Originally Posted by Lucas

Instant classic. You approach most subjects this way, don't you?

According to my interests? Yes, I do. As far as I can tell, your apporoach is something like sucking your thumb.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Yes it is.

Really? Recruiters got the choice only between super-committed mothers and uninterested, lazy workers? I doubt it.

TBH, someone was saying that new mothers within high achieving environment are actually quite good. They're so determine to prove that their motherhood doesn't change anything, you can even exploit them harder than the rest. The article hints at that. Of course, my bet is that they eventually burn out badly but, hey...

Quote:

"Upper income professionals" are not "middle management.

Much of a muchness. I am talking about people with diplomas, responsabilities and some professional achievements but that are not yet upper management i.e. determining the destiny of their companies.

Quote:

Many jobs have no facetime at all.

? Not in middle management. As soon as your worktime is free form, facetime is possible.

Quote:

As I have alweays argued, you cannot say" oh but this is inevitable because companies must seek profits, nothing we can do about it". Then point remains that we can and should frame what kind of behaviour is legitimate in that pursuit in the interests of the bulk of the population.

Totally agreed. So let's stop blaming the companies and pretending they're evil and let's start talking about the cadre in which we want them to maximise profit. As I said, I think I could support nearly all of the measures you mentionned.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Really? Recruiters got the choice only between super-committed mothers and uninterested, lazy workers? I doubt it.

Obviously not ONLY. But the poibnt remains that they'll go for the lazy, uninterested worker simply because he is a man.

Quote:

Much of a muchness. I am talking about people with diplomas, responsabilities and some professional achievements but that are not yet upper management i.e. determining the destiny of their companies.

Yes them.

Quote:

? Not in middle management. As soon as your worktime is free form, facetime is possible.

Assuming they're physically nearby, which of course they're often not.

Quote:

Totally agreed. So let's stop blaming the companies and pretending they're evil and let's start talking about the cadre in which we want them to maximise profit. As I said, I think I could support nearly all of the measures you mentionned.

Why? That's nonsense again - you can't structure laws usefully without recognising that their and our interests are opposed. But apparently recognising that makes them "evil", and so we're not allowed to do that, we have to pretend it's all a happy clappy love-in.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Obviously not ONLY. But the poibnt remains that they'll go for the lazy, uninterested worker simply because he is a man.

Not if they identify him as such. But, in interviews, with both a new mother and a man pretending to burst with enthusiasm for the job, they'll go with the numbers and cover their asses, yes.

This, I don't think can be changed. What need to change is the pressure on time for new mothers. The first year should be a strict maternity leave, paid for by society (we'd like that number of babies to stabilise at 2.1!). Etc.

Quote:

Yes them.

They work more than they use to and they work more (or, more to the point, stay inside the office) than lower level employees. Stats.

Quote:

Assuming they're physically nearby, which of course they're often not.

Really? Any office I've been to, superiors are never too far... Besides which, another way to put in face time is sending emails (from your PC, not your Blackberry or iPhone) at 9 or 10pm. Known trick.

Quote:

Why? That's nonsense again - you can't structure laws usefully without recognising that their and our interests are opposed. But apparently recognising that makes them "evil", and so we're not allowed to do that, we have to pretend it's all a happy clappy love-in.

There's no median between "our interests are opposed" and "happy clappy love-in"? There' s a genuine conflict of interest but, just as much, there's a genuine commonality of interest. Labour can't do shit without Capital - and vice-versa. Conflict is one way to solve that. Cooperation another.
Oh and I want to work for a profitable company, if possible. It's more likely to pay well and it's less likely to fire me or go under...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Not if they identify him as such.

Really? I don't think so.

Quote:

This, I don't think can be changed. What need to change is the pressure on time for new mothers. The first year should be a strict maternity leave, paid for by society (we'd like that number of babies to stabilise at 2.1!). Etc.

Only if you do the same for fathers. Otherwise you;re still asserting that children are "womens work".

Quote:

They work more than they use to and they work more (or, more to the point, stay inside the office) than lower level employees. Stats.

I'm still waiting for them.

Quote:

Really? Any office I've been to, superiors are never too far... Besides which, another way to put in face time is sending emails (from your PC, not your Blackberry or iPhone) at 9 or 10pm. Known trick.

I used to work in a company that had 40,000 employees around the globe. How is a middle manager in ASIAPAC supposed to get "face time" with senior management based on the other side of the world?

Quote:

There's no median between "our interests are opposed" and "happy clappy love-in"?

No. Either our interests are opposed, or they are not. They can't be "partially opposed".

Quote:

There' s a genuine conflict of interest but, just as much, there's a genuine commonality of interest. Labour can't do shit without Capital - and vice-versa.

Of course, I disagree.

Quote:

Oh and I want to work for a profitable company, if possible. It's more likely to pay well and it's less likely to fire me or go under...

Nope. It may be profitable because it pays you little, or sack you to reduce costs. Profitability has no bearing on how it treats you.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Really? I don't think so.

You're telling me that HR and management will deliberately pick up a lazy, uncommitted man rather than a young mother?! Get real...

Quote:

Only if you do the same for fathers. Otherwise you;re still asserting that children are "womens work".

The first year is pretty much "women's work" whether you want it or not. Personally, I enjoyed changing the nappies of my kids and stuff but let's get real, I couldn't breastfeed them... But, to answer your point, year 2 could be mandatory paternity leave...

Quote:

I'm still waiting for them.

See above.

Quote:

I used to work in a company that had 40,000 employees around the globe. How is a middle manager in ASIAPAC supposed to get "face time" with senior management based on the other side of the world?

They had no local chain of command? IME, most middle management's salary and career progression is determined by upper middle management which is never too far. If these guys were in charge of the whole Asia-Pac region and only reporting to the management board in the UK (or US or wherever it was), then, they are not middle managers...

Quote:

No. Either our interests are opposed, or they are not. They can't be "partially opposed".

See below. Labour need Capital, Capital need Labour. If you disagree with that, then, fine. OTOH, I think I'll get more people agreeing with me than you...

Quote:

Nope. It may be profitable because it pays you little, or sack you to reduce costs. Profitability has no bearing on how it treats you.

True, true but I think I read somewhere it was statistically better to work in a top company than in a shit one. I think even just size has a significant correlation with lots of things... IME, big banks offer way more maternity leave and perks than small financial firms...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

You're telling me that HR and management will deliberately pick up a lazy, uncommitted man rather than a young mother?! Get real...

Yes, and I'm being entirely real.

Quote:

The first year is pretty much "women's work" whether you want it or not. Personally, I enjoyed changing the nappies of my kids and stuff but let's get real, I couldn't breastfeed them... But, to answer your point, year 2 could be mandatory paternity leave...

Well I didn't say men could, but I do say that I think it would be better to have both parents off together. They could frex take turns in sleeping, and if nothing else, provide each other with adult company, the lack of which many parents staying at home to care for kids complain of.

Quote:

See above.

You provided stats for senior management, not middle management.

Quote:

They had no local chain of command? IME, most middle management's salary and career progression is determined by upper middle management which is never too far. If these guys were in charge of the whole Asia-Pac region and only reporting to the management board in the UK (or US or wherever it was), then, they are not middle managers...

Sometimes, they had two chains of command, if you've ever seen "matrix management". It depended on the size of the regional head count. Locations with multiple sites and significant numbers were indeed senior managem,ent; locations with just a few sales bods or whatever were not.

Quote:

See below. Labour need Capital, Capital need Labour. If you disagree with that, then, fine. OTOH, I think I'll get more people agreeing with me than you...

Yes...today.

Quote:

True, true but I think I read somewhere it was statistically better to work in a top company than in a shit one. I think even just size has a significant correlation with lots of things... IME, big banks offer way more maternity leave and perks than small financial firms...

I'm sure that can be the case, and that it even probably is the case. But I point again that its still true that this is at the companies discretion, and there is no necessary rule at work here. What has a much greater effect on your actual conditions is the aggregate level of pay and benefits in the economy, which is determinend by popular pressure and union militancy.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Yes, and I'm being entirely real.

What kind of HR/line managers have you worked with? I've never ever seen anything like that happening. My experiences tally closely with those of that PhD in art history woman you posted about. HR/managers can be prick and use all kind of weird and wonderful assumptions. But the one killer blow is lack of enthusiasm/perceived laziness.

Quote:

Well I didn't say men could, but I do say that I think it would be better to have both parents off together. They could frex take turns in sleeping, and if nothing else, provide each other with adult company, the lack of which many parents staying at home to care for kids complain of.

True. This is veering a bit off topic in the sense that it's about child raising. But I would say that, if the parents are off together for 1 year, it means the kid will left on his/her own for year 2. Very few nurseries accept kids below 2. And kids don't like being seperated that young - Even at 2 or 3, it can creates a bit of drama. From around 3-4, it seems to me that their feelings of being abandonned lessen considerably. So, while it might be better for the mother to have her partner around during year 1, I think having the kid covered for the first 2 years is more critical.

Quote:

You provided stats for senior management, not middle management.

Upper income professionals translate close enough to middle management. Lawyers, bankers, doctors, department managers etc. Senior management would be the top earners...

Quote:

Sometimes, they had two chains of command, if you've ever seen "matrix management".

Yes, I've had. And with two chains of command, they didn't manage to put in face-time, one way or the other? Impressive!

Quote:

I'm sure that can be the case, and that it even probably is the case. But I point again that its still true that this is at the companies discretion, and there is no necessary rule at work here. What has a much greater effect on your actual conditions is the aggregate level of pay and benefits in the economy, which is determinend by popular pressure and union militancy.

Yes, I agree.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.