does that make me selfish? Maybe. But the level of selfishness pales in comparison to someone who chooses to have kids and then expects everyone else to pick up their slack. That is the epitome of selfishness.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
The points system is definitely one of the better ideas I’ve heard in regards to making work-life more equitable between child-free folks and childed folks. There’s plenty of flexibility and that would appeal to a wide variety of organizations.
The key is to treat all employees fairly. If Sally is consistently taking time off on short notice, then Johnny the Single Guy should be able to take time off. Often, however, Johnny the Single Guy is carrying the load for other employees and either isn’t able to take the time or feels that he shouldn’t. It’s an unfortunate fact of life as a single guy (or gal). It’s not fair.
Having a kid isn’t a reason for special treatment. Ever.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Thomas: “Having a kid isn’t a reason for special treatment. Ever.” I hope you mean to limit your remark to the workplace. I happen to enjoy Mother’s Day. (a smiley face would go here if I knew how to do it).
Emma: whoever said: “Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included“ can‘t be all bad. . .
I’ll leave you alone on this topic for now. Thanks for a great discussion!
September 27th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Even a clock that is broken is right twice a day.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
[...] have made the personal choice to have children. This post originally appeared on EriePressible on August 1, 2006. Okay, as promised, here’s an idea that could work in appeasing all employees and alleviate the [...]